, 1922-01-09

. ing II votes were cast in avu OF the
Midwest company. four votes were
/ cast IN favor Of one or h other OF
three proposals advanced by h hu-
reau OF mines and two companies
were represented at not voting.
The Midwest system OF ~prorating
which was Endorsed by h operators
Is based solely on production The
company decides how much oil II can
take, at present the capacity produe-
ton Of pipelines. and then takes a
percentage p-roporuonate to the entire
production OF the field. In this way
every operator IN the field be he large
or small sells so much OF his produe-
ucn.
Before the vote was taken. r. s.
Ellison, vice president Of the Midwest
company. announced that In view OF
the fact that his organization had
gone extensively into the proposition
OF PROBATION and that the present sys-
tenn was the result OF thorough In
vestiEauon. hat It would DO neces-
nary for the company TO stand pat
On the system It had worked out.
The three proposals submitted by
the bureau Of mines follow:
l. 4IhIAAAQh h4HtA RA G4AAAAN "a
wells. amount of acreage and amount
OF production.
2. In which h amount OF oil
taken IS based on acreage counting
one-fourth. number of producing wells
one-fourth and amount OF production
one-half for the purpose OF prorauon.
3. PROBATION based on the allow
ance OF a fiat production of two bar
rels per caro- for second sand acre
age or approximately 20 per cent OF
the pipeline run. Under this pro
posal nrss sand wells would be given
credit for 10 per cent OF pipeline runs
and the remaining 20 per cent would
be distributed among wells producing
/ 600 barrels or over.
The following operators participated
in the meeting which upheld the Mid
west plan of %proration;
Thomas F. Algeo OF the Sinclair
Wyoming Oil company; l. L. Aiken.
Midwest Oil company; John b.. Bar
nett, Wyoming Associated OIL COM
pany; John C. Hardin, Utah on & Re
hning company: John McFayden. Ohio
company; Z. j. McMahon, Glen
rock Oil company; c. Z. Winter, Dom
ino-wyoming OIL company; Nj. ]. Fo-
ley. Sthley syndicate; NJ. T. Rathyon.
Western States Oh & Land company;
A E. Beal, Export OH & Gas com
pany; Z. t. Williams, z. t. Williams
on company: L. j. Phillipot, Wyokans
Oil syndicate; @. Z. Littlefeld. Besse-
mer OIL company; E. d. Aiken, Noun
tain & Gulf, Boston Wyoming and
Northwestern oil companies +. w.
Merriwether. Salt Creek Consolidated
OIL company; l.. B. Andrews, Carter
on company: II, s. Shannon. Inland
oil & Refining company; T. b. Hofer,
Fensland oil company; II. H.
Schwartz. Empire State OH company;
r. E. Wertz, Producers & Refiners
corporation; II. S. Ellison. Midwest
Refining company, and Max Winter,
New York OIL company.
Interesting sidellghts were thrown
on the possible production OF the field
by Mr.. Ellison who said that the Salt
Creek field. based on the test recent
ly made. could easily be brought to a
daily production of IT'S 900 barrels. He
said that this was inadvisable how.
ever.
Mr.. Ellison also announced that the
Midwest company was rated at So.
600 barrels daily pipeline capacity. He
said that this could be stretched some
what but that the extra pressure re-
quired would endanger the pipelines
and whole production and proration
systems.
He said that 1t would be foolhardy
for the sake of pushing a few hun.
dred barrels oil n day through the
pipelines to risk the chance of nut.
ting the whole system out OF com.
mission.
Inc officials of the bureau OF mines
who were at the conference included
X g. Patterson. who presided as
chairman; B. ]. Carnahan, chief
gauEeri Fred A Lichtenheld. petrol.
cum engineer. and Robert n. TAYLOR
OF the accounting department.