Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by jack jurgens on January 29, 2018 at 19:52

Two final points .

1.Petroguard is absolutely not a speculator looking to take a lease and flip it. The President of the Company refers to such hustlers as cockroaches.

2. The engineers who will be designing and planning the drilling program have as much and likely more,  Austin Chalk/horizantal well drilling experience than any company that will be trying to develop this play.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jack jurgens on January 31, 2018 at 5:00

As I said, they have a partner, and Petroguard will be 100% involved in all wells. I have an understanding of the expertise of the partner, and I am 100% thrilled by the austin chalk/horizantal well drilling capabilities of Petroguard and its partners. If you are thinking of leasing your land, and Petroguard is interested in your property, I suggest you call Mr. Dewey Stringer, the President of Petroguard. I think he posted his number in a comment within this discussion,  but if not Petroguard's phone number appears in one of the first comments above. Jack Jurgens

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hydrocarbonite on January 31, 2018 at 5:14

Thanks Jack for post. I spoke directly with Mr. Stringer yesterday and he assured me,  He has Large Company as partner well experienced in the Chalk/horizontal drilling and he is not leasing to flip!  He reassured me as well that Petroguard will be 100% involved is all wells drilled... Wilcox and AC. The Partner does not wish to be exposed at moment but will happen in due time so he respects their request.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 31, 2018 at 7:10

Mr. Jurgens, are you an O&G attorney?  Do you, or have you, ever represented Petro-Guard?  Do you have a financial stake in the leases that Mr. Stringer is offering?  To your knowledge, is Mr. Springer expecting to receive an Over Riding Royalty Interest on leases taken in Petro-Guard's name and assigned to the "partner"?  To your knowledge is Mr. Stringer revealing the identity of the "partner" when asked by prospective lessors?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jack jurgens on January 31, 2018 at 16:37

Yes I am an O&G attorney , although my  work relates in large measure to operations on the Outer Continental Shelf. I posted in this discussion to provide information that I thought would be helpful to  Hydrocarcarbonite and others similarly situated.  Apparently that doesn't sit well with you and/or you think I'm writing lies to benefit myself or Petroguard. Whether you believe me or not, is your choice..  I was simply trying to provide information that might be helpful to Hydrocarbonite.  I think I did.  For the benefit of others who might read this discussion, to the extent of my knowledge I will answer the questions posed in your above posting. 

I have never represented Petroguard, although I have worked cooperatively with this company to get  40 acres of our property leased to Petroguard. This acreage was included in the unit for the Eola 1 well, a wilcox well located in section 17  of T2S R3E.  Petroguard, spent at least $10million performing 3d seismic on 20,000 acres in Avoyelles including our 530 acres. I went to Petroguard's offices, and was shown the seismic data, detailing the Eola 1 prospect. We were in agreement on delay rentals and royalty. But around that time several legacy lawsuits were filed in Avoyelles Parish. Petroguard was not named in these lawsuits, but was concerned about  the risk of further drilling in Louisiana with the spectre of legacy lawsuits.

Without laying out the details of issues in this type of a lawsuit, under old leases that do not spell out in detail the rights of landowners and oil company/lessees, even if  an oil company  insures that the lease area has been cleaned up in accordance with DEQ regulations, it is still subject to possible environmental claims for many time the total  value of the property. This situation has inhibited oil and gas exploration in louisiana.(If  you disagree with that statement, I suggest you call Mr Stringer for his thoughts). I , on behalf of the landowners (me and my family) worked with Petroguard's lawyers to put together a lease form that insured  if Petroguard created any environmental issue on our property, they would clean up the situation in accordance with DEQ regs. If they did not, I could sue them for remediation in accordance with DEQ regulations, and 5 times the cost of the remediation as damages ,and for attorneys fees. However, the lease form gave Petroguard comfort that in the event  they caused environmental damage, and a dispute arose as to whether they had cleaned up the damage, I could sue for a rational amount of damages, but could not seek recovery of 50 times the value of my property (and then never use one penny of the recovery to remediate the damage to the property).  We got the lease put together, and executed.  Had I not worked cooperatively with Petroguard's lawyer, and gotten  this environmental damage provision put together, I seriously doubt the well would have been drilled. The well was drilled, and as I said earlier is producing 3000 barrels a month (and has for two years), and is expected to produce 750,000 barrels over its life. So that is as close as I have gotten to representing Petroguard or Mr. Stringer, although I really felt collectively we did a very good thing.

I do not have a financial stake  in any leases that Mr. Stringer is offering, period. I did receive a very fair bonus and royalty from Petroguard on the lease covering our 530 acres, which was executed in late December 2017. the next statement may or may not be of interest to you. Sometime in November 2017, I  shook hands with Mr Stringer on an  overall agreement to lease,and  we began putting the lease form together. while that was going on and before any lease was signed, another company called me. Actually , it was a landman representing some unnamed company. He offerred me more bonus to lease to his unnamed company. I cut off the discussion because I believe in Mr. Stringer, his honesty , and his company.

