Guest blog by

Dewey Bartlett Jr. and

Mike Cantrell







Over the past few months, many of us representing the conventional oil and natural gas industry have been reflecting upon our experience at the Oklahoma legislature. Even though our position did not win the day, we are all very proud that we very respectfully conveyed our facts and recommended solutions.


Most of our group has been through this process numerous times and we all subscribe to the approach that a very successful oil and gas lobbyist, Richard Hutton, said years ago. He observed that “we only have two kinds of people in the state legislature; friends and potential friends”.


That viewpoint is as spot on today as it was 20 years ago. Unfortunately, I recently read a piece written by an oil and gas lobbyist where he basically said that their group would punish those that didn’t vote like they wanted on a specific issue and reward the ones that do. To threaten a withdrawal of political and financial support is, in our view, not a way to win friends or much less consider an issue with an open mind.


It is very short sighted to require a litmus test. I am proud that we conventional operators of oil and natural gas wells do not require a litmus test. We just ask to do what is in the best interests of Oklahomans.


To threaten an elected legislator or a legislative candidate that there will be consequences on how he or she votes on one single issue borders on political bullying. What happens if their group is unsuccessful in unseating legislators that vote against their litmus test issue? In my experience in the capital, friends come and go but enemies have long memories.


The Oklahoma Energy Producers Alliance lost a very close and contentious vote at the end of the legislative session. We also took note of how everyone voted. But we did so in order to know the legislators with whom we need to work harder.


The answer is not to declare a political jihad on those that disagreed with us. It is for us to simply get better in communicating our position with all of our legislative friends, both current and future.


We will get better.



Charted Frack Damage from Steve Altman

Attached is a chart showing the now long term effect (20 months) of the damage done by 2 offset horizontal Mississippi wells on 4 Misener-Hunton (AKA Hunton Dolomite) wells.

As you can see, the well’s production levels have improved over the last 18 months, but not without significant expense (well over $100,000), and certainly not back to their pre-damage levels.

At $45/bbl of oil and $3.00/MCFG, the gross revenue has dropped from $26,862 per month to $12,066 per month, a loss of over $175,000 per year in gross revenue.  The expense increase, just due to handling additional water, is from $20/month to $98/month.  Other expenses, especially regarding the well that had pumping equipment installed, have risen more.

As a reminder, I have attached the BH Pressure chart run on the Wakeman #1 during the Wakeman 1706 6-25MH frac, which clearly shows the frack hit at approximately 220 hours (May 18, 2016).




Production comparisons after offset fracs   (link to Excel spreadsheet)

Wakeman_1_bottom_052016_Quick-Look   (link to PDF chart)


Guest post by John A. Brock is a Geological Engineer


I was attracted to the recent Tulsa World Readers Forum article, “Geoengineering: Is it the Solution?” by Law Professor Rex Zedalis because I’ve been practicing Geoengineering for 56 years. The article recapped Geoengineering ideas of how to reduce energy from the sun (and thereby reduce global warming) by various schemes of shielding the earth by using mirrors or clouds of small particles in outer space, etc. His intuitive conclusion was correct. DON’T DO IT! Professor Zedalis has lived long enough to suspect an unworkable idea when he sees it. He apparently made his decision based on his experience and his gut feeling about the proposals. It would be wonderful if all laymen would do the same and not be influenced by the current mania. In this case, you can do simple calculations within the capabilities of a high school physics student to understand that the implementation of such schemes would require the entire wealth of the planet even if you are in error by a factor of ten. In addition, the schemes would be temporary since everything we place in orbit eventually returns to earth and most damning, even if it were possible, the unintended consequences could be horrendous.

Is there Global Warming? Yes

The thing that set me off about the article was it started with…..”There is no credible dispute about the fact that the Earth’s mean temperature has been rising over the past decades.” I thought, “here we go again with…humans are responsible because of our industrial activity and carbon dioxide emissions.” His opening statement is unimportant because a few “past decades” is less than a blink of an eye in the scope of climate change.

