Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on July 19, 2010 at 12:07

"THE TWO DOGS PAPERS", catchy name,you might be right Skip.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 19, 2010 at 12:23

Great. I imagine Core Labs will come calling to offer you a position. You will be the expert in your field. However I think you need a high falootin name for the theory. "Stirring up the lower stuff" just doesn't somehow sound sufficiently scientific.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on July 19, 2010 at 13:11

"FRACKED AT THE CRACK" the story of the rebirth of the upper Cotton Valley.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 19, 2010 at 17:41

Two Dogs, have you been watching those BP stories again? 8-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on July 19, 2010 at 12:49

Yes, HA spacing is 80 acre minimum per well by LOC regulation.

Hmmm.... So since a vertical HA well will only drain about 10 acres, those operators who drilled vertical wells to HBP have thrown away 70 acres of production unless the P&A the vertical well and drill a horizontal well. Or convert the vertical to a horizontal somehow, which doesn't seem likely.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 19, 2010 at 13:07

Mac, look at the well file for each HA vertical for two things. The casing size and the surface location. Is the casing of sufficient size to allow for a re-entry for a horizontal lateral? Is the surface location on or near an E/W section line? I recall ShaleGeo being bent over Camterra drilling verticals with nether consideration in units in the area of his minerals. No operator in their right mind, probably even Camterra, would drill more than one vertical HA well in a section. So they haven't thrown away 70 acres with the drilling of a single vertical well. As the Dpt. of Nat Res/Off of Conservation is in the business of maximizing revenue for state government and preventing the waste of mineral assets, I could see them allowing a vertical to be P&A'ed and still allow the max number of horizontals.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on July 19, 2010 at 22:51

Skip, I looked at several nearby verticals, and remember thinking they didn't have the right bore size to be converted to horizontal. I don't know how widespread this practice is in other areas. What casing size to HA depths is necessary to allow for "horizontalization?"

If they don't P&A the vertical well, how would they not be throwing away 70 acres, if they only drill another 7 wells? I don't see a reasonable way to get more than 80 acres each on the remaining 7 wells.

Hopefully, the government wouldn't be so stupid as to require them to P&A the vertical well before allowing them to drill a 9th well anyway, but maybe I'm being overly optimistic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 20, 2010 at 2:22

Mac, this casing design from an early well shows what I think is about the minimum lower casing diameters. It was a successful well with a 19+ MMcfd IP.

CASING
COMPLETION DATE CASING SIZE WELLBORE SIZE
01/29/2009 0412 0618
09/05/2008 0700 0878
09/05/2008 0958 1214

Now most operators appear to using casing of slightly greater diameter.

CASING
COMPLETION DATE CASING SIZE WELLBORE SIZE
12/26/2009 0500 0612
12/26/2009 0758 0978
12/26/2009 1034 1434

I believe that an operator can drill and frac one or more laterals in such a way as to produce the 70 acres to which you refer. The vertical in your example did not produce the gas contained in that 70 acres. The operator simply has to get a a spacing exception from the LOC. And I think they will readily grant it if they concur that there is gas there going unproduced.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 20, 2010 at 3:16

Mac, the production casing for a vertical to be converted should be at least 7-inch.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jerry smith on July 20, 2010 at 4:16

Skip i own 1 net mineral acre with a 1/8 royalty what would mine be in a 640 acre unit


thanks jerry

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 20, 2010 at 4:38

1/640 = 0.0015625 x 1/8th. (0.125) = 0.0001953

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jerry smith on July 20, 2010 at 4:51

Sip would that be a good check in a 640 acre unit at 7mm a day on a well. and what would the amount be

thanks jerry

• ▶ Reply

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