Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on April 14, 2012 at 9:26am

Did that lease include all horizons, pipeline (for no additional pmt), conversion to storage for $5/acre/year FOREVER, the right to drill a water well on the leasehold for a frack water source, force the lessor to warrant and defend title, and NEVER allow for the forfeiture of lease if the lessee does not hold up their end of the contract?

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on April 14, 2012 at 9:54am

Forgot to add that this lease also included ALL the coal associated gases. In Belmont, with all the coal issues, that is just asking for trouble, considering that very few in Belmont still have coal rights intact with their land. You can't lease access to coal gases in coal you don't own.

Permalink Reply by Steven Gardner on April 15, 2012 at 1:01am

Finnbear.. Thanks for posting the permit plat. I've seen some others with 8000 foot bore's but none with that large unit acreage or configuration. Many variations of leases out there and this one is not one I would want.

The lease we signed with Gulfport thru KWGD says 640 ac max but up to 1000 ac if bore line exceeds the 640 ac unit. This is vague but further language says.. "such that a reasonably prudent operator would expect that the entire acreage within such larger unit will be effectively and efficently developed and drained from a central pad site location. The Unit shall to the extent practical parallel and be centered on the lateral bore holes to be drilled within the Unit."

This goes back to my question of a year ago regarding the 500' setback. How do they know they are draining 500' on each side of the bore? .. they don't .. it is ORC mandate. I think time will tell and this may be revised up or down depending on production.

The drilling unit you posted does not look like they could "effectively and efficently develope and drain" all that acreage even with multiple bores...

 

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on April 15, 2012 at 12:19pm

The 500' figure definitely comes from the setback rules as found in OAC 1501:9-1-04 Spacing of wells

The unit I posted looks like what they could hold with one well with leases that have no acreage specification.

I'd bet they are trying to fill in a lot of the "notches" in that unit so they can drill more laterals in the SE direction.

I have also heard there are additional wells planned running NW from this pad location toward Jockey Hollow.

Permalink Reply by Bluflame on April 17, 2012 at 1:43am

  I'm attaching an interesting Gulfport investor presentation. Pages 11-13 show their plans in the Utica. The map on page 11 shows the Wagner well plus two prospects in Belmont County which I have heard they are aggressively pursuing for their 2012 drilling program. Gulfport has also partnered with Mark West who is actively leasing property in NW Belmont County for a major pipeline feeding their processing facilities in Harrison Cty (Cadiz). These are also slated for 2012 completion. This would seem to dovetail nicely with Gulfport's drilling plan. Seems pretty ambitious, but that is the stated plan.

BluFlame

Attachments:

• GPOR_InvestorPres_3-28-12.pdf, 4.7 MB

Permalink Reply by Poison Ivy on April 19, 2012 at 9:05am

Great picture of the Wagner Well. Thanks for taking the time to post it.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page