Anyone who has sat through the first course in Geology knows that our climate has been in constant change for at least one million years and very likely throughout the 5 billion year history of the earth. During the last 200,000 years alone there have been four ice ages. This would imply that the ice age cycle is about 50,000 years. The beginning of the current global warming era started at the apex of the last ice age, some 13,000 years ago, which leads us to believe we are a little more that halfway through the Earth’s current warming cycle (of 25,000 years). We’re not sure when the cycle will end. It could be tomorrow and it could be 12,000 years from now.  13,000 years ago, at the maximum extent of the ice in this ice age, there were some 2,000 feet of ice in northern Kansas. The ice has been mostly retreating ever since and sea levels have risen about 300 feet. Sea levels may continue to rise, but cannot rise much more because most of the ice has already melted. As recently as 5,000 years ago rising sea levels in the Aegean Sea poured over the Bosporus near Istanbul into a much lower fresh water lake and created the Black Sea. The current warming trend has not continued uninterrupted. There have been cooling cycles within the overall warming cycle. For example, the earth was much warmer 1,000 years ago when the Vikings were colonizing Greenland which that time was really green and much warmer. Those colonies lasted some 500 years before climate cooling known as the Little Ice Age literally killed off the Vikings. Since the end of the Little Ice Age, around 1750, global warming has resumed and the ice has again been retreating. Geoscientists know that the reason for the cooling and warming has to do with cycles in the intensity of the sun. Current research is focused on whether cycles in sun spot activity are responsible for the Earth’s changing temperatures. Sun spot activity has been very low during the last ten years, during which time the earth has been cooling, not warming. Irrespective of the specific reasons for the warming cycle, carbon dioxide has very little, if anything, to do with global warming.

Our witch doctors want you to believe that carbon dioxide causes global warming.

The vast majority of carbon dioxide on the planet is contained in the oceans and not in the atmosphere. As the oceans warm (because of energy from the sun), carbon dioxide is expelled into the atmosphere thus contributing to higher carbon dioxide levels. This is because carbon dioxide is less soluble in water as the temperature rises. Coke holds its fizz better when it’s cold. Al Gore is confusing the effect with the cause. The real relationship is global warming causes increases in carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide doesn’t cause global warming.

Carbon dioxide makes up 3.62% of greenhouse gases. The balance (96.38%) of the greenhouse gasses is nearly all water vapor. Virtually all (96.5%) of the Carbon Dioxide currently generated comes from natural sources (i.e. volcanic activity, sea water warming, etc.) and only 3.5% from human sources (0.42% from automobiles, 0.49% from air and marine travel, 0.88% from power generation and 0.81% from human households).

Now let us do one of those engineer “smell tests” to see if it’s reasonable to assume that we can do anything about global warming. Let’s suppose that we eliminate all the cars in the world. By the way, you go first. And that we can deduct the entire 0.42% of the carbon dioxide generated by automobiles is eliminated from greenhouse gases (for a lot of reasons it is doubtful there would be any reduction). This means that by eliminating all the cars in the world we would have reduced total greenhouse gases by less than 1 part in 200. Do you really think that would significantly change the amount of heat trapped in the greenhouse? It is not reasonable to think so! Also, you should consider that without the greenhouse gasses the sun would burn the Earth and you to a crisp. It’s the greenhouse that prevents that. If we were able to reduce the greenhouse gases we might be doing the opposite of what we want.  However, it’s pretty apparent from statements and actions from countries like China and India that, at the most, only Europe and North America would participate in trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The other 5/6th of the population of the earth will not risk destroying their economies in such an effort. And even though Europe seems hell bent on reducing carbon dioxide the policies they have adopted have done very little in achieving the objective they committed to12 years ago. So the question is; are we alone going to impoverish our country to do something that won’t work?

The legend is that the origin of the idea that carbon dioxide causes global warming came when British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was trying to justify a nuclear power generation plant. She was told that since carbon dioxide was part of the greenhouse gases etc., etc. that nuclear generation would be better because it didn’t produce carbon dioxide. She said, “If you can prove that, it would be worth a lot of money.” Her Government provided funds to study the issue and, like all government programs, it expanded. Not to be left out other European countries and the United States began studies and also built bureaucracies.  Now thousands of jobs are dependent on maintaining the belief that carbon dioxide is dangerous and the people who hold those jobs are very effective advocates.

