Item Number 1 - dmme. Web viewPrincipal Executive to the Staff of the ... I’m from Indiana,...

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MINES, MINERALS AND ENERGY

VIRGINIA GAS AND OIL BOARD HEARING

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Lebanon, Virginia

BOARD MEMBERS:

Bradley C. Lambert – Chairman

Donnie Rife – Public Representative

Bill Harris – Public Representative

Bruce Prather – Oil and Gas Industry Representative

Donnie Ratliff – Coal Industry Representative

Mary Quillen – Public Member

Rita Surratt – Public Member

APPEARANCES:

Rick Cooper—Director of the Division of Gas & Oil and Principal Executive to the Staff of the Board

Paul Kugelman, Jr.—Senior Assistant Attorney General

Sarah Gilmer – Staff Member of the Division of Gas & Oil

Sally Ketron – Staff Member of the Division of Gas & Oil

Prepared by: Joanna Boyd

i

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1415

16

17

18

19

20

23

Agenda Items

Item Number Docket Number Page

1 Public Comment 1

2 VGOB 04-1116-1358-02 (Approved) 4

3 VGOB 97-0218-0564-06 (Approved) 6

4 VGOB 12-0417-3047-02 (Approved) 18

5 VGOB 12-0417-3049-03 (Approved) 21

6 VGOB 17-1121-4145 (Approved) 23

7 VGOB 17-1121-4146 (Approved) 32

8 VGOB 17-1121-4147 (Approved) 35

9 VGOB 17-1121-4148 (Approved) 26

10 VGOB 17-1121-4149 (Approved) 38

11 VGOB 17-1121-4150 Approved) 41

12 VGOB 17-1121-4151 (Approved) 44

13 VGOB 17-1121-4152 (Approved) 47

14 Board & Division Activities from the Staff 50

15 October 2017 Minutes 55

ii

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

23

Butch Lambert: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, it’s time to begin our proceedings this morning. It’s after 9 o’clock and I’d like to begin this morning by saying if you have cell phones or other communication devices, please turn those off or put them on silent. We are recording these proceedings and we need to be able to hear all that’s being testified. This morning, I’ll begin by asking the Board members to please introduce themselves and I’ll begin with Mr. Rife.

Donnie Rife: Donnie Rife; Public Representative of Dickenson County.

Rita Surratt: Public Member; Dickenson County.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: Paul Kugelman with the Virginia Attorney General’s Office.

Butch Lambert: And I’m Butch Lambert, the Deputy Director with the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy.

Donnie Ratliff: Donnie Ratliff from Wise County, representing coal.

Bill Harris: I’m Bill Harris from Wise County; I’m a Public Member.

Bruce Prather: I’m Bruce Prather. I represent Oil & Gas Industry.

Mary Quillen: Mary Quillen, Public Member.

Item Number 1

Butch Lambert: Thank you, folks. The next item on the agenda is the Board will receive public comments and I have the sign-up sheet this morning and the first on the list is Lee Davis. You can please come forward and identify yourself for the record.

Lee Davis: Good morning. I’m Lee Davis.

Butch Lambert: Good morning.

Lee Davis: Last month’s meeting, it was brought up with this re-pooling. We were handed this paper with the 1K pool, which is not on the original document we had. That was brought up in last month’s meeting and not in this meeting minutes from that meeting. Then noticed that for that to take place, 1G had to move; added 1L; added 4A, 4B replaces 2H and added 1 High. And, is this property under the regulations of the non-disturbing property, above ground? That means, we use the road side were originally there from the great-grandfather?

Butch Lambert: Are you asking the Board a question?

Lee Davis: Yes.

1

1

1

23456

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

16

171819

20

21

222324252627

28

29

23

Butch Lambert: Well, we appreciate your public comments, but the Board can’t answer your questions. We’re not familiar with the information that you’re speaking about, and I know last month when, is this, Mr. Cooper, is this the same one related to when Ms. Simmons testified?

Lee Davis: Yes, it is.

Rick Cooper: Ms. Simmons came and met with us that afternoon of the Board Hearing and we provided her with all the documentation. I guess she met for maybe two hours with Sarah Gilmer and myself, and we talked with her and provided her all the documentation she requested and, I think, at that time we thought we had answered most of her questions. I think she’s even had follow-up information that we have sent additional items to her since then. But, I thought at that time we had answered all the questions and concerns that she had brought up.

Lee Davis: Well, this is the document she brought back, and it still has no surveyors stamp, as this one does.

Rick Cooper: Yeah, so what we…

Lee Davis: So, this right here does not seem legal at all.

Rick Cooper: Right. So, it does have a signature on it, but we use digital signatures; as of this year, we use digital signatures that could be verified. So, the one that I’m looking at does have a signed James Deel’s on it, on the application, in the petition.

Lee Davis: You gave us one that wasn’t signed, so it means this was handed out and made before it got surveyed. So, it’s just corruption form the Governor’s Office, all the way through here. It’s pretty sad all the people in these counties, that’s about all I’ve got to say.

Butch Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Davis. Next on the comments, Floyd Davis. Please come forward and identify yourself for the record.

Floyd Davis: I’m Floyd Davis. That’s my brother. I know since this all started, I think the Board let the fox in the henhouse. Nobody did due diligence to notify the heirs, which my father was one. They put a small ad in the newspaper and you guys said, “Okay, go ahead and drill.” You know. Of course, they want to put another well in now and they found 300 heirs. All you had to do was check the tax records. You call that due diligence? And you guys allowed it? Just disgusted with the whole system at how you people could do that, and allow it to happen. These are people that lived here all their lives. That’s all I have to say.

Butch Lambert: Thank you. Next person signed up for public comment is Fred Brown. Please come forward and identify yourself for the record.

Fred Brown: Well, basically I’m here for just a learning experience. We own property up in Dickenson County, and we’ve got about, oh, 10 wells on our property, and each well (Indiscernible 5:59) these documents to appear and this is, I’m from Indiana, so, just recently

2

1

123

4

56789

10

1112

13

14

151617

181920

2122

23242526272829

3031

323334

23

moved here. So, I’ve never been able to get here before so I’m not sure what this is all about, but I do know, like, we’re in a legal situation with (Indiscernible 6:22), which is a parent company with EnerVest and Range, and all that, and this effects EnerVest’s drilling a well, but will impact our property, as well. And it’s a pooling process as far as I can tell, and I’m just curious what rights we have as property owners, regarding this well. I mean, I have no idea. Also, what are all the microphones for? I can’t hardly hear anybody speaking. (Laughs)

Butch Lambert: These microphones are for recording. We’re going to get you a microphone where you can hear.

Fred Brown: Oh, okay. That helps. Yeah, it does.

Butch Lambert: Does that help?

Fred Brown: Yeah.

Butch Lambert: Mr. Brown, are you the service owner?

Fred Brown: Service. We’re fee and simple.

Butch Lambert: Oh, you’re a bank. Oh, okay. Well, I’m not sure what your policy deals with, with EQT. I guess the Board can’t answer the questions that you may have for your lawsuit.

Fred Brown: Okay. Well, I wasn’t expecting that. I was just curious what our rights were. This property owners regarding them to take gas off of our property, and this is a thing to object to it, I guess, so that’s why I’m here, I guess. I really, I don’t know any more about that.

Butch Lambert: Let me ask you this, Mr. Brown. Are you the owner that’s on the docket items that’s coming up today?

Fred Brown: Yes.

Butch Lambert: Okay. When, if you’re going to stay, what I would suggest that you do when your docket item is called, if you’ll come up and testify, provide testimony, and we can try to figure out what issues you may have.

Fred Brown: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you.

Butch Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Fred Brown: Can I keep this?

Butch Lambert: Oh, yes sir. You can hold on to that.

Fred Brown: Alright. Thank you.

3

1

123456

78

9

10

11

12

13

1415

161718

1920

21

222324

25

26

27

28

29

23

Floyd Davis: [Inaudible]

Butch Lambert: Yes, sir. Your name is Mr. Floyd Davis?

Floyd Davis: Yes, it is. We know that the gas company is making a lot of money from these wells, for sure. Since the well on my father’s property, in all the years it’s been there, he’s received $8.00. I’m amazed. We’ve checked the flow. He’s received $8.00. He’s dead now, but that’s when he…how is this even fair? You know? They go and just take the land and keep it. That’s all I have to say.

Butch Lambert: Okay. Thank you.

Item Number 2

Butch Lambert: A petition from CNX Gas Company, LLC, for re-pooling under Nora Coalbed Methane Gas Field. This is Docket Number VGOB-04-1116-1358-02. This is continued from October 2017. All parties wishing to testify, please come forward.

Mark Swartz: Mark Swartz and Anita Duty.


Mark Swartz: Good morning.

Sarah Gilmer: Do you affirm that your testimony is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Butch Lambert: Since this is a continuation from the October one; I know you provided testimony and the Board voted to continue this one until November and where the Board asked if Miss Simmons would meet with Mr. Cooper, the staff of the Board, and try to work out the issues that she was providing testimony for. I will ask you, do you have anything further to add?

Mark Swartz: Anita and I would like to clarify a question, an answer to a question that, I think, you asked, about what happened with the road. What called the re-pooling, and just to focus on that. When this was originally pooled, Tract 1G, which is now 0.017, a tiny little tract, was originally pooled as 1.43 acres. That’s part of the road, okay? And it was pooled as a, the people adjacent to the road or the Commonwealth. It was shown in conflict and it was shown as one tract. And what Anita and her folks have done is they have broken 1G into some pieces. So, the 1. 43 acres, that 1G originally was, now consists of 1G, 1I, 1J, 1K, 1L, and 1M. So, there’s no change in acreage. The Commonwealth still has, you know, the conflict in those, and, so that the, and 1G now is just the Commonwealth…I’m sorry.

Anita Duty: No.

4

1

1

2

34567

8

9

101112

13

14

15

1617

18

19202122

232425262728293031

32

23

Mark Swartz: It’s the other way around.

Anita Duty: It was originally just the Commonwealth and now it’s the Commonwealth or the individuals that are adjacent.

Mark Swartz: Or these people. So, it was in addition to dating these tracts, it was also identifying the conflicting owners?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: Okay. So that’s the change. The acreage does not change on the maps. None of the percentages of the other tracts, other than G, is broken down, have changed. And I don’t think we really understood that history when we were here last time. We just wanted to correct that.

