Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 8, 2010 at 12:11

IMO, re: Oilvoice/Jurassic Exploration. All their reports that I have reviewed are characterized by very general statements and a level of exuberance not found in the reports of operators and midstream companies. That the southern portion of the play in E. TX. is more prospective than the north is old news. Pipeline companies recognized that a long time ago and implemented plans to increase capacity in that general area and to tie into the upgraded transport system in NW. LA. I suggest that those interested in specific information from vastly more reliable sources concentrate on the public reports of the major operators involved in Haynesville/Bossier development. The latest and most detailed is the Petrohawk presentation including their EUR Core Map. If the "motherload" is defined as the most productive area of the play, it would be the 10 bcf and 8 bcf contours in NW. LA. However the 4 bcf contour line extends into and encompasses a good deal of acreage in E. TX. and includes a core of 6 bcf. That E. TX. area is highly prospective and will draw development interest from a number of major shale players. Those who wish to deal in specifics should review the map and make it a part of their deliberations regarding the management of their mineral estate. The site contains a good discussion concerning the map which can be accessed through the following link:

http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/forum/topics/petrohawks-definitio...

Oilvoice/Jurassic Exploration is a "tout for pay" Internet media company.

http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/forum/topics/it-must-be-true-i-re...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on June 8, 2010 at 13:19

One should also keep in mind that Petrohawk has a rather small dog in the hunt down here. I would suggest that you might also look to Devon, Cabot and Encana. And, if you have the patience to wait for them to divulge any information, XTO and EOG are interesting as well, at times. Oh, and lest we forget, Exco/BG Group just bought out Common Resources in Shelby, San Augustine and Nac. so they must think the area is fairly interesting, too.

I think it's a little too early to say that one map is THE definition of the southern areas of the play.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 8, 2010 at 13:30

Who said that "one map is THE definition of the southern areas of the play?" Not I, jffree1. I stated that the information in the Petrohawk map was superior to the Oilvoice/Jurassic Exploration reports. A review of the two will illustrate quite starkly the risk in believing the overly exuberant and broad statements of one over the professional, data-driven presentation of the other. Is the Petorhawk map exactly accurate? I doubt it. Is it close and the best depiction to date? I suspect so.

I think Jay put it best in the original discussion of the HK Core Map.

Reply by ShaleGeo on May 25, 2010 at 1:55pm
Delete
I think this is a fairly accurate depiction of the core as it was derived from log data, core data, and decline curve analysis. They did not just draw the core around their leasehold position. In fact, they even point out the leases that they currently have that are worthless in their mind.
Jay

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on June 8, 2010 at 13:40

No you didn't but you did strongly suggest that it was the best information available. And I agree if you want to talk about more northerly areas. I just think there are not enough data points in southern counties or parishes to say that it (HK map) is definitive for the southern regions. I am aware that some will strongly disagree with me and that is their prerogative.

In case you have doubts, I would not post anything by Jurassic Exploration but I will say their posts are useful for stimulating discussion when we hit a lull in the south, LOL.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 8, 2010 at 13:48

All points of view should have a place in the site debates. And debates should avoid becoming personal arguments. It seems those that regularly post the Oilvoice/Jurassic Exploration reports don't appreciate my alternate point of view. Even when I post specifics, provide background and links and refrain from calling them names.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on June 8, 2010 at 13:56

But... specifics, background and links require WORK for anyone who really wants to dig out the data that is available. Where's the fun in that?
So, who cares if some don't/can't truly appreciate your point of view? We do the best we can to provide accurate information and once in awhile we actually help someone. That's good enough for me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 8, 2010 at 14:03

And those who can not or will not do that work often get the bulk of what they know, or believe, from GoHaynesvilleShale. A good reason to provide alternate points of view. I am fully willing to say my piece and let the members decide whether they find it accurate or part of some hidden agenda. And yes, helping is the best part.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cheerleader on June 8, 2010 at 19:21

Skip, jffree1 and Les B. everyone appreciates your contributions to this site. You all are articulate, intelligent and provide professional and statistical contributions that we may not have if not for you guys!!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on June 8, 2010 at 15:17

Skip, just note that Petrohawk lacks having extensive information in the southern portion of the Haynesville/Bossier Shale play. For example, one of the best wells in Red River Parish fell outside their "core" area. Petrohawk also excluded almost all of Sabine Parish and all of Natchitoches Parish from the "core". Obviously some other operators (EnCana, Shell, Comstock, Chesapeake, etc) have a different view of the potential in this area. That is the reason I put more weight on EnCana and Chesapeake's maps in the southern portion of the play.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 8, 2010 at 15:32

Les, I believe that the productive wells in much of northern Sabine Parish and in Natchitoches Parish will turn out to be Bossier, not Haynesville wells. And I have mentioned on several occasions, and again here, that I do not consider the HK map 100% accurate but substantially so. The Red River Parish wells you mention will likely not be the only ones found to be productive that do not correlate with the HK contours. I'm betting that future completions will substantially validate the accuracy of the map and that wells like those you mention in Red River will be one of a relative handful of exceptions. In other areas the Encana map exhibits a high degree of agreement with HK. All the other operator maps that I have reviewed are blob maps and do not contain the detail of the HK and ECA maps.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on June 8, 2010 at 16:43

Skip, EnCana has already identified a high rate well in northern Sabine Parish as producing from the Haynesville Shale in a location far south of Petrohawk's "core". EnCana's map shows the Haynesville Shale to be productive much further south than Petrohawk based on their more extensive data set. There is no particular reason to believe Petrohawk's map is any more accurate than any other operator's map. As time proceeds I believe you may need some really big hands to hold all those exceptions that are going to pile up.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ken hatcher on June 8, 2010 at 16:58

A good volley gentleman....before this year ends we should know.

• ▶ Reply

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