Does past field productivity have any bearing on current production?

Does the historical record of a field's productivity have any bearing on it's current or future productivity, in light of the fact that the technology used now is so advanced?
The field of my land's historical productivity is dismal compared to other fields in the parish according to SONRIS.

I am assuming one does not have anything to do with the other, because the economics to drill in my field in previous years was not conducive to making money, the well were vertical, the wells were not to the Haynesville, and the technology was not as it is today.

Am I kidding myself? (i.e. Trenton v Caspiana or Bethany Longstreet)

Tags: fields, production, report, trenton, well

Views: 60

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 17, 2008 at 5:12
Sounds like a question for Jay.
Permalink Reply by insomniacnla on November 17, 2008 at 12:28
I did ask Jay this question back in the spring. I asked Jay if previous and/or current production (or lack thereof) are any indicators as to whether a particular area may be favorable to Haynesville production. He said that it did not and explained his reasons why. I believe that he answer was included in "Ask Jay the Geologist".

If I can find it, I will cut and paste it here.
Permalink Reply by Catfish on November 17, 2008 at 5:12
I recently leased land that had no historic production in the section, only a few dry wildcat wells way in the past. I guess if the shale is there past production would only factor if it was hbp or other zones such as the CV could be productive therefore could be drilled for even more production.
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on November 17, 2008 at 5:14
VCO,

I am also interested in this.

The HS is said to be the source rock for the other plays. But if the other plays haven't produced or haven't produced well, does this make our property is better or worse?

One theory that I have heard is that if the salt sealed it off from seeping up it could mean it would be substantially better.

I hope some of the experts will give us their opinion.
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 17, 2008 at 5:40
Parker,

I have heard recently from a represenative from plains exploration who is partners with CHK, that the HA still holds much of its gas. They stated that the shale retains the gas in small pores in the rock and that this prevents the gas from migrating out.

All of this is hearsay for me, I don't know if this means that the HA will be equally productive in areas outside the big existing fields or not.
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on November 17, 2008 at 5:45
Baron,

There are a lot of "holes" between the productive fields. Maybe the acquisition costs were too high or maybe there were other issues. I'm hoping for the salt explanation to be correct.

I was once told that my property would never be leased because it was "just salt". It has been leased, so I'm hoping the salt concentrated it all in one location. That would be good for me and good for the gas company. Who doesn't like a win/win situation?
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 17, 2008 at 6:04
Are they refering to the Louann Salt?

Have any deep wells been drilled around you that show this?

I believe that the productive fields were drilled first because there is more known of the geology in these areas. Then they will work their way out into the unknown.
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on November 17, 2008 at 9:21
Thanks Jim,

I thought it was the other way around.

The shale in my area is referenced as being between 9702 feet and 11,334 feet. Would that be an anticline of a syncline?
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on November 17, 2008 at 12:15
I'd rather stick with the 9702 - 11, 334!

But would like to know JUST how much thickness matters.
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 17, 2008 at 13:13
VCO. I have not heard that the HS is the source rock for other plays. That would be indicative of a "conventional" play. One element that makes the HS an "unconventional" play is that it is both "source rock", where the organic material was deposited and then compressed and heated over time to create oil or gas, and the "reservoir rock" where the oil or gas can be tapped for production. In "conventional" resource plays, oil or gas is produced in one formation (that is permeable, allowing for flow) but then migrates upward until it is trapped and accumulated in another geologic formation that is impermeable (not allowing for flow). The HS is a "tight" formation meaning that the pores in the rock holding the oil or gas are not well connected. Prohibiting or retarding flow to other geological formations. This characteristic is important. Instead of oil or gas accumulating in isolated geological structures, it remains relatively equally distributed within the entirety of the HS where it was created. In 'conventional" resource plays some locales are productive and others are not. In the HS, the natural gas is present throughout the entire extent of the formation. This is why we do not hear reports of "dry holes". And why the tight shale formations discovered across the U. S. are described as being more akin to manufacturing than to conventional oil or gas plays.
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 18, 2008 at 4:20
Jim,

I understand that the thicker the zone the better.

However, have you heard anything about how far above and below the lateral can be effectivly fraced?
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 18, 2008 at 6:21
I would think that they would try to engineer the frac so they stayed well within the shale to avoid sands that might produce saltwater. Do you think this is a fair assumption?

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service