Mary Quillen: You say 1, I’m sorry. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

Butch Lambert: Ms. Quillen.

Mary Quillen: 1J and 1K is a combination of the Commonwealth and other owners. Is that correct?

Anita Duty: The original 1G was 1.43 acres. So, if you take what we broke out; 1G, 1I, 1J, 1K, 1L, and 1M, as a total, that adds to 1.43. The only thing we did was take the adjacent owners and make it Commonwealth or those individuals.

Mary Quillen: Okay.

Anita Duty: So, the acreage is still the same, all we did was break that Commonwealth tract out.

Mary Quillen: Okay, that’s what I wanted to clarify, was when the Commonwealth came into it because all of those are on that road?

Anita Duty: Right. The Commonwealth was just originally pooled in that tract by itself.

Mary Quillen: Okay, okay. Gotcha.

Anita Duty: And then the only other change, we did have another change; we added a 4B. It was originally 2H, but we had misidentified the coal owner. So, we correct that and now it’s a 4A and a 4B. But the acreage is still the same and that’s we want to make sure…none of the acreage changed for any tract except for the 1G and it’s just broken out and so the acreage, as a whole, still remains the same. We didn’t change any of the tracts.

Mary Quillen: Thank you.

5

1

1

23

45

6

789

10

11

12

1314

151617

18

19

2021

22

23

2425262728

29

23

Mark Swartz: The question you asked was “Well, wasn’t the road there when you did this? How did you not know that?”, and we didn’t have an answer for what happened, and we’ve done the research and that’s what happened.

Butch Lambert: So, Mr. Cooper, Mrs. Simmons is not here but, were you able to provide her with the information that she was requesting, as per her testimony?

Rick Cooper: As far as I know, yes. We answered all of her questions and provided her all the documentation she requested, and she called back even at a later date and we had provided her additional documentation. So, as far as I know, we answered all of her questions.

Butch Lambert: Alright. Since she’s not here to corroborate that, we’ll just assume that she received the information she requested. Anything further, Mr. Swartz?

Mark Swartz: Nothing further.

Butch Lambert: Do I have a motion from the Board?

Donnie Rife: Motion made to approve, Mr. Chair.

Bill Harris: Second.

Butch Lambert: I have a motion and I have a second. Any further discussion? [No response] All in favor, signify by saying yes.

Board: Yes.

Butch Lambert: Opposed, no? [[No response] Mr. Swartz, that one is approved.

Mark Swartz: Thank you.

Item Number 3

Butch Lambert: A petition from CNX Gas Company, LLC, for (1) the disbursement of escrowed funds heretofore deposited with the Board’s Escrow Agent attributable to a portion of Tract 1 and 12, as depicted on the annexed table, and (2) authorization to begin paying royalties directly to the parties listed in the petition. This is Docket Number VGOB-97-0218-0564-06. All parties wishing to testify, please come forward.


Butch Lambert: You may proceed, Mr. Swartz.

Mark Swartz: Anita, would you state your name for us, please?

Anita Duty: Anita Duty.

6

1

123

45

678

910

11

12

13

14

1516

17

18

19

20

2122232425

26

27

28

29

23

Mark Swartz: Who do you work for?

Anita Duty: CNX Land, LLC.

Mark Swartz: Are you here today on behalf of CNX Gas Company, LLC?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: And this is a disbursement petition. Correct?

Anita Duty: It is.

Mark Swartz: And you either prepared it or supervised its preparation?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: And the reason we’re here, with regard to this request is, we’ve got a court case, right?

Anita Duty: We do.

Mark Swartz: And we have some gas claimants under the act?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: Previously, we dismissed some coal owners, so we don’t need to deal with that today?

Anita Duty: Correct.

Mark Swartz: And this is a percentage disbursement, and did you prepare a table in that regard?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: And Table 1, have you listed on Table 1, the names of all the people and or companies, and or estates, that are to receive a disbursement?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: And, for each person or company or estate, have you provided an address?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: When the Escrow Agent calculates the dollar amounts to be paid, should the Escrow Agent use the percentage in the second column from the right-hand side of Table 1,

7

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

910

11

12

13

1415

16

17

18

1920

21

22

23

2425

23

multiply that times the balance on hand at the time the disbursements are calculated, and use that to generate the dollar amount?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: And then we have an Exhibit J here, which from the brackets, you had a couple of issues, but you were able to resolve them?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: And the wells that have contributed to this escrow account are listed on Table 1, correct?

Anita Duty: They are.

Mark Swartz: Okay. Have you provided, in the event the disbursement requests are approved, and direct pay is approved, have you provided the Board with revised Exhibits E and EE?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: So, the escrow requirement, going forward, is shown on Exhibit E and the way that people will be paid, going forward, if the petition is approved, is shown on Exhibit EE?

Anita Duty: It is.

Mark Swartz: Did you prepare a reconciliation of payments and deposits?

Anita Duty: We did.

Mark Swartz: And that’s Exhibit J?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: And, in doing that, did you try to locate all of the royalty payments that the operator had made?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: And so when you went looking for the royalty checks that the operator had paid, you were actually able to find a correspondent deposit for all of them?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: And, did you go looking for a corresponding deposit?

Anita Duty: Yes.

8

1

12

3

45

6

78

9

1011

12

1314

15

16

17

18

19

2021

22

2324

25

26

27

23

Mark Swartz: And, in that regard, were you able to find that all of the checks were received as deposits?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: Then, at the very end of this Exhibit J, did you do your own calculation, taking into account disbursements and some adjustments that were made, to come up with a balance?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: Then did you compare that balance to the First Bank and Trust balance in August 2017?

Anita Duty: Yes

Mark Swartz: There was a difference, right?

Anita Duty: Correct. First Bank and Trust is showing $3.52 less than our calculations.

Mark Swartz: You’ve provided the Board with a copy of the court order?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: And, the affidavits, with regard to the notices that you sent out to the coal owners, quite some time ago?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Butch Lambert: Mr. Swartz, I noticed we have a letter from Mr. Cook, again. This is not requesting money sent to him, but is this one to be handled [Indiscernible 19:23] others? Sent to him. Sent to the parties, in care of?

Anita Duty: It is, but the problem that we have is the executive of that estate is not picking up the mail. The address on the W-9 is showing that that box has been closed, so we found another address on People Smart and mailed to that and she didn’t pick that up either, so, I guess that would be your all’s decision, if you want us to send it to Shea Cook and not worry if the executor is picking up the Mail. I can’t say that word.

Rick Cooper: Mr. Chairman, to help you clarify that, the individual Ms. Duty is talking about is Angela Bays. We just have not got…

Butch Lambert: Who?

9

1

12

3

45

6

78

9

10

11

12

13

1415

16

17

181920

2122232425

2627

28

23

Rick Cooper: Angela Bailey. We haven’t gotten confirmation from her certification and that’s what Ms. Duty’s talking about, a couple of attempts, but we don’t have confirmation. But, I think Shea Cook represents her for the estate.

Anita Duty: I think it’s Shannon Cooke that represents her.

Rick Cooper: Shannon Cooke. Not Shea Cook.

Anita Duty: Right.

Rick Cooper: You’ve got to speak up.

Sarah Gilmer: I’m pretty sure I saw an affidavit where she signed that he was to get the check for her.

Anita Duty: But originally…

Sarah Gilmer: Did something change on that?

Anita Duty: No, Mr. Keen hired him prior to his death, and so I’m assuming, that just follows the way that was written it follows…

Butch Lambert: Shea Cook?

Anita Duty: Yes. But, since then, there’s been a Shannon Cooke that has been emailing and asking questions and saying that she represents Angela Bailey, which is the executor of the estate. The whole problem I have with it is I can’t get somebody to send me a W-9 that has a good address.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: So, you all can’t even cut the money? Cut the check for the money?

Anita Duty: I mean, we can send it to Shea Cook, if that’s…

Butch Lambert: Right to her, like we done the others, to her in care of Shea Cook?

Anita Duty: Yes, but do we know if that’s exactly where she’s at. I mean, we’ve got…

Butch Lambert: I don’t know.

Anita Duty: It says the post office box is closed, is what it came back from the post office, and that’s what’s on the W-9.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: May I, Mr. Chair?

Butch Lambert: Yes, sir.

10

1

123

4

5

6

7

89

10

11

1213

14

15161718

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

23

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: My thinking is, and correct me if I’m wrong, you’ve been doing this a lot longer than I, but my thinking is that if we do like we’ve been doing; send the check to Mr. Cook, made out to the appropriate party, Mr. Cook will be motivated to find them to get everything taken care of.

Mark Swartz: And to put the best spin on it, you know, he may have a better opportunity to find them than we do, collectively.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: That, plus the incentive, I mean, you’re exactly right.

Mark Swartz: So, the order should specifically say, though, that Table 1, the check should be payable to the Estate of Walter Keen, and then we can mail it to Shea.

Anita Duty: Just mail it to him, right?

Mark Swartz: And then, they could find whoever could negotiate that check, hopefully.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: If he can’t then, he’s…

Mark Swartz: Well, that’s not going to get cashed and somebody will talk to us, I’m sure. That’s a reasonable way to try to get closure on that.

Anita Duty: I mean, even though this amount is small, the next unit that they’re going to be involved in is, we’re talking like $17,000, and she’s actually came by the office thinking that she was going to pick the check up at the office.

Butch Lambert: Oh, the lady did that you’re saying you can’t find an address for?

Mary Quillen: She, who…

Anita Duty: Yes. Now this was prior to us not being able to find her, so I don’t know what’s gone on with it. We’ve sent multiple requests; we’ve sent her attorney a request; yesterday we asked them again. So, I don’t know what the issue is there, but…I mean $20.00 is one thing but I think when we get to $17,000, that might be different.

Mary Quillen: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

Butch Lambert: Ms. Quillen.

Mary Quillen: You’re saying she. Are you saying that’s this…?

Anita Duty: Angela Bailey.

Mary Quillen: Angela Bailey, who is the executor of the estate?

11

1

1234

56

7

89

10

11

12

1314

151617

18

19

20212223

24

25

26

27

28

23

Mark Swartz: Correct.

Mary Quillen: If she’s been to the office…

Mark Swartz: That was a good while ago.

Anita Duty: She came by the office at the beginning.

