I just saw the pooling order on OAP for Casillas (applicant) on 21/6N/4W. The date of the Order #717186 is March 8th. So, does the 20 day rule (per M_Barnes) begin as of that date or when I receive it in the mail? I have a lease agreement from Osage but have not signed. I am inexperienced in legal language to be able to read and understand these documents. I was hoping that someone knowledgeable might enlighten me as to whether the pooling order is OK or not. I think Mr. Todd Baker has an interest in this unit. I would be very appreciative to hear his comments or any and all others. Thanks
The 20 days begins the date of the Order. If you aren’t named as a respondent then that Order does not affect your mineral interest. I believe there are only 4-5 respondents. The purpose of this pooling appears to be a clean up for some parties missed previously.
20 days begins as of the date of the order. Pooling orders are what they are. They are essentially a short term agreement for a particular reservoir(s). In this case, the pooling is for a horizontal well that will be a multi-unit with 21 & 28. Reservoirs listed are the Mississippian and Woodford. The wording on this one is fairly standard.
Many of us would consider choosing the higher royalty options of 1/5th or 1/4. Personally, I would choose the 1/4th. The first well drilled under the original order was to the Mississippian. The second well is designed to go to the Woodford.
If you do not understand the lease that you are offered, then get legal help quickly as first drafts of leases usually need some negotiation to get them more in the mineral owner’s favor. Are you on the pooling list? If so, then your time is tight to either get the lease signed before the 20 days or to get a response back on the pooling in 20 days. In many cases, I prefer a pooling over a bad lease.
My practice is to send my election to the address provided and to also file it with the OCC as an additional point of confirmation. Registered mail is a good idea.
Thanks for the attention. I have since learned from someone representing Osage that the Pooling order hearing is set for 3/22/21. What I thought was the order appears to be what TMB describes as a “clean up”. So I assume we will receive that order shortly after the 22 of March. I am only waiting on the Pooling Order to be able to compare with the Lease from Osage. I am sure there are others in the same boat. I assume that that is prudent. Can the New pooling Order change significantly from this “clean up”? Does anyone know what happened with the Ovintiv issue? I have not heard anything more about this for a while now.
thanks again.
nobshere: You need to have the folks at Osage send you a copy of the “pooling application that is to be heard 3/22/21” as I don’t believe there is a Pooling Application that has been filed yet. In short, there were many folks that were already leased when the original pooling was filed so they weren’t part of that pooling, but their lessees and assigns should have been. Their leases had depth clauses and therefore, are only held to the base of the deepest depth drilled that was the Mississippi. So their leases expired below that depth. That depends on the actual language of each lease. If Casillas is a prudent operator, they will pool all of those parties for the Woodford formation this time around and that is what I have been told. But to date, I haven’t seen that new pooling filed, only the Density & Location Exceptions. As to what has happened to Ovintiv, they only wanted to force the issue to have more wells drilled and are allowing Casillas to be the operator so we shouldn’t hear from them again for this unit. Hope this helps some.
I am with Todd. I do not see a pooling order for March 22, 2021-yet. Only Horizontal cases. 202002055 is to reopen for a modification of the location of the proposed well Whistle Pig 1. 202002056 is for a modification of the location of the proposed well Whistle Pig 2. The pooling order for 21 (202002057) only had 10 respondents-mostly institutions.
“OCC hearing has been set for 3/22/2021.” <<< Direct email message from Osage referring to pooling order.
I only assumed that we would be getting a new Pooling Order for the new depth formations. My existing lease (Indultado well) does have a depth clause. However, this time around I am going to go with a 1/4 royalty. Osage has this 1/4 interest in their new lease that I have. I just want to protect that option. Doesn’t Casillas have to file for a new pooling order for those of us that have a depth clause?
N
I am all jealous. There is always talk of this location, and I have no acres there !
