Oil & Gas Pro

Snapshot of the Play: HA Unit Orders/Applications By Township - 03/21/09

Tags: snapshot

Views: 1116

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


landownerPermalink Reply by sesport on March 21, 2009 at 16:16
Ah, thanks Skip, some sanity. BTW, got any idea why there's a "donut hole" in the Forbing area? (T17, R14) I've been wondering about that.

Thanks, if you ever run out of highlighters, I think I can send you some crayons. ha, ha

sesport :0)

landownerPermalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on March 21, 2009 at 16:52
I just want to remind folks that just because your township doesn't have a lot of unit applications doesn't mean it's not a good are. Plenty of those low number townships are HELD BY PRODUCTION.

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 21, 2009 at 17:08
parker. You're statement is correct. However, much of what has been unitized in the past and what is being applied for at present is legacy leasehold Held By Production. Many townships with low numbers are on the periphery of the play as it is currently defined. Improving economics in the HS play will boost those numbers in the future. Right now the safe bet is to drill in the established core. The recent disappointing wells in north Caddo are a good example of the risk in "step out" drilling. And it will take some time to match completion designs to areas of the shale that are "different" from the core. If this was a baseball game, I'd say there is one out in the top of the first inning.

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 21, 2009 at 17:00
Yeah. We really should discuss the "donut hole". Quite a curious circumstance considering the prospective nature of the locale. Maybe I will use it for a discussion topic next week. And not to fret, out to lunch, I purchase my highlighters in bulk. LOL!

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Les Bamburg on March 21, 2009 at 18:51
Skip, attached is my depiction of the number of Haynesville Units in each T-R.
Attachments:

landownerPermalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on March 21, 2009 at 18:58
Skip,

For 17N-12W - I also only can count 12 (I went back and checked
Sonris to be sure).

16N-12W - I know has at least 3 (1 drilling and 2 applied on 2-26).

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Les Bamburg on March 21, 2009 at 19:18
Parker, here are mine for T16N-R12W & T17N-R12W:

S3-T16N-R12W, HA RA SUW Unit, J-W, Elm Grove Field, Bossier Parish
S4-T16N-R12W, HA RA SUX Unit, J-W, Elm Grove Field, Bossier Parish
S5-T16N-R12W, HA RA SUS Unit, J-W, Elm Grove Field, Bossier Parish
S6-T16N-R12W, HA RA SUVV Unit, Petrohawk, Elm Grove Field, Bossier Parish
S8-T16N-R12W, HA RA SUT Unit, J-W, Elm Grove Field, Bossier Parish
S35-T16N-R12W, HA RA SUGG Unit, WSF, Elm Grove Field, Caddo Parish

S7-T17N-R12W, HA RA SUY Unit, EnCana, Sligo Field, Bossier Parish
S16-T17N-R12W, HA RA SUS Unit, EnCana, Sligo Field, Bossier Parish
S17-T17N-R12W, HA RA SUT Unit, EnCana, Sligo Field, Bossier Parish
S18-T17N-R12W, HA RA SUU Unit, EnCana, Sligo Field, Bossier Parish
S19-T17N-R12W, HA RA SUV Unit, EnCana, Sligo Field, Bossier Parish
S20-T17N-R12W, HA RA SUW Unit, EnCana, Sligo Field, Bossier Parish
S21-T17N-R12W, HA RA SUX Unit, EnCana, Sligo Field, Bossier Parish
S29-T17N-R12W, HA RA SUPP Unit, EnCana, Elm Grove Field, Bossier Parish
S30-T17N-R12W, HA RA SUQQ Unit, EnCana, Elm Grove Field, Bossier Parish
S31-T17N-R12W, HA RA SURR Unit, EnCana, Elm Grove Field, Bossier Parish
S32-T17N-R12W, HA RA SUSS Unit, EnCana, Elm Grove Field, Bossier Parish
S33-T17N-R12W, HA RA SUUU Unit, Petrohawk, Elm Grove Field, Bossier Parish

landownerPermalink Reply by sesport on March 21, 2009 at 19:43
Les - I'm leaving a comment on your page re. nuclear powered reactors. I don't want to sidetrack Skip's topic.

Thanks - sesport :0)

landownerPermalink Reply by lanadan Ds3 on March 21, 2009 at 20:17
Thanks Skip,

Time+effort=dedication!

One thought I had is that some portions of some T&R's are in Toledo Bend (11&15, 11&16, 10&15, 9&15, etc.)

Also, around the lake are some apps for units of more than one section (see maps in the recent filings in the Converse field).

Any thoughts on this? Thanks, again.

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 22, 2009 at 1:43
You're welcome, lanadan. The units along Toledo Bend that you refer to are controversial. And not just in the opinions of the land/mineral owners. There are three E&P companies opposing the HA unit application. A case may be made for combining the sections or portions thereof that are submerged under the lake with the adjoining sections on land. But the application by Eagle Oil & Gas also combines sections inland from the lake which doesn't seem to make any sense. It will be interesting to see how they attempt to justify the app at the public hearing.

landownerPermalink Reply by lanadan Ds3 on March 22, 2009 at 2:17
Skip,

I am in Sec #20 (HA RA SU Z) of 11 & 15. Recently received a REVISED APPLICATION and REVISED HEARING DATE letter that proposes to put 400 ac. of Sec #29 in with #20 (total unit being of course 1,040 ac.). Docket #09-319.

I have ownership of 75 ac. with full mineral rights, AND AM UNLEASED. It's not that I have been "difficult" or unreasonable pertaining to this leasing business, but I am NOT going to give over 75% of my minerals (considering a 25% royalty lease) for a pittance of a signing bonus, and also for not getting a no surface op clause of some kind!

It appears to me (from actually going down to the N/E corner of #29) that there is a lot of "dirt" that is NOT under water. What gives?

You have expertise in areas that I am not schooled in (although I WOULD categorize myself as an "informed" landowner), so therefore I would appreciate any thoughts that you may have concerning this particular situation.

Thanks and thanks again.

P.S. They (CHK) have just completed a so-called "super" or "mega" pad in the S/E corner of #20 that covers several acres, and it is apparent that CHK intends to SPUD asap (last word I heard was 1st week in April).

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 22, 2009 at 3:17
Thanks, parker. You are correct. I rechecked my copy of the plat and J-W prints their township and range one on top of the other in these apps. I got them in 17N-12W. Which explains the discrepancy there. I could not find the WSF plat. I know it exists because it stood out when it appeared on the schedule. Got a hearing date? While Petrohawk and KCS Resources have multiple HA apps, WSF had been strictly a CV/Hosston producer with that single HA app as the exception.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service