Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gaynell Roberts on June 30, 2014 at 2:05

Thanks for the info.

Permalink Reply by Franks on July 1, 2014 at 10:28

Attached are PDF of first lease & lease ratification below, but these refer to several other documents of mineral assignment & release; and royalties. The clerks were very pleasant and helpful, so it's likely that one could call and get balance by email. I'll get back to this later (legal opinion), so please post anything relative, if you don't mind.

Attachments:

• 1stLeaseFeb11976.GeneBuckelKemberlyIncToCtCardenOil+Gas200px.pdf, 3.9 MB
• 2ndLeaseRatificationOct281982.GeneBuckelKemberlyIncToCtCardenOil+Gas200px.pdf, 2.5 MB

Permalink Reply by Franks on July 8, 2014 at 16:46

This week's scout report:
07/07/2014 Depth:17351; DRL&SLIDE T/17531'; WELL STARTED FLOWING; C&C

Permalink Reply by Franks on August 30, 2014 at 9:50

DavidsonBuckle#2 well (holds February 1971 lease) also had zero production for several months in 2012, but the most recent work permit report stating "unsuccessful re-completion" seems to be  what nails it down?  The re-perforations likely explains the drilling rig still sitting there (unsuccessful re-completion)?   Just curious of what Hilcorp will make of this now, regarding DSCC#1 well leases & division orders?  What should we expect (typical)?  Anticipation ;) 

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 30, 2014 at 11:11

The Davidson Buckle #2 is a unit well for 16700 TUSC RA SUF Zone.  The DSCC #1 is a lease well permitted to the TUSC B Zone.  Different locations, different zones, same operating company.

16700 TUSC RA SUF - See plat for units

http://ucmwww.dnr.state.la.us/ucmsearch/UCMRedir.aspx?url=http%3a%2...

DSCC #1 Well Plat - Page 9

http://ucmwww.dnr.state.la.us/ucmsearch/UCMRedir.aspx?url=http%3a%2...

The leases unitized under 16700 TUSC RA SUF likely expired with 4 consecutive months with no production in 2012.  However it is highly probable no lessor pooled in the unit demanded a release.  That's largely a moot point since production was commenced 5 months later.  So now production ceases and there is another legal opportunity to have minerals released, if anyone is paying attention and understands what is at stake.  Caveat: the language in the lease may address what "operations" may hold the lease in force sans production.  It is the responsibility of a mineral owner to understand the terms of their lease, to monitor the well or wells producing under that lease and to seek professional counsel if they are willing to be proactive.  This has no connection whatsoever with the DSCC #1 which is on lands not covered in the SUF unit.  Compare the plats.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 30, 2014 at 12:26

The units you list are not a single lease.  Each unit is made up of only the lands within it's boundary.  Production in one can not hold leases in others excepting certain situations that are not relevant to this discussion.  Hilcorp is not claiming that SUA thru SUI are held by production in SUH.  You are misunderstanding or they are telling you something that is not correct. You are clueless as to compulsory unitization and need the services of an experienced O&G attorney.  Waiting would be a mistake.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 30, 2014 at 13:28

When you say, "more than one plat" do you mean, more than one unit? Yes, if it is an old lease for a contiguous tract without a horizontal Pugh clause then production in one unit could hold the lease in force for a non-producing portion of the tract in an adjoining unit.  There is no law, nor is there any business reason for Hilcorp or any other operating company to terminate a lease without a demand from a lessor.  The responsibility lies solely with the mineral lessor.

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on September 2, 2014 at 6:58

DJ:

Landman here, and will say via private message to you, once I have verified your ownership interest in this well, as I have for other owners / members of this forum.  I am not authorized to comment on specific lease and well questions on a public forum in my current capacity - however, some conclusions that you have made re: HBP and lease maintenance are incorrect.

Do you happen to own Lot 104?

Permalink Reply by Franks on September 2, 2014 at 9:27

Hi Dion, and thanks for your input.  I was hoping that you might join in.  A drilling rig recently appeared on the old DavidsonBuckle2 site, which had me searching for answers on the DNR site. Looks like production ceased on multiple occasions.  Do you read that this lease can be held by operations?    

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on September 2, 2014 at 9:52

DJ:

In broad brush, yes. The lease (virtually all leases, actually) contain(s) provisions allowing for timely and/or continuous good-faith operations to maintain an oil and gas lease in lieu of and/or upon cessation of production. There are defined limits upon what can be considered timely and/or continuous; in most cases, there is a maximum amount of time established as to the duration of interval between cessation of operations and/or production and the commencement of subsequent operations (usually 90 days, but can be 120, or any range between 60 and 180 days in my experience.) The point of such provisions is to provide a mechanism of incentive for lessee to reestablish production or promote exploration and operations for new production, e.g., spud another well. There were reworks done in 2012 (during the period that you noted that there was a lapse in production) which resulted in the well being placed back into production and earlier in 2014 (unsuccessful), and activity that has commenced on another reworking procedure begun recently (evidenced by your recent photo).

I am more than happy to answer other specific questions now that I have clearance to do so, but again, as a landman working on this project I am not cleared to release information on specific matters on a general forum. I list the above question in my last post to hopefully both confirm the location of your interest and provide some partial confirmation of my specific knowledge of this area without providing too much unique personal identification. I can reach out via private message. What you choose to do with the knowledge shared specific to your purposes is up to you.

Permalink Reply by Franks on September 2, 2014 at 10:06

Thanks again Dion.

Permalink Reply by DTrucks on November 4, 2014 at 11:38

11/4/2014
Can someone please interpret the latest available statuses for DSCC#1 production & DavidsonBuckle#2 recompletion?  Looks like maybe both went sour (or difficult)?  Any other info available?  Thanks in advance.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 6
• Next ›
• Page