Oklahoma City Association of Professional Landmen RSS Feed

Luncheon on 6-Feb-12 11:30 AM

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:30:00 GMT

Luncheon
Start Date: 6-Feb-12 11:30 AM
End Time: 6-Feb-12 1:00 PM
Location: Downtown Petroleum Club
Speaker: John Mackechnie

Event Details:

EDUCATIONAL LUNCHEON

Downtown Petroleum Club

11:30-1:00

Speaker - John Mackechnie,
Gum, Puckett & Mackechnie
Topic - Did a homesteaders’ grant to a railroad of an interest
in a strip of land convey the fee or an easement?

worth 1 cpl/rpl point

Member or Guest - $30

RESERVATIONS ARE REQUIRED!!!

Reserve your spot by Friday, February 3rd

Downtown Petroleum Club

Monday Night Meeting Presidents Night on 6-Feb-12 5:00 PM

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:00:00 GMT

Monday Night Meeting "Presidents Night"
Start Date: 6-Feb-12 5:00 PM
End Time: 6-Feb-12 8:00 PM
Location: Oklahoma History Center
Speaker: Jack Richards

Event Details:

"PAST PRESIDENTS NIGHT"

5:00 cocktails

6:15 dinner

Speaker - Jack Richards, AAPL President

Topic - "What's Happening at AAPL"

worth 1 cpl/rpl point

Members Free - Guests - $30
Please reserve your spot by Friday, February 3rd, 5:00

RESERVATIONS REQUIRED ONLY IF STAYING FOR DINNER

Oklahoma History Center

OCAPL/OU EM Regional Food Bank Opportunity on 26-Feb-12 1:00 PM

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:00:00 GMT

OCAPL/OU EM Regional Food Bank Opportunity
Start Date: 26-Feb-12 1:00 PM
End Time: 26-Feb-12 4:00 PM
Event Details:

OCAPL/OU EMSA VOLUNTEER EVENT
Sunday, February 26 from 1-4
Regional Food Bank MAP
Register by emailing Aaron Ivey at aaron@jackforkland.com
T-shirts will be provided the day of the event.
Please provide shirt size when registering.
SPACE IS LIMITED SO SIGN UP TODAY!

Luncheon on 5-Mar-12 11:30 AM

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:30:00 GMT

Luncheon
Start Date: 5-Mar-12 11:30 AM
End Time: 5-Mar-12 1:00 PM
Event Details:

Not available for registration at this time.

Monday Night Meeting on 5-Mar-12 5:00 PM

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 23:00:00 GMT

Monday Night Meeting
Start Date: 5-Mar-12 5:00 PM
End Time: 5-Mar-12 8:00 PM
Event Details:

Not available for registration at this time.

Luncheon on 2-Apr-12 11:30 AM

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:30:00 GMT

Luncheon
Start Date: 2-Apr-12 11:30 AM
End Time: 2-Apr-12 1:00 PM
Event Details:

Not available for registration at this time.

Monday Night Meeting on 2-Apr-12 5:00 PM

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 22:00:00 GMT

Monday Night Meeting
Start Date: 2-Apr-12 5:00 PM
End Time: 2-Apr-12 8:00 PM
Event Details:

Not available for registration at this time.

Field Landman Seminar on 12-Apr-12 8:30 AM

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:30:00 GMT

Field Landman Seminar
Start Date: 12-Apr-12 8:30 AM
End Time: 12-Apr-12 5:30 PM
Event Details:

FIELD LANDMAN SEMINAR INFORMATION

ALL REGISTRATION IS THROUGH THE AAPL AT LANDMAN.ORG

Fishing Tournament on 4-May-12 8:30 AM

Fri, 04 May 2012 13:30:00 GMT

Fishing Tournament
Start Date: 4-May-12 8:30 AM
End Time: 5-May-12 5:30 PM
Event Details:

NOT AVAILABLE FOR REGISTRATION AT THIS TIME

No Country Stands Alone: Energy Security & Geopolitics

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:00:00 GMT

No Country Stands Alone: Energy Security & Geopolitics
Iran and the Strait of Hormuz

WASHINGTON, DC – Geopolitics beckons. Defined as “a study of the influence of such factors as geography, economics, and demography on the politics and especially the foreign policy of a state,” geopolitics is highlighted by the developing situation with Iran.

The nuclear weapons brinksmanship involving Iran versus the U.S. and European Union (EU) continues to roil tensions in one of the world’s critical oil supply epicenters. At the center of the saber-rattling is the recent threat of an EU embargo on Iran oil and Iran’s retaliatory threat to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which of course, means a self-imposed oil embargo rather than one applied by the West.

It is important to look at how this potential oil supply shock might impact both the global, regional and North American oil markets in the sense of oil-specific trade movements, geopolitics and energy security. As the upcoming trade movement piece will further delineate some of the nuances involved in the global trade flows, this piece emphasizes how a geopolitical flashpoint of this magnitude can exacerbate both regional and global oil market sensitivities.

Defining the Players: Nuke-Seeking Oil Rogue vs. OECD Oil Consumers

The tensions are dangerously high. Mohammad Reza Rahimi, Iran’s first vice president, warned that Iran would not allow “even one drop of oil” to flow through the strait should the West impose oil sanctions on Tehran. Iran also threatened to take military action if the U.S. Navy moves the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier group back into the Gulf, but the U.S. is proceeding as planned. The Western sanctions ramp-up has targeted both Iran’s financial and oil assets. Not to mention, the U.S. is sending thousands of troops to Israel for a major missile defense exercise. Essentially, a game of chicken with potentially dire consequences has emerged.

Geography Matters

In 2008, Stratfor Chief Executive, George Friedman, spoke at the IPAA Midyear Meeting in Laguna Niguel about future U.S. foreign policy priorities and potential threats. One of them included the importance of sea lanes and the growing importance of the U.S. Navy to keep them open. After all, shipping accounts for 90 percent of world trade in goods.

Sea lanes are indeed critical in a world that relies on oil for approximately 34 percent of its energy supply with over 44 percent of global crude oil exports originating in the Middle East. The Strait of Hormuz is a key oil transit route with approximately 17 million barrels of oil per day (around 35 percent of all seaborne traded oil and 20 percent of all oil traded worldwide) moving through this strategic point of the Persian Gulf in 2010.

Energy Security Lens

Where does Iran stand in the geopolitical list and what does this mean for worldwide energy security? Defined as “an association between national security and the availability of natural resources for energy consumption,” energy security is inextricably linked to geopolitics.

Iran is the second largest OPEC producer and the world’s third largest oil exporter, accounting for almost four percent of global oil output and almost six percent of total world oil exports, according to the EIA. But it is important to illustrate exactly where this oil goes. Just as Libya’s oil production and export shutdown impacted Europe, Iran’s embargo or any potential conflagration involving the Strait of Hormuz, would inordinately impact Asia and Europe, two regions with growing import dependence on the Middle East.

The EU imports almost a fifth of Iran’s oil. In particular, Italy receives about 13 percent of its crude from Iran, making it the most vulnerable to such a supply shortfall. Iran and Libya are Spain’s second and third biggest suppliers of crude oil. Another 1.3 million barrels go to Asian OECD countries such as Japan and South Korea, while another 1.2 million barrels go to China and India who are the top two recipients of Iran’s oil. According to numbers released by Deutsche Bank, Iran is China’s third largest oil source, accounting for 11 percent of China’s total imports.

If the ban goes into place this month as expected, the oil supply dislocation could add considerable stress to the already hobbled economies of Greece, Italy and Spain. A contingency plan to tap the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) strategic stockpile has already been composed and due to larger strategic and commercial stockpiles, the U.S. has much more cover than in the past.

The pain would be most severe for Iran, which relies on crude revenues for around 80 percent of its foreign exchange earnings. Given their client list, Iran could be hard pressed to make up for the large chunk of their crude market portfolio in the short-term. There are various forecasts regarding the extent to which Iran’s actions would ‘shock’ the oil price, with many analysts hovering around $150/bbl for the short term squeeze.

