Pending Public Oil and Gas Hearings
I am curious if this is of any interest to people. I track upcoming hearings regularly and maintain my internal map. Would there be interest in seeing something like this updated bi-weekly or monthly?
2024-11-03 Pending Public O&G Hearings
Views: 1879
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan Howrish on
-
Yes, there are a variety of tracers that can be used for different applications, specifically the one you mentioned. Depending on who you talk to (tracer salesperson or the technical team at an operating company), you will get a different answer on whether tracers provide qualitative (is there flow from a certain stage) or quantitative (a measure of how much of the total flow is coming from a certain stage).
When I worked in the Reservoir Strategies group at NCS Multistage, we bought a tracer company, so I am fairly familiar with them. However, I would never use the results of a tracer test to allocate production to different units. There is far too much uncertainty in the analysis. Tracer tests can be very useful at a macro level, but they don't provide the precision or certainty needed at a micro level.
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
Thanks for the detail on the accuracy of tracers. In regard to the example field orders you posted, I don't think the mention of a lateral no closer than 330' from a unit boundary comes from state regulations. Those field orders are produced by the law firms representing the operators and use boiler plate language that they have established. I'll have to go back and review 29-E to see the language regarding setbacks. I appreciate your willingness to share your knowledge on this topic.
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
Statewide Order 29-E mentions the 330' setback requirement in several specific instances all of which are related to conventional wells for oil and gas. Mineral trespass being a concern and reason for litigation, it is not surprising that the old world of conventional E&P was looking to regulate well locations where porosity and permeability allowed for drainage over a significant area. As with many state regulations, there are exceptions to the rules laid out. Here is a cut-and-paste from what I think is the appropriate statute. It is an exception for waste.
La. Admin. Code tit. 43 § XIX-1907
Current through Register Vol. 50, No. 9, September 20, 2024
Section XIX-1907 – Exceptions A.
- In addition to the exceptions provided for in §1907. A 1-4 hereof, the commissioner may, without additional public hearing, grant an exception to the provisions of this order in any case where the granting of such an exception appears to be necessary to prevent waste, to prevent inequity or loss of property rights. Such an exception shall be considered and granted under this Paragraph only when the applicant shall have furnished the following data and evidence through the district manager.
- A letter setting forth all pertinent facts and reasons why the granting of the exception is necessary.
- A formal application for permit to drill-Form MD-10-R.
- An ownership map as required by the provisions of §1905. A.5 a-c hereof.
- A written certificate that copies of the letter request provided for in §1907. A.5.a hereof and of the ownership map have been sent to each lease owner of tract offsetting or in the vicinity of the proposed well.
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
The following plat is from a GEP Haynesville II alternate well application. It includes an H well that is located squarely on the line between sections 2 and 3 -11N-12W. No set back. If you would like to review the entire application, it is Docket 24-306. There is currently no field order in the database under that docket number and I'm trying to track that down.
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan Howrish on
-
I think this is great for everyone (operators, mineral owners, state). If you look at the existing development map, the unit wells in Sec 2&3 are drilled ~1000ft off the section/unit boundary. Generally speaking, HV well spacing is ~1000ft. With the 330ft offset from a unit boundary, it is unlikely another well would ever be drilled between the two existing wells in each unit. This alleviates that with a well right on the unit boundary.
I will be interested to see how the allocation of that well works. I would guess 50/50.
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
Perhaps a precedent for future wells. I would agree with the 50/50 allocation. It would be hard for any mineral interest to argue over allocation when getting more mcfs on their royalty statement. I'll place a note in my tracking spreadsheet so we know when a permit to drill is issued but that may be some time in the future. As we have mentioned, field orders for alternate unit wells are effective indefinitely but have no time requirement to be drilled. Now the question is, will more operators seek exceptional locations that mimic this one?
-
Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on -
It says 50/50 in Application.
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
Yes but the application is not official. First we need to see a field order evidencing approval of the application as submitted. I fully expect that the application has been approved but SONRIS has an extended lag time in entering data. I've put a note in my tracking spreadsheet and will post when GEP Haynesville II gets a permit to drill. Once the well is drilled and reported complete there should be an as drilled report that shows the split as 50/50.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan Howrish on
-
I think this is a great question to ask. Keep pushing it. It can be very meaningful for all of the stakeholders. We should always ask questions about how we can do things differently moving forward.
I have been involved with a few commission hearings on the Texas side of the border dealing with waste, and there is not always a clear-cut answer.
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant
-
The Office of Conservation, Shreveport District Director emailed me to let me know the GEPH II alternate well application has been approved. He sent me a link. Here is the approved Field Order #572-B-17.
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan Howrish on
-
I have attached an updated pending hearing map and a map of permitted Haynesville wells to the PDF. Please click the link below to open the PDF file. The image in this post is for reference, and the links do not work on image files.
-
Permalink Reply by Iris on
-
Won't open for me on this old Windows laptop. I have Safari on my phone may try later. Thanks again for listing and map.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Blog Posts
The Lithium Connection to Shale Drilling
Shale drilling and lithium extraction are seemingly distinct activities, but there is a growing connection between the two as the world moves towards cleaner energy solutions. While shale drilling primarily targets…
ContinuePosted by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 20, 2024 at 12:40
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
Franklin County, Texas
9 members
-
Cass County, TX
120 members
-
Rusk County
97 members
-
Livingston Parish, LA
34 members
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Miller County, Arkansas
27 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
South Caddo Parish Group
440 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
400 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
244 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
