Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Todd Bush on August 27, 2015 at 9:38

Some great comments & stories included here. We did some individual well analysis for some of the wells mentioned on this thread. You can see the summary presentation here:

http://www.slideshare.net/EnergentGroup/energent-group-refrac-study...

More and more operators seem to be considering refracs so definitely a trend to watch.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by olddog573 on August 27, 2015 at 9:58

Thank you for posting Todd.  Very interesting stuff.  Slide 4 stood out to me, as the years have went by rigs have fallen but production has increased. Do you know if Chesapeake has started a refrac program yet?

Thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rock Man on August 27, 2015 at 10:04

EnCana just sold part of their N La Haynesville area - wonder how much their re frac results helped encourage a good price?

https://www.encana.com/news-stories/news-releases/details.html?rele...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Todd Bush on August 27, 2015 at 10:10

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 27, 2015 at 10:04

Welcome, Todd.  And thank you for the refrac data.  My initial reaction is in regards to proppant volumes.  Most operators that I follow have increased proppant loads in conjunction with increasing number of stages and longer perforated lateral lengths.  Therefore it's somewhat surprising that the refracs in your sample cohort have reduced proppant volumes.   

As you can tell from the thread replies to date one of the pertinent missing data points involves the profile for what makes a well a good candidate for a refrac.  That makes it difficult to determine the evolution of the technology.  Do operators tend to experiment with wells that are sub-economic and not expected to ever pay out or do they refrac the wells they deem to be the very best candidates?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rock Man on August 27, 2015 at 10:10

Skip, great question. For what it is worth, the consistent theme I have heard from operators and service companies is that good wells / good rock react best to re-frac approach. Basically, that you cannot turn a poor well into a good well with this technology.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Todd Bush on August 27, 2015 at 10:18

Hello Skip, those are some great questions.

Going into the study, we expected to see higher fluid volumes and more proppant but that wasn't the case. In some cases, we did see operators increasing the proppant intensity (proppant per stage). It definitely seems to be an area that operators are testing & evaluating.

There are a lot of questions around candidate selection. Operators seem very reluctant to touch their best wells (and possible their best candidates). The discussions I've been apart of seem to point to selecting moderate wells to refrac and test the technology.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 27, 2015 at 10:28

I agree that many of the earliest wells re-fraced which I have reviewed appeared to be less than average in production profile but there are so many unknown variables.  I agree with Rock Man about good rock making for a good refrac candidate.  Have you run across any comparable situations where a well with poor IP and one with average or better profile have been re-fraced in relatively close proximity?  Presumably comparable rock quality?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 27, 2015 at 12:43

Jay, I generally agree however even within well defined core areas there are numerous instances where wells in relatively close proximity have significantly different production profiles that don't appear to be explained by rock quality.  The landing depth in some early wells may explain a portion of those instances but not all.  If the operator did not report a mechanical problem during drilling or completion ops it begs the question, what explains the significant variances?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 27, 2015 at 14:21

LOL!   Noooo.  Just curious.  As usual.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page