Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by FXEF on February 12, 2010 at 7:32

Mac, think you got the township wrong, should be T16N-R15W. There is one super pad in the NE of sec. 9 with two wells, S/N 240342 & S/N 240547. I think they are still drilling S/N 240547.

Well S/N 232711 is P&Aed. It's not a HS well, but is a lateral.
175' FSL & 1600' FEL OF SEC 9. EOL#1: 330' FNL & 1000' FEL OF SEC 4.

Not sure what "EOL#1" means, maybe Skip or Les can help.

Don't think SONRIS is wrong.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on February 12, 2010 at 10:34

T16N-R15W is correct, thanks. Tiny text, old eyes.

Good point about not being Haynesville shale depth. What formation would be at 6000 feet depth?

The original bottom hole coordinates show a two mile long lateral. They drilled a one mile lateral, then stopped, tested and abandoned. I assumed that someone just accidentally calculated the coordinates into the next section and got a two mile lateral in the permit records. Then a new "one mile" bottom hole coordinate that was "as drilled survey."

Do you think they really originally intended to drill a two mile lateral at 6000 feet depth?

I wonder if there were any two section units formed in this area. It doesn't seem likely that this would be a non-unitized well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by FXEF on February 12, 2010 at 13:20

Mac, Looks like a 1280 acre unit (PET RB SUA) in the Pettit formation. I think maybe they drilled two laterals instead of a two mile lateral. After reviewing the the permit applications, I think SONRIS listed EOL#2 as EOL#1 (end of lateral). Think maybe SONRIS should have read like this:
175' FSL & 1600' FEL OF SEC 9. EOL#1: 376' FNL & 1362' FEL OF SEC 9. EOL#2: 330' FNL & 1000' FEL OF SEC 4.

I maybe wrong though, waiting on the experts to chime in.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on February 12, 2010 at 17:46

FXEF, the original well plat showed a single lateral ~ 2 miles in length.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by FXEF on February 13, 2010 at 6:29

Les, the original application was for a 2 mile lateral, but an amendment was applied for on 5/08/06 with BHL at 376' FNL & 1362' FEL OF SEC 9. I am assuming that the lateral into sec. 4 was never drilled, but because the original PBHL was 330' FNL & 1000' FEL OF SEC 4 it shows on the SONRIS map. I guess it really is a moot issue as the well is P&Aed.

Thanks for your input, I was unaware that they drilled 2 mile laterals until Mac's discussion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on February 12, 2010 at 17:45

Mac, it is not uncommon to drill 2-mile laterals in a shallow formation like the Pettit. It is clear SML's original intent was to drill an extended length lateral as evidenced by the 15572 ft measured depth on the well permit. They must have encountered problems or maybe were using a drilling rig that did not have sufficient Hp so revised the permit to a shorter lateral.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on February 12, 2010 at 19:05

Thanks guys, good info.

• ▶ Reply