Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 26, 2009 at 6:43

BB, great article and excellent job of posting. Unfortunately the Uinta-Piceance Basin has been particularly hard hit by low natural gas prices. Rig count is currently 41 which is down 69% from the peak of 133 rigs last fall.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LP on July 26, 2009 at 6:54

Hope Exxon starts putting in CNG pumps in their service stations.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 26, 2009 at 7:57

LP, I agree with principle. Just realize that most gasoline stations are privately owned so ExxonMobil would not be involved in that decision.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on July 27, 2009 at 6:14

From months to weeks

In the 1980s, frac jobs could take months. Now a complicated frac typically takes a couple of weeks. Exxon's Tolman developed a method to fracture a Piceance Basin well in three days, and he thinks he can compress it to 24 hours.


This is the part of the article that intrigues me. They are drilling a number of wells with surface locations in close proximity, skidding the rig from one to the next. Then they are fracking all in sequence at the same time. It's the first actual description that I've seen of a superpad in action. Cutting well completion costs is going to be critical for operators in this economic environment.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on July 27, 2009 at 7:00

jffree - I agree about costs needing to come down and this method may be one way of doing so. I'm going to borrow from Keith's blog about play comparisons, the chart in his link says it all. Range's Marcellus well costs are much lower than the HS well costs, as shown on that chart. Gas in storage aside, I believe the companies/operators will be much happier to drill here if our well costs were more competetive. IMO, it's one way to offset the current ng prices and improve ROI.

http://b2icontent.irpass.cc/790%2F96362.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=1Y51NDPS...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on July 27, 2009 at 8:07

Sesport, I think part of the reason Marcellus wells are cheaper is that they are not as deep as Haynesville. Same thing in Barnett. While that chart is comparing "shale" plays, all shale plays are not created equal meaning they are not all the same geologically (rocks, depth, temp., etc...) That chart was designed to sell stock. Jay, where are you?... correct me if I am wrong about that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on July 27, 2009 at 8:24

jffree - (Sorry, still have a malfunctioning action with "Reply" buttons)

I do recognize that part of the reason for cost differences is that there are different strategies needed to develop the different plays. I've even seen info saying different strategies may be needed in the SAME field. (This was in some other Marcellus info I read.) And yes, I do understand the 2 plays are at different depths as I saw the graphics in your "Shale Primer" link.

I'm just agreeing with you that it's a "Good Thing" (credit to Martha Stewart) if our well costs come down.

best - :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on July 27, 2009 at 13:26

I absolutely agree about that. They are moving... slowly.

• ▶ Reply