Looking at permit information on RRC site for Evergreen Unit 12 1H, there is a note that the 479.8 acres are being removed from acreage for Evergreen 1 1H. So the 960 acres for Evergreen 1 1H well has been reduced by 479.8 acres to 480.2 acres. The plat for Evergreen Unit 12 1H shows the unit is comprised of West 239.9 acres from Section 1 and West 239.9 acres from Section 12. You should print the 2 plats to see how they overlap your mineral acreage. If you own the same percentage under all of the 960 acres, your royalty DOI will be the same for both wells, regardless as to how the acreage is allocated between the wells. Since these are being treated as separate producing units, you will receive a new division order fro the Evergreen 12 1H after it is drilled. You should create a well file for each well to contain all of the permit and completion information as it become available on the RRC site, division orders, correspondence, etc. Apache filed a P-12, Certificate of Pooling, for Evergreen Unit 12 1H, listing Roye Boys Partnership et al for Tract 1 and JG Gawlik et al for Tract 2. Ask Apache for a copy of the DPU (Designation of Pooled Unit) which will be recorded in deed records. I am not sure if you will be asked to ratify if you own under the entire well acreage. Apache has not filed a completion report or reported any volumes for Evergreen 1 1H well. I found the spud and drilling dates on a subscription service.
Much thanks TennisDaze. Your information has been most helpful. It would be nice if somewhere could be found how to interpret the PLAT, I’ve looked high and low.
Both wells are contained completely within my sections . The first PLAT lists 960 acres (called) and includes the Evergreen 1 1H spanning both of my sections within the drawn gray boundary lines. This area does exclude about 1/4 of each section above and below the well. Not sure what that means.
The second PLAT for Evergreen 12 1H shows part of the original gray area of first PLAT being separated into two smaller tracts of 239.9 acres each, again outlined with gray lines and enclosing the entire well start to finish but now separated out from the original area of the first PLAT.
I am guessing that means my interests are completely included in the original 960 acres since total of my sections only comes to 60 acres. Hopefully I am interpreting this correctly.
I have a question about a well being drilled in blk 4 sec 82 hgn ab 5662. It appears from the w-1 that the vertical well is being drilled on our section and the lateral or horizontal well is permitted as exploration and it runs across sec 79. Is this seen as as two seperate wells or one. Secondly do we share all minerals with block 79 or do they seperate the royalties. Boreas #79 388-34977
Marcus T, thank you so much!
I don’t have a subscription service. Any more recent info posted?
Am planning to request a release of lease.
Ann, how/why does one request a release of lease?
Is this something the lessee would file with the clerk’s office so that other companies know you’re available to lease? If so, are they required to file it, or is it just a courtesy?
It’s nice to have a Release filed of record but the info. should be available if a landman does a search.
Whether a Lesee is required to prepare one and/or file one of record depends on the lease provisions.
Kerry – first, Arris Operating Co. represents that they have the leases in all of SEC 79 and, at least, the lease(s) in SEC 82 adjacent to SEC 79 where the vertical portion of the single well is being drilled, the BOREAS 79 #1H, 389-34977, spud 9/11. While this well’s surface location is in SEC 82, the horizontal lateral that is being drilled now and planned to be perforated and produced is entirely in a pooled drilling unit comprising all of SEC 79. Thus SEC 82 would not share in the royalties from said well. Hope this helps. Later – Buzz
Can anyone tell me if CWEI has a rig on Section 26, Block C-7 PSL (A-5261)?
It’s beside or in Toyah Lake bed SE of Pecos (not town of Toyah).
From the ‘For What It’s Worth Department’: I thought this was interesting… a year or so ago some on the board were complaining that Anadarko was not drilling enough in Reeves County. Those of you will be interested in knowing that of 26 O&G wells now being drilled in Reeves Anadarko is drilling 6 of them. Later – Buzz
Buzz Thank you for taking time to answer this question. So i am sure, your thought is there will be no royalties to the lease holders in sec 82. If that is so when we get to the expiration of the lease in August 2016 the property will not be held by production and can be renegotiated. Am i understanding this correctly?
