I'll update each week for a while so we can follow if the rig count is headed down as it is in many other basins.
Scroll down for each new weekly count and let me know if you would like some additional info like the well name for each rig.
Bienville: Aethon – 2
Bossier: Aethon – 1, Covey Park – 2, Comstock – 1
Caddo: Trinity – 1, Aethon – 1, Comstock – 2
DeSoto: Aethon – 1, Vine – 1, Chesapeake – 1, Indigo – 2, Goodrich – 1
Natchitoches: Indigo – 1.
Red River: Aethon – 2, Vine – 3.
Sabine: Indigo – 1, GEP Haynesville – 2.
Webster: Comstock – 1.
Harrison: Comstock – 1, Sabine – 1, Rockcliff – 1, Tanos – 1.
Nacogdoches: BP America – 3.
Panola: Rockcliff – 4, R Lacy – 1.
San Augustine – Aethon – 2.
If memory serves, that court ruling does not allow for a surface location for a unit well unless the surface owner has contracted to provide one (so long as the mineral owner is either "paid" or his proportionate ownership in the well bears the costs specified in LA R. S. 30:10 to payout. Otherwise this would be a trespass (IANAL).
At present, current regulations on well permits require an affidavit from the applicant evidencing an agreement with the surface owner and/or mineral owner to receive approval for a permitted location. As to tracts where the mineral rights have been severed from the surface, the surface owner is also the owner of the subsurface - so long as the mineral rights are not being captured (e.g., wellbore perforated along its interval as same traverses the tract). This is what allows E&P companies to drill wells off-unit through use of surface agreements and/or subsurface easements.
Functionally, I am not aware of a company at the moment that has routinely attempted to drill through and produce from mineral tracts not under lease. In most cases, companies have tried to actively avoid doing so as to avoid the possibility of mineral trespass, opting instead to drill units with unleased mineral interests using wellpaths which specifically traverse and/or have perforated intervals only on leased property. While the units may in fact have unleased interests force pooled within them, they form only a portion of the unit and are not "wellbore tracts".
this is what I would have presumed the law to be, but the case I read wasn't in complete agreement. However, as I said, the facts were unusual in that the unleased MO/surface owner had been an active participant in the unit designation, and the Court treated him more like a "partner" in the well as opposed to a landowner who's land was being the subject of a "trespass."