A Well Proposal In Oklahoma - A Boon to the Mailman

Oklahoma Oil and Gas Mineral Owners,

Berlin's friend Bruce called her up on Friday, and after he finished ranting about planting his tomatoes before the last frost date, he got down to asking about well proposals and why he is receiving them in the mail for his Pittsburg County, Oklahoma mineral rights.

Unless one is party to a Joint Operating Agreement, a well proposal in Oklahoma is a non-binding piece of correspondence. It is supposed to be the last of a series of efforts for all owners with the right to drill a well in a certain drilling and spacing unit to agree to drill (or not to drill) that well before a forced pooling proceeding is undertaken at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. 

A well proposal will usually contain the following pieces of information;

1. The proposing party (and potential operator)
2. The location of the well (usually described to a quarter section level)
3. The target formation
4. The type of well (horizontal or vertical)
5. The depth of the well
6. The cost of the well (an AFE should be included)
7. The proposed farmout/lease terms in lieu of participation in the well

Ever since our friends at Chesapeake popularized not sending out a JOA even between parties who have agreed to the development of a unit, a well proposal should be viewed as a warning order that a forced pooling application will arrive in a few weeks.

Dr. Evil prefers that one forgets that elections under a pre-pooling well proposal are non-binding so he can deem Austin out of the well.

There is little room for negotiation in the terms of the well proposal. If an owner desires not to participate and would prefer to lease/farmout and doesn't like the terms presented in the proposal, the proposing party will say something like, "well, you had your chance hot shot, but now you'll just have to see what we testify to at the pooling hearing." The power of the forced pooling provisions gives her the ability to (1) call anyone she wants "hot shot," and (2) not care about responding to counter-proposals from other owners in the unit. Berlin has been told that is not the case in other states (property rights, who needs property rights?).

If an owner does want to participate in the well, he will still have to elect to do some when the forced pooling order issues. Despite the fact this is usually written into the well proposal, many parties still fail to elect under the order and the operator is more than happy to overlook their previously designated intent and deem them out of the well.

After Berlin explained these facts to Bruce, he asked the only questions that a reasonable person would ask after hearing about how worthless a pre-pooling Oklahoma well proposal is, "what's the point and who benefits?" Berlin isn't sure what the point of the well proposal is, they are often ambiguous and as stated above, non-binding. The beneficiaries are certainly the USPS who really enjoy when letters are sent certified at $7.00/piece and the potential operator's competition who get a 2-3 week notice that applications are about to be filed.  

Please comment below or contact Berlin with any more questions about well proposals or if you would like to sell your Oklahoma mineral rights.

More to follow,

Berlin

Splitting the Baby and the Pooling Bonus

Oklahoma Oil and Gas Mineral Owners:

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission has been regulating on the fly as to rule changes on multi-unit horizontal wells. One of the recent changes is that applicants now must offer a formation election if the applicant desires to force pool more than one common source of supply. Berlin thinks that this effects the unleased Oklahoma mineral owner more than the commissioners had originally intended.

Your call Sol...splitting the pooling bonus for the Oklahoma oil and gas mineral owners.

Old World for the Mineral Owner:

The Commission effectively put a stop to applicants pooling from the surface to granite, instead allowing the the applicant to only pool her target formation and the formation directly uphole and directly downhole. For example, if the applicant proposed a Woodford well, she would have been allowed to pool the Mississippian, Woodford, and Hunton. For simplicity's sake, if my man Bruce was an unleased Oklahoma mineral owner and did not want to participate in the Woodford well with his 10 net mineral acres, he would elect out of the initial well and thus have given up his ability to participate in any Mississippian, Woodford, or Hunton wells while the forced pooling order was in effect. If the only option in lieu of participation was $1,200 per net mineral acre and a 3/16 royalty, Bruce would receive $12,000 from the applicant. 

New World for the Mineral Owner:

The situation has now changed with formation elections. The applicant now has to testify to the perspective value of a well in each formation she expects to pool in order to proportionally allocate the bonus amount. If she testifies that the Mississippian, Woodford, and Hunton are equally perspective, they would receive 1/3 of the allocated bonus each. Now if Bruce elects not to participate in the drilling of the initial Woodford well, he will only receive $4,000 from the applicant ($1,200/nma * (1/3) * 10). If the applicant does not propose a Mississippian or Hunton well during the primary term of the forced pooling order, Bruce will never have an opportunity to make an election and thus will never be compensated for his Mississippian and Hunton formations being pooled for a year.

