Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Antsu-in-Japan on May 26, 2010 at 5:22

Just curious...but why aren't there any wells in 17N - 14W?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 26, 2010 at 5:25

The Snapshot map displays drilling units, not wells. However neither exist in 17N - 14W because it is the most densely developed and populated portion of the City of Shreveport. Much of it will be developed in the future but at current prices that future is a long way off, IMO.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Antsu-in-Japan on May 26, 2010 at 6:39

Thanks skip. Figured SOMETHING important was there!! LOL...
Have a great day. Thank you so much for always offering your insight and opinions to us. Much appreciated!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Becky (S14 - T17N - R15W) on May 29, 2010 at 6:21

Hi Skip... any ballpark guess as to when 17N - 15W might be developed? The 3rd year of our lease will begin in June, with no news of Chesapeake doing anything as of yet. I guess what I'm asking is, what exactly is "a long way off"?? More than a year, less than a year?
Thanks so much for your continued effort to educate us "shale dummies". I don't post much, but I read, read, read everything I can.
Becky

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 29, 2010 at 11:29

Becky, much of 17N 0 15W is HBP (Held By Production0) meaning that old leases remain in force because of continuing production. I would guess that the bulk of those leases do not have vertical Pugh clauses which means that the Haynesville development rights are held by shallower and older producing wells/leases/lessees. These sections will be developed later when the operator determines that it is favorable (for them) to do so.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on June 24, 2010 at 15:45

Where are those old wells still producing in 17n 15w that may be holding by production? I see on sonris there are few wells but are those holding whole sections?
Only 3 Haynesville Shale wells..

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 24, 2010 at 16:04

All the sections listed on SONRIS Lite in 17N - 15W have "Status 10" wells except for 10: Sections 5,11-16, 22,24,30. Those producing wells hold whatever tracts are contained in their original leases. Most older leases not only did not contain vertical Pugh clauses, they did not contain horizontal Pugh clauses. It doesn't matter the formation being produced nor the depth nor the well spacing, production in paying quantities holds leases that do not contain those specific lease terms.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on June 24, 2010 at 23:24

Skip,
"... production in paying quantities holds leases that do not contain those specific lease terms." Unless that case that Randy Davidson took to DeSoto Parish wins. Has anyone heard if there has been a ruling from the judge?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 25, 2010 at 2:21

The DeSoto Parish case has no bearing on the legal concept of "production in paying quantities". The Ferrara case before Judge Adams is a "demand to develop" suit. The deadline has passed for briefs to be submitted. I believe the date for responses to those briefs is about a week off. I would expect a ruling no earlier than the middle of July.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DEM on May 26, 2010 at 6:48

Skip, do you have a map like this that show the texas side? Just curious?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 26, 2010 at 8:12

No, sorry DEM. The survey system and the TRRC just don't make it easy to produce a Texas unitization map.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DEM on May 27, 2010 at 1:55

Thanks! Always looking for more information 8-)

• ▶ Reply

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