Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 8, 2009 at 15:24

Skin. There are a number of HA Drilling and Production Units encompassing areas greater than 640 acres. And not just those along Toledo Bend or other water bodies. I applaud your activism but would like to offer my opinion that you need something more than a petition and a large turn out of land owners at the pre-conference hearing. You need a compelling reason for the Commissioner to deny the application. And you need to find an O&G attorney who can help the interested land/mineral owners make their case. I suggest you seek some feedback from the members who have attended the application hearings. It is a rare instance when the Commissioner denies an application.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on June 8, 2009 at 22:43

Skip, on the contrary, I would think that the Commission would require a compelling reason to approve a Haynesville application of greater than 640 acres without an accompanying geologic or geographic overriding rational for doing so. It is clear to me that the Commission feels that Haynesville units should be 640 acres in size except in unusual circumstances. I agree that the XTO application should be opposed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on June 11, 2009 at 1:29

Someone referred to having "geologic or geographic overriding rationale" for a unit size. The standard 640 acre unit really has zero geologic rationale, its just how its always been up in north La.; down in South Louisiana the units are based on geology, faults, etc., not section lines. So there is precedent to have 640's based on no real geology and there is precedent to have units shaped like the reservoir. I'm guessing this will be a tough sell but you never know. What XTO may be able to show is that with a 960 configuration, they can get a better layout of wells and drilling pads. But I'm guessing as I haven't read the filing. Will be interesting.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 9, 2009 at 3:24

SB & KB. Hope you are right. Are there instances you can share where a petition and/or a large attendance at a pre-conference or commission meeting was successful in convincing the LOC to deny an application based on the size of the unit? One in which there was no opposition to the application by one or more operators?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 9, 2009 at 4:09

KB. My interest is to identify one or more persons who have been involved in the successful opposition of a unit application. And for them to share with us just what it takes to prevail. I like the idea that landowners will make a concerted attempt to protect their interests with the LOC. I just wish them to know what it takes to be successful. IMO, this goes back to oft discussed decision of paid professional assistance. Personally, I would not try to convince my neighbors that x number of petition signatures or x number of attendees at a meeting would stand a reasonable chance of defeating a unit application unless I knew that the approach had been successful in one or more past instances. A group endeavor provides the option of hiring a professional to advise and coordinate the effort. I would seek the council of an experienced O&G attorney.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cecilia on June 10, 2009 at 11:42

Change in plans. Petrohawk has now applied for a unit in Section 6 of 16n 09w. Knowing Petrohawk had leased heavily in 6, I assumed XTO wanted the larger unit to ensure they were the unit's operator, given that they bought the section 7 rights from Anadarko.

Received the letter from Cook Yancey today. Dated June 9.

Thought anyone following this discussion would be interested. Petrohawk will win this one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 10, 2009 at 11:44

Cecilia. Would you be so kind as to post a copy of the pre-conference letter?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 10, 2009 at 12:09

I'd like to know the practical/geologic reasoning that will be used to justify a unit of this size. Then KB could find that geologist who could refute that reasoning. I like petitions and warm bodies at meetings but we need something more. In order to thwart your adversary, you need to know their strategy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 10, 2009 at 12:33

Jay. Can you give us a referral to a geologist who is in a position to help oppose these types of applications. Maybe a retired one? I can imagine the industry would not look kindly on any that might play that role.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Blake on June 10, 2009 at 13:45

Jack Blake says wothout a doubt the landowners need to have their own geologist. Jack was just this week talking with a guy down in South La about the Haynesville and he was telling Jack horror story about geologist and oil company screwing landowners.
Jack Blake howled "no screwing landowners in the Haynesville Shale!!!!!!"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on June 11, 2009 at 1:33

Jay: are there really geologic reasons for a 640 acre unit? or a 320 acre unit? Based on drainage radius, layout of the reservoir, etc., there really isn't much geologic reason for any of these units with nice square corners. This will be fun to watch. If it works, watch the big jump in units.

I'm involved in some work up in Utah where our unit is 20,000 acres plus. Why? Because that's how big the reservoir is and the unit is based on geology, not section lines. One well holds it, but each year we are faced with possible contraction of the unit if we haven't proven reservoir extent via drilling. Minimum % contraction unless we can show reservoir extent.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on June 10, 2009 at 12:13

This should be stopped, somthing we can agree on!

• ▶ Reply

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