Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve Stewart on January 6, 2011 at 9:27

Just wondering if anybody has heard anymore about this well? This could be huge for north louisiana and southwest arkansas.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by North LA on January 6, 2011 at 10:04

I think our official eyes and ears is on vacation. Les Turk should be back next week and I'm sure he'll try to give us an update.

 

Have you heard anything Aubrey?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 6, 2011 at 11:36

When Aubrey gets the opportunity to comment, I'd also like to bring up this question for his consideration.  While anticipating a successful completion for the well under discussion should the interested members be thinking in terms of a Haynesville Shale horizontal well (unconventional reservoir) or say a Cotton Valley horizontal well (conventional reservoir)?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by North LA on January 6, 2011 at 11:57

Good question Skip

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 8, 2011 at 8:11

tony,  it's all about permeability.  I'll attempt a simple description to the best of my limited geological knowledge. Some formations, in our area let's use CV as example, have sufficient permeability to be produced commercially by vertical wells.  However in some areas where the formation is "tighter" (less permeable), horizontal wells may be the more economic means to develop.  The CV is a conventional sand reservoir and thus is not productive across a wide contiguous area.  It is productive in discrete, scattered locations.  A conventional reservoir.  Yes, unconventional reservoirs are so "tight" that vertical completions are not economic and horizontals are the only way to go.  Is the Brown Dense a conventional or an unconventional reservoir?  How tight? I don't know.   But the difference for mineral owners and E&P companies is quite significant if the well turns out to be commercial.  One of the most important characteristics of the Haynesville Shale is that it is productive over a wide, contiguous area.  Until more is known IMO we should not consider the Brown Dense to be similar in that regard.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by North LA on January 8, 2011 at 8:53

Just my opinion so it doesn't matter but I'm betting since there is so much land getting leased that the Brown dense is an unconventional reservoir. From just the leasing out line it seems to be more like the Eagle Ford in shape in that it's long and narrow as opposed to the HA which is an irregular blob. I'm also speculating that the productive area will be an approx 50 mile wide ribbon stretching 100s of miles from south central texas and snaking up to the LA/ARK border. So I think it covers a large area but it's an entirely different shape maybe because it's an old shoreline rather than a lagoon??? Again this is all just my amateur opinion formulated from all of the information I've obtained.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 8, 2011 at 9:21

Nice analysis, North LA.   You could be right.  And there could be another explanation.  The size of a lease block does not necessarily indicate the nature of the reservoir.  When leasing with a conventional reservoir in mind a company anticipates that some large percentage of the leaseblock will not be productive in commercial quantities, or at all.  To make sure that they have a good chance of acquiring sufficient productive leasehold, they lease a large area at relatively cheap costs.  For those areas where the formation does not prove productive, it's a write off.  And money well spent if they have the rights to a good bit of productive acreage.  The Brown Dense could be an attractive prospect even it is not unconventional and covering a large contiguous area.  IMO the value lies in how "wet" it is.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 8, 2011 at 10:17

It certainly could be good news.  As has been mentioned before in this thread, one well will not make or break this prospect.  And multiple wells will be required to define the extent of the productive area.  Thanks for the link.

Permalink Reply by North LA on January 8, 2011 at 11:16

Interesting. I guess pinebelt was leasing for JW. I thought it was for CHK. Wait a second. What is an uncomitted interest owner because Pinebelt and Stroud petroleum were named as such.

Permalink Reply by North LA on January 8, 2011 at 13:22

You're right Tony. It doesn't look like pine belt leased for jw. What kind of info did you get on the 1800 leases?

Permalink Reply by obed w odom on January 8, 2011 at 17:20

Tony,

I see from the plat at the link you gave that the proposed new unit has its south border abutting Claiborne Parish, but which township of Claiborne Parish? I'm thinking it must be Township 23N Range 5W or maybe east of that. I don't think it can be Township 23N Range 6W since the plat shows  Union Co.  extending further west than it extends above T23N R6W. They gave the latitude and longitude coordinates of the proposed well, but they didn't seem to be in the same units that Google Earth uses. [The degrees looked right, but I didn't understand the minutes and/or seconds.]

 

Thanks,

Obed

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 8, 2011 at 17:35

The Reynolds Drilling Goodwin A 1 location in Claiborne Parish is shown on Exhibit "H".  This well is located in Section 3 - 23N - 6W.  A small portion of Section 3 and a large portion of Section 4 are due south of the new J-W SMK Unit.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 25
• Next ›
• Page