Now many of you will shout "Berlin, you're a goon, Bruce's Mississippian and Hunton will be open after the primary term of the order." And that is true. Bruce will most likely be open in a year where he could lease or even propose his own well. But Berlin would argue that after a horizontal operator has drilled a Woodford well in the unit, the chances of another operator paying Bruce a premium for his Mississippian and Hunton rights would be unlikely unless better wells are eventually made in the the Mississippian or Hunton.

As there are pros and cons to formation elections for the Oklahoma mineral owner, there are also pros and cons for the applicant/operator. Pro: Her pooling bonus will be lower in the short term, in the case above 1/3 of what it would have been under the old regime. This will be even more advantageous for the operator who is pooling (as opposed to leasing) a greater amount of acreage. Con: Many companies are now valued on their net acres in multiple formations. So now if the operator pools more acreage and initially only drills Woodford wells, her Mississippian acreage count will not see a benefit from the pooling proceedings. This should be somewhat intuitive, she didn't pay for it, she doesn't own it (unless she can convince a bigger fish with someone else's money to pay her for the Mississippian acreage if it is during the primary term of the pooling order).

Conclusion:

Berlin predicts that these rules will change at some point in the future and that an Oklahoma mineral owner will again be permitted to elect out of all formations held by the pooling order in order to receive 100% of the pooling bonus from the outset (TVM, even if they don't call it that...).  

If you have any more questions on split bonus payments under Oklahoma Corporation Commission forced pooling orders or you would like to sell your Oklahoma mineral rights and royalties, please contact Berlin.

More to follow,

Berlin

Spudding Before Forced Pooling

Oklahoma Oil and Gas Interest Owners:

Bruce was a bit pissed when he called up Berlin today. Apparently, his fence line weaning efforts cost him about 6 hours of sleep after he found the fence knocked down and the calves back with their mommas.  After he calmed down a bit, he asked why so many operators are spudding their wells before a forced pooling order has issued and what his options are as an unleased Oklahoma oil and gas mineral owner named as a respondent in the pooling proceedings.

There are a few reasons why an Oklahoma operator might spud a well before an Oklahoma Corporation Commission ("OCC") forced pooling order is issued.

1. As Berlin discussed yesterday, the OCC is short staffed and the review and issuance of orders is taking a substantial amount of time and in some cases up to 5 months after the pooling was recommended at the hearing. In order to feed the rig monster, operators must keep drilling their wells. After all, a pooling order is not needed to obtain a permit to drill.
2. If a forced pooled unit is not formed and there is no Joint Operating Agreement or any other voluntary pooling of leasehold interest between the working interest owners in the unit, there is no mechanism to govern the development of the unit. One of the consequences of this action is that there are no mechanisms to handle costs. And if a fellow working interest owner can't pay his costs, the operator will not provide well info. In short, operators will spud a well without a forced pooling order so they will not have to share well information in the short term with their competitors.
3. Forced poolings can be a time suck. Dealing with asinine requests on pre-pooling letter agreements, setting protest dates, and finally the protests themselves are often an exercise in busy work. If an operator has a high working interest in the spacing unit, she might just spud the well and file a pooling application in time to have the order issue before the division order title opinion needs to be rendered. 

The rig monster never sleeps, but enjoys purchasing Oklahoma oil and gas mineral rights before a horizontal well is drilled. It increases his NRI and keeps his LPs happy.

The operator incurs a risk when he drills before a pooling order has issued. Hopefully, he has used the time to evaluate the well and if he's made a good well, to lease the offsetting acreage. However, if he had issues drilling or made a marginal well, he is in danger of owning 100% of the working interest as the other working interest parties will have scouted the well and will elect out of the unit when the pooling order issues at a later date. So what are Bruce's options as an Oklahoma oil and gas mineral owner? Once the order issues, he should read the order as it will contain the usual options, however, he should be more strategic as he will have more information available to him.

