Replies to This Discussion

landownerPermalink Reply by E & E on October 10, 2009 at 4:01

Jason,
Here is the original permit to drill for this well. It shows that it wasn't to be a haynesville - just a horizontal.

Earlene the barefooted UMO

Attachments:

• 113247330.tiff, 108 KB

• ▶ Reply

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 28, 2009 at 14:31

No, it does not. See the fifth reply in this thread.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on September 28, 2009 at 14:36

Sorry. I missed that. When you said the date. I thought it was probably before the DOC order.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on September 28, 2009 at 22:17

They can call it what they want to. At that depth, the well is a Haynesville.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on September 29, 2009 at 0:48

SB,
Exactly

• ▶ Reply

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 29, 2009 at 2:43

Agreed. Perhaps Questar and Empresa didn't get the commissioner's order. It was affective July 28, 2008. Both companies have CV wells at HA depths permitted after that date.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by Henry on September 29, 2009 at 6:10

OK. I'll admit it.... I don't get the significance of this. Is this a way of HBPing something on the sly? What is the point of this discussion. Why is this of such interest?

• ▶ Reply

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 29, 2009 at 7:48

Henry, you can read more in a prior discussion that is titled, Clarification of HA reservoir designations and HA depth definitions. Here is an excerpt from that thread that will give you the basic answer to your questions.

Reply by ShaleGeo on June 21, 2009 at 9:03am
Delete
Early on some operators attempted to include the HS inside of a lower cotton valley definition. This was probably an attempt to hold acreage. The DOC got wind of it and stopped it. The guilty parties were the smaller HBP operators in Elm Grove. Not naming names but it is easy to figure out.
Jay

So the instances of including the HA in a cotton valley depth definition are obviously not limited to a few small operators in the Elm Grove Field. According to the LOC there are cotton valley, lower cotton valley and jurassic units which include the HA. Jurassic is no surprise as it has been discussed as including the HA since the early days of the Play.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by buckmaster on October 1, 2009 at 13:36

skip the Messenger well in Natchitoches was completed in the C V total depth 14600.they perfed at 13902-1387 vertical. Is it because everything is deeper the farther south you go.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on October 1, 2009 at 14:39

Buckmaster,
Are you saying that you think that the Messinger Well was completed only in the CV? If so, you need to take another geology lesson.

And by the way, I know it was a typo, but the Messinger was not preforated from 13902 - 1387.
Check your numbers. 1387 is pretty dang shallow.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by buckmaster on October 1, 2009 at 15:40

bird dog it was a typo error but sonris reported it completed in the C V. i was just wondering if that is to deep for C V perf 13802-13817

• ▶ Reply

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Les Bamburg on October 1, 2009 at 15:52

This well is proposed and permitted as a Cotton Valley test so not sure the reason for so much attention.

• ▶ Reply

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