I do not know the name of the company that  will be partnering with Mr. Stringer and Petroguard. Mr. Stringer has told me the company has tremendous experience and expertise in drilling chalk wells and horizantal wells, and has made a huge financial committment to this project. Do I know the name of the company ? No, I don't, but I have  Mr. Stringer words on that company's expertise and commitment to the project, and that is all I need. I also know Mr. Stringer and Petroguard will remain involved throughout.

I don't know if Petroguard is going to assign the leases to its partner, and Im not real concerned if they do .(as an aside, under our lease form if Petroguard assigns the lease to another company, they remain responsible for the performance of all obligations  under the lease, even those arising post assignment).

I do not know if Mr. Stringer is to receive an override on any Petroguard leases, but in my opinion, he certainly deserves one. He and his company spent the time to review well  files to determine what went wrong with the Anadarko wells, and put this project together.

If you don't believe what I am saying or find it to be of no interest , no sweat. Just ask that we commit to talk again on this site in 3-4 years to see if either of us have received royalties from an Austin Chalk well. I'm betting on my horse, Mr. Stringer/Petroguard./unnamed partner.

Regards, Jack Jurgens 

PS. Something just occurred to me that is of interest. Do you have any relationship with any companies other than Petroguard that are seeking leases in the Austin chalk prospect area, and if so ,might you obtain any financial benefit or remuneration from the granting of such leases ?   Seems reasonable that you answer the questions you pose above, as if someone was asking them of you and any relationship you might have with anyother company seeking leases in the  Austin Chalk Prospect area

I

 I

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 1, 2018 at 2:28

Jack, I am a landman that works for land/mineral owners.  I have been a regular participant on GoHaynesvilleShale for almost ten years.  I've never taken a lease in my career.  I have assisted a number of mineral owners, and their lawyers, in negotiating leases in multiple play areas across LA and MS.  So, no, I do not have a financial stake in the emerging AC play.  I do have a long time commitment to protecting GHS members and my paying clients.  Myself and those I represent or GHS members that seek my professional opinions are not anti-industry.  We support responsible fracking and pipelines.  We push back whenever a hard green, leave-it-in-the-ground advocate shows up on our website.  We are frustrated on a number of issues where O&G operators in Louisiana have unfairly disadvantaged their mineral lessors and unleased mineral owners to pad their profits or mitigate poor management decisions.  The wide spread practice of ignoring Louisiana land and mineral owners who are deemed to be financially unable to hire professional representation is a regular topic here.

You are new and appear to have joined GHS with the specific intent to support Petro-Guard and Mr. Stringer.   That raises red flags among the long time members of GHS especially among those of us in the industry.  Thank you for coming clean regarding your relationship with Mr. Stringer.  Now that we have that out of the way, allow me to respond to your comments regarding legacy lawsuits.

LOGA, LMOGA and those who push the opinion that legacy litigation causes O&G companies to avoid investing in Louisiana operations now have a new problem in addition to the numerous existing examples that thoroughly rebut that line of propaganda.  It is certainly an irrefutable fact that EOG, ConocoPhillips and Petroquest are not deterred from making large capital investments in Louisiana.  If the industry really wants to engage in a conversation to seek changes to existing legislation so that monies recovered by plaintiffs are required to be used for mitigation of the industry-caused pollution, there are many of us who represent land/mineral owners who would be more than willing.  That however is a separate discussion.

Instead of anecdotal claims concerning Mr. Stringer and Petro-Guard, we would appreciate some hard facts as to his experience, especially with the AC.  A review of the Louisiana state database for wells operated by Petro-Guard Productions shows a total of 12 currently operated wells.  5 of those wells were drilled by others and acquired at a later day.  Of the remaining 7 wells, one was a dry hole and one an expired, undrilled permit.  The 5 wells that were drilled Petro-Guard are all Wilcox wells, none of which is a horizontal completion.

This AC play requires experience with horizontal development and the latest, cutting edge technology neither of which is supported by Petro-Guard's Louisiana operations.  Those of us in the industry have seen similar situations throughout our careers and indeed the long time website members have watched this type of leasing effort unfold in the past.  It would make sense to us that Mr. Stringer is looking to get a cheap lease for the purpose of assigning it to that unnamed large operating company for an override.  The claims of being involved in the wells ring hollow as to AC as I doubt Mr. Stringer has much to offer a mid-major with abundant experience in these types of challenging wells.  The claim would make more sense if it was limited to the Wilcox zone as Mr. Stringer has at least some modest experience with that formation.  Mr. Stringer may or may not be successful in fronting for the unnamed mid-major as what he is doing is not illegal and GHS members have a right to enter into a lease with him.

