Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on November 15, 2009 at 15:49

See if this helps:

http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/profiles/blogs/pre-conference-not...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ur dern tootin' on November 16, 2009 at 3:25

Excellent blog by Parker. Tim Boyet R3, however, please note that this particular Notice/Docket is not for the purpose of establishing a new Haynesville Unit, but this Docket will seek approval of Alternate Unit Wells (additional wells) in a previously established unit in Sec 10. Because the call of this Dec 1 Hearing is not to determine or modify the unit configuration (this was done in 2005), the law requires no pre-hearing conference. Hope this helps.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Boyet R3 on November 16, 2009 at 3:42

Thanks!!! One more thing are the taps from sec 3 going into 10 will the land owners in sec 10 draw royalities from the wells in sec 3 also

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ur dern tootin' on November 16, 2009 at 10:22

TBR3, the directional arrows trending from Sec 3 southeasterly into Sec 10 shown on the plat are actually not "wells" but they merely illustrate a radial distance of 1,320 feet from the wells' PBHL. The 1,320 foot distance is important for the spacing of future wells that may be drilled in the units. So, there is no well that extends from one Section into the other, and therefore, there will be no sharing of production revenues between the units. And note that the Units are for the CV (Cotton Valley) Sand and not for the Haynesville Zone.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on November 16, 2009 at 11:00

Is there a clear physical difference between CV and Haynesville? I notice one of the wells is at 12,000 feet depth.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ur dern tootin' on November 16, 2009 at 11:17

Yes there is a clear physical difference, with the CV formation being stratigraphically deposited "on top of" the Haynesville Zone. The physical difference is easily recognized on the electric/radioactive logs by showing the lithology of the two productive pools as being different - the CV formation is generally comprised of "sandstone" and the Haynesville Zone is generally comprised of "organic shale". Also, you are probably correct that the Haynesville Zone was penetrated by the 12,000-foot well in question, but the E/P operator has apparently completed the wells in the shallower CV. Check SONRIS for well history.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on November 16, 2009 at 11:30

Thanks, I seem to recall some discussion on this board about things being called "CV" when they were "properly" Haynesville Shale. Sometimes there's something that one group like geologists call one thing and legal terminology is different.

It's not necessarily anything nefarious, just wondering.

I do notice the wells are shown with horizontals and multiple wells per section. Does the CV tend to produce "like" Hanyesville shale?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Boyet R3 on November 16, 2009 at 11:46

Keep the info coming!! This is interesting. The existing Cv well Marks 10 gas produced very steady for the last year. What is the flow rate for the horizontals in the CV zone???

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 16, 2009 at 11:50

Mac. You may be thinking of wells previously mentioned in site discussions that were permitted as CV, LCV and Jurassic that included the Haynesville zone in the depth definition. That practice was halted by the Commissioner in the summer of 2008. Operators can no longer include the HA in wells or units also containing sandstone formations.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on November 16, 2009 at 12:39

Thanks, skip.

I know a lot of this stuff is a question of putting a square peg in a round hole. Processes, designations, and laws were developed based on the "old" ways and the new ways don't really fit.

I keep thinking of the unit orders stating that "said unit can be efficiently and economically drained by one well," when that's clearly not true.