The United Nations convened a “study group” to discuss the impact of carbon dioxide on global warming. Some 600 “scientists” participated. Many of the participants were from the government bureaucracies mentioned above. The reports that resulted from this and subsequent UN studies claimed near unanimous agreement that carbon dioxide is the basic cause of global warming and that the science is “settled”. Furthermore, it is important that

Some 600 “scientists” participated. Many of the participants were from the government bureaucracies mentioned above. The reports that resulted from this and subsequent UN studies claimed near unanimous agreement that carbon dioxide is the basic cause of global warming and that the science is “settled”. Furthermore, it is important that human caused carbon dioxide emissions should be reduced. These reports are constantly quoted and claim a consensus of all scientists. It has subsequently been revealed the UN reports have not been approved by the 600 scientists. Many of whom have objected and unsuccessfully demanded their names be removed from the reports. An opposition group of scientists started the “Petition Project”(Google it) which states that “…There is no convincing evidence that the human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate………” Currently, 31,478 American scientists of whom 9,029 are PhDs have signed the Petition opposing the UN claim. So much for the “settled” scientific consensus.

Nevertheless, politicians of the current administration and European governments are convinced of human-caused global warming and seem determined to institute laws such as “Cap and Trade” which will radically increase the cost of living and doing business. They do this in the name of saving the climate which they cannot do. These laws will make our industries uncompetitive. They will cause unemployment, depress our economy and impoverish our Nation. The book ”Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” will have a sad new chapter. This carbon dioxide mania is the modern equivalent of witch doctors throwing the beautiful maidens into the volcano to satisfy the gods and prevent eruptions. The problem and frightening thing is – witch doctors are very persuasive.

John A. Brock is a Geological Engineer


Forced Poolings

Guest blog post by David Guest – OEPA Board member. He provides a good history of forced pooling (subsurface eminent domain) in Oklahoma. He also explains why it needs to remain just that – history.


When someone says “virtually all” that is an extremely large sample size. In fact, I operate vertical oil wells that were drilled over 65 years ago, and own royalty under vertical wells drilled over 80 years ago. These properties were spaced at the OCC but not force pooled. Force pooling was introduced by the municipality of OKC in 1929 as “block pooling”. In 1945 the Oklahoma state legislature created force pooling by statute. Most force poolings in the ’50’s, 60’s and 70’s were for only ONE targeted formation. So, there are thousands of producing wells which have never been force pooled. But in the late 70’s and into the 80’s, landmen and exploration companies began to utilize force pooling as a “land and title” tool rather than an exploration tool, as pooling was first intended. Oklahoma is the ONLY state with force pooling, which is private party eminent domain, covering mineral rights. Mineral owners are being short-changed on per acre bonus dollars by force pooling as pooling does not encourage free market conditions for leasing activities. The abolition of force pooling would not deny minerals owners their right to develop their asset… they can negotiate a lease with the exploration company(s). If no agreement can be reached, the exploration company can still drill the tract, the unleased mineral owner is just that… unleased, and has the redress of subsurface trespass. So, unit development is not impeded. Let us ponder this question: Why are per acre cash bonus prices paid in Texas so much higher than the bonus prices paid in Oklahoma?? Although the rock, multi-zone potential formations, are similar between the states?? Because Texas has no force pooling, which mandates exploration companies to be more aggressive in the prices paid for OGL’s. Oklahoma mineral owners should not be continuously cheated by the use of mineral eminent domain.

Horizontal Forced Pooling in the Vertical Universe

Guest Blog Post by Joe Warren – OEPA’s legislative Chairman, a Petroleum Landman, an attorney and a producer.


Forced Pooling procedures developed in Oklahoma over decades, when the oil and gas industry existed in a vertical world. Companies were drilling geological ideas that were almost always relatively small, with the first well being a true exploratory well, and much riskier than today’s horizontal wells. Forced Pooling actually worked pretty well then. Rules of evidence limited testimony as to values to the small area covering the prospect. It resulted in unleased mineral owners and small producers invariably receiving the highest and best compensation paid to anyone within the area of the geological idea. Back then, spacing units were limited in size to an area that could be expected to be drained by one well. Furthermore, I learned early on that Forced Pooling was there primarily to encourage the drilling of that initial exploratory well. It was never intended as a means to take “protection” acreage or development acreage, prior to the exploratory well being drilled.

