- 22 -
(5) Petitioners dispute that the Monroe field in Texas was
90 percent depleted when Cromwell acquired interests therein.
Respondent's expert, Ronald Harrell, who has extensive experience
with the Monroe field, did a reserve study of the Monroe field as
of 1979 based on then available performance data from analogous
wells in the Monroe field. This study establishes that
Cromwell's acreage in the Monroe field, like Technology-1980's
acreage, would not support economically viable oil leases.
Petitioners' contention that the Monroe field was less than
60 percent depleted is not supported by any credible evidence.
Petitioners rely primarily on speculative testimony from Ham that
the Monroe field constitutes a condensate field in which fluid
buildup around the wells gives the false appearance that the
reservoir is depleted. Ham presented absolutely no data or
testing to support his theory. Respondent's expert, Harrell,
explained that the Monroe field was recognized throughout the
industry as not qualifying as a condensate field. Petitioners'
claim that the Monroe field was not 90 percent depleted is not
supported by any credible evidence.
(6) Petitioners' argument that the affiliation of Tom
Doscher, a renowned expert, with the partnerships justified the
large license fees is flawed in many respects. First, in 1979
when Cromwell entered into the license agreements, Doscher was
not in any way affiliated with Elektra. In 1981, when Doscher
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011