Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on March 18, 2010 at 14:42

HMI, the Bossier Shale is located immediately above the Haynesville Shale.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on March 18, 2010 at 15:12

What Les B says

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 18, 2010 at 15:17

Unless the HA pinches out to the south in Sabine Parish. And the Bossier continues further south.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ken hatcher on March 18, 2010 at 15:18

The question is where is there one or the other or both or neither?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by HMI on March 18, 2010 at 15:19

Thanks Les and CMK. That's what I was thinking ...Bossier,Haynesville,Smackover. I'm in the middle of negotiating a lease with CHK down there in Sabine Parish and I've been tempted to exclude everything except the Haynesville Shale. They seemed receptive to it at first mention of the notion. They're offering $5000.00 /acre with 25% no deduct royalty and the exhibit of my choosing as long as it doesn't get too over the top. Any thoughts? Forest Oil just permitted the section next to the one they're asking us to lease in. I spoke with a gentleman in aquisitions at Forest Oil home office day before last and he said they'd be very interested in leasing the acreage as well.

Appreciate the feedback as always.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on March 18, 2010 at 16:02

HMI, it may be difficult to exclude the Bossier Shale since it is included in the Haynesville Units. It may also eventually be commingled so very difficult to account for separately.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Terry L. Antee on March 19, 2010 at 4:13

HMI could you give me a Section Township and Range, we have some acreage close to Forest Oil location.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by HMI on March 19, 2010 at 6:01

Terry,

The well that Forest Oil just permitted is in Sec. 7, Township 7 N , Range 13W. Serial number 241002 - Named Olympia Minerals. We are in the neighboring section - 8.

When you say "we have some acreage" do you mean your family or are you in aquisitions?

Les B,

One of my clients is a geologist and owns a drilling/production company. He told me this morning that the Bossier is below the HS. Seems to be a conflict there between your opinions. Is it possible that he is referring to the Lower Bossier and you are referring to the Upper or Mid Bossier ?

Also, I was on Drilling Info yesterday. Very enlightening. Do any of you have a subscription to the site?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 19, 2010 at 6:38

HMI. A lot the industry members had DI subscriptions. In the first six months of the Play, it was relatively up-to-date and worth the price. However it soon fell so far behind as to be useless, IMO. I took what I was spending on DI and reallocated it to parish clerk of court remote accounts. I may consider subscribing again in the future but for now I will rely on my remote accounts. I would be interested to hear your opinion after you have spent some time on DI. When you ask questions regarding the Bossier, you must be specific concerning LA. and TX . as it is easy to become confused as you have demonstrated. If you would care to take my word for it, Les. B. is correct. He has pointed out the differences numerous times for over a year here on GHS. He knows the geology and the nomenclature.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by HMI on March 19, 2010 at 7:04

Thanks for the input Skip. I know you and Les (and others) are sharp. I've sat back and watched some (not all) of the posts and commentary along the way. Oddly enough there didn't seem to be an efficient way of filtering the posts related to (or mentioning) the Bossier Shale here on the Forum. Also, for the purpose of this conversation it's in LA not TX.

Skip, have you ever considered splitting a subscription with a couple other users? I think on the basic package youcan have up to 4 users. It would knock the cost down for sure. I'd be open to sharing if there were a couple others interested in chiping in. Just tossing it out there. The specific targets that we looked at yesterday were updated within a week from yesterday. That's not bad. Maybe there are other targets / features that aren't as up to date. I can't say yet.

Appreciate you guys commenting as always.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 19, 2010 at 7:13

HMI. Thanks for the offer but I will stick with my remote accounts for now. DI has been a good database for quite some time. It's not surprising that the pace of the play overwhelmed their data input for a time. I'm glad to hear that they are catching back up on leasing. Now the challenge will be keeping up with drilling. LOL! Welcome to GHS.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by HMI on March 19, 2010 at 7:34

Skip ,

Let's just hope that they have a hard time keeping up with drilling. That could mean good things for many here. Personally, I'm looking for that second bump on the option. :-) (63 acres) Then they can drill all they want.

Just read a release by Encana this morning. Indicated that they're devoting their 2010 budget to "lease retention" and are hoping to drill 110 new wells in the play in 2010. They've got a lot of work ahead of them.

Thanks for the welcome. Been around here a while. Do more listening than talking though. :-)

• ▶ Reply

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