Wilkinson and Amite County Drilling

It is time for the Mississippi site to have the discussions about Mississippi wells.

There are 5 new pending permits and petitions before the board--two by Goodrich and 3 by EnCana.

There is a South offset to the Crosby Well and a proposed a well to the SE in 2N 1E. These are in Wilkinson.

EnCana has proposed 2 wells adjacent to each other north of the Ash Wells in Amite.

There is also a proposed well in Sections 5 and 8 in 1N 4E in Amite.

The procedure so far has been to get a force integration permit--to force the landowners to lease; then not drill the wells immediately. (This is an abuse, particularly by EnCana, by which they use the force integration statute to help get the prospect leased--then they don't drill before the force integration permit expires.  They drill instead when they are good and ready.)

But, being in a unit is a hell of a good start even if it doesn't get drilled immediately--and it looks like poor ole Mississippi is getting more than its share of permits.  

 

   

Views: 24919

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 6, 2013 at 4:02

Steve,  the ten year prescription period for a mineral servitude in LA does not require production to be suspended.  The ten year period begins anew after any good faith attempt to drill a well whether that well produces or not.  Servitudes maintained by production begin the full ten year period anew from the first day that production ceases.

Permalink Reply by Steve on December 6, 2013 at 4:49

  Didn't know that. So in other words a dry hole would even renew the original land owners 10 year prescriptive period?  Production does however hold the title until production ceases, even if it takes 30 years, right?

Do you  agree that Louisiana law with its 10 year prescriptive period is a better system than in Ms where there is no chance for the new landowner to get the minerals unless he purchases them separate from the surface acreage. This has to create chain of title nightmares over the years as people die and their heirs split up the mineral ownership multiple times. What is the reasoning behind this system?

As a landowner that finally got my minerals after waiting 10 years, I am grateful that La. law is different than Ms. Otherwise, the minerals under my acreage would be in the hands of the multiple heirs of the man I bought my land from nearly 30 years ago.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 6, 2013 at 6:00

A good faith attempt to produce must meet certain criteria to maintain a mineral servitude.  In other words the servitude owner couldn't haul a water well rig out to the tract and drill a few hundred feet and call it a dry hole.  A well must be permitted and drilled to a known zone or formation which could be considered prospective in that particular location. 

Prescription has a number of benefits.  It requires periodic exploration to maintain a servitude - use it or lose it. It keeps ownership from being divided into ever decreasing fractions which make exploration more difficult and expensive.  It likewise  simplifies land work required to explore.  In transferring mineral rights to the surface owner it provides a means for that owner to have a say in how his surface is used to explore and produce thus protecting his use and quiet enjoyment of the land.

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on December 6, 2013 at 9:49

Hi Steve,

Yes, Yes and Yes. You are correct on all counts. I agree that Louisiana's mineral code is much better than MS. At least a landowner has a chance to get the minerals even if reserved at the sale of the real estate.

Permalink Reply by mark edward marchiafava on December 6, 2013 at 6:03

Even if a landowner has NO mineral rights, does that also mean he doesn't have surface rights?

Permalink Reply by Steve on December 6, 2013 at 10:29

I am not  knowledgeable about surface rights, but I do know of a landowner in Amite County  that bought his acreage a few years ago before the TMS was in the picture. He did not get the mineral rights. Now he has 2 wells drilled right in the middle of his property with a road busting through the middle of it and oil trucks in and out regularly and in the future he may have more wells on the same property. He did get paid for the pad and the road  right of way they cleared , but it has basically caused a big loss in the resale value of his property and his ability to lease it for hunting  has been tainted. I am not sure whether he could have stopped them from drilling or not. That is an interesting question which a lot of people should want to know the answer to.

Permalink Reply by Steve on December 6, 2013 at 11:00

Surface rights in leases should be paid attention to for another reason if you are considering leasing. If you don't have a "no surface rights" clause in your lease, banks may require the surface rights to be released or re-purchased from the operator before they will lend you money on the land or finance the purchase for a buyer. This issue is already coming up with banks and realtors in our Parish. If the operator will not comply, you can have a real problem - some banks can even call your loan balance due - they certainly may not lend you any more money or refinance your loan and this may keep you from selling your property.

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on December 6, 2013 at 11:05

Very GOOD post. Everyone should be aware of that. Some people ran into that problem when the TUSC was "hot" back in the 80's. They found out the hard way.

Permalink Reply by rookie on December 6, 2013 at 12:50

One thing for sure the "Haves" are in control, the "Have Nots" are never going to get the minerals, too many powerful people with lots of money control a lot of the minerals. I am afraid it Won't ever happen in Mississippi.

Permalink Reply by Steve on December 6, 2013 at 13:15

Has any effort been made to change those laws? I am sure someone must have tried by now. Here is another good reason to " throw the bumbs out". (I did like Haley Barbour though). Some people stay in power too long. That's why we need term limits - that goes for sheriffs and judges, as well as legislators. IMO

Permalink Reply by mark edward marchiafava on December 6, 2013 at 13:27

LOL, naw, what we DO need are much smarter voters.

Permalink Reply by Steve on December 6, 2013 at 14:03

 You are correct! Unfortunately that is not likely to happen - too many low information voters are being baited by certain political leaders with lies and promises. They are buying the uninformed vote - the ACA is an example. We may each need a couple of oil wells to pay the bills before it is over. Go TMS !

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service