Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by DJG on December 29, 2009 at 17:43

So yet another permit that brings up the question as to what is the target they are fishing for or looking to produce at those lower depths?

Question for all of you geologists out there:

- If the Bossier Shale is targeted at 12,200' at this location then just what formations would the depths in that additional 3,000' +/- be targeting?

Would the target be in the Smackover, or would it penetrate even deeper into the Louann Salt or Eagle Mills formations?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on December 30, 2009 at 1:25

my understanding the top of shale in this location is ~12,200 and bottom ~ 13,000. The Cotton Valley Lime (aka Haynesville Lime), smackover, and buckner is below 13,000. 15,000 dept will get to the Lou Ann Salt. So they are premitting to look at the CV Lime,etc.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DJG on December 30, 2009 at 6:07

Makes sense.

They had Cotton Valley as one of the shallower targets, but that would have been the sandstone instead of the lime.

I noticed that they also had 4 other earlier well approvals with the same depth and recently (November) re-permitted those applications to include N.Carthage Bossier as a target in that 12,000' range.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by j garrett on December 30, 2009 at 6:19

Perhaps the Haynesville? It appears that the Bossier and Haynesville are two distinct formations, and the Bossier is above the H. Correct? Valence has several wells in that area, all deep verticals including the Ruth Stewart #1. I think they are trying to HBP all depths for an eventual sell to an operator capable of deep horizontals (EOG/Petrohawk/Devon/Cabot/Encana/SWN). They are surrounded by all the Sonerra stuff that was recently sold to EOG and also nearby if not within the EOG/Petrohawk AMI.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hank henry on December 30, 2009 at 6:42

Relative to vertical wells I was told by the land man that they expected to find oil. Maybe that is what is being prospected

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DJG on December 30, 2009 at 7:51

That's the big question in my, and other's I presume, mind as well.


I just find these vertical permits at those depths interesting because of the confusion surrounding the total bottom depth of many of the recent horizontal permits in the region lately.

So many of those new horizontals are permitted to as deep as 18,000' - 20,000' but they are stating their intended producing target in the Haynesville/Bossier depths. Often that wide difference in completion depth vs. total depth is explained away as accounting for the lateral of the horizontal as part of the total "measured" depth - which I don't believe explains the full story...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RBH on December 30, 2009 at 8:00

D. Gaaar--Don't the 18-20,000' depths shown include the lateral (horizontal) section so the true Vertical depth penetrated is less than the 18-20,000' shown?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DJG on December 30, 2009 at 8:13

Agreed, but if the intended completion is in the 11,000-12,000' range and the laterals are in the 3,000-4,000' range it is still leaving another 2,000'-4,000' unaccounted for, so there is a bit of "fuzzy math" that piques my curiousity....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RBH on December 30, 2009 at 8:11

FYI, filed with EOG Hill #1CARTHAGE, N. (BOSSIER SHALE) completion report:
Formation Record
Formation Depth :
james lime 7556'
pettet 7847'
Travis Peak 8521'
CV top 11124'
bossier shale 12035'
haynesville 12700'
smackover 13243'

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RBH on December 30, 2009 at 8:14

also in interesting on Valence permit--plan to commingle or dual completion

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DJG on December 30, 2009 at 8:20

Yes, I noticed this as well.

Makes all the sense in the world for vertical completions, if your are going through all of those shallow formations en route to your intended bottom target it seems logical that you'd want to perf at each of those depths in order to maximize the production and your return on the invested drilling & lease hold costs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on December 30, 2009 at 8:54

That is standard MO for a vertical well.

• ▶ Reply

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