Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by DJG on June 1, 2010 at 5:40

Status # 696790
API # 419-31601 OP # 216378 - DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO, L.P.
Pending Approval ,Submitted: 06/01/2010 ,Filed: Online BELL GAS UNIT - Well # 1H
06 - SHELBY County New Drill
Horizontal
Surface, penetration point and first tak ( 06/01/2010 10:13:05 AM )



Status:

Back to Public Query Search Results

View Current W-1




General / Location Information
Basic Information:

Filing Purpose Welbore Profiles Lease Name Well # SWR Total Depth
New Drill Horizontal BELL GAS UNIT 1H 18000



Surface Location Information:

API # Distance from
Nearest Town Direction from
Nearest Town Nearest Town Surface Location Type
419-31601 10.1 miles W Center Land



Survey/Legal Location Information:

Section Block Survey Abstract # County
WEST, H 759 SHELBY



Perpendicular surface location from two nearest designated lines:

Perpendiculars Distance Direction Distance Direction
Survey Perpendiculars 304.0 feet from the West line and 1560.0 feet from the North line



Fields
District Field Name Field # Completion Depth Lease Name Well # Well Type Acres Distance to nearest well Distance to nearest Lease Line SWR Pooled/Unitized
06 CARTHAGE (HAYNESVILLE SHALE)

Primary Field
16032300 18000 BELL GAS UNIT 1H Gas Well 830.96 490.9 Y
Perpendiculars Distance Direction Distance Direction
Surface Lease Lines 2279.0 feet from the East line and 771.0 feet from the South line

Section: Block: Survey:GATES, A
Abstract #: 251 County: SHELBY
Name Profile Distance Direction Distance Direction
TH1 Terminus Point Lease 1810.0 feet from the East line and 1296.0 feet from the North line
Survey 1465.0 feet from the West line and 1146.0 feet from the North line
Penetration
Point Lease 2341.0 feet from the East line and 1370.0 feet from the South line

Permalink Reply by CE on June 1, 2010 at 6:33

This is excellent news! Thanks for posting.

Question: How likely are we to see similar results for the Bell compared to the Whitton being that they are in such close proximity to one another?

And I suppose this shows Devon's confidence in the prospects of the area...yes?

Permalink Reply by DEM on June 1, 2010 at 6:41

CE would you mind emailing me as to whom you might be, and if you are in the newest unit? If you are opposed that is fine. I'm just trying to get my berrings and I am just curious too. Thanks

Permalink Reply by DJG on June 1, 2010 at 7:07

Seems that the gas in place for that area for the Bell would pretty much be comparable to the Whitton.

There are, however, a few variables that might need to be considered:

1) Completion depths. I.E. will both wells be completed in the same formation - for instance one in the Haynesville and the other in the Bossier? If they are the same formation then numbers should be relatively identical.

2) Lateral length: Are the horizontal laterals of equal length or is one longer than the other. If they are near identical in length then they would be likely to have similar results.

3) Number of Frac stages and intervals: If these are different, then there could possibly be different results.

These are just a few of things that might be variables that could impact whether the the results between the adjacent units would have similar/identical results.

Permalink Reply by DEM on June 1, 2010 at 6:38

Thanks for the update! Glad it is now public :-)

Permalink Reply by king john on June 1, 2010 at 8:40

this is a big unit. over 800 acres. also, this is getting very close to the area BURK was trying to pawn off.
kj

Permalink Reply by DEM on June 1, 2010 at 15:12

KJ Can you explain what you mean by "pawn off". Was this a bad area that BURK was trying to unload to another company? I am confused as to your comment. Can you explain what you are referring to? Thanks

Permalink Reply by king john on June 1, 2010 at 22:34

glad to dem...
burk was trying to partner up on some of their acreage in shelby county. Chesapeake was going to buy into it. Chesapeake split the transaction into two parts. the first went off without a hitch. when it came time for the second part of the transaction Chesapeake reneged claiming the acreage was less than desirable. anyway thats what i remember about the deal. perhaps "pawn off" was not the best term to use. also, burk is,was, in a position where they have to take on partners because they are not well enough financed to drill deep horizontal wells and they lack the expertise . there have been some good discussions on the law suit that followed. it is my impression the law suit has been settled. although i do not know the outcome.
kj

Permalink Reply by DEM on June 2, 2010 at 2:02

Thanks for the explanation. All of this is new to us. We are constantly learning from outside sources & those on here. I knew nothing about BURK & Chesapeake and/or the history of either company’s drilling or partnerships. I also do not know what areas are considered desirable VS not. There has been and is activity in our general area, so my assumption is the area has some interest. I am always listening to see what the current buzz is. I appreciate your input. There is a wealth of knowledge on this site, and it is always interesting when you hear information that pertains to your area. Thanks!

Permalink Reply by king john on June 2, 2010 at 4:01

dem, i could not agree more. there is a wealth of knowledge here on this website. do a discussion search on BURK & Chesapeake lawsuit , it should turn up a couple of previous talks on it. i am curious if devon is partnering with burk on some of the units in this area. i know i had a few acres mentioned in the lawsuit and they are located very close to this area. guess it doesnt matter...unless "they" come a lease'n ! lol
kj

Permalink Reply by Lorissa Gail on June 2, 2010 at 5:56

King John,

Looks like we are NOT in luck on our leases with Burk. The wells that Burk permitted, Unit drilled and recompleted & had gas lines run to are now showing up as shut in! The Bush well just received this lovely symbol today! Burk/Unit must be doing just fine as they are not needing any kind of pay day! CHK has a Haynesville permitted near the Tucker vertical well.. Don't know what their intentions are for the area. That is who Burk partnered up with. Guess we will just have to be happy with a hole in the ground! They might just be waiting for the prices to go back Up!!! lol Have you checked to see if your acreage was pooled with one of those verticals? I had to check with Shelby Co. records to see the pooled unit. The RRC shows the units as not pooled.

Permalink Reply by king john on June 2, 2010 at 7:44

lorissa, thanks for the info. i lucked out and my lease expired during all the chaos and i would not lease again for the money they were offering. i spoke to a land man about the parcel as recently as February, the money was better but not the magic number. thanks again for the info.
kj

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page