Should there be a limit on long they can flare a well?

http://www.register-herald.com/todaysfrontpage/x623730749/Illegal-f...

Views: 1786

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Philip Brutz on December 16, 2011 at 8:48am

If this is not addressed in the lease then does the landowner with the test well lose money to prove that a play is worth developing?

2s72s0k9mm8gdPermalink Reply by 2s72s0k9mm8gd on December 16, 2011 at 3:39pm

The way I see it the O&G is breaking the LAW by exceeding the 30 days PERIOD. Thus they should be held accountable to the landowner for every cubic inch of gas wasted after the allowed 30 day period. Bet a good lawyer could run with this and get them compensated and himself paid as part of the damages...IN THE LEASE OR NOT. Sounds like a Law Suit in the making!

If an O&G wants to experiment then let them outright buy acreage for , say , $50,000/acre and experiment away! Don't waste some poor mans future royalties. Why should the landowner pay for this? It ain't our job to take the risk out of their endeavor!

Permalink Reply by Philip Brutz on January 2, 2012 at 12:04pm

I understand that they need to flare off water and other byproducts.  They also need to establish if the well produces enough to justify spending 100 million dollars on a pipeline.  My question is who pays for the gas that is flared off for months?  If it is not spelled out in the lease then the mineral owner gets nothing for the most productive period of the wells life.

2s72s0k9mm8gdPermalink Reply by 2s72s0k9mm8gd on January 2, 2012 at 12:20pm

The fact that the poor soul who owns the land is losing out on this well is what is troublesome to me. But , hopefully , there will be many more future wells to draw from. That's the breaks I guess. The couple wells drilled in my area are close to a Tennessee Pipeline so that might explain them not being flared off so long. Thanks Homer.

Permalink Reply by Philip Brutz on January 2, 2012 at 8:43am
Permalink Reply by Mud on January 3, 2012 at 4:54am

This from the original article:

The gas coming from the wells is 97 percent methane, according to an analysis in the permit application, with ethane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, propane, butane, and sulfur composing the rest.

There's no mention of water there. Does that get excluded from the analysis or something since they are trying to find out what else is there?  I agree they should be paying royalties for what they have illegally burned off. Those are the landowner's biggest checks going up in smoke. Dunno what a judge would say because law isn't always related to fairness but it would be the right thing to do. 

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service