Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on March 23, 2009 at 14:59

Roy, it is just the case of the current US economy and related oversupply of natural gas that is slowing down the pace of development of the Haynesville Shale. The limited information available would suggest all of southern De Soto Parish is good for the Haynesville Shale and possibly the Mid-Bossier Shale play also.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 27, 2009 at 2:15

rellis. I have not attempted to account for them at this time. I would like a straight forward means test but haven't come up with one just yet. Though the practice of redefining formations was a concern, it did not last sufficiently long nor involve enough applications to be significant in the statistical model that I was attempting to build. I fully understand the concerns of those who are directly affected by it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 27, 2009 at 2:45

rellis. My Snapshot map is a depiction of Haynesville Drilling & Production Units, not wells. I try to remind members of that from time to time. Tracking units is a reasonable means to depict how the play is progressing. And attempting to track all HA wells across the play is a larger task. I think the SONRIS list of HA wells that anyone can access on-line is quite sufficient for the purposes of most of the members.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on March 27, 2009 at 3:30

Rellis, as Skip said I do not think there was an extensive amount of units impacted by the redefinition issue. Some of the inital applications that included the Haynesville Formation with say the Cotton Valley were modified before approval to make the Haynesville Unit separate from others.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 27, 2009 at 4:25

rellis. We are 20 months into the HA Shale play. It has been public knowledge for about 12 months. However the amount of 2007 activity was slight. And the first half of 2008 activity was only slightly greater.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 27, 2009 at 5:14

rellis. I suggest that you compile your list and do your homework. Then post a main page discussion topic with your list and an explanation of why redefinition is a problem and who stands to be affected. Then moderate and help move the discussion forward by answering questions and directing interested members to source material.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Ballard on March 29, 2009 at 5:36

Skip, My 15 acres of unleased land is located in 34-10-10, Natchitoches Parish. An internet lease negotiator's map shows this area to be just outside the southern tip of the Haynesville Shale's "sweet spot". Can you expound on how the southern "sweet spot" boundary was/is determined for mapping purposes?

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on March 29, 2009 at 7:56

Bob, I wouldn't accept that story too quickly. Check where your acreage is in relation to EnCana's attached map.

Attachments:

• Blob Maps 3-7-09.pdf, 272 KB

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 29, 2009 at 5:58

Bob Ballard. My first reaction is that I see a red flag. Specifically "An internet lease negotiator's map ...."!!! The accuracy of maps available to the public purporting to define the limits of the Haynesville Shale should be taken with a large dose of skepticism!!! IMO, there is no existing, accurate map of the entire play. Some energy companies have detailed analysis of their leasehold but it represents a relatively small portion of the total acreage prospective for the HS. As to "lease negotiators", I don't believe in them. For those who choose to engage the services of a professional in decisions regarding their mineral estate, that professional should be a qualified, experienced Oil & Gas attorney. Preferably one who has an active practice representing other clients with minerals in the same geographic area and dealing with the same energy companies. I seriously doubt any "internet lease negotiator" can qualify. In your township Sections 3 & 10 have HA unit orders to Samson Contour. As the pace of development has declined, it will be some time before the prospective nature of your particular section is known for a certainty. Good Luck.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on March 29, 2009 at 7:50

Skip, attached is my updated grid of units. This was the best spot I could find to post it.

Attachments:

• Haynesville Units 3-29-09.pdf, 52 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 29, 2009 at 8:04

Thanks, Les. I suggest that you also post it on my new "Snapshot of the Play" discussion thread. I just posted it a few minutes ago.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bill Fowler on March 31, 2009 at 1:08

Les - I believe that you had posted a list of the Haynesville Units also a few days ago, but now I can't find it. Can you help me please. Thanks.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• Next ›
• Page