Add a Comment

Comment by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 10, 2010 at 4:59

Dixie.
The Oct. 7, '08 application is for a HA (Haynesville) unit. The other two applications you mention both include Cotton Valley and Haynesville units, separately. The subject of this blog post is to identify CV and/or LCV units which contain the HA zone in their depth definition but do not list "HA" as the type of unit formed. Thanks for looking. I will add any that you may find that meets my definition.

Comment by Dixie on January 10, 2010 at 4:01

Skip,

Sabine Parish T9N-R12W

Pleasant Hill Field
Sections 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, & 11 qualify from hearings dated October 7, 2008 and November 13, 2008

Bayou San Miguel Field
Sections 13 thru 16 and Sections 31 & 32 , hearing October 28, 2008

I believe there are others and will check them over before posting

Comment by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 15, 2009 at 10:27

Tim. Unless there is a surface agreement or notice requirement in your lease, you shouldn't be receiving a "letter for a well" as such is not required by the state. There is no well permit posted on SONRIS for either section you mention. I am not discussing wells in this post. I am discussing drilling units. A HA well may be permitted in the listed CV/LCV units as the HA depth is included in the original unit designations. I am listing these sections to help members understand why some of the unit totals on my Snapshot map have changed.

Comment by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 15, 2009 at 10:13

Electro. Quite possible. Depending on much you've got in your pocket right now, they may be a target for you and me. Hold on a minute and let me check my pockets. LOL! IMO, there are a lot of Camterra lessors out there that would very much desire a buyer with the financial and technical expertise to develop some very prospective HA leasehold.

Comment by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 14, 2009 at 13:51

Camterra drilled a number of vertical HA wells early in the play in order to HBP leasehold. The location and design of the wells was such that they were marginal producers which could not be reentered for a future horizontal completion. Camterra has now permitted one or more horizontal wells, HA and CV. Neither Pam nor I have a concern about co-mingling. Her question was why Camterra didn't drill her well as a HA. Camterra is making an attempt to gain some horizontal expertise but they are starting on a long learning curve with little or no experience and a challenge to finance HA development. They may turn out to be a reasonably capable operator, I would prefer that they farmout to a real shale player.

Comment by Corey Seekford on December 14, 2009 at 13:30

What is the concern with co-mingling Hoss and CV? And hasn't Camterra completed a couple of their own Hayensville wells and Cotton Vallley wells that are Horizontal.

Comment by Pam on December 14, 2009 at 9:13

Thanks for the info, Skip!

Comment by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 14, 2009 at 9:07

Hi, Pam. This blog is an explanation of some significant changes in my Snapshot of the Play Grid Map. I added a large number of units to the township totals and wished to give some details as to how that happened and why I felt it was important to add those CV/LCV units that included the HA zone in their depth definitions. Yes Camterra has obtained a HA Unit order for S2 - 15N - 14W. It appears that they are co-mingling the CV and HOSS production in the well you mention. If you have a vertical Pugh clause and your initial lease term has expired, Camterra only owns the rights to production down to 9574' and you can enter another lease for your deep rights. If your lease did not contain a vertical Pugh clause or language specifically limiting Camterra to the zones you mention, then Camterra's lease rights are "to all depths" and you are Held By Production. Camterra is not an experienced horizontal driller. They may drill an HA well in the future but more likely they will enter an agreement to allow another company to develop the HA or simply sell those rights.

Comment by Pam on December 14, 2009 at 8:45

Hi Skip,

I have a couple of acres in DeSoto that I leased in 2006, originally for the CV, Hosston, and Petit, I believe. It's in the Caspiana field. They re-unitized (last year I think) to include the HA. A well (#238542) has been completed this fall for the CV and then re-completed for the Hosston, if I'm reading SONRIS correctly. I've been wondering why they didn't drill the HA, and why it's now listed as shut-in, future utility. Is this the situation you're talking about?

Pam