Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Benedumtreesoilwell on March 2, 2010 at 19:03

Not sure. I know Force Mountain is considered part of it.

Permalink Reply by A.C.123 on March 20, 2010 at 11:01

Any news on Ironosa yet?

Permalink Reply by Cheerleader on March 20, 2010 at 18:47

I was hoping St Mary would set a Motherload record but apparently they are shy to admit it.

Permalink Reply by Bob Klemme on March 26, 2010 at 13:22

Does anyone have an update on this well? All rumors are welcome.

Permalink Reply by T Not on May 21, 2010 at 11:59

My family owns a few mineral acres in the Humphrey's survey just to the east of this well. When we were out there driving around last weekend we noticed a couple of things.

First, the St. Mary USA-BL1 well a little to the West. My Uncle had been out several months earlier and was told (he thinks by the pumper) this was a sorry well. In researching it, the permitting on this well is interesting. The well was originally permitted (3/2/09) as a horizontal well with the primary field being wildcat (13,280'), secondary field being Huxley (6,126). The well spudded on 3/25/09 and an amended permit was submitted on 4/8/09 and approved on 4/15/09, with the only change being from horizontal to vertical completion. The well was completed 5/16/09. Then, on 4/1/10 St. Mary submitted another amendment, which was approved 4/7/10. This was for a field transfer from Huxley to Carthage (Haynesville Shale). The RRC's production report shows production of 25,382 mcf in 8/09, tailing off substantially to about 2,500 mcf in 3/10. The Ironosa was permitted in 12/09, well after completion of and initial production from the USA BL-1.

The second thing we noticed is a pretty big (looked like 8") pipeline heading towards the Ironosa from the direction of the USA BL-1.

I have to assume that St. Mary liked what it saw from the USA well.

My question for anyone who might know is: what's with all the changes to the USA BL-1 permit? My initial impression was St. Mary intended the USA as a test well for the Haynesville all along but were trying to do it under the radar. But there could be other good explanations, such as their logs showed little prospect of success at 6,100 feet so they kept going vertical, or gas prices changed enough to make a horizontal well there uneconomical. Anyone?

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on May 21, 2010 at 12:19

My guess is that your initial impression was the correct one. They wanted a look, were still leasing and didn't want to run up the bonus any by permitting a Haynesville well. There have been other wells completed in the Cotton Valley that have recently been transferred into the Haynesville in Panola County. It's not an isolated occurrence but this is the only one I can say for sure was put in a field thousands of feet shallower than the actual producing field.

It wasn't a great vertical well but it is pretty typical. It wasn't drilled for the gas, IMO, but for a look at the rock and other science that comes out of a well... and it HBPs some acreage.

Permalink Reply by ALongview on May 22, 2010 at 10:58

St. Mary just permitted a well right next to the USA BL-1 two days ago to the Haynesville. Must have liked what they looked at. They are a methodical company that seems to be bent on gathering all of the information they can from seismic and verticals first and drilling the expensive horizontals later. Works well for the landowner as well in a low $ gas environment in my opinion.

Permalink Reply by A.C.123 on May 22, 2010 at 11:22

AL is it posted on RRC yet? I am just south of this well and a seismic company on behalf of st. mary is drilling holes to drop instruments into all around this area. Although I am not lease to St. Mary it is all very intersting and trying to stay on top of what is going on.

Thanks

Permalink Reply by A.C.123 on May 22, 2010 at 11:26

and we have been contacted about surveying the pipeline row that runs N/S in the area.

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on May 22, 2010 at 11:26

Sounds like a buried array to map the fracks. Encana did that with the A-43 well.

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on May 22, 2010 at 11:24

I saw that one. I don't know if it was a typo or deliberate but it is posted as 3.5 miles East of San Augustine when it is actually almost due north.

I agree that we shouldn't want them to hurry up and put even MORE gas on a depressed market. Better for all to wait as long as possible.

Permalink Reply by Benedumtreesoilwell on May 22, 2010 at 12:30

Talking about the ETG bunch. They are idiots. Thats from personal experiance. The left hand has no clue what the right is doing. IF you want me to fill you in further details message me.

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