American Energy Security: Translating Geopolitics to U.S. Oil Markets

This unfolding scenario underscores several main themes for the U.S. and domestic energy markets. On the positive side, the U.S. does not directly import oil from Iran. Second, the U.S. is gradually reducing its dependence on the Middle Eastern region. The percentage of our imports from the Persian Gulf has dropped from 24.5 percent in 1990 to 14.5 percent in 2010. Third, our total import dependence is declining. U.S. net imports have dropped from over 60 percent of our total consumption in 2005 to around 45 percent in 2011 through November. As the upcoming trade piece will demonstrate, almost 52 percent of our oil imports emanate from the Western Hemisphere.

All those who once claimed that the U.S. was destined to increase its dependence on Middle East supply as we ran out of oil and natural gas are busy re-working their obsolete scripts. U.S. energy dependence is indeed falling and our energy security leverage has vastly improved due the U.S. shale oil and natural gas boom. Thanks in large part to America’s independent producers, analysts are positioning the U.S. as the top world oil producer within the next ten years.

The world’s trade-oil interdependence makes America more sensitive to Middle East export exposure. Since almost 15 percent of U.S. imported oil still comes from this region, we are far from immune to regional flare-ups affecting global oil supply. Oil is a globally traded commodity—higher prices in the more Middle East-dependent Asia and Europe will have a ripple effect that will lap American shores. Given the current debilitated state of world markets, every bit of negative economic news from Europe or China exacts a toll on our recovering economic markets because they are two of our top trading partners. Any oil shock of this magnitude would pass quickly through the global business cycle as energy costs directly impact trade flows, industrial activity and consumer spending which comprises over two-thirds of the U.S. economy.

America’s revitalized energy footprint gives our country increased options regarding our energy trade, national security and foreign policy. Clearly, the Iran case study reveals that energy remains one of the most critical multilateral assets in the world. Domestically, U.S. policymakers must do everything they can to increase this energy security that is so tied to geopolitics. Increasing access to our nation’s vast reserves both offshore and on federal lands is a good start. Also, approving the Keystone XL pipeline would ensure more of our imported oil came from a friendly trading partner rather than a hostile, unstable region. As we begin the second decade of the 21^st century, geopolitics and energy security influence U.S. policy more than ever.

To review our past analyses and our latest data, please visit the Resources section of www.oilindependents.org.

INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

1201 15TH STREET, NW, SUITE 300, WASHINGTON, DC 20005

P (202) 857-4722 | F (202) 857-4799 | www.ipaa.org

12-Jan-12 8:00 AM

NY Times Article featuring quote from Jack Richards, AAPL President

Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:00:00 GMT

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/us/drilling-down-fighting-over-oil-and-gas-well-leases.html?pagewanted=2&utm_campaign=Feed

28-Dec-11 2:00 PM

Six Questions for EPA on Pavillion

Fri, 09 Dec 2011 18:30:00 GMT

Friday, Dec. 9, 2011 | PERMALINK | PDF

Contact: Jeff Eshelman • 202-857-4774 • jeff@energyindepth.org

Chris Tucker • 202-346-8825 • chris@energyindepth.org

Six Questions for EPA on Pavillion

Draft report from EPA in Denver produces more questions than it does answers; EID poses a few of the most serious

Call it a sign of the “Times,” let’s say, that less than 24 hours removed from the release of EPA Region 8’s report on groundwater sampling near Pavillion, Wyo., nearly a thousand different news stories have been generated -- in 12 different countries, and best we can tell, four different languages. But set aside the breathless headlines for a moment and the triumphant quotes from a small segment of folks committed to ending the responsible development of natural gas, and one’s left with a pretty straightforward question: Is EPA right? And if so, what exactly does that mean moving forward?

Of course, before you can answer the second question, it’d be helpful if you had a good answer for the first. And the truth is, as we sit here today, one day A.P. (After Pavillion), we simply don’t. What we do know, however, even at these early stages, is that several of the assertions put forth in EPA’s report yesterday don’t quite square with the facts as they actually, demonstrably, exist on the ground out there. Because of that, a number of folks are starting to ask some basic questions about what the agency found and how it went about finding it. Below, a few of the most obvious:

1) Why the huge difference between what EPA found in its monitoring wells and what was detected in private wells from which people actually get their water?

· Contrary to what was reported yesterday, the compounds of greatest concern detected by EPA in Pavillion weren’t found in water wells that actually supply residents their water – they were detected by two “monitoring wells” drilled by EPA outside of town.

· After several rounds of EPA testing of domestic drinking water wells in town, only one organic compound (bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate) was found to exceed state or federal drinking water standards – an additive in plastics and one of the most commonly detected organic compounds in water. According to EPA: “Detections in drinking water wells are generally below established health and safety standards.”

· Bruce Hinchey, president of Petroleum Association of Wyoming: “Let me be clear, the EPA’s findings indicate that there is no connection between oil and natural gas operations and impacts to domestic water wells.” (PAW press release, Dec. 8, 2011)

· In contrast, EPA found “a wide variety of organic chemicals” in its two monitoring wells, with greater concentrations found in the deeper of the two. The only problem? EPA drilled its monitoring wells into a hydrocarbon-bearing formation. Think it’s possible that could explain the presence of hydrocarbons?

· According to governor of Wyoming: “The study released today from EPA was based on data from two test wells drilled in 2010 and tested once that year and once in April, 2011. Those test wells are deeper than drinking wells. The data from the test wells was not available to the rest of the working group until a month ago.” (Gov. Mead press release, issued Dec. 8, 2011)

2) After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”? (video available here)

· Of note, Administrator Jackson offered those comments to a reporter a full week after Region 8 publicly released its final batch of Pavillion data. In that interview, Jackson indicates that she personally analyzed the findings of the report, and was personally involved in conversations and consultations with staff, local officials, environmental groups, the state and the operator.

· After reviewing all that information, and participating in all those consultations, if the administrator believed that test results from EPA’s monitoring wells posed a danger to the community, why would she say the opposite of that on television?

· And if she believed that the state of Wyoming had failed to do its job, why would she – in that same interview – tell energyNOW! that “you can’t start to talk about a federal role [in regulating fracturing] without acknowledging the very strong state role.” (2:46) A week later, why did she choose to double-down on those comments in an interview with Rachel Maddow, telling the cable host that “states are stepping up and doing a good job”? (9:01, aired Nov. 21, 2011)

3) Did all those chemicals that EPA used to drill its monitoring wells affect the results?

· Diethanolamine? Anionic polyacrylamide? Trydymite? Bentonite? Contrary to conventional wisdom, chemicals are needed to drill wells, not just fracture them – even when the purpose of those wells has nothing to do with oil or natural gas development.

· In this case, however, EPA’s decision to use “dense soda ash” as part of the process for drilling its monitoring wells could have proved a bad one.

· One of the main justifications EPA uses to implicate hydraulic fracturing as a source of potential contamination is the high pH readings it says it found in its monitoring wells. But dense soda ash has a recorded pH (11.5) very similar to the level found in the deep wells, creating the possibility that the high pH recorded by EPA could have been caused by the very chemicals it used to drill its own wells.

· According to Tom Doll, supervisor of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: “More sampling is needed to rule out surface contamination or the process of building these test wells as the source of the concerning results.” (as quoted in governor’s press release, Dec. 8, 2011)

4) Why is the author so confident that fracturing is to blame when most of his actual report focuses on potential issues with casing, cement and legacy pits?

· The report singles-out old legacy pits (which the operator had already voluntarily placed in a state remediation program prior to EPA's investigation) as the most obvious source of potential contamination. These decades-old pits, which are obviously no longer used, have nothing to do with hydraulic fracturing.

· From the report (page xi): "Detection of high concentrations of benzene, xylenes, gasoline range organics, diesel range organics, and total purgeable hydrocarbons in ground water samples from shallow monitoring wells near pits indicates that pits are a source of shallow ground water contamination in the area of investigation. Pits were used for disposal of drilling cuttings, flowback, and produced water. There are at least 33 pits in the area of investigation."

· From the report’s concluding paragraph: “[T]his investigation supports recommendations made by the U.S. Department of Energy Panel on … greater emphasis on well construction and integrity requirements and testing. As stated by the panel, implementation of these recommendations would decrease the likelihood of impact to ground water and increase public confidence in the technology.” (p. 39)

5) 2-BE or not 2-BE? That is the question.

· EPA indicates that it found tris (2-butoxyethyl) phosphate in a few domestic water wells. What the agency doesn’t mention is that this chemical is a common fire retardant found in plastics and plastic components used in drinking water wells. It’s not 2-BE, which, although also a common material, is sometimes associated with the completions process.

