Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on January 6, 2009 at 21:20

Parker, it appears to me that Petrohawk has more or less adopted Chesapeake's interpretation. The shape of their two most recent map interpretations are very similar.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on January 6, 2009 at 21:32

It looked to me like Petrohawk had it trending more easterly and Chesapeake more to the west (in the core area). Not a significant difference though.

One article that I read stated that LA estimates are slightly higher than TX.

Did Petrohawk ever respond to you inquiry about the coloration of their latest map?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on January 6, 2009 at 21:34

My assumption would be that it corresponds to the thickness of the shale or net productivity.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on January 7, 2009 at 19:34

What a great memory you have, parker! Yes they did, but since that time I have retired and my computer at work got disabled. I can't remember whether I printed it or not, but I'm going to dig aroundand see if I can find it. If I do, I'll share it with you. If not, I'll ask again. I do remember that their response was interesting. One thing I remember them saying was that all of their interpretations are looking more and more alike because they had more and more the same information.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on January 7, 2009 at 19:37

Thanks

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on January 7, 2009 at 4:12

Parker, my estimate was based on the Chesapeake map but the two are very similar. Please see the attached for a side-by-side comparison.

Attachments:

• Blob Maps.pdf, 238 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on January 7, 2009 at 4:26

I prefer this map.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JHH on January 7, 2009 at 4:40

great map... thanks, jhh

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by nisie, not a happy camper landowner on January 7, 2009 at 8:52

I'm smack dab in the middle of the core without a penny. Imagine that!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ELLIS HUGH on January 7, 2009 at 8:53

hence, "not a happy camper landowner"?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott on January 7, 2009 at 11:29

Thanks everyone for all the great information....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on January 7, 2009 at 14:42

Tristone Capital Co. 06-2008

Eight to Ten Wells Per Section. Initially, industry assumed horizontal development based on 60-acre spacing (~10 wells per section) in the Lower Bossier/Haynesville Shale to tap the estimated ~200-245 bcf OGIP and 45-55 bcf of recoverable gas per section. While few well results have been published, it appears as though industry is starting to drift toward 80-acre
spacing (8 wells per section) based on potentially larger effective drainage areas per well. At 80-acre spacing, recoveries would be 5.6-6.9 bcf/well.

This would equate to 18-27% recovery factors, which is low for ultimate recoverable gas in an unconventional shale gas reservoir. Preliminary industry estimates assume 3-5 bcf/well EURs although more recently
Chesapeake has indicated per well EURs could be as high as 6.5-8.5 bcf/well. In our analysis, we have considered a low case estimate of 3 bcf, a base case estimate of 6 bcf, and a high case estimate of 8 bcf. We believe drilling and completion techniques and/or tighter spacing will be required over time to optimize the recovery factor.

Haynesville Shale

Per Well EURs. As we mentioned earlier, preliminary recoverable gas estimates are 45-55 bcf/section. At 80-acre spacing, recoveries would be 5.6-6.9 bcf/well. This would equate to 18-27% recovery factors, which is low for ultimate recoverable gas in an unconventional shale gas reservoir. Preliminary industry estimates assumed 3-5 bcf/well EURs although more recently Chesapeake has indicated per well EURs could be as high as 6.5-8.5 bcf/well. In our analysis, we have considered a low case estimate of 3 bcf, a base case estimate of 6 bcf, and a high case estimate of 8 bcf.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page