Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 17, 2009 at 14:37

D. I'm curious. I have monitored E. TX. discussions previously looking for posts of state reports equivalent to the LA. Office of Conservation Well Files that contain drilling and completion data. I have never seen one. And being familiar with permits, you can permit anything from the soles of your shoes to China and it does not require you to actually drill there. IMO, it merely provides a wide array of options as to permitted depth as an operator gathers the science generated by drilling and logging a well.

Permalink Reply by DJG on December 17, 2009 at 14:15

Also, is there any pertinent info from Cabot's verticle Katherine Von Goetz #3 well?

Verticle completion in the Bossier at 13,605, but permited and drilled (?) to 16,000'

W-1:
http://webapps.rrc.state.tx.us/dpimages/img/500000-599999//PR000051...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on December 17, 2009 at 17:01

KVG #3 was logged to 13830'.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 17, 2009 at 17:05

And permitted to 16,000'. But the question is, how deep did it actually drill?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DJG on December 17, 2009 at 17:24

Theoretical question for anyone that knows:

What is the policy with TRRC regarding making public record of well logs for depths where the O&G is not currently producing?

Let's say a well is actually drilled to 16,000', but the (current) producing depth is actually at 13-14K'. Is the operator required to release the logs for everything, or just the for the depths up to that 13-14K' producing level.

If this question is applied to this Cabot/KVG well the question would be did they actually drill any further than 13,830' and - if so - can they withold information on the logs as propriatary information for all depths below that 13,830'????

Any thoughts or hard info out there?

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on December 17, 2009 at 17:54

The driller and the logger, as well as the engineer who signed the inclination report all say 13830' so, unless you have all of these people (and companies) conspiring to decieve, I'd tend to think that the well was drilled to 13830'.

Permalink Reply by DJG on December 17, 2009 at 18:38

Not saying there is any conspiracy to decieve, just asking what the official policy is. So, as far as releasing the public information is concerned, then the logs info is published for all depths drilled and not just up until the "producing" level. Am I understanding that properly.

Permalink Reply by Allen D, Beckham on December 17, 2009 at 19:12

According to the way I read the form W 1 listed above by D. Gaar the wildcat portion was drilled to 16,000 ft. Note the remarks section states that the wildcat "will" not produce but does not state 'cannot produce".

Permalink Reply by Cheerleader on December 17, 2009 at 13:42

Allen D. Beckham,
Is the bottom line, if oil exists, in the depths you are discussing, the salt is the determining factor surrounding the oil bearing formation??

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Allen D, Beckham on December 17, 2009 at 16:27

Correct, but that does not imply that that the LouAnn salt in Shelby Cty. has the faulting or folding as does the Sigsbee Escarpment which is where the Chevron Tiber is located.
My earlier post was as effort to shift the conversation to the deep drilling going on in Shelby Cty, and it appears to have done that, with a lot of good info coming from some very knowledgable people on this thread. Keep it coming, may we can get someone in the know to answer.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on December 17, 2009 at 13:19

And this has nothing to do with the geology of NWLA EAST TX

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DJG on December 17, 2009 at 14:25

Yes, of course we agree that the Brazilian discovery has nothing to do with LA/TX.

The discussion, however, is sidetracking to questions surrounding what is going on with all of those VERY deep permits that are now happening in Shelby/San Augustine and other E.Texas regions. That, I'd say, has everything to do with the geology of LA/TX.

• ▶ Reply

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