· According to EPA, in one of the eight samples collected, a small amount of 2-BE was detected. Interestingly, two other EPA labs that measured for the same exact compound reported not being able to detect it in the duplicate samples they were given.

· According to Wyo. Governor: “Members of the [Pavillion] working group also have questions about the compound 2-BE, which was found in 1 sample … while other labs tested the exact same water sample and did not find it.” (Mead press release, Dec. 8, 2011)

6) Is EPA getting enough potassium?

· Several times in its report, EPA notes that potassium and chloride levels were found to be elevated in its monitoring wells. But just because you have potassium and chloride in a solution doesn’t mean you’ve got potassium chloride, a different chemical entirely and one that’s sometimes associated with fracturing solutions. Nowhere in its report does EPA suggest that potassium chloride was detected.

· According to several USGS studies of groundwater quality in the area, variable -- and in some cases, high -- concentrations of potassium and chloride have been detected in Pavillion-area groundwater for more than 20 years. (USGS 1991, 1992)

· Interestingly, the potassium levels detected in EPA’s first monitoring well declined by more than 50 percent from October 2010 to April 2011, while the potassium level in EPA’s second monitoring well increased during that same period. Only natural variations in groundwater flow and/or composition could have accounted for this disparity.

READ MORE

Statement from Wyo. Governor: Draft EPA report “scientifically questionable”
Statement from PAW president: “The draft report coming out of the EPA is reckless.”
EID issue alert: Five Quick Facts on Pavillion
Letter: 2009 letter from Encana to Pavillion community

www.energyindepth.org

9-Dec-11 12:30 PM

EPA Alleges Ground Water Damage from Fracturing -- Our Response

Thu, 08 Dec 2011 18:00:00 GMT

December 9, 2011

Dear IPAA Members and Colleagues:

Yesterday, the Environmental Protection Agency released a draft report on natural gas drilling in the town of Pavillion, Wyoming. According to the EPA's press release, "The draft report indicates that ground water in the aquifer contains compounds likely associated with gas production practices, including hydraulic fracturing." The report is still in draft form and needs to be peer-reviewed. The onus is now on EPA to legitimize this report after more than six decades of safely hydraulic fracturing over a million wells. As we have seen time and again, the current EPA has made our industry a primary target.

Most news headlines already have it wrong, instead reporting some conclusive link that hydraulic fracturing contaminates drinking water. Today's New York Times' headline pounces: "E.P.A. Links Tainted Water in Wyoming to Hydraulic Fracturing for Natural Gas."

IPAA filed this week a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to EPA on this draft report, particularly whether it had been "leaked" prior to its public release yesterday.

Energy in Depth, the hydraulic fracturing and environmental issues coalition managed by the Independent Petroleum Association of America, released the following Issue Alert. I thought you might be interested, in case you have questions arise in your communities.

Please feel free to contact us if you comments or questions.

Sincerely,

Barry Russell

President and CEO

Six Questions for EPA on Pavillion

Draft report from EPA in Denver produces lots more questions than answers; EID poses a few of its own

Of course, before you can answer the second question, it’d be helpful if you had a good answer for the first. And the truth is, as we sit here today, less than 20 hours A.P. (After Pavillion), we simply don’t. What we do know, however, even at these early stages, is that several of the assertions put forth in EPA’s report yesterday don’t quite square with the facts as they actually exist on the ground out there. Because of that, a number of folks are starting to ask some pretty basic questions about what the agency found and how it went about finding it. Below, a few of the most obvious:

1) Why the huge difference between what EPA found in its monitoring wells and what was detected in private wells from which people actually get their water?

· After several rounds of EPA testing of domestic drinking water wells in town, only one organic compound (bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate) was found to exceed state or federal drinking water standards – an additive in plastics and one of the most commonly detected organic compounds in water. According to EPA: “Detections in drinking water wells are generally below established health and safety standards.”

· Bruce Hinchey, president of Petroleum Association of Wyoming: “Let me be clear, the EPA’s findings indicate that there is no connection between oil and natural gas operations and impacts to domestic water wells.” (PAW press release, Dec. 8, 2011)

· In contrast, EPA found “a wide variety of organic chemicals” in its two monitoring wells, with greater concentrations found in the deeper of the two. The only problem? EPA drilled its monitoring wells into a hydrocarbon-bearing formation. Think it’s possible that could explain the presence of hydrocarbons?

· According to governor of Wyoming: “The study released today from EPA was based on data from two test wells drilled in 2010 and tested once that year and once in April, 2011. Those test wells are deeper than drinking wells. The data from the test wells was not available to the rest of the working group until a month ago.” (Gov. Mead press release, issued Dec. 8, 2011)

· Of note, Administrator Jackson offered those comments to a reporter from energyNOW! a full week after Region 8 publicly released its final batch of Pavillion data. In that interview, Jackson indicates that she personally analyzed the findings of the report, and was personally involved in conversations and consultations with staff, local officials, environmental groups, the state and the operator.

· After reviewing all that information, and conducting all those interviews, if the administrator believed that test results from EPA’s monitoring wells posed a danger to the community, why would she say the opposite of that on television?

3) Did all those chemicals that EPA used to drill its monitoring wells affect the results?

· In this case, however, EPA’s decision to use “dense soda ash” as part of the process for drilling its monitoring wells could have proved a bad one.

· According to Tom Doll, supervisor of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: “More sampling is needed to rule out surface contamination or the process of building these test wells as the source of the concerning results.” (as quoted in governor’s press release, Dec. 8, 2011)

4) Why is the author so confident that fracturing is to blame when most of his actual report focuses on potential issues with casing, cement and legacy pits?

· From the report (page xi): "Detection of high concentrations of benzene, xylenes, gasoline range organics, diesel range organics, and total purgeable hydrocarbons in ground water samples from shallow monitoring wells near pits indicates that pits are a source of shallow ground water contamination in the area of investigation. Pits were used for disposal of drilling cuttings, flowback, and produced water. There are at least 33 pits in the area of investigation."

· From the report’s concluding paragraph: “[T]his investigation supports recommendations made by the U.S. Department of Energy Panel on … greater emphasis on well construction and integrity requirements and testing. As stated by the panel, implementation of these recommendations would decrease the likelihood of impact to ground water and increase public confidence in the technology.” (p. 39)

5) 2-BE or not 2-BE? That is the question.

· EPA indicates that it found tris (2-butoxyethyl) phosphate in a few domestic water wells. What the agency doesn’t mention is that this chemical is a common fire retardant found in plastics and plastic components used in drinking water wells. It’s not 2-BE, which, although also a common material, is sometimes associated with the completions process.

· According to EPA, in one of the eight samples collected, a small amount of 2-BE was detected. Interestingly, two other EPA labs that measured for the same exact compound reported not being able to detect it in the duplicate samples they were given.

· According to Wyo. governor Mead: “Members of the [Pavillion] working group also have questions about the compound 2-BE, which was found in 1 sample … while other labs tested the exact same water sample and did not find it.” (Mead press release, Dec. 8, 2011)

6) Is EPA getting enough potassium?

· Several times in its report, EPA notes that potassium and chloride levels were found to be elevated in its monitoring wells. But just because you have potassium and chloride doesn’t mean you’ve got potassium chloride, a different chemical entirely and one that’s sometimes associated with fracturing solutions. Nowhere in its report does EPA suggest that potassium chloride was detected.

· Interestingly, the potassium levels detected in EPA’s first monitoring well declined by more than 50 percent from October 2010 to April 2011, while the potassium level in EPA’s second monitoring well increased during that same period. Only natural variations in groundwater flow and/or composition could have accounted for this disparity.

www.energyindepth.org

8-Dec-11 12:00 PM

Getting to the Bottom of NYT’s Latest Story on Leases

Thu, 08 Dec 2011 14:00:00 GMT

http://www.energyindepth.org/getting-to-the-bottom-of-nyt%e2%80%99s-latest-story-on-leases/

Getting to the Bottom of NYT’s Latest Story on Leases

Jerry Simmons

Executive Director

National Association of Royalty Owners (NARO)
December 7, 2011

As the Executive Director of an organization that represents the rights and interests of millions of mineral and royalty owners across this country, you can bet your bacon I’ve been following closely The New York Times’ ongoing series on natural gas development – and in particular, the stories about leasing, lending and mineral owners in some areas crying foul.

