Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Blaine on August 1, 2011 at 6:43

Haven't heard that one yet, but will be interesting to see if there's any truth behind it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 1, 2011 at 7:00

Neither has the state since they have issued no permits for those horizons for DeSoto Parish or any other parish in the Haynesville prospective area for that matter.  To date no member has posted any verifiable fact that would support any interest by shale operators in the mentioned formations.  Only rumors.  The majority of which have been discussed and dismissed previously.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on August 1, 2011 at 8:16

It would be surprising to me for either EXCO or XTO to move in new rigs. The existing rigs used to drill the Haynesville could certaintly be used for the deeper work, although I understand that under some of the high pressure scenarios, larger BOPs might be needed. If a test were to occur, I expect it would be made on acerage with some type of vertical Pguh clause.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 1, 2011 at 8:53

I agree dbob.  And that acreage with the Pugh Clause would have to be in its primary term.  Otherwise the operator would have already lost the rights to deeper horizons.  The Haynesville Shale may be the first major play in NW. LA. where depth limitation clauses are contained in a larger percentage of leases.  And if the shale players were interested in deeper depths they would have drilled them before now as the primary terms in the majority of leases signed in 2008 are expired or will do so over the next five months.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on August 1, 2011 at 9:10

A lot of the XTO leases are old HBP without Vertical Pugh Clauses.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 1, 2011 at 9:40

TD,P, agreed.  However if XTO or any other shale operator was seriously interested in developing deeper horizons, I don't think they would limit that interest solely to their legacy leasehold lacking vertical Pughs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on August 1, 2011 at 10:20

I am not just talking about their legacy leasehold  under the  shale. Between them and Exxon it goes all the way accross the state in probable smack territory. If the play pans  out, they got enough to keep them busy for years without having to buy very many leases.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 1, 2011 at 10:33

Two Dogs, are you referencing the state line area or the southern portion of the Haynesville Play area?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on August 1, 2011 at 10:41

Both and then some. Things are fixing to get interesting.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 1, 2011 at 10:45

They already are up on the border.  You about to add SMK to your Wilcox, Austin Chalk, TMS portfolio?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on August 1, 2011 at 10:58

The border is too far for me but if they get into my 100 to 125 mile range who knows. You know me Skip, they don't put me on much courthouse work and from what I am seeing that is what it will be with HBP stuff. The State of Louisiana will be flooded with landmen for the forseeable future and it looks like it is going  to be oil.

Permalink Reply by North LA on August 1, 2011 at 12:16

2 dogs,

I hope you're not just playing with us. If this is true then it could be great for LA.

• ▶ Reply

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