THE GHS HAYNESVILLE SHALE RIG TRACKER.

I'll update each week so we can follow the rig count.  I am only counting rigs drilling the Haynesville and Bossier formations.  Many industry rig numbers are for the "Haynesville Area",  however they may defined that, and includes wells drilling other formations.

Scroll down for each new weekly count.  I am deleting the January 26 rig count that I used to start this discussion and replacing it with a running list showing the rig count by state by week.

1/26.    LA - 26, TX - 14: 40

2/1.      LA - 27, TX - 14:  41

2/8.      LA - 25, TX - 13:  38

2/14.    LA - 25, TX - 14:  39

2/21.    LA - 26, TX - 14:  40

2/28.    LA - 24, TX - 14:  38

3/6.      LA - 27, TX - 13:  40

3/14.    LA - 24, TX - 15:  39

3/21.    LA - 25, TX - 15:  40

3/27.    LA - 26, TX - 11:  37

4/4.      LA - 25, TX - 9:    34

4/10.    LA - 26, TX - 9:    35

4/17.    LA - 23, TX - 9:    32

4/24.    LA - 23, TX - 10:  33

5/1.      LA - 23, TX - 10:  33

5/8.      LA - 22, TX - 9:    31

5/15.    LA - 19, TX - 10:  29

5/22.   LA - 21, TX - 10:   31

5/26.   LA - 19, TX - 11:   30

5/29.   LA - 20, TX - 11:   31

6/5.     LA - 21, TX - 10:  31

6/12.   LA - 20, TX - 10:  30

6/19.   LA - 21, TX - 11:  32

6/26.   LA - 21, TX - 12:  33

7/3.    LA - 20, TX - 15:   35

7/10.  LA - 20, TX - 15:   35

7/17:  LA - 20, TX - 11:   31

7/24:  LA - 21, TX - 11:   32

7/31:  LA - 19, TX - 12:   31

8/7:    LA - 22, TX - 12:  34

8/14:  LA - 25, TX - 12:   37 *  Corrected

8/21:  LA - 24, TX - 12:  36

8/28:  LA - 22, TX - 12:  34

9/4:   LA - 23,  TX - 10:  33

9/11:  LA - 25,  TX - 11:  36

9/18:  LA - 24, TX - 12:  36

9/25:  LA - 25, TX - 13:  38

10/2:  LA - 25, TX - 13:  38

10/9:  LA - 24, TX - 11:  35

10/16: LA - 24, TX - 11: 35

Tags: L

Views: 13791

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks, Skip!

You're welcome, Martin.

The Haynesville rig count has been as high as the upper 40's and has likely averaged mid-40's for the last year or two.  A fairly high number of directed rigs compared to say the Marcellus which is much larger in areal extent.  39 rigs remains pretty aggressive in my mind considering the price of natural gas and the prospects for continued depressed prices.  Keep in mind that the sub-$2/mmBtu prices we are experiencing now are during the winter (withdrawal) season.  Since prices are not expected to average more than ~$2.20/mmBtu/month for all of 2020, I will periodically post these rig counts so we can monitor development levels.

Updated:  2/1/20.

LOUISIANA (27 - increase of 1)

Bienville: Aethon - 2.

Bossier:  Covey Park - 2, Aethon - 1, Comstock - 1.

Caddo:  Aethon - 1, Trinity - 1, Comstock - 1.

DeSoto:  Indigo - 3, Vine - 2, Aethon - 1, Chesapeake - 1, Goodrich - 1.

Natchitoches:  Indigo - 2.

Red River:  Aethon - 2, Vine - 1.

Sabine:  Vine - 1, Indigo - 1, GEP Haynesville - 2.

Webster:  Comstock - 1.

TEXAS (14, same as previous week corrected)

Harrison:  Comstock - 1, Sabine - 1, Rockcliff - 1, Tanos - 1.

Nacogdoches:  BP America - 3.

Panola:  Rockcliff - 4, R Lacy - 1.

San Augustine:  Aethon - 2.