The story posted by NYT reporter Ian Urbina last week fits into this final category. Its basic thesis goes something like this: as shale exploration has continued to ramp-up, land- and mineral owners are increasingly being fooled (or forced) into bad leases – bad because they don’t protect the environment, bad because they don’t protect them in case of an accident; bad because they’re too low on the financial end. I should note here that I actually reached out to Mr. Urbina before he ran this story; none of the information I provided made it into the article. In light of that, I thought I’d take just a few minutes to lay out a few facts, and maybe set straight a few of the things that the Times didn’t quite get right.

For starters, let me say that its clear an awful lot of research went into this piece -- Urbina and his crew say they reviewed 110,000 individual leases before putting pen to pad. Yes, critics will point to the fact that more than 100,000 of those leases came from only one county (Tarrant) in one state (Texas), but sorting through them all is still a pretty big project, so at least give them some credit for that. I also appreciate the fact that people like Ron Staments, Jack Richards and Dave McMahon – all friends and/or professional acquaintances of mine – were interviewed for and quoted in the story.

To my eye, the biggest problem with this latest piece is that the Times attempts to manufacture a narrative in which land-owners at every turn are pitted against energy producers. In reality, it’s a partnership – with the lease document representing the statement of terms under which that partnership will be pursued. It’s true that some statements are tilted more toward one party’s interests than the other’s. Should we be surprised by that? Should we be aghast? As was pointed out in the article by Mike Knapp: “There are bad leases out there, and, as with any industry, there have also been some unscrupulous opportunists.” But is that a basis to shut down an entire industry? Reading the Times’ story, it’s tough not to get the impression that the reporter wouldn’t mind if we did.

As I’ve said many times before, leasing your minerals for development is more of an art than a science. You make the best deal you can with the best information and advice you can find – and if you find out later that your neighbor did better than you, you walk across the lawn, shake his hand, and let him know that next time, lunch is on him. Often, in the early days of a play, the discrepancies between lease deals can be significant – a natural function of uncertainty. Higher risks on the question of commercial viability have to be offset by lower upfront costs.

But as I’ve seen literally thousands of times over the years, as areas are proved up, and resources start flowing, mineral owners find themselves in a much better position to negotiate a better deal -- at least for the few who may have been unhappy with the original one. Remember: it often takes years, even decades, for operators to fully tap these reservoirs, and lease and royalty payments often represent only a fraction of the costs they’ll encounter over that time. Used to be, drilling a well was a 10-year commitment – now it’s a 40-year one. With the proliferation of electronic media, the incentive to cut-corners on the environment or get away with low-ball lease offers (for very long) is simply no longer there. And even if all of us don’t use Twitter yet, believe me, us mineral owners can be a pretty persuasive bunch once we get going.

The article had four bullet-points in the first few paragraphs that I will attempt to address here:

NYT: “Fewer than half the leases require companies to compensate landowners for water contamination after drilling begins. And only about half the documents have language that lawyers suggest should be included to require payment for damages to livestock or crops.”

· The amazing thing about this point is that, if you follow the links embedded in the body of the Times piece, the information provided appears to directly contradict the point he’s trying to make.

· Take a look for yourself: “If a gas company causes property damage or goes beyond what is ‘reasonably necessary’ to drill for oil or gas, the company may be held liable for damages. In many states there are also laws or regulations that govern the extent to which the surface must be returned to its original condition, including rules that require the company to remove unnecessary equipment or repair any damage. Some leases include addenda that specify how and when any wells will be plugged. They also sometimes include language that establishes how the company will handle specifics, like the removal of roads or restoration of the landscape.”

· In other words, all the protections that the Times laments aren’t included in a standard lease are included in a different kind of contract – called the law. No oil and gas lease I’ve ever seen includes anything banning a producer from, let’s say, hitting me in the head with a shovel. According to the Times’ logic, though, I guess that means it would be legal for him to do it -- since it wasn’t mentioned in my lease. Can you see why this entire premise is flawed?

NYT: “Most leases grant gas companies broad rights to decide where they can cut down trees, store chemicals, build roads and drill. Companies are also permitted to operate generators and spotlights through the night near homes during drilling.”

· Again, in most cases a surface-use agreement is required by the state, but if not, we’ve always recommended that the mineral owner (even if not surface owner) include one as part of the deal. In that agreement, you will negotiate compensation for roads, tree removal, crops, livestock, etc. But drilling itself is permitted by the state, and proximity to structures is determined by the appropriate state regulatory agencies. Distances may differ, but the principle does not.

NYT: “In the leases, drilling companies rarely describe to landowners the potential environmental and other risks that federal laws require them to disclose in filings to investors.”

· As stated above, mineral and surface landowners are protected from liability by state and federal regulations. If you believe a lease clause or addendum is needed to spell out potential risks and liabilities, then you should negotiate that into your lease – as most folks have done for years.

NYT: “Most leases are for three or five years, but at least two-thirds of those reviewed by The Times allow extensions without additional approval from landowners. If landowners have second thoughts about drilling on their land or want to negotiate for more money, they may be out of luck.”

· Oil and gas leases for decades (perhaps always) have allowed for the option to extend at the end of a primary term. The reason is that the company may not get to all drilling locations within the primary term and wants the ability to maintain its acreage position in an area.

· If you sign a lease with an option to extend, you have given your approval to extend the lease if certain stipulations are met. Once a well is producing, your acreage is “Held-By-Production” (HBP) for as long as the well is capable of production. As mentioned, this could be decades -- so leases are serious contractual instruments that one should not enter into without proper knowledge and professional advice.

· That’s our position as mineral owners – and guess what? It’s industry’s position as well. According to Kathryn Klaber, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition: “The most educated landowner is going to be this industry’s best business partner, and that means legal review.” (Associated Press, 7/23/11)

It is too bad this article did not attempt to emphasize the need for mineral and surface land owners to accept their responsibility and become educated on the process of mineral leasing and mineral/royalty income. If it had, the Times could have done a real service to the citizens facing decisions on leasing instead of trying to generate fear in a process that could (and does) pay off a mortgage; send kids or grandkids to college; keep elderly folks off state assistance; keep the family farm in the family; build new fences, barns, houses; supplement retirement; and on and on.

The point is, of the millions of oil and gas leases in effect in America today, the vast majority are held by folks who are very happy with the process and benefit greatly from the income that this partnership produces. Too bad the Times doesn’t consider that much of a story.

8-Dec-11 8:00 AM

Interesting Quote

Phil Jones - noemail@ocapl.org — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 17:00:00 GMT

‘Mr. Brownlow, who has a Ph.D. in geochemistry, says it takes 407 million gallons to irrigate 640 acres and grow about $200,000 worth of corn on the arid land. The same amount of water, he says, could be used to frack enough wells to generate $2.5 billion worth of oil. "No water, no frack, no wealth," says Mr. Brownlow, who has leased his cattle ranch for oil exploration.’

6-Dec-11 11:00 AM

Industry Affairs November 2011

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 18:00:00 GMT

OCAPL

INDUSTRY AFFAIRS REPORT

November 14, 2011

This is the 72^nd report from the Industry Affairs Committee of OCAPL. The opinions expressed herein are those of the writers and not those of OCAPL, AAPL, former clients, or our current employers. The objective of this exercise is to alert OCAPL members to (a) the activities of organizations and governments that affect the way we do business, (b) public opinion that shapes legislation, and (c) judicial decisions relating to energy issues. Hopefully, this knowledge will provoke each of us to recognize the critical role we, as LANDMEN, play in sustaining America’s standard of living and thereby feel compelled to respond to the challenges before us. Your comments regarding this effort are always welcome.

The Committee at Work: Current members in the OCAPL Industry Affairs committee include Phil Jones, Brandt Vawter, Brett Hudson, John Raines, and Jack Rayburn. If you would like to participate in the committee’s effort, we would be pleased to hear from you.

BHP Billiton to Spend $4.5B On US Shale This Year

by Robb M. Stewart

Dow Jones Newswires

Monday, November 14, 2011

MELBOURNE (Dow Jones Newswires), Nov. 14, 2011

BHP Billiton plans to invest roughly US $4.5 billion developing the shale oil and gas assets it bought in the U.S. this financial year as it ramps up production, the head of the mining company's petroleum division said Monday.

