# Location exception

**URL:** https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/t/location-exception/89313
**Category:** Custer County, OK
**Created:** [September 7, 2026, 1:59pm UTC](https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/t/location-exception/89313 "2026-09-07T13:59:19Z")
**Posts on this page:** 5
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Kara\_Conn](https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/a698b9/32.png) [@Kara\_Conn](https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/u/Kara_Conn)
#### Post date: [September 7, 2026, 1:59pm UTC](https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/t/location-exception/89313/1 "2026-09-07T13:59:19Z")

</div>

Just wondering if this is normal or if maybe they have decided not to drill? Pic from OCC

 ![Screenshot_20260907_085727_Chrome](https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/uploads/db5755/original/3X/4/5/45f01a0098bd0c59900893e7ade4d2301078c245.jpeg)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Ole\_Jim\_Bob](https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/o/71e660/32.png) [@Ole\_Jim\_Bob](https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/u/Ole_Jim_Bob)
#### Post date: [September 7, 2026, 2:20pm UTC](https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/t/location-exception/89313/2 "2026-09-07T14:20:52Z")

</div>

My understanding is that Order # 757447 did extend the Location Exception another year. According to that order, the “Movant” intends to dill Q4 2026 or Q1 2027.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Kara\_Conn](https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/a698b9/32.png) [@Kara\_Conn](https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/u/Kara_Conn)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2026, 1:37pm UTC](https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/t/location-exception/89313/3 "2026-09-10T13:37:10Z")

</div>

Does anyone know if extensions are typical? Im new to all of this

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![M\_Barnes](https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/user_avatar/www.mineralrightsforum.com/m_barnes/32/10942_2.png) [@M\_Barnes](https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/u/M_Barnes)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2026, 1:58pm UTC](https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/t/location-exception/89313/4 "2026-09-10T13:58:12Z")

</div>

Very common. Operators juggle their drilling schedules around rig availability, frac crews and budgets.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Ole\_Jim\_Bob](https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/o/71e660/32.png) [@Ole\_Jim\_Bob](https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/u/Ole_Jim_Bob)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2026, 2:10pm UTC](https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/t/location-exception/89313/5 "2026-09-10T14:10:44Z")

</div>

Yes, extensions like this are not unusual and do not necessarily mean they have decided against drilling. According to the order, Crawley reduced the number of rigs it has under contract from two to one, which shifted its drilling schedule.

Crawley testified that it still considers the acreage a viable prospect for future development and currently plans to begin operations in the fourth quarter of 2026 or the first quarter of 2027. The extension preserves the location exception while it adjusts its schedule. Of course, plans can still change, but the stated reason for the extension was scheduling and rig availability—not abandonment of the prospect.