The only approved permit is Renegades by the county line and north CR29.
I looked at the GPS coords and it looks like right at the “jog” on 29. I haven’t driven over there in a while to verify it. I doubt CHK is gonna drill anytime REAL soon. They are still appealing to get section line majority rights approved through the state.
Yes, I’m certain. I saw 2 guys driving a land survey company truck pounding stakes on the state land so I stopped and asked what they are doing, one of the guys said they are marking off the space to a pad site for CHK.
I know CHK has the most 1 well per 640 acre section spacing orders in Elbert. With all the planning and rule making going on once it does hit it’s going to be a wonderful ride.
Here is the list from the State where CHK has applied for 26 rigs:
Township 6 South, Range 63 West, 6th P.M. Section 31: All
Township 7 South, Range 63 West, 6th P.M. Section 6: All
Township 6 South, Range 64 West, 6th P.M. Section 2, 11-12, 34-36
Township 7 South, Range 64 West, 6th P.M. Sections 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 15-19, 29, 34: All
Township 6 South, Range 65 West, 6th P.M. Sections 26, 36: All
Township 7 South, Range 66 West, 6th P.M. Section 8: All
The last entry on your list of spacing units for CHK is in Douglas County. CHK made a mistake putting it on the Elbert County application and then corrected it by filing another application listing T7, R66, Section 8 as being in Douglas County. There are a total of 24 drilling and spacing units for Elbert County by CHK.
Hetty, are you sure the section you saw being staked out is East of CR 29? There’s some state lands in Section 36, T6, R65, which would be north of Deer Creek Farm off of CR174 and west of CR 17-21 (where the golf course is). CHK has that section too and I heard they were entering into a surface use agreement with the surface owner in that section (he does not own the mineral rights, state land).
Thanks for your clarification, Debbie, I try… but have only so much time. I really do appreciate the clarification!
I didn’t mean to come across as being nit-picky. Just trying to be informative and let everyone know that CHK made a mistake on their App. Sorry!
Hetty I think the surveying is to help the state with the application error as noted below. We will see drilling by next summer for sure.
Question! Has anyone gotten their bonus check from CHK yet? My sister lives near Hilltop and Signing Hills signed back in March of this year and it’s well over the 90 WD mark but she still has not seen her bonus. She called CHK Parker office today and was told CHK is pulling out of Elbert County, most of the staff already moved back to OK, some moved on to the Greeley office. Can anyone confirm this?
Seen odd since one of our friends down the road also has not seen their bonus neither.
The only
Saw that link a while back, your point is ???
Sorry, wrong link (was busy putting 2 2-year-olds down for nap - I also see your notation about the 90wd).
My point is, they may leave everyone high and dry after getting a lease they could file with the county. If they lose the section you’re in, they could let you hash it out with the company that DID get your section (basically you’d get force-pooled). If CHK is awarded the section, they could come back later and issue the checks. Either way, I would suspect they are not intending on sending that check anytime soon. While I DO hope she sees it, I have my doubts.
We received a letter today from Geonetics LLC for permission to conduct seismic testing on our property near Singing Hills X CR21, anyone see anything like this in the mail?
I have also received a letter from Geonetics LLC to conduct seismic testing at my property off of CR50 about 5 miles east of Singing Hills. I have not yet signed. Would love to know if anyone else has dealt with the company.
What would you like to know? Acreage is secure so once testing and analyzing is complete for hole location, drilling shall commence. Hopefully Elbert County will have their stuff together.
It might be worth your time to check out Buddy Cotten’s blog on geophysical agreement and its misuse.
Good advice !!
I’m curious to get opinions of the rationale of Chesapeake to not include my section in their grab of spacing orders of “1 well per 640 acres” in 24 sections all around me. It doesn’t bother me so much, just curious because we have access on east by CR 21, north by CR 166, south by PR 162 that curls around to north in center of section. I’m talking about Section 8, Township 7S, Range 64W. Any thoughts??
It’s hard to say what Chesapeake’s motivation is, but in my opinion it would be to an oil company’s advantage to drill where the best geologic data resides. Your section may not have as good a reading as the sections around you. An employee of COGCC gave a talk recently and mentioned that higher ground is better as oil rises to the top. Don’t know if that applies to shale, but thought it was interesting.