Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on December 11, 2010 at 10:14

Hi Les,

Yes, I think it was Skip, and he basically said he would not use it for trends analysis or some such, because the info is incomplete;  I'll continue to use GIS, probably try to learn to use the view FXEF points out here a bit too;  I expect Skip does use it casually too.  So the impt point for me, and presumably any other confused amateurs, is that the voids in the HS GIS are not really voids...  Thanks, I hope my blundering about proves enlightening for a few others, and not exceptionally annoying for the old hands :-)

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on December 11, 2010 at 10:32

Robert, the "voids" are only in relation to the Haynesville Units but all the wells are included which is the more critical information anyway.

 

The primary factor for the voids in units is the State does not include until the unit is approved by the Commission.  I include once the initial filing is made because approval is generally only a formality for Haynesville Units.

Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on December 11, 2010 at 11:13

Hi Les,

Okay, I am going to disagree...  If you look at my "void" on the GIS HS viewer, http://sonris-www.dnr.state.la.us/gis/haynesville/viewer.htm, there is only one well "in" the 13 "void" (not HS) units (though another well has the bottomhole in one of these "void" sections, it is technically in another section where the platform is for sonris listing purposes).  NOW, if you pull up these sections in sonris looking for wells, you find all kinds of wells listed as, for instance, JUR, that are actually in the HS interval (horizontal wells with TVD in the 12000 ft+ range).  So this viewer at least is completely misleading about wells and units here, and that is pretty darn confusing.  I presume the other viewer does show the wells at least

(http://sonris-www.dnr.state.la.us/gis/cmdpermit_ext/viewer.htm).

Could be you were referring to the other viewer, but it is pretty logical for somebody to pick up the viewer I use for the HS - given it is on a page of DNR HS resources.

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on December 11, 2010 at 11:51

Robert, I generally always use the general GIS viewer because it has more features.  I just screen out the inactive wells.

Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on December 11, 2010 at 12:36

Hi Les,

Roger, figured it might be "which viewer" confusion added to the mix, but we were talking about how the other one only shows HA units; I think we are all clear, and until they fix the HA viewer, us newbies are at least aware of the limitations.  I'll start dinking with the "general" viewer a bit. Thanks!

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on December 11, 2010 at 4:14

Robert, you should check the following discussion to see number of units (with and without wells) in each township.

 

http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/forum/topics/haynesville-units-wi...

 

Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on December 11, 2010 at 7:15

Hi Les,

Yes, I look at this every time you post a new one, but I never cross-correlated with GIS.  I am wondering now about the noninteractive map: http://dnr.louisiana.gov/haynesvilleshale/haynesville.pdf;

Yes, looks like this one also has the "hole" near one of the first wells, so it is based on the interactive GIS map, so the total data on actual units (as opposed to HA units) and wells in various states from permit to completion are wrong.  Looks like the only way to get a complete overview is to get good with the sonris classic database.

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on December 10, 2010 at 18:50

Skip, EnCana's 1st Haynesville Shale well was permitted 10/27/05 and spud 10/31/05.  The well was completed as a producer on 3/30/06.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 11, 2010 at 2:34

Got a S/N?  I'll look at it.

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on December 11, 2010 at 4:04

Skip, Ser #232267

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on December 9, 2010 at 11:45

Michael, this is definitely another "super" well in the northeast corner of the Martin Field.  Unfortunately EnCana cannot drill any wells to the east as Samson controls those units.

Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on December 9, 2010 at 12:20

Hi Les,

Okay, well forgive me for completely blasting the dead horse to atoms here (this is sort of a continuation of our ongoing conversation earlier, but that got so indented it no longer edited properly), but what about the Bossier Shale in this area?  Encana "played up" the stacked play potential of their leasehold, and on everybody's maps, the BS extends further into this area than the HS, and some mark it "more prospective".  So it seems to me that given cheap leasehold, it would make sense to figure out what is happening to the BS rather than just giving up a cheap but potentially productive leasehold.  Of course, the overall economics could well dictate concentrating on the proven play core, hang potential further opportunity...

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