Replies to This Discussion

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by dbob on July 23, 2011 at 15:51

Curious,

 

My guess is that is has to do with the number of potentially viable drilling locations.  Looks like where ever they drill these from its going to be a squeeze.  

 

landownerPermalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on August 16, 2011 at 4:05

I'm wondering if they couldn't just produce both units from the Dickson well in the unit South of these two.  I bet they would prefer a 1320 acre, but they have been shot down with that in the past.  This looks like an ingenious way around that problem.

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 16, 2011 at 4:26

They could. Or from one or more additional surface locations outside the unit boundaries.   We are seeing a number of applications for "non-standard" units as operators look to find alternate means of development.  Some of the variations appear to be about increasing EUR per acre but all seem to have a strong cost component.  With low gas prices likely to persist for some time, efficiencies in operating costs are at the top of Haynesville companies' to do list.

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Les Bamburg on August 16, 2011 at 4:35

Bobi, I assume you mean drill the development wells from the Dickinson surface location.  This would be highly probable given the challenges with finding a surface location in this area.  It is within the technical and rig capabilities to drill the extended reach laterals from that location.

 

This was probable the reason for the two stand-up 640 acre units since they would not have been able to develop the acreage with the typical square units.  This is similar to the reason for the large units that extend below the Toledo Bend Reservoir.