Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on November 24, 2009 at 17:31

Parker, my interpretation is the Bossier Shale stops at T15N on the Petrohawk map but I could be wrong.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on November 24, 2009 at 21:24

Les, taking it a step farther and by deduction it appears that, according to Petrohawk's cartoon map, there are 235,872 acres which are prospective for the Bossier Shale, but not for the Haynesville. Of course, Chesapeake's cartoon map of the area prospective for the Bossier Shale is considerably smaller than Petrohawk's. How many acres do you estimate comprise the Chesapeake estimate of the Bossier Shale in NW Louisiana, Les? I'm certainly hoping Petrohawk's interpretation is the more accurate one, but I wouldn't bet the ranch. I get the impression that the difference in the two interpretations could be that Petrohawk's shows where the Bossier is present and Chesapeake 's shows where the Bossier is present "in commercial quantities". Your thoughts, Les?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on November 25, 2009 at 16:13

SB, I have an area of 236,160 acres in Louisiana that is prospective for the Bossier Shale only. I think it is early days for the Bossier Shale so each company's map may be significantly different. Even though their are a lot of well penetrations, there is still a lot of testing and evaluation required to identify the particular interval of the Bossier Shale that is commercial.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on November 26, 2009 at 15:45

I want to know where those 288 acres that our calculations differ on are located, Les. Ha!!!! I arrived at my numbers by using your numbers: 1,135,872 acres that are Bossier Shale prospective less 900,000 acres that are both Haynesville and Bossier Shale prospective leaves 235,872 that are Bossier Shale prospective, but not Haynesville prospective.........all in Louisiana, of course. Where are those 288 acres???

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on November 26, 2009 at 15:52

SB, so you want to solve the mystery of the extra 288 acres. As you recall I said an area of almost 900,000 acres. The actual value was 899,712 acres. I hope that helps.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on November 26, 2009 at 16:05

You never cease to amaze me, Les!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aubrey C. Sanders, Jr. on November 30, 2009 at 5:57

These estimates appear to be a good first approximation to me. At least I am glad to see this as a good start. As the plays develop the numbers and areas will change. We will see boundaries change for many, many years. There will be surprises, but I don't believe I will ever see HS or BS produce on my land. However, I will remain content with my
smackover, H. Sand, Tokio and Pettit production. All the while I will be thankful for others who prosper from HS and BS. And, maybe someday I may benefit from my interests in Southern Star in Sentell field. That looks good to me based upon cores I have seen.

Thhank you guys for doing a yeomans job in assembling this info.

aubrey sanders

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neilson Jacobs on November 30, 2009 at 12:07

Aubrey, I saw on your posting that you have interests leased to Southern Star in the Sentell Field. I also have some there. My property is in Sections 5, 7 and 8. Southern Star has drilled some CV wells in 7 and 8 - nothing to brag about. They let their lease expire as to 5. I don't know whether to believe anything they say. From their various filings I see that they have a deficit of $, owe unpaid suppliers, etc. Then I got somewhat encouraged by their posting on some sort of combination with 2 Canadian companies - that is until I saw that those two were also penny stock companies. Do you know why, if they have found all this great HA in Sections 16 and 17, that they have been able to sit and do nothing? My main hope was that they would enter into an agreement with one of the big players and let it complete the wells, retaining some sort of interest. Now I am encouraged from what you said about the cores. How where you able to look at them? Any info you might provide would be much appreciated. Neilson Jacobs

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GEORGE D BROCKNER on November 30, 2009 at 6:13

Les,
Thanks for this information. We're in Sect 26/11/11 (Desoto). From your information, do you think we are in both formations?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on November 30, 2009 at 15:50

George, your section is definitely in the area for both formations on the Petrohawk map.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GEORGE D BROCKNER on December 1, 2009 at 3:59

Thanks Les. You made my day.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ronald F. Adams on November 30, 2009 at 14:25

How about in SEC.14, T23N, R16W. The 48" pipeline crosses through Rodessa and cuts my SE corner.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page