Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Linda Whatley on April 30, 2010 at 17:01

Henry,

I agree with you totally....... 1 section = 1 unit. So, what can we do to stop, or defeat, this class action lawsuit???

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cheerleader on April 30, 2010 at 17:59

First you guys must have "standing" which you probably have if you are a mineral rights owner. The document is probably a cross-claim or a counter-claim which ever is applicable in the jurisdiction. Someway you must "join" the lawsuit. Sounds like fun!!! I think we are going to see numerous lawsuits in Texas and in LA.

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on April 27, 2010 at 9:05

I agree with you 100 % Jay. Our system is much, much better than the methodology in Texas.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linda Whatley on April 30, 2010 at 12:19

Steve Porter,

Finally, an attorney with some common sense.......... Glad to see you add your input Steve. I don't know too much about all this legal stuff, but I totally agree with what you have to say.

Linda Laffitte Whatley

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom S on April 29, 2010 at 1:44

This is incredibly current to my situation. Stroud Petroleum has proposed a 480 acre unit in the Cheniere field Ouachita Parish that is rectantular. (see hearings for 5/4/2010). The next 640 acre unit would take a piece of my mineral rights, however the proposed unit takes only the south half of the section. Say what you might, I believe my not leasing my minerals for $100/acre and 1/8 royalty play into their decision to propose this unit. I believe they would encircle my 60 acres and leave me out in the cold in a heartbeat (although I realize this is not probable). My point is, how long before this situation happens if you let the oil companies decide their own units? Back to the early days of oil fields where you drill all around someone's property that doesn't want to lease.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on May 2, 2010 at 4:10

Question ... Just out of curiosity. How many of those objecting strenuously on this thread are small (say less than 50 acres) land/mineral owners? And of those who are small mineral owners, how many have concerns that a larger (majority share) mineral owner COULD delay, or outright prevent, drilling & production in your area?

I see this as a possibility as the drilling comes closer to the urban areas of the city, or even in the small towns.

And, although this is a matter that's going to be decided in court, I'm sure the politicians are keeping an eye on it as they count votes. A dozen or so votes from small land/mineral owners who are looking to stimulate economic development will weigh more favorably than one vote from a large land/mineral owner who may be holding up said economic development.

Not trying to change anyone's mind, just throwing ideas out on the table. 80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on May 2, 2010 at 4:15

It's like that in Texas today.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on April 30, 2010 at 11:19

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20100430/NEWS01/4300310/1060

/chuckle

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on April 30, 2010 at 12:34

Mr. Walker,
I mean no disrespect to you, but in my opinion this lawsuit is self serving to YOUR interest. It is not in the best interest of most of the mineral owners in the Haynesville Shale, or anywhere else. Personally, I think you are doing a disservice to mineral owners in the area.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linda Whatley on April 30, 2010 at 16:46

Ditto on that BirdDawg........

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Walker on May 3, 2010 at 4:38

BirdDawg:

You are confused. The Class Action suit is not my lawsuit. My suit affects only Cotton Valley and Hosston units on my DeSoto Parish property. Like many of you I thought it would be a good idea to change the law to legitimize 640 acre units for the Haynesville Shale. I posted my proposed changes February 14, 2008 on my website: www.fairdrilling.com. These proposals were “tweaked” by various people and sent to every Senator and Representative in the state. Unfortunately, as Murray Lloyd stated in his Times article, “our leaders through combinations of incompetence, hubris, and/or dishonesty lack the capacity for self-correction.” The proposals (see below) are not perfect and were intended simply as a foundation for our lawmakers to use in hammering out a new law. Only one legislator - Senator Buddy Shaw – had the intelligence, foresight, courage, and compassion to carry this down to Baton Rouge with the hope of introducing it. Unfortunately it was shot down behind closed doors and did not meet the April 20, 2010 deadline for introducing new legislation. From the bits and pieces of clues, we believe the culprit may have been Don Briggs of the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association?

