I have an issue where my crew has found 2 sets of monuments for the same E-W block line. The part that isn't so great about this is that they found one set and then staked an oil well based upon that information. We were then tasked with staking another well 4 miles to the east of the first well and while traveling to the new location stumbled upon a rock mound with an iron pipe set in it. I was curious about it because it was so far north of the block line that I had previously gone with so we searched it out and found many monuments along the further north line.
I did some more digging and found a map and report at the GLO that shows the same north south busts between these two blocks and they determined that the the block line is the one further to the north.
Now I know that the line further north is the true block line. So now I've put an oil well in the wrong section. Could my saving grace be that the company I work for also has that section leased? How do I tell the client what has happened? What needs to happen to correct the issue with the Railroad Commission? The damages for the pad and lease road also have to corrected and paid to the right surface owners.
> I have an issue where my crew has found 2 sets of monuments for the same E-W block line. The part that isn't so great about this is that they found one set and then staked an oil well based upon that information. We were then tasked with staking another well 4 miles to the east of the first well and while traveling to the new location stumbled upon a rock mound with an iron pipe set in it. I was curious about it because it was so far north of the block line that I had previously gone with so we searched it out and found many monuments along the further north line.
> I did some more digging and found a map and report at the GLO that shows the same north south busts between these two blocks and they determined that the the block line is the one further to the north.
Well, it sounds to me as if Step One is to figure out what the situation really is. How was the survey in which the well you staked was situated described in the patent? Is this a typical West Texas block originally located by virtue of a bunch of alternate scrip and in which the State has at least a mineral interest in the alternate sections? Is part of the problem that the original location was partially or completely on paper and there were competing theories as to how to construct the block to conform to the original location? Way too many possible scenarios here until more facts are known.
The general idea is that the block's position should have been fixed by the original survey upon which patents issued and the Commissioner of the GLO doesn't have the authority to move the block out of its original position. In other words, there are some important fact questions that aren't necessarily answered by noting that the GLO later took some action.
Unless it may be part of Block 76 PSL, Loving Co., then there is movement still going on there.
Surveying in West Texas
I've been considering putting together a seminar on some of the peculiarities and pitfalls of surveying in West Texas. It is surprising to me how uninformed some surveyors are who go out there thinking that because they are registered for the entire state that they can handle the quasi sectionalized lands. I was fortunate to work for Schumann Engineering for four years which gave me a foundation of understanding. I also had a lot of input from local surveyors who were active in Chapter 10 of the TSPS. I highly recommend their High Plains Seminar which is this weekend in Channing, Tx. But I am not sure if there are any seats left. I've also had a lot of advice from rpls.com and now beerleg.com members like Greg and Kent. And some of it, I've just had to study and research my rear end off because nobody had an answer.
As Greg mentions, Block 76 PSL has double lines and is in a volatile state right now. It is my understanding that the GLO has finally rejected Newton's construction and new corrected field notes that somewhat maintain the Armstrong construction should be filed any time now. Hopefully you held the Armstrong lines. If you look at RRC plats prepared by anyone else who has been working out there and is familiar with the issues, you will see that they work off of the "historically accepted section lines" and ignore the newton lines. And there is a possibility that this whole situation will wind up in court.
But, Block 76 is not the only area i have found confusion on the Block line location. I am not unsympathetic to your problem. If you don't care to share your specific problem, feel free to drop me an email and I can see what data I have in the area.
Surveying in West Texas
Don't know the entire construction until a couple weeks, but as I understand, they are going from Max-Fred-Joseph L. positions, which will pretty much make all of the earlier work done (all of mine) OK, and the RRC is involved to "re-locate" leases or whatever it takes, but that's when the lawsuits will start, cause there were a lot of folks not from round heya that used JNN's position.
Surveying in West Texas
> As Greg mentions, Block 76 PSL has double lines and is in a volatile state right now. It is my understanding that the GLO has finally rejected Newton's construction and new corrected field notes that somewhat maintain the Armstrong construction should be filed any time now. Hopefully you held the Armstrong lines. If you look at RRC plats prepared by anyone else who has been working out there and is familiar with the issues, you will see that they work off of the "historically accepted section lines" and ignore the newton lines. And there is a possibility that this whole situation will wind up in court.
This is an excellent example of why surveying in West Texas is pretty much a class of surveying unto itself. The original land grants (or appropriation of the land to some School Fund) were typically made from locations that were really just protracted from some sketchy partial surveys or examination of the county map as it existed at the time in the office of the county or district surveyor. Differing ideas as to how that theoretical scheme of location was to be realized on the ground have in the roughly 130 years since only added to the confusion. Factor in different regimes at the GLO and patents issued on corrected field notes following wildly differing theories or rationales and the picture is one that requires extensive research and inquiry to really properly analyze.
The field notes that call for "rock mounds" at the corners of a 1900 vara x 1900 vara square (most of which never originally existed) don't really tell the story at all.
Surveying in West Texas
I've heard about the problem out in Loving County but thank god this isn't out there.
