Replies to This Discussion

landownerPermalink Reply by shelbyco on October 20, 2009 at 9:05

There are some things that I find curious about this permit (the Lane #2). I posted something previously regarding this permit on the thread regarding Petrohawk's Lane #1 on the main discussion board. I found it surprising that any company would request a permit in that area given the negative remarks in the Lane #1 discussion. The comment below by Mark Smith is an example:

This Reply by Mark Smith on September 24, 2009 at 1:08pm
No HS present in the Lane well. Something geological happening in the area. In addition the other zones (CV, TP + shallower) the might/could have been of interest are very very poor by log and by testing and production. That (HS not present) is not from any website or presentation data...that comes straight from Petrohawk's top guys mouths and I've very briefly seen the log. What I saw of the log looks like the Bossier is ruled out as well. Based on feedback from the other big HS players they all have the same thought (not interested) about the NW portion of Shelby County but that's nothing new...its been said on this site and seen in presentation data that there is a prevailing opinion that this portion of Shelby County is not in the play and the well results are confirming that opinion.

Another curious item, the president of M. E. Operating and Services is named Mark Smith. These may be two different people because it is a relatively common name. But, he did say that he had seen the log, etc. I'm just sayin'... .

landownerPermalink Reply by Laurie on October 22, 2009 at 0:10

I also got information from one of Petrohawk's top guys but it is a little different. I was told that had they (Petrohawk) been able to put the well site where they wanted to, the results would have been very different. I know that they were unhappy with the well results but they did have some issues and it seemed to me that he was sure that the well location had lots to do with it. Wasn't very long after and my own lease was set to expire with Petrohawk ( I am very close to that area) and I received a call from a landman from Petrohawk asking to release the land. I wasn't thrilled with the offer and so I declined. She became very frustrated and then said to me, "it doesn't matter who you lease to, we will just buy it" Pretty strong words from a company that wants to bail on the area. I also heard that they were trying to keep their intrest there on the DL and keep everyone buying into the results of Lane #1.

Anybody know anything about this??????

Permalink Reply by RBH on October 20, 2009 at 14:46

Entity Information: M. E. OPERATING AND SERVICES, INCORPORATED
401 W LEUDA ST
FORT WORTH, TX 76104-3228

Status: IN GOOD STANDING NOT FOR DISSOLUTION OR WITHDRAWAL through May 17, 2010
Registered Agent: MARK EVAN SMITH
2430 WARNER ROAD
FORT WORTH, TX 76110
Registered Agent Resignation Date:
State of Formation: TX
File Number: 0114904200
SOS Registration Date: April 5, 1990
Taxpayer Number: 17523263485

PRESIDENT MARK E SMITH
401 W LEUDA
FORT WORTH , TX

DIRECTOR MARK E SMITH

Permalink Reply by RBH on October 20, 2009 at 15:08

D. Gaar..think you are onto something ..Mark E Smith-President and Director of M. E. Operating and Services -operator that permitted Lane #2=same acres/unit as Lane #1H; Tenaha has produced from:
TENAHA, SOUTH (COTTON VALLEY)
TENAHA(GLEN ROSE)
WILDCAT
TENAHA, SW. (TRAVIS PEAK)
DAVSUN (PALUXY)--produced in Panola
TENAHA (JURASSIC)

Permalink Reply by RBH on October 20, 2009 at 15:44

also posted in another discussion Unit/acres Lane #1=Lane #2..so must not have condemned all horizons

Permalink Reply by RBH on November 18, 2009 at 15:12

M.E. OPERATING IS DRILLING-spud 11/07/2009 ..ANY WORD

Permalink Reply by RBH on November 19, 2009 at 7:33

New Petrohawk Presentation 11-09 (pages 12 and 13) shows all of the Timpson-Tenaha area still potential in the presentation map "significant Bossier Shale Potential"

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MzYwMDI2...