Since many GHS members have been taught over the years to use the state O&G database, SONRIS, I am posting the entire extent of Petro-Guard's Louisiana operating history.  It is also worth noting that Mr. Stringer appears to be largely a one man show as indicated by the organization information provided by the state.  He is most welcome to post a rebuttal for our members consideration.

P146	PETRO-GUARD PRODUCTION, L.L.C.

 

1	22144	HAAS INV CO	003	30				P146	3648	09-FEB-39	007-02S-03E	05
2	22351	MRS C B MARCHIVE	001	10				P146	3648	12-APR-39	006-02S-03E	05
3	22506	S S PEARCE	001	10				P146	3648	16-MAY-39	006-02S-03E	05
4	22745	SL 17880 BAYOU BOEUF	001	10				P146	3648	01-JUL-39	006-02S-03E	05
5	23404	HAAS INV CO	008	10				P146	3648	17-NOV-39	007-02S-03E	05
6	23834	HAAS INV CO SWD	011	09	II	5		P146	3648	01-MAR-40	007-02S-03E	05
7	24313	HAAS INV CO	013	30				P146	3648	28-MAY-40	007-02S-03E	05
8	26324	HAAS INV CO	014	10				P146	3648	28-JUL-41	007-02S-03E	05
9	87238	CIB H RG SUA;DOW B	001	30				P146	0485	23-OCT-61	011-09S-08E	50
10	148978	HAAS LAND CO A	002	34				P146	3198	23-JUN-75	011-02S-02E	05
11	149365	HAAS LAND COMPANY SWD	003	09	II	5		P146	3198	01-AUG-75	011-02S-02E	05
12	150761	HAAS LAND CO	004	34				P146	3198	12-DEC-75	011-02S-02E	05
13	210925	MT 1 RA SUA;A P D	001	30				P146	0485	06-NOV-89	011-09S-08E	50
14	211719	MT 1 RA SUA;A P D	002-ALT	30				P146	0485	17-MAY-90	011-09S-08E	50
15	239746	NEZAT	001	30				P146	7519	05-MAY-09	002-06S-05E	49
16	239777	F RB SUA;NEZAT A	001-ALT	30				P146	7519	11-MAY-09	004-06S-05E	49
17	243577	IRION	002	29				P146	3648	22-JUL-11	006-02S-03E	05
18	243694	HAAS INV CO	001	10				P146	3648	17-AUG-11	007-02S-03E	05
19	245343	WX RA SUA;IRION	001	10				P146	3648	27-AUG-12	007-02S-03E	05
20	248716	VUA;EOLA	001	03				P146	3648	18-NOV-14	017-02S-03E	05
21	248874	OAK HALL	001	10				P146	3198	02-FEB-15	011-02S-02E	05
22	248875	VUB;LILY	001	03				P146	3648	02-FEB-15	001-02S-02E	05
23	249118	VUA;EOLA	001	10				P146	3648	15-JUN-15	017-02S-03E	05
24	250583	WMT 8	001	01				P146	3648	27-OCT-17	008-02S-03E	05
25	972274	JAMES WHITLOW ETAL A SWD	001	09	II	5		P146	3648	27-DEC-90	006-02S-03E	05

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jack jurgens on February 1, 2018 at 4:24

Skip, I feel my posting and your responses fall under the category of 'no good deed goes unpunished'. I did not come clean about my relationship with Mr. Stringer and Petroguard because absolutely nothing was hidden .  You don't know anything about me, and I don't have any financial interest in anything in Avoyelles Parish other that our 530acre farm.  apparently you view this site as your fiefdom of some sort, and you feel the need to attack the integrity of someone who posts something you disagree with. My next appearance on this site will be in 3 years when you and I can compare results.

I indicated from the gitgo, I respect Mr. Stringer as much as I respect anybody in this world. Why ? I was a landowner, and he treated me with 100% honesty. Before i executed a lease covering 40 acres for the Eola 1 well and obviously before the well was drilled, he brought me over to his office and showed me the 3d seismic of my property and the surrounding area, and explained it  to me and showed me the sands that are being produced now by the eola 1 well. I sort of understood the science but what was clear was that this man was so  honest that he showed me the value of my property without first leasing it . How many people have you heard of doing that. we worked together to get a lease form put together that reasonably protected us from environmental claims and protected Mr. Stringer from any environmental 'stick up' actions by me at the end of the lease.

