landowner

Ranking information from SONRIS.

SHREVEPORT ONSHORE 2008
Rank Field Id Field Name Natural Gas Casinghead Gas Gas Total
1 3608 ELM GROVE 103,865,297 1,441,118 105,306,415
2 9203 VERNON 53 828,586 0 53,828,586
3 2360 CASPIANA 39,695,498 871,423 40,566,921
4 8358 SLIGO 27,972,966 154 27,973,120
5 8891 TERRYVILLE 22,301,334 0 22,301,334

ANY GUESSES FOR WHAT FIELD WILL RANK #1 FOR 2009?

Views: 63

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


landownerPermalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on December 27, 2008 at 3:01
Sorry, the site will not let me format it for easier reading.

landownerPermalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on December 27, 2008 at 3:26
Jay,

Do you think it will be ranked #1 at the end of 2009? Or do you think that one of the fields in Red River will garner that spot? (I realize this is overall production, not just production from HS).
Permalink Reply by Snake Stewart on December 27, 2008 at 4:56
Without a doubt the newly formed Doyline/Dorcheated field.

landownerPermalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on December 27, 2008 at 4:58
Snake,

I thought that field was known as Elm Grove East
Permalink Reply by Snake Stewart on December 27, 2008 at 5:10
It was, prior to the realization of its own sheer immensity.
It is fairly obvious, by the comments of a couple of representatives from this area, how much gaseous substance is actually contained in said area. It truely boggles the mind.

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Les Bamburg on December 27, 2008 at 5:52
Parker, it is difficult to say because the HS underlies so many different fields. Petrohawk's focus on Elm Grove will likely keep it in the lead but Caspiana has an outside shot. I suggested to the state that they should follow the Texas lead and assign a single field name for all the Haynesville Shale production.

A better question might be which parish will have the lead at the end of 2009.
Permalink Reply by Snake Stewart on December 27, 2008 at 6:13
Hello Les,
What would that do to leasing tactics if everything in the Haynesville was designated as such ?
Until all boundaries are located how would they be able to accomplish this ? I guess they could just continue to update the area map.I agree wholeheartedly with you on the field designation but from an operators stand point, I can see where they wouldnt want to touch that with a ten foot pole. There is too much aura & mystique associated with Caspiana, Elm Grove, Bethany Longstreet and the likes for the O&G's to have to try and explain away the fact that its all the same thing now. Landmans nightmare if you ask me. Not that I would be totally against spookin a few of those guys a time or two just for kicks. (LOL) Just kidin guys and gals.

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Les Bamburg on December 27, 2008 at 6:40
SS, it is very easy for production reporting. The O&G company already has to identify the zone for gas production. The single field name just allows for easier aggregation of the volumes to better track the growth in production. The same thing was done in Texas for the Austin Chalk (Giddings Field) and Barnett Shale (East Newark Field). The original field names would still be utilized for all non-Haynesville Shale production.

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by The_Baron on December 27, 2008 at 6:51
It will just make it a pain in the ass to find field orders. Keep it simple. Use the already named fields.

RSS

© 2026   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service