BHP expects capital spending to jump to almost US $6 billion in the 2015 fiscal year and roughly US $6.5 billion by 2020 as the company ramps up the number of rigs on its four project areas, Michael Yeager said in a conference call from Melbourne.

BHP spent almost US $17 billion this year buying Petrohawk Energy Corp. along with its assets in Texas and Louisiana and Chesapeake's Fayetteville shale assets in Arkansas.

Yeager, who defended the hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" technology used to extract hydrocarbons from deep shale deposits, said BHP is targeting U.S. shale production of 90 million barrels of oil equivalent in the year through June or about 250,000 BOE a day. He said he expects this to reach 600,000 BOE a day in fiscal 2015 and 1 million by 2020.

BHP has targeted 225 million BOE this year from all its petroleum operations, including wells in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere. The figures don't include prospective oil shale projects in the Permian Basin in Texas acquired with Petrohawk and where Yeager said BHP is still actively expanding.

Yeager said shale is forecast to account for half of U.S. gas production by 2020 and is an opportunity for the U.S. to secure energy supplies. Although he acknowledged concerns over fracking technologies globally and its potential impact on the environment, shale continues to gain acceptance, he said

Salazar unveils new proposed 5-year OCS leasing program

By Nick Snow
Washington Editor

US Sec. of the Interior Ken Salazar announced a proposed US Outer Continental Shelf program for 2012-17 with 15 potential oil and gas lease sales, 12 in the Gulf of Mexico and 3 off Alaska's coast. "This 5-year program will make available for development more than three-quarters of undiscovered oil and gas resources estimated on the OCS, including frontier areas such as the Arctic, where we must proceed cautiously, safely and based on the best science available," Salazar said on Nov. 8 as DOI's US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management released the tentative schedule.

A fact sheet about the proposed program—the second of three that must be issued before a final 2012-17 program is established—said it included five annual area-wide sales offering all unleased acreage in the western Gulf of Mexico beginning in fall 2012; five more similar annual area-wide sales in the central gulf beginning in spring 2013; and two sales in the eastern gulf, in 2014 and 2016, in areas not under congressional moratorium.

The proposed schedule also included a sale in the Beaufort Sea in 2015 and one in the Chukchi Sea in 2016 off Alaska. The schedule provides time to learn from interim exploration and further analyze environmental, subsistence use, and infrastructure issues so the sales can be tailored to address these issue. A special interest sale in Alaska's Cook Inlet, initially scheduled for 2013, might be delayed depending on industry interest.

It did not include any lease sales off the US Atlantic coast. The fact sheet said that while a 2009 OCS development strategy included the south and mid-Atlantic planning areas under possible consideration for a 2012-17 program, a lack of oil and gas infrastructure and spill preparedness and response capacity, along with potentially conflicting uses with the US Department of Defense, supported Salazar's decision to leave it out.

Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) reacted sharply. "Virginia is poised to become the 'Energy Capitol of the East Coast' by responsibly developing nuclear, natural gas, coal, biomass, wind, solar, and offshore oil and gas," he said. "There is a burgeoning energy exploration industry, hundreds of millions of dollars in new capital investment, and thousands of new jobs at stake if Virginia is not allowed to pursue its innovative and comprehensive energy strategy."

'A missed opportunity'

Oil and gas industry groups also were disappointed. "Moving forward with the proposed 2012-17 5-year OCS leasing program is a good first step," said Erik Milito, the American Petroleum Institute's upstream and industry operations group director. "However, this is a missed opportunity to open additional areas that could have helped address rising energy demand, create American jobs and reduce the federal deficit."

"This ill-conceived plan leaves us looking in the same areas we have looked for over a generation and would cast our energy reliability and security lot to the whims of other, often unfriendly nations," said National Ocean Industries Association President Randall B. Luthi. "While today's decision is not unexpected, the lack of new access is deeply disappointing, and frankly bears little resemblance to the president's announcement in March of this year—amid high energy prices—that [his administration] had set the goal of reducing oil imports by one-third by 2025."

Environmental organizations also were critical. "The president's Oil Spill Commission put forth a game plan to improve the industry's safety, but it has yet to be realized," said Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances G. Beineke, who served on that commission. "Congress has failed to pass a single law to better protect workers or the environment. Industry has not invested sufficiently in developing the technologies needed to prevent future disasters. And the government still needs additional resources and science in order to effectively police an industry that so desperately needs it."

Lori LeBlanc, executive director of the Gulf Economic Survival Team, said that the organization appreciated the latest proposed 5-year OCS plan with its 12 gulf and 3 Alaska offshore sales. "However, there continues to be tremendous uncertainty within the industry as to the ability of the government to timely approve the necessary plans and permits to enable future projects to move forward," she continued. "We fear that this air of uncertainty may impair the ability of the industry to invest in currently planned and future lease sales."

Written comments on the draft programmatic environmental impact statement for the proposed 5-year program will be accepted until Jan. 9, 2012. BOEM also has scheduled public hearings next month on the draft programmatic EIS in nine Alaska communities. Public hearings also are scheduled in Washington; Houston; Mobile, Ala.; and New Orleans.

Industry officials attack latest call to raise oil, gas taxes

By Nick Snow
Washington Editor

Oil and gas industry association officials blasted a proposal sent by several congressional Democrats to the deficit reduction super committee on Nov. 2 to raise revenue by eliminating key provisions benefiting the industry. Congress and the super committee should take the necessary time to comprehensively address tax reform questions and resist apparently easy suggestions which actually would do more economic damage, they said on Nov. 7.

"Some of the proposals are just punitive to oil and gas as a sector. Others are even more specifically selective and more punitive by selecting just a handful of companies," American Petroleum Institute Pres. Jack N. Gerard said in a teleconference with reporters. "All you have to do is look at corporate earnings, and you'll find companies that make more but pay a lower effective tax rate. No one is calling for higher tax rates for those companies, nor should they. We should be focused on creating jobs, not punishing a particular industry."

Others questioned the wisdom of Congress trying to make major tax policy reforms in such a short period. "Proposals to drop corporate rates into the 25% level will require repealing significant depletion exemptions that are way beyond our industry, such as eliminating accelerated depletion and the manufacturers' tax deduction for every industry, not just ours," noted Lee O. Fuller, vice-president of government relations at the Independent Petroleum Association of America. "When you start sweeping through it in that context, we're a minor player."

In a separate interview, V. Bruce Thompson, president of the American Exploration & Production Council (AXPC), said, "It's a blanket approach—just get rid of everything oil and gas, and let the chips fall where they may. Our concern is with the thinking on intangible drilling cost deductions, which is clearly a tax code provision which lets us recover, in the year of expenditure, any items that have no salvageable tax value, as with any company's research and development expenses."

Negative impacts

"These tax increases would hurt American consumers and employers by raising the costs of driving, raising the costs of manufacturing and transporting products, and raising the costs of operating businesses," National Petrochemical & Refiners Association Pres. Charles T. Drevna said in a statement. "They would make it harder for American oil and gas producers, and fuel and petrochemical manufacturers to compete with foreign rivals on a level playing field. This would wipe out jobs, weaken our economy, and increase America's reliance on foreign oil, fuels, and petrochemicals."

Their responses came after several congressional Democrats urged the super committee to repeal federal tax provisions which directly benefit the oil and gas industry or exclude the industry specifically from general corporate tax exemptions. "This is not class warfare. This is common sense," declared Robert Menendez (NJ), a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee member, in a Nov. 2 press release. "We want the oil companies and their shareholders to do well, but we should not be spending 21 billion taxpayer dollars to unfairly reward their tremendous success."

"I applaud the success of these companies and believe that in the United States individuals should, through merit and hard work, be able to build wealth," Rep. James P. Moran (Va.), ranking minority member on the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, said in a commentary in the Nov. 3-9 Falls Church (Va.) News-Press. "But given their profitability, it's clear that these companies do not need their current tax breaks and the public subsidies they receive. Big oil tax expenditures are, without doubt, wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars. Removing these tax breaks will not hurt the oil and gas industry, nor will it affect the price of oil."

Gerard disputed such characterizations. Oil and gas pays more in total corporate taxes than any other US industry, he maintained. Its effective 2010 tax rate was an average 41.1%, compared with 26.5% for other businesses in Standard & Poor's Industrial Index, and the tax provisions critics target are no different than normal business deductions and cost recovery mechanisms widely used throughout the US economy, he said.

