SNAPSHOT OF THE PLAY: HA UNIT ORDERS/APPLICATIONS BY TOWNSHIP - 04/10/09

There are significant changes since the last post. Of the last 18 unit applications posted to the public hearing schedule, Petrohawk and Chesapeake account for 16. And 41 of the 43 sections represented in those applications. The first HA unit appears for the Sibley Field in Webster Parish (S32 - 17N - 9W). The play continues to expand along the east/central margin into Webster and Bienville parishes. A new Samson Contour unit app is not reflected in the township/section totals as it has not been posted to the public hearing schedule but members are receiving pre-conference notification letters. This app is interesting as it includes units for Hosston, Cotton Valley, Haynesville and Smackover zones. The HA zones are: Sections 33-36 - 20N - 16W, Section 6 - 19N - 15W and Sections 2-4, 9-16 - 19N - 16W. 16 sections in total. The letter is posted on the North Caddo Group Page courtesy of Coonman.

Tags: snapshot

Views: 75

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on April 12, 2009 at 10:39
Landowner, no company has made a distinction between core and total area with their maps. The Chesapeake map covers roughly 3.5 MM acres which is the size of the Haynesville Shale core area according to Chesapeake.

This is very different from the Barnett Shale which had an original thick core area that was developed with vertical wells and later Tier I & Tier 2 areas that were developed with horizontal wells.
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 12, 2009 at 10:48
Les. Although I have seen numerous mentions of the Barnett Tier 1 and Tier 2, I have never seen a definition of them. Do the tiers refer to differing petrophysical characteristics in the Barnett Shale or merely redefinitions of the productive area over time? As the Barnett play began in the 1980's, it is not surprising that wells drilled in the early stage of development in the "core" were vertical. I believe that Mitchell Energy was the early innovator in horizontal completions and their technical expertise in that area is one of the reasons that Devon Energy acquired the company. Are you aware if those early verticals had well profiles that allowed for reentry and recompletion with laterals? I am also interested to know how the petrophysical characteristics varied across the extent of the play and how completion designs changed to address those varieances.
Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on April 12, 2009 at 14:05
Skip, the core was developed with verticals by Mitchell/Devon because the zone being thick fit that approach better than horizontals. Mitchell's innovation was the light sand frac technology which optimized cost versus well gas reserves creating economic completions.

Actually EOG, Chesapeake & XTO were the real innovators in horizontal wells when they entered the play later. Because the Barnett Shale is thinner under their acreage position outside of the core, horizontal completions were essential to economic development of this Tier 1 & Tier 2 acreage.

After Devon acquired Mitchell, they made a move into the areas outside of the core also utilizing horizontal drilling.
Attachments:
Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on April 12, 2009 at 23:28
Actually, Les, it is my opinion that the Petrohawk "blob" or "cartoon" (Petrohawk's term) map has several different color variations (3 not counting the Bossier Shale oval) which is their attempt so show their earlier interpretation of core focus area (dark blue). The next larger area (light blue) captures a secondary focus area for HK. They like the fact that the light blue area is remarkably consistent in presence and thickness, though there are some differences in rock characteristics. And finally the lightest blue area, which is the largest, is just a general agreement with Chesapeake's outermost outline. This explanation came from Joan Dunlap with Petrohawk some months ago in an email to me.
Permalink Reply by shelby on April 15, 2009 at 5:18
Les B,
Been out of the loop the past couple of days, but, wanted to thank you for the map attachments. Looks Good.
Shelby
Permalink Reply by phaco on April 11, 2009 at 14:38
Always a brides-maid and never a bride.
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 12, 2009 at 10:12
It is generally accepted logic that maps purporting to define the Haynesville Shale, or any other play in it's early stage of development, are purposely vague and inexact as no E&P company would make public proprietary information. However maps of leasehold made public usually for the benefit of investors and financial analysts are accurate. Therefore maps may contain accurate information and deliberate distortions in the same depiction. SB, I think that posting in the "Reply to This" box under the discussion topic at the top of the page will result in a response following the last reply when there is no longer a "Reply to This" command left.
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 12, 2009 at 10:13
Only if it's the last reply in the thread. Obviously doesn't work for those in the body of the discussion. LOL! Oh, well.
Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on April 12, 2009 at 23:30
Thanks Skip.
Permalink Reply by Oree on April 12, 2009 at 12:01
Does any one know if the shale is around T10 7W if so when do you think they will be making offers for leases
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on April 12, 2009 at 12:03
oree,

You might want to look in the Group for that Parish and see if there is in activity mentioned.
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 12, 2009 at 14:21
Les. What was the spacing on the early wells. As they were verticals and hydraulic stimulation was an emerging technology, it would seem that even with greater thickness in the core, the production would be inefficient without pretty tight spacing.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service