Updated: 2/8/20

LOUISIANA (25 - decrease of 2)

Bienville: Aethon (3)

Bossier:  Comstock (2), Aethon (1), Covey Park (1)

Caddo:  Aethon (1), Trinity (1)

DeSoto:  Aethon (1), Comstock (1), Vine (2), Chesapeake (1), Goodrich (1), Indigo (2)

Natchitoches:  Indigo (2)

Red River:  Aethon (1)

Sabine:  GEP Haynesville (2), Vine (1), Indigo (1)

Webster:  Comstock (1)

TEXAS  (13 - decrease of 1)

Harrison:  Rockcliff (1), Tanos (1), Sabine (1), Comstock (1)

Nacogdoches:  BP America (3)

Panola:  Rockcliff (3) R Lacy (1)

San Augustine:  Aethon (2)

Updated: 2/14

LOUISIANA (25 - unchanged)

Bienville:  Aethon (4)

Bossier:  Aethon (1), Comstock (1)

Caddo:  Trinity (1)

DeSoto:  Comstock (2), Vine (3), Indigo (2), Aethon (1), Chesapeake (1) Goodrich (1)

Natchitoches:  Indigo (2)

Red River:  Aethon (1)

Sabine:  Indigo (1), Vine (1), GEP Haynesville (2)

Webster:  Comstock (1)

TEXAS (14 - increase of 1)

Harrison:  Rockcliff (2), Tanos (1), Comstock (1), Sabine (1)

Nacogdoches:  BP America (3)

Panola:  Rockcliff (3) R Lacy (1)

San Augustine:  Aethon (2)

Updated: 2/21

LOUISIANA (26 - increase of 1)

Bienville:  Aethon (4)

Bossier:  Aethon (2)

Caddo:  Comstock (1), Trinity (1)

DeSoto:  Chesapeake (1), Goodrich (1), Comstock (2), Vine (3), Indigo (2), Aethon (1)

Natchitoches:  Indigo (2)

Red River:  Aethon (1)

Sabine:  Indigo (1), Vine (1), GEP Haynesville (2)

Webster:  Comstock (1)

TEXAS (14 - unchanged)

Harrison: Rockcliff (1), Tanos (1), Comstock (1), Sabine (1)

Nacogdoches:  BP American (3)

Panola:  R Lacy (1), Rockcliff (4)

San Augustine:  Aethon (2)

Aethon has been the most aggressive driller of Haynesville Shale for a little over a year now and I have no idea why they are maintaining this many deployed rigs.  I guess it's about time for me to invite my Aethon contact to lunch.

Great information.  Thanks      Can you identify the sections for the wells in Sabine Parish?

I was the one who got taken by GEP as non-leased and do not want to happen again.   As I own the land and minerals, thinking of taking action for trespass on my land as way to recoup some of our loss from minerals taken.

Any thoughts on this idea??

Jim

Jim, I can tell you where the rigs are drilling by section but the state unitization regulations do not support claims of mineral trespass by unleased mineral owners.  Operators always get surface rights from private land owners for their surface locations.

a few months ago, Andrew sent me a La Court of Appeals decision from some years ago that held that an operator has "the right" to a surface location for a unit well, with or without a lease or other agreement with the surface owner.  Once the Commissioner approves a surface pad location, the case indicated that the landowner was SOL unless there was some contractual basis to alter that. That case wasn't a perfect analogy to Mr. Funk's position, but I wouldn't count of making up much loss of royalty payments with a surface damages payment.

I agree with Skip that operators generally don't want to run over and flatten an unleased landowner, but the case Andrew cited was about the right to drill from a designated location within the unit.

Would be very interested in anyone has contrary court rulings.

Steve P:

If memory serves, that court ruling does not allow for a surface location for a unit well unless the surface owner has contracted to provide one (so long as the mineral owner is either "paid" or his proportionate ownership in the well bears the costs specified in LA R. S. 30:10 to payout.  Otherwise this would be a trespass (IANAL).

At present, current regulations on well permits require an affidavit from the applicant evidencing an agreement with the surface owner and/or mineral owner to receive approval for a permitted location.  As to tracts where the mineral rights have been severed from the surface, the surface owner is also the owner of the subsurface - so long as the mineral rights are not being captured (e.g., wellbore perforated along its interval as same traverses the tract).  This is what allows E&P companies to drill wells off-unit through use of surface agreements and/or subsurface easements.

Functionally, I am not aware of a company at the moment that has routinely attempted to drill through and produce from mineral tracts not under lease.  In most cases, companies have tried to actively avoid doing so as to avoid the possibility of mineral trespass, opting instead to drill units with unleased mineral interests using wellpaths which specifically traverse and/or have perforated intervals only on leased property.  While the units may in fact have unleased interests force pooled within them, they form only a portion of the unit and are not "wellbore tracts".

RSS

© 2020   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service