Today, everything has changed. The horizontal drilling world has been set on top of our vertical regulatory system, with disastrous results. Consider: while a spacing unit used to be of the size that could be drained by one well, somehow, with no change in the law or Corporation Commission rules, companies have been allowed to now space (and pool) units that contain dozens of drill sites. Devon has reported that they expect to drill 220-30, or more, wells per spacing unit. So instead of making elections on a well- by- well basis, as it was done in the past, royalty owners and small producers have to elect-in-or out on dozens of wells at a time, costing tens of millions of dollars to drill, with no control over the timing of those expenditures, and without the benefit of seeing the results of the first well, which would reveal whether the future potential of their investment would be worth tens of millions of dollars, or in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars.

The old vertical Forced Poolings dealt with one high risk well, on a small geological prospect, with royalty owners and producers receiving the highest and best price paid within that prospect. Today’s horizontal plays cover multiple counties. The Horizontal Drillers trade large blocks of acreage across these plays at prices up to and exceeding $20,000 to $40,000 per acre. Evidence of these large trades is not even allowed to be introduced to show value in today’s Forced Pooling hearings. In fact, evidence is limited to trades in only a 9 section area, and a narrow window of time. Many horizontal drillers have agreed amongst themselves to not reveal the terms of their trades, further limiting the ability of the Commission to come up with fair market value.

The end result is that the average value determined by the Commission for the last year or so in the Stack and Scoop plays, has been about $1,000 per acre, give or take. By historic standards, this sounds like a lot of money to royalty owners, so they think they are getting a great deal. In fact, these values represent a 90-95% , or more, discount to the value being put on this acreage by the companies themselves. If you look at Texas, leases in the hot areas in the Permian Basin START at $30,000 + per acre which is closer to a 25%-30% discount to what the Big Guys pay each other. Standard royalty there is 25% , while in Oklahoma it is 18.75% -20%.

The net result of all of this is that literally Billions of dollars are being transferred from the pockets of Oklahoma Royalty Owners and small producers into the coffers of the large Horizontal Drillers and their out of state owners and investors.

This is a travesty. Oklahoma’s current Forced Pooling laws must be changed.


Rick Roberts Story

This video is a bit hard to hear at times because of the wind but it’s important to us to go to the small vertical producers out there and get their voice heard so that everyone knows what is really happening.

Rick Roberts is no “fat cat”. He and his partner Rhonda have operated wells for other people for many years. Rick works in the field. Rhonda handles the office work.They were finally able to buy a few wells of their own . Now they have lost two of those wells and are counting on losing more. Right now they just want to get to the end of the year.

Pressure vs Time Graph by Steve Altman

Guest post today is from Steve Altman. Steve is a Petroleum Engineer and is President of Brown and Borelli Oil and Gas.

This is pretty technical, but it shows credibility for any oil and gas entity.

Pressure vs Time


Vieth Unit 1-32, NW SW Section 32 T18N R6W) got hit by an offset Mississippi frac (OEA Farrar 1806 1-32MH, API# 073-25561; estimate 1980’ between vertical and horizontal wellbores).  Looks like it may have been hit by two stages (See attached pressure chart).  Definite bleed off of pressure after the frac.

Fluid level dropped in the well.

We will start pumping to check for water increase and production decrease.

One section to the west, two wells hit last month that we have previously discussed:

The F. L. Towne 31-1 is still making significant water (56 BWPD) with no oil and decreasing gas (down to 4 MCF/D) (It was making 4 BO, 3 BW, 23 MCFG/D).  It was hit hard.

The Towne 31-2 has seen an increase in oil (3.5 to 5 BOPD) but a larger increase in water (8 BWPD to 21 BWPD) and a decrease in gas (57 MCF/D to 39 MCF/D).





David E Morgan Watered Vertical Wells

Rick Roberts is an oilfield professional in Waukoma who runs the operations for several companies. As hundreds of wells are destroyed and replaced with a smaller number of horizontal wells it costs all the jobs needed to care for those wells as well as the royalty owners in them.

