Landowner Rights Denied By Moratorium      NY: 6 Years, 3 Months | DRBC: 5 Years, 5 Months

Author Topic: Encana Activity Crawford County  (Read 1421 times)

moleman

  • Posts: 1071
Encana Activity Crawford County
« on: October 06, 2013, 09:42:24 AM »
Found that Encana is acquiring more acerage and looks like they want to tie up most of the West side of the county with a unitization agreement with the State... All of 28N 4W except a few Sections.........  Will apparently be crossing over into Kalkaska County...filed on August 20th. Not sure as to the total size as Kalkaska charges a fee just to look at a listing..... Not a very good sevice to offer the public....IMHO.  Several other filings as well in Crawford ....many in 2013................ Encana quietly massing their position with much infrastructure already in place.....


http://recording.crawfordco.org/recorder/eagleweb/docSearchResults.jsp?searchId=0                         
« Last Edit: October 06, 2013, 12:08:30 PM by moleman »

edwards

  • Posts: 274
Re: Encana Activity Crawford County
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2013, 05:59:47 AM »
EnCana had 6 State leases-classification amendment- in Crawford County (Garfield Twp./Beaver Creek Twp.) from non-development to development or development with restrictions. They also had 10 State leases amended in Kalkaska County (Bear Lake Twp./Excelsior Twp.) from non-development to development with restrictions.

Crawford County.        Garfield Twp.   25N-6W  Sec. 36
                                   Beaver Creek Twp.  25N-4W  Sec. 14, 23, 26

Kalkaska County.         Bear Lake Twp.  27N-5W  Sec. 30
                                   Excelsior Twp.  27N-6W  Sec. 12, 13, 24, 25

moleman

  • Posts: 1071
Re: Encana Activity Crawford County
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2013, 10:04:58 AM »
thanks Ed................ How do you do it?.... handclap

Bertram

  • Posts: 133
Re: Encana Activity Crawford County
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2013, 10:32:42 AM »
I am not sure what exactly some of these new permits from EnCana represent, but the exception on drilling unit size is 1200 acres?  Not this weeks, but last week from DEQ included at least 2-3 of these giant drilling units.  Does anyone understand what they are doing?  Are they planning on running an exceptionally long horizontal, or multiple from a single pad. 

moleman

  • Posts: 1071
Re: Encana Activity Crawford County
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2013, 10:43:28 AM »
Bert: Both...........Several long horizontals from One Large pad .... Their "Resource Play Hub"....


                 http://www.encana.com/about/strategy/hub.html

seapro

  • Posts: 18
Re: Encana Activity Crawford County
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2013, 11:16:07 AM »

Bertram

  • Posts: 133
Re: Encana Activity Crawford County
« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2013, 08:26:52 AM »
I spoke to a land and mineral man who operates in multiple states and he indicated that this 1280 acre drilling unit has been going on in North Dakota for quite a while and has been extremely successful with minimal surface footprint and also allows them to recycle fracturing fluid to lower fresh water use (big argument of ban-frack groups).  This coming to Michigan is really something fascinating.  Mineral owners in these units could make some real money on private land and the multiple bores seem to be a way to really expand production life of a well.
Thanks to the guys on the site that sent over the links. 

wilsontownship

  • Posts: 959
  • I am Fracky DAMMIT!
Re: Encana Activity Crawford County
« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2013, 03:37:18 PM »
I spoke to a land and mineral man who operates in multiple states and he indicated that this 1280 acre drilling unit has been going on in North Dakota for quite a while and has been extremely successful with minimal surface footprint and also allows them to recycle fracturing fluid to lower fresh water use (big argument of ban-frack groups).  This coming to Michigan is really something fascinating.  Mineral owners in these units could make some real money on private land and the multiple bores seem to be a way to really expand production life of a well.
Thanks to the guys on the site that sent over the links.

Bert and others,

Please see my post from 6 months ago about the subject of large DUs in the Bakken relative to the MI basin.  I think my point then is very important and that DU sizes need to be data driven otherwise the intent should be suspect.

Scroll down to see my post in particular that also includes graphical illustration of the production levels in the Bakken.

Please consider this topic closely.  When we reach Bakken productions levels then huge DU's are very justifiable, but not before.

http://www.naturalgasforums.com/smf/index.php/topic,20156.msg253163.html#msg253163

wilson
Charlevoix county:  mineral owner, 40 acres, no lease.  pro-drill.  Live in AZ.

leviely

  • Posts: 112
Re: Encana Activity Crawford County
« Reply #8 on: November 10, 2013, 08:21:19 AM »
Wilsontownship;

I called the NMMOC this weekend to collect a bit more information about what is going to be happening at this week’s series of outreach and the Main meeting in Hillman.

While it was not completely clear to me what this all means to drilling in Michigan there are a slew of new proposed "rules" to deal with horizontal drilling.  This is very new and it seems to new rules are being studied to make sure we understand the ramifications of these new rules to properly account for them in contracts.

An individual intending to lease needs to study this very carefully.  It seems that this set of rules provides further definition of the language utilized in contracts.  The NMMOC is already noticing potential [unintended?] snares.  A casual reader or even a fairly competent thorough study could miss those snares.

It is important for all to remember that it is how some court in the future in Michigan or elsewhere might rule as to the intent of these definitions.  It seems that no matter how much effort is applied to clarify rules new loopholes arise.

The NMMOC has as one of its goals, striving to tighten contract language to avoid possible snares.  I won’t get into specifics here but right in first few pages one notices that the definitions would likely allow a well site to be utilized indefinitely without further payment if it is no longer producing hydrocarbons.  How it does this may not be immediately obvious to all.

A similar snare caught mineral owners in Ohio off guard over the last few years.  An excellent well written contract could minimize and possibly eliminate this snare.  But as one studies this document one wonders what other loopholes are wedged into these definitions that we aren’t seeing.  It is the nature of our government that industries have a great deal of input into the crafting of new laws and rules.  It is possible that even a well intended representative might vote to create loopholes without realizing that consequence. 

I am not in a position to comment further.  I will need to read this very carefully and study the new changes one by one for several months and seek advice.

Check out http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/DRAFT_Hydraulic_Fracturing_Rules_438152_7.pdf

 


Donations

We work on this project completely in our spare time. Donations help go towards ongoing costs related to keeping the site running, including hosting, bandwidth, etc. It also encourages us to commit regular updates, add features, and improve the service.

It isn't required of course, but if you find this site useful, you can donate using the PayPal button