Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on May 8, 2009 at 13:01

VSC,
Do you mean the most shallow instead of deepest?
When it comes to core shale, I think the shallower the better.
The deeper it is, the harder it is to produce, generally.
Also, I haven't heard the term "hectares" used to describe anyones acreage. Must be a Canadian thing since hectares is of French origination.
One hectare = 10,000 square meters = 107,639 square feet = 2.471 acres (approximately)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on May 8, 2009 at 13:13

If Encana decides to shop their Bossier acreage/hectares, I hope they court Exco or Petrohawk.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 8, 2009 at 13:34

parker, I doubt that Encana is talking about their Bossier acreage. They acquired that after discovering how tough it was to develop the shale in the far south end of the play. In fact I think they would be willing to trade for some acreage in the core and let some other operator deal with the technical challenges in the south.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on May 8, 2009 at 13:40

Yeah, I know, but if they decide to cozy up to someone I would vote for Exco or Petrohawk. I'm glad they've been practicing elsewhere. Hope they've been taking notes from the top 20 wells.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 8, 2009 at 13:55

Encana/Shell are conspicuously absent from Les's list. However, the bigger question might be, why does Chesapeake have only one well on the top 20 list, #15?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on May 8, 2009 at 16:17

Skip, supposedly Chesapeake has two other wells > 22 MMcfd but have not been willing to disclose. Heck we had to have Questar give us the goods on the Blount Farms well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on May 8, 2009 at 16:52

Skip,
My guess is because they aren't reporting timely.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Hahn on May 8, 2009 at 17:12

Fact is Encana has some wells that could have made the list if they would have tested the wells with chokes as open as Petrohawk and others.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 9, 2009 at 2:40

I agree with all the comments concerning cash and credit restraints and depressed price and demand. An on-line auction just seems a strange way to go about attracting a partner. It sounded like a straight divestiture and called into question the prospective nature of the leasehold location. Now if Encana was selling a stake in the leasehold as opposed to the entirety, the deal would be viewed differently.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 8, 2009 at 13:29

BD. Shallower is not good if north Caddo Parish is an accurate barometer. And the far southern edge of the play is so deep that the technical difficulties are greater. It would appear that the shale located in the middle has the correct balance of depth/pressure, TOC (Total Organic Content), porosity/permeability and GIP (Gas In Place). The Goldilocks Principle. As long as ng prices are low and there is substantial undeveloped acreage in the core, there is little incentive to invest in development of the non-core areas. The problem is that the industry has bitten off a bigger chunk of dirt than it can swallow. Some will have to go uneaten (leasehold expires). And some may not be economically developable until some future time of higher ng prices and improved production technology.

54,000 hectares @ 2.471 acres per = 133,434 acres. Encana/Shell has previously published a total HS leasehold of 350,000 acres. The reports are confusing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on May 8, 2009 at 16:54

Skip,
I agree totally. I do not know where VSC is located, so I may be off base. Other than that, we are in complete agreement, deeper is not good in general.
If you notice, I think I said "the shallower the better when it comes to core shale".
And I was referring to the core area, not the northern finge.
Sorry for the confusion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ALongview on May 8, 2009 at 17:28

I am just curious what is considered shallow and what is considered deep in this shale? I saw a well log from San Augustine that had the top of the formations as follows:
James Lime 8540
Pettit 8848
Cotton Valley -B- Lime 12387
Bossier 13288
Cotton Valley Lime 13950
This well is a touch south of where most of the activity is in this county recently but is probably representative.
Would this be considered deep therfore not as good? I am wondering because it sure seems like there has been a lot of interest in this county lately and a lot of positive comments regarding its viability as a future revenue source in recent company conference calls. Is the desireablity from the "deeper" Bossier or from the fact that there are multiple zones that have proved productive?

• ▶ Reply

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