Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Aubrey C. Sanders, Jr. on May 11, 2009 at 9:34

Tom,

I did a very cursory look at the wells in the area on SONRIS site. I was not sure of identification of Clements well as I did not have serial number or section #. However, I discovered a Haynesville Sand well in Section 17 which was drilled in 1981 and it was a pretty good well. It was P&A'd in 1989. Just based on limitted info I don't believe I would have plugged it.

If I were drilling a CV well in this area I think I would spend extra $ to drill 2,000 more feet to explore Haynesville sand. It would seem that they would have considered dual completion, if feasible. I think most
haynesville production along stateline trend will be from SS, as is in NSRR field and haynesvillle field.

More later as i have computer problem

Permalink Reply by scout on May 11, 2009 at 12:14

Aubrey, the Clements Heirs serial numbers are 238869 and 239505 but please look at the Dominick well #238870 producing 353 barrels of oil per day(?). Its very close to the Clements. tia

Permalink Reply by Tom Bennett on May 11, 2009 at 15:26

Scout,I had asked Aubrey to look at the two wells I had mentioned, but did not give him all the well numbers, which is something I know is necessary. Below I want to call to everyones attention what is happening in a very small geographical area and all are or will be produced CV. Remember all have been drilled to Haynesville but not produced there.
1. 237467 Clements Heir Well Drilled to 11,500' Perforated at 9156'-9167' in Cotton Valley
2. 238869 Clements Heir Well Drilled to 11,080' Perforated at 10142-10152 in Cotton Valley
3. 239505 Clements Heir Well Drilling to 11,500 Not Completed, my thoughts it will be Cotton Valley produced at around 9,500'
4. 238870 Dominick Well Drilled to 11,100' Perforated at 9692'-9702' in Cotton Valley

In other words they are gathering data on the Haynesville each time they drill, but are moving back up and producing the Cotton Valley. Does this mean they aren't finding anything in the Haynesville? No one but them knows. I personally think they have something, and I think it's gas. And they can wait.After all the Cotton Valley will pay for the well. They can wait until they want to produce it, or maybe someone else will. Hope this helps some.

Permalink Reply by Tom Bennett on June 13, 2012 at 4:26

Could it have been they were drilling to the lower depth to determine if they had Haynesville Shale or Sand? Also could they have been gathering information for the Brown Dense?
A reasonable approach to this question must ask this question.... If not then what was the purpose to waste the money to drill lower depths? Over and over... That would be unusual unless they were finding and defining a field

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 13, 2012 at 4:54

The ETOCO wells in the Missionary Lake North Field were discussed at length in the early days of the Haynesville Shale Play and appeared to be attempts to test the formation at that far northerly location.  The discussions are available in the archive. Those wells and the HA wells drilled in the Longwood Field determined that the Haynesville Shale was not present or if present, not economic, in north Caddo Parish.  Well serial number 238870 may have reported Initial Production of 353 bbl/d but it never came close to that flow in actual sustained production.  It best month (it's third) averaged 44 bbl/d and after 12 months production averaged 12 bbl/d.  The DOMINICK 20 well is not drilled sufficiently deep to test the Brown Dense.

Permalink Reply by Tom Bennett on June 13, 2012 at 5:02

And part of that archive was right above your comments Skip. If you will notice the discussion started in 2009. If you don't agree with my take then what is your take and..... Do you have first hand information, or is this your opinion? if you do have first hand information I feel sure the board would appreciate your shareing it with us. Thanks, Tom.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 13, 2012 at 5:18

My response is in regard to your post today Tom.  My take is that ETECO was testing the Haynesville in '08 & '09 and completing in any formation they thought might be sufficiently productive.  I don't know whether the Haynesville was shale or sand at that location.  Regardless of which ETOCO never attempted a completion in the HA.  IMO, after they completed the Clement Heirs 24H (horizontal) in 2/11/2010 they allowed their permit for the Mission Plantation 18H to expire because they had determined that it would not be economic based on the results of the Clement Heirs 24H. They have not permitted a subsequent well in Missionary Lake North since. To drill through the Brown Dense in this part of N Caddo a well would have to reach approximately 11,800' or more. 

Permalink Reply by Tom Bennett on June 13, 2012 at 6:02

So Skip you are saying there is Brown Dense in the area at approx 11,800'. Is that correct? If so can you give us a well name or number? If not what are you basing you information on? Are we certain the Brown Dense is 11,800' or is this just a guess, and are we certain there is Brown dense present in these locations?

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 13, 2012 at 6:28

Tom, I am saying that if there is Brown Dense in the Missionary Lake Field it would be around 11,800'.  I based this on the completion report for the CV RA SU3;DOMINICK 20 001 which gives the top of the SMK RA as 10,840'.  In general you can add about 1000' to that depth for a True Vertical Depth that would penetrate the entirety of the BD.  IMO, the BD was on no one's radar, including SWN, when the Missionary Lake North wells were drilled.  

Permalink Reply by Tom Bennett on June 13, 2012 at 7:28

In fact if there is Brown Dense in the area, then in your words all the above mentioned wells may have been in the Brown Dense just not the entirety of the Brown Dense ..if there is Brown Dense present....correct? Is it possible the Brown Dense was discovered while looking at the Haynesville? Or is it possible the Brown Dense may not be as deep as you think? All questions I don't think we will find a definative answer to.... only conjecture .

Permalink Reply by PJ on June 14, 2012 at 16:04

Tom, you are terrific! this s--o o helpful.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 13, 2012 at 9:09

Nope not all.  I looked at all six ETOCO wells in Missionary Lake North.  The last two appear to be deep enough to have tested the BD.  Cass County is a long way from any identifiable BD related activity at this time. If I run across anything that would tend to tie the field to the Brown Dense, I'll post it.

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