Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 19, 2013 at 6:03

It's an indication that Petro-Chem intends to drill a Wilcox well.  It'll be worth following their progress and results however the Galbraith Field has not had a well drilled since the early 1990's. Section 21 had a Wilcox well that had decent production but was relatively short lived and is plugged and abandoned.  The production depth of that well is a good bit more shallow than the permitted depth of the new well.  The database is on the fritz this morning so I can't pull up the existing Field Orders to examine the depth definition for the Wilcox in the Galbraith Field.  It's possible the Section 21 well was completed in the Upper Wilcox and Petro-Chem is interested in testing the Lower Wilcox.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 1kw6x71km1v37 on December 19, 2013 at 8:06

That's interesting considering Swift, Midstates and now Halcon and others have all had some recent successes in the Upper and Lower Wilcox near the Beauregard-Calcasieu parish line and over into Allen Parish, far south of the Petro-Chem prospect. Makes you wonder what lies inbetween.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on December 19, 2013 at 9:29

MidStates has lots of Wilcox wells in Evangeline Parish, which is where, I think they started out. A lot of the wells in LaSalle Parish are Wilcox, with lots of real old production. The Eola field in Avoyelles has produced from the late 1930's. It is my understanding that the proposed wells down on the coast that Mcmoran is dealing with will be from the Wilcox at 30,000 feet.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 19, 2013 at 9:40

Completion depths of the Wilcox wells in Beauregard Parish are 2 1/2 to 3 times deeper than in the Galbraith Field of Natchitoches Parish not to mention 80 or so miles SW as the crow flies.  I'll try to find the applicable Field Orders however from the data in the well file the formation would appear to be quite thin in the existing Wilcox wells.  That far updip there may not be an Upper and Lower, only a Wilcox.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 19, 2013 at 9:53

There have only been 8 wells drilled in the history of the Galbraith Field and all have been lease wells.  There are no units formed the field thus no depth definition is available.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 19, 2013 at 10:05

Considering the names on the wells in the immediate vicinity I would expect the latter.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James D on December 20, 2013 at 8:32

Will drilling interrupt prescription without production??

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 20, 2013 at 8:44

Yes.  Any "good faith effort" to explore will reset the 10 year prescription period whether production is established or not.  A well drilled anywhere on the surface of a contiguous mineral servitude will reset prescription for the entire servitude.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James D on December 20, 2013 at 9:09

Will exploration keep a mineral lease from running out ( 3 years ends)

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 20, 2013 at 9:37

No.  A mineral lease requires production to continue in force past the term of the lease.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on December 22, 2013 at 0:48

Skip,

That isn't correct. Continuous operations as stated in the lease will maintain it in full force after the primary term without production. Even sporadic production every 90 days will keep it in effect. We see that in the Crumholt here in EBR that was drilled by LLOG. They go in and re-perforate, produce the well for a day or so then shut the well in to keep the leases alive. Then come back in 90 days and do it again.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 22, 2013 at 2:56

Has anyone challenged the practice?  I know that "good faith" operations will maintain a lease based on lease language  but that qualifies for only a limited time.  The scenario you state is production beyond primary lease term which falls under the production in paying quantities statute and as such it would fail the test and terminate the lease.  It's also a very  rare occurrence for the same reason.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page