Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on August 18, 2010 at 16:43

WTF.
I can not believe interested people have not responded.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 18, 2010 at 16:48

Or maybe they have just become accepting of units in excess of 640 acres. Right! LOL!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cheerleader on August 18, 2010 at 17:37

GoshDarn,
Thanks for the comment and friend request.
C'est un sujet interessant. J'aimerais en discuter plus tard.
I haven't been accepting friend requests because I would like to think that I can be a friend to everyone on the site. Works in theory...
If you would like, just message me your email.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cheerleader on August 18, 2010 at 18:23

Not worried about it..... Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. Couldn't reply any faster...I'm in the basement you know and my reception down here isn't good....I've taken to composing an opera down here on the walls... not going to post it.....Jay may not like opera...
looking forward to that email or how ever the system works on this web site.....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on August 18, 2010 at 18:41

Lots of opposition was present at the pre-conference hearing.

Encana said that they didn't plan to pursue this new unit application UNLESS they secured drill site locations and would show plans to have maximum horizontal lengths. To the best of my knowledge, they have not secured said locations.

But then again, Encana told us that they don’t plan to develop these units. They said they are looking at the possibility of selling these units. At the hearing, Encana’s attorney said that Encana wouldn’t be moving forward with the new unitization plans if they didn’t intend on developing the tracts. The left hand doesn’t seem to know what the right hand is doing. Or, dare I say, someone is not being completely honest.

Several of those present at the pre-conference hearing were “LAWYERED - UP”.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on August 22, 2010 at 4:06

Encana stated the reason for the application is they are unable to lease or force pool the Air Force base.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on September 1, 2010 at 18:38

Jay,

Do you know if Encana has successfully drilled longer laterals in the HS?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DJG on September 2, 2010 at 2:59

Have seen some long lateral horizontals by Encana in the Barnett in Texas. 5-6K', I think and some units as high as 1,000 to even 2,000 acres.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sarah on September 2, 2010 at 16:50

My minerals in Sabine Co. were going to be put in to a larger unit. I think it was 940 acres? I don't care as long as I'm not left out of the deal. I don't like that phrase Mac Davis used...gerrymander around.

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on August 21, 2010 at 19:31

OK, what are they trying to do here?

Get longer laterals?

Gerrymander around to cut out some uncooperative mineral interests?

I notice they're cutting out a lot of US government property. I wonder if the government has said they can't drill, or if they just negotiated better leases and Encana is trying to cut them out? Anyone got any US government contacts to see what's going on there?

It looks like the US government gets shafted if these units get approved. Their minerals in section 16 and 17 will be difficult to drill.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on September 2, 2010 at 3:45

As someone who deals with the US government in Oil and gas operations, I can plainly say that the MMS and is succesors, along with the BLM and whatever agency controls the surface creates a tangled web of beaurecratic roadblocks that not only discourage mineral develoopment, but many time preventit all together.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on August 21, 2010 at 19:33

This does bring up a question I had before. Leases often include terms that the lessor agrees that the lessee can pool the mineral rights. Does this mean that the lessor can't object to force pooling like this?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page