Texas unitization and forced pooling

I know Texas doesn't use PLSS 1 square mile sections for unit formation.

Is the unit formation and forced pooling basically similar for Texas and Louisiana? i.e. Is everyone in a unit pooled into one group to share production? Are hearings held to force pool everyone in a unit? Is there a somewhat standard unit size for Texas? Do the production companies carve up the map to suit themselves or is there some standard system?

Do other states tend to use a unitization and force pooling system?

Tags: Texas, and, forced, pooling, unitization

Views: 473

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on July 14, 2010 at 12:56
Hardage, NOT true:

Railroad Commission changes pooling interpretation

BY JOHN-LAURENT TRONCHE
December 29, 2008

When the Railroad Commission of Texas ruled in late August it would use a statue to force pool almost 6 acres of unleased east Fort Worth property into a group of adjacent mineral owners who had leased, the commission effectively flipped on its head the more than 40-year-old law that made the action possible.

http://www.fwbusinesspress.com/display.php?id=9178
Permalink Reply by jffree1 on July 8, 2010 at 3:53
Mac, here is an example of a "gerrymandered" unit:



You will note that Tract #7 is included in the unit and will share in production from the unit but it may never actually have a horizontal well drilled under it without re-configuring the unit.
Permalink Reply by intrepid on July 9, 2010 at 11:27
The June 2010 newsletter from Texas Land and mineral Owners Assoc.Has a very good article on the upcoming fight over forced pooling in the next sesion of the Texas Legislature.

http://www.tlma.org/TLMA_2ndQtr2010NL.pdf

>>>>Heads Up! The specter of forced unitization and forced pooling is once again raising its head in the Texas
Legislature. At a recent interim hearing of the House Energy Resources Committee several companies and
industry groups testified that they want the law changed to allow forced unitization. They are hiding behind
environmental concerns saying that it will allow CO2 to be pumped into the ground instead of being released
into the air. They also argue it is needed to make Texas a leader in carbon sequestration. What they are
glossing over is the fact that this would allow carbon to be forced under your land without the landowner having
a say. They have also failed to adequately explain why current laws that work very well for oil and gas will not
work for them other than it is cheaper for the companies if they can force unitize and force pool.
Many states have forced-pooling statutes which in effect allow an operator to force an unleased mineral...........>>>>

Please.................if you have mineral interests in Texas look into joining TLMA. The more members the more clout to fight for the rights and interests of ladowners and mineral owners. It's crucial that we have a voice in Austin during the next session.

Join and get everyone you know to join.
Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on July 9, 2010 at 12:18
If you want to leave a bunch of the oil and gas in the ground so to leave it to your great great grandchildren then sign off on no CO2 being pumped into the ground. At present that is one of the best techniques to get the remaining 50% of the fuel out of the ground. Maybe some future generation will develop the technology to get it out of the ground in some different sort of method.
Permalink Reply by jffree1 on July 9, 2010 at 12:26
I think they chose the wrong issue to take a stand on re: forced pooling in Texas. I agree that the legislature needs to re-visit FP but not over injection of CO2 which brings new life to old "depleted" (unrecoverable) fields.
Permalink Reply by intrepid on July 9, 2010 at 15:30
jffree1, it may be the best method but a landowner may not want to be 'forced' into it without payment. Just like they may want to be in a unit but at their agreed price, not forced into it without payment or on terms that may not be favorable. Remember, 'no man's life, liberty or property are safe when the legislature is in session' is an old saying that has been around for a long time and for good reason.
Permalink Reply by jffree1 on July 9, 2010 at 18:21
I'm not about to get into a political debate on the merits of this issue, intrepid. I'm just saying they chose to associate forced pooling with that CO2 "environmental hot potato" and I think that was the wrong way to approach the subject. I am not saying that I agree with having blanket force pooling rules overseen by TRRC. But, the rules have to be re-visited & updated to make them fit our new circumstances, with so much un-conventional/horizontal development going on. The old rules don't fit anymore and the operators are attempting to rewrite them to fit their needs (see production sharing agreements which are a blatant circumvention of pooling rules). Louisiana already has a case filed over how much land can be pooled/unitized and held by one well. It's only a matter of time before the fur flies over here, too, I think.
Permalink Reply by intrepid on July 10, 2010 at 17:26
jffree1, I really hope you did not think I was angling for a political argument. Absolutely not. The way I read it the O&G industry is using the CO2 issue as their cover for urging the forced pooling. That is what TLMA is trying to alert us to. It's not TLMA that is associating CO2 with the forced poolng. The industry is saying that they need forced pooling so it will be easier and cheaper on them to do CO2 injections.

I agree that it may be time to revisit forced pooling and I'm not even saying that all forced pooling would be bad across the board.

But I do want someone other than the O&G companies at the table when the talks take place. Right now TLMA seems, to me, to be a viable voice for land and mineral owner's.
Permalink Reply by jffree1 on July 13, 2010 at 4:29
I agree that someone should represent land/mineral owners. I agree that we should all support TLMA as they are just about our only voice in the process.

I haven't looked into the subject much but what comes to my mind would be a field-wide pool for enhanced oil recovery by co2 injection. I need clarification of your argument that they will force-pool without compensation to the mineral owners. That would amount to the state saying it is ok for E&P to take what does not belong to them, by eminant domain, more or less... wouldn't it? I thought we visited the E.D. question in the last legislature.
Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 9, 2010 at 15:32
Jffree, plus critical to reducing Global Warming.
Permalink Reply by jffree1 on July 9, 2010 at 18:26
You just had to say those GW words didn't ya, LOL!
Permalink Reply by intrepid on July 9, 2010 at 15:24
TWD, But would you agree with forced pooling under the cover of co2 injection? Without the landowner having a say?

RSS

Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com

Top Content 

1 Looking Back At The Haynesville Shale - A Retrospective

Looking Back At The Haynesville Shale - A Retrospective
2 Pending Public Oil and Gas Hearings

Pending Public Oil and Gas Hearings
3 Arkansas Smackover Lithium Play

Arkansas Smackover Lithium Play
4 Aethon looks for Buyers of its Haynesville Assets

Aethon looks for Buyers of its Haynesville Assets
5 Notice Emails Are Back! Please review how they work.

Notice Emails Are Back! Please review how they work.
6 Comstock October Presentation

Comstock October Presentation
7 Haynesville Has 12.5 Years of Sub-$3 NatGas Inventory - Enverus

Haynesville Has 12.5 Years of Sub-$3 NatGas Inventory - Enverus

Blog Posts

The Lithium Connection to Shale Drilling

Shale drilling and lithium extraction are seemingly distinct activities, but there is a growing connection between the two as the world moves towards cleaner energy solutions. While shale drilling primarily targets…

Continue

Posted by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 20, 2024 at 12:40

Not a member? Get our email.

Groups



© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service