Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on June 11, 2009 at 15:20

RW, I still show several sections in T11N-R15W that have not been unitized including 1-3, 5-7, 12 & 18.

Permalink Reply by lanadan Ds3 on June 11, 2009 at 20:50

Les B.
I am in Sec. 20. I believe that the sections you mentioned all having producing wells in them. Sec.'s 30, 31, and 32 are under water in Toledo Bend (so is 33 but it is being unitized in with 28).

Sec. #29 is also partially under water but it is being put in with 20, despite a concerted effort to prevent this by protests of a majority of land/mineral owners in 20. It was shown to the Commish that there is ample "dry land" in 29 for a well site (along with other compelling reasons). All the evidence presented apparently was completely dismissed outright and the app by CHK was approved. So much for fairness and equity.

I believe to date there are 4 Trinidad and Nomac rigs up and running in this T&R. Sounds like CHK is really interested in this area. What do you think?

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on June 12, 2009 at 11:58

Lanadan, the sections I mentioned above have not been unitized and they do not have Haynesville Shale wells. As you say most of the sections/units already have wells.

Latest update shows three rigs running in this T-R so obviously Chesapeake is very keen on this area and determined to get all their acreage held by production.

Trinidad #104 Rig, Chesapeake, Chesapeake Royalty 19 #H1 Well, Serial #239472, S19-T11N-R15W
Trinidad #106 Rig, Chesapeake, Blackstone 20 #H1 Well, Serial #239478, S20--T11N-R15W
Nomac #49 Rig, Chesapeake, Blackstone 26 #H1 Well, Serial #239343, S26-T11N-R15W

Permalink Reply by JAMES SMITH on June 15, 2009 at 8:14

Les is this the well that you stated will be located in Sec 19 but drill in Sec 30 with 3o owners getting the royalties? You heard anything about us yet as far as drilling where we can get some royalties?

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on June 15, 2009 at 9:21

James, I am trying to remember but I believe you are referring to the following well that is in Sabine Parish:

Petrohawk, Whitney Corp 30 #H1 Well, Serial #239800, S19(30)-T10N-R13W

Which Section-Township-Range are you located?

Permalink Reply by shelby on June 12, 2009 at 3:02

Les B,
To your knowledge, has Sec 17 been unitized? I know CHK had made application, but, was not aware if they were granted to be operator yet.
Thanks,
Shelby

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on June 12, 2009 at 12:04

Shelby, the unit application for Sections 16 & 17 were approved last Friday, June 5th.

Permalink Reply by shelby on June 14, 2009 at 3:21

LesB,
From reading the comments, can I assume that the application was to "combine" sections 16&17 into one unit.
Thanks,
Shelby

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on June 14, 2009 at 3:44

Shelby, sorry for the confusion - no it was for two separate units. Please see the following:

S16-T11N-R15W, HA RA SUEE Unit, Chesapeake, Logansport Field, De Soto Parish
S17-T11N-R15W, HA RA SUFF Unit, Chesapeake, Logansport Field, De Soto Parish

Permalink Reply by shelby on June 14, 2009 at 4:26

LesB,
Thanks for letting me know; sounds like in time, combining units might be in the works, or, is already in Louisiana. Glad to hear my interests won't be deluted by putting 2 units together. Do you think that combining units pays off equally for the landowner in the long run, or would they be better compensated staying within the one unit grant?
Shelby

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on June 14, 2009 at 4:34

Shelby, I do not anticipate or believe you will see wide spread implementation of combining sections. Where there are bodies of water or partial sections there may be logical reasons to allow units > 640 acres.

If larger units were granted, operators would probably experiment with 7,500' laterals. I don't really see any upside for leased mineral owners as royalty payments would remain essentially the same. Cost efficiencies would vest primarily to working interest owners and carried interest owners.

Permalink Reply by shelby on June 15, 2009 at 2:23

LesB,
Thanks for your response; makes sense to me.
Talk to you later,
Shelby

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page