Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by JC1213 on March 6, 2009 at 11:04

Thanks getoverit. Keep em coming!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by rashell on March 10, 2009 at 15:04

where exactly is this locaton in desoto parish mansfield area or holly community

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by getoverit on March 15, 2009 at 15:51

Mansfield area. It's in Red River-Bull Bayou field. Chesapeake just applied for a well on March 10.
Yeah!!!! Petrohawk shouldn't be too far behind in 26-12n-11w. In fact, they already have a pad site built right on 510.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on March 15, 2009 at 20:15

What sections in 12/11 does the active lignite mine cover? Is it only in 12/11?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by getoverit on March 16, 2009 at 10:21

According to the map on Sonris, they only lignite mine in 12-11 is in section 31. This doesn't affect us.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Walker on March 17, 2009 at 2:27

Are you sitting down? The units applied for are not authorized under Louisiana law! Drilling units are defined by law as the area that can be drained by ONE WELL. The applied for units cannot be drained by one well and are therefore illegal. In addition these units are vulnerable to discriminations. Anyone discriminated against can, at any time in the future, challenge this well and have legal grounds to have it plugged and abandonded. Every property owner over the Haynesville should write Governor Jindal and demand enactment of a new type of unit - specifically for the Haynesville Shale - that will allow these multi-well, 640 acre units. We must protect these investments and our property rights by first providing a legal foundation for the drilling.

Attachments:

• FOR WHOM THE WELL TOLLS Final.doc, 1.2 MB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by getoverit on March 17, 2009 at 8:13

Thanks for your input, Jay. We just signed a third lease today. We just found out yesterday that my husband has part ownership in another part of 27-12-11. The lease is on 80 acres, for 3 years, at 25% royalty. I think that Chesapeake now has this entire section leased.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on April 20, 2009 at 6:53

Get over it.

Just be glad you don't have to put up with units like this found in South LA.


Go fear monger somewhere else.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on April 21, 2009 at 4:31

I guess Mr. Walker is taking my advice, he is trying to stir up people throught the newspaper.

Drilling practices questioned
Area man says gas production companies violating Louisiana law.
By Bobbie J. Clark • bobbieclark@gannett.com • April 21, 2009

Are production companies violating Louisiana law when they drill into the Haynesville Shale natural gas deposit?



An area man says yes. The state says no.

Andrew Walker, the co-owner of a small, independent oil and gas company, owns several tracts of land scattered across north Louisiana, one of which, he says, has "suffered discriminations, resulting from illegal unitization practices by the commissioner of conservation."

Walker contends that drilling companies are violating Louisiana law by drilling more than one well in a drilling unit.

The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources disagrees, citing another Louisiana law that allows for multiple wells in one unit.

Louisiana Revised Statute 30:9 B states —» A drilling unit "» means the maximum area which may be efficiently and economically drained by one well."

Walker said the law was intended to make sure unitization was fair to everyone. A unit is a 640-acre tract of land.

"So they designed this one well per unit system. It created a uniform pattern of wells over a geographic area."

When natural gas prices began to rise, the state drifted away from the system and allowed any number of wells to be drilled anywhere in any unit, he said.

"So what you have is disproportionate drilling," Walkers said. "Companies can drill more wells where they can take advantage of a surface owner, for instance. That's what happened to us."

He said unitization was designed to be fair to surface and mineral owners.

"I'm most worried about the possibility that a company can drill one vertical well, and then in the next unit they can drill eight horizontal wells. One property owner may receive only a small check, while the person in the next unit gets rich."

Walker has taken his cause public. Several billboard promoting his Web site, www.fairdrilling.com, have popped up throughout Shreveport.

He has also written public officials. Walker wants lawmakers to draft legislation for a new type of drilling unit, specifically for the Haynesville Shale, that would allow multiple wells per unit.

He has caught the attention of state Sen. Sherri Smith Cheek, R-Keithville.



In a response letter dated April 9, Cheek writes that she supports enforcement of R.S. 30:9.

She states that the state commissioner of conservation is reviewing the unitization laws, and if he proposes changes, public hearings will take place.

"This Haynesville Shale play is not for small independent companies like ours," Walker said.

"It is important to keep the big guys like Chesapeake and Petrohawk around, and a new unitization system is needed ASAP."

Walker has named the Louisiana Department of Conservation as co-defendants in three previous lawsuits over this issue.

The court ruled in favor of the state in all three.

W. Stephen Walker, the senior attorney for the Louisiana Department of Conservation, said there is nothing illegal going on.

Louisiana Revised Statute 30:5.1 authorizes a single unit to be served by one or more wells, and gives the commissioner power to approve "the drilling of alternate unit wells on drilling units established pursuant to R.S. 30:9(B)."

Andrew Walker "is asking us to unwind hundreds of millions of dollars in investment," W. Stephen Walker said. "It's kind of unrealistic for us to start plugging production wells."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on April 21, 2009 at 4:31

If i lost three lawsuits, I would take it as a hint that I may be wrong.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on April 21, 2009 at 4:55

It was in the Shreveport Times today.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on April 21, 2009 at 5:32

In this article it makes it out to be that he is hot because he doesn't have production on his tracts. And that is the reason for the racket. I'd be willing to bet that there is not as much financial incentive for them to drill his tracts because he probably has it leased through a "small, independent production company".

I asked the question (in another thread) about if the tracts in question had the same financial incentives for the company to drill and he never answered.

• ▶ Reply

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