Replies to This Discussion

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on October 8, 2010 at 15:51

All these formations make up the shale. The powers that be could have named it the Sh$t House Shale instead of the Haynesville Shale. Encana/Swepi first called it the Jurassic with their first permits in Sabine Parish. From what I know, the Haynesville Shale or the area the companies are drilling to include the lower Cotton Valley through the upper Smackover. Below are the Middle Smackover, Norphlet and Louann Salt. I am not a scientist, so some may have a different idea of what lies below.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by Owenson on October 9, 2010 at 3:53

Thanks for the input. I will watch the DNR for more descriptive names for the shale like yours.

• ▶ Reply

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Les Bamburg on October 9, 2010 at 12:29

TD, the Cotton Valley formation and Smackover formation are separate from the Haynesville Shale formation and Chesapeake is putting each into a separate unit. Most units only include only the Bossier Shale and Haynesville Shale where both are present.

• ▶ Reply

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on October 9, 2010 at 15:37

Les, my answer would be dated back to spring of this year and the operator that I was working with and their definition of the shale or whatever they called what they were drilling to. I couldn't exempt any formations mentioned above (lower CV through Upper Smack).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aubrey C. Sanders, Jr. on October 9, 2010 at 5:38

It blows my mind that no landowner requested a pre-conference hearing on what seems to be a rather complex request.

• ▶ Reply

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Les Bamburg on October 9, 2010 at 12:22

Owenson, there has not been any production in the Ashland Field from formations below the Haynesville Shale but Chesapeake's application would indicate there is a least some possibility of production from the Smackover Formation.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by Owenson on October 9, 2010 at 16:30

It is the first I have seen in the area which indicates smackover interest underlying the haynesville.
Not being in the know on these things, I thought I would ask those of you who are.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on October 10, 2010 at 4:07

Les, would you surmise that perhaps Chesapeake has seen something on seismic that has generated possible interest in the Smackover in the Ashland Field??

• ▶ Reply

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Les Bamburg on October 10, 2010 at 17:29

SB, that would be a good assumption. I also do not know if the vertical section of Chesapeake's PH 8 H1 Well penetrated the Smackover.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by w.r. frank on October 11, 2010 at 4:07

If you are interested in SMK, follow #241,286; #241,287; and #241,288. These are three wells permitted by ECA in 35/15/14 in Desoto Parish (pads in S260. Permit apps say Lower, Middle and Upper SMK. Don't pay attention to 12,000' TVD, EDA puts same number on all well apps now.

• ▶ Reply