David E Morgan Inc Vertical Wells (Excel spreadsheet link)

API # Vertical Well Name QTR SEC TWP RGE County Horizontal Well Name API # Horizontal Legal Description Drilling Company
073-22723 Bollenbach #1 NE 27 17 5 Kingfisher Gant #1-27H NE SEC 27-17-5 Ward Pet.
073-22397 Carrie #1 SW 17 18 5 Kingfisher Nelson  1805 4-18MH SW SEC 18-18-5 OEA
073-22127 Clifford king #1 SE 23 16 6 Kingfisher King Koopa 1606 #1UMH-22 SE SEC 22-16-6 Chaparrel
047-23999 Eldon #1 NW 11 20 5 Garfield Riesen #11-M1H SE SEC 10-20-5 Longfellow
047-23876 Gilbert #5 NE 4 20 5 Garfield Riesen #15-M4H SE SEC 10-20-5 Longfellow
047-23503 Hladik #1 SE 36 20 6 Garfield Kokojan #36-M4H NE Sec 36-20-6 Longfellow
047-23572 Hollar #1 SE 35 21 5 Garfield Eddie Mack #35-M3H SW Sec 35-21-5 Longfellow
047-23975 Homer #1 NE 29 20 5 Garfield Peach #29-M4H NE Sec 32-20-5 Longfellow
047-24053 Johnson #1 SE 2 20 5 Garfield Eddie Mack #2-M3H SW Sec 35-21-5 Longfellow
073-23925 Josephine #1 SE 36 20 6 Garfield Kokojan #36-M4H NE Sec 36-20-6 Longfellow
073-22853 Julia #1 NE 15 17 5 Kingfisher Gant #1-22H NW Sec 27-17-5 Ward Petroleum
073-22939 Lankard #1 SW 5 16 5 Kingfisher Townsend #6-1H NE Sec 7-16-5 Gastar
047-23865 Low #10 SE 5 20 5 Garfield J & J #5-MiH NE Sec 7-20-5 Longfellow
047-24026 Nettie #1 SW 11 20 5 Garfield Riesen #11-M1H SE SEC 10-20-5 Longfellow
073-23113 Pacula #1 SW 31 20 5 Kingfisher Kokojan #31-M1H NE Sec 36-20-6 Longfellow
047-22424 Parkhurst #1 NE 35 20 5 Garfield Francis #36-M1H NW Sec 36-20-5 Longfellow
047-23859 Reta Belle #6 NW 15 20 5 Garfield Hamm #10-M1H SE Sec 4-20-5 Longfellow
073-23450 Thelma #1 SW 23 17 5 Kingfisher Gant #1-27H NE SEC 27-17-5 Ward Petroleum
073-22404 Vadder #1 SW 23 18 5 Kingfisher Vadder #18-5-23 1H SW Sec 23-18-5 Staghorn Petroleum
047-22729 Van Hauen #1 SE 26 20 5 Garfield Francis #26-M4H NW Sec 36-20-5 Longfellow
047-23888 Walters #1 NW 16 20 5 Garfield Edwards #16-M1H SW Sec 16-20-5 Longfellow
073-22806 Wanda #1 SW 35 20 7 Kingfisher Huntsburg #1-3H


Rick Roberts is with David E Morgan Inc & Three Sands Investment Co.

Unacceptable Consequences of Vertical Well Destruction

Guest post by Goetz Schuppan, Singer Oil Co., LLC

This shows the anatomy of losing a well; emphasizing that the operator is not a willing seller but is forced to sell for what the state says its worth Through the Corporation Commission forced pooling. This lowers values for everyone by multiple of as much as ten times.  Oklahoma is the only state that allows the state to set prices. In All other states the parties negotiate for property. Isn’t that a novel concept?

 Well Valuation (Excel spreadsheet)

If you look at the spreadsheet, a 30MCF/2bbl oil well has a valuation of $980,000.  I would never pay that for a well but that is the profit that such a well is forecast to generate over the next 20 years.

After our wells get fracked into, settlement discussions often break down because we cannot come to an agreement on valuation.  I think the most important point to consider is that we are not WILLING sellers of our wells and that traditional valuation models do not apply.  I don’t agree to being FORCED into selling a well for a 5 year payout at today’s prices. Below are our assumptions:

