Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by dbob on May 19, 2013 at 15:54

Skip, 

I think you may be underestimating the develop-able area, particularly when gas prices get above $6/mcf (inflation adjusted).  I show somewhere between 7000 and 9000 square miles, with some of that with both bossier and haynesville potential   If you assume 6 wells per square mile, which allows for some areas that are too faulted, staked laterals, and longer laterals - I think you ultimately end up with something north of 40,000 wells.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 19, 2013 at 16:14

I think the proven portion of the Haynesville basin is a good deal smaller than the original 3.5 million acre figure.  Remember early estimates had the productive area extending into southern AR.  We now know how that turned out. I don't think it is a given that nat gas will reach $6/mcf again in the 17 and half years projected.  From what data does your 7,000 to 9,000 square miles come?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on May 19, 2013 at 16:35

http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/rpd/shaleusa4.pdf

The original 9000 square miles was considered to extend into arkansas - The attached map, if scaled out shows haynesville in roughly 9000 square miles, somewhat east of what was originally thought.  Obviously, some area (e.g Lane Shoal) in Shelby County, don't appear to be productive.  

Agreed that natural gas may not maintain $6/mcf,inflation adjusted, in the 17 year span, 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on May 20, 2013 at 0:05

dbob-- what are the Shoal area ? Faults or what

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 20, 2013 at 1:03

dbob, I believe that production records to date prove this map depiction to be highly inaccurate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on May 20, 2013 at 1:41

Thanks

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on May 20, 2013 at 2:30

Jay-- what are the "Shoal" area on map ? Salt? Faults? Or what?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on May 20, 2013 at 5:21

Jay--- No shale at all or just not productive? Like a sandbar

Permalink Reply by adubu on May 20, 2013 at 6:21

Jay---are there any better updated maps of play?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 20, 2013 at 8:12

adubu, think water flowing into a basin.  The basin has a hill in it.  The flow deposits organics across the basin except in the foot print of the hill.  Millions of years and many layers of subsequent deposits later you can drill down and find that original layer of organics, now hopefully producible hydrocarbons, everywhere except where the hill/island was located.  It does not exist in that footprint.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on May 20, 2013 at 11:08

skip-- good 3 D picture explanation of a Shoal --shale not bad rock it's just no shale rock there -- like a sandbar in river ;water around it but not in the sandbar --- thx  

Permalink Reply by dbob on May 20, 2013 at 16:02

the current rRC map is here: 

http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/bossierplay/images/Carthage_201305-lg.jpg

Again, the map does not show IP, EUR, etc.  However, you can see the area that is being avoided in Shelby County.  

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page