Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on July 12, 2010 at 15:30

Could you explain the magnitude of what they are trying to do, Jay? I would suspect that they are trying to include another (not shale) interval in this unit description... would that be correct?

Also, could you help me understand what the reservoir designation in a unit indicates? I see Res. A, Res. B, a few Res. C. and a few Res. D for the Haynesville... does that have anything to do with where, in the shale interval, they are drilling the lateral?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 12, 2010 at 17:43

Jffree1 - the RA, RB, RC & RD are completely random designations as the Haynesville Zone includes the entire Haynesville Shale and Bossier Shale interval.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on July 12, 2010 at 17:58

Les,

Now that the Commissioner has issued the Haynesville Zone memo, do you think that they would allow Camterra to continue?

Or do you think it is more like a situation where they can't put the already squeezed out toothpast back in the tube but they aren't going to let Camterra squeeze any extra toothpaste out?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 13, 2010 at 3:35

Bobi, under the policy the unit will not be granted "absent proof of exceptional circumstances". So the onus is on Camterra to demonstrate reasons for the unit including any non-shale intervals located above the Bossier/Haynesville Shale formations.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on July 12, 2010 at 18:34

Then what is the point in designating different reservoirs when there is no distinction to be made? Not being contrary... just trying to understand the logic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 13, 2010 at 3:29

Jffree1, there is not really a point and that is the reason most fields have only an "RA" for the Haynesville Zone. For a field or two it appeared different operators utilized different designations (ie RA, RB, RC). The Red River-Bull Bayou Field is the best example since it has RA, RB, RC & RD.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on July 13, 2010 at 3:53

So, the only way to know which shale interval is being produced is by operator announcement and by comparison of TVD... just like in Tx.

That is mildly disappointing. I had hoped ya'll might have a better way, over on the east side.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on July 12, 2010 at 16:02

I am not an industry hater, but I hope folks in that unit act accordingly.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 12, 2010 at 16:08

I am unsure of how those folks (mineral owners I presume) should react. So I would imagine they may be unsure also. Specifics would be helpful. Hating or Loving the industry aside.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ur dern tootin' on July 12, 2010 at 17:00

In looking at the date of Order No. 371-L (July, 2008) in which the Haynesville Shale Zone, Reservoir A, was first defined, I suspect that Camterra is simply continuing that same definition in their new proposed/additional unit in Res. A. Also, I suspect that this was the definition that was used before the Commissioner issued his Haynesville Zone MEMO setting ground rules for defining the Haynesville Zone. Now it remains to be seen if the Commissioner will allow Camtera to continue to use the old definition in the new unit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on July 12, 2010 at 23:24

For those of us who don't get it, can you be explicit in explaining what Camterra is trying to do that isn't right?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 13, 2010 at 0:47

http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/profiles/blogs/cotton-valley-and-...

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page