Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on September 6, 2020 at 12:01

Is this a stacked lateral well? If it is then you are probably getting detail from XTO on both wells, one will be #H 1 (or 2, 3, etc...) and the other will be number #B 1 with both having the same name, whereas the figure reported to TRRC is for both wells combined. That would account for "double what you have".

If you will give me the Lease ID number for the well I can look it up to see what I have recorded and then we can compare figures, if you like. I record production on all TX Haynesville wells and have since 2008 so I, no doubt, have production on your well. I just need to know which one it is.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by vigo on September 6, 2020 at 18:29

Actually there two well bores, both paid in a single check each period with Check Detail reporting the combined production.

One is a single lateral reported consistently in the Check Detail throughout the period with the same Property Name: XXXX DU 01H.

The other is a stacked lateral reported in the Check Detail for part of the period with one pair of Property Names:  YYYY DU 01H & YYYY DU O1HB, and for the remainder of the period under the Property Names: YYYY (SL) DU 1H & YYYY (SL) DU 1HB.

 On TRRC, reporting of production for the single lateral well is straightforward - one report covering the single lateral well for the entire period.  Property Name XXXX DU 01H is assigned Lease Number Xxxxxx.  A Production Query on that lease reports production for YYYY DU 01H.

But TRRC reporting for the stacked lateral well is anything but straightforward.

In TRRC, there are three Lease Numbers associated with YYYY Property Names: YYYY DU 01H, YYYY DU 01HB and YYYY (SL) DU 1SL.

Property Name YYYY DU 01H is assigned Lease Number Yaaaaa.  A Production Query on that lease reports ZERO production for YYYY DU 01H from its date of completion.

 Property Name YYYY DU 01HB is assigned Lease Number Ybbbbb.  A Production Query on that lease reports ZERO production for YYYY DU 01HB from its date of completion.

Both of these properties show up on an Inactive Well Query for this Field and Operator.

On TRRC there are no properties named YYYY (SL) DU 1HB or YYYY(SL) DU 1HB.  Instead, there is a single property named YYYY (SL) DU 1SL which is assigned Lease number Yccccc.  A Production Query on this lease reports production for YYYY (SL) DU 1SL reflecting combined production from the stacked laterals.  I know this because there is a Form G-1 on file for Lease Number Yccccc describing it as a fictitious record filed to set up an RRC number for reporting production from stacked lateral wells with Lease Numbers Yaaaaa and Ybbbbb.

In both cases, the production reflected in the Check Detail is roughly double that reported from TRRC over identical periods - 96 months for XXXX DU 01H, and 103 months for YYYY (SL) DU 1SL.

I am trying to figure out how this can be and what it means.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on September 7, 2020 at 3:41

I can't hep you if you won't at least tell me the unit name. I told you the only hypothetical I could think of.

I do know there is one unit that RRC has the production all screwed up on. They are lumping production from three wells onto one lease ID because one of those wells had the wrong parent well number on the permit when it was drilled years after the initial well. It happens. I got them to correct the parent well permit number and they will figure it out eventually, I guess. They aren't real good at listening to outsiders.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by vigo on September 7, 2020 at 7:06

Thanks for responding.

I provided a sketch of what information is available on RRC for these properties using proxies for the actual Property Names and Lease Numbers. For privacy reasons I will not provide the real identifiers.

Unless you are a subscription user on RRC or have some other inside connection unavailable to the public, I have access to all of the production information you do.  So there is nothing to be gained by making the identifying data public.

I was hoping someone might have encountered or heard of production reporting mismatches like this and could shed some light on how and why they might occur.

On the surface, it doesn't make sense that an operator could produce, sell, and pay royalties on gas without reporting that production to RRC.  Aren't they required by law to report production to the RRC?  Is there some way an operator can get away with skating around that requirement?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 7, 2020 at 9:50

If you do not wish to post information where anyone can read it, the website provides an option to communicate from personal page to personal page.  A personal page can be set where only "friends" can access it.  And, as far as I can tell, if you do not "approve" a post on your page wall, it is not visible to anyone including friends.  A member must send a friend request or accept one they receive to set up the option.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rock Man on September 9, 2020 at 4:59

If gas is going to a processing plant, the reported volumes that are reported to the Tx RRC will be different (usually higher) than what the post processing residue gas on the check stub will indicate. This is due to "gas shrinkage" as NGL's are stripped out for the raw full well stream gas.

As you know, the NGL's are never reported to the Tx RRC since they are plant by products.

But sometimes (e.g. Eagle Ford / Karnes Co), some condensate liquids reported to Tx RRC are "switched" to the NGL category for revenue purposes based on their hydrocarbon make up.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by vigo on September 16, 2020 at 5:10

Thanks Rock Man, I was not aware that NGL's are not to reported to Tx RRC, but "gas shrinkage" is not the issue here.  It's the opposite - "gas expansion" . The volumes in my Check Detail are roughly 2X (double) what I see on Tx RRC.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on September 8, 2020 at 3:34

I sent you a friend request. If you accept it then we can talk via site email.

• ▶ Reply