Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by jeff boler on December 30, 2010 at 9:12

I didn't mean to answer on top of you about the anticlines...

 

I have never heard anyone say that they are playing the low spots, but if that is the case it would go back to skip's comments about the sand in North LA. Sand does stretch across the a good portion of North LA in the "haynesville" depositional period. Except for NW Louisiana a minibasin formed which allowed for a deeper water depth during the time of deposition . The Sediments washed down by the MS and Red Rivers would have first deposited their sand in shallower climates, then the silt, and finally only clay was still suspended by the time the water from the rivers made it to the island sheltered mini-basin in NW Louisiana. Eventually the Clay particles settled out and this case mixed with Calcite and dead plankton to become the Haynesville. These events took place in deep water all over the then Gulf of Mexico, The pocket of haynesville in NW LA is unique in that there happed to be apocket of deepwater to promote shale deposition. This perhaps this is why they target Haynesville 'Lows' in North LA... because if it wasn't Low then it would have been sand or siltstone rather than shale... ???

 

I would suggest highly specific searches using Google Advanced... I always target .pdf files because that is where the meat is... I have literally hundereds of saved documents pertaining to each formation in the GoM Basin... is there something in particular that you are looking for? maybe I already have it....

Permalink Reply by Bruce Badeau on December 30, 2010 at 5:07

Good Morning... I have read with considerable interest the foregoing discussions... I have also posted a few times on Yahoo Finance for MNLU...

 

Please email me if you want to see a copy of my MNLU report ... it is really focused on economics and is not complete.

 

bruce at fser dot net

 

About depth:  According to a Paleontologist very familiar with the Haynesville in Louisiana, there is a hard limestone marker at the bottom of the Haynesville – just before the Smackover… Published material from AEXP referred to 2600 feet of Haynesville, likely measured by the seismic line.  MNLU hit the top (H) around 20,000 and stopped at 22,000 feet, the programmed depth, likely leaving 600 feet (H). The deeper MNLU goes the greater the risk in Hydrogen Sulfide … treatable, but nonetheless a risk. Also, why push fate… go to 22,000 – correlate the CVX well data with the current hole and do a completion…

 

I hear that they lost circulation a number of times while in the Haynesville and had gas shows, which could indicate an excellent fracture matrix.  MNLU got 22 out of 60 feet attempted core… Anyone have thoughts on why only 22 feet were recovered?  I was speculating that it crumbled as did someone else.

 

Regards,

 

Bruce Badeau, Houston Texas  www.fser.net  bruce@fser.net

Attachments:

• MNLU analysis Dec 27 2010.pdf, 1.6 MB

Permalink Reply by DJG on December 30, 2010 at 10:36

Missed this earlier, but here's a link to Mainland CEO  Nicholas Atencio's interview on Bloomberg TV last week:

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/65507056/

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 30, 2010 at 15:15

Burkley-Phillips #1 report date 12/30/2010, 161 days drilling ahead @ 22,000'.

Permalink Reply by Bob Nies on December 30, 2010 at 15:47

Way to go.... they are going to drill through the Haynesville and test the Smackover... I wonder if they cased to 20,000 before drilling further? Very good news IMO.

My guess the next PR report should be out tomorrow, Monday at the latest and could answer that question.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 30, 2010 at 16:30

When RigData reports are issued before the usual day such as in my post above, the next report is usually on the next regular reporting date which would be a week from tomorrow.  Too early and not enough hard data to jump to any conclusions.

Permalink Reply by Dennis Dion on December 31, 2010 at 3:40

 No successor in the near future. Mainland will get the financing for the next 2 wells and only then they will look to sell a minority interest to a major co. They will become a producer and in 1-2 years from now the remaining stake will be sold at max. price to their partner. They were looking for the BIG ONE and they got it. Many small shareholders will be disappointed with the fact that Mainland will not sell the leasehold for $20k per acre ($3.40 PPS + or -) Happy New Year to all.

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on December 31, 2010 at 3:58

9.2 million... wow. And that is before completion costs... wow..or even the last string of casing...wow.

 

@$4 gas they need about 2 1/2 B's to just break even on drilling costs... wow.

Permalink Reply by jeff boler on January 1, 2011 at 15:35

Do you suggest they prep to P/A  ???

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on December 31, 2010 at 4:03

"They were looking for the BIG ONE and they got it."

 

Look, I hope for everyone involved this project turns out, but statements like this are ridiculous. Gas is in the gutter, they are moving rigs out of gas plays as it is. We don't really know anything about Mainlands results yet.  Lets keep the conjecture to a minimum

Permalink Reply by robert gage on December 30, 2010 at 17:39

skip, do you interpret this rig report to imply that drilling will continue beyond the 22,000 ft level? if so, what do you read into this action?

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 31, 2010 at 3:36

No, I do not.  I take it for what it says.  That on the 161st. day the rig was drilling at 22,000'.  I don't have any information other than what is public.  My only thought concerning depth is that MNLU may wish to drill into the top of the SMK just to confirm that they have fully penetrated their shallower "shale" target zone  That has been the case with many Haynesville Shale operators in NW. LA.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 29
• 30
• 31
• 32
• 33
• …
• 64
• Next ›
• Page