This is Block 112 and 45 of the PSL on the Culberson/Reeves County line. Sketch with report and field notes
I've used this Sketch (link above) by Luchini and I have found it very useful in locating actual monuments on the ground. Most of the field notes are the typical 1900v X 1900v to a stake and mound or a mound and 4 pits. But things get complicated by a bunch of mineral claim surveys...When the surveyors went out to set the corners (4x4 cedar posts with metal tags) on the mineral claims, it was apparent that they didn't locate them on the section lines.
In the blocks that I am concerned with now, there have been several other wells drilled in the area. I plotted up the dimensions of their plats and located the well head on the ground just to get a general idea as to where other surveyors are saying the section lines are. They all tend to agree with the first well that I staked and ignore the further north line that I've found.
In the report by Luchini, it says that the block line is controlled by a corner set by Randolph in 1907 which the field crew found it to be a pipe in concrete fitting the dimensions (within 2 varas) noted on the Luchini map. Now that I've found this other line that is 600'+- to the north do I do anything with it? The field notes for the sections of Block 112 and 45 are definitely in error on the distance north and south. They end up overlapping each other.
Sorry this mess has got me a bit flustered and I find that it's difficult to explain the situation when there is so much to consider. I really appreciate all of the input from you guys. Thank you!
Surveying in West Texas
I've got to head out for the day, but will take a better look at this when I get back. The first thing I noted about the Luchini report from 1968 is that it is marked "For Information Only" in the GLO files. I take that to mean that no official action was taken at the GLO on the basis of the survey findings that are set forth in the report. In other words, Luchini's work may have disclosed a bit of a mess, but the Commissioner of the GLO (or in reality the Director of Surveying) took no position on the correctness of his conclusions.
Surveying in West Texas
I have done a lot of work in Block 57, Twp. 2 & 3 and recovered some of the corners on the east line of the W.N. Holder Scrap File. Otherwise, I don't have much data in Culberson County.
Dennis Corwin, original surveyor of Block 45 and 46, is the same surveyor who caused the mess in Block 76 - the survey of that block was completely an office exercise. I assume Luchini believed Block 45 also to be an office survey as he describes it "only as a block six miles by eight miles".
I think for the north line of Block 112, the T&P Blocks' South lines are senior and controlling. Unfortunately, Kuechler was only traversing through this part of the reservation and never set any block corners, much less section corners - except where the corners were along his traverse. Paul McCombs retraced Kuechler's work and established a lot of Blocks south and east of the Kuechler traverse line. I see where Luchini reports that there are "5 or 6 positions of record--or being used--for the Southeast corners of Blocks 59 and 60, T&P RR Co.". I have generally held the construction devised and shown on the 7 Sisters Oil Company map from 1958, which is what Luchini held in Culberson County Sketch File No. 44 and is showing along with the coordinates, which are NAD 27 and in varas.
If you are not going to accept Randoplh's southwest corner of the Holder scrap file as controlling for the south line of Block 112, you would need to rebuild the senior section, 45, in from its controlling corners.
My thoughts.
Surveying in West Texas
Thank you all for taking time to look over this, it's really nice to have more thoughts on the situation.
I have found monuments on the south line of the T&P B58 and I think I have the SW corner of the Holder Scrap File. As far as holding the SW corner of the Holder Scrap File, would you care to share a rough position of the east line so I can get a crew back out to locate it?
Another issue is that I've found one monument a mile +- to the south that doesn't agree with anything and has a cap on that claims to be the common corner of B45 Sections 5,6,7,8. I don't have a picture for that one but I've put a link to one just like it in Block 110 PSL. Does anyone know who would have set 5/8 iron rods with caps out there? dropbox link
One of the things that concerns me (apart from the construction of the blocks) is that the RRC has already received a permit plat for my first well and another well (done by someone else) 4 miles east that don't use the Randolph corner as being on the block line. If I submit a permit plat using the south line of the Holder SF then the RRC will most likely respond with a problem letter stating that
"The current coordinates spot the location of the well with a distance to the south survey line in the GLO and the RRC GIS that is not consistent with the distance to the south survey line on the plat. Please submit a revised plat that shows the proper placement of the well within the GLO and the RRC GIS."
So I'm not quite sure how to handle the situation.
I have heard all sorts of things about this 7 Sisters map but have never laid eyes on it. I would appreciate it if you could point me in a direction to obtain it.
Surveying in West Texas
Call and talk to Robert Maloy in our Fort Worth office. He along with several other RPLS and LSLS in our office have pretty much surveyed this entire area for a client.
Surveying in West Texas
My copy of the 7 Sisters map is on paper and I don't have a scanner big enough. Not sure if the GLO might have a copy in their records but I suspect they do. Couldn't tell you where it is filed, perhaps miscellaneous maps? Maybe Kent knows. Mine is dated 8-21-1958.
I don't have much but I did tie in what may be the northeast corner of the Holder SF 8013 (rock marked H) near X = 1153883, Y = 10625235 and a 1" IP is N 45° W about 25 feet from the "H" rock. Southeast corner of same near X = 1153664, Y = 10619254. Another 1" IP near the SE corner of S.F. 8014 at X = 1153586, Y = 10616718.
