Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by scout6486 on July 2, 2018 at 4:48

May be EOG. They recently started buying leases in East Feliciana and Amite County.

Permalink Reply by Craig Wascom on July 2, 2018 at 4:35

Sound like the work of Kirk. If it is there will be a press release soon.

Permalink Reply by Bob Zimmerman on July 2, 2018 at 6:03

Does this cast the Blackbrush well in a better light? 

Permalink Reply by Hydrocarbonite on July 2, 2018 at 7:53

Kirk claims they are going to the “Promised Land”, above the shelf !

Permalink Reply by Bob Zimmerman on July 3, 2018 at 2:57

Go below the shelf and it could be Waterworld.

Permalink Reply by Thomas Maglone on July 3, 2018 at 4:46

EBR is below the shelf, correct

Permalink Reply by LBP on July 3, 2018 at 13:44

The AC presentation on Kirk's blog site makes a strong case (in my novice opinion) for exploration above the shelf.  It shows the shelf cutting through EBR such that the north east portion of the parish is above the shelf in the "middip."   

Permalink Reply by Rock Man on July 3, 2018 at 14:03

Assume the attached June 2018 presentation is the one you are talking about.

I wish Kirk would have extended his mapping into the AC Hz frac play "sweet spot" of Karnes County where EOG is making their big wells. Plus highlighted where operators are having good success in the AC Hz Frac play along the trend (which includes some areas downdip of the shelf edge in Texas).

One needs to separate the traditional AC play (natural fractures) from the new play as to where it is working on a regional sense. The traditional AC info tends to "blur" the specifics as to where the AC hz frac play trends may be located.

Just my opinion on all this as always.

Attachments:

• Amelia-Resources-LLC-Austin-Chalk-Acreage-Regional-FLYER-JUNE-2018.pdf, 973 KB

Permalink Reply by littleasy on July 3, 2018 at 5:39

Several questions about the LA AC as they relate to the current play:

1) What is the source rock for the AC?

2) What are the similarities and differences to the Eagle Ford Group in TX?

3) Which criteria, either above or below the LA shelf, will be most important for success?

4) Are these criteria likely to change West to East and define the “Promised Land” near term?

Permalink Reply by Bob Zimmerman on July 3, 2018 at 6:30

littleeasy,

Those are all valid concerns. Despite the age of this USGS publication, it's still authoritative on many matters concerning the AC:

 https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5159/SIR12-5159.pdf

Permalink Reply by Rock Man on July 3, 2018 at 7:44

Quick answers:

1) Source for AC is both migrated from TMS as well as in situ self sourcing in the AC

2) Tx Eagle Ford is not similar to La AC - La AC is similar in areas to Tx AC / Eagle Ford is a carbonate mudstone with more pervasive organic content while AC is a chalk with more sporadic organic content. There are also differences in depositional environments, geomechanical characteristics and matrix / reservoir P&P

3) Regardless of location, success in the La AC will depend on presence of matrix P&P that is O&G charged

4) Criteria will vary from area to area / this is not a blanket play. Note that "sweet spot" in Tx only covers part of one county (Karnes)

As always, this is just my opinion on these issues based on my understanding of the play

Permalink Reply by Doug Cox on July 3, 2018 at 8:23

CCC 3D showed up with mapping for entire area,  very impressive.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 43
• 44
• 45
• 46
• 47
• …
• 59
• Next ›
• Page