Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by lanadan Ds3 on July 9, 2009 at 21:38

Mac,

I don't know about points #'s 2,3,4, but I think you used the correct phrase in #1. "Rubber stamp". There was an organized effort by the MAJORITY of land/mineral owners in our section (#20,T11NR15W) to get Commish not to make ours an oversized unit by adding 400 acres in adjoining section. Did no good. Word is, what CHK wants, CHK gets, period.

I have yet to find someone to explain how a well/lateral running due north AWAY from a section will " . . . economically and efficiently . . . drain that section ! All I have heard about are "alternative wells", which are nothing more than PHANTOM wells/laterals that may be drilled sometime in the distant future.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on July 10, 2009 at 3:18

IT has been said many times that it will probally take between 6-8 wells to develop each unit.

MAybe you can shed more light on what grounds you opposed the larger unit. Your section is near the state line and adjacent to a fractional section. Would you prefer a that the land in these sections be lumped together in a different way. Did you present any other options to DNR?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Foxiecajun on July 10, 2009 at 6:09

We opposed it because the pad was already in Sec 20 and they were going north away from the other section. If their intentions were to do both from the get go, why not put the pad in that sec and go all the way to the top of our section. The alternative was to wait until such time they were ready to drill in that section also, to lump with us, but then that might have meant that had to lease again and pay more than the 150 an acre they got it all for. So at this point, if and when anyone recieves anything from the well in 20 it will be SHARED with the 400 acres in sec 29. Also they knew it was there the entire time why apply for a 640 then change it to a 1040? Someone of preference own minerals in sec 29? Could it be a attorney in Mansfield that is in Chesakeapes left pocket?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on July 10, 2009 at 3:20

Call the district office. They will be able to tell you the status.

Also, the field order will show up in the "black book" index.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by E & E on July 10, 2009 at 1:45

1) Am I correct that these are usually rubber stamp hearings unless someone with big money fights it? Do they decide at the time of the hearing?
Or fighting with a good reason that can be proven with all the landowners/mineral owners involved. Yes, an Order will be given.
2) Should we expect a notice in the mail? Time?
No
3) How long after a hearing would the unit normally appear on SONRIS?
It depends on the backlog, but should be up within a month.
4) Is there somewhere online where I can find the result of a hearing?
Yes, you are looking for the Order and can go here:
http://fn-www.dnr.state.la.us/dnrservices/dnrsearch.asp
Copy & Paste the whole addy for the link to work. Hint: If you don't know the Order number, then search by Field Code and Date greater than 01/01/2009 at least. This will narrow it down.

Hope this helps,
Earlene

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by E & E on July 10, 2009 at 3:13

Thanks Wolf,
Wasn't sure I had enough coffee when I was posting that. Basically there are 2 main reasons for changing from the normal 640 +/- acre unit. Surface or Geology. If it is surface then that's pretty straight up. For example (this will happen more and more) if you have an area to be unitized that is a neighborhood but there isn't a location to put a drillsite. Then the l/m owners only choice is not drilling unless you add to the unit acreage to put a drillsite. When the unit is on the border of another state or waterway then the unit size is going to be appropriate in the eyes of DNR. However, the only way for l/m owners to fight against a unit if geology is involved is to hire a geologist. The geology has to be proven. DNR is only going to listen to a geo. The key word is "proven". No matter which is the reason if the l/m owners don't unite and hire a professional then they are fighting a losing battle. I am watching a fight right now between the geologists from XTO and HK over a fault. Will be interesting to see how the commish views it.
Earlene, probably still needs more coffee - not sure I got what's in my head to my fingertips

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on July 10, 2009 at 4:22

There are a lot of good stories about geologic units in South LA.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on July 14, 2009 at 4:16

maybe good is not the word I was looking for, "colorful" maybe?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on July 10, 2009 at 22:40

Thanks for the link. I really appreciate the info.

h‌ttp://fn-w‌ww.dnr.state.la.us/dnrservices/dnrsearch.asp

Wow! What a hideous web site!

Most things there are images, not searchable text files.

Quite a few of the documents are obscured with some sort of hideous, unnecessary, and Microshaft Internet Exploder only IDM viewer abomination. I don't use Internet Exploder/virusmagnet 2009. Why not just post links to a standard file format, like PDF?

Apparently, my proposed unit HA RA SUM 09-692 isn't posted yet.

I went out and found a nearby order, 09-224 HA RA SUE/SUF 813-B-3. I notice the attached plat map (dated 2009) is at LEAST 40 years out of date. I'd be surprised if 10% of landowners listed are alive. I know that 90%+ of the current property owners are not listed, and that their plots have been carved out of the plots shown over 30 years ago. It's a sin that such ancient data is used in an application, especially given that it would be so easy to get a current plat map.

The site says, "This link gets the latest supported version (5.5 Service Pack 2) of Internet Explorer. The newer Internet Explorer 6 is not yet supported".

Microsoft says, "Internet Explorer 5.5 Service Pack 2
Release Date: August 2, 2001
Internet Explorer 5.5 SP2 is no longer available for download from Microsoft."

And then, what moron chooses "fn-www" to start a website domain name?

Sigh, our tax dollars at work.

Once again, thanks to all the helpful folks on this site.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 11, 2009 at 8:55

Wolf, one area I called and requested was for the state to develop a new production report for just the Haynesville Shale. No luck yet.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on July 13, 2009 at 3:01

I have used AR, AL, and TX websites. I love it when I get to come home to SONRIS.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on July 13, 2009 at 10:52

It's sort of sad that we tend to accept our own bad web site because neighboring states are worse. Sort of the "race to the bottom" in terms of serving the public.

Sort of like "Thank God for Mississippi!" as an excuse for our our own states poor rankings in various services.

I'm not attacking anyone posting here, just philosophizing about how we accept things.

I'm also really p***ed off whenever a web site is unnecessarily Internet Exploder only. Mobile phones users, Linux users, people who care about security, office users, and people using newer technologies such as netbooks, or Google Chrome OS may have problems.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page