Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 10, 2021 at 12:26

The mineral owners, and their attorneys,  that have depth limitation clauses in their existing lease contracts should pay particular attention to this attempt to redefine the HA zone.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on May 11, 2021 at 2:33

Other than to possibly shaft the various mineral owners by capturing the Cotton Valley within the definition of the Haynesville zone, I can’t imagine
how Aethon could possibly justify this action to the Commission!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 11, 2021 at 4:19

That was my second thought.  My first was that the current depth definition is quite narrow and appeared to exclude the Mid-Bossier interval.  However, after consulting a geologist we both know, it appears that the Bossier that far north has insufficient porosity to be an economic reservoir.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on May 14, 2021 at 5:30

Skip, even if your second thought was accurate and the Bossier was commercially productive that far north, I doubt that the top of the Bossier formation would be 1,360' (10,910 vs 9,550') shallower that the top of the Haynesville in that location.,  I smell a rat!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 14, 2021 at 5:42

I agree that the upward depth revision would include more than the Mid-Bossier.  Unless I missed some, there are no LCV units in the application sections. That begs the question, what is the approved CV depth interval in the Caspiana Field?   And are existing wells labeled as CV drilled not only to sands recognized as CV but also as LCV?

I remain curious about this move by Aethon but haven't as yet come up with an educated guess that satisfies me.

Thanks for the reminder, Spring Branch.  I looked up the original Caspiana CV Field Order to compare the depth interval to what Aethon has proposed.  That CV interval is 8400 - 9500'.  9500' is 50' above the top of Aethon's proposed top of the HA at 9550'.

When I get time I'll try to look at the TVDs in the CV wells in the area of the field where Aethon proposes this change and see if it looks like there are LCV wells that are labeled CV.  We may have to call on our geologist for an opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 14, 2021 at 6:44

We may have to call in the cavalry on this one, Spring.  Upon cursory examination it appears to me that the CV depth definition includes the LCV although there are a number of landing depths and perfed intervals across the wells I looked at.  A number of wells labeled as CV have been later re-completed as CV/HOSS and those are some wide perfed intervals, 6292 - 9456' for example.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by William Bryan Brown on May 14, 2021 at 7:51

This effects me too. I have properties in the Caspiana.  And I too smell a rat.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 14, 2021 at 7:56

William, if you own minerals in one of the affected sections or in close proximity and are an Aethon lessor, you might want to call or email the company to see if they might provide an explanation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on May 17, 2021 at 13:38

Skip:

Would be interested in where tops and bases of the CV “C” / CV “D” / Buckner fit within the log on this one...  and would check leases for strata provisions re: tops and bottoms of the “producing / producible” zones...  Most leases are only concerned with the base or some interval below the base of such a zone - but there might be a few where the top matters.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 17, 2021 at 13:50

Thanks, Dion.  I'm not familiar with a source for the depth intervals of the varying CV sands in that locale.  I do agree that this is an issue that mineral lessors with depth limitations in their lease should consider.  I suspect that the majority of them had some form of professional assistance in crafting that lease language.  This is one Commissioner's agenda item that I wouldn't mind being in attendance for.  I suspect there may be representatives for mineral lessors and possibly operators of more shallow formations in attendance to ask questions if not to out right object to the application. 

• ▶ Reply