Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 18, 2012 at 12:34

Unit orders don't hold leases.  Producing wells hold leases.  Ginger/Stephens Producing have one.  Unit orders are good indefinitely but are basically worthless to a company if the leases expire.

Permalink Reply by Rafe Hollister on April 18, 2012 at 14:38

I'm new to the site, but it didn't take me long to realize who the expert was on this site.  Thanks for your opinion on this particular well, Skip.  The reporting on it was confusing to me.    

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 18, 2012 at 14:58

Rafe, there are numerous small independent O&G companies in both states pulling for SWN to prove up the Lower Smackover/Brown Dense as it will be a windfall for those whose leasehold ends up in a good area.  A few are even drilling vertical wells to test the interval under their HBP leasehold.  Their producing wells and units are relatively easy to review on SONRIS.  None of them to date, as far as I have seen, have performed PR to tout the prospective nature of their leasehold.  They do not need to do so as interested mid-major and major energy companies will find them if the Brown Dense prospect works out.  Companies that sell stock perform the kind of PR seen in the Ginger Oil report.  And the majority of those companies are more interested in selling stock than in actually exploring for hydrocarbons or participating in the wells of those who do.  I am very skeptical of Ginger Oil but the proof will be if they actually do something other than issue reports.  Welcome to GHS.

Permalink Reply by Rafe Hollister on April 19, 2012 at 14:06

Skip, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I'm I correct to assume from your earlier replies that the Lamb No. 1 test cannot tell us anything about any BD at the "Tiger Creek" area?  Thanks.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 19, 2012 at 14:23

As I mention above, some companies that hold development rights in the prospective LSBD fairway will drill vertical wells that will test the Lower Smackover Reservoir A.  With the exception of any electric logs which may be filed with the state, the science from those wells will be proprietary.  The operators will not share the science with "us".  They will share it with any interested horizontal operators that may come calling if the prospect proves commercial.  There is little reason for any small operator to drill LSBD test wells until they see interest from the industry.  Right now the prospect is unproven and no energy companies other than Southwestern are placing an emphasis on drilling exploration wells.

Permalink Reply by Rafe Hollister on April 19, 2012 at 14:35

So you are of the opinion that Lamb No. 1 was not a test of LSBD, right? 

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 19, 2012 at 14:42

From the Well Engineering/Mechanical Report, when the well was Plugged & Abandoned on 4/14/11 the wellbore had penetrated the Top of the Haynesville Sand at 12,000'.  That being the case the True Vertical Depth of 12,500' would not have been deep enough to test the LSBD.  See Page 2 of the report, bottom section.

http://ucmwww.dnr.state.la.us/ucmsearch/UCMRedir.aspx?url=http%3a%2...

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 19, 2012 at 14:46

It was not drilled to sufficient depth to test the LSBD.  It was an unsuccessful Haynesville Sand well.

Permalink Reply by Rafe Hollister on April 20, 2012 at 2:13

Got it.  Impressed how easily you zip through the data.  Thanks

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 20, 2012 at 2:32

I'm a different kind of "landman", Rafe.  My specialty is database research.  I've never taken a lease in my life.  And worked for the industry less than thirty day.  My client base is predominantly individuals, groups and businesses that own significant mineral assets.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page