Haynesville Shale - Well Hall of Fame (11/14/09)

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by william buckner on November 13, 2009 at 8:17pm

Great work! Thanks

Buck

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Scott on November 14, 2009 at 1:15pm

You and I are ready to see some of those IP numbers in 16N-14W. I received my AFE on Sec. 7-16N-14W from CHK this morning. Love to see that one join the list.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by kim on November 14, 2009 at 11:18pm

What is a AFE?? I also own minerals in this sec. Are royalties anywhere in the near future?? Are the two pads on Chadler rd. superpads?

Thanks,
Kim

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr on November 14, 2009 at 11:45pm

Kim:

AFE = Authorization For Expenditure.

Refers to the 'bill' that the operator sends to owners of working interest and/or unleased mineral interest owners to both advise them of anticipated expenses for drilling and/or completing a well. Also, provides for owner's consent (or nonconsent) to such expenses. Consent usually implies paying your portion of well costs in a timely manner so that the working interest owner can receive their portion of revenue from the well without incurring a further risk charge for having the operator carry your portion of the bill.

In LA, unleased mineral interest (UMI) owners neither incur a risk penalty, nor do they have to put up their share of the bill in advance. If your minerals are unleased, you'll have to wait until payout for your share of revenues. If your minerals are leased, you'll wait for approximately 90-120 days after first sales on production (provided your title has been examined and cleared) to begin receiving royalties.

There's a discussion around here about this somewhere..........

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by kim on November 15, 2009 at 12:04am

Dion Warr
I am unleased. Another person (Scott) in the same section got a notice of AFE. Is there something that I should do at this point.. What time line am I looking at for royalties if the leased owner is looking at 90-120 days? Who will examine my title, or even know that I exist?

Thanks for your help!!!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Cheerleader on November 13, 2009 at 11:43pm

Thanks Les B,
You get an A+ on that project!!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on November 14, 2009 at 3:30am

I have questions about two wells, Les. 1) What about the Moran 34 in 14/13???
2) What about Sample 32 in 15/11??? ( surface in Section 5,14/11)
I would have thought both would easily qualify.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Les B on November 15, 2009 at 9:34pm

SB, I have not seen any test data for the Sample well and the Moran 34 #H1 tested at 18.5 MMcfd according to Sonris.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on November 16, 2009 at 9:09am

Les, you are right in so far as Sonris reports no IP for the Moran 34H #1. The only reporting on the Moran # 34 is the DT which shows18.5 MMcf. However, if I look at the Moran 33H #1 on Sonris ( (the # 3 well on your HOF list @ 29.6million/day),it only reflects a DT of 18,985 mcf/day. I see no reportedIP on that well either. This is a major problem I see with the reporting these companies do on IP.......no consistency at all. I assume you got your info on the Moran # 33 IP from a press release rather than from Sonris. It is clear to me that because an east offset (Moran 33) made 29.6 million/day and a north offset (Moran 27) made 26.1 million/day and there is only a few hundred psi difference between the DT of the Moran 33 and the Moran 34.........and because Exco has announced that all of their wells in Desoto Parish had IP's of at least 20 million/day that the Moran 34 belongs on the list somewhere. I certainly understand that unless Exco makes a public announcement of the Moran 34 IP, there is no way to put it on the list, which makes me wonder how these companies pick and choose which wells to make public announcements about. Without these announcements the list would be greatly shortened if you were going by Sonris alone. The Moran 27 (#6 on the list) would not be there, for example.
All that aside, you have been an extremely helpful addition to this web site and you are greatly appreciated, Les B.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on November 17, 2009 at 2:09pm

The "official" IP for the Sample 32 in 15/11 (pad in Section 5, 14/11) was reported on Sonris and it does make the HOF.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on November 18, 2009 at 5:27pm

Les,

You have to sort of work backwards now since so many companies no longer report single wells. Moran 34 had its DT on October 4. At the November con call XCO reported all Desoto wells IP'd over 20 mmcfd, ranging from a low of 20.5 mmcfd. to a high of 30.1 mmcfd. SO Moran 34 HAD to be over 20 mmcfd.

Also, most of XCO's wells DT and/or SDM2G test in the teens, but their 24 hour IPs are all over 20.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by LP on November 14, 2009 at 11:02am

Would it be possible to have the choke size of each well included in the info?

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page