Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Grice on October 28, 2008 at 9:02

Thank you. I can understand their reasoning for wanting to do so, but I was not aware that it was an active practice. I also agree that is should be held unreasonable for an operator to attempt such deceptive practices. Even more reason for the landowners, either leased or unleased, to continue to educate themselves about ALL matters pertaining to the operations in this area.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grice on October 28, 2008 at 9:09

Even though this will probably get lost in the shuffle, I for one would like to thank you for what you have done. While it may seem simple, when typed on a forum, the impact is felt much greater than what can be expressed with emoticons. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. Thank You.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 28, 2008 at 10:44

Jay, let me add my "thank you" to that of Grice. I remember when the commissioner issued his ruling. And was relieved to see the practice quashed. There are a lot of members here, and land/mineral owners across NW. LA. , who owe you a debt of gratitude.

Permalink Reply by Iris on October 28, 2008 at 6:49

I tried to call Collin Sniff awhile ago---he hasn't called back yet. I have some questions, well a lot, not sure if I should change some travel plans slightly at some expense....to attend conference. Or hire a lawyer or what. Just rambling right now TG for GHS

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by nisie, not a happy camper landowner on October 28, 2008 at 7:48

We just received notice today. We are in 18/14/14.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by louisiana lady on October 28, 2008 at 9:32

Nisie,

Did you receive a plat with the boundaries of the proposed units? In my notice they were not including section 14 for unitization but they might be notifying adjacent landowners. Some homeowners were notified in 18/14/3 also not included in my notification of unitization.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by nisie, not a happy camper landowner on October 28, 2008 at 9:44

I believe the notification was because our business is in adjacent section. We previously had interest by Petrohawk and Twincities but for some reason (sarcasm)
they now are rescinding their interest.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by louisiana lady on October 28, 2008 at 9:37

Tiger Cdo,

Joe Adams was available today, I think he is the geologist for Samson. I am preparing a list of questions for the conference and if you cannot make it, I'll add anything you want to know to the list. Also, old North Highlands Subdivision is included in my section 18-14-10 and they are part of a coalition, and as I recall, no one is leased.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Iris on October 28, 2008 at 9:47

Thank you and as my sister & fellow l/o pointed out to me the landsman's name is Sniff & the attorney's name is Smelley. I wasn't sure about N.Highlands (if they were committed. I knew they had a coalition.) I'll not be available online from 11/5 to 11/18 (remote area of Fort Worth) so if You don't want to post questions on board you can-info later. Right now I don't know what to ask Joe Adams I have to read something like this about 15 times

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by louisiana lady on October 28, 2008 at 9:51

lol...sniff and smelley...we just might be in trouble.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cathaus on October 28, 2008 at 9:53

sounds like what 2 dogs do when they meet up!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Iris on October 28, 2008 at 11:10

Is this a done deal (well almost) would the powers that decide rule in favor of all ten units? I'm not too keen on being force pooled or forced to lease right now. How long does it take these powers to rule on it.....if we are forced pool & they don't drill or produce right away what are the options for forced poolers.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• Next ›
• Page