Keystone Pipeline May Not ‘Survive’ U.S. Delay, Flaherty Says

November 14, 2011, 12:11 AM EST

By Andrew Mayeda and Greg Quinn

Nov. 11 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. State Department’s decision to delay its review of TransCanada Corp.’s $7-billion Keystone XL pipeline until after next year’s presidential election may doom the project and accelerate Canada’s efforts to ship crude to Asia, Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said.

“The decision to delay it that long is actually quite a crucial decision. I’m not sure this project would survive that kind of delay,” Flaherty said yesterday in an interview at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Honolulu. “It may mean that we may have to move quickly to ensure that we can export our oil to Asia through British Columbia.”

The deferral on Keystone XL is a blow to the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who called U.S. approval of the pipeline a “no brainer.” Canadian officials underestimated the strength of resistance to the project by Nebraska farmers and environmentalists, political and foreign-policy experts said.

The State Department said yesterday it will study an alternative route to avoid environmentally sensitive areas in Nebraska. Nebraskan farmers, officials in the state and some members of Congress argue the proposed route across the Sandhills area risks contaminating the Ogallala aquifer that supplies water to 1.5 million people.

Flaherty, who travels to China this week, called the State Department’s move “disappointing,” noting that unions and business groups appeared to back Keystone.

“This project would have provided thousands and thousands of jobs in the United States, a lot of unionized, well-paying jobs,” he said. “The delay, we hope, doesn’t doom the project. We hope it will still happen.”

Hollywood Opposition

The project was also opposed by environmentalists who, backed by Hollywood celebrities such as Daryl Hannah and Julia Louis-Dreyfus, said the crude it would deliver from the Alberta oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries produces more greenhouse-gas emissions than conventional oil.

“The whole thing was kind of mishandled by not understanding the local resistance to it,” said Andy Hira, a professor of political science at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver who studies energy policy. Harper and TransCanada need to be more flexible about the route for the project to be approved, he said.

Harper has promoted his country as an “energy superpower,” pointing to its political stability compared with other suppliers. Canada is already the biggest foreign supplier of oil to the U.S. and provides the country with almost a quarter of its crude imports, twice what Saudi Arabia does.

Canada had dispatched senior officials and diplomats to lobby on behalf of the pipeline. In an interview at Bloomberg headquarters in New York on Sept. 21, Harper said approval of the project was a “no brainer” because it would create jobs in the U.S. and help the country secure its energy supply.

Gulf Coast

The 1,661-mile (2,673-kilometer) pipeline would deliver 700,000 barrels a day of crude from Alberta’s oil sands to the Gulf of Mexico by crossing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.

Flaherty, 61, will travel later this week to Beijing, where he will discuss increasing energy exports to China and facilitating investment in Canadian natural-resource assets.

Enbridge Inc. has proposed building a pipeline, called Northern Gateway, that would transport crude from Alberta’s oil sands to Canada’s Pacific coast, while Kinder Morgan Inc. plans to expand its Trans Mountain route to do the same.

Opposition to Keystone XL grew over this year, as environmentalists and other groups held protests outside the White House that led to arrests. The Nebraska legislature is in a special session weighing measures to force a rerouting of the project.

Environmental Risks

As the political pressure on his administration grew, Obama himself acknowledged the health and environmental risks in Nebraska.

“Folks in Nebraska, like all across the country, aren’t going to say to themselves, ‘We’ll take a few thousand jobs if it means our kids are potentially drinking water that would damage their health,’” Obama said in Nov. 2 interview with Nebraska TV station KETV. “We don’t want, for example, aquifers to be adversely affected. Folks in Nebraska obviously would be directly impacted.”

The Canadians appeared not to pick up on the shift in U.S. thinking on the pipeline, said Hira.

“Over the last month or two the Canadian government really should have re-assessed the situation based on the amount of resistance that was coming from in Nebraska,” he said.

Lobby Efforts

Canada’s drive to secure Keystone’s approval included two trips to Washington by Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, where he met with U.S. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu and pressed the case with Obama administration officials and numerous House representatives and senators, Patricia Best, Oliver’s chief spokeswoman, said in an e-mail.

In advocating the pipeline, Canada had appealed to the democratic and economic values it shares with the U.S. It is a position outlined by Canadian conservative commentator Ezra Levant in his book “Ethical Oil,” in which he argues that countries such as the U.S. should opt for oil from Canada rather than from Middle East dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia or socialist Venezuela.

“In Canada, as is the case in the United States, energy policy is rooted in the principles of the open market and shaped by a commitment to develop our energy resources in an environmentally and socially responsible way,” Oliver said in an Oct. 4 speech in Washington to the U.S. Energy Association. “How different the situation is elsewhere.”

Judged on Merit

Canada’s ambassador in Washington, Gary Doer, also lobbied U.S. and state officials to support the pipeline. After Obama’s televised interview, Doer told reporters in Ottawa that he expected the project to be approved if judged on “merit,” rather than ”noise.”

“We’re very excited here in Nebraska that our voices have been heard,” Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman, a Republican, said yesterday in an interview. “And I want to emphasize, most Nebraskans, including myself, we support the pipeline but we’re opposed to the route.”

In an environmental impact study in August, the State Department said it studied 14 “major route alternatives” for the pipeline. The department “did not find any of the major alternatives to be preferable to the proposed project,” it said at the time.

Still, environmentalists were able to raise doubts about the project’s impact, a factor that the Canadian government didn’t take seriously enough, said Michael Byers, an expert in international law at the University of British Columbia.

Rigorous Review

“Their mistake was to gloss over the environmental dimensions,” said Byers, who ran as a candidate for the opposition New Democratic Party in a 2008 general election. ”Obama was conscious that he needs to get out his base on election day. He didn’t want the environmentalists to stay home.”

The delay is an opportunity for a more “sober” and “rigorous” assessment of the pipeline on all sides, outside of the politicized climate of a presidential election campaign, he said.

Russ Girling, chief executive officer of Calgary-based TransCanada, who had said rerouting delays might kill the project, said yesterday the company remains “confident Keystone XL will ultimately be approved.”

“This project is too important to the U.S. economy, the Canadian economy and the national interest of the United States for it not to proceed,” Girling said a statement.

--With assistance from Theophilos Argitis in Ottawa. Editors: David Scanlan, John Simpson

19-Nov-11 12:00 PM

Oklahoma Geologic Society Discussion Group 11/8

Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:00:00 GMT

OKLAHOMA CITY GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

DISCUSSION GROUP

November 8, 2011

5:00PM

OKLAHOMA CITY GEOLOGICAL LIBRARY

Oklahoma Corporation Commission 2011 Oil and Gas Institute

“Changing Dynamics: New Perspectives on Oklahoma Oil and Gas Conservation Law and Practice”

Did you know, on April 13, 2011, Governor Mary Fallin signed House Bill No. 1909 (HB 1909, the 2011 Shale Reservoir Development Act) into law?

Did you know, on May 17, 2011, The Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC), through Emergency Rule Making Cause RM No. 201100004 supplanted the normal process of promulgating rules through the permanent rule making process?

Did you know the 2011 Shale Reservoir Development Act was the first new State law enacted related to horizontal drilled wells in over 20 years?

Did you know the 2011 Shale Reservoir Development Act contains many new definitions such as “Associated Common Source of Supply” that will GREATLY AFFECT OWNERSHIP RIGHTS (including overrides), economics and the orderly development of common sources of supply relative to shale reservoirs?

Did you know the 2011 Shale Reservoir Development Act will allow an operator to drill a horizontal Woodford well and commingle the “Associated Common Sources of Supply“, (i.e., the Mississippi and Hunton Formations) into a SINGLE productive shale unit?

Did you know the 2011 Shale Reservoir Development Act and OCC do not require the submission of the MWD Gamma Ray Log (which is a standard formation evaluation type wireline log per OAC 165: 10-3-26) for horizontal wells?

Did you know OCC Commissioner Dana Murphy recently spoke to the members of the OCGS, challenging us to, “get involved,” or learn to live under the laws and rules that are enacted, supposedly “for our benefit?”

Did you know only 45 Geoscientists attended Commissioner Murphy’s discussion?

