Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by JWC on November 8, 2009 at 12:26

The following is a note I received from a gentleman back in July of 2008 pertaining to the Sabine Uplift.

"The maps for the Haynesville Shale that I have seen are all contained within the Sabine Uplift. there is a very good chance they are almost identical. If so all of San Augustine And Sabine are going to be leased and significant production will come from each well. Reports that I have reviewed suggest that each well could be capable of producing 5 to 8 billion cubic feet of gas. If this happens the total revenue over each wells life would be 50 to 80 million dollars. With 25% royalty that will produce a lot of income even though the royalty interest for each owner might not be large enough to be a "full well" it could still be quite substantial."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike on November 8, 2009 at 16:38

You might check this link and look at the February 2008 Quarterly. You will see an article that is part of the quarterly about the Sabline Uplift. I'm not a geologist but I did get enough out of it for some basic understanding. Here is the link.
http://www.sipes.org/newsletter.html
From my understanding Sabine Island is south of the uplift and stradles the Tx and La borders.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by j garrett on November 9, 2009 at 15:57

Yep your right. A little google research revealed the entire are is the "Sabine Uplift". That being the case. my question would be about the "Sabine Island" area near the border and Toledo Bend. Would the "Sabine Island" area be potentially good or bad for production?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike on November 9, 2009 at 16:47

It looks like from this CHK map, the Haynesville and Bossier do not cover Sabine Island. Some other formation that formed later may be productive.

Attachments:

• chesapeak 35.pdf, 281 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 10, 2009 at 5:52

Sabine island, and the Sabine uplift are not quite the same. The area on your map of organic shale deposition is the approimate area of the sabine uplift, or as some in the area call it, the gorilla uplift.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by j garrett on November 10, 2009 at 14:08

Thanks Mike. This is the image I had seen before but lost. Here is a screen shot. It looks like Sabine Island landowners are SOL, right? It's odd that the Kardell Well (30 mmcf) is nearby the Sabine Island as shaded on this Chesapeake map. It's due West maybe 20 miles.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack B2 on November 9, 2009 at 3:35

Give this link a try, it will provide info for plenty of questions to ask. http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/b2184-d/b2184-daccess.pdf

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on November 10, 2009 at 14:35

Haynesville/Bossier formations are both on and off of the Sabine uplift, production has not been effected either way so far. I woldn't worry about it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kevin jones on November 10, 2009 at 16:02

CAN SOME BODY PLEASE EXPLAIN THE SABINE UP LIFT A LITTLE BIT BETTER .

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JWC on November 11, 2009 at 1:59

Look under Media/All Photos on page 59 and there is a photo of the Sabine Uplift. A lot of the Haynesville Shale wells are within the Sabine uplift.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by chino on May 11, 2015 at 9:04

It is related to the event that created the GOM basin. in the Triassic period. it is as its name suggests an uplift a basement high that resulted in  the formation of salt basins on its flanks (ETX salt basin and the North LA salt basin). as for the sabine islands they formed on the S, SE of the area that underwent uplift (Sabine uplift) and are the highest point during that time. the Haynesville deposition is also affected by the Sabine uplift.

http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/content/95/10/1643/F1.expansion...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kane on November 14, 2009 at 6:42

problem is the sabine uplift/island, etc. has caused a lot of faulting in the haynesville/bossier shale thus very difficult to drill a horizontal lateral within the shale formation.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page