Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Taylor on December 11, 2008 at 1:10

Yep. I looked at that a while back. Most of it is over my head. LOL Thanks for posting it though.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by ALongview on December 11, 2008 at 3:30

HELP!

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by North LA on December 11, 2008 at 5:04

I'm no geologist but I'll try to sum it up. The authors took a look at the North LA salt basin which basically covers north central LA from Caddo parish to Ouachita parish. They examined a sample of electric logs from north to south and from west to east looking for deep unconventional oil/gas reserves/formations. What they found was the jurrasic formation covers all of north LA and includes the Smackover/Haynesville/Bossier shale. They also described all of the formations in the North LA salt basin which I thought was interesting. 5 cores of the Bossier shale and Haynesville were taken in north central LA from Union(1)/Jackson(3)/Winn(1). The cores showed that the formations had low perm, contained gas except for the union well which possibly had oil, and had low to medium total organic carbon. The low total organic carbon(TOC) is important because that is basically the amount of natural gas in the formation. The lower the TOC the less productive the formation and the higher the TOC the higher the potential for production.

I'm concerned about the low TOC(wt%) from the bossier shale core samples. From what I've read, the TOC needs to be above 2% before a formation is economical. The Barnett has an average TOC of 4% and I've seen that the Haynesville shale averages 2%. There is a small sample size so hopefully it isn't representative of all the Bossier shale. Can anyone else review the data and tell me I'm wrong because I hope I am. It looks great that the Bossier and Haynesville shales go all over north LA but if they don't have any hydrocarbons they are worthless.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by North LA on December 11, 2008 at 5:27

Thanks. That actually makes me feel better. So what conclusion can you draw from this if any? The low TOC isn't concerning?

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by North LA on December 11, 2008 at 6:57

Thanks for all the information.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by Marilynn Sessions on December 11, 2008 at 7:29

Hi Jay-
My sister-in-law is Kellie in Atlanta. Thanks for posting it has been awhile since we have seen you. As you may recall we are in N3 (Golddonna) and they have recently blasted. It appears by all of the latest postings that we all should just forget about anymore drilling potential in the Natchitoches area. Also, with the upcoming change in administration if you do not currently have a lease you will not be allowed to have one. Any truth in this? Thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Snake Stewart on December 11, 2008 at 13:45

Looks like a Triple-Team Handicap match is in the works for this evening, huh ? I am going to retreat this time but watch yourselves. A couple of bikini melvins and the odds could be much more even.

Snake, rolling eyes in the front and back of his head so he can watch all three of you guys at once! :0)

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by North LA on December 11, 2008 at 15:56

Jay,

What is thermal alteration indices and what is it an indication of when evaluating formations?

• ▶ Reply

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 11, 2008 at 16:18

Ro = thermal maturity? What say ye, Jay?

Permalink Reply by Taylor on December 11, 2008 at 10:55

Thanks Shale Geo. Makes me feel a little better.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Snake Stewart on December 11, 2008 at 14:13

Permalink Reply by Jim71006 11 minutes ago
Don't act so innocent - you're the worst of the pusillanimous panty pushers on this site . . . .


I am going to google that ...........and be back after while !

You been watching OReilly, Jim ?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Snake Stewart on December 11, 2008 at 14:21

In the words of Pee Wee Herman................

I know I am but what are you ?

• ▶ Reply

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