Which of the above questions are based on fact? In the next year we will elect two OCC Commissioners, but today the laws and rules that regulate the way we do the business of developing and producing Oklahoma’s natural resources are being promulgated in the legislature and courts. Are you aware of the dynamic changes taking place in Oklahoma’s Oil and Gas Conservation Law? Get involved; take the time to read;

Google HB 1909 and download the law from the Ok Legislature website,
Search the OCC website imaged documents RM 201100004
Contact the Governor, your Legislature and a friend

The Oklahoma Geological Society’s November 8^th, 2011 Discussion Group will look at and discuss these changes and how they may relate to a case study area around the West Cana Woodford Play area in Dewey County, OK.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

MEETINGS ARE INFORMAL, THERE IS NO CHARGE AND GUESTS ARE WELCOME.

NO RESERVATIONS NECESSARY

27-Oct-11 10:00 AM

Colleges Gas Boom

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:00:00 GMT

Colleges Gas Boom

17-Oct-11 9:00 AM

Senators pin Critical Minerals Hopes on Currency Reform Bill

Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:00:00 GMT

Click HERE for article.

7-Oct-11 8:00 AM

OCC Meeting on July 28, 2009

noemail@ocapl.org — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:00:00 GMT

DEPA Update OCC Meeting on July 28, 2009 July 29, 2009 OKLAHOMA CITY – U.S. crude oil producers and royalty owners are facing a serious threat to their markets if...

Land Professional

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:19:34 GMT

Title: Land Professional Description: Marathon Oil Corporation is an upstream international energy company engaged in exploration and production; oil sands mining; and integrated gas. Marathon, which is based in Houston, Texas, has operations in the United States, Angola, Canada, Equatorial Guinea, Indonesia, IKR (Iraqi Kurdistan Region), Libya, Norway, Poland and the United Kingdom. Overview: Land Professionals play a unique and vital role in Marathon’s domestic oil and gas business by ensuring that the company has the right to drill and produce hydrocarbons. They determine mineral and surface ownership and direct the acquisition of these rights as needed. Work with other companies in obtaining joint exploration and development agreements. In addition, the Land Professional must also be familiar with federal, state, and local regulations governing oil and gas operations in a given state. Responsibilities: Develop a full understanding of MOC‘s acreage inventory...

Field Landman

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:19:18 GMT

Title: Field Landman
Description:

Superior Title Services, Inc. is looking for Experienced Field Landmen. HBP experience a plus.

Required Experience:
Education Required:
Planned Duration of Employment: Full Time

Contact info:

Tom Parrott (Add to Contacts)
Fax (405) 471-6506

Superior Title Services, Inc.

P.O. Box 30180

Edmond, OK 73003
US

Sr. In-House Oil and Gas Landman

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:18:55 GMT

Title: Sr. In-House Oil and Gas Landman Description: SENIOR IN-HOUSE OIL & GAS LANDMAN Established, independent oil and gas exploration and production company is looking for an experienced In-House Landman to join its Oklahoma City team. Responsibilities: · Negotiate, draft, implement and interpret all types of agreements/contracts including Oil & Gas leases, unit and unit operating agreements, operating agreements, joint venture agreements, farm-out/farm-in agreements, and lease line cooperative agreements. · Deal with owners of surface, minerals, leasehold and regulatory agencies. · Initiate and resolve spacing, density, and all facets of title curative. · Coordinate with all departments on special projects, presentations, acquisitions and drilling programs regarding internal and third party ventures. Qualifications: · Bachelor's degree required; Business degree with emphasis in Petroleum Land Management preferred. · A minimum of 8...

Landman

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:18:38 GMT

Title: Landman Description: I am conducting a focused search for a Major Global Oil and Gas Operator. I am identifying Sr. Land professionals who have the desire, experience and ability to join their US Land group. Primary responsibilities for this position will be to create, monitor and administer EP commercial upstream agreements relative to the onshore US and assist with other EP or unconventional projects as business needs require. Specifically included is expertise in the development of: · Onshore Joint Venture Agreements · Participation Agreements · Farm-outs, Farm-ins · Unitization, Production Handling and Facility Use Agreements, · Oil and Gas Leases · Alternative energy leases · Acreage swaps/ trades, property acquisitions and divestitures, · Area of mutual interests agreements · Surface Use Agreements, Right-of-Ways, Easements, title clearance for drilling and related curative...

Field Landman

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:18:08 GMT

Title: Field Landman
Description: Seeking full-time contract landman for Blue Star Land Services, LLC Required Experience: minimum 5 years field experience required including HBP'd title, leasing, farmouts, and other negotiations.
Education Required: degree preferred
Planned Duration of Employment: Contract

Contact info:

David L Swafford (Add to Contacts)

Blue Star Land Services, L.L.C.

P.O. Box 720894

Norman, OK 73070
US

Landmen, division order analysts, lease records and land tech

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:17:48 GMT

Title: Landmen, division order analysts, lease records and land tech
Description:

Cinco Energy Services has immediate openings in Tulsa, Oklahoma for the following: Landmen, division order analysts, lease records and land tech. Please forward resume and references to awinn@cincoland.com.

Required Experience:
Education Required:
Planned Duration of Employment: Full Time

Contact info:

Angela Winn (Add to Contacts)

Cinco Energy Services

Senior Landman, Surface

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:17:23 GMT

Title: Senior Landman, Surface Description: Senior Landman (Surface) Southern or Northern Regions - USA Our client is one of the world's largest independent oil and gas exploration and production companies, with corporate offices in Texas. This industry leader's mission is to deliver a competitive and sustainable rate of return to Shareholders by developing, acquiring and exploring for oil and gas resources vital to the world's health and welfare. Responsibilities: The Senior Landman (Surface) will provide land support to the Southern or Northern Regions. · Perform routine assignments while under general supervision. · Acquisition of all surface rights necessary for Company field operations, drilling and midstream pipeline activities in the designated area. Duties will include: o Performing title research and title curative; creating reports and communicating project progress; negotiating and securing pipeline easements, surface leases, and...

Senior Staff Landman

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:16:46 GMT

Title: Senior Staff Landman Description: Senior Staff Landman (E&P) Southern or Northern Regions - USA Our client is one of the world's largest independent oil and gas exploration and production companies, with corporate offices in Texas. This industry leader's mission is to deliver a competitive and sustainable rate of return to Shareholders by developing, acquiring and exploring for oil and gas resources vital to the world's health and welfare. Responsibilities: The Senior Staff Landman (E&P) will provide land support to the Southern or Northern Regions. · Perform advanced assignments with supervision as necessary. · Acquire, maintain and prepare properties for drilling and other operations with the ability to manage an active drilling rig schedule. · Negotiate and prepare appropriate contracts and agreements including joint development agreements, joint operating agreements, farm-in agreements and other agreements required for the...

Landman or Land Tech

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:16:27 GMT

Title: Landman or Land Tech Description: A small independent oil & gas company located in Tulsa, OK, is currently seeking a Landman or Landman Tech to perform the following duties: · Negotiate, prepare and administer oil and gas leases, operating agreements, farmout agreements, exploration agreements, area of mutual interest agreements, surface use/damage/access agreements, easements and rights‐of‐way and other agreements involving oil and gas rights. · Build and maintain an efficient lease inventory system for tracking and reporting purposes within the company. · Coordinate well proposals such as to verify terms, conditions, and working interests for all proposals. · Maintain technical familiarity with legal issues, regulatory compliance matters, exploration and production issues and lease record/division order arrangements. · Participate in lease analysis with executive management and staff, as well as potential partners, and groups. ...

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:22:57 GMT

2012 January 2011 January February March April May/June July/August September October November December 2010 January February March April May/June July/August September October November December 2009 June August September October November December 2008 January February March April May/June December 2007 January February April/May December

2012 President's Letter

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:12:34 GMT

January 2012 President’s Letter Happy New Year to all of you! I am so honored to be able to serve as your President for 2012 and I want to thank each one of you for your commitment as a member of OCAPL. We have a lot of great member events planned this year and I anticipate that you will agree. Our first event took place on January 9, 2012 at the Petroleum Club, where Dave Hampton gave a presentation to our members at the CPL Luncheon, titled, “A River Runs Through Your Drilling Unit”. This educational event focused on the BIA & BLM and riparian rights and surveys. This was one of our highest attended lunches to date with over 200 people present. We continued the day with our annual Monday Night Meeting social. Despite the OU/OSU Men’s Basketball game as well as the National Championship game, we had a full house. Our membership count is on track to be one of the largest yet as we already have had over 1,000 members renew their membership for 2012. In...

Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:51:56 GMT

2012 OCAPL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Julie Woodard Stan Wilsey President Vice President Chesapeake Energy Corporation (405)935-4534 julie.woodard@chk.com QEP Energy Company (405) 840-7483 stanley.wilsey@qepres.com Mike Walker Lindsey Miles Treasurer Secretary Bent Tree Properties, Inc. (405)216-5109 mike@benttree-inc.com Devon Energy Corporation (405) 228-8305 lindsey.miles@dvn.com Jack C. Taylor, Jr. AAPL Director-Region VI QEP Energy Company (405)840-7482 jack.taylor@qepres.com EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Carrie Askins Devon Energy Corporation Bill Irvin Bent Tree Properties, Inc. Amy Love Mekusukey Oil Company, LLC Nick Watkins Chesapeake Energy Corporation Darrell Noblitt Noblitt Oil & Gas Inc. Frank Muskrat Independent

Home Page Content

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 20:18:06 GMT

DANA MURPHY 11/7 EDUCATIONAL LUNCH

OCAPL currently holds their Monthly meetings on the first Monday of each month from September to April at the Oklahoma History Center, 2401 N. Laird, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 (405-522-5248). Social hour starts at 5:00 and the meetings begin at 6:30. OCAPL provides these meetings at no cost to our members. Guests are welcome to attend at a cost of $30.00. If you would like to become a member of OCAPL you may apply online. Cost of membership is $125.00 per year with renewals due in January. If you are applying after June 1^st, we have prorated the dues to $80.00.

About OCAPL

Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:56:41 GMT

OCAPL in the Past:
The first regular meeting of the Oklahoma Landmen's Association was held in the Skirvin Hotel in April 1947. Thirty-nine members attended the first meeting and the membership has peaked this year to an all time high of 1532 members. In 1962, the name was changed to the Oklahoma City Association of Petroleum Landmen (OCAPL) and changed again in 2009 to the Oklahoma City Association of Professional Landmen. The OCAPL was recognized in 1993, 1997 and 2006 as the AAPL Local Association of the Year. In 2007, the AAPL awarded OCAPL members, Jack Sweeney with a Lifetime Achievement Award for his service to AAPL and the industry, Candace Robinson with Best AAPL Director Communication Award and Brian Hennigan with Best Committee Award for his service on CPL Certification.

OCAPL is also very active in the OU/EM Program at The University of Oklahoma and the new Energy Management Program at The University of Tulsa. Sholarships are given out to students at both universities yeary.

Today in OCAPL:
Currently OCAPL has about 1532 members. Monthly meetings are held the first Monday of each month September through April. OCAPL heralds several special events each year and prides themselves in the educational programs made available to the members. Applications for membership can be downloaded from the OCAPL web site.

History of OCAPL

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:29:23 GMT

Oklahoma Landmen's Association was formed in April 1947 and held their first meeting with 39 members in attendance. In 1962 the name was officially changed to the Oklahoma City Association of Petroleum Landmen and in April 2008 it was changed to Oklahoma City Association of Professional Landmen. Membership is at an all time high this year with 1532 members! Historically OCAPL is one of the largest local associations under the American Association of Professional Landmen(AAPL) flagship and we are proud of the fact that 70% of our membership are also members of AAPL. AAPL named OCAPL as its Local Association of the Year in 1993, 1997 and again in 2006. In 2007, AAPL awarded OCAPL members Jack Sweeney with a Lifetime Achievement Award, Candace Robinson for Best AAPL Director Communication Award, and Brian Hennigan with Best Committee Award for his service on the CPL Certification Committee. OCAPL is very active in the OU/EM Program at The University of Oklahoma. The OCAPL founded the...

Mon, 09 May 2011 22:25:51 GMT

Professional Associations American Association of Professional Landmen Young Professionals in Energy Oklahoma City Association of Petroleum Lease and Title Analysts OCAPLTA Symposium June 16th 2011 - CLICK HERE FOR INFORMATION Tulsa Association of Petroleum Landmen Government Websites Oklahoma House of Representatives Oklahoma County Clerks Offices Oklahoma Corporation Commission Texas County Clerks Offices Texas General Land Office Texas Railroad Commission Industry Websites Oklahoma Energy Resources Board Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association Oklahoma Geological Survey Energy Management Programs University of Oklahoma University of Tulsa

Mon, 11 May 2009 16:04:42 GMT

2009 Fishing Tournament Results The 24th Annual OCAPL Fishing Tournament was held on Saturday, May 2, 2009 at the University of Oklahoma Biological Station on Lake Texoma. We had seventy-four OCAPL members registered along with thirty-nine guests and children. Supper and refreshments were served on Friday evening and a breakfast was served to the participants on Saturday morning before the fishing began at 6:30 a.m. The fish weigh-in was at 3:00 p.m. on Saturday. The results of the tournament were as follows: Bass 1st Roger Gary - 9.10 2nd Chase McPherson - 2.40 3rd Stan Fitzgerald - 2.35 White Bass 1st Les Doty - 2.10 2nd Gabriel Young - .65 Striped Bass 1st Jake Herod - 24.40 2nd John Casey - 8.70 3rd Richard Gilchrist - 7.15 Crappie 1st Les Doty - 5.45 2nd Will Doty - 1.60 3rd Russ McPherson - 1.25 The big fish award was a tie at 4.80 lbs. between Roger Gary (large mouth bass) and Bobbi Black (Buffalo) Prizes were passed out to the guests and...

Students

Tue, 14 Apr 2009 02:07:51 GMT

Leadership

Fri, 10 Apr 2009 02:05:08 GMT

Leadership Content

Lorem ipsum survey

noemail@ocapl.org — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:10:25 GMT

Objectives:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diem nonummynibh euismod tincidunt ut lacreet dolore magna aliguam erat volutpat. Ut wisis enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tution ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis te feugifacilisi.

Duis autem dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit au gue duis dolore te feugat nulla facilisi.

Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci taion ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex en commodo consequat. Duis te feugifacilisi per suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex en commodo consequat.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diem nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut lacreet dolore magna aliguam erat volutpat.

Luncheon on 6-Feb-12 11:30 AM

Monday Night Meeting Presidents Night on 6-Feb-12 5:00 PM

OCAPL/OU EM Regional Food Bank Opportunity on 26-Feb-12 1:00 PM

Luncheon on 5-Mar-12 11:30 AM

Monday Night Meeting on 5-Mar-12 5:00 PM

Luncheon on 2-Apr-12 11:30 AM

Monday Night Meeting on 2-Apr-12 5:00 PM

Field Landman Seminar on 12-Apr-12 8:30 AM

Fishing Tournament on 4-May-12 8:30 AM

No Country Stands Alone: Energy Security & Geopolitics

NY Times Article featuring quote from Jack Richards, AAPL President

Six Questions for EPA on Pavillion

EPA Alleges Ground Water Damage from Fracturing -- Our Response

Getting to the Bottom of NYT’s Latest Story on Leases

Interesting Quote

Industry Affairs November 2011

'A missed opportunity'

Negative impacts

Keystone Pipeline May Not ‘Survive’ U.S. Delay, Flaherty Says

Oklahoma Geologic Society Discussion Group 11/8

Colleges Gas Boom

Senators pin Critical Minerals Hopes on Currency Reform Bill

OCC Meeting on July 28, 2009

Land Professional

Field Landman

Sr. In-House Oil and Gas Landman

Landman

Field Landman

Landmen, division order analysts, lease records and land tech

Senior Landman, Surface

Senior Staff Landman

Landman or Land Tech

2012 President's Letter

***Home Page Content***

About OCAPL

History of OCAPL

Students

Leadership

Lorem ipsum survey

IMG_0900

IMG_0897

IMG_0865

IMG_0864

320615_287786441236882_100000165860919_1346822_1517125958_n

318887_287787941236732_100000165860919_1346838_345797574_n

316558_287787851236741_100000165860919_1346836_719755977_n

316049_287787804570079_100000165860919_1346835_4502738_n

315469_287787581236768_100000165860919_1346831_768660203_n

313690_287788477903345_100000165860919_1346850_447881276_n

Lorem ipsum

Home Page Content