1. If the operator has made a good well, Bruce's interest will now be substantially more valuable. Bruce could participate in the well if he has completed his diligence on the property and scouted the location. However, Berlin's recommendation is that only professional mineral owners should participate in wells. Still, his mineral interest should command a premium with non-op companies who have other people's money to spend. Bruce should be able to negotiate an oil and gas lease with better terms than those found in the forced pooling order.
2. If the operated drilled a dud, it is unlikely that any non-op will seek Bruce out for his interest unless the non-op just wants to participate with a small amount of acreage in order to obtain well information. In this case, Bruce should just elect the option in lieu of participation under the pooling order that works best for he and his family's situation (ie does he need cash now to buy replacement heifers or maybe more royalty later if an operator decides to density the section). 

Berlin hopes she answered Bruce's question. If you have any more questions about forced pooling, or you would like an offer to sell your Oklahoma oil and gas mineral rights. Please drop Berlin a line or comment below.

More to follow,

Berlin

Four Key Pieces of Correspondence for the Oklahoma Mineral Owner

(This post originally appeared on www.oklahomaminerals.com on November 8,2016)

All,

Landmen are no busier than most professionals during the work day, but it is often stated that company landmen never return the calls of mineral owners. While this might be true of the bottom 10% of the profession, most landmen know that by placing a single call to a mineral owner, he could spend 30 minutes explaining knowledge that could easily be obtained throughsimple internet research. An informed mineral owner, who asks a poignant question, is much more likely to receive the answer he needs than the owner who calls to ask the difference between a spacing application and a well proposal.

Admittedly, if one owns a single tract of minerals or maybe just inherited the minerals, then the inaugural process of leasing and receiving the regulatory paperwork while the company is assembling the drilling and spacing unit would surely baffle most.

In general, there are four key pieces of correspondence that an Oklahoma mineral owner will receive from the landman. These occasions are detailed in brief below.

The Offer to Lease

Often, the first time an Oklahoma mineral owner will be contacted by a landman is when the landman’s company is assembling a prospect. The mineral owner will be contacted by phone and/or mail with an offer to lease their mineral interest. Most landmen will offer at least two options which will differ in the amount of cash bonus per net mineral acre and the royalty.

The Well Proposal

After the landman has made a bona fide effort to reach an agreement with all owners who own the right to drill a well in the proposed unit, he will send a well proposal to the parties with whom he has not yet reached an agreement. The well proposal will offer final terms in lieu of participation in the well and details of the well to be drilled such as location, proposed depth, target formation, estimated depth and cost of the well in the event the party would like to participate. It is important to note that in Oklahoma, an election to participate in the well is not binding until the party elects under the pooling order.

Oklahoma Corporation Commission Applications

Initially one of the most confusing aspects of being an Oklahoma mineral owner is the receipt of Oklahoma Corporation Commission (“OCC”) applications and orders. Some owners ask why they are being sued and others ask to be removed from the mailing list. Owners receive the applications and orders because Operators and applicants are required by law to provide notice of their activities to the owners who their activity affects. These applications are orders are mailed from an attorney who represents the applicant in OCC matters. The three most common applications that an owner will receive are the spacing application, location exception application, and pooling application. These applications will be discussed in detail at a later date, but the pooling application will be the application that will have the largest effect on the mineral owner’s rights and pocketbook. The OCC publishes a handbook for mineral owners that can be found http://www.occeweb.com/og/PubAsst/WebRoyaltyOwnersHandbook3-2015.pdf

The Division Order

If an operator successfully drills and completes a well, the next correspondence the mineral owner will receive from the company is the division order. A division order is an instrument which sets forth the proportional ownership in the produced hydrocarbons. The proportional ownership is communicated to the owner on the instrument in a decimal form. After the division order is signed and curative title issues are completed, the mineral owner should receive their first check within six months from the date of first production from the well.

In conclusion, the four key pieces of correspondence that an Oklahoma mineral owner will receive from the landman and the company, are the offer to lease, the well proposal, Oklahoma Corporation Commission applications and orders and finally, the division order. All four of these topics will be expanded upon in future articles. If there are any other topics you would like to discuss, please mention your ideas in the comment section.

More to follow,

Berlin

The Crystal Ball and Newfield Exploration

All,

Down goes Frazier and Linn Energy, Sandridge Energy, and Chaparral Energy. All in bankruptcy within a month of each other. American Energy Partners are shutting the doors Newfield Exploration is leaving Tulsa. The patch has seen better days.

