Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on February 15, 2010 at 7:27

He fails to mention that most new wells are on more restricted chokes than previously.

I guess he needs to read GHS.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by drilltheshale on February 15, 2010 at 8:22

You think this guy's guru, Scott Gruber, has more HS information than the companies who are betting the farm on it? Maybe he gets his data from Berman's cloudy crystal ball.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on February 15, 2010 at 13:01

Parker, I have read these yahoo's stories in the past and they do not seem to have anyone with a decent technical background in the whole outfit.

If anyone wants an informed analysis then they have to read something by Tudor Pickering Holt & Co.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on February 15, 2010 at 17:27

He pretty much exclusively quoted a research report by a Bernstein analyst which I read in it's entirety today. Much of the data in the report and IMHO many of the conclusions are just plain wrong and to some extent dated. The purpose of the report was to reduce the analyst's opinion on Petrohawk from basically a "Buy" to a "Neutral" and the price target of Petrohawk to $27. Just my opinion! I wouldn't put a lot of faith in the report. He described the core of the Haynesville as twenty townships (each with 36 Sections for a total of 720 square miles). For the Township to be included in the "core" of the Haynesville, it had to have 1) at least three wells with an IP of 5 million/day and 2) it had to be contiguous with another core Township. He said that 20 Townships fit that definition, which by my way of thinking is UNDERSTATED. That is just one of the areas where i think he is wrong.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on February 16, 2010 at 1:36

SB,
And... given that there are not that many producing wells (yet) in the southern end of the play, Sabine Parish and much of southern DeSoto Parish would not fit into his definition of core. However, I note that EnCana just reported a well in north-central Sabine Parish with an IP of 17 mmcfe/day. This makes the southern end of the play look extremely attractive, given that it has both Haynesville and Bossier shales.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on February 16, 2010 at 8:54

The Bernstein analyst left the entire southern end of the play out of the "core". In addition, he left out 17/16, which has the Trosper, Hammock & Herold wells which all three IP'd at >10 million/day. Remember, his criterion for the "core" is: a) three (3) wells which have an IP of at least 5 million/day and b) the township must be contiguous to another core township. Other notable Townships he left out of the "Core", but which in my opinion qualify include: 16/16, 13/16, 12/16, 13/15, 13/14, 12/14, 11/14, 11/15, 12/13, 11/13, 14/10, 13/10, 13/9, and possibly more. Several don't currently qualify because they only have two wells with reported IP's (though both wells may have IP's in the high teens. The most glaring "core" omision is probably 15/9, where Questar has at least 5 with with IP's > than 20million/day. In addition to the above errors, he INCLUDES 17/11 and 12/11 which IMHO do not yet qualify. He makes the above mistakes to opine that the Barnett could be a bigger natural gas field than the Haynesville. Maybe so, maybe not....I'm guessing not. Another huge omision, which is large enough to steer a battleship through, is that in his 13 page report (excluding required footnotes and disclosures), he never one time........not one time mentioned the Bossier Shale. That is preposterous!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ali Azfar on March 5, 2010 at 10:17

Hi

was wondering if you or someone could share the Bernstein analyst's report or point me towards where i can get it as i could not see it on Bernstein's website. My email is aazfarn@yahoo.com

Thanks and regards

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 5, 2010 at 10:47

Ali,

Just google, Arthur Berman, to read his articles. There are those members of GHS who can offer some informed rebuttals to Mr. Berman's analysis of the HS. They are geologists, reservoir engineers and other professional disciplines within the industry. In a word, it would seem that Mr. Berman selects wells to bolster his hypothesis that are not representative of the average HS horizontal completion by capable operators. It always leaves me somewhat dismayed that I never see informed rebuttals widely published. Almost as if some in the media do not wish to expose Mr. Berman's mistakes in analysis because it gives them something to write about.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ali Azfar on March 5, 2010 at 11:06

Thanks

I saw that article. My request however was to see the Bernstein report. I believe the news item mentions "Scott Gruber" as an author or spokesperson.

regards

Ali

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on March 5, 2010 at 22:43

I have read the Bernstein report and it is full of errors. It is a Wall St. type research report.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on March 6, 2010 at 5:08

SB, that is the reason I said there is probably not a decent geologist or engineer in the whole outfit. Just a bunch of Ivy League financial types that do not take the time to do any real "leg work" on the issue. All fluff and no substance.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on February 15, 2010 at 18:40

Les,

As you probably know I am addicted to reading ANYTHING remotely associated with the Haynesville Shale.

It didn't resonate with me, but I always try to question my assumptions.

I'm sure that is why I come here daily to read what you, Spring Branch, Jay and others have to say. Y'all always get me interested in learning more and more about it.

I posted the article just in case there were any bits of truth that I might need to be aware of.

• ▶ Reply

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