Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Matherne on September 30, 2012 at 6:54

RPT DATE	LUW CODE	STORAGE FAC	DOC USE	WELL CNT	OPENING STK	OIL PROD(BBL)	GAS PROD(MCF)	DISPOSITION	CLOSING STK	PARISH
07/01/2012	050956			1	233	697	301	716	214	POINTE COUPEE

Permalink Reply by John Matherne on October 31, 2012 at 7:33

RPT DATE	LUW CODE	STORAGE FAC	DOC USE	WELL CNT	OPENING STK	OIL PROD(BBL)	GAS PROD(MCF)	DISPOSITION	CLOSING STK	PARISH
08/01/2012	050956			1	214	549	359	547	216	POINTE COUPEE

Permalink Reply by William C. Morrison on November 1, 2012 at 3:41

John, that is reported data prior to the well rework by permit.  We would like to know the production after the rework.  So basically, those figures are just the monthly report found in SONRIS.  As I understand it, the data may be three months old by the time it shows up in SONRIS Lite.  I am not gripping about the time delay, it just is that it is not new data, nor does it reflect any change since the rework.  So numbers after the rework are yet to be shown.  That is where the good news or bad news will show up.

Permalink Reply by John Matherne on November 1, 2012 at 4:07

William,

That is the 8/1/2012 report which should be the prior month. The time lag in reporting is just what we get. I find it interesting that it was still producing before the well rework. The 9/1/2012 report should be lower due to the downed production period. The 10/1/2012 report will indicate the post well rework production. So like they say only time will tell. I think we need to see more Austin Chalk wells IMO.

Permalink Reply by William C. Morrison on November 1, 2012 at 4:14

Yes, I am all for more Austin Chalk wells as our place is 7.25 east of LaCour #43 and currently leased to Basin Resources (I believe it is a front for Anadarko).  Our lease is a little different in that it is sturctured at two levels, Austin Chalk and Tuscaloosa Trend.  Nobody is interested in Tuscaloosa Trend at the moment but Austin Chalk is a different matter.

I find it strange that directly across the Mississippi River it is all Tuscaloosa Marine Shale.  What a difference a mile to the North makes!

Chip

Permalink Reply by John Matherne on November 1, 2012 at 4:19

The TMS is so much deeper under our area. Hopefully more oil is pooled down there. :-)

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 1, 2012 at 4:25

In the majority of leases that I have reviewed containing royalty fractions which differ by depth, the interval with the lower royalty is the intended target. 

Permalink Reply by William C. Morrison on November 1, 2012 at 4:49

Skip, good to hear from you.  Our last three leases were structured with two levels and two different royality rates for each.  Prior to that, we had a lease that did not go all the way down, it stopped in the Austin Chalk zone.

We are sort of in between.  In between Morganza Field and Moore Sams Field (though at one time had six or so acres in the Wilbert well in production and was part of the Moore Sams Field).  That was back in the early 1980's.  The above four leases are post that era.  Closest well is about a mile away on the back side of the Provosty holdings (Labarre Plantation region which abuts up against Morganza Field).

And like I said all the activity in West Feleciana is TMS not AC.  What a difference a width of a river makes, eh? 

I do not think TT is the intended target, I think AC is the target.  But the seismic studies indicate TT is down below and may become the secondary target if and when gas prices go up (probably not in my life time).

Chip

Permalink Reply by John Matherne on November 28, 2012 at 7:03

RPT DATE	LUW CODE	STORAGE FAC	DOC USE	WELL CNT	OPENING STK	OIL PROD(BBL)	GAS PROD(MCF)	DISPOSITION	CLOSING STK	PARISH
09/01/2012	050956			1	216	579	423	370	425	POINTE COUPEE

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 1, 2012 at 6:27

Chip, I always urge mineral owners to basically whip the slate clean and not consider any leasing or development activity that occurred prior to 2008.  The days of conventional reservoirs and the associated hit-and-miss nature of those vertical wells has passed.  They still exist but are of far less potential benefit to mineral owners than resource plays.  Those who have had a personal or family history of multiple leases with few wells and often no productive wells tend to lean toward bonus per acre and ignore the other lease terms.

Permalink Reply by William C. Morrison on November 1, 2012 at 6:47

True.  But then there would not be multiple leases over time if there were not some kind of data to indicate there are mineral deposits.  Just being in the zone I would think is not enough. 

I under stand the verticle well anology but the laterals can go 360 degrees and I have read of some laterals going out over 9,000 feet.  Here in Barnett Shale we now see up six wells on one pad.  True, these are gas wells and depth here is only about 5,000 or so feet.  There is some condensate but the bigger issues here is salt water and its disposal.  We have water trucks running all over the place.  Many wells have already come and gone.  Others continue to produce.

Of leases, we used an attorney this time to protect our interests.  The cost was minimal.

We need some operator to drill a successful Austin Chalk well.  Then things will change.  Until them we have to wait and take what little we get off leases.

Chip

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 1, 2012 at 6:54

Historically unconventional reservoirs had a high number of dry holes due to the intermittent nature of the producing zone(s).  Many were drilled with little data and more than a few on nothing more than a hunch.  I can show you sections in N LA with dozens of wells spread over decades with zero economic producers.  I'm unsure of your comparison to horizontal wells as my point was that vertical wells generally indicate conventional reservoirs.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• …
• 18
• Next ›
• Page