Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 4, 2009 at 4:16

Since we were discussing north Caddo Parish, and there is only one Hall well (Matador #238345) completed and announced there, I did not see the need to be more specific. Sorry about that. Petrohawk has reported when their wells have experienced mechanical problems. Chesapeake/Goodrich/Matador have not on the P. A. Sharp 7H and Hall 9. The Goodrich Earnings Call transcript was the first official indication that the disappointing completion results might be reservoir related. I suspect that CHK Operating has designed the completion profile for both the wells mentioned. If that is the case, it would be reasonable to consider that poor IP may be the result of poor design. We can be sure that all operators approaching completion on the horizontal HA wells in the area are rethinking their design.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on March 4, 2009 at 4:40

"We can be sure that all operators approaching completion on the horizontal HA wells in the area are rethinking their design."

Lets hope so Skip, I am anxious to see the results of the northern Bossier wells.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 4, 2009 at 4:56

A number of notable Shale Players have made substantial investments in northern Caddo and Bossier parishes. They did not do so without good reason. The north Caddo wells referenced (and the CHK Bohnert #238486) are aligned roughly north to south in the west third of Caddo Parish. As wells further east and west of that line are completed and announced, the prospective nature of the immediate area will be better defined. Petrohawk has a HA well (Bookout 2) just across the state line from the Longwood Field and the Crestview Woods (#238490) in Sect. 28 - 18N - 16W. It will be interesting to see their completion results as compared to the CHK N. Caddo JV group.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 4, 2009 at 8:46

Jay. The two mentioned in the Goodrich Earnings Call March 1 are the only "official flow rates" available at this time but there are rumors concerning at least one other which I am unable to confirm at this time.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 4, 2009 at 9:05

Jay. My response appears on the next page. When I posted it, there was no "Reply to This" command under your question.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 7, 2009 at 2:33

Yep, the old hands warned me. I did (and do) find the decline rate for the shale of interest and was somewhat surprised that quite a few others did also. It was a good discussion. And at the time intended to bring the concept of decline to the attention of members who would soon received royalty income. I thought it would be helpful for them to understand how their mail box money would vary over the years. It appears that there are now three HA wells completed in north Caddo Parish with the average IP ~4.5 Mmcfd. Though there have been rumors of completion problems on two, the operators have not admitted to such publicly. And one stated that the reservoir was different in the area and that less than 5% of their HA prospective leasehold was located in north Caddo. Time will tell.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on March 7, 2009 at 3:02

Goodrich's stock dropped 3 points or so the day they announced their north Caddo well results, so somebody didn't like the news. I still predict that Haynesville Shale exists in T18, T19 and maybe even T20, but it apparently doesn't have the porosity or the pressure gradient of the Haynesville shale further south. At today's drilling and completion costs for a horizontal and with gas @ its current price these operators are going to have to have a very rosy long term outlook to continue drilling in the northern townships. I know what I'm saying is a bit premature. We'll see how it shakes out.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by North LA on March 3, 2009 at 15:48

Jay,

I'll probably sound like moron with this question but what tells you it's a productive Haynesville shale well? The gamma ray curve elevation and the porosity/density curves crossing? I know you've gone over all of this stuff before but I was trying to figure out what you see in this log that tells you it's productive. If it's highly complex and you don't want to waste your time could you direct me to a good text on log interpretation. Thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by North LA on March 4, 2009 at 5:28

Thanks again.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 4, 2009 at 9:03

Jay. The wells north of I-20 that I am most interested in are the SLHerold (#239089 in S13-17N-16W) and the Crestview Woods (#238490 in S28-18N-16W) both by Petrohawk. The wells recently completed in north Caddo and those most likely to be completed and announced next are all CHK regardless of the company name on the well permit. The Herold well is of particular interest as it is closest to completion and has had a 16" diameter pipeline laid. Now I am no "old hand" at this business but when I heard the report on the 16" line, it got my attention.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on March 4, 2009 at 9:07

Any info on the flowing pressures from these northern wells?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 4, 2009 at 9:09

Nothing official. Rumor on the Hall 9 was 2,000 lbs.

• ▶ Reply

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