Mary Quillen: No, I’m just saying that that’s odd if she came to your office and still has not provided you with a change of address or anything. I mean, I think that’s odd.

Anita Duty: Right. I do too.

Mary Quillen: Was she a younger person or older person?

Anita Duty: Kind of mid-aged. From what I understand, she was Mr. Keen’s girlfriend.

Mary Quillen: Okay. Okay. That’s not a family member that’s the executor?

Anita Duty: No.

Mary Quillen: Okay. I see the problem. Sorry about that.

Bill Harris: Mr. Chairman, let me ask a quick question.

Butch Lambert: Mr. Harris.

Bill Harris: I’m sorry, were you done?

Mary Quillen: I’m through.

Mark Swartz: You’ve got Bill’s interest.

Bill Harris: Actually, well it isn’t about that relationship, but what about the W-9? If you send the check to Mr. Cook, are they obligated…does your office need to physically have a W-9 in order issue this money?

Anita Duty: That’s your all’s decision if you want to pay it out of escrow, but before we pay them directly, we will get a W-9. The post office is telling us that that post office box 525, that’s on the W-9 that we have, is a closed box.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: So now, so there’s a social security number on the W-9 and, if that’s correct, they’ll figure out…

Anita Duty: It is a Tax ID, so she must have an estate.

12

1

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

181920

212223

2425

26

23

Mary Quillen: The estate has to have that.

Mark Swartz: So apparently, we’ve got a good number for the estate, so at least that step occurred, but we just can’t find her.

Anita Duty: Right.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: Right, so it’s an address issue not a tax identity issue is what I was getting at.

Mark Swartz: We have an EIN instead of a [Inaudible].

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: This concerns me. But it’s nothing [Inaudible].

Mark Swartz: Yeah, they’ve got the W-9

Mark Swartz: The W-9 that we have, that’s in the file, was signed by Bailey, September 2, 2016 and it actually has an EIN, which would be for the estate number.

Donnie Rife: You’ve got a W-9 and you’ve got a Social Security Number, right?

Mark Swartz: Well, it’s and EIN, so we actually have it for the estate, we have the number for the estate.

Donnie Rife: I don’t understand why you say you can’t find her.

Anita Duty: I mean, she’s not picking up her mail. We’re sending her notice of the hearing to this address that she filled out her W-9; it said the box was closed, so we looked on one of our web searches when we have to find new address, and sent that to North Carolina and that one was unclaimed.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: The affidavit was submitted in July, 2016, so she may have moved.

Mary Quillen: Wouldn’t the court have a good address? Obviously, she has been bonded. Seems to me like they would require a good address.

Mark Swartz: Well, in the beginning.

Anita Duty: The original W-9 is September 2016.

Mary Quillen: I just don’t understand how she can do that if she is on this.

Butch Lambert: I think probably what we can do is settle this one pretty quickly and just make the check out to her and send it to Mr. Cook, as per this affidavit that she has sworn to, and disperse it. More agree? Mr. Kugelman says that this affidavit that we have is valid.

13

1

1

23

4

56

7

8

9

1011

12

1314

15

16171819

20

2122

23

24

25

262728

23

Mary Quillen: Okay. Okay. Well, it just is odd, I mean, you know, obviously if she has an EIN number then the court she is bonded as the executor of that estate,

Butch Lambert: Right.

Mary Quillen: She would have to have a good address. I mean, if this goes back to the court and says this address that she has given us is no good, then the courts would go after her, to locate her.

Butch Lambert: Well, let’s send it to Mr. Cook and let him worry about it.

Mark Swartz: As long as it’s made out to the estate, i.e. executrix, we should be good to go on.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: If you have the right EIN for the estate, sounds like it’s a plan.

Bruce Prather: Do we know for sure that Cook is her attorney?

Butch Lambert: We have affidavit, sworn affidavit.

Bruch Prather: Yeah, but look, the problem with the affidavit is, apparently, she’s got the wrong address on the thing, so is that thing current? Is that all we got?

Anita Duty: For some reason, I don’t know if she’s hired another attorney because her attorney is Shannon Cooke. Shea Cook was Walter Keen’s attorney before he passed away.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: Do we have anything in the record where Shannon Cooke has made an appearance in this matter?

Anita Duty: No, all I have is emails from her.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: Do you have the emails handy. I mean, do they say, “I represent her in this matter”? I’m just wondering if there’s an appearance that’s been made.

Anita Duty: All she wants to know is why is she not getting paid; what’s the problem, and I tell them, we need a W-9 and they ignore it, so I don’t know. I mean, we’re here today, so…

Mark Swartz: You know, if, Shea Cook was representing the decedent and working for him and had a specific, you know, an agreement to proceed to collect money or do something for him. Okay? He potentially has an interest in this, in the estate, then she’s the estate’s attorney. I’m not sure she’s dealing with us, Shannon.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: Oh, yea.

Mark Swartz: So you could nave two attorney’s out there doing two different things, so I’m not sure that…

14

1

12

3

456

7

8

9

10

11

1213

1415

1617

18

1920

2122

23242526

27

2829

23

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: If I may?

Butch Lambert: Yes.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: Here’s a suggestion that I have, and of course I’m interested in counsel for CNX’s input, but nonetheless, my thinking is that we send the check to Mr. Shea Cook, like we talked about, made out to the estate, and we cc the other one.

Mark Swartz: The other one.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: And copy them with everything and then everybody has notice about what’s gone on and they can…

Mary Quillen: Is there contact information on the Shannon Cooke? Have you got…

Anita Duty: I have an email. I have an email address and I think I have her address, which may be in Abingdon, I think.

Mary Quillen: And what is her, is she connected with Shea Cook? Part of his…

Mark Swartz: She’s the lawyer for the executrix of the estate.

Mary Quillen: Right, but she’s not a part of her practice?

Mark Swartz: I don’t know if they’re family, we could be getting into the prior question you ask. You seem to be pursuing all these relationship issues today that I’m not concerned with.

Mary Quillen: Right.

Anita Duty: Her name has an “E” on the end and Shea’s doesn’t, so.

Mary Quillen: Oh.

Anita Duty: I’m just assuming they’re not related.

Mary Quillen: That is so…

Mark Swartz: But, you never know.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: If she’s filed for a name change, legally, after she found out. [Laughs]

Butch Lambert: Mr. Ratliff?

Donnie Ratliff: Can I add to Mr. Kugelman’s there, that we also copy Rick on the email, so we have something in our files. The email you’re going to send to the attorney.

15

1

1

2

345

6

78

9

1011

12

13

14

1516

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2526

23

Mark Swartz: We can provide you with a physical address so you can put it in the order, because you’re going to be telling the escrow agent, you know, to mail it, so you need to email him a physical address, I’m talking to Rick, or Shannon. Okay. We’ll do that, so you’ll have the address.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: Okay, so you’re going to copy the Division of Gas and Oil, Mr. Cook.

Mark Swartz: The bank is making this disbursement, so, what we’re going to do is email Mr. Cooper Shannon’s physical address, so it can be included in the order that you guys direct the bank to do.

Butch Lambert: Okay. So, Mr. Kugelman, Council for the Board, has made a recommendation to write the check to the Estate of Walter Keen; send a check to Mr. Shea Cook and copy Shannon Cooke, with all records of what’s happening here today, as far as the disbursement. Do I have a motion?

Donnie Rife: Motion made for approval, Mr. Chair.

Mary Quillen: Before we do the motion, Mr. Lambert, is Mr. Cooper going to get a copy of this transaction that will be on file here? Does that need to be in the motion?

Butch Lambert: Everything that we’ve talked about will go into the Board Order.

Mary Quillen: Okay.

Butch Lambert: It’ll be included in the Board Order for the bank to disburse.

Mary Quillen: Okay, just so that we have.

Rick Cooper: So, Mr. Chairman, just for the Board’s interest, all checks that are written, when those go out, we’re copied on each and every check that goes out. So, we have a record of that and we store those and maintain a record of all checks that are mailed out.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: Do you get a copy of the cover letter, as well?

Sarah Gilmer: An email.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: Oh, so you get a copy of the…

Sarah Gilmer: She emails them to me to review and approve and then I forward they’re okay and she mails them out, and so, it’s just an email cover letter and she attaches the checks.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: Okay.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: So, it’s in the Board’s, I mean, it’s in the Division of Gas & Oil’s records?

16

1

1234

5

678

9101112

13

1415

16

17

18

19

202122

23

24

25

2627

28

29

23

Mary Quillen: And is it included that these are send to Mr. Cook?

Sarah Gilmer: Well, what I can do, when I receive the check, and everything looks okay, I can reply to the email that [Inaudible] on yesterday, which included all of the attorney’s, Mr. Cook, Shannon Cooke, Rick Cooper, Anita, and Robert Gallenbeck, who represents another, I guess he represents…

Anita Duty: Walter Keen’s ex-wife.

Sarah Gilmer: Walter Keen’s ex-wife, who was trying to collect on a judgement. Which is another story, but I can copy all of them and I can copy the check on there and the check’s been mailed to Mr. Cook and made out to the estate of Walker Keen. That should take care of it, I think.

Mary Quillen: Yeah, I think I would feel more comfortable, as long as there is some documentation of what’s going on, because it gets more convoluted as we go along with the people and the way it’s being handled and everything. I think we just need to make sure that we have that documentation that it was sent to him.

Rick Cooper: We will take care of that, Ms. Quillen.

Mary Quillen: Okay, that you.

Bill Harris: Rick, do you think in the future you’ll have this thing ironed out so that the $17,000 check, when it comes in, we’ll know exactly where to send it? That it won’t be part of this thing.

Rick Cooper: I think it’s a great conversation that we’re having today because I think this item will come up multiple times though, just remember that. I think it will be in the next hearing that we have, a similar situation. So, I think it’ll be similar many times in the next near future.

Mary Quillen: Well, it seems to me that we should have that before we approve anything else, that we have that W-9.

Anita Duty: I requested it, actually I asked Sarah to request it because I have already requested it, so I said, “Do you mind sending them one and asking them for it again?” Yesterday.

Mary Quillen: I don’t think the Board could, in good conscience, approve something like the what you had, the figures that you have quoted without having that W-9 with the correct address on it.

