Any news on 21-6n-4w pooling?

The hearing was re-set for Nov 30. I haven’t seen anything yet. Also, were the two wells drilled in this section earlier this year. Does anyone have any idea on their success? I’m curious.


NoBS: Not sure what Casillas is doing with their poolings for the Woodford. They finished fracking the Indultado 2WXH well and the 3MXH wells early last week and are moving out equipment and should be turning the wells over to production. No production reports yet so rest easy. Maybe first checks around May or June, 2022. Earlier if we are lucky.

The exhibits to the pooling were posted on 12/2/21 from 11/30/21. The docket results webpage says “REC” for recommended, so probably just need to wait a few days until you get it in the mail or it is posted online to see what they actually said in the pooling.

Hi M B,

Do you know if the pooling has been posted online yet. I can’t find anything and it’s been a while. Notta in the mail yet either.

The Case Number is 202102400 for the Woodford in Section 21. There are 23 respondents. If you did not get a mailing, then they probably consider you held by production from the depth clause of your earlier lease. Indultado 0604 28-21-2WXH is the well. Hearing date supposed to be Nov. 30, 2021-OKC. I checked the docket results and it says it has been “recommended” but do not see any orders posted yet.

The other Pooling case number is 202102212 for the Woodford. 73 respondents. Filed Oct 13, 2021 no exhibits posted yet. Hearing date was supposed to be Nov 9, 2021-OKC. I checked the docket results and this one is listed as DMOA 11-9-21., but another one for that section is continued to 1-25-22. DMOA means Dismissed Motion of Applicant.

Casillas has not issued an Order in that case yet, but it has been recommended. So waiting for the attorney to get the Order typed up and to the Commissioners for their signatures. They are flowing back the 2 new Indultado wells and so far so good. Merry Christmas NBS.

Hi M B,

I received the pooling order today (case # 722405). I was wondering if it looks pretty much as you would expect. There are some things in the order that I might not understand but would like to know if you see anything glaring that would be considered less than fair.

Your and Mr. B’s opinions are always appreciated. I’m glad to finally have this issued.

Hope you both have a great New year! N

Looks pretty standard. Seems to be mostly for curative purposes. Pick the royalty set you want and reply by certified mail within 20 days or the order date which is Dec 28. I usually do them as fast as possible. Don’t be surprised if it doesn’t cover all of your net acreage since one of the Woodford wells may be within the earlier depth clause. They may also deem that your second well is covered by the Woodford depth clause. Go ahead and answer anyway to make sure you get the royalty you want. (Many of us pick the highest royalty since it pays out more in the long run.) Keep a copy of everything.

In your response letter, state your name, address, description of acreage, Case Number Order Number and the paragraph that you are selecting for your royalty choice and also state what the choice is- such as 6a -$750/acre and a 1/4th royalty. etc. Include a signed W-9.

It is a good idea to timely file your election in the OCC case as well (of course do not file your W9 in the case).

This post is not legal or tax advice. This post does not create an attorney-client relationship.

This topic was automatically closed after 90 days. New replies are no longer allowed.