Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 3, 2013 at 9:10

The Office of Conservation requires a 330' set back from unit boundaries to the closest perforation points in the lateral, except in the case of Cross Unit Laterals.  The only reason to move a lateral location is if it were to be proposed closer than the 330'.  This is enforced by the state regardless of the operator of the adjoining units.  The state makes certain assumptions that may or may not be accurate.  The first being that the radius of a Haynesville Shale frac cylinder is ~300'.  They then add a "fudge factor" (my terminology) of 30' in order to account for variations in fracture propagation.  I think the state further assumes, with some goodly reason, that even if an operator could frac a greater radius they would not do so for fear of compromising the production zone.  In other words the thickness of the HS does not exceed ~ 300' in areas with which I am familiar.  Stimulating fractures beyond the shale runs the risk of communication with adjacent strata which may be water prone.  Pumping at pressures exceeding those required to fracture the production zone is an invitation for mechanical problems such as casing collapse or screen out.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by HBP on September 3, 2013 at 11:39

I agree that the state has approved certain spacing for a reason, but practically speaking I don't think it is inaccurate to suspect the spacing requirements do not always protect adjacent owners from drainage.  Of course who has the time, money, and experts to prove it.....  a landowner proving it in the HA formation would be extremely difficult.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 3, 2013 at 11:55

I agree, HBP.  However I think that if it was viewed as a pervasive problem by the industry we would have seen associated litigation by now.  Then again owing to the petrophysical variations across the basin the potential for fractures exceeding the theoretical radius limit would be greater in the southern limits of the proven Haynesville Shale where there is less clay and more brittle rock.  Much of that area is under lease to just three companies, two of which are partners.  I think there is also less infill drilling in that area to date.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 1kw6x71km1v37 on September 3, 2013 at 8:31

Those "kicks" are probably just from the concussion of nearby fracking. No hydrocarbons will migrate through the concussion zone, of the cost of fracturing would be much lower. Migration is only a factor  in tight sands if the formation is naturally fractured such as the Austin Chalk.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GoshDarn on September 3, 2013 at 8:59

cheap shot:

In the context of this discussion, when you say "no hydrocarbons will migrate" . . . are you limiting that opinion strictly to NG?

As most know, per old shallower technology, liquid oil is known to migrate.  Without any technology input, even the hydrology of a water level can cause oil to flow to other locations.

Oil does migrate.  Question is, in natural fractures -- say in oil shale -- how much would it migrate?

Now, changing the context -- in the Buda formation say in Grimes County, TX -- since there is natural fracturing, would kicks from new-well fracking possibly cause liquid oil to migrate to a hz which was drilled -- but not fracked -- about 2 years ago?

Oh, and that was a cute joke about landmythology at Western State Co. U., since their courses in "Professional Land and Resource Management" do look informative.    

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gatrpaw on September 3, 2013 at 16:20

I guess as long as it is the same operator and they have all the effected adjoining land leased you can keep hanging to that theory of concussion. It would be hard to pass that over on some of the operators, geologists and rigs that have experienced it. 

If the right people are asked they will tell you there are areas of the Haynesville shale that have been found to have what acts like natural fractures that can extend for unknown distances. Until stimulated by fracing and there is a well being drilled nearby along that fracture or something changes on the flow rates of an existing well nearby, nobody knows it is there.

I heard these fractures were first discovered in areas of DeSoto and also in an area around Ringgold. Can I prove it, nope. I have just been able to witness the results and have also had it explained by a geologist involved in the Haynesville shale.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew on September 5, 2013 at 7:13

If the land next to the producing unit is under lease, the lessee has the obligation to drill offset wells if necessary to prevent drainage, although the mineral owner would have to prove drainage was likely to occur. If there is no lease, the landowner can go drill their own well. Those are the only two options. A landowner will never get paid money damages for drainage even if a whole ocean of oil is drained from his land by a nearby well.

Practically, I agree with HBP that it would terribly hard to prove the extent of drainage in the Haynesville Shale, because even the experts probably can't determine that for sure. Hopefully D Laurensen has a lease that must be drilled to be maintained.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page