Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on February 20, 2014 at 4:35

Getting a permit on USFS controlled surface is a pretty complicated process and I know that CHK had two locations/units permitted up there with RRC in 2009 for Haynesville wells. They eventually withdrew on one of them, for certain, with USFS and let both RRC permits expire but it probably had more to do with well results around Logansport than it did with the red tape. That's what I decided at the time, anyhow.

If they really want to drill they will go through the red tape or they will find a surface location not controlled by USFS. That solution, however, does leave getting a PL ROW for the gathering line... which can have more problems than the actual drill site. I usually ask "dbob" when I want to know about rules and such on these "sensitive" sites. Anything federal will have lots of red tape attached.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by john mcdermot on February 24, 2014 at 5:00

Thanks for the feedback jffree1. The motivation to drill (gas price) is key. I agree with you ,if the price of gas brings the interest back & a well becomes productive  in the proximity of our lease they will want at our area that is not controlled by state. I heard our area is over not 1 but 2 runs of subsurface gas shell reserves., the other being the Bossier vein. They are at different depths of course. Good fortune.to you.!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on February 20, 2014 at 6:49

John McD:

Short answers are yes, yes, and yes.  Surface rights and takeaway capabilities (flowline / gathering line installations) require various regulatory approvals.  USACE for instance has been taking about 150 - 180 days to review surface disturbances in obligate wetland areas, and much of the public comment and submissions requirements procedures have gone to a virtual (e.g., electronic and/or email-based) format.  This includes proposals of scope of work, environmental impacts, reviews, etc.  In many places, federal district offices are operating at reduced force due to attrition and continued budget-related short-staffing.  Even if you privately own a preferable upland surface location from which to operate, logistically O&G companies will only push directional drilling to its practical limit from a financial perspective - after that, it becomes more cost-effective to just go someplace else.

Good luck to you with the future development of these minerals.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on February 20, 2014 at 13:50

Dion and Jffree are spot on about this - 

Do you know if SRA also has easement or some type of flooding right on the property?

Your area, if I understand physical location correctly, is not considered great from a Haynesville/Bossier standpoint, but there have been some pretty decent conventional wells near you.  If folks push horizontal and directional drilling in the Travis Peak/Hosston more, you've got a better chance of getting leased.  

Ducks unlimited will generally work with folks, but the USACE as Dion notes, will be slow in their evaluation.  Provided they think its regulated, the mitigation is going to add anywhere from $6000 to $50,000 per acre to the cost of the pad, road, and pipeline.  This cost is much more easily tolerated when gas prices are higher.  

Flooding depth may also be important, particularly when considering conventional prospects - depending on where you are there, if its on the floodplain, it could get flooded to a few feet to 15+ feet in many years - The infrequent stuff can be tolerated and built for - deeper and frequent flooding present a special risk during drilling.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by john mcdermot on February 24, 2014 at 5:12

The whole area was laid out 50 years ago as underwater but the build out on the T.B.R. never materialized on northern projections and is high and dry. I will pay attention to the Travis Peak/Hosston  more .prospects. Thanks Much.!!

.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by john mcdermot on February 24, 2014 at 5:02

Thanks Dion, good points.!!

• ▶ Reply