Add a Comment

Comment by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 11, 2014 at 13:18

Dana, I don't understand what you are asking.  There are only two wells currently permitted in the Spillman Field.  Now is a good time to get some nomenclature straight.  A unit is applied for, it is an application.  A well is permitted, it is a permit.  A unit application is not a well permit.  Unit applications require a notice letter to all mineral and surface interests of record within the proposed unit boundary and adjoining to a distance of 1000'.  If no one on the Interested Party list receiving  the notice letter requests a local conference, the application moves to the Commissioner's Public Hearing docket and is entered into the state database.  An approved unit turns into a Field Order.  A Field Order does not require that the operator drill a well. A well Permit To Drill does not require any notice to the mineral and surface interests in an established unit.  Commonly a unit application is followed by a Field Order which is followed by a well Permit To Drill.

Comment by Dana Melancon on June 11, 2014 at 13:03

I somewhat understand, and thanks, for all the info.. One more question, if ya don't mind, I assume u know there were two permits, for another drilling too which our property also fell into, any info on this would be appreciated ..

Comment by Two Dogs, Pirate on June 11, 2014 at 13:02

The Broadway TMS well that Halcon drilled in Rapides Parish started out as a lease well and was later formed into a unit. Broadway owns all the land in the unit. Large land owners can sometimes get all the royalty paid out for a horizontal well.

Comment by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 11, 2014 at 13:01

SLC is a lease well.  A lease well does not need to be unitized as all the mineral interests (owners/lessees) are under lease to the operator.  Doesn't matter whether that is one or many.  The operator does not need to force pool anyone for that one well.  I wouldn't get too concerned that the SLC is not unitized.  Goodrich (GDP) can file for a compulsory unit order in the future and the odds are that they will.  When discussing wells it is preferable to use section-township-range as opposed to local roads or landmarks.  The surface location for the SLC is Section 81 - 1S  - 2W.  The surface location for the Walker is Section 46 - 1S - 2W.  Everyone who wishes to follow the TMS Play needs to get busy learning the PLSS system. 

Comment by Curious George on June 11, 2014 at 12:48

I'm as green on all this as they come so don't take everything I say as gospel. The "Spillman Rd" well I assume is SLC which is about 4 miles north of Spillman Rd. and accessed from Walker Rd and Harris Corner Rd. my understanding is they permitted the well that is located in that Section but not everyone in that section will benefit from it.

I feel I may need to explain my interpretation of some things. Anyone is welcome to correct me. When a well is permitted and will be running a lateral that will draw oil from multiple mineral owners then a unit is formed. Everyone owning minerals in that unit gets royalties for their percentage o the unit. With the SLC (Melancon/ Spillman) no other mineral owners are affected so a unit was not formed.

Not sure how familiar you are with surrounding land owners but I an talk in farm talk more than technicals. The Walker permitted well will include Woods Rd to the north all TG way to the state line.

Hope this helps. Or you just got to read me rambling.

Comment by Dana Melancon on June 11, 2014 at 11:24

Hey curious George, this is confusing too me so the Spillman road well is only being drilled for one land owner, even though they permitted for the entire block not sure I understand I'm located somewhere out there somewhere and have got my township , section & R1W, so I'm lost as to whether they are or aren't drilling in the blocks that were permitted..

Comment by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 11, 2014 at 11:12

Both wells are in the Spillman Field.  The GDP SLC Inc is a "lease" well and is not unitized at this time.

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

The HK well is TMS RA SUA;WALKER H #1 (as indicated by the name it is a unitized well being the first - SUA - in the Spillman Field).

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

Comment by Steve on June 11, 2014 at 10:24

Does anyone know why GDP would want to deviate from the rectangular and permitted unit design to drill the SLC as a one landowner well ?

I suspect they wanted to hold all of the landowner's leased acreage with just one well. This would not be good for the landowner if this could put his land on a long waiting list for more  wells. If he has a continuous drilling ;ease clause then what would be the benefit to an operator to not form a regular unit? Why would the State allow this? Anyone know ?

Comment by Curious George on June 11, 2014 at 10:11

Which well are you referring to about the field ( I assume you mean unit)?

SLC INC 81H is in section 81. It was originally called the Melancon site but later changed ( not sure why). No unit that I know of associated with this well and from what I see the lateral extends north and will only encompass one land owner

The well in sec 46 is the Walker site, an HK well. There were 3 units applied for in this area. Not sure where to find it but the unit being drilled is basically a rectangle extending from the well site north to the state line.

Comment by Seeing Wells! on June 11, 2014 at 9:40

Is there a map anywhere of what the shape of the immediate field is under this well? I'm sorry to be asking questions in an ignorant manner, but I haven't a clue about the proper language :)

Also, I see this well is in Section 46 of West Feliciana Parish. And I *think* I see where another well has been permitted for Section 81, although, I understand there is a well being worked on ..... WAIT! Are there *really TWO section 81's in WFP?!?!?!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page