Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on March 21, 2013 at 14:09

DR,

Anything that far North would be above the shelf. So my guess is that the "Exceptional location" is because of seismic information that indicates faulting. What company is drilling the well? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dash Riprock lll on March 21, 2013 at 14:55

Hi Joe----Docket says Mississippi Onshore, LLC is requesting. Heard of them? Google non-revealing.TMS and Austin Chalk are of course there on logs of wells fairly near there but, of course, it is north of the higher resistivity portion of TMS. North Bayou Jack field is pretty much due west of this site.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dash Riprock lll on March 21, 2013 at 16:08

Sorry, North Bayou Jack Field is SW of this site, not due W as I said.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Parker on March 21, 2013 at 23:34

MS Onshore LLC (Adams Co - Austin Chalk Operator) is actually owned by Energy XXI (aka) Energy 21.  They are a large Gulf of Mexico offshore producer.

They are currently permitting to drill 3 wells.  They are targeting the Austin Chalk.  The Natchez Arch runs through Adams County.

Apparently, their technical evaluation of the area must indicate to them that the uplift forces associated with the Natchez Arch has provided sufficient natural fracturing of the Austin Chalk.  Street talk (rumor) has it that they have or are assembling about a 25,000 acre lease block.

Let’s wish them the best of luck and also the best of luck to the mineral owners in the area. Rumor also has it that this could open up a huge Austin Chalk play in Adams County.

Hope this information sheds some light on this subject. ~~ John

Link to Energy XXI website

http://www.energyxxi.com/

Link below confirms MS Onshore LLC is tied to Energy XXI (Bermuda) Ltd

http://www.secinfo.com/$/SEC/Registrant.asp?CIK=1568472

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on March 22, 2013 at 0:05

Thanks John,

I think that is the company that bought and is operating all of the old Exxon wells off of Grand Isle.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dash Riprock lll on March 22, 2013 at 0:32

Thanks John. that does make the developments more clear. Hope things work out for a play in that area.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dash Riprock lll on March 22, 2013 at 2:49

My google must be broken. Now it gives me nothing on Natchez Arch. Is there an online map anywhere that shows the arch? Adams County seems to be pretty interesting geologically. I know Cranfield has some unique salt dome related geology. If no map, could someone describe the orientation, extent of the Natchez Arch please. Also, how might the Arch affect the TMS in southern Adams County area? Thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Parker on March 23, 2013 at 10:29

Dash: 

See the attached file. Go to page 14 to the Map showing the Structural Features of Mississippi. Look in the lower left hand corner, Adams, Wilkinson, etc. You will see it drawn in there were it crosses the old Mississippi Embayment. It is were Adams and Wilkinson County's meet. That line dipicts where it starts dipping as shown by the tick marks and has tick show the direction of dip. I am not sure how wide and north the "anticline" extends. But this apparently is where it starts to fall off on the southern end. It is not labled as the "Natchez High" or "Natchez Anticline" however it is an uplift much less extensive than the Wiggins Arch. However, it probably did some natural fracturing of some of the formations.

I know this is a cheesy publication but it does contain some insight that is hard to find elsewhere. Mississippi ain't exactly Hollywood when it comes to exposure and available information. LOL

Hope this helps ~ ~ John

Attachments:

• 1GeologyBook.pdf, 4.6 MB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dash Riprock lll on March 23, 2013 at 14:07

Thanks John, you are a gentleman and a scholar.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Parker on March 24, 2013 at 6:49

Dash: 

Thanks for the complement, however I would characterize myself more as a good old country boy with some walking around sense, with a very keen interest in these matters, whom has been rather fortunate to be around some very talented O & G technical guys, who have really furthered my understanding of the various hydrocarbon systems. 

I always try to soak up as much of that knowledge as my brain will allow.

To various degrees we are all on a continuous learning experience, and what an exciting journey it is.

Thanks ~ ~  John

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dash Riprock lll on March 30, 2013 at 10:10

So the affadavit was approved for this well at the O and G Board hearing. The request was for depth of 11,500 to test Austin Chalk. Usually they say "and all other formations and pools encountered". This one doesn't, at least according to the Oil and Gas Board minutes. If the lease includes all formations, but the request specifies Austin Chalk, does it matter? Does an 11,500 foot TD well in this 5N2W location penetrate the TMS too or is that just Austin Chalk depth? Is it just a forgone conclusion that the TMS is not a viable producing formation this far north? If it is uncertain, why permit just for the Chalk? Thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on March 30, 2013 at 11:53

They permit Austin Chalk because that is what they are after. Not many can drill shale and the cost of a frack job adds a bunch to the bill. I personally would like to see more chalk wells drilled, someone will get it right at some point I hope and the formation may prove productive or even may find the sweet spot somewhere that it hasn't been drilled before.

• ▶ Reply

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