Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by ledlights on February 9, 2014 at 10:39

Jimmy,

I know very little about that well. But there was a very long running discussion on GHS about Mainland, that well, and Mainland's prospects:

http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/forum/topics/mississippi-activity...

The discussion seems to trail off around the end of October,2011 (the link above is to the last page). There were a number of people who seem to have been invested in it along with some who mentioned they had leased mineral rights in the well (e.g. Kitt Burkley - very last comment in the discussion). So if anything positive had come of the well I am inclined to believe it would have been noted by someone who cared about the well's results.

The following financial statement (Feb, 2013) mentions the expiration of leases, lack of tangible resources except for the technical data from the well, inability to pay debt, resignation of board of directors, etc. I do not see any cause for hope in regard to Mainland.

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/130208/mnlu8-k.html

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 9, 2014 at 17:30

The penny stock site that carried a long running MNLU discussion, Investorhub, dribbled down to a handful of posters and then fell silent last summer I believe.  The consensus amongst those investing in and following MNLU was that the company was a pump and dump scam and that the best investors could hope for was that the crooks involved went to jail.  A number of GHS members expressed concerns and tried to warn investors early on based on MNLU's Haynesville Shale track record. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on February 9, 2014 at 20:40

Was this the company trying to sell a SUPER DEEP/BIG shale gas well?  Am I recalling it correctly, that this well was thought to be a "big one"?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jimmy Pappas on February 11, 2014 at 3:17

Thanks for your reply--yes they thought this would be the big one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jimmy Pappas on February 11, 2014 at 3:16

Skip thanks for you for your info.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Parker on February 12, 2014 at 11:55

It appears that the gas is there but the cost, economics, timing and possibly some of the people involved torpedoed the project. As you will recall, NG prices plummeted during the time big money and decisions to complete the well were needed to be made.

In defense of the technical validity of the Burkley Phillips No 1 gas was there, prime Haynesville Shale gas well drilling and completions also came to a screeching halt and it has some of the best proven economics out there.   

Maybe another day, higher NG demand, higher NG prices and a willing operator will unlock the vast deposits of gas present in that area. They are real, just deep. If you want to know a lot more about that area, a study of Dr. Ernest A Mancini's and his teams many years of work and reports for the Department of Energy is a good source.

Per his personal communication with me. The gas is there, LOTS OF IT.

~ ~ John

  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 13, 2014 at 2:28

John, with all due respect to Dr. Mancini there is a substantive difference between writing scholarly papers and actually producing hydrocarbons in commercial quantities and acceptable ROIs.  The question is not so much reserves as it is recoverable reserves.  The exploration we are all following in LA/MS faces huge challenges that are not easily overcome.  Advances in technology have made much possible that seemed impossible not long ago however there are some realities that technology may never surmount.  I'm sure it pleases us all that energy companies keep trying.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Parker on February 13, 2014 at 3:29

Skip:

Dr. Mancini's work spanned a period of over 12 years with a large team. Millions of dollars and millions of man hours were spent gathering all the past data from drill holes, seismic, core samples and analysis, on and on.

These reports, I can assure you, are not mere "Scholarly Papers". In fact very few (if any) Operators possess the in-house resources to assemble, analyze and catalog/publish the data that resulted from Mancini's work in the Mississippi and Louisiana basins.

In fact Mancini with the co-operation and backing of the Department of Energy was able to access proprietary information that Operators would not be able to (in globo) even be able to access for evaluation purposes.

Furthermore, the published written reports with backup documentation, memorialized and made it crystal clear that Mancini's team positively identified the exact zone the Haynesville shale gas would be produced from prior to the operators "finding" the Haynesville Shale gas.

Undoubtedly, the first mover Haynesville Shale operators used the information contained in these Reports to guide their early leasing & exploration efforts. It was a big part of the treasure map they used.

The challenge most of the time is money. Is there a significant return on investment to justify resource expenditures. Even if economical and profitable, respective plays have to compete with potentially more profitable plays the Operator's can invest their capital in. 

The Burkley Phillip's No 1 area is very similar to the Amoroso Field. Similar depositional environment.

Nat Gas development, combined with deep drilling is not in vogue presently. However, the technology to drill and produce these type of resources is well established. Judge Digby - John Amoroso Field, just two examples. Very similar temperatures and pressures, which are both at the very high end, but which is a critical component of what makes the Digby and Amoroso fields such prolific producers.

The day will come my friend and I hope it is sooner than later for all involved.

The Burkley Phillips No 1 area will be developed one day in the future. How long I can not accurately predict.

If that areas gas was on line now, Nat Gas probably would be selling in the 50 cents per thousand range because of a huge glut. Hmmm, that would not be good.

~ ~ John

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 13, 2014 at 3:37

John,  I have been familiar with Dr. Mancinni's complete body of work for some years.  Theoretical analysis doesn't always equal commercial development.  And commodity price is a main driver of economics.  If an energy company, particularly a major or mid-major, expected that the Burkley Phillips prospect was economic or would become so in the near future I think one would have scooped it up considering the well and leasehold could have been acquired for little capital investment.  IMO it will take some years for dry gas prospects to come back into favor.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Parker on February 13, 2014 at 4:09

Skip:

But considering that Exxon and BHP had to do huge write downs on the proven Nat Gas reserves they purchased, why bother at the time with Burkley Phillips. Everyone has more acreage than they can say grace over and Nat Gas prices have been very spongy.

If Burkley Phillips would have occurred in 2006 to 2008 it would have likely been developed and sold for billions IMO.

It really is all a moot point for now. A lot of folks lost money and potential future money in that deal. Sometimes that happens on even great assets. Perception and timing my friend.

Hopefully the TMS will provide the area with a significant boost eventually.

~ ~ John

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 13, 2014 at 4:21

John~

I'm not a geologist and I have been hesitant to participate in discussions that deal with the petrophysical characteristics of the Bukley Phillips prospect.  Early on I did state, often and with relevant background information, that MNLU did not appear capable technically or financially to succeed.  Too much promote with not enough action and then the revelations concerning the principles behind the deal started to become known.  I've been around GHS for a long time so I have the advantage of actually knowing the background of some members.  When a topic is geologic in nature I look to Jay, Shalegeo.  We have more geologists among the members of GHS, some active and some retired, and even a reservoir engineer or two.  Unfortunately most don't post as often as I would like.  And besides myself the number of members who know something about their background is small. Some just aren't into the computer that much but some just prefer to stay out of discussions where back and forths get a little heated.

Permalink Reply by John Parker on February 13, 2014 at 4:46

Skip

What you say is correct. However, even as iffy as Mainland was/is/were they were in the right place and time in the Haynesville and cha chinged it pretty nice with their Petrohawk deal.

Every now and then even a blind sow will find an acorn. I guess they were hoping to do the same (or actually much bigger) over at Burkley Phillips.

When things got shaky for them is when the shady Brent Pierce started his fall back position of making money via stock manipulation IMO.

I guess he figured the deal was a two bites at the apple opportunity.

(1) A hugely successful Nat Gas well and legitimate wealth creation or if that failed

(2) lets pump and dump. 

I believe there was some good credible people who were involved that also got snookered in the end.

However, I appreciate any and all info anyone throws out there as long as it is not a "scam artist" trying to screw folks.

That's what makes us all sit back and think about things. If I later find out I was wrong about something I will be the first to admit it and try to correct it for all's benefit.

Undoubtedly you have made vast contributions to this site and will continue to do so for a long time I hope. I can also tell you have been a great asset to many a mineral owner.

~ ~ John

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page