Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oil And Gas Pooling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Virginia Gas and Oil Board approves Pocahontas Gas pooling for Oakwood unit H37
Summary
The Virginia Gas and Oil Board on May 20 approved Pocahontas Gas LLC’s petition to pool unit H37 in the Oakwood coalbed methane field after the company’s land analyst testified the applicant holds 99.9892% of the unit and presented multi-million‑dollar cost allocations tied to nearby mining panels.
The Virginia Gas and Oil Board voted May 20 to approve a petition by Pocahontas Gas LLC to force‑pool unit H37 in the Oakwood coalbed methane field (docket BGO22‑1018‑4251).
Kelly Barry, a senior analyst of land records and division of interest for Pocahontas Gas LLC, testified that the company prepared and signed the application and related exhibits and followed notice procedures, including certified mail and publication in the Bluefield Daily Telegraph. Barry told the board Pocahontas Gas is authorized to do business in the Commonwealth and has the required blanket bond on file.
Barry said the applicant holds leases or rights to approximately 99.9892% of the H37 unit and identified roughly 0.0087 acres (about 0.018% of the unit) that remain unleased and would be included in a forced pooling if the board deems the respondent leased.
She also described the allocation of well costs across intersecting longwall panels. Exhibit M attributes $2,427,722.71 of allocable costs to the 15 East panel and $2,348,649.30 to the 16 East panel for work that affects unit H37; Barry said the allocation follows the field rules using acreage ratios. The witness explained those larger figures reflect the higher cost of recently drilled wells compared with older wells.
As part of the record, Pocahontas submitted a proposed order and recommended lease terms in the event the respondent is deemed leased: a one‑eighth royalty and a five‑year paid‑up lease at $5 per acre.
Board members pressed staff and the applicant about title records and past actions. Several members noted older filings and earlier voluntary units may use different naming conventions and acreage calculations; staff said those differences could reveal omitted claimants in some historic cases and that the board would need to review retention rules and records to determine whether retroactive correction or payment is possible. The board did not take any immediate corrective action on historic filings at the meeting.
A motion to approve the H37 pooling passed unanimously in a roll call (Mr. Harris, Mr. Jansen, Mr. Cochran, Mrs. Gibson and Mr. Owens voted yes). The board directed staff to update plat maps to reflect plugged wells and to follow up on any title‑report discrepancies identified during its review.
The board moved on to another Pocahontas petition and later business after the vote.
