Delineation of mineral rights interests


Thanks for the info. I have not heard from or received a division order from Rebellion concerning my minerals in 24 6N 7W. Should I have heard something by now?



The Tyler 13-24 1XH is producing. It was spud on 9-7-17, but I do not have a first date of sales. I would give them a call and ask if when they are sending out division orders on it and what the first date of sales were. In April they were given permission to drill a new well called the Grant 0607 25-24. Hope they are both good producers for you!



We leased 11-6-7 not far from there. Last i heard from rebellion they had spud the well in April of this year and called the “Michael” well and were in the horizontal phase. After horizontal phase is complete, fracking starts. This usually takes 2-3 months. Once production begins, then division orders go out. Every well is different, I know, but I would have thought division orders would have gone out by now. Call rebellion and ask for an update. ‭+1 (918) 779-3163‬.



Tyler 13-24 1XH … Active Date: 03/12/2018 … expect division orders late August, or early September.

1 Like


Thanks Don



The location of your 50 acres depends on whether you own an undivided 50-acre interest in the 100-acre tract. If yours is an undivided 50-acre interest, that means that you own a 50% interest in every single piece of land in the 100-acre tract. If what you own is not an undivided interest, then that means that you own a specific 50-acre tract located somewhere in the 100 acres.



The well was spud in sec 13, so you have to hunt for info on the OCC there. It is a two section horizontal well, so will probably take four-five months to drill and complete. You will not get a division order until about five months after first sales. Spud April 17, so maybe a DO January or Feb 2019.




If it’s okay, and if it’s not against the rules, can I post questions directly to you?? Anticipating that your answer will be yes, I have a question. Actually, I have a lot of them and this one is not related to the pdf you actually sent to me via this/your reply to me. Anyway…

We are absentee mineral owners in Grady county, OK. Given that, we were “force pooled”. We had no idea this was happening. And, in addition, it turns out that we did not receive any, as in none what so ever, due diligence from the oil operator. It also turns out, that we were assigned the minimum default royalty terms that according to the pooling order. The oil well is not on our acreage proper. So, we are receiving payments by virtue of being in the pooled “area”.

My question is, that since it has now been a little less than a handful of years since the pool became active, can we retroactively renegotiate “our” terms - not the other entities in the pool - within the pooling order?? If so, how would we begin that process??



Hard to answer exactly without the exact section, township and range. If you do not respond, then you are assigned the lowest pooling royalty and no, you cannot renegotiate except in very rare cases. Give me the S-T-R and I can do a bit of looking on the timing.



Hi M_Barnes.

Thank you for taking the time with me. S-T-R: 36-7N-5W. HWY 39 is the northern boundary. I’ve done some research and things are on the uptick in the county in general.



The Green Acres #1-36H is a horizontal well drilled in the middle of the section back in 2014. Even if the surface location is not on your acreage, it holds your acreage because it was spaced at 640 acres. I am attaching a list of OCC cases that go back to 2013. You can go online at the OCC and look up all the documents, exhibits, etc.OAP Check your address on the 2013 pooling. I see your names, but are the addresses correct? That might have been the problem in them not finding you. It is your responsibility to file new addresses in the county clerk’s office. Anyway, looks like you are about to get four more wells!

Cause# Order Type Applicant Application Date Hearing Date Order Date Continued Date County Legal Area Affected Status Images order#
201302009 Spacing CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC. 3/19/2013 4/8/2013 Grady S:36, T:7N, R:5W ALL Order Issued Yes 611235
201302197 Pooling CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC. 3/25/2013 4/15/2013 5/20/2013 Grady S:36, T:7N, R:5W ALL Order Issued Yes 611837
201302234 Location Exception CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC. 3/26/2013 8/15/2016 10/19/2016 Grady S:36, T:7N, R:5W ALL Order Issued Yes MULTIPLE
201401732 Pooling CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC. 3/11/2014 3/31/2014 4/29/2014 Grady S:36, T:7N, R:5W ALL Order Issued Yes 624624
201502139 Pooling CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC. 5/4/2015 6/1/2015 7/13/2015 Grady S:36, T:7N, R:5W ALL Order Issued Yes 643026
201900431 Location Exception CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC. 1/16/2019 Grady S:36, T:7N, R:5W ALL Pending Yes
201900430 Horizontal CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC. 1/16/2019 Grady S:36, T:7N, R:5W ALL Pending Yes
201900428 Horizontal CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC. 1/16/2019 Grady S:36, T:7N, R:5W ALL Pending Yes
201900427 Location Exception CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC. 1/16/2019 Grady S:36, T:7N, R:5W ALL Pending Yes
201900424 Horizontal CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC. 1/16/2019 Grady S:36, T:7N, R:5W ALL Pending Yes
201900423 Increased Density CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC. 1/16/2019 Grady S:36, T:7N, R:5W ALL Pending Yes
201900426 Horizontal CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC. 1/16/2019 Grady S:36, T:7N, R:5W ALL Pending Yes
201900425 Location Exception CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC. 1/16/2019 Grady S:36, T:7N, R:5W ALL Pending Yes



