"...with in 330 feet of adjacent lands...?

Question: This refers to a company drilling within 330 feet of a Lesee's land and the resultant production/royalites.

 

Okay, so given that 330 is not a considerable distance in geological distances...what is the standard distance at which a company/drilling site must set back from adjacent land that is not covered in the lesee's lease?

 

Not making sense but, wouldn't the "new" frac tech, as opposed to vertical drilling pull resourses from adjacent land as the fracs would HAVE to extend beyond a mere 330 to either side of the horizontal bore hole?

 

As an example: W side of S 25 / E side of S 24? (in any township or range).

 

Can someone enlighten me (if I have been at all clear with my question)?

 

Thanks!!

Tags: adjacent, drilling, for, from, intial, land, offset, pad, production, regulations, More…unleased

Views: 158

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 25, 2010 at 13:03
S.H. You have two different but related issues here. The 330' is the closest the horizontal portion of the well bore containing the perforations can be to the unit boundary. A section is one mile square (5,280'). If each horizontal well has a frac radius of 660". Then 8 X 660" = 5,280'. The well pad (surface location) is covered by different regulations regarding set back from unit lines and existing structures, inhabited (homes) and uninhabited (barns, etc.).

landownerPermalink Reply by sesport on February 25, 2010 at 13:26
Skip - What is your understanding of the current reg(s) regarding well pad (surface location) detailing those setbacks? If I recall correctly (subject to correction), there were recent changes?

thanks - 80)

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 25, 2010 at 13:41
sesport. I am unaware of any recent changes in set back regulations.

landownerPermalink Reply by sesport on February 25, 2010 at 13:51
'Kay, I was thinking of the Urban Drilling change. 80)

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 25, 2010 at 14:00
You are so Urban! LOL! Did you see where the Hamel Family sold about 39 acres to Petrohawk for $2M? $52,000/acre is a nice price.

landownerPermalink Reply by sesport on February 25, 2010 at 14:11
hmmm, I have more than a few neighbors that have said they would sell what they own here ... gotta do some fuzzy math and notify the phone brigade lol

80)

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 25, 2010 at 14:20
I don't think that Petrohawk is interested in acquiring any additional surface in that area. The Hamel tract contains a number of qualifying well sites and will be central to drilling a large swath of SE Shreveport. IMO, the 39 acres will be Petrohawk's "gas factory".

landownerPermalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on February 25, 2010 at 15:24
Skip,

I saw the Deed, but I disagree. I think $52,000 is unbelievably cheap for commercial property n that location.

landownerPermalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on February 26, 2010 at 1:39
You gotta be kidding, Parker!

landownerPermalink Reply by sesport on February 26, 2010 at 13:30
Don't discount it, SB. That's riverfront property with 2 large upscale apartment complexes and a small upscale gated neighborhood.

There's also upscale riverfront residential development going on over on the N. Bossier side, too.

80)

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 26, 2010 at 13:52
One problem. It's called "wet lands". The vast majority of the Hamel tract is wet lands. Those apartments and gated community are sited on elevated pads. And yes, more elevated pads could be built to accommodate other foot prints but a developer would have to obtain a permit from the Corp of Engineers (not an easy task) and mitigate the wetlands destroyed (high cost). These are just my guesses but I believe Milton Hamel to be a savvy businessman who would not sell unless he felt he was receiving top dollar.

landownerPermalink Reply by sesport on February 26, 2010 at 14:08
Oh, I agree & know about the wetlands. Given the "potential" for the surface development of that tract, though, there's probably more to that deal than we'll ever know.

As for N. Bossier, I don't think (but may be wrong) that they have wetlands to contend with in their riverfront residential development.

80)

RSS

© 2026   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service