A sandstone and pipe (if I remember correctly) that may be the southwest corner of Block 57 Twp 3 near X = 1152597, Y = 10582677.
I have rounded these values to get you close enough to find them but you need to tie them yourself and determine whether they are relevant to your work.
That's about all I've got along the west line of Block 57 and I haven't been any further west. Or at least not any further west that I have any data on. Anything else I have done in Culberson County is from the early 1990s and I do not have the data.
Surveying in West Texas
Joe Lucchinni set 5/8" w/AC marked.
Let me see if I have the 7 sisters scanned.
Arc
>
> One of the things that concerns me (apart from the construction of the blocks) is that the RRC has already received a permit plat for my first well and another well (done by someone else) 4 miles east that don't use the Randolph corner as being on the block line. If I submit a permit plat using the south line of the Holder SF then the RRC will most likely respond with a problem letter stating that
> "The current coordinates spot the location of the well with a distance to the south survey line in the GLO and the RRC GIS that is not consistent with the distance to the south survey line on the plat. Please submit a revised plat that shows the proper placement of the well within the GLO and the RRC GIS."
The only thing, once you settle down the boundary, is to get your client to file an amended W1. I've got permit plats with 15 different revisions on them for a myriad of reasons. They won't turn you in or anything. Explain the issue to your client and all should be good.
Arc
What Kris said and where can I email the 7 sisters map? I've always just called it the Humble map. Humble/Mobil/Texaco/others all commissioned this map, they show a big gap from Kuechler monument 4 to 17, BUT they're there too, I have coordinates and pictures, as a matter of fact the picture by my name is K8 with a sandstone marked TP by Jacob Kuechler.
Arc
I am going to have to treat you guys to dinner!
Side note::: I have found several 1" iron pipes on the north line of block 110 of the PSL and they are stamped with the block and section numbers along with TEX GLO 1983. Now I've called the GLO to see who set them and when but they don't have any record of anyone surveying in that part of the PSL in 1983... any thoughts on that?
acrowley AT crowleysurveying DOT com
Thank you!
Surveying in West Texas
There a couple things to look at when working in the Public School Lands. To state this is as short a format as I can, there are several original monuments that are controlling, calls to natural monuments, and there are two mining claims that will have precedence.
Controlling corners that we found:
Red Sandstone in ground at SW corner of 57-T3 - Most likely a McCombs corner
Stone with "H" an to east of an iron pipe at the NW Corner of 57-T3/SW corner 57-T2/SE corner 58-T2
Stone marked "H" in ground likely set by A.M. Randolph
Found corners around Section 199, Blk 113 along with calls for natural monuments
Found monument at SW cor 61-T2/SE cor 62-T2
Found Monuments around Kyle Mining Claim and Virginia Minig Claim
Found monument in small draw at SW corner of Section 25, Block 110
The Luchini map available at the GLO is of great assistance as it provides the coordinates to the corners which we found within very good relativity to each other and within 2 feet of published coordinates. This map also shows the different lines monumented by the surveyors who came after Captain A.H. Parker.
There are two sets of monuments throughout the PSL Blocks 109-115, as well as two sets of monuments throughout Block 45 and 112.
I hope this helps,
Robert Maloy
For those who are interested, Davey Edward's rolled sketch and sketch file for his resurvey of Block 76, Public School Land in Loving County is now available on the GLO archives website. The rolled sketch (map) is number 15 and the sketch file (report) is number 9. It does not appear to be indexed by county yet so if you go to the map store, just type in "loving county rolled sketch 15" or "loving county sketch file 9" to get it to pull up.
Andy Nold, post: 363796, member: 7 wrote: For those who are interested, Davey Edward's rolled sketch and sketch file for his resurvey of Block 76, Public School Land in Loving County is now available on the GLO archives website.
It's always interesting to hear how well something that sounds wrong as hell bears up to detailed examination. The effort described in the Edwards report would appear to be exemplary, although the report would have benefited tremendously from illustrations beyond the accompanying Rolled Sketch.
There is a relatively modern tradition of West Texas surveyors claiming to find a corner that no one has ever found before, and with thin-to-nonexistent supporting evidence, and then proceeding to resurvey the world from it. The results are usually the sort of stuff that looks wrong from a distance and that turns out to be even worse on closer inspection.
I know the subject of Twichell's 2" iron pipe marking the purported location of Clark's 27 remains a hot topic out there. Nothing short of an archeological dig could prove it up and maybe not even then.
As for Edward's report, I generally agree with it and first discovered his work when we went out to set corners and found his newly placed monuments 0.09'-0.15' away from my calculated section corners [sarcasm]I used a sledge to bump them into place.[/sarcasm] I held his monuments. But since 2008 I have always shown the historically accepted section lines and the Newton lines. As his corrected field notes are now filed on the section I am working in, I'm going to drop the Newton lines.