Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 12, 2010 at 16:43

The Petrohawk EUR Core map shows two faults in 11N - 11W. One runs through Sections 5 and 7. The other through Sections 2, 10, 16, 20 and 30. They are parallel NE to SW diagonals.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by buckmaster on September 13, 2010 at 1:28

skip we have property in 29 that the leases expired on . no one seems to be interested have heard rumors that there is a fault in 29.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on September 13, 2010 at 1:52

Would there not be NG near a fault? Or would it be too dangerous or physically problematic to drill near one?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on September 13, 2010 at 1:58

Many times you lose the formation with a fault. It moves the formation up or down.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on September 13, 2010 at 2:07

Seems like a fault would be like one huge frac..

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on September 13, 2010 at 3:19

PG,
The problem is the lateral.... If the fault causes a discontinuity in the depth of the formation, then the lateral would be unable to follow that shift.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 13, 2010 at 2:18

The Petrohawk map has been proven consistently accurate as to faults whenever I have had the opportunity to compare it to the proprietary maps of operators active in a vicinity. I do not believe the fault exists in your section. Of the sections I have listed, only Section 16 is under unit order, to Petrohawk. Section 32 to your immediate south is a SWEPI unit. What company held the now expired leases?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on September 13, 2010 at 3:17

I know that SWEPI had at least half that section leased at one time...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on September 13, 2010 at 2:59

BM, some operators have large undrilled inventories and tight budgets so are slowing down on leasing new acreage especially if no well has been permitted yet for your section.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on September 13, 2010 at 2:52

BM, just realize faults vary in size (throw), depth and orientation. All these factors are relevant in assessing the potential impact on the Haynesville Shale development for a particular section.

Your section was included in the Veritas Tri-Parish Phase I seismic shoot and the results should be available soon.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by buckmaster on September 13, 2010 at 8:08

skip coastal held the leases .there has been no unit applied for in 29, that i know about. encana did survey for a loc. but pulled the plug. shell has a completed well in sec 30 but i dont have any info on it

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 13, 2010 at 8:15

You are correct as to Section 29 lacking a unit order. Sections in otherwise proven productive areas but containing a fault will probably not be a priority for many operators at this time. However, IMO they will get drilled in time. Faulting within a section is a good example of a case where units greater than 640 acres can be beneficial to mineral owners. An operator could include the southern portion of the fault section with the immediately adjoining whole section to the south. And the northern side of the fault could be included in the unit in the section immediately north. In this manner lateral lengths can be maximized for both units without penetrating the fault.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page