Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paul Butler on June 17, 2016 at 11:39

That wasn't an AFE. 

That was for one well. 

A thin gruel considering your confidence. 

Do you have a 5 million dollar one.

Nevertheless, they will be coming soon as I get back to my office.

Permalink Reply by Frank on September 27, 2016 at 15:24

Two wells in the middle of 7, cross all the way through 18 and are perforated 330' under the north section line of 19.  Well applications show that.  Thus, 5 wells are paying in Section 19.  This had me puzzled until I saw my royalty statement today.  Kelly, of course, is kaput. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RONNY on September 28, 2016 at 3:49

I believe about 5% of the perforated wellbore from the wells in 7 are inside the section 19 line.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RONNY on June 24, 2016 at 4:13

There are 4 different CUL's being drilled from the well pad in 15n 14w section 30.  Two going across the north half of section 30 into and across section 19 and two going across the south half of section 30 into and across section 31. It looks like each sections' (19,30,31) proportion of gas produced is being reported under the original Haynesville well number drilled in each individual section.  For example the wellbores for section 30 reported 610550 mcf under Hall ETAL serial #240737 drilled in 2010. Wellbores for section 19 reported under Kelley drilled in 2009, and section 31 gas reported under Burford completed in 2008. I'm speculating this will be the reporting method for CUL's going forward.

Attachments:

• sec 19,30,31.pdf, 123 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 24, 2016 at 9:26

It's been the case since the state set the rules governing CULs.  Some operators have been behind the reporting curve owing to poor original due diligence on unit ownership interests and poor, or in some cases no, "on the ground" unit/tract surveys.  Remember last year when many members complained about changes in their decimal interest and operators recouping "over payments"?  That was caused by the need to properly allocate CUL production across multiple units and avoid associated litigation..

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kittycatmama on June 16, 2016 at 16:45

Like the new Avatar Ronny

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RONNY on June 16, 2016 at 23:14

thanks

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 17, 2016 at 11:54

How many do you need to see, Paul?  As opposed to an AFE which is an estimate of well cost, these are actual as drilled costs.  I suspect that the well costs are actually lower for more recent wells.  These are just the most recent CHK wells for which the state has processed their tax abatement forms.

http://ucmwww.dnr.state.la.us/ucmsearch/UCMRedir.aspx?url=http%3a%2...

http://ucmwww.dnr.state.la.us/ucmsearch/UCMRedir.aspx?url=http%3a%2...

http://ucmwww.dnr.state.la.us/ucmsearch/UCMRedir.aspx?url=http%3a%2...

http://ucmwww.dnr.state.la.us/ucmsearch/UCMRedir.aspx?url=http%3a%2...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RONNY on June 17, 2016 at 15:07

I have leased acreage in section 19 but also have a 3 acre unleased tract.  Just before the recent drilling began I offered for no lease bonus and 1/5 royalty and Chesapeake said no thanks.  So, I will be looking for something after well pays out but not sure if that will ever happen. Based on well cost, current pricing and initial production, are their any opinions on payout for CUL's ?  Thanks

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 17, 2016 at 15:28

Too many unknowns for me to make that guess.  You can request a quarterly UMI report from CHK, track production on SONRIS and get a copy of the cost for each well when they become available in the database.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kittycatmama on June 17, 2016 at 16:58

We are in same situation in Keatchie with one tract leased and another we acquired last year was with an UMO. We have that with CULs going in north & south of us. I am HOPING when they apply to drill this section that CHK for offer some type of lease. We are getting small amt. on the UMO but who wants to wait for wells to pay out.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Butler on June 18, 2016 at 0:45

Thank you for the info Skip.  I wasn't being sarcastic in my post earlier and I assure you I appreciate all the info you post.

The Application for well status determination does not appear to include Lease acquisition cost.

CHK paid as much as $30,000/acre for some Haynesville acreage so that is a substantial cost.  Even if the cost was $1,000.00/acre, it's a large number.

I'll post the AFE's Monday.  They are on the computer in my office.

• ▶ Reply

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