Mark Swartz: I have an address for Shannon.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: What I wanted to get at is, there is a W-9 submitted; we do have a proper tax identification number; the W-9, for some reason, doesn’t have a correct address, but that does

17

1

1

2345

6

789

10

11121314

15

16

1718

192021

2223

2425

262728

29

3031

23

not invalidate the purpose of the W-9, which is basically to make sure that the taxes are paid, so with the proper EIN on the W-9, and Mr. Swartz, correct me if I’m wrong, I think, I don’t think, my opinion is that the W-9 is fine, as is, and that we’re taking care of the address issue as best we can by providing the check to council, made out to the estate. Mr. Shea Cook is going to be the one who has the most recent contact with the client, and he’s going to have the incentive to get it done, if not for the $20.00 check, for the $17,000 check. And, I also want to go back to 45.1-361.22:2, which is what we’re disbursing under, of the intent of that statute and that law is to keep the money moving and not, it’s my view that the Board could vote on this and be well within its jurisdiction and discretion in approving a motion to proceed as we’ve discussed.

Butch Lambert: I have a motion to approve.

Mark Swartz: I just want to put Shannon Cooke’s address in the record, so we don’t have to send it to Mr. Cooper and you’ve got it on the record. It’s Shannon Cooke, she is in a firm called Cooke, Shortt, and Keene, 3111 Cedar Valley Drive, Richlands, VA 24641. Phone number 276-963-4381, just to complete the record.

Butch Lambert: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Swartz. I have a motion to approve. Do I have a second?

Bill Harris: I’ll second.


Board: Yes.

Butch Lambert: Opposed, no? [No response]

Butch Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Swartz, that one is approved.

Item Number 4

Butch Lambert: A petition from CNX Gas Company, LLC for (1) the disbursement of escrowed funds heretofore deposited with the Board’s Escrow Agent, attributable to a portion of Tract 4, as depicted upon the annexed Exhibit A-1, and (2) authorization to begin paying royalties directly to the parties previously listed as unlocatable that are listed in the petition. This is Docket Number VGOB-12-0417-3047-02. All parties wishing to testify, please come forward.



Mark Swartz: Thank you. Anita, state your name for us, please?


18

1

123456789

10

11121314

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

2324252627

28

29

30

31

23

Mark Swartz: And, who do you work for?


Mark Swartz: Are you here on behalf of the petitioner CNX Gas Company, LLC?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: And the petitioner is the operator of this unit, correct?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: And we have a disbursement request pertaining to Drilling Unit A32, and the reason, as indicated by the Chairman, is that we’ve located some folks that we can now pay?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: And that we had in escrow because of that location or identification issue. Correct?

Anita Duty: I believe it’s still has the related. Let me see. No, it’s not. I’m sorry.

Mark Swartz: And have we, let’s look at Table 1. It’s a percentage table, correct?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: And you’ve got four people listed there?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: Have we removed anybody?

Anita Duty: We removed James Ellenburg

Mark Swartz: Because?

Anita Duty: He recently passed away. We were notified by one of his heirs.

Mark Swartz: So, you’ve done that on the e-forms, correct?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: Okay, so just so you know, what you’re looking at is different than what’s currently on file and so that the disbursement request, at this point, is to disburse to Cary Bowles, Carolyn Gaik, and Lawrence Snyder, correct?

Anita Duty: Yes.

19

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

78

9

1011

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

232425

26

23

Mark Swartz: And, for each of those people, you have provided a mailing address?

Anita Duty: We have.

Mark Swartz: As we’ve indicated, Table 1 is a percentage disbursement request. All three of those people will have the same percentage?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: And the Escrow Agent should use the percentage in the second column from the right-hand margin of Table 1, multiply that times the balance on hand when the disbursements is made and that will give the agent the dollar amount, which is pretty small, but it’s an amount?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: Okay, the well that’s been contributing this account is what?

Anita Duty: A32.

Mark Swartz: And, have you provided updated Exhibit E, with regard to escrow going forward, and EE, with regard to payments, going forward?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: And you’ve got an Exhibit J?

Anita Duty: WE do.

Mark Swartz: And, were you able to locate all deposits and were you able to locate all royalty payments as a deposit?

Anita Duty: We were.

Mark Swartz: And was there any difference in the balance that you calculated and the August 2017 First Bank and Trust balance?

Anita Duty: No

Mark Swartz: They were identical?

Anita Duty: They were.

Mark Swartz: That’s all we have on this one.

Butch Lambert: Any questions from the Board? [No response] Anything further, Mr. Swartz?

20

1

1

2

34

5

678

9

10

11

1213

14

15

16

1718

19

2021

22

23

24

25

26

23

Mark Swartz: No.

Butch Lambert: Do I have a motion?

Donnie Ratliff: So, moved, Mr. Chairman.

Bill Harris: I’ll second that.


Board: Yes.

Butch Lambert: Opposed, no? [No response] Thank you, Mr. Swartz. That one is approved.

Item Number 5

Butch Lambert : A petition from CNX Gas Company, LLC, for (1) the disbursement of escrowed funds heretofore deposited with the Board’s Escrow Agent, attributable to a portion of Tract 4, as depicted upon the annexed Exhibit A-1; and (2) authorization to begin paying royalties directly to the parties previously listed as unlocatable. This is Docket Number VGOB 12-0417-3049-03. All parties wishing to testify, please come forward.



Mark Swartz: Thank you. Anita, state your name for us again.


Mark Swartz: And, who do you work for?


Mark Swartz: Are you here on behalf of the operator and applicant?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: And is this petition, essentially, identical or very nearly identical to the one we just addressed?

Anita Duty: It is.

Mark Swartz: We have a table, Table 1, Mr. Ellenburg needs to be removed, and I presume you’ve already done that on the e-forms?

Anita Duty: Yes. We have.

21

1

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

1011121314

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

2627

28

23

Mark Swartz: And, so the request would be to pay the two people, Carolyn Gaik and Snyder, that we have located, in accordance with Table 1 but not pay Mr. Ellenburg until we get the estate issue straightened out?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: Did you do an Exhibit J, with regard to this?

Anita Duty: We did.

Mark Swartz: And you came up with the same, I think zero, you were in agreement?

Anita Duty: We were.

Mark Swartz: And have you provided the Board with revised Exhibits E and EE?

Anita Duty: Yes.

Mark Swartz: That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Butch Lambert: Any questions from the Board? [No response] Anything further, Mr. Swartz?

Mark Swartz: No.


Donnie Rife: Motion to approve, Mr. Chair.

Bill Harris: I’ll second that.


Board: Yes.

Butch Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Swartz. That one is approved.

Mark Swartz: Thank you all. Happy Thanksgiving.

Butch Lambert: Have a good Thanksgiving.

Item Number 6

Butch Lambert: A petition from EnerVest Operating, LLC, for a Well Location Exception for Well No. 900122. Docket Number VGOB 17-1121-4145. All parties wishing to testify, please come forward.

22

1

123

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

242526

23

Tim Scott: Tim Scott, Gus Janson, and Aaron Anderson for EnerVest Operating, LLC.


Tim Scott: Good morning.

Sarah Gilmer: Mr. Janson, Mr. Anderson, do you swear and affirm that your testimony is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Gus Janson/Aaron Anderson: I do.

Butch Lambert: You may proceed, Mr. Scott.

Tim Scott: Thank you. Mr. Anderson, please state your name, by whom you’re employed and your job description.

Aaron Anderson: Aaron Anderson. I’m employed by EnerVest Operating, LLC, as Associate Landman.

Tim Scott: Are you familiar with this application?

Aaron Anderson: Yes, sir.

Tim Scott: Are you familiar with the ownership of the minerals underlying this proposed unit?

Aaron Anderson: Yes.

Tim Scott: Are those minerals owners set out on Exhibit B?

Aaron Anderson: They are.

Tim Scott: And we’ve got four wells from which we’re asking a well location exception today. Is that correct?

Aaron Anderson: That correct.

Tim Scott: Who operates those wells?

Aaron Anderson: EnerVest Operating.

Tim Scott: And in this particular case, EnerVest is both an owner and an operator. Is that correct?

Aaron Anderson: That’s correct.

Tim Scott: And how was notice of this hearing provided to the parties listed on Exhibit B?

23

1

1

2

3

45

6

7

89

1011

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

2324

25

26

23

Aaron Anderson: By Certified mail.

Tim Scott: Okay, have we provided proof of our mailing with the Board?

Aaron Anderson: We have.

Tim Scott: Okay. That’s all I have for Mr. Anderson.

Butch Lambert: Any questions from the Board? [No response] You may continue, Mr. Scott.

Tim Scott: Thank you, Mr. Janson, please state your name, by whom you’re employed, and your job description, please.

Gus Janson: My name is Gus Janson. I’m employed by EnerVest Operating, LLC as the Geology Advisor.

Tim Scott: And you participated in the preparation of this application. Is that correct?

Gus Janson: I did.

Tim Scott: And would you please tell the Board why we’re seeking well locations exceptions for this particular proposed unit?

Gus Janson: Sure. Just a note to the Board, all of these well location exceptions we’re getting ready to hear today, we’ve heard in the past that they’ve expired under the two-year rules of the limits on these exceptions, so, you may recognize them, you may not.

Butch Lambert: We do.

Gus Janson: So anyway, the Board’s been provided in Exhibit K, which shows the location of proposed well 900122, this is the location, located there and the offsetting wells. The wells been positioned to maximize recovery of the remaining natural gas resources stranded with relationship with the existing offsetting wells. There is no location available that meets the statewide spacing requirements. In the event that the well is not drilled approximately 60.37 acres of reserves will be stranded.

Tim Scott: What’s the proposed depth of this well?

Gus Janson: Proposed depth is 6,026 feet.

Tim Scott: And what’s the potential loss of reserves if the application is not approved today?

Gus Janson: The estimated reserves is approximately 550 million cubic feet of gas.

Tim Scott: In your opinion, if this application is granted, then it would prevent waste, protect correlative rights, and promote conservation?

24

1

1

2

3

4

5

67

89

10

11

1213

141516

17

181920212223

24

25

26

27

2829

23

Gus Janson: That is correct.

Tim Scott: That’s all I have for Mr. Janson.

Butch Lambert: Mr. Janson, for the record, as we’re looking through every one of these exhibits today, especially on the plats and some of the information that is provided on the plats, all refer to Range Resources/Pine Mountain, Inc. Wherever it says Range Resources/Pine Mountain, Inc., is that, for the record, that’s EnerVest now?

