Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 25, 2015 at 9:34

Assertions in the article aside, the Encana Haynesville re-fracs that have been discussed here do not seem to provide a sufficient return on investment.  The technology is still evolving and the jury is out.  What all Haynesville operators know is that they have left behind a lot of un-stimulated, non-producing rock.  A lot of that rock lies in the unit set backs that limited lateral lengths  before the state decided to approve Cross Unit Laterals.  A CUL well is so designated by the letters, HC, in the well name.  The latest well designs with longer laterals and pressure pumping greater volumes of water and sand have improved profitability sufficiently to lure back all the original Haynesville operators, or their successors regardless of NG prices  Those profit margins are now benefiting from reduced drilling and completion costs.  Indeed all service costs have been driven down in an increasingly competitive environment that should last through the remainder of the year. 

As to P&A wells, there is no general answer for that question.  There are a lot of dry holes among those P&As plus wells with collapsed casings and other mechanical problems that will not allow for a re-frac.  In addition to efforts to design economic re-frac methods the industry is attempting to define what  well/formation characteristics make for a good re-frac candidate.  When energy companies and pressure pumping contractors figure out a successful formula we won't have to hunt for articles.  It will be splashed across the Internet and touted in every corporate presentation and press release.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by olddog573 on February 26, 2015 at 3:21

This is a well Im watching.  They worked on it during December

http://sonlite.dnr.state.la.us/sundown/cart_prod/cart_con_wellinfo2...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 26, 2015 at 3:27

Thanks, olddog.  Please re-post the link as the next few months' production is entered in the database.  This was a very good well initially.  I don't recall any of the prior re-fracs mentioned having this good of a profile. 

From the monthly L/U/W production reports it would appear the well was taken off line in November and returned to production in December.  The average monthly production for Aug.-Oct. was 10,968 mcf.  We can compare that to the average of the three months after re-frac (Dec.-Feb.) and get an idea of not only the increase in production but also the decline rate. 

If the December production is taken as the average for the first three months of production after re-frac (no decline) at $2/mcf profit to ECA would be about $110,000.  That would not appear to be economic for a process that cost $1 to $2 million. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by olddog573 on April 21, 2015 at 1:49

89460 IN JAN

842430 IN FEB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 21, 2015 at 1:54

You've got an extra zero on the end of Feb. production.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by olddog573 on April 21, 2015 at 4:08

Sure do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 21, 2015 at 4:51

LOL!  For the record, the January production was 89,460 mcf and February was 84,243 mcf. Please keep posting.  The 90 and 180 day IP numbers will give a good picture of the decline rate and the long term economics of the refrac operation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DellP on February 27, 2015 at 16:06

Wonder if the new fully automated (trip-in and trip-out) drilling rigs can make these refracs cost effective?  Have a look at the comments in this oilpro article where they name such rigs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 28, 2015 at 3:08

A drilling rig is not involved in the re-frac process.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James W. Mangham on March 1, 2015 at 9:42

We have an Encana refrack in Red River Parish.  The well was never abandoned.  We got the first refrack payment this month.  Don't know if it was for a full month of production.  The refrack production was about 1/5 of the original first full month of production. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert E. Anderson on March 6, 2015 at 22:31

Is this all there is at Haynesville?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 7, 2015 at 0:46

This a discussion thread concerning the Haynesville Shale.  The Haynesville Formation is sand, not shale, in the area of the Town of Haynesville.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page