Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ben on November 10, 2009 at 4:04

SKIP- FROM THE SECTION NUMBERS YOU POSTED, IT LOOKS LIKE CHESAPEAKE IS THE ONLY COMPANY NOT ACTIVE OUT OF ALL THE COMPANIES IN 13N/14W AT THIS TIME. ANY IDEA WHY?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 10, 2009 at 4:14

Ben. Chesapeake accounts for 8 of 30 (now 31) units in 13N-14W. However they have only one well, the Chaffin Etal 34H. I do not know the reason for their other seven sections lacking a well permit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RJ on November 12, 2009 at 9:29

OK, Can you tell me if there is a permit for township 17 section 30 range 15?? IM not sure what IM seeing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 12, 2009 at 9:39

RJ. No unit order or well permit for Section 30 -17N - 15W. However, adjoining Section 32 does have a unit order and well permit to Chesapeake for the Tucker 32H (240406). That may be what you are seeing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LWC on November 10, 2009 at 3:20

The large numbers in the southern areas--does this activity indicate trying to hold leases that high bonuses were paid? Since I'm in T18-10W its a little disconcerting that there is so little activity, even though Sibley has some producing wells.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 10, 2009 at 3:41

It indicates an interest by the operators to develop the township sections covered by the unit orders. In some areas leases nearing term expiration are a factor. Development activity will increase as nat gas prices improve and the credit market is less constricted. There are no Haynesville Shale completions that I am aware of in your area of the Play. When the first few completions are announced, it will be a little easier to predict the pace of development. In general activity should move along at a faster pace in 2010. Good Luck.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on November 10, 2009 at 3:45

LWC, any increased drilling activity in southern would be to hold leases where low bonuses were paid. Much of this acreage was leased at low bonuses and royalties in 2005-2006 before news of the Haynesville Shale broke.

By the way, forming units does not necessarily translate into immediate drilling activity. Many of these units were formed in 2008 with no wells yet permitted.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on November 10, 2009 at 3:34

17-15 is showing 11 unitized sections but sonris's site is only showing 8 shaded sections.
Which 3 sections are not showing on sonris?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 10, 2009 at 3:46

As a guess, I'd say SONRIS only includes unit orders, not applications. Since an unsuccessful applications is a rarity, I track applications. Tell me which 8 sections SONRIS shows as unitized and I'll tell you the other 3.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Busybee on November 10, 2009 at 4:55

Hi Skip, can you tell me if S-28, T11N, R12W, JUR RA SUD Oxford Field, Desoto Parish has been unitized? I have letter where SWEPI LP filed application to create drilling units back in March 2008 but no drilling has been done in that section to my knowledge.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 10, 2009 at 5:06

Yes, the section is under HA unit order to SWEPI and there is no well permitted at this time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on November 10, 2009 at 9:57

I see 2,3,4,5,6,9,10,15,16 shaded when I select Haynesville Shale Units.

Guess that's 9 sections and not 8 but that still leaves two, right?

Ooops!
Just saw Les B has answered this....

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page