Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on January 11, 2010 at 8:58

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on January 11, 2010 at 12:53

Thank the Lord.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 15, 2010 at 5:38

W.G. You can start a new thread if you like however there have been numerous discussions on that subject from the beginning of GHS. If you will check the archive for prior discussions with your choice of key words, you'll find a ton. Click on Discussions at the bottom of the current discussions on the Main Page and do a search.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason on January 10, 2010 at 16:58

Question, it seems that they have decided on a northern line for HS, any idea as to the southern line?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on January 10, 2010 at 18:28

Jason, there is no consensus on any of the shale boundaries. One company's core is another company's non-core and vice versa.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by W M Guice, Jr. on January 12, 2010 at 6:47

As is usually the case in these types of plays, there will be a core area or as it is dubbed by the industry, a "sweet spot" - companies with holdings in this area will most likely do OK -- acreage outside this area will be marginal at best - particularly at current gas prices. I'm not sure that the true "sweet spot" for the Haynesville Shale has been accurately defined but the ongoing drilling is certainly helping companies focus on a more and more specific area. I have always thought that the Haynesville Shale play isn't as large as was originally thought but it'll take 3 - 5 years of drilling to truly understand where it is good and where it is not. Therefore, over time, I expect more and more leaseholdings to be dropped or not developed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on January 12, 2010 at 8:02

It is surely not as large to the north, but apparently larger to the south and southwest. Jury is still out to the east and southeast, IMHO.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on January 12, 2010 at 17:21

WM, if one includes the Mid-Bossier Shale then the total play area is likely to be larger than originally thought.

Also, recognize that in the Barnett Shale there were many factors (depth, thickness, oil-vs-gas, etc) that caused the well economics to drop significantly away from the Core & Tier I area. The drop-off is not that dramatic in the Haynesville Shale and some factors (ie lower clay content) actually offset other factors (ie formation net thickness).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on January 13, 2010 at 18:17

Les,

I've seen that some of the Elm grove wells produce a little condensate and this doesn't seem to be a problem for the companies developing it, but I've heard that in North Caddo development this was deemed to be a problem.

Also, there was no condensate production to begin with in the Eagle Ford but now it seems to be pretty significant.

Is the shale make up such that it probably won't be a factor? Or is this something that we'll know more about as the play develops?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on January 13, 2010 at 19:09

Parker, producing condensate with the gas is generally not a problem. The gas produced from the northern edge of the Haynesville Shale must be slightly "richer" with some associated condensate production. The remainder of the play is very lean with essentially no condensate production.

Much of the early Eagle Ford Shale gas production is from the "rich" region and has a very high condensate yield. EOG is now focused on the "oily" northern counties of the Barnett Shale due to enhanced well economics related to the associated oil/condensate and natural gas liquids. The Cana Shale in the Anadarko Basin in Oklahoma also has a high condensate yield.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JHH on February 28, 2010 at 6:15

So, What's the latest with this. The deadline for bids has long passed. thanks, jhh

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 28, 2010 at 6:27

No word, official or otherwise that I have run across and I started looking for evidence a week ago. I was not expecting any official announcements until 30 days or so after the deadline for bids but it could be longer. There is no need to rush an announcement until actions that will be of public record are imminent and the companies involved wish to publish the basic details so that they can get the first opportunity to spin the sale as a win - win for all involved. LOL!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page