  • In a transaction between willing parties, there has to be room for the buyer to make a healthy profit over the remaining lifecycle of the well. We are not a willing seller. Traditional valuation models with 5 or 7 year paybacks don’t apply. Many of our wells have been around for 40 years and it is reasonable to expect another 20 years of production.  We compare profits from our wells to annuities.
    • Note: Mechanical integrity is a risk over that time period. We think it is offset by the potential for increased value due to new technology or changing environments. E.g.:
      • Refracking of old zones using coiled tubing.
      • Exponential increase in acreage value over the last 5 years
  • We use a discount rate of 5% which is the interest rate we pay to our bank for loans.  We don’t see a reason to use PV9 or PV12.
  • We use oil and gas price forecasts from the US Energy Information Administration published in the “Annual Energy Outlook”. A lot more analysis goes into creating this forecast then what goes into the price deck from the local bank that is used to protect the bank’s loan values.
  • Most of our wells are many years old and have a fairly flat decline curve.
  • Our overhead and operating expenses are a fraction of the costs of bigger companies. We are able to operate profitably year after year because we keep costs to a minimum.
    • Our operating costs are kept low by being geographically concentrated.
    • We don’t have layers of management
    • We do a lot of the repair and maintenance work ourselves, with older equipment that we own.
  • We take the long view:
    • We don’t have to answer to boards or financial investors.
    • We don’t have to meet acquisition or divestiture targets.
      • We don’t buy wells when we think prices are too high
      • We don’t willingly sell wells in a low price environment. We would not willingly sell a well in the current pricing environment

Goetz Schuppan

Singer Oil Co., LLC


Open Letter to OIPA by William F. Dost, Jr.

OIPA Board of Directors RE: Open Letter


Ladies and Gentlemen:


My business, like so many others, cannot single handedly take on the necessary task of protecting the interests of small producers which allows us to continue to work, employ and properly develop oil and gas in Oklahoma. In the early 1980’s I joined OIPA which provided the opportunity for companies like mine to become a unified voice of representation at the Capitol and the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. I became very involved with OIPA and sat on committees, gradually chaired committees, was elected as a member of the year and was nominated and appointed to be on the Board of Directors (“BOD”) in the early 1990s; all while running my own operating company. Sadly, over the years I watched as OIPA evolved into a flashy organization that began emphasizing dollar donations over the ability, to lead and diligently produce. Today the leadership positions of the organization are simply bought not earned, resulting in a shift of interests away from the small independent producer to isolating the focus to benefit horizontal production.

The recent pursuit of the long lateral horizontal bill (the ‘bill”) blatantly benefits only a select few producers and is a direct reflection of the concurrent change in leadership within OIPA. This bill would allow all the reserves that I have worked for as a vertical producer to be stolen by horizontal drilling without my consent or proper reimbursement. The OIPA BOD rejected the bill several times for its bias toward horizontal development. The leadership directed by horizontal interests continued to push the bill without making any efforts to compromise with the vertical producers.  The outlook of the bill caused a division of the organization between the horizontal and the vertical companies.  The demands of current chairman to push this bill through have caused more BODs to either resign or were forced out than has ever happened in the history of OIPA. The failure to simply address the prevention of theft for those that earned reserves on vertical wellbores has not only jeopardized but reversed the very fundamental code of fair practice with which OIPA was once founded. The organization has taken a whole new attitude that horizontal interests reign supreme and there is simply little to no concern expressed for the vertical producer. In my recent letter of resignation from the Board, I stated that the organization is no longer the organization I once joined and had dedicated so much of my time and energy over the past 35 years.

The bill fails to address many of the concerns of the majority of the industry.

  • Well bore damage by fracking
  • Theft of reserves from existing vertical wells
  • Loss of up-hole rights in the vertical well bores
  • Damage of fresh water resources from breaking down old well bores from fracking
  • The damage to Banking lending laws by challenging the rights and ownership of reserves by the vertical drillers and their leases. This one act alone affects the majority of all small town banks found in the oil patch. Individuals who own wells need capital for emergency or their day to day lives depend on the banks to lend on those wells and their up-hole reserves. The current bill as it is written will prevent that from ever happening

The science of horizontal drilling has been a plus to our industry. The utilization of this science by companies who can identify new untapped reservoirs and drill and produce those reserves economically, without the issues listed previously makes our industry more efficient and much stronger.  I cannot imagine those individuals who work for the horizontal companies justifying the theft with a clear conscience. Our industry has always used its science and talent to find new reserves for the state and the country. These actions are the reason Oklahoma wrote spacing laws to prevent the issue of  one company taking assets of other companies by drilling under their leasehold.

Please do not tarnish our industry any more than it is by forcing these bills, as written, down the throats of vertical producers and thousands of families in the vertical oil patch that depend on their wells for livelihood. I know it has taken time but address and correct these issues. If that can be done then the entire industry will join you and fight with you.



William F. Dost, Jr. President

WFD Oil Corporation