In regard to the Class Action suit: it seeks simply to enforce the law. This law was written to assure each property owner his just and equitable share of a field’s production. Whether anyone likes it or not, it is still the law. If a person runs a stop sign 99 times without being caught…but he is caught on his 100th try, it is still illegal to run that stop sign. As it is obvious our lawmakers are too inept to correct the situation, this suit is the only way I see to protect mineral interests. I believe those property owners who join the suit will benefit greatly and that its end result will be a tremendous economic boom for the area.

Andrew

Proposal For New Statewide Legislation To Govern Unconventional Reservoirs
(including the Haynesville Shale)

Why needed?

-- The Commissioner of Conservation derives his authority from Title 30.

--Title 30 defines a “drilling unit” as the maximum area that may be efficiently and economically drained by ONE WELL.

--The Commissioner has only the authority to establish drilling units that may be drained by ONE WELL.

--The Commissioner is establishing (in violation of statute) Haynesville Shale Units that will require many wells to drain each unit.

--The Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled that the only restriction on the Commissioner in establishing drilling units is that they be reasonable AND that they may NOT exceed the area ONE well can drain.

--The Attorney General documented that the Commissioner has duty to enforce this law as written and he has no interest in questioning its validity.

--Every Haynesville Shale drilling unit established to-date is therefore illegal.

--Every Haynesville Shale drilling unit established to-date allows, and even encourages, arbitrary discriminations.

What provisions should be considered?


1) Enact a new type of compulsory unit specifically for the Haynesville Shale (and other unconventional reservoirs) that will:
a) Provide equal protection for all property owners.
b) Provide for 640 acre units corresponding to sections. Units prescribed may be larger or smaller where topographical conditions (such as lakes or urban areas) require. Unitization may not “box out” any area without a viable surface location. Unitization may not “box out” any area less than 80 acres in size and without the ability to have a perforated Shale interval a minimum of 4000 ft in length.
c) Require a unit development plan from the operating company assuring that the unit be fully developed within a reasonable time frame with multiple wells (and as market demand allows). Operators would be able to amend the plan in subsequent hearings as additional geologic evidence from well histories, seismic, etc. became available.
d) Set minimum and maximum gas “allowables” for each unit to assure mineral owners fair and balanced production over time amongst the various units. Inept operators would be subject to removal with undeveloped portions of units released to the mineral owners. (the “developed” portion of a shale unit would be defined as the maximum portion of a unit actually being drained by an existing well or wells) The allowable gas production of a shale unit would be set in the proportion that its surface area bears to the total unitized surface area of the field. Larger units would have a higher gas “allowable” than smaller units. No unit would be allowed the drilling/production of a second well until surrounding units have caught up.
e) Encourage drilling of multiple wells from a single surface “pad.”
f) Require written approval from the affected surface owners for the design and location of every specific surface pad serving a compulsory Shale unit.

2) Make a formal declaration that the state has made a serious error in allowing the drilling of “alternate wells” within Title 30:9 drilling units and:
3) Reset the “allowable” for each Title 30:9 drilling unit as the production capability of one well. (as was the case for decades)
4) Require in writing immediate plugging and abandonment of alternate wells unless they are approved in writing by both the affected surface owners and the mineral owners within a particular unit.
5) If no agreement is reached and the above plugging occurs, declare those units invalid at that point in time when the first alternate well was approved.
6) Prosecute/penalize the Commissioner and/or operating companies who continue to violate this law, and set up a system of “checks and balances” for enforcement.
7) Require surface owners affected by well locations to be considered “interested parties” and be notified in writing of applications and hearings for units and wells; and, if not otherwise and specifically contractually agreed to, compensated with fair market value of land taken by oil and gas exploration.
8) Allow any mineral owner owning the maximum area which may be efficiently and economically drained by one well in a conventional, non-shale field the opportunity to drill this tract under Title 30:9 without threat of unitization with other tracts (that could make it uneconomical for him to develop his tract).
9) Ensure that no drilling unit under Title 30:9 be allowed to produce more than its “just and equitable” share of the field’s production.
10) Enforce the Office’s statutory obligation to prevent excessive surface loss by setting guidelines which limit well pad densities in unspoiled natural areas and in areas already suffering from high well densities.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on May 3, 2010 at 4:58

Thank you for the early monday merning laugh Mr. Walker.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• …
• 17
• Next ›
• Page