Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Land Rat on September 25, 2013 at 7:10

Exactly..continuous operations, like production, is a way to hold a lease past the primary term. I would think continuous operations on a vertical well holding a 1280 unit would be a great way to not have to renew leases through their self contained options.

Probably nothing to worry about and probably prudent to not raise a stink while they try to figure out their engineering. It would be nickle and diming.

Permalink Reply by obed w odom on September 25, 2013 at 7:14

Steve Mueller of SWN said at the UBS Global conference of Sept 20,2013, that they had tested 4 of 5 frac stages in the Sharp, and that they hope to have complete results by the time of the 3rd Quarter conference call.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 25, 2013 at 6:52

Thanks for the correction, obed.  I suggest that you look in the SONRIS Classic well file for any correspondence regarding this well/unit.  Since SWN is reporting Status Code 31 and then coming back to complete wells at a later date there could very well be some leeway granted by the O of C.  Although the well is still officially listed as INACTIVE DRYHOLE-FUTURE UTILITY SWN has reported production of ~125 Bbl/d and 326 Mcf/d in their public presentations.  That appears to be for perforations limited to the deepest interval so SWN could frac shallower intervals.  I could easily see the O of C allowing for that on a temporary basis.

Permalink Reply by Land Rat on September 25, 2013 at 7:26

So, if one of these mineral owners didn't like that a 1280 was being held by a vertical well what would the process be for motivating the bureaucracy to act?

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 25, 2013 at 7:27

Instead of speculating on the stance of the O of C in regard to this question, I called the Engineering Director and discussed it.  He didn't have an answer that would tend to cover the concerns expressed.  I will send him an email which he can forward up the chain of command.

Interestingly, he did state that the number one complaint by mineral owners regarding unit size is from those who are located outside the boundary and want a larger unit that would include their minerals.  Complaints from those within a unit who wish it to be smaller are basically non-existent.  Much of these questions are quite recent in origin and have not yet been tested either in a civil court or in a request to the Commissioner.  For regulators trying to make existing codes, created before the advent of horizontal development, work in the current reality is frustrating.

Permalink Reply by tony allen on September 25, 2013 at 9:47

Why would SWN set 5.5 inch casing to 11441' if they intended to go horizontal. It looks like they are planning to complete it as a vertical and go horizontal at a later date. SWN said the next 3 wells would be verticals in their last presentation.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 25, 2013 at 7:35

LR and obed, the first thing to protest should be the industry running off with our Reply buttons in discussion threads!!  Just kidding.  :-)  I think that the best course is to engage the Commissioner on this subject.  And to do so in a well thought out and professional letter from one or more mineral owners who are actually included in a unit approved for horizontal development but with a producing vertical well which serves to hold leases in force.  A Code 31 would not serve to hold leases, there must be production.  I will think about how to approach that and run it by my O&G attorney.  Of course I don't have "standing". However I think we may be able to find someone who does and write the letter on their behalf.  Let me see if I get any replies to my email.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 25, 2013 at 8:40

My O&G attorney will help write a letter regarding vertical completions in large units set up for horizontal development.  However he advises to wait until this situation actually occurs.  After the Sharp well is officially reported to the state as a vertical completion if that indeed occurs.  Posing the question as a hypothetical to the Commissioner likely won't go anywhere.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 26, 2013 at 3:29

Judy, my attorney is Randall S. Davidson, principle partner in Davidson, Jones & Summers APLC in Shreveport.  At one time or another I have worked with all the firm's attorneys who practice O&G law and can recommend them all.  The firm has a large client base of land/mineral owners and very few energy companies, none of which are the major and mid-major operators involved in the prospects we follow on GHS.  Therefore many years of experience representing mineral owners and lessors and few conflicts of interest.  You're welcome.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 26, 2013 at 3:46

I hope so too.  Good Luck, Judy.

Permalink Reply by Gatrpaw on October 2, 2013 at 14:30

This is a public link to the firm mentioned.

http://www.djslawfirm.com/index-3.html

I am not sure if the Will Drill and TMR I have listed the Sonris Operator Codes for below are the same as the ones they list as clients or not,

If anyone is interested in the past drilling history of the ones I have listed they can go to Sonris Lite and look up the following operator codes W193, W030, W024 & W034 and also 5613 and see that these companies have drilled several wells in the NW La. area. Some of which were Haynesville wells, CV wells and several other formations of interest to many members.

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on October 2, 2013 at 14:58

So what is your point Gatrpaw? Why are you singling out Will Drill and TMR?

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