Gus Janson: Yes, sir. They utilize the same plats that were approved in the permits.

Butch Lambert: So, anything we come across in the docket items today that references Range Resources, it’s EnerVest?

Gus Janson: Yes.

Butch Lambert: Any questions from the Board? [No response] Do you have anything further, Mr. Scott?

Tim Scott: That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman.




Butch Lambert: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? [No response] All in favor, signify by saying yes.

Board: Yes.

Butch Lambert: Opposed, no?

Donnie Ratliff: I’ll abstain, Mr. Chairman.

Butch Lambert: One abstention, Mr. Ratliff. Mr. Brown, so you don’t have to sit here all this time, can you let us know which one is your and we’ll call that one next.

Fred Brown: [Inaudible]

Mary Quillen: Number 9?

Butch Lambert: Number 9? Mr. Scott, is that okay with you, if we call Number 9?

Tim Scott: Yes, sir. If I can find it. [Laughs]

25

1

1

2

3456

7

89

10

1112

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

27

23

Item Number 9

Butch Lambert: A petition from EnerVest Operating, LLC, for a Well Location Exception for Well No. V530324. Docket Number VGOB 17-1121-4148. All parties wishing to testify, please come forward.

Tim Scott: Again, Tim Scott, Gus Janson, and Aaron Anderson for EnerVest Operating, LLC.

Butch Lambert: Do we need a mic, Sally?

Rick Cooper: I’ll get it.

Sarah Gilmer: Mr. Brown, do you swear and affirm that your testimony is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Fred Brown: Yes, I do. Thank you.


Tim Scott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Anderson, again your name, by whom you’re employed and your job description.


Tim Scott: Are you familiar with this application. Is that correct?


Tim Scott: And you are familiar with the owners of the minerals underlying this unit. Is that correct?

Aaron Anderson: Yes sir.

Tim Scott: And those owners are set out on Exhibit B to the application?


Tim Scott: Who operates the two wells from which the well location exceptions is sought today.

Aaron Anderson: EnerVest Operating, LLC.

Tim Scott: And EnerVest, again, is both an owner and will be the operator of this well. Is that right?


26

1

1

234

5

6

7

89

10

11

1213

1415

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

2526

27

23

Tim Scott: And we have the parties listed on the Exhibit B. How were those people notified of this hearing today?


Tim Scott: And has proof of mailing been provided to the Board?

Aaron Anderson: They have.

Tim Scott: That’s all I have for Mr. Anderson.

Butch Lambert: Any questions from the Board? [No response] Mr. Brown, I ask you if there’s anything you’d like to provide for us as testimony as per this Docket Item.

Fred Brown: Well, we’re in argument with EnerVest, which is by the law, so we have what EQT and, I don’t know how, what rights we have, I mean, as far as I’m concerned, they shouldn’t be allowed to do this until this lawsuit’s settled, which is, who knows when that’s going to happen, that’s by lawyers, so it’s kind of in limbo right now in the Circuit Court in Dickenson County, and so I’m just curious as to how they…the percentage of this will is quite small, I believe. Isn’t that right?

Tim Scott: Yes, sir.

Mary Quillen: 7.88

Fred Brown: So, I, were a minor player here, but…

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: Your case is in Wise County, sir?

Fred Brown: Dickenson County.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: Dickenson, I’m sorry. I’m going to try to look it up online real quick.

Butch Lambert: Just for the Board’s information, would you mind telling us what the lawsuit is concerning?

Fred Brown: Well, there’s six different issues we have with Equitable and consequently, EnerVest and Range and EnerVest. But basically, the biggie is, what I call skimming and what the volume of gas reported to this Board is different than what is reported on our royalty statements, and that’s what the argument with Equitable is.

Butch Lambert: Just so, correction, their information is not reported to the Board, it’s reported to Mr. Cooper, in a Division of Gas and Oil, who tracts that information, so have you been able to check the Gas and Oil records versus what you see?

27

1

12

3

4

5

6

78

91011121314

15

16

17

18

19

20

2122

23242526

272829

23

Fred Brown: Yes, I have.

Butch Lambert: And they’re different?

Fred Brown: They’re different.

Rick Cooper: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Brown came in and met with us for a period of time a while back.

Fred Brown: Right.

Rick Cooper: A couple of weeks ago and we showed him how to access all the data.

Butch Lambert: So, was the information, not correct, or does not match?

Rick Cooper: I’m not sure what he’s got, but we get the production numbers from the company and I think that is his argument. He’s disputing what they’re paying him is not quite showing on our record. I have no way of knowing that.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: Mr. Brown, I’m sorry, may I?

Butch Lambert: Yes, go ahead.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: I’m trying to look up your case on the Court Case Information System. Is the case being brought by the Brown Family Trust?

Fred Brown: Correct.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: And, the one I have was filed in 2016 and it says that, okay, I was looking at the wrong thing. Never mind. My eyes jumped down to the next one here.

Fred Brown: It was filed in April of this year and then it was, we had to go back and redo it in June and we have not heard, had a response from the judge at this point yet.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: Well, it looks, just for the record to make sure the records clear here, on January 1, 2017, the court issued an opinion letter, but it doesn’t state as to what issues the court finds. On February 16, there was a motion for reconsideration. It looks like there was a hearing set for April 17, 2017 at 2:00 o’clock; there was some briefs filed, and then there was an amended Notice of Hearing filed on May 1, 2017. For May 16, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.; and that’s the last entry the court has. So, it sounds like the case is still active, but I don’t see any orders stating any action to the Board and I’m not aware if there are any, Mr. Scott, are you familiar with this case?

Tim Scott: No sir, I am, the issue of payment is clearing outside whether or not this company has the authority to operating this unit. The Brown Trust is under lease and so if any monetary

28

1

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

91011

12

13

1415

16

1718

1920

2122232425262728

2930

23

issues, if there before the Circuit Court, would be addressed by the Court, but allow, certainly wouldn’t prevent, unless there is an order.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: That’s what I was looking for.

Tim Scott: And I have not been advised of that. No sir.


Fred Brown: Just for the record, the May 17th hearing…

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: Yes, sir?

Fred Brown: Never happened. We were the only ones who showed up. The judge didn’t show and the lawyers from Ben Stuart didn’t show. They had rescheduled it but we were not notified of that hearing. It was rescheduled for June, everybody was there, and we haven’t heard a word since. I’ve inquired a couple times with the court house, but I have not had any response.


Fred Brown: And I don’t know, I’m not necessarily trying to stop them from getting the well, I’m just trying to figure out more or less what our rights are.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: As far as your legal rights, I’m with the Attorney General’s Office, I represent the Board. I also represent the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, and I can’t give you legal advice because I do not represent you and I’m not allowed to represent you. So, but I’m going to try to be helpful but please understand that I’m not giving you a legal advice, I’m just trying to help you out.

Fred Brown: Which is what I’m here for.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: Okay, with respect to the petition that we have here, they’re looking to add another well to increase production, and that’s something, as far as the science and whether that makes sense scientifically, I can’t second guess that because I don’t have that kind of knowledge and these guys spend a lot of money making sure they can get out as much energy resources as they can. But even if the petition is granted today, it will not in any way impact your case. And so far as you’ve represented it to this Board, being something about skimming and proper accounting for their production costs. I mean, if you also look at, and I’m going to give you a big string of numbers here, Risk 45.1-361.22:2 Sub-paragraph F, and the only reason I know it so well is because I wrote it [laughs], that preserves your right to get an accounting. So not only do you have it, and my understanding anyway, as a right anyway, I’m fairly certain it’s preserved as a matter of law for these matters. So, the outcome of the petition today, insofar as you’ve represented your case, will not have any impact upon it one way or the other.

29

1

12

3

4

5

6

7

89

1011

12

1314

1516171819

20

212223242526272829303132

23

Fred Brown: I understand that.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: But, I would encourage you to seek your own legal counsel. Again, I’m not providing you legal advice, I’m just giving you an opinion as to what I view and, I guess, stating on the record that I don’t represent your interests and don’t take it as legal advice. I’m just trying to be somewhat helpful, but I encourage you, if you’re very concerned or even at least a little bit concerned, to seek advice from your own lawyer.

Fred Brown: Which we are, I mean were trying to work through the process.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: Okay, did you, I don’t want to know what you talked to your lawyer about, but did you talk to your lawyer about what’s going on today?

Fred Brown: No, I have not.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: Okay. Alright. It’s too expensive [laughs].

Butch Lambert: And Mr. Brown, that’s why I asked the question of what the lawsuit may be pertaining to because, in the case that you just described, we can’t rule on that one way or the other. I was just curious as to whether what your issues maybe has something dealing directly with the well location exception.

Fred Brown: Okay, well I understand, and I hope I didn’t waste everybody’s time here.

Butch Lambert: No sir.

Fred Brown: Just trying to get education, as well. I’m a retired pharmacist, so what I know about this is next to nothing.

Butch Lambert: Well, if you have any questions, going forward, please contact Mr. Cooper and I hope he don’t…

Rick Cooper: He’s been very helpful in the past. He’s going to be more helpful in the future, I hope.

Butch Lambert: His eyes just got real big. [Laughs]

Fred Brown: I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Butch Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Brown. Any other questions from the Board about, Mr. Scott, you may continue.

Tim Scott: Mr. Janson, again your name, by whom you’re employed, and your job description.

30

1

1

23456

7

89

10

11

12131415

16

17

1819

2021

2223

24

25

2627

28

23


Tim Scott: And would you please tell the Board why [Indiscernible 1:01] today?

Gus Janson: Yes, again the Board refers to Exhibit K. You’ll see the location of proposed well 530324. This well, again, has been positioned to maximize recovery of the remaining natural gas resources stranded to relationship to the existing offsetting wells. There is no location available that meets the statewide spacing requirements. In the event that the well is not drilled approximately 79.38 acres of reserves will be stranded.



Tim Scott: And what’s the potential loss of reserves if the application is not granted today?

Gus Janson: The estimated reserves of this unit is 500 million cubic feet of gas.

Tim Scott: Again, if the application is granted, would it prevent waste, protect correlative rights, and promote conservation?

Gus Janson: Yes, it would.

Tim Scott: That’s all I have for Mr. Janson on this matter.

Butch Lambert: Any questions from the Board? [No response] Anything further, Mr. Scott?

