Replies to This Discussion

landownerPermalink Reply by shelbyco on October 2, 2009 at 10:32

M.E Operating & Services submitted an application today for a permit for the Lane #2. Total depth shown is 11,500 ft. This is in the Jesse Sullins Survey (A-636). Seems curious given the negative reports for the Lane #1 in this thread.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RBH on October 5, 2009 at 5:23

also Samson's vertical well -Larcie #1 producing good in Jurassic..agree rather confusing

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RBH on October 5, 2009 at 6:01

to: shelbyco: regarding new Lane #2-- fyi: Samson Larcie #1 perforated 10' vertical well ~10774

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by shelbyco on October 8, 2009 at 7:50

The Larcie No. 1 results seem to further contradict many of the negative comments in this thread regarding NW Shelby County. I also heard from a reliable source that the problems with the Lane No. 1 were mechanical, not geological.

• ▶ Reply

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Mark on October 8, 2009 at 8:25

Nothing contradictory. Apples and oranges as they say. Larcie 1 is verticle CV Lime well not shale. Has made .469 BCFG from 12/07 to 7/09. July 2009 avereage was about 1/2 million CFGPD.

As previoulsy mentioned by myself and others on this site the Lane did have drilling problems. However, they did get good cores, good logs and drilled the Lane horizontally in the shale and frac'd. Petrohawk, not me, has said it is geological. As I mentioned before, I've briefly seen the log. The log is not lying. So, in the end the thing I would take opposition to is your last sentence. If the Operator of the well, not reliable sources or source of any kind because I have my sources as well, says its geological then I tend to believe its geological. Remember this Operator is one of the most knowledgeable companies in the play.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by shelbyco on October 8, 2009 at 9:22

The last sentence of my post is correct. I was told that by someone at Petrohawk who I am confident would be in a position to know. Was it the truth? I assumed so because I see no reason for this individual to mislead me on this point. The bottom line is that I am not saying that the problems were mechanical, not geological. I am merely saying that I was told by Petrohawk that the problems were mechanical, not geological.

In any event, what do you make of the Mitchell Trust GU No. 1 also in NW Shelby County? It is shown to be a Bossier Shale well but based on info above may also be producing out of the CV lime.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RBH on October 8, 2009 at 10:37

IT SEEMS ODD IF THE LANE #1H CONDEMNED ALL HORIZONS, THEN WHY WAS BOWERS GAS UNIT #1H DRILLED AFTER LANE #1H BY PETROHAWK; AND WAS IS LANE #2H UNIT=SAME UNIT LANE #1H?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RBH on October 8, 2009 at 10:42

Mitchell Trust Gas Unit #1A=CARTHAGE, NORTH (BOSSIER SHALE) and is a vertical well completion and with max production shown 57 MMCF/mo and has cum'd thru July 2009 ~150 MMCF total-the #1 was a dry hole

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by shelbyco on October 8, 2009 at 10:40

The Bowers and Lane wells were essentially being drilled simultaneously. The Lane #2 is a vertical well.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by shelbyco on October 8, 2009 at 10:46

Actually, I should have said that the Lane #2 has been permitted as a directional well.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page