Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on March 11, 2009 at 16:35

And what does the MS ac. have to do with the East Holly acreage?? If you were them, which area would you want to put you capital into?

Permalink Reply by North LA on March 11, 2009 at 16:31

"I know the geologist and the engineers that discovered and did the volumetrics on this area."

What area? Mississippi? Have they spudded that well yet?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by North LA on March 11, 2009 at 16:40

If they were just going to core the formation how much money would they need? When you say they had $750k did you mean through investor contracts that have expired?

Permalink Reply by North LA on March 11, 2009 at 17:19

I was talking about the Mississippi well. I thought they just wanted to take cores from the Haynesville formation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on March 11, 2009 at 19:39

Petrohawk..........Section 9m T15N/R12W. Not sure what you mean when you ask how many others are there?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on March 12, 2009 at 3:39

Gray:

I think some wells are permitted to "non-unitized" Cotton Valley where there is not a Haynesville Commissioner's Unit established. I think this is SOP at the District Office here. The intent is to get the permit issued in a manner that satisfies the DOC.

There could be other variations, of course. Not sure this is on point to your point.

Jay

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Walker on March 12, 2009 at 8:44

I am brand new to this site and this discussion, but it doesn't look like anyone has pointed out a fundamental flaw in the unit applications for the "HS." The units being created violate state law which requires that a drilling unit be the area that can be drained from ONE WELL. This system of uniform one-well units was implemented to assure "equal protection" as required by our state and federal constitutions. HS units will require multiple wells and therefore do not conform to our law. In addition, this violation leaves landowners vulnerable to immense discriminations. While we are all interested in the success of the Haynesville, we should not be content to allow our law to be by-passed as this will set the stage for disaster. The law is the law and no one is above it. Our state needs to immediately enact new legislation to handle this unique shale play and protect these investments. It should allow for multi-well units, while protecting property rights. Anyone interested can email fairdrilling@aol.com for more details.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on March 12, 2009 at 9:13

Gosh Darn,

One well puts the whole 640 acres in a HBP status. Where if the DOC were required to issue smaller units, the companies would be required to develop the minerals instead of just being able to hold them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on March 12, 2009 at 9:19

Jim,

In this discussion or another one (not sure), you mentioned the units in a different field being changed from 640 to 80 acre spacing.

How was this accomplished and was it done by a concerted effort of mineral owners or by oil and gas? And for what end?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Walker on March 12, 2009 at 9:45

Jim: I would have to disagree with you. The units being created are not the law. Drilling unit law is clearly defined in Title 30:9. Drilling units are limited to one well. There is no way around this. It is simply the law. The Commissioner of Conservation has broad, but not limitless authority and has exceeded his statutory mandates in these administrative law proceedings when he allows Haynesville drilling units that will require multiple wells. The twisting of the law has a long, complex history and it is available from fairdrilling@aol.com.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Walker on March 12, 2009 at 9:26

"Goshdarn": This can be a negative for landowners and mineral owners in many ways. The possibilities of discrimination are endless with this violation of drilling unit law. For example, one landowner may experience all surface damage and gas drainage in a unit, yet his income is divided with others in the unit whose gas may never be drained. Only one well, you see, is required to "hold" the unit. If his lessee has better terms in a neighboring unit those folks may profit from multiple wells while he is stuck with just one...and its production can be choked back to a minimum just to hold those leases. I have all the history and details ready to send out from fairdrilling@aol.com. Just shoot me an email and I'll educate you and anyone else interested!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on March 12, 2009 at 9:56

Just to add a little "lagniappe" per se to the mix, although all of us mineral owners want to make sure that we are treated equitably, we need to be sure that we don't wish for additional regulation that would kill the goose that lays the golden egg. (IMHO) or requires the companies to produce at such a rate that would devalue our assest to the bare minimum.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page