Just to be sure that I don’t miss something… will the pooling order be posted at the OAP only. Is that where you get the information that you refer to? I check that site daily. The last I read was that a pooling was continued to February 23rd, 2001. Is that what you have seen?
N
If you are a respondent to the any poolings you should get a mailing if your name and address are properly filed in the county courthouse where the minerals are located. Yes, the cases are posted on the OCC OAP area.
thank you. I am leased for the Indultado well. Same location. Osage has sent a new lease for this new well. So I assume I am filed properly. I sure get a lot of mail from Helms!
The only March 22, 2021 I see mentioned on OAP is a Notice of Hearing and Motion to Reopen. I am contacting Osage today get some clarification.
I am now more confused than ever. I did contact Osage about the pooling application as suggested by Mr. Baker, I was told that the Order # 717186 was indeed the final pooling order for Section 21 and that there would be no further pooling order forthcoming on Section 21 and that section 28 would be finalized next week and then the Multi Unit will then be ready to drill. That sounds like more than a “clean up”. I have received no mail from anyone indicating anything about any pooling order. Should I have? Osage said the pooling became final on Monday. Please un-confuse me if anyone can. I have never accepted pooling and do not know what to expect.
Do you have a current lease on section 21? Sounds like you have one, but the wording of your depth clause would be important. Has Osage offered you a lease on 21 for the deeper portion of the minerals? Sounds like it. Did you get a mailing for the current cleanup pooling? Did you check the respondents list to see if you are related to anyone on it? Something sounds a bit odd regarding them not pooling folks that had a depth clause. There are probably several other folks in your same situation. They would rather get you leased than have to go back to the expense of pooling again. If you did receive the pooling order then you can choose to answer it or you only have a few days left to do so or to lease.
Thanks M , I have an existing lease with Casillas in this section and it does have a depth clause. I have received a new lease for the proposed wells from Osage. I have seen the “clean up” pooling and I am not on the respondents list of that order. Order # 717186 I am sure that there are others with my same questions… I know of three myself. Osage says that this “Clean up” pooling order is all that there will be forthcoming. I have a call into Casillas to see if this is the case.
However, if this is indeed the only forthcoming pooling order, how does one respond to it to accept pooling at 1/4? Also, this pooling order cash consideration for 1/4 is $750 but the offered lease from Osage is $375. It seems that if Osage is stating matter-of-factly that case # 717186 is the final pooling order, they should be willing to match the cash amount. The bonus is not the most critical thing… but it is a consideration.
Finally, we may have been classmates at U of SC geology. I doubt it, but small world. Spend any time in 5 Points? 
I would demand the $750 myself since it is clearly stated. Oil prices are back where they were right before the bust, so can’t hurt to ask. I know of more than one person in the same boat, so it seems like they need to offer another pooling on 21.
I was at USC '81-'83. Spent some time in 5 Points! Couldn’t spend much on a grad student stipend, but enjoyed a few cheap places.
Well… thank you Ms. Barnes! I agree. But I have a case-call into Casillas to resolve this Pooling question. The order, if valid, was made final on March 8th, so I have a few days. They should get back with me today. This may become a game of Chicken between me and Osage. I hope Casillas can be of help.
BTW… not much has changed in 5P’s.
If you are not a respondent to a Pooling Order, you cannot be bound by its terms and no attempted election you make binds you to the Order. There will be another Pooling Application for all those owners that had depth clauses of all sorts, shapes and sizes. A prudent operator would not drill a well without what they believe to be one hundred percent of the unit spoken for.
1 Like
So Mr. Barns… I am not specifically named as a Respondent in the “clean up” pooling order, and Osage stating that this order is final is (shall we say…) an untruth?
Those respondents listed on the cleanup order are the only ones they are addressing on that order. If you have a depth clause on the first Indultado well and are not currently leased for the Woodford for the next well(s), then contact Casillas and Osage and let them know. There seem to be quite a few folks in that position. They would need to lease or pool in order to move ahead on the next wells at a deeper zone.