As always, awesome information! Your amazingness (real word??) is coming through loud and clear. And, I am certainly not trying to patronize you. I’m not the kinda guy that would do that (YUK! YUK!). But honestly, the reason I say this is due to this; I did not say anything to you about the recent(say, 10 days ago) 4 packets of information we received in the mail. They turned out to be a “Notice of Hearing” notification document from a law firm representing Continental Resources revealing the reasons behind the cause#. Without mentioning any of this, the cause#'s or any of this info to you, and only providing you our STR, you were able to match exactly the same cause#'s we had previously received in said mailings. I am learning all the time with your help thru this forum mechanism. I intend to get a lot more familiar with the OCC website.

An FYI about myself: Retired mind you…Journeyman IT professional, Network Engineer, Internal IT Operations Network Engineer, Senior Data Archivist, EDI Systems Architect, and a bunch of other stuff. I checked out your bio too. Wow! I am not worthy! I’m bowing right now.

I’m sure that the more I e-speak with you the better off my cohorts and me will be. Thanks again!!





Hi Martha! Dan Williams here. It’s been some time since we last communicated. I wanted to send this message to you as a reply to a previous message of yours that you sent to me in case you don’t recall who I am.

I have a question. How can I go about getting a copy of the “Notice of Hearing” documents that pertain to a particular pooling order that would have been sent to the “known” mineral owners prior to the actual creation of the pool? Aren’t pooling orders a public record? This pooling data that I’m interested in would have happened in 2013 or 2014. Land owners are not necessarily mineral owners, and mineral owners are not necessarily land owners.

Thanks for the help… Dan



Tell me the section, township and range and I can get the case number for you. Then you can get all the documents that go with it on the OCC OAP website.




Thanks for the quick response. Would the Pooling number be the “cause#”. I have a pooling number and legal description. I don’t like to say I hate anything, but I am not going to install ANY Oracle software. Or, change anything on my machine just to use the OCC thing. I tried to use their website. Oh My! What was OCC thinking? Are they trying to discourage users from using their, um, website?

Anyway, I’m looking for ways to get a copy of the required “Notice of Hearing” document(s) that would have been sent in advance of the pooling as is the normal protocol. I need to check the names in the list.

I’m not trying to “delegate” anything to you, but would you be willing to send a me a couple of PDF’s if you can find anything? 29 02N 04W - Pooling - 612415.

Thanks again…



Dan; I read up on the Operating Systems (OS) required to access that OCC department . And yes it was a Nightmare !!

What I learned, was that An Apple Computer will work because of its OS. I have been looking for an Old Apple Computer for that reason. Even though I don’t have access to the Internet except for using my phone.



There’s an Excellent possibility that if you were to Call the OCC and specify what you were wanting by Section,Township and Range , they would print and mail to you at No Cost or Charge. I have called them before and that’s what they did for me. They also sent me the Mineral Owners Handbook,Martha had told us about, because I have no access to a Printer connected to the Internet.



You can get into the imaged documents site without all the hassle. Type in 201307886 in the Case # box. It goes with that order. Gives all the background documents as well. OAP. Nothing to install on your computer. That notice of hearing is document 50666807. Let me know if you can’t pull it up and I will pdf it for you.



Does anyone know if Rigs have or are put in place : 1703N07W for LarryJackson 5 & 6 -17 ?

I have been monitoring those two (2) wells to keep informed because I own Minerals in 2003N07W. I got the Idea from Don Bray ~five (5) Years ago. And Martha, had shared with me that Pooling was Initiated in 1703N07W;So, I use the OCC Sites She shared to track development.



Dan’s questions and Martha’s answers got me to thinking. So I pulled up the 1002A for a gas well and saw what Zones had been drilled into. Then I looked in my files and read The Application to drill paperwork. Where, my order number for xxxxxx for the production of gas and gas condensate, to a depth sufficient to test the Bartlesville, Savannah, upper Broach, lower broach, hartshorn, Gilchrist, Spiro, wapanucka upper Cromwell and lower Cromwell and Jefferson separate common sources of supply underline the subject track.

The 1002A doesn’t reflect ALL OF those Zones were explored.
Is that OK, or is there a zip legal matter to be explored ?