Tim Scott: That’s all I have on this one, Mr. Chairman.



Bruce Prather: Second.


Board: Yes.

Butch Lambert: Opposed, no? [[No response] Thank you, Mr. Scott. That one is approved.

31

1

12

3

45678

9

10

11

12

1314

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

23

Item Number 7



Butch Lambert: You may proceed.

Tim Scott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Anderson, your name, by whom you’re employed and your job description, again.


Tim Scott: And you did participate in the preparation of this application. Is that right?

Aaron Anderson: I did.

Tim Scott: And are you familiar with the ownership of the minerals underlying this proposed unit?


Tim Scott: Are those minerals owners set out on Exhibit B to the application?


Tim Scott: And we’re asking for well location exception from a number of wells; I believe there are four in total, and who operates those wells?


Tim Scott: And again, EnerVest is both an owner and an operator, with regard to this acreage. Is that correct?


Tim Scott: Now, the parties listed on Exhibit B were notified of this hearing. Is that right?


Tim Scott: And how were they notified?


32

1

1

234

5

6

78

910

11

12

1314

15

16

17

1819

20

2122

23

24

25

26

27

23

Tim Scott: Have we provided proof of mailing to the Board?




Tim Scott: Thank you, Mr. Janson, please state your name, by whom you’re employed, and your job description.


Tim Scott: And you participated in the preparation of this application. Is that right?

Gus Janson: I did.

Tim Scott: And please tell the Board why we’re seeking well locations exceptions for this particular proposed unit?

Gus Janson: Yes. Again, at the Board, we refer to Exhibit K. You’ll see the location of proposed well 900126. Once again, this well’s been positioned to maximize recovery of the remaining natural gas resources stranded with relationship with the existing offsetting wells. There is no location available that meets the statewide spacing requirements. In the event that the well is not drilled approximately 79.38 acres of reserves will be stranded.



Tim Scott: And what’s the potential loss of reserves if the application is not granted?

Gus Janson: 550 million cubic feet of gas.

Tim Scott: And then, if the Board approves our application today, would it prevent waste, protect correlative rights, and promote conservation?



Butch Lambert: Any questions from the Board?

Bill Harris: One quick question, Mr. Chairman.

Butch Lambert: Mr. Harris.

33

1

1

2

3

4

56

78

9

10

1112

1314151617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

27

28

23

Bill Harris: Gus, this Exhibit K, I noticed that the exception you’re seeking is from the two lower, the one at about 5 o’clock and one at about 7 o’clock. I could give you numbers, I guess, if I need to; 550423 and 750016. I noticed that there is to the north and east some gaps there. Could that have been moved any? I know we’ve been in conflict with two others.

Gus Janson: Right. Yes, sir, if you notice, that’s located along a drainage boundary down through there and I think we’ve located the best position you can get down there, with regard to the steep sloped topography also and with the extreme bed down in that area.

Bill Harris: Yeah.

Gus Janson: To get the well, we’ve maximized the location to try to recover all the remaining reserves we could.

Bill Harris: Okay, I was just curious. I know these things aren’t…you’re not free to, oh, let’s just move it up here and it’ll cover more.

Gus Janson: Sure.

Bill Harris: Because on the ground, things are different.

Gus Janson: Right.

Butch Lambert: Any other questions? [No response] Do you have anything further, Mr. Scott?






Board: Yes.


Donnie Ratliff: I’ll abstain, Mr. Chair.

Butch Lambert: One abstention, Mr. Ratliff.

34

1

1234

567

8

910

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2122

23

24

25

26

23

Item Number 8




Tim Scott: Thank you. Mr. Anderson, again, your name, by whom you’re employed and your job description, please.


Tim Scott: And you’re familiar with this application. Is that correct?


Tim Scott: Are you familiar with the ownership of the minerals underlying this unit?


Tim Scott: And, are those owners set out on Exhibit B to the application?


Tim Scott: Who operates the wells from which the well location exception is sought today?


Tim Scott: And again, I believe EnerVest is both an owner and an operator for this particular proposed unit. Is that right?


Tim Scott: And how was noticed of this hearing provided to the parties listed on Exhibit B?


Tim Scott: Have we provided proof of mailing to the Board?



35

1

1

234

5

6

78

910

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1920

21

22

23

24

25

26

23


Tim Scott: Thank you, Mr. Janson, your name, by whom you’re employed, and your job description, please.



Gus Janson: I did.

Tim Scott: And would you please explain to the Board why we’re seeking well locations exceptions for this proposed unit?

Gus Janson: Yes. Again, if the Board refers to Exhibit K, you’ll see the location of proposed well 900124. Once again, this one’s been positioned to maximize recovery of the remaining natural gas resources stranded with relationship with the offsetting wells. There is no location available that would meet the statewide spacing requirements. In the event that the well is not drilled at this location, the approximately 87.94 acres of reserves will be stranded.


Gus Janson: 6,059 feet.

Tim Scott: And what would be the potential loss of reserves if the application is not approved today?

Gus Janson: The reserves in this area estimate at 400 million cubic feet of gas.

Tim Scott: And then, in your opinion, if the application is granted, it would prevent waste, promote conservation, and protect correlative rights. Is that correct?



Butch Lambert: Any questions from the Board?

Bruce Prather: Mr. Chairman, I do.

Butch Lambert: Mr. Prather.

Bruce Prather: Gus, on the original numbers of these locations, I realize these are Equitable locations, but that 9-0 and the 9-0 and 9-0 and the 5-3 and 5-3; those are Equitable accounting numbers. Are you guys going to continue having their accounting number?

36

1

1

23

45

6

7

89

1011121314

15

16

1718

19

2021

22

23

24

25

26

272829

23

Gus Janson: Yes, we are.

Bruce Prather: Selections?

Gus Janson: Yes, we are. Anything with a 5-3-0, those were actually assigned to Range Resources out of their system and we just maintain that numbering system to minimize confusion within our own self. We did not want to go into the process of renumbering 5000 wells, plus another 5000 locations.

Bruce Prather: Working with them, it’s kind of unhandy with that accounting.

Gus Janson: Yeah, so. You can either name your wells by names, which a lot of people do in other states, named by their farms or people’s land and those kind of things, then you end up with, you know, a Lambert 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or you can have an individual number that makes it, sometimes, the unique number is better to deal with.

Bruce Prather: I like the numbers, I just wonder how, what values as an accounting number under these wells?

Gus Janson: From an accounting value?

Bruce Prather: From there accounting point of view, it’s relevant.

Gus Janson: Right.

Bruce Prather: Not by anybody else’s.

Gus Janson: No, no.

Bruce Prather: Unless you adopt their…

Gus Janson: In fact, I can tell you that Range Resources and EnerVest Operating Company, and any other company I’ve worked for, there are 4, 5, 6, different numbers that track every well that ever gets drilled; from accounting to, probably, administration to permitting, to, so there is multiple unique numbers assigned to everything, but the numbers that we ended up putting on the permits sign out there are the numbers that our field personnel are the most familiar with and that what we went forward with.

Mary Quillen: [Inaudible]

Gus Janson: Right. We’ve maintained those ownership as we’ve moved forward. I know some company’s re-number everything and re-submit new numbers to the state and ask them to re-number, but we haven’t done that to this point.

Bruce Prather: Well, I know down through the wells, Equitable re-numbered them at least once or twice.

37

1

1

2

3456

7

89

1011

1213

14

15

16

17

18

19

202122232425

26

272829

3031

23

Gus Janson: Correct.

Bruce Prather: There’s 9000 numbers. Do you ever run into those?

Gus Janson: Actually, the 9000 numbers were Range numbers.

Bruce Prather: There were 6000 and went through 9.

Gus Janson: Yeah, there’s multiple numbering scenario’s that happen over the years.

Tim Scott: And then there’s the P designation. Which we all love.

Gus Janson: Yeah, the P’s and the letters. They evolve from a four-digit number to a six-digit number over time.

Butch Lambert: Anything further, Mr. Scott?



Bill Harris: Motion for approval.

Bruce Prather: I’ll second.


Board: Yes.

Butch Lambert: Opposed, no? [No response] Thank you, Mr. Scott, that one is approved.

Donnie Ratliff: I’ll abstain.


Item Number 10

Butch Lambert: A petition from EnerVest Operating, LLC, for a Well Location Exception for Well No. V-530331. Docket Number VGOB 17-1121-4149. All parties wishing to testify, please come forward.

Tim Scott: Tim Scott, Gus Janson, and Aaron Anderson for EnerVest Operating, LLC. Now, what you’ve done to me with that Range Resources, I want to say that every single time. [laughs] Now that you said that. I apologize. I keep stumbling over my words. Anyway, I’m sorry. I apologize.

38

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

78

9

10

11

12

13

1415

16

17

18

19

20

212223

24252627

23

Butch Lambert: I’m sorry, Mr. Scott.

Tim Scott: That’s okay. Don’t think about a rock, right? [laughs]

Tim Scott: Mr. Anderson, would you please state your name, by whom you’re employed and your job description, please?


Tim Scott: And you participated in the preparation of this application. Is that right?


Tim Scott: Now the owners of the minerals are set out on Exhibit B. Is that right?


Tim Scott: And, we’ve got a couple of wells from which we’re seeking a well location exception today. Who operates those wells?


Tim Scott: And again, EnerVest is both an owner and an operator, with regard to this particular unit. Is that right?


Tim Scott: And with regard to notice of this hearing, how was that done and how was notice provided to the parties listed on Exhibit B?


Tim Scott: And we’ve provided proof of mailing to the Board. Is that right?




Tim Scott: Thank you. Mr. Janson, your name, by whom you’re employed, and your job description, please.


39

1

1

2

34

56

7

8

9

10

1112

13

1415

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

2425

2627

23

Tim Scott: And you also participated in the preparation of this application. Is that right?


Tim Scott: And would you please explain to the Board why we’re seeking well locations exceptions for this particular proposed unit?

Gus Janson: Yes. This one’s got a few more moving parts to it. Again, if the Board would refer to Exhibit K, you’ll see the location of proposed well 530331. This well’s been positioned due to the steep terrain and the typography traits, hopefully to result in the maximum recovery of the natural resources from places that exist in offsetting wells. The nearest feasible location meeting the statewide requirements that we’ve identified is approximately 6 or 800 feet to the northwest in this general area to get away from the other wells. Which is an event that we were able to do that, we’re going to end up with some stranded reserves if we end up moving the well location. So again, we’ve positioned it here so that we maximize those recovery and try to avoid stranding the 110.9 acres of reserves in this general area.

