Chesapeake and Plains Selling Acreage outside of Core

I see where they are selling just under 100,000 acres in Harrison, Panola, Northern Caddo and Northern Bossier.

Tags: Acreage, Chesapeake, Core, Plains, Selling, and, of, outside

Views: 227

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thank the Lord.
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.
Question, it seems that they have decided on a northern line for HS, any idea as to the southern line?
Jason, there is no consensus on any of the shale boundaries. One company's core is another company's non-core and vice versa.
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.
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.
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).

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


© 2020   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service