Add a Comment

Comment by Martin on April 9, 2009 at 10:24

Eagerly awaiting answers to questions in the original post plus those added by other posters....

Comment by JWC on April 9, 2009 at 2:06

Thanks Austin. Looking forware to your posts.

Comment by intrepid on April 8, 2009 at 17:10

Great to have coverage like this through GHS. I feel like we are getting good coverage and look forward to the updates. Thanks, Keith, for making coverage like this happen.

Comment by Austin Eudaly on April 8, 2009 at 16:39

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I am going to try and have a post up by tomorrow afternoon that covers everything discussed at the DUG conference, as well as address any questions given here.

AE

Comment by Mattie on April 8, 2009 at 15:09

Austin,

Could you provide answers to the highlighted issues stated above? Or, is that coming later in the week?

Comment by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 8, 2009 at 13:55

Yes, thank you, Austin. I look forward to your follow up reports. Now, Jay, what do you consider "the core" area of the Haynesville Shale? We refer to the "core" as if we all understand what it is. I think many members would care to see some definition of it. With the caveat that it is only an opinion based on limited real data currently available and will change to some degree with time.

Comment by JWC on April 8, 2009 at 9:40

I was also wondering what the OilVoice poster says for the central and southern part of San Augustine County?

Comment by Dorcheated A1 on April 8, 2009 at 6:58

Thanks for the report Austin.

Comment by Bobi Carr ("parker") on April 8, 2009 at 6:45

I spoke to someone else who attended DUG. He said that the HS has been talked about in every seminar that he attended.
I look forward to hearing the rest of your report.