The Newfield exit is a bit baffling. It's not surprising that the management teams of publicly traded companies are notoriously selfish, but to close down the office that deploys 80% of the company's capital budget in order for them to maintain their faux bourgeois existence in the Woodlands is a stretch. Despite a top position in the STACK (Sooner Trend Anadarko Basin Canadian and Kingfisher Counties), it is going to be more difficult for them to compete with locally based companies from their perch in Houston. There is something to be said for a company landman to know the local competition and to be able to drive to El Reno if need be to gather intel at the courthouse. Just as Apache's position is unraveling in the Mid-Continent after their retreat to the swamp that is Houston, Newfield could very well fall in their footsteps. It would be quite a treat to see one of the Oklahoma companies force pool Newfield out of everyone of their 42,000 new acres they recently acquired from Chesapeake.

More to follow,

Berlin

Forced Pooling In Oklahoma

Oklahoma Oil and Gas Mineral and Royaty Owners,

Pooling is the process of combining the interests of two or more tracts in the same spacing unit. The area is called a pool, or a unit. Pooling provides benefits to the operator by combining all owners’ interests in one common pool under one drilling and spacing unit and utilizing one or more common geological formations, commonly referred to as a “common sources of supply” by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (“OCC”). The primary purpose of pooling is to develop and operate a given formation in order to recover the greatest amount of hydrocarbons that can reasonably be produced, prevent the drilling of unecessary wells, and also to achieve equity among the interest owners by permitting each owner to recover a fair share of hydrocarbons therefrom. There are several types of pooled units, but for today's discusssion only voluntary pooled units and forced pooled units will be discussed.

Owners wishing to propose a well must secure the commitment of other owners in the drilling and spacing unit.  The proposing party, at minimum, should send a well proposal to all other owners in the unit. Most drilling and spacing units for horizontal wells comprise an area of 640 acres or one section. Since Oklahoma minerals rights are often bought and sold, this could mean that there are hundreds of owners in just one section. Closing a deal or even locating all the owners is very difficult. Therefore, the proposing party must file a pooling application through the OCC in order to “force” or secure commitment from all parties. This process is called forced pooling in Oklahoma.  

The pooling application will provide notice to all of the unleased mineral owners or all lessees who will be listed as respondents on Exhibit “A” of the application. The pooling notice is mailed to all respondents having the right to drill and/or participate in the well. The notice sets a time and place for the upcoming hearing and allows any respondent to be present in order to protect his interest.

At the hearing, the landman who attempted to negotiate with all the owners in the unit, will testify under oath that proper notice was given to each of the respondents and also that a good faith effort was made to come to terms with each respondent listed on Exhibit “A”. Testimony by the landman will include the fair market value of the mineral interests in the section and the surrounding eight contiguous sections ("the nine spot"), as it relates to lease bonuses paid and royalties offered within the last year; and may include any competitive single section trades such as farmout agreements or term assignments made in the same area.

After the hearing, the judge will decide whether to issue a pooling order or not.  If a pooling order is issued, the respondent(s) will have 20 days from the issuance of the order to make an election on the options provided. A pooling order typically provides for one of the following two options:

1.  Participate in the well and pay the owners' proportionate share of costs.

2.  Select one of the options presented by the landman. There will usually be two combinations of a cash bonus per net mineral acre (nma) and a royalty. For example, one could selected $200/nma and a 1/8th royalty or $100/nma and a 3/16th royalty.

It is important to note that an owner's selection will govern his unit rights for as long as that unit is producing. There should be provisions in the pooling order to govern subsequent wells. For example, if an owner elects not to partiticpate in the intial well and instead selects the 3/16th royalty, he will not have the option to participate in subsequent wells.

This process is beneficial to the operator as the OCC causes all undecided landowners to make elections pursuant to the pooling order. Oklahoma’s forced pooling process benefits operators, working interest partners and mineral interest owners. It stimulates a competitive market for development of oil and gas, which results in revenues for investors and royalty owners.

There is no minimum ownership percentage to file to pool a section. Even an owner with a small stake in the unit can apply to pool the other owners to force the drilling of the well. This is important because it can push legacy operators out of the way who are not wanting to spend the capital to develop the newly found horizontal horizons.

Most poolings are in force for a year and if the initial well is not spud within this time frame than the order will expire as to the formations that were pooled.

Any questions? More to follow.

BR