Tim Scott: What’s the proposed depth of this well, Mr. Janson?


Tim Scott: And what would be the potential loss of reserves if the application is not approved today?

Gus Janson: The estimated reserves in this area are 400 million cubic feet of gas.

Tim Scott: And in the event, if the application is granted, it would prevent waste, promote conservation, and protect correlative rights?


Tim Scott: That’s all I have for Mr. Janson on this matter.

Butch Lambert: Mr. Janson, where the well is penetrating the upper [Indiscernible 1:15] coal seam, that’s an inactive mine?

Gus Janson: Yes.

Butch Lambert: And, on the lower banner plat that we have, is that also an inactive mine, adjacent to the well?

Gus Janson: Yes, those are both inactive mines.

Butch Lambert: Okay, thank you. Any other questions form the Board? [No response] Anything further, Mr. Scott?

40

1

1

2

34

56789

10111213

14

15

1617

18

1920

21

22

2324

25

2627

28

2930

23

Tim Scott: That’s all I, Mr. Chairman.





Board: Yes.



Butch Lambert: One abstention, Mr. Ratliff. Thank you, Mr. Scott, that is approved.

Tim Scott: Thank you.

Item Number 11




Tim Scott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Anderson, again, your name, by whom you’re employed and your job description.




Tim Scott: Are you also familiar with the ownership of the minerals underlying this unit?



41

1

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

131415

16

17

1819

2021

22

23

24

25

26

23


Tim Scott: Now, we have four P wells here, right?


Tim Scott: And who operates those wells?


Tim Scott: And, EnerVest is both an owner and an operator. Is that also correct?


Tim Scott: Now, as far as the notice of this hearing, how were these parties notified?


Tim Scott: And have we provided proof of mailing with the Board?




Tim Scott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Janson, again, please state your name, by whom you’re employed, and your job description.


Tim Scott: And again, you participated in the preparation of this application. Is that right?

Gus Janson: I did.

Tim Scott: And would you please tell the Board why we’re seeking this well location exception?

Gus Janson: Yes. Again, if the Board would refer to Exhibit K we’ve provided, you’ll see the location of proposed well 530329. Once again, this one’s been positioned to maximum recovery of the remaining natural gas resources stranded in relationship to existing offsetting wells. There is no location available that meets the statewide state requirements. In the event the well is not drilled, approximately 82.66 acres of reserves will be stranded.


Gus Janson: 5,529 feet.

42

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1415

1617

18

19

20

2122232425

26

27

23

Tim Scott: And what’s the potential loss of reserves if the application is not granted today?

Gus Janson: The estimated reserves in this location are 450 million cubic feet of gas.

Tim Scott: And in the event that the Board approves our application, would it prevent waste, protect correlative rights, and promote conservation?



Butch Lambert: Questions form the Board?

Bruce Prather: I’ve got a question.

Butch Lambert: Mr. Prather.

Bruce Prather: Gus, are any of these wells CBM wells that are adjacent?

Gus Janson: Yes.

Bruce Prather: That won’t affect you [Indiscernible 1:18]

Gus Janson: Right. That don’t come into play under statewide spacing for the conventional wells since they’re operating under their own field rules, but the different symbols that you see there from the traditional gas wells symbols, the ones with the hexagons symbol, which is the DMME accrued location symbol for that, those are the CBM wells and the ones that actually have the green in the center of it, those are proposed wells that are permitted with the location proposed in the future.

Bruce Prather: I think it would help if some way you could have a map of CBM wells and had a map of conventional.

Gus Janson: Yeah, typically, I think we in the past, have not shown the CBM wells on these applications, but I think at one point the Board asked to maybe see those for information purposes where the other activity was. Is that correct?

Butch Lambert: Mr. Prather was the one that asked you that

Gus Janson: So, would you rather have them on or off? We’ll go either way. [laughs] We’ll do it different just so you can ask.

Butch Lambert: Any questions from the Board? [No response] Any further questions? [No response] Anything further, Mr. Scott?


43

1

1

2

34

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

131415161718

1920

212223

24

2526

2728

29

23


Donnie Rife: Motion made, Mr. Chairman.



Board: Yes.



Item Number 12


Tim Scott: Again, Mr. Chairman, it’s Tim Scott, Gus Janson, and Aaron Anderson for EnerVest Operating.


Tim Scott: Thank you. Mr. Anderson, again, please state your name, by whom you’re employed and your job description.


Tim Scott: Did you participate in the preparation of this application?

Aaron Anderson: I did.

Tim Scott: And you’re familiar with the ownership of the minerals underlying this unit?


Tim Scott: And, are those owners of those minerals set out on Exhibit B to the application?


Tim Scott: Who operates the two wells from which the well location exception is requested today?

44

1

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

101112

1314

15

1617

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

2627

23


Tim Scott: And again, is EnerVest is both an owner and an operator for this particular unit?


Tim Scott: How was notice of this hearing provided to the parties listed on Exhibit B?


Tim Scott: Has proof of mailing been provided to the Board?

Aaron Anderson: They have.



Tim Scott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Janson, again, your name, by whom you’re employed, and your job description.




Tim Scott: And would you please tell the Board why we’re seeking well location exception today?

Gus Janson: Yes. Again, if the Board would refer to Exhibit K, you’ll see the location of proposed well 900042. IN this particular case, EnerVest, as well as the previous operators that worked closely with the coal owner in this area, Wellmore Coal Corporation, who has active mines and proposed mines in the area, and we positioned this well in a mutually agreed location to minimize the impact to their potential coal resources. So, this location has been proposed in a barrier block, you’ll see in the underground mine map attachment also with the Hagy seam. And that will help to maximize the recovery of the natural gas resources at the same time minimize the impact to mining resources that may be available. So, in the event the well is not drilled, approximately 102.51 acres of reserves will be stranded.


Gus Janson: The proposed depth is 5,350 feet.

Tim Scott: And what’s the potential loss of reserves if the application is not approved?

45

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1213

14

15

1617

181920212223242526

27

28

29

23

Gus Janson: The estimated reserves in this location are 350 million cubic feet of gas.

Tim Scott: And in your opinion, if the application is granted, would it protect correlative rights, and promote conservation, and prevent waste?

Gus Janson: That’s correct.


Butch Lambert: Mr. Janson, is that Hagy mine active?

Gus Janson: It’s my understanding that mine is currently idle at this point in time.

Butch Lambert: We couldn’t find it in our system.

Gus Janson: I’m not sure if there’s any plans for them to reenter that mines some point in the future but at this point in time I think it is idle.

Butch Lambert: But it’s in the barrier, so.

Gus Janson: That do have a splashed in mine also south of this area that will come to this area. Same location that we work with them but they will be able to mine around it under their plans also. Doesn’t fall within the scope of the unit at this point in time.

Butch Lambert: Any other questions from the Board? [No response] Anything further, Mr. Scott?






Board: Yes.


Donnie Ratliff: I’ll abstain, Mr. Chair.


46

1

1

23

4

5

6

7

8

910

11

121314

1516

17

18

19

20

2122

23

24

25

26

23

Item Number 13




Tim Scott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One more time, Mr. Anderson, please state your name, by whom you’re employed and your job description.




Tim Scott: Are you also familiar with the ownership of the minerals underlying this proposed unit?




Tim Scott: And we have a couple, or three wells, I guess, from which we’re seeking this location exception. Who operates those wells?


Tim Scott: And again, I believe, EnerVest is both an owner and an operator for this particular proposed unit. Is that right?


Tim Scott: And how was notice of this hearing provided to the parties listed on Exhibit B to the application?


Tim Scott: And have we provided proof of mailing with the Board?


47

1

1

234

5

6

78

910

11

12

1314

15

16

17

1819

20

2122

23

2425

26

27

28

23



Tim Scott: Thank you. Mr. Janson, again, your name, by whom you’re employed, and your job description.


Tim Scott: And again, you participated in the preparation of this application. Is that right?

Gus Janson: I did.

Tim Scott: And would you please explain to the Board why we’re seeking this well location exception today?

Gus Janson: Yes. Again, if the Board would refer to Exhibit K, you’ll see the location of proposed well 530344. This well’s been positioned to maximize recovery of the remaining natural gas resources stranded in relationship to existing offsetting wells. There is no location available that meets the statewide spacing requirements. In the event the well is not drilled, approximately 83.88 acres of reserves will be stranded.



Tim Scott: And what would be the loss of reserves if the application were not approved today?

Gus Janson: The reserves estimated at this well location are 450 million cubic feet of gas.

Tim Scott: And in your opinion, if the application is granted, would it prevent waste, protect correlative rights, and promote conservation?



Butch Lambert: Questions form the Board?

Mary Quillen: Is this an active mine?

Gus Janson: That mine has been abandoned.

Mary Quillen: Oh, it has been abandoned?

48

1

1

2

34

56

7

8

910

1112131415

16

17

18

19

2021

22

23

24

25

26

27

23

Gus Janson: Yes. It’ll be a shallow mine. It’ll be pure shallow probably within our first casing string of the well.

Mary Quillen: [Inaudible]

Gus Janson: Right.

Butch Lambert: Any other questions?

Bill Harris: This is actually related but somewhat unrelated. If you’ll look to the lower right of that one is question, there’s a whole cluster of indications there. Is that like a pad for horizontal?

Gus Janson: That’s exactly what it is. Yes, sir. That’s a horizontal pad location in that location.

Bruce Prather: Any of them been drilled?

Gus Janson: Yes, they have. They’ll all be [Indiscernible 1:26] So we’ve positioned this well also to maintain the space within the horizontal.

Mary Quillen: Were these drilled by Range?

Gus Janson: Yes, ma’am. They’ve been drilled by Range.

Mary Quillen: Oh, okay.

Bruce Prather: Are most of them striking about north 10 degrees west?

Gus Janson: Yes.

Butch Lambert: Anything further, Mr. Scott?






Board: Yes.


49

1

12

3

4

5

67

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

23


Butch Lambert: One abstention, Mr. Ratliff. Thank you, Mr. Scott. That one is approved. Thank you, folks. You have a Happy Thanksgiving.

