Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 28, 2010 at 16:16

Lewis & Clark would be geographically incorrect. For E. TX. the wells should be Freeman & Custis.

http://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?en...

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on June 28, 2010 at 16:35

OK, so St. Mary is geographically incorrect. I think it's the spirit of the endeavor they were trying to capture, maybe. I like the notion even though it may be a big coincidence.

As much as I've read about Texas history, I'd have never thought of Freeman & Custiss, probably because you are talking about a much disputed region that didn't belong to us, once and for all, "officially", until after statehood. Texas history begins with Moses Austin, LOL!!

Permalink Reply by ALongview on June 28, 2010 at 16:24

What's up with a 699 acre unit for an injection well?

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on June 28, 2010 at 16:37

You know, I think the boxes they have to check in the online application must be too close together or something. I've seen several of those and they always get changed... eventually.

Permalink Reply by Willis Bodine on June 28, 2010 at 17:02

Who will give me a more technical explanation of just what is going on here?

My mineral rights are on a tract ("Perry A. Bodine 2") which is part of the old family property remaining from the 1825 Mexican land grant. I see that the tract is now included in the Clark Unit of 699.27 acres, just posted for Clark #1-H 405-30359. The proposed surface location and penetration point is less than 500' from that of Lewis #1-H, posted last week. I also see that the plat is for an injection well.

Thanks for your help. This stuff is way above my pay grade. BTW, I am hearing nothing directly from St. Mary.

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on June 28, 2010 at 17:19

Willis, you can disregard the "injection well" because it is an error and will be changed to gas well eventually. It doesn't happen a lot but when it does they will either catch it before the permit is approved or the operator will have to file an amendment later to change it. I've seen it handled both ways on other permits.

Permalink Reply by Willis Bodine on June 29, 2010 at 5:09

Today's RRC problem letter (6-29-2010) questions the designated field for Clark #1-H, and delays the permit. But it misses the wrong direction from San Augustine (it's north, not east, like Lewis #1-H), and also the injection issue you mention.

Someone is not being careful somewhere. But, at least they are working on dry land . . . .

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on June 29, 2010 at 5:49

Questioning the designated field is how they addressed the "injection" type of well. Carthage (Haynesville Shale) is not an approved field for any type of injection except frack fluid.

If I remember, the Lewis also had East of San Augustine on their location. TRRC has coordinates to plat the well on map so it makes no difference to them what direction the operator says the well is from the nearest town... even though it should.

Permalink Reply by Dave Mercer on June 30, 2010 at 5:24

How about Sam ---Houston----Raven----

Permalink Reply by leo bishop on July 5, 2010 at 1:40

it will be named after me.. Leo Bishop (San Augustine)

Permalink Reply by Benedumtreesoilwell on July 5, 2010 at 5:04

Or named after me. Oh there is already a willams-chumley. Nevermind.

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on July 5, 2010 at 5:26

Anyone heard anything about the Ironosa #1H?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page