Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on March 8, 2009 at 21:12

This information from Petrohawk is obviously is dated, but I noticed that in the Terryville Field they referred to the Bossier sand, not the Bossier shale. According to Petrohawks's "cartoon" map of the Haynesville play, Elm Grove and Caspiana are NOT located at the center of the Bossier Shale prospective area. Rather, northwestern Sabine Parish appeares to be about the center of their depiction of the Bossier shale. About 1/2 of it appears to be in Texas and about 1/2 of it in Louisiana.
I'd love to believe that the Bossier Shale is the next "big" thing but I haven't seen much proof that it is so as far as NW Louisiana is concerned.......YET.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on March 9, 2009 at 8:05

I'm no expert, by any means, but the purpose of the memo and redefinition of the Haynesville
was to keep folks from drilling a piss-ant Cotton Valley well and using that piss-ant Cotton Valley well to HBP acreage all the way down to the base of the Haynesville even though many of the leases had depth restirctions. In other words, there was some fancy footwork going on by some of the operators. Chessapeake's and Petrohawks cartoon depictions have been reasonably accurate so far, but of course, they will be changed somewhat by the drill bit. I know nothing about the Terryfield other than it is in Lincoln Parish and that HK calls it Bossier sand in that area. I know there is a difference between the Haynesville Shale and the Haynesville Sand. I guess the question is: Is there a difference between the Bossier Sand and the Bossier Shale. My guess is....if it were a shale in Terryville, Petrohawk would have called it that.
Please don't get me wrong.....I want a thick layer of Bossier Shale under every one of my mineral acres! My son would greatly appreciate it..

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on March 9, 2009 at 17:19

I have no idea what horizontal Cotton Valley wells have to do with the redefinition of the Haynesville Shale zone. I doubt that many operators permitting horizontal Cotton Valley wells were guilty of trying to define the Cotton Valley in such a way as to include depths down to the base of Haynesville. However there were operators drilling vertical Cotton Valley wells and trying to claim that such wells held depths through the Bossier and to the base of theHaynesville Shale. For some reason, graysands, I don't think we're on the same page. I'm frankly not sure what, if anything, we're debating. My main point is that the jury is still out on whether the Bossier Shale underlying the Haynesville Shale in NW Louisiana will become a huge financial success for the E&P's and royalty owners alike. I also have no idea what this year plus old chronology of events for Petrohawk and others has to do with anything or what it attempts to show. I'm not trying to fight.... I'm just trying to figure out what you are attempting to demonstrate. The horizontal Cotton Valley was a hot topic of conversation until the Haynesville came along. At that point, the horizontal Cotton Valley got put on the back burner. I do know that Questar recently completed one (horizontal Cotton Valley) in T14N, R11W, Section 5 that appears to have made close to 1/2 BCF in just two months. I would call that rather significant if my facts are correct.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DR on March 9, 2009 at 4:09

Some interesting maps from the Common Resource website:

http://www.bossierville.com/

http://common-resources.com/maps.html

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on March 9, 2009 at 18:39

DR, Common Resource is currently in a 50/50 JV with Southwestern Energy that covers the Haynesville/Bossier Shale play (41,500 gross acres in 3 ETx counties).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on March 9, 2009 at 4:39

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on March 9, 2009 at 4:39

DR,

Thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on March 10, 2009 at 17:32

Heat maybe would be an issue below the Haynesville as regards oil reserves. Shale Geo would know.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on March 10, 2009 at 18:29

KB, typically at this depth and formation temperature you find gas rather than oil and the gas is "dry" (ie lower gross heating value). The northern edge of the Barnett Shale and far western edge of the Marcellus Shale are shallower and therefore oil productive.

By the way, Regency is already discussing how the introduction of more dry Haynesville Shale gas is "leaning up" the feed gas to their processing plants resulting in lower natural gas liquids production.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on March 10, 2009 at 18:49

Les,

In some of the USGS maps that have been shown it shows the core area as a "oil" producing area. In your opinion, would this indicate that oil is productive at the shallow depths and maybe just not "cost" effective presently? (I had assumed it was at the deeper depths).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on March 11, 2009 at 3:03

Parker, much of the earliest production from NW La was from the shallower oil sands such as the Pettit, Rodessa, Nacatoch, etc. This is likely the reason for showing the area as oil producing. Later exploration and production activity has focused more on natural gas. OIl is still being produced in many fields but the remaining unrecovered oil reserves is very limited.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on March 11, 2009 at 15:29

Graysands, Burlington offered a strategic fit for CP because both companies had significant ownership positions in the San Juan Basin (both conventional gas and coalbed methane reserves). Also, at tht time of the acquisition most of the majors were focused on international opportunities rather than the US.

• ▶ Reply

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