Tim Scott: You too.

Gus Janson: Have a good holiday.

Item Number 14

Butch Lambert: The Board will receive an update of Board and Division activities from the staff. Mr. Cooper.

Rick Cooper: A couple of items I wanted to mention is that per Board request, now on the dockets that are published, we have put an email link at the bottom. That’s a live email link so, and we actually put that as a new item on our website. So, any citizen that wants to view the docket items that you all are looking at, it’s the exact same link that you all see, they will now be readily available for them to do that. They just have to type that link in and it will go right to the same area where you al pull your petitions off monthly. That was per Board request. One other thing that we have completed is we worked on a period of time and we have now completed that, is we have actually have done all the objections and appeals electronically. We call it the Appeals E-Forms System. So, everything that is done on an appeal is all done electronically. Everything, all the paper and everything. As a matter of fact, the last appeal that we had here last month was part of that process, and we think we have worked all the bugs out of it and I really want to think OMIS and the DGO staff. That took a year and a half to put that together, so we now have that up and operating and so all of our objections are now electronic. That was a big mission for us. It’s been very successful to this point. One other item is that I’m requesting, and I’ll pass this out, so requesting that you all allow us, the Gas and Oil Staff, to close this item and refund the money back to CNX. This was a pooling order that was established several years ago; the well has never been drilled; and we need to close that out and refund the money back.

Butch Lambert: So, what’s the money for?

Sarah Gilmer: Bonus payment.

Rick Cooper: Bonus payment, original bonus payment. It’s been like 10 years.

Butch Lambert: For a well that was never drilled?

Sarah Gilmer: [Inaudible]

Butch Lambert: Oh, I’m sorry. I understand.

50

1

1

23

4

5

6

78

910111213141516171819202122232425

26

27

28

29

30

31

23

Rick Cooper: So, originally this was proposed as a horizontal well, so it was a large acreage in this, but the well was never drilled. As a matter of fact, they have sent us in a plugging plan to plug this well. It has not been plugged. They have sent that. So, I’m requesting that you all allow us to close the account and send the money back.

Butch Lambert: It’s never been drilled but they want to plug it?

Rick Cooper: Well, they tried to drill it, the worked on it like five months, trying to drill it. They got their steel hung up in it; got it back out; put their steel back in, got it hung and back out; third time, after they had spent like $1.2 million drilling it, they got their steel hung in it and they never could get it back out, so it’ll be cemented in formation.

Butch Lambert: So technically, it has been drilled but not to depth and no production?

Rick Cooper: Correct. No production. That is correct.

Bruce Prather: Junked and abandoned. [Laughs]

Rick Cooper: Junk in a hole and abandoned. That is correct, Mr. Prather. They spent a lot of money trying to drill this well, they were just never successful with it.

Butch Lambert: So, do I have a motion for the Board to allow the staff at DGO to close this account?



Butch Lambert: I have a motion and I have a second. All in favor, signify by saying yes.

Board: Yes.

Rick Cooper: One other update, the Board has requested that we update them on the Yellow Poplar. All the Yellow Poplar has been written; all checks have been mailed out. This is a sort of a end of year statement, the total that was sent to Yellow Poplar was $4,359,749.41. So, all those accounts have been mailed out.

Butch Lambert: Have they all been, not been closed, but everything’s been mailed out?

Rick Cooper: They’ll be closed by the end of this month. As you can see, that we have disbursed out of the account a little over $18 million. There’s about $11 million left and we are still working on the unknown-unlocatable, we’re working with the DMME IT staff and I’ve requested, the company’s give us comparative numbers to see what we think is unknown and unlocatable in the remaining $11 million, and we will report that out at our next Board meeting. Collaborate with all the companies and compare our data, but we still think it’s around $4 to $5

51

1

1234

5

6789

10

11

12

1314

1516

17

18

19

20

21222324

25

262728293031

23

million unknown-unlocatable money, but we will try to confirm that will all the companies and report that to the Board.

Mary Quillen: Is part of that Yellow Poplar?

Rick Cooper: None of that is Yellow Poplar. All Yellow Poplar is paid out and gone. It will be closed out at the end of this month.

Mary Quillen: Right.

Rick Cooper: So, I don’t know the exact number but I’m saying it’s give or take $4 million in unknown-unlocatables. That’s our tentative numbers but we’ll report more accurate numbers once we compare with the industry.

Bruce Prather: Rick, are we getting this thing down to the point where we might have to spend money to have to pay for the service by First Bank?

Rick Cooper: So, I think it’s getting pretty low and I think they have agreed to fulfil their contract. So, Ms. Manny works on three other accounts also. So, she’s paid out some other accounts, but I think, talking to them, they’ve come to the point that they’re not making any profit off of this anymore, with the amount of money. So, as it declines and maybe she can shift some of her responsibilities to the other accounts, but they said they would fulfil their contract, which I think we’re into our second or third year of the five-year contract. So, I’m sure that subject will come up in the near future, a couple of years from now.

Bruce Prather: Because we don’t have the business for them.

Rick Cooper: Correct. Now, the way that it’s paid, it’s 1/10th of 1% of the account. That’s the account value and, I guess, they wanted to increase that to .15 or .20, but you know, that’s just about what interest rate we’re getting too. So, maybe in the future the interest rate will be higher, and you can renegotiate that fee. We just really can’t tell about two or three years from now, but that would be an alternative that they have requested.

Mary Quillen: Is there ever going…this is just speculation…a point that this would ever be declared all unknown/unlocatable…?

Rick Cooper: I would refer those potential things to Mr. Kugelman or Mr. Lambert has something to say about unknown-unlocatables, I don’t know how we’ll handle those in the future. There’s been a lot of ideas and thinking, but I don’t think there’s any legislation or any procedures that have been approved to disburse the money out to anyone.

Bruce Prather: Do you think it could be given back to the state [Inaudible]?

52

1

12

3

45

6

789

1011

12131415161718

19

2021222324

2526

27282930

31

23

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: No, sir. It’s not even back to the state because we never owned it in the first place.

Bruce Prather: I know, but…

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: Well, I would caution about using describing monies that the state may escheat with a slush fund.

Bruce Prather: No, I’m saying us.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: No. The Gas and Oil Board will never have access to that money to use for anything.

Rick Cooper: So, I know that people are trying to work on that, Mr. Prather, but I don’t have any good, concrete answers for that question right as we speak.

Bruce Prather: As long as it doesn’t come with severe problems…

Rick Cooper: That’s correct.

Bruce Prather: Because remember, we had problems with that other…

Rick Cooper: I think as far as payment to the bank on this, so they will get a payment, it’s just lesser and lesser every time we disburse out, and by contract, they have agreed, we have met with them and they have agreed to fulfil their contract.

Butch Lambert: While we have the company’s representation here, what does it look like for December?

Rick Cooper: I think we have, so we’ve got Ms. Duty here, I think we have 10 items and they’re all CNX items, I believe. Right?

Sarah Gilmer: Some are some EnerVest and I think we have like 13.

Rick Cooper: 13. So I guess the question, I had talked to Ms. Duty, could we continue that to January?

Butch Lambert: Here’s the problem…neither myself nor Mr. Kugelman will be available for December hearing.

Rick Cooper: So, I guess the only question, Ms. Duty, could you come up here? You only had one question on notice. Right?

Anita Duty: I’ve got my coat on.

53

1

12

3

45

6

78

910

11

12

13

141516

1718

1920

21

2223

2425

2627

28

23

Rick Cooper: That’s okay. Coats are okay. [laughs]

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: Are you sitting down?

Anita Duty: I want to be.

Rick Cooper: So, the only thing, talk about notice, that’s the only issue if we continue it to January.

Anita Duty: Right. We just actually sent the publication in yesterday, so we’re going to be published in saying that our hearing is December 19th, I think.

Rick Cooper: But actually, mailing notices.

Anita Duty: We already mailed the notices. They’re already out.

Butch Lambert: Does the Board feel comfortable moving forward. I mean, we’ve done it in the past. Somebody sat in for the Chairman, but Mr. Kugelman won’t be here either. I guess it’s up to the Board. If the Board wants to proceed.

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: The other thing too, just while we’re thinking about it, if there’s anything that’s thorny that requires legal analysis, we could just have it continued.

Donnie Ratliff: I started to say, if we don’t have any responsibility for collateral damage. [laughs]

Paul Kugelman, Jr.: As long as it’s not with want and reckless disregard for your authority, I think you are covered by sovereign immunity.

Butch Lambert: How about attendance for, will the other Board members be able to attend?

Donnie Rife: What day is that? That would be…

Rick Cooper: I believe that’s the 19th.

Sarah Gilmer: December 19th.

Rick Cooper: 19th of December.

Donnie Rife: Awful busy after Thanksgiving. We’ll do whatever you want to do.

Bill Harris: It’s a week before Christmas. Christmas is the next Monday.

Anita Duty: We may be able to catch our publication, if it’s okay to do it that way. If we say the original day is this and it’s going to be continued. Even though we’ve already mailed the

54

1

1

2

3

45

67

8

9

101112

1314

1516

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2627

23

notices out that say December. I don’t know if that would make it more confusing if we just leave it, or…

Butch Lambert: If we’re going to have a forum, I would say let’s just proceed and Mr. Ratliff can sit in for Chairman, and as Mr. Kugelman said, anything controversial, move it to January.

Rick Cooper: So, done.

Donnie Rife: So, thanks for mailing everything out real quick. [laughs]

Anita Duty: Well, I was just following the rules. They’re supposed to be mailed out on Friday.

Rick Cooper: That’s all I had so we, as we sit here today having the hearing on December 19th. Thank you.

Item Number 15

Butch Lambert: Okay, the next agenda item is the Board will review the October 2017 minutes for approval. Do I have a motion?

Donnie Ratliff: Motion to approve as presented, Mr. Chair.

Butch Lambert: I have a motion to approve as presented. Do I have a second?

Mary Quillen: Second.

Butch Lambert: All in favor, signify by saying yes.

Board: Yes.

Butch Lambert: Opposed no? [No response] Thanks ladies and gentlemen. We’re adjourned.

55

1

12

34

5

6

7

89

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

23

Date post:	25-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lynhu
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Item Number 1 - dmme. Web viewPrincipal Executive to the Staff of the ... I’m from Indiana,...

Documents