Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Andrew Walker on April 7, 2009 at 2:04

...the law, not me, says that a unit should be no larger than the area that one well can drain. I don't believe this is appropriate for the Haynesville and I believe we need a new law ASAP!

Permalink Reply by Andrew Walker on April 7, 2009 at 2:05

Also...the Office of Conservation has dealt with faults successfully in the past...adjustments are easily made after submission of geological evidence at hearings.

Permalink Reply by Andrew Walker on April 7, 2009 at 2:09

Actually such a system was run successfully for decades in Lousiana...it IS practical. Yes it restrained some operators, but it also required others to keep up the pace. The result was balanced drilling and production and equal protection. Everyone knew the rules and everyone played by them...and EVERYONE benefitted!

Permalink Reply by Greedy Landowner on April 6, 2009 at 11:43

Well, honestly, I'm not going to write Gov. Jindal because I respectfully disagree with you. I have small tracts in three different townships with haynesville wells next door to one and basically surrounding the other, but I don't feel like this is unfair. I think it is business, and I know that it will come. I see the potential for your argument, but I think it exist only in a theoretical realm because they are literally drilling as fast as they can to get the units held. They are interested in making the most $$$ for their resource, which is my goal as well. If waiting 5 years to get drilled means it sells for $10 per thousand, I'm cool with that. If they choke it back to a trickle and it sells at $10 per thousand for the next 20 years, I'm cool with that too. I do wish you well in your endeavors though. Reading your website and opinion was educational for me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Walker on April 7, 2009 at 3:28

It's ok to disagree with me, "Greedy landowner," and I still encourage you to write Jindal. Tell him you disagree and tell him why. We are going to make double and triple sure that Jindal takes a look at this this month and your opinion is important.

By the way, the above reply by KB hit the nail on the head. He is absolutely correct. Forget my ramblings...EVERYONE should read KB's comments.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bud on April 9, 2009 at 13:39

I sent a letter to a law firm representing Chesapeake on this subject several months ago. I was responding to a proposed unit of over 900 acres requested near the Texas line. A number of these are being proposed. I also attended a public meeting in Shreveport on this proposal and made the same comments. Here is the text of the letter I sent. I got no response to the letter, and was treated somewhat rudely when I made the comments at the meeting. The basic response was "you have no property in this unit, so what is your interest". When I stated I was concerned with precedent, they still questioned why I had any interest in the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 12, 2008

4310 Camelot Drive
Vicksburg, MS 39180

Randall C. Songy
Onebane Law Firm
1200 Camellia Boulevard, Suite 300
Lafayette, Louisiana 70502-3507

Dear Mr. Songy:

Reference is made to your letter of November 3, 2008, concerning the Haynesville Zone, Reservoir A, in the Greenwood-Waskom Field. This is the proposal to combine Sections 17 and 18 of R16W, T16N into one large unit of 961 acres. My family and I own property and mineral rights in Sections 4 and 5 one mile to the north. Although our property is not in the area directly impacted, I am sure combining sections will set a precedent that will ultimately impact our property. I have several concerns with this proposal from the view of a landowner, and some concerns about the whole way this process is being handled, which seems to favor the oil and gas companies over the property owners. Some of my concerns as a landowner are as follows:

-Having one well hold a very large unit does not seem fair to the landowners.

-Larger units give an advantage to large companies due to financial requirements for leasing and drilling, and limit the chances of smaller companies to compete.

-Larger units may make it more difficult to get all the landowners to lease due to the actual number of people involved and could result in it being difficult to produce some areas.

-The rationale for creating these very large units seems to be based on outdated rationale used for old technologies and other very different formations.

Regarding the process for this notice, a review of the list of interested parties notified provides more concern. I found very outdated addresses for several members of my family, some family members missing altogether, along with the address of my stepfather who has been deceased for almost 25 years. Second, the wording of the notice is very confusing using legal terms and references very unfamiliar to average citizens. Third, the time given to respond to the notice is very short considering the magnitude of what is being proposed. Fourth, it is not reasonable or fair to hold a public hearing several hundred miles away from where the property that is being impacted.

I request that a pre-conference hearing be held at a more reasonable location, such as Shreveport. Thank you for considering these matters. Please provide a response in writing to my concerns.

Sincerely,


William E. Arnold

Attachments:

• Unit Letter 12 Nov 08.doc, 25 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Walker on April 9, 2009 at 14:56

Thanks for sharing your letter, Mr. Arnold. Very few landowners understand what is going on with the unitization. Fewer still have have the initiative to voice their concerns, and fight to correct this corrupt system. Could you do me a favor and write Governor Jindal explaining your views?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bud on April 10, 2009 at 14:32

My sister has already sent a letter to Jindal and I will try to get one out also.

• ▶ Reply

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