Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Trenna on July 20, 2008 at 4:57

This is a very interesting topic. I am not sure how many people understand or have cared to read and understand a bit technical. I have read and I agree it is something we all need to read and learn. It may be at others back door very soon. I think we are all in the mode of seeing what we can get for our own leases. I hope the following has nothing to do with it.

As I mentioned before I received a letter yesterday from Skylar Exploration Company for an additional well. I live in Section 24 T 17N 13W which is in the southfork subdivision we are attatched to Riverbend in South Bossier. I had seen from a previous post they were putting wells on Sections 23 and 26. The letter i received yesterday was for an additional well in the middle of sections 23 and 26.
It was the standard letter for an application for public hearing for an additional well and forced pooling. I dont even live in that section so why would i receive this letter? I live in the next section adjoined to it and my next door neighbor received one also. I have yet to find another neighbor that has received one. Could this just be a mistake?
We are having a meeting in Riverbend today but I have no idea if anyone will be able to help me. I sent an email to the company that sent the letter but no reply cause of it being the weekend. Anyone had any ideas on why i got this letter. Hopefully someone will know more than i do.

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on July 20, 2008 at 8:59

Trenna,

Most lawyers' offices send out their "mail-outs" by the most cost efficient method: by zip code. You may not be in the "section" referenced in said letter, but you were in that zip code area and you probably own acreage...or have not leased yet. But typically it is much easier and cheaper to bundle mail-outs per zip code. However, Skylar Exploration is giving you a heads up as to what is going on in NWLa. Companies who don't want to pay increasingly higher bonuses and royalty payments (which cost the smaller players too much of their up-front investment and who cannot take too much time to corral all the mineral owners into leases) are force pooling sections. And, our Office of Conservation is passing things through "as is" in these notices.

DrWAVeSportV 7/19/08

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 20, 2008 at 8:31

Kay, I would only caution about using terms such as "underhanded" or "robbing" since there is no evidence of this. True there is reason for concern but as of now there has been no verification of any negative effects on the mineral owners in the impacted units. There are many valid reasons for such a redefinition and it has been done in the past in other areas.

I would also encourage you to read through the various forums to clear up some of your misunderstandings such as the incorrect references to "75%" and "100% royalties". The following provides a link to the relevant Louisiana regulations:

http://law.justia.com/louisiana/codes/15/15.html