I have what I call my Self Release Clause that I like to include in my Addendum To Lease.
In the event that a producing well exists at the end of the primary term on these lands or a unitized portion of the same, this lease shall terminate as to all non-producing formations 100 feet below the deepest producing formation. If production is not secured on this lease by the end of the primary term, then Lessee shall grant a release of lease to Lessor. Such release shall be made in favor of Lessor, in a form suitable for recording of record, within 30 days of the expiration of the lease. If such release is not furnished, Lessor shall have the right to execute an affidavit of termination of lease, which shall serve as a release.
Thank you Buzz, Fred & T. Daze.
Kerry -– it will not be held by production from the BOREAS 79 #1H.
Ann – RigData w/e 10/9 does not show any Clayton Williams well being drilled in Reeves.
Later – Buzz
Fred, a Permit is all I’ve been able to find out about.
My lease expired 10/1 unless they spudded by then.
Ann - The only thing I see in A-5261 is a drilling permit issued to CW.
http://webapps.rrc.state.tx.us/DP/drillDownQueryAction.do?fromPubli…
It is best to have a release of an expired lease as that clears your title. Responsible oil companies filed releases in the past. Many companies today just ignore this obligation. But it is a cloud on title. Ask your lessee to file a release or else give you an executed release that you can file. Many landman do not have the the time to research whether or not there was never a well drilled or whether production has ceased and the lease has now expired and determine that your tract is open. Drilling title opinions often cite this problem and a subsequent lessee has to get a third party statement regarding the cessation of production and expiration of lease. If your lessee refuses to give you a release, consider filing an affidavit noting the primary term of your lease has passed with no drilling or that production ceased on or about X date and so your lease appears to have expired.
Kerry – notice on the plat that there are two previous horizontal wells (drilled by Petrohawk in 2011 & 2012) – one ‘Rolwing’ and one ‘Folk’ – drilled side-by-side on SEC 34.
Later – Buzz
Wade If you have the time and interest would you comment on this lease: FOLK ROLWING A 4-34 33 - Well #1H and the response from the rrc found in this link. Drilling Permits - General Exception… Boreas 79 1H. Wellhead in section 82 the horizontal runs across the lease line and terminates in sec 79. There seems to be nothing in the permit for the royalty owners in sec 82. Again thank you for your time in responding to this.
Buzz You can see I asked Wade about this. Truth is my degrees are in Psychology and Theology. So, while I think I understand the basics this seems complicated to me. As you compare the two different leases what do you see? Thanks again for your interest. K
Kerry – this may relate to your situation… Later — Buzz
RE: SILVERBACK OPERATING, LLC
Pending Approval, Submitted: 10/12/2015
FOLK ROLWING A 4-34 33 - Well #1H
http://webapps.rrc.state.tx.us/DP/drillDownQueryAction.do?fromPubli…
Remark: Commission Staff expresses no opinion as to whether a 100% ownership interest in each of the leases alone or in combination with a “production sharing agreement” confers the right to drill across lease/unit lines or whether a pooling agreement is also required. However, until that issue is directly addressed and ruled upon by a Texas court of competent jurisdiction it appears that a 100% interest in each of the leases and a production sharing agreement constitute a sufficient colorable claim to the right to drill a horizontal well as proposed to authorize the removal of the regulatory bar and the issuance of a drilling permit by the Commission, assuming the proposed well is in compliance with all other relevant Commission requirements. Issuance of the permit is not an endorsement or approval of the applicant’s stated method of allocating production proceeds among component leases or units. All production must be reported to the Commission as production from the lease or pooled unit on which the wellhead is located and reported production volume must be determined by actual measurement of hydrocarbon volumes prior to leaving that tract and may not be based on allocation or estimation. Payment of royalties is a contractual matter between the lessor and lessee. Interpreting the leases and determining whether the proposed proceeds allocation comports with the relevant leases is not a matter within Commission jurisdiction but a matter for the parties to the lease and, if necessary, a Texas court of competent jurisdiction. The foregoing statements are not, and should not be construed as, a final opinion or decision of the Railroad Commission.
Date Entered: 10/08/2015 03:12:27 PM