Ok all you intelligent “shalers” out there, I have a project for you! As many of you remember from my attached article, our state law (Title 30:9) stipulating one-well-in-the-optimum-position-of-each-drilling-unit has been twisted into any-number-of-wells-anywhere-in-any-drilling-unit. This has led to rampant discriminatory practices. For example do you remember the 92 year old, World War II vet from my article? He went to the trouble to travel to Baton Rouge to speak before the Office of Conservation many years ago -- asking for fair treatment of his property in a Cotton Valley unit. Today, 33 years after unitization he still watches helplessly as adjoining units prosper far beyond his unit. What if unfair, unbalanced development like this was to occur with Haynesville Shale units? Doesn't this violate the "equal protection" provisions of our state and federal constitutions? (And this is just one of many types of discriminations possible) I want to correct the injustices and have proposed the solutions below. I would like YOUR input, YOUR opinion and YOUR suggestions. I’m going to leave you folks alone with this and check back in a few days. I’ve seen the intelligence out there and will value any response.

The solution, as I see it, is for Governor Jindal to:

1) Make a formal declaration that the state has made a serious error in allowing the drilling of “alternate wells” within drilling units.
2) Reset the “allowable” for each drilling unit as the production capability of one well.
3) Require in writing immediate plugging and abandonment of alternate wells in drilling units unless they are approved in writing by the affected surface owners and the mineral owners within a particular drilling unit. Mineral leases and surface use agreements would be subject, in some cases, to renegotiation.
4) If no agreement is reached and the above plugging occurs, declare those drilling units invalid at that point in time when the first alternate well was approved.
5) Prosecute/penalize the operating companies who have violated this law on drilling units.
6) Enact a new type of compulsory unit (not a Title 30:9 "drilling unit") specifically for the Haynesville Shale that will:
a) Provide equal protection for all property owners.
b) Provide for 640 acre units corresponding to sections.
c) Require a unit development plan from the operating company assuring that the unit be fully developed within a reasonable time frame with multiple wells (and as market demand allows). Operators would be able to amend the plan in subsequent hearings as additional geologic evidence from well histories, seismic, etc. became available.
d) Set minimum and maximum gas “allowables” for each unit to assure mineral owners fair and balanced production over time amongst the various units. Inept operators would be subject to removal with undeveloped portions of units possibly released to a new operator. (the “developed” portion of a shale unit would be defined as that portion actually being drained by an existing well or wells)

*** the idea behind the above is that when a unit’s production became deficient in relation to surrounding units the operator would be required to drill another well in the undeveloped portion of the unit, or release the undeveloped portion back to the mineral owners of that unit***

e) Encourage drilling of multiple wells from a single surface “pad.”
f) Require written approval from the affected surface owners for the design and location of every specific surface pad serving a compulsory Haynesville Shale unit.

And also request he:

7) Require surface owners affected by well locations to be considered “interested parties” and be notified in writing of applications and hearings for units and wells; and, if not otherwise and specifically contractually agreed to, compensated with fair market value of land taken by oil and gas exploration. Oklahoma has a similar law.
8) Require all tracts “force pooled” into compulsory units, whether leased or not, be automatically subjected to a sub-surface servitude that may be exploited by the operator of the unit with the drilling of directional or horizontal wells to produce the unitized zone.
9) Allow any mineral owner owning the maximum area which may be efficiently and economically drained by one well in a conventional, non-shale field the opportunity to drill this tract under Title 30:9 without threat of unitization with other tracts (that could make it uneconomical for him to develop his tract).
10) Ensure that no drilling unit under Title 30:9 be allowed to produce more than its “just and equitable” share of the pool.
11) Enforce the Office’s statutory obligation to prevent excessive surface loss by setting guidelines which limit well pad densities in unspoiled natural areas and in areas already suffering from high well densities.