The recently released Chesapeake report included Haynesville Shale decline curve data from the initial wells. I was surprised to see a steeper curve than the Barnett Shale data. I am interested in the reasons for the steepness of the HS production decline and feel that those who are about to be first time recipients of royalty income should be aware of the affect. It does appear that though the initial years' decline is greater, the HS curve is flatter over the productive life of a well. What formation conditions and/or production methods explain the difference and does the decline percentage correlate directly to royalty income?
All you need to do is look at the reported production history for every producing well in the Haynesville at the Louisiana Office of Conservation website and you will see that every Haynesville Well will face a steep decline in production. This is the nature of the beast - tight gas formations such as the Haynesville Shale will only give up "big" production during the first few months (after frac stimulation) and will decline rapidly until they reach a very small relative flow rate (to initial production) at which rate they may produce for years.
I am a geologist with 35 years experience(for what it's worth). I believe the decline rate for year one will be closer to 90%(oh s*#t). These companys are hyping this play to find partners, and as usual are being overly optimistic. As a professional that invests his own $ in wells in La., I would not touch this play with a 10 foot pole. Working interest partners will lose their ass until prices reach $8.50. Eventually this play will become economical, but right now the only ones making $ are the royalty owners.
CB, I am curious to hear your opinion on the comments made on Devon's conference call recently that they thought the wells in TX may have a slower decline rate than those on the LA side. Does this bode well for the Texas side of things? Is it just too darn early to tell? Does it make any difference in the long run as they stated that the recoverable gas would be 6.5-8 bcf per well which seems very similar to the estimates on the LA side of things?
The Texas wells will have less reserves. This is because the IPs are lower, but the decline rates will be the same as Louisiana wells. Really very simple logic. Companys are playing everything up. Why would they have slower decline rates, same damn formation.
CB, this is outside of my expertise but certain recent consultant statements suggest the rock properties are different in some regions of the play. This would mean a well could have a flatter initial decline curve.
The Haynesville formation varies. For example, as you travel north into Ark. the shale turns to sand. It is reasonable to assume that different areas will have different properties.
Perhaps Jay or someone else with geological background can elaborate.