OPINION
COMES NOW before the Court for consideration the Motion to Approve Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (“Application”) filed by Bodard & Hale Drilling Company (“Applicant”). This opinion constitutes findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7052 and disposes of all issues before the Court.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Apphcant has a $62,203.72 claim against Debtor for services rendered under a drilling contract (the “Contract”). The claim is secured by an escrow account and a mechanics hen on one of Debtor’s wells.
The escrow holds $59,200.00 cash and requires the signature of Apphcant before any withdrawal is made. Therefore, Apphcant maintains control over this account.
The remaining $3,003.72 of the claim is secured by a mechanic’s hen on a well worth over $600,000.00.
Debtor’s Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”) proposes to pay ah creditors one hundred percent of their claims. Apphcant is scheduled to be paid its entire claim.
A cash collateral order is in effect to restrict the use of well proceeds by the Debtor.
The Contract and the Plan provide for allowance of Applicant’s attorneys’ fees. Accordingly, Apphcant is seeking attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amounts of $20,-992.50 and $2,191.50, respectively.
DISCUSSION
As an overseeured creditor, Apphcant is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees. 11 U.S.C. § 506(b). It is incumbent upon this Court to determine whether the requested fees are reasonable.
In determining the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees, this Court is required to apply the lodestar method. Matter of Lawler, 807 F.2d 1207 (5th Cir.1987). First, the Court calculates the lodestar, determined by *108multiplying the hours spent on a ease times a reasonable hourly rate for each attorney involved; then, the Court adjusts the lodestar by considering subjective factors. Id. The twelve First Colonial1 factors should be considered when making adjustments to the lodestar. Matter of First Colonial Corp. of America, 544 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir.1977).
When determining the reasonableness of fees incurred by an oversecured creditor under § 506(b), the Court should determine whether the fees were necessary to the protection of the creditor’s claim.
In the instant ease, there was no significant risk of nonpayment for Applicant. Applicant maintained control over the escrow account containing $59,200.00. The remainder of Applicant’s claim ($3,003.72) was secured by a lien on a well worth over $600,-000.00. In addition, Debtor’s Plan of Reorganization provides for full payment of Applicant’s claim.
Certainly, Applicant was required to take some action to protect its interest such as perfecting a lien, researching the escrow account, negotiating a cash collateral agreement, review of the Plan of Reorganization and Disclosure Statement, and preparation of a fee application. However, the Court believes Applicant’s request of fees and expenses in the amount of $23,184.00 is excessive.
After considering all the evidence and reviewing the ease file, the Court has determined reasonable fees and expenses to be $5,063.75. It is therefore
ORDERED that Applicant is hereby GRANTED attorneys’ fees and expenses in the total amount of $5,063.75. It is further
ORDERED that such award is allowed as part of Applicant’s secured claim. It is further
ORDERED that all further requested relief is hereby DENIED.