Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Allen D, Beckham on December 17, 2009 at 16:18

Great answer D G, and it appears we may at last be getting to the question of what are they looking for at these depths. Almost certainly not oil. but what is the potential for more gas at these depths. Would like to get some input from someone more knowing than I on the geology of Shelby Cty.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Allen D, Beckham on December 17, 2009 at 17:13

An additional question, does anyone know if the KV Goetx well, which you posted earlier as bottoming out at 16,00, would this depth penetrate through the Smackover and into the salt

I would doubt that it would go past the salt. These are some of the questions I have, what is the approximate top of the LouAnn salt and how thick is it in the regions we are discussing, someone out there has to have these answers.

Basically what I want to know is, are they are going below the LouAnn looking for more gas below the salt, as it is the perfect cap or are they looking at the Smackover, which has been a major source of hydrocarbons in Mississippi and Alabama albeit at shallow depths.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cheerleader on December 17, 2009 at 17:50

D. Gaar,
That is an excellent question! Would a mineral rights owner, in the KVG #3 well, have the right to obtain that information? Would that type of disclosure have to be specifically stated in a lease before Cabot would disclose the information?

Allen D. Beckham,
In east Texas, would the salt always be beneath the Smackover formation? Can you see salt on Seismic studies??
Would we NOT rule out oil, in east Texas, if the salt was conducive to the same salt in the Sigsbee Escarpment? {What is the Sigsbee Escarpment?] Thanks

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Allen D, Beckham on December 17, 2009 at 18:54

Rule 3.16 for Form L1 of the TRRC states that logs must be taken for all depths and be made open to the public {TRRC} within 90 days of completion, for reasons of confidentiality the operator may request a waiver for one year within the first 90 days, he may also request another two year waiver within the granted one year period for a total waiver of three years. Good luck on seeing any of these logs for three years.

The Smackover is always above the LouAnn salt. In the past, Seismic could not discern any info from below salt formations but they have made some great strides in this area. Maybe someone better informed could give you a more definitive answer.

I don't believe, from research I have done, there has been the faulting and folding, thus possible entrapment of liquid hydrocarbons in this region. I would conjecture that the best hope for us in the region is gas below the salt. Sorry, there is no giant pool of oil below the salt in my opinion, reason: even with the heat dissipating ability of the salt the temps and pressure are above the oil window. Just my opinion, based on personal research not a degree in petroleum geology.

The Sigsbee Escarpment is at the edge of the outer continental shelf and flanked on either side by fold belts, at this point the fluid motion of the salt and other formations has seen extensive faulting and folding and subsequently the trapping of hydrocarbons, the salt acts as a heat dispersant at those depths and temps, depth of water at the depths we are discussing would have little if any effect on dissipating heat.

I will say that the deep wells we are talking about seem to be at the extremities of the Sabine Uplift.

Sure wish we had some petroleum geologists on this site to answer some of the questions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cheerleader on December 18, 2009 at 18:20

Allan D. Beckham,
Thank you so much. Your response is very informative. Interesting that you should mention that the "deep wells we are talking about seem to be at the extremities of the Sabine Uplift". There has been discussion regarding the pros and cons of the southern play because of the Sabine Island or a "formation" which is viewed as a negative in the southern part of the play. Oilvoice.com has mentioned the depths of the southern part of the play as a positive. I read an extensive article that one of the site members e-mailed me. I have always thought of the depth issue as positive not negative. Particularly in San Augustine and Sabine counties.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DJG on December 18, 2009 at 18:57

Although it is technically public information, as Allen states above, the time period for releasing that info can be delayed for up to 3 years due to propriatary/confidentiality reasons. So it would probably prove helpful to the mineral owner to require/request an access of information clause to their lease agreement if it can be worked out with the O&G.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cheerleader on December 19, 2009 at 19:44

One more item to add to the growing list of terms included in the lease agreement

• ▶ Reply

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