I agree with you that some operators will take advantage of landowners who cannot afford legal representation. I can tell you Mr. Stringer is not one of them, to the contrary. Within two weeks of getting this project going, Mr Stringer had committments from landowners of 100,000 acres that they would lease to him on this project. Pretty amazing . and why did it happen like that ? Because a lot of people who own large and small tracts in Avoyelles appreciate his honesty. The acreage number might be off a little, but you should get the concept.

On the expertise of the partner, as I said , I don't know the name. But why don't you tell everyone the names of the 10 companies you view asmost skilled in chalk wells , and lets see if the partner is one of them.

You also say ,maybe Mr. Stringer is looking for a cheap lease and wants to flip it. My property is in sections 17 and 18 in T2S R3E. Have you gotten leases for any clients in that area. If so , what would you feel were fair bonus and royalty rates and what would you define as a 'cheap lease'. Regarding speculator landman types who try to buy cheap leases and flip them to a company that will actually drill, Mr. Stringer refers to them as cockroaches. He is not one of them.

Lastly, if you think legacy lawsuits have not reduced activity in Louisiana, you are either misguided or have another agenda. Think about it. If an operator can go to Texas , Oklahoma, New Mexico, etc without having to deal with  this issue why should he come to Louisiana. Operators should absolutely fully remediate any environmental conditions they create. But if an operator cleans up any environmental condition in accordance with DEQ regs, should he have to worry about getting sued for 50 times the value of the leased property ?

Let's say my property is worth $3million. I've got the eola 1 well on it and that well has produced for 20 years resulting in royalty payments to   me of around $1million . At the end of the lease , I tell Mr. Stringer there is an environmental problem that he needs to remediate. He does so in accordance with DEQ regulations. But because the mineral lease does not spell out restoration obligations, I can still sue him to recover 50 times the value of the property, and if i recover, I don't have to use one penny of that money to remediate the claimed environmental  damage. Is that fair ?  You can tell people on this site that this situation does not inhibit drilling in this state but I think that defies logic. why would an operator come to Louisiana and face this stuff when he  can go to other states and not have to be concerned with extortion at the end of a lease. Maybe operators still come in for the sure things , but i think if a Louisiana project is very risky or marginal, they will want to undertake such a project in another state.

 Just thinking about your statement thanking me for 'coming clean' , and that raises a  few final questions which I will pose to you, and then  as they say, I will hang up and listen.

1.  do you have any relationship with any lawfirm  that files legacy lawsuits in Louisiana ?

2. Have you ever directed landowners to lawfirms to file legacy lawsuits ? and

3.  Have you received anything of value or been promised anything of value by a lawyer or law firm  for referring landowners for the purpose of filing a legacy lawsuit.

Regards, Jack Jurgens

As mr. Stringer has advised, he has a partner that is a huge independent with great experience in austin chalk wells. the name of the company needs to remain confidential at this time.  As I said earlier hearing when  Mr. Stringer told me this,that was all I needed is all I need

Permalink Reply by jack jurgens on January 31, 2018 at 16:41

Hydrocarbonite, everything you say is 100% correct. I hope that Petroguard wants your property, and that Petroguard/Stringer/unnamed partner will be your horse  in the Austin Chalk Derby. JJ

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jack jurgens on January 29, 2018 at 23:57

Well has been producing 3000 barrels per month,not 300.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 30, 2018 at 2:23

jack, welcome to GHS.  Your comments on Petro-Guard are appreciated since there is so little in the public record about the company.  They have been quite successful in flying under the radar considering all that you say they have accomplished.  Maybe EOG can learn something from them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hydrocarbonite on January 30, 2018 at 3:30

Thanks for input Jack. Hope they interested in what we hv to offer this week.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 1, 2018 at 4:52

Jack, as to questions 1 through 3, no.  As to your claim that legacy lawsuits cause the industry to spend their money elsewhere, I will point out one other fact that gets conveniently left out of industry arguments.  Most O&G companies have a limited ability to go somewhere else.  There are a limited number of emerging and established basins in a limited number of states that may be viewed as economic by the average E&P company.  I'm sure that many would love to be in the Permian Basin, if they could afford it.  The Permian and other currently attractive play areas have lots of companies vying for a position and there is little room for new entrants that is why O&G companies will invest wherever they see an opportunity.  The list of LA AC entrants is already impressive and shows conclusively that those companies are not avoiding LA because of legacy litigation. There are additional advantages to operating in LA such as extensive infrastructure and proximity to markets/customers not to mention a very favorable regulatory environment.

Your good deed claim is open to the interpretation of all GHS members however be aware that you follow in a rather long line of industry types that have shown up over the years to push leasing programs.  If you see fit to take that as a punishment, that is your prerogative.  I think we have spent sufficient time on the subject of industry scare tactics.  I invite you to post some facts about Mr. Stringer's operating experience and wells he has drilled with emphasis on any experience he may have with horizontal AC wells.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page