Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by IRielley on February 2, 2011 at 11:16

Guys, I have 80 acres in northeast Webster (about 12 miles south of the AR line and about a mile from the Claiborne Parish line).  Regardless of the truth (or hype?) regarding the possibility of Brown Dense activity, could anyone recommend a good approach to getting the property leased?  The current lease expired a few months ago.  Should I reach out to a land man (if so, any recommendation would be appreciated), call a company like CHK directly, or wait for a phone call?

 

Thanks for any suggestions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 2, 2011 at 11:20

I suggest that you wait and see how the next few horizontal SMK wells turn out.  Your location may be prospective.  It will likely take a number of wells over the coming year to prove up this prospect and if viable discover a fairway.  If some good wells are eventually produced, those in the right area may get substantially better lease terms than those now being offered.

Permalink Reply by IRielley on February 2, 2011 at 11:52

Thanks Skip for the response.  That sounds like very good advice.  Also, the Jeffries report that started this thread identifies the Webster Parish well as completed in the "Smackover 'C'," and the Claiborne Parish well being in the "Smackover 'A'."  Is the "C" formation synonomous with the "Lower Smackover" or "Brown Dense"?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 2, 2011 at 12:44

There is some confusion on that matter.  It has been stated that the Brown Dense is the Smackover D.  However the D designation has also been used for commingling production from the B and C.  While reservoir names may be misleading, True Vertical Depth (TVD) is a better determinant of the reservoir being produced.  I have a print out on my desk with several vertical SMK wells in Lafayette and Columbia counties.  The TDD's for those wells vary from 7300' to 8286'.  I believe that the Brown Dense in this area is the same as the Lower SMK which has a True Vertical Depth of ~9950' as reported in the Watson-Scott 1 - 12H (Horizontal) well in Columbia County.  The Jeffries report, IMO, has strung together some unrelated bits and pieces and made overly general assertions.  Their list of operators "exposed" to this supposed play is every major oil company or mid-major independent gas company with leasehold within a 60 or so mile radius of this general area.  This report could have been written by someone with no more factual information than that contained in our GHS discussions.  Just because it is on the Internet does not make it necessarily accurate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on February 2, 2011 at 12:59

Don't forget that terms like "Haynesville Shale" are fictional terms anyway.  If you slice down through the rock strata and look at a cross section in the real world, the various strata aren't color coded and labeled with names.  There isn't necessarily a black and white dividing line between two formations.  Formation A may gradually transition to formation B with no clearcut physical distinction between them.  

 

Even if a rock formation is "the same" formation in two different places, it doesn't mean the mineral potentials are the same. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on February 2, 2011 at 16:19

Mac, "Haynesville Shale" is not a fictional term but rather a distinct rock layer. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on February 3, 2011 at 9:40

The "Haynesville Shale" may be a clearer division than some geological terms, but it's still a human characterization rather than a definite physical boundary. 

 

A "single formation" in one person's definition could be called something else, it could be broken into an upper and lower layer with different names, or have the name changed in areas where it's shallower, doesn't have as much gas, is less dense, has more sand, different fossils, etc.  It could be called something different on two sides of a fault.  There could be two non-contiguous areas of similar rock formations with the same name, etc.  If it had been discovered separately in two different regions and named before we figured out it was all "the same" formation, we might very well call the eastern name one thing and the western end something else.

 

I'm mostly pointing out that the earth isn't like a car where you can find discrete parts and say, "this is the cylinder block, and this is the cylinder head."  The terms are useful, but the terms are generalizations created by man, not hard, fast distinctions created by God.

 

Also, some people have tried to play hanky panky by trying to stretch the definitions of one stratum vs. another.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on February 3, 2011 at 17:25

Mac, just don't confuse "formation", which is a technical term, with "zone" which is an arbitrary designation defined by regulatory authority. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on February 4, 2011 at 12:42

True, Les, but one person may define a "formation" one way, another may split it into two zones, draw the line between two zones at a different place, or simply give it a different name.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 2, 2011 at 13:23

tony, I hope you will check out The Baron's comment in North LA's, "The New Smackover Players Are ..." before you fall back on the "hidden agenda" argument.  I'd very much like to see the Brown Dense prospect turn into an economic play.  I think that opportunity still exists.  I do not think there are 1.25 million acres under lease nor that this is a resource play.  I find it not only logical but quite probable that areas of the Brown Dense may make good targets for horizontal drilling.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Polly Ann Foote on February 3, 2011 at 15:57

There is a rumor in Magnolia that it is the Koch Brothers that are behind Triad. As to the acreage Triad is leasing the earlier statement that they are leasing whatever they can certainly applied in their dealings with us. The descriptions they insisted on using included lands already leased, lands in production, lands in which we only held a royalty interest and non-existent lands - one description was for Section 26 Township 28 South Range 19 West. There is no Township 28 in Columbia County.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joel Abramson on February 5, 2011 at 7:43

Taking a strict line on the letter of the law. That is pretty novel for some to express! Please...C'mon. Some of us are interested in others' info. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• Next ›
• Page