Views: 1425

Replies to This Discussion

Here is link for another hosston in section 15 10n 10w

http://ucmwww.dnr.state.la.us/ucmsearch_070611/UCMRedir.aspx?url=ht...

olddog, I've edited the discussion to show both proposed units.  I suggest we post all future replies on XTO's Hosston interest here.

Are you aware of any leasing activity south of these proposed units?  We have unleased acreage in sec 14, T9N, R10W.

I don't, Thomas.  I  suspect that XTO will drill a well to test the Hosston before they consider leasing a wider area.  They hold the leases in those two Hosston units from prior Haynesville wells.

XTO has not been issued a well permit for either of these Hosston units at this time.  Since the leases are held by production in both units by producing Haynesville wells we may have to wait a while to see if XTO will drill.

After XTO is issued a permit, do they have a certain length of time to drill before they would have to reapply for a permit?

A unit application is effective indefinitely until dissolved.  The field order resulting from the unit application does not require that the operator drill a well, ever.  If XTO does file for a well permit they have the option to receive a six month permit to drill or a twelve month permit, slight difference in cost.

Does the recent changes in oil prices increase or decrease the possibility of this exploratory well being drilled?  For example, there are a lot less wells currently being drilled in Eagle Ford so possible that frees up a drilling rig?  On the contrary, the uncertainty in prices might keep everyone on the side for a while.

George, the decline in crude prices should have no impact on the perceived economics of a Hosston well should XTO choose to drill one in this established unit.  As noted in the unit application (link above) the Hosston formation in the San Miguel Field is "wet gas".  Natural gas and condensate (also probably some undetermined amount of Natural Gas Liquids - NGL). 

I believe these Hosston wells are going to be recompletions of existing wells in shallower zones to keep the wells economical and maintain leases as the production volumes decrease.
I have received the letter from XTO for establishing the unit. I own land (10 acres) in the section in the unit and benefitted from the Blankenship well drilled a couple of years ago. My lease also covers land (20 acres) in an adjoining section. That section has not been unitized. Since it was covered in the original lease (for the total 30 acres) is the separate 20 acre plot considered held by production?

Paw, most modern leases contain a horizontal Pugh clause that releases any lands not included in a producing unit upon the expiration of the primary term of the lease.  That protects land owners from having their non-revenue producing minerals tied up by production under a portion of the leased lands.  The Blankenship well would not hold lease rights in force for lands outside of that unit/section if your lease contains the Pugh clause.. 

Does your lease contain a clause that releases the rights to land not included in a producing unit? Has your lease reached the end date of the primary term?  Is there some other producing XTO well that is located in your section?  The Blankenship is not the only well XTO drilled in your area. Since you do not state which adjoining section I can't give you a definitive answer.

RSS

Groups

Not a member? Get our email.



© 2018   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service