Oil & Gas Pro

The Curious Case of SAMSON CONTOUR

Recently several members have asked me about Samson Contour. I originally ran across SC while researching my blog post on the history of the Haynesville Shale. The first recorded Haynesville application that is in the core area of the play, and therefore shale as opposed to sand, was filed by SC on January 9, 2007 for 3 Drilling & Production Units in the Martin Field, Red River Parish. That application hearing was "Not Held". I see no other SC unit activity related to the Haynesville Shale until Sept. 30, 2008, twenty months later. Fourteen months after other operators had begun applying for HA units.

Since Sept. 30, 2008, Samson Contour has applied for HA unit designation covering 69 sections scattered over the play. It would seem they are making up for lost time. The question on the minds of many landowners and GHS members is one of capability. Technical and financial. Does SC really plan to be the operator in these units? Or is this unit application process an attempt to lure a larger, more capable join venture partner(s).

If you will excuse the amateurish cut and past job and hand written notes which follow in the attachment, review some of the information on SC that is available on SONRIS. The top portion of the list are wells by SC since Nov. 2007. There are fifteen total. I have noted three as status code 03 (Permit Expired), one as status code 18 (Temporarily Abandoned Well) and one as code 29 (Dry & Plugged). Of the remaining ten, three are not within the bounds of the Haynesville Shale prospective area. Of the seven left, five are permits though probably drilling and two are completed and producing wells. Samson Contour has one producing Haynesville vertical well and zero completed horizontal Haynesville wells.

I invite the members to join in a little group research project to find out more about Samson Contour. The parent company is Samson Energy and a division, Samson Lonestar, is active in the E. TX. portion of the play.

Views: 473

Attachments:

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 11, 2009 at 7:57
Hi, Tigger. Yeah, I have had another report today concerning Twin Cities activity in the Blanchard area. Seems you and some of your fellow landowners are Hold Outs!! And you are keeping your sections from being developed. The preceding comments were contained in letters received yesterday and today. There was no bonus offer or royalty percentage contained in the letters. To find that out I guess you have to be willing to go face-to-face with a TC Landman. Or in your case, be willing to speak with them on the phone. It will be interesting to see how this round plays out. Keep us posted. Regards, Skip

landownerPermalink Reply by Iris on March 11, 2009 at 8:00
Yes, thanks Skip for the info...I have an errand to run, may call you later this week.

landownerPermalink Reply by Iris on March 11, 2009 at 9:46
He called 2 more times till he reached me. $1500 an acre & 25% interest good for 10 days then it goes down to $1000 an acre. They are trying to keep Samson from force pooling us...!

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Jay Murrell on March 11, 2009 at 7:47
Skip:

Just a guess, but they HBP mucho acreage and they might be unitizing all of their HBP'ed acreage in the HA, which would be like them, as it would be a cost savings move to do it all at once??

Also, assuming this is HBP acreage they are unitizing in the HA it is unlikely that they will be drilling anything at current prices.

Jay

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 11, 2009 at 8:45
Jay" It's a fair and reasonable guess. Jim Krow mentioned they had significant legacy leasehold in the Armistead area but it is certainly possible that they have additional HBP acreage. When I get a little time, I will compare the location of their producing wells to sections where they have applied for HA units.

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 11, 2009 at 15:10
Jay. I finished comparing Samson Contour's producing wells against the sections on which they hold or have applied for unit orders. The only legacy leasehold that appears in their HA Unit apps are in the Sligo Field. That would be 15 out of 73 sections. Any idea where the other 58 sections worth might come from?
Permalink Reply by janos mitchell on June 10, 2011 at 16:07
can i get well location on the active wells in webster parish

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 10, 2011 at 16:15

Unless you are referring to Haynesville Shale wells, there are hundreds of "active" wells in Webster Parish.  If you are referring to Haynesville Shale wells, there are a handful.  I would suggest you take a look at the tutorials for searching the state oil & gas database in the SONRIS Help Center group.

 

http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/group/sonris_help_center

Permalink Reply by JM on March 11, 2009 at 5:28
Skip,
We are in Sec. 14 17N 11W, so I have been anxiously checking Sonris for data on the well they are drilling in Sec. 12. What does "retainer failed" indicate? Also very curious about the well they were drilling in Sec. 4 17n 11w. It seems to have been permitted in Oct, but nothing on Sonris since Nov. 17. Is anyone aware of any additional information there?

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 11, 2009 at 7:49
JM. In 17N-11W, Sections 1-4,10-14,22,23 are Samson units. J-W Operting has Section 30. I have no information on the wells other than what appears on SONRIS. Have you checked the Bossier Group page? I suggest you post your question there also. Regards, Skip

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 11, 2009 at 11:51
Tigger Cdo 3. Samson Contour does not want to force pool you!!! And Chesapeake knows it. Chesapeake also knows that the term "force pool" intimidates landowners. And Twin Cities tries to use that to their advantage. Samson Contour has the unit order for Sect. 4-18N-14W. They have 75+% of the section under lease . That's a requirement by the LOC. Before Samson will develop your section or designate an operator, they will make an offer to every single unleased landowner in the section that they can find. And that offer may very well be better than the $1500/acre and 25% that Twin Cities is offering. Why is Twin Cities putting on the press in the Blanchard area? Especially in your section where Samson Contour is already in the driver's seat? Chesapeake does this all over the play. They have done it frequently with Petrohawk units. They do it so that they can be a working interest in the unit wells. And they want to be a working interest , IMO, so that they have access to the proprietary information generated from the drilling of the wells in the unit. It's a way to build a better understanding of the petrophysical characteristics of the HS in a particular area. It's legal. And actually, a good business practice. Although I doubt Petrohawk, Samson Contour, and others like it. My objection is to how CHK/Twin Cities is going about it in this case. By misleading landowners and using scare tactics. Those landowners who are informed are immune to such tactics.

landownerPermalink Reply by Iris on March 11, 2009 at 12:11
Thanks once again Skip...I wasn't about to sign on dotted line anyway. Your info on this site has been invaluable as well as K B's.

RSS

© 2026   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service