Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on August 4, 2009 at 3:15

Kevin, most pipelines have a maximum limit of 120 F for the gas temperature. Coolers may be required if the produced gas has a temperature higher than the limit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kevin jones on August 4, 2009 at 4:12

THANKS DOES THIS MEAN THERE MAY BE LOTS OF GAS DEEP IN THE GROUND

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on August 4, 2009 at 6:48

Kevin, it does not indicate the amount of gas but rather it is producing from a formation with a high temperature. The fact that Chesapeake is willing to spend money to install the coolers probably indicates it should be a good well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on August 4, 2009 at 12:43

How hot does HS gas tend to be?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on August 4, 2009 at 15:15

Mac, I am not sure what the flowing temperature is a the surface but I thought Jay said the formation temperature was around 280 F.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on August 4, 2009 at 14:14

Kevin--Have you been on location? I assume what you said means the well in flowing into the pipeline to sales.Do you have any infomation on what Harvey is producing mmcfd? Would love to know any infomation you can share.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kevin jones on August 4, 2009 at 15:20

I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING, THAT'S JUST WHAT I'VE HEARD A BUNCH OF PEOPLE SAYING . (THAT'S SHELBY CO. FOR YOU.) BUT IF I WAS BETTING MAN, I WOULD SAY IT'S GOING TO COME IN AT ABOUT 30 TO 35 MCFPD. I BASE THAT ON A DEVON WELL THAT IS VERTICAL THAT CAME IN AT 21MCFPD. I THINK SHELBY CO IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HAYNESVILLE SHALE. IF MY THINKING IS RIGHT, YOU WILL SEE SOME 50 MCFPD IN SHELBY COUNTY IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by HS on August 4, 2009 at 15:38

30-35 mmcf a little far out . dont think so. anyway the well was suppose to go on test this week according to my source. dont that that would be a good bet. where is the devon well that came in at 21mmcf. ill report when i find out on test

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on August 5, 2009 at 0:33

there is a Devon well in the Stockman CV field Oliver #4 vertical on line for ~1 year with first 9 months production 4.3 BCF a monster. IP tested 30mmcfd. There are two other wells near by the Case #3 2.5BCF and a XTO well Thomas #1 2 BCF both flowing for < 1 year. Other wells in area CV at only 1-2mmcfd. Make you wonder it the Oliver,Case,Thomas, and Davis wells so close to each other that this could be a Pinnacle Reef that was the "pot of gold" people where looking for accross the Sabine uplift fault in the 70's-80's. The Pinnacle reef is a formation about 4-5 miles diameter only and a uplift extention of the cotton valley lime upthru the shale,cv,tp like a volcano a very proliferative formation for gas. There where 100s millions of dollars spend looking for it then. You could see one reef about every 20-30,000 acres on seismic but had to hit it vertically perfect in middle or no big flow. Like needle in hay stack. The Gammage #1H in in central far East Nacgodoches county drilled by EOG/HK JV and I hear IP around 10+mmcfd

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by king john on August 5, 2009 at 2:45

a little dated but still a good read.....
Cotton Valley Reef Trend, East Texas Basin : Exploration and Diagenesis Model"

SpeakerDan Zeigler, SK Resources, Houston .

Abstract:
Exploration has exploded in the mature East Texas Basin for deep, over-pressured "pinnacle" reefs in the Cotton Valley Limestone (Haynesville). Reefs have been reported to be more than 800 ft high, 100 acres and contain as much as 100 BCF in a single reef.

The reefs germinated during Cotton Valley Lime deposition and grew into the mixed siliciclastic/carbonate environment of the Bossier Shale along compactional features, salt-withdrawal-induced fault scarps, and salt-cored and basement structures. Productive reefs always have abundant delicate finger coral, and faunal diversity has been seen to increase with wave energy. Generally, wave energy was moderate and the reefs grew within wave base. Deepwater microbial mounds have not been seen to date. Reef poisoning and growth-inhibiting influences of nearshore influxes of terrigenous sediment and fresh water have been inferred locally to have resulted in tight reefs. Cumulative reef height was driven by vertical accomodation space provided by long period (third order) relative sea-level rise.

In the East Texas basin, local salt withdrawal and regional tectonics caused by post-rift thermal subsidence were the dominant processes affecting sea level. Recent studies of the Upper Jurassic eustacy curve indicate that sea level was probably static and did not provide accomodation space globally. The Upper Jurassic was a time of "greenhouse" climate where smaller polar ice caps induced low amplitude (10Ð20 ft?) fourth-and fifth-order sealevel cycles. This composite sealevel curve provided the opportunity for reef communities to accumulate vertically via the third order rise and provided a mechanism to create significant porosity via the higher frequency sealevel fluctuations. Drops in sea level exposed reefs (islands) where rain collected at the near surface, generating a freshwater lens (water table).

Gross recrystallization occurred over much of the most recent reef cycle construction into micro-rhombic calcite and micro- to fine porosity. Less stable calcite components (aragonite, Mg calcite) morphed into more stable calcite and vugular porosity. These reefs are rhythmically stacked patch reefs that look like pancakes with synoptic relief probably never exceeding 50ft. Each "pancake" grew vertically 20Ð50ft. during each fourth or fifth order sealevel rise and was then leached during the subsequent drop.

Exceptions to this process have been inferred locally where local freshwater influx depressed the tops of the reefs to slightly deeper, preventing their exposure to freshwater leaching. The reefs backstep in space and time away from the locus of thermal subsidence at the center of the basin - a failed rift. There is ample evidence for these hypotheses from well logs, Sr and C/O isotopes, fluid inclusions, SEM, and petrography.

Biographical Sketch:
Daniel G. Zeigler grew up in Philadelphia , Pa. , and earned a B.S. in geology in 1977 from Indiana University of Pennsylvania. He started in the industry as a mudlogger with Baroid and independent geologist during 1977Ð1979. Zeigler became a staff geologist with Southeastern Exploration and Production Company (SEPCO) in 1980 and explored the Triassic rift graben frontier on the eastern seaboard until 1988. He returned to graduate school in 1988 at the University of Texas at Dallas Ph.D. program. He studied deformation using global positioning systems at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site, Baja California , and New Zealand .

In 1991, Zeigler joined SK Resources as a staff geologist. Since then, SK has become a major player in the Cotton Valley Reef Trend. Other areas of interest include the Mississippi Salt Trend, South Texas Sligo trend, and the Lodgepole Formation of North Dakota.

Figure caption:
First Stage: Reef grows in moderate to high energy environment. Fauna is dominated by corals and sponges; facies by grainstones. Second stage: Reef is exposed during sea-level drop. Much of the reef becomes finely porous because of recrystallization of micro-rhombic calcite. Dissolution of coral framework and grains enhance capacity and flow rates of fluids in the reef complex. Figure by Dan Zeigler.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on August 5, 2009 at 5:49

kj---thanks a good read that is what I was talking about I was wondering if these wells where in fact in a reef I may have been off on dates when 90's rather than 80's

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by king john on August 6, 2009 at 2:46

also another good read...dated '98.... using 3-d seismic data to identify reefs.
good charts in this article.... http://www.slb.com/media/services/resources/oilfieldreview/ors98/au...
kj

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page