Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on September 12, 2009 at 2:59

KR, Chesapeake has drilled wells in adjacent sections but there is no permitted well for Section 31.

Chesapeake, AT&N Martinez 30 #H1 Well, Serial #239297, S30-T13N-R13W
Chesapeake, Chk La Minerals 32 #H1 Well, Serial #239929, S32-T13N-R13W

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by k .r. hunt on September 12, 2009 at 3:12

when will they give information pertaining to those wells? I have never seen what those 2 wells have tested at ,just that S30 is waiting on pipeline and S32 is drilling. Is pipeline ready yet for S 30?when will they show (pardon my wording) how many mcf the well tested at?after is is sold?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on September 12, 2009 at 3:21

KR, the test results of the Martinez well may be out in another 30-60 days but hard to tell. Because the La Minerals well is still drilling it may be several months before the well completed and test results available. I will let you know if I see any information.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by k .r. hunt on September 12, 2009 at 3:24

Thanks so much!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by k .r. hunt on October 20, 2009 at 1:18

Good morning, we have land in sections 20/30/31/32-13n/13w looking for information? s30 is complete waiting on pipeline,( how do you find out where the pipeline is headed and if it's to your spot yet) ? Has anyone heard what this well tested at>? And where do they post that information? 20 according to Sonris is drilling, and 31 we just heard is being permitted . Is this information accurate? Is the royalty calculator pretty right on ,or do you have to allow for deductions? Thank you

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grandcane on October 20, 2009 at 10:23

KR
They are still welding on the pipeline that goes by section 30. They finished fracing the well on section 32 last week. There is a pre-application hearing Oct. 29, 2009, in Layfette for sections 20, 29, 31, and 34. Should get a notice of the Baton Rouge hearing shortly after Oct. 29, 2009. I've heard nothing on the test results of 30 yet.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 20, 2009 at 10:48

Grandcane. Are sure about the pre-conference hearing being scheduled for Lafayette? All HA unit applications are within the boundaries of the Shreveport District. And pre-conference hearings are normally heard in Shreveport. I suspect that the law firm sending the letter has a Lafayette address. Of course if no one on the Interested Party list requests the pre-conference hearing, you're right, it will be canceled and the application will go on the public hearing schedule in Baton Rouge.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by k .r. hunt on October 20, 2009 at 11:06

is that a good thing? or a bad thing?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 20, 2009 at 11:17

k.r. I assume that by "good thing? or a bad thing?" you are asking if someone should request the pre-conference hearing. Unless there is an obvious concern with the details of the unit application, there is little reason to hold a local, pre-conference hearing. It is an opportunity to ask questions but many applicants will answer basic questions by phone or email just to avoid the pre-conference hearing and speed up the process of a final hearing in BR. If you object to some detail in the application, by all means request the local hearing. As the pre-conference notice letter and plat has not been posted to the site, it is impossible for any of the members to review it and make a comment. Exception has been taken in the past by land/mineral owners whenever a unit greater than 640 acres is proposed. Though rare, some applications are opposed by other companies who would like the opportunity to unitize the same section.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by k .r. hunt on October 20, 2009 at 11:23

again thank you...,back to the other part of my my original question,is that calculator on geology .com pretty accurate?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David on October 20, 2009 at 11:27

Another one to take a look at is here.

While this is a different shale formation than the Haynesville, with different underlying economics, etc., it gives you a bit more complete picture than does the one on geology.com's site.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 20, 2009 at 11:34

k.r. Royalty calculators that do not factor in the general decline rate range for the HS will not give results within an acceptable range, IMO. Some may be better than others but without knowing the decline variable employed, it is impossible to rate them. Keith and a member are working on GHS royalty calculators that will attempt to give a more accurate result. Until then have fun with the calculators but don't make financial decisions based on their results.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page