landownerPermalink Reply by shelbyco on November 19, 2009 at 8:24

RBH, thanks for that information. The new Petrohawk map is entirely consistent with what I have been saying for quite a while based on the Bossier Shale production from the NFR/Mitchell Trust Gas Unit #1 in far NW Shelby Co.

landownerPermalink Reply by geezer on November 20, 2009 at 6:45

shelbyco,
I have just joined. My wife and her siblings are in the NFR/Mitchell Trust well you mention. I am of the analog generation and am trying to learn how to best use the computer to keep informed. Where do I find the information you mention on the NFR?Mitchell well?
I have gone to the RCC site and have the API #, but can not seem to find production #'s.

landownerPermalink Reply by shelbyco on November 20, 2009 at 7:08

Welcome Geezer. If you go to the production reports section of the RRC online query system, you can find this info under RRC identifier 245169. Production started in March 2009 and has dropped off quite a bit since then. If you still have difficulty with this info in hand let me know.

landownerPermalink Reply by DJG on November 20, 2009 at 7:30

Hey Geezer,

Welcome to the website. I like your stage name!

Click on the link below which has the W-1 permit information for that Mitchell Trust well in N. Shelby Co.

Mitchell Trust W-1:
http://webapps.rrc.state.tx.us/DP/drillDownQueryAction.do?fromPubli...


Current Permit Info:
http://webapps.rrc.state.tx.us/DP/viewW1PdfFormAction.do?submit=per...


Here's the production info that has been reported to the RRC:

Nov 2008 NO RPT NO RPT NO RPT NO RPT NFR ENERGY, LLC 609261 CARTHAGE, NORTH (BOSSIER SHALE) 16034200
Dec 2008 4,890 4,890 0 0
Jan 2009 0 0 0 0
Feb 2009 0 0 0 0
Mar 2009 12,764 12,764 0 0
Apr 2009 57,647 57,647 0 0
May 2009 39,606 39,606 1 1
Jun 2009 24,244 24,244 2 2
Jul 2009 17,019 17,019 2 2
Aug 2009 10,496 10,496 0 0
Sep 2009 7,445 7,445 1 1
Oct 2009 NO RPT NO RPT NO RPT NO RPT
Nov 2009 NO RPT NO RPT NO RPT NO RPT
Dec 2009 NO RPT NO RPT NO RPT NO RPT
Total 174,111 174,111 6 6

So it has produced 174.111 million cf of gas for the 7 months that have been reported since it first went to sales. That would be an average of just under 1 million cf/day (actually the math works out to about 829,000 cf/day). Considering the depressed price of NG during those months (say an average of around $3.00 mcfd) than the well would have produced just a bit over $500,000 in sales during this first 7 months.

Not a lot to date, but keep in mind that this is a verticle completion. The talk is that they are looking to get in partnership with one of the major companies who has the technology to bring in productive horizontal wells. They would then go joint venture and get the well re-permitted for a horizontal well and the production numbers should then increase dramatically.

The other really interesting thing that I see from their current permit is the number of formations that they have listed. Part of that might be to help them market the property to the big boys, but it also does seem to speak well for the reserve formations in that area.

Here's the formations that they have listed:

1) Brachfield/Rodessa (Gas / 6,180')
2) Minden / Travis Peak (Oil or Gas / 9,180')
3) Brachfield SE / Cotton Valley (Gas / 9,958')
4) North Carthage / Bossier (Gas / 10,750')
5) Wildcat / (Gas or Oil / 13,000')

I would imagine that once they get in partnership with another company that can do the horizontal completions properly, that this could be a pretty interesting piece of real estate.

Permalink Reply by RBH on November 20, 2009 at 7:44

NFR Energy=
NFR Energy LLC is the largest privately held start-up in the industry, created specifically to invest in oil and gas exploitation opportunities. The company was founded in 2007 through a joint venture of two industry and financial leaders, Nabors Industries Ltd. and First Reserve Corporation.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page