Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bacon on April 2, 2010 at 5:39

R.W., One thing to keep an eye out for with that survey is that the state is only entitled to the space between "low water mean". It is my understanding that they have used "high water mean" in some areas. If you have significant areas that border the water bodies, the difference can add up. Especially along bayous that have large level fluctuation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by W Sharp on April 3, 2010 at 0:50

Can you give more info about where you find that the state gets only the "low water mean"? I have quite a bit of property along a bayou.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kat Bloomfield on April 3, 2010 at 2:33

sign up for pacer and follow "Devon Energy Production Company, LP v. Gail Norton et al" CV 04-2093, U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana. Big battle among oil & gas, the state and the feds over waterbottoms, which involves issues of what is/is not navigable waterway and high water marks. You'll learn more than you want.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bacon on April 3, 2010 at 2:33

Initially, I was told this by a neighboring LO. This gentleman has significant acreage and has several people working on this exact issue for him. I spoke with a govt fellow in Baton Rouge and he confirmed that "low mean" was what they should be working from. The problem seems to stem from when the operator resurveys the unit. The surveyor may not be from the area and what's customary in one state is different in LA when determining a water bottom boundary. I expect to have more detailed info on this soon and will pass it along when I do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by alleyboy on April 3, 2010 at 3:08

see LA RS 9:2971 pRESUMPTION OF GRANT OF ALL INTEREST; EXCEPTIONS

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by r.w. on April 3, 2010 at 4:30

The issue we have is that royalty payments are past due and petrohawk is using this servey as an excuse not to pay. A month ago they said the survey would be complete within 3 weeks. I was just wondering if anyone else had been told something similar or possibly someone else along the river has recieved royalty payments. We also have some unleased property that will be impacted positively when this survey is complete. If anyone could shed some light on this process it would be appreciated.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bacon on April 3, 2010 at 6:54

R.W., Do you have an attorney? Might consider it if not.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by r.w. on April 4, 2010 at 2:08

I have an attorney and have consulted with a second. I thought that someone here may have some info that could be helpful concerning the river location surveys and state claims. The river cuts through several sections. Demand for payment letters wil go out monday.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on April 4, 2010 at 7:41

I am "in pay" in Section 34 of 15/11 on the basis of an "Estimated Division Order" with Petrohawk as Operator. The well has been producing about 5 months now. This past Friday I received a "Revised Estimated Division Order" wherein my royalty interest was revised down by 23 %. The point is it is still an "Estimated" Division Order". I plan to demand to see the basis for the 23 % reduction in royalty interest. Why do I have a sneaky suspicion that it might be the State of Louisiana and their stretched claims of riverbottoms that has picked up my 23 % reduction. I was not the only mineral owner in Section 34 that got the "Revised Estimated Division Order". I would not be surprised to discover that this might be happening all up and down the river.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Buddy on April 5, 2010 at 7:55

Spring: I have seen unit plats after unit plats along the Red River that obviously were surveyed from the high bank to the high bank when they should be from mean low to mean low. It is obvious when you compare them to aerial photographs. Most of the ones I've seen have been done by La. engineering firms who should know better.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on April 5, 2010 at 13:16

Buddy, I suspect that works to the extreme advantage of the State of Louisiana.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on April 5, 2010 at 14:35

Spring,
I am trying to figure out how to post a sketch of the difference between mean low water level and mean high water level. I will do it soon. In the meantime, mean low water level is well below the "top bank" or full water level of the river, much less outside the "full" area of the river in times of high water.
I was involved with a survey many years ago regarding the Gore family (north Bossier Parish) and the State. OXY was the O&G Company involved. This was right across the river from Missionary Plantation, I believe. If my memory serves me correct, this case may have involved some changes in the course of the river also. Which, as you know, brings in a whole new set of laws.
In my opinion, any kind of high water elevation has no influence on what the true boundary is (mean low water). And any surveyor is suspect that surveys these boundaries to any elevation outside of "mean low water level".
By the way, no Civil Engineer, unless he is also registered as a Professional Land Surveyor in the State of Louisiana, can preform ANY kind of boundary surveys.
The subject of riparian rights, in any shape form or fashion, opens a whole new can of worms.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page