Antero Resources Meeting in Senecaville June 19

I kept waiting for someone to post this information to see how widely it was disseminated, but so far I haven't seen any confirmation here.  (If indeed this has been posted, I apologize for the duplicate entry.)


This is what I know: my parents received an announcement card--dropped off, not in the mail--informing them of an upcoming meeting to be conducted by Antero Resources' representatives.  My parents are under lease with Antero, as are most of their neighbors in Beaver Township, Noble County, so naturally my mother mentioned this meeting in casual conversation, but no one seemed to know about it.  My mother called other neighbors, and they didn't receive any notice either.  So she called Antero and was told there was no large mailout to other leaseholders, but my parents were given the notice in the hope that they would let others know! (Oh c'mon!)

Anyway, my mother was advised that indeed, some major principals traveling from Colorado to give everyone interested an overview of Antero's progress and various operational developments in Ohio.  In my mind, despite the lack of promotion, this is a significant outreach in the company's core area and would be worth attending.  I was hoping that others would go and report back; my parents will likely attend, but they are elderly and don't have the internet, so they wouldn't be posting any first-hand reports.

Here are the details as I know them:

Antero Resources Community Meeting--June 19, 2013

5PM to 7PM

Robert T. Secrest Senior Center

201 High Street, Senecaville, OH (Guernsey County)

I went to the Senior Center's website and this meeting was not listed on its calendar or activities list, but I'm not certain the website is closely maintained.

If anyone can confirm this meeting or wishes to discuss it afterwards, perhaps this thread can be used to consolidate comments or reactions (if indeed, the meeting does occur).

Views: 5793

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Donna Miller on June 24, 2013 at 2:10pm

Bob, you have mentioned "dog and pony show" several times. Now I wish I would have went.

Permalink Reply by Jeffery McLaughlin on June 26, 2013 at 5:46pm

lol

Permalink Reply by Kathi Albertson on June 24, 2013 at 4:17pm
Bob,

I don't have time tonight to answer all of your questions but will try to answer those that are most important to me keeping in mind that my background is far removed from G & O but am trying to learn what I can. I feel certain others could do a better job.

Re. How a pad can be placed on a parcel of land for directional drilling and that parcel not get included in the drilling unit (which is allowed by ORC 1509.022) The senerio could go like this. A g & o company could get the lease to drill under a large tract like a state park that will not allow a rig in the park. That company also has the lease for the 40 acre strip next to the park but can't get it for the land on the other side. They could place the pad on the south east corner and shoot out only in that direction and not include the land with the pad in the unit. The chance of it happening this way is remote since they want to drill in more than one direction with their expensive equipment but it is not outside the realm of possibility. It is legal but the Ohio Farm Bureau is working very diligently with legislators to get the law amended to at least require negotiations with the land owner to do so.

As for the issue of a spud fee on HPB land, it is my understand that it depends on the damage clause in the old lease as well as the number of acres in the damage clause. For more info on that you can call Kirt Sloan, the Antero surface land man at 304.622.3842. He was at the meeting to answer those questions.

As for the second well being "required" under an old lease, if you look back, my phrase was "provision to drill another well". The leases in question are from the 70's and in searching in the recorders office I found the same boiler plate lease used by 3 different drillers active in Guernsey county at the time. The lease gives the driller "the right of drilling on the premises whether to offset producing wells on adjacent or adjoining lands or otherwise as the Lessee may elect.". I understand the 40 acre per well requirement but we have a lease for more than 40 acres although only 40 are in the unit. The previous owner did not have a Pugh clause.

These were some of the issues that I went to the meeting to learn about. Perhaps others can answer your other questions.
Permalink Reply by Kathi Albertson on June 29, 2013 at 3:03pm

Bob,

Thanks for the good information. I'm sure that anyone with land adjacent to land under the control of the state will find it helpful.  That includes everyone with property adjacent to the state parks as well. Hopefully, we will get some further clarification from the legislature and/or ODNR.  The Ohio Farm Bureau is working on it.

Permalink Reply by Mark Allen on July 1, 2013 at 4:21am

how do you think the MWCD and the state are linked?   This is a  conservation district.  The lease is there own, not the states, you are tryin to make a mountain out of a mole hole.   Slow down your inaccurate info and quit creating such a stir.

We the people have rights, one of them being the use of private lands and the ownership of real estate and minerals beneath.  The language of a lease between parties regulate the majority of happenings here. But do not make the assumption that state and MWCD are the same.

 

Permalink Reply by Carl Krebsbach on June 26, 2013 at 8:03am

Does anyone have any figures for how much can be negotiated for a pooling amendment for an old lease that currently does not allow pooling?

Also, has anyone successfully determined that an old lease is producing in non-paying quantities?  What sort of gas pressure would be typical of such a well? These particular wells are listed with the ODNR as "abandoned", and have no production records on file.

Thanks,

Carl

Permalink Reply by The Hiker on June 26, 2013 at 9:50am

One neighbor with an old Beck lease where the pooling paragraph was struck out by the original landowner was offered first $1000/acre to sign an amendment to cure this, and then as part of the larger Beck/XTO/Antero deal offered $3000/acre.   Another friend (not in the Beck group) was offered $1000/acre to sign a similar "pooling" amendment, and did do just that along with many neighbors in his area.  I think, as with leasing, more contiguous acres gives you more negotiating power on this question (which my friend was unable to talk the neighbors into doing).  However, one other neighbor with an old Oxford lease (pooling clause struck out) was unable to come to agreement over this issue, and now the drilling units in the area are obviously being drawn to exclude his acreage....so these guys are human....and if you push them too far, they may just walk away and fry some fish elsewhere, even if it hurts them.

Permalink Reply by Kathi Albertson on June 26, 2013 at 9:56am
This is great information and very helpful to those of us that have yet to be approached re. pooling amendments.
Permalink Reply by Carl Krebsbach on June 26, 2013 at 11:04am

Thanks, Hiker.

Might mandatory pooling come into play, I wonder?

Permalink Reply by Jeffery McLaughlin on June 27, 2013 at 4:07pm

TO FAR AWAY FROM ME AGAIN! THANKS FOR SHARING THOUGH! BOB

Permalink Reply by Carl Krebsbach on July 3, 2013 at 8:33am

Myron Unit 2H was added to the map 6/28  It is in Seneca Twp Sec 15 (to the west of the Dollison Unit).  It shows three laterals running NNW under Seneca Lake.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service