I've got one of the older leases with Shell. Recently I was contacted because they want to amend the unit size in the lease from 640 to 1280 acres. I'm already in a recorded unit and have received the map. The well pad is completed waiting for the rig to move in. I can't think of a single reason why I would want to agree to this. My neighbor thinks that Shell is trying to gerrymander a lot of existing units together so that they can lock in some of these old leases around us to keep them from expiring. They also want to add a shut-in clause to my lease. Anybody else getting contacted by Shell to do this or any thoughts? One question - would the lack of a shut-in clause in the lease prevent them from shutting-in the well?
I'd really love to see some actual data on this issue. I think overall it would be better to have bigger units because the surface disturbance would be almost half. I realize an individuals person interest or percentage of a well would decrease but at the same time in theory more gas would be produced and they would be participating in more wells from the one unit. I'd really like to see some numbers though. This seems to have two benefits to the drillers. 1. Less cost for well pad construction. 2. They can lock up more land. and maybe a third if it's true they can get better flow rates with longer laterals, which is also good for the mineral owner. I guess I would be in favor of such an ammendment if all my land was in the unit. If all my land was not in the unit I would trade my signing of on the bigger unit for a quality pugh clause. It seems fair.
It really amazes me they can drill a mile down and then turn the direction and keep drilling for who know how far. It's really some amazing engineering.