Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Iris on October 28, 2008 at 6:41

Thanks Grice for the post Nisie T18 R14W Sec 15 is really close to Grissom Drive but I can't tell by Mapquest if it's included. Oops I think La. Lady already answered. this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Iris on October 28, 2008 at 7:32

Nisie I meant to say Grimmett Drive...guess I was thinking about CSI. - This is like a well scenes investigation. WSI

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grice on October 28, 2008 at 7:47

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/5008/samgrimmettck5.jpg

I outlined the proposed section lines in black, and traced Grimmett Dr. in RED

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by louisiana lady on October 28, 2008 at 5:27

Very close to section corner of T18N 14W sections 10 and 15. Check your property tax notice for your exact location.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by louisiana lady on October 28, 2008 at 5:39

I spoke with Mr. Joe Adams of Samson today about log information and there isn't any...no test wells or wells have been drilled which is probably why the redefinition standard is neighboring wells.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grice on October 28, 2008 at 6:32

To add; 19-14-20 & 19-14-17 would give some indication also.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grice on October 28, 2008 at 6:41

You named a few locations where well have been drilled. I was just adding two more well locations to the list.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grice on October 28, 2008 at 7:01

I apologize for my error. I have accustomed myself to typing just the numeric data for the Township-Range-Section, without thought that others may not know my meaning. So, for clarification, I meant T19N-R14W-Sec20 & T19N-R14W-Sec17.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grice on October 28, 2008 at 7:17

I rely on public information, and have not found anything showing evidence that horizontal drilling has began. Until such information is released to the public, I am at a disadvantage. Both of the well on Frank's Farm are last recorded as being ready to drill horizontal, but nothing stating the horizontal dilling has started.

Permalink Reply by Grice on October 28, 2008 at 7:37

Please forgive me, but just for my own amusement, I traced the pdf file that you posted. if this means anything to anyone, great. If not, just overlook this post.

In the Goodrich pdf posted:

The HS was originally defined by the 123-K application. In the 123-K application; in July '08, Chesapeake defined the HS as a depth between 10,910 and 11,487, using SRLT29 no.1 well (T16N-R15W-Sec29) as its resource.

The CV was redefined by the 123-A-48 application. In the 123-A-48 application; in July '08, Goodrich redefined the CV as a depth between 8,170 and 10,358, using the Chandler well (T18N-R16W-Sec19) as its resource. The previous definition was obtained in September '78, in the 123-A-2 application, whereas LA Land & Exploration defined the CV depth between 8,074 and 9,494, using the Mitchell-Williams No.1 well (T18N-R16W-Sec8) as its resource. Prior to that, in February '52, Phillip Petroleum had originally defined the CV as being between 8,180 and 8,225, using the Hammack No.1 well (T18N-R16W-Sec6) as its resource.

Again, this was for my own amusement, so please disregard if this does not interest you.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grice on October 28, 2008 at 8:40

Forgive my interruption, but I thought the Bossier was considered a sand play, and not actual shale. I am hoping you can end my confusion, as I am prone to be incorrect.

Permalink Reply by Grice on October 28, 2008 at 8:22

Jay, you probably have more knowledge in your little finger, than I do in my entire body, but from what I can tell, the HS and the CV are two separate formations, and neither interfere with the other. In my amusement post, the HS was not redefined, but used a continuation of the July 08' definition (10,910' - 11,487'). However, the CV has been redefined three times, but none of them were to the equivalent depths of the HS. The CV was originally defined at depths between 8,180-8,225 (Feb '52), then redefined to 9,074-9,494 (Sept '78), and later redefined to 8,170-10,358 (July '08). In as such, the lowest depth of the CV is 10,358', while the highest depth of the HS is 10,910', leaving only 552' between the two zones. Not knowing factual data, I would guess that 552' would be considered the Bossier Sand. Again, you know more than I could possibly dream of knowing, but I had to at least make an uneducated guess.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page