Initially GEP was going to drill each section. That changed to CULs in some sections including section 6,7 in T14 R14 last summer. Now they have refilled their plan to drill from Sec. 18 of 14/14 into just HALF of sec. 7.  I don't think I have seen  a CUL going into just half a section when same operator has both sections. Any ideas?

Views: 783

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It's not rare.  There are a number of potential reasons.

GEP has ALL of sec. 18 (14/14), up to Dixie Swim Club Rd in Sec. 7 of 14/14 and the new drilling map shows the CUL stopping at Dixie Swim Club Rd. Other half of Sec. 7 is Covey Park.  Would an operator stop because of another operator having almost half the section? I have just never seen this big of a change in drilling plans. There has to be a reason. Wells in 6,7, 18 were all good. I don't there is anything wrong with area

kcm, the only reason you think something is wrong is because you are inexperienced.  If you looked at every published alternate well application, as I do, you would have seen this group well design many times.  Just because it is being used in one or more sections where you have an interest doesn't mean something is wrong.  It does not indicate that GEPH thinks something is wrong with the rock in the N/2 of Section 7.

Covey Park has no operating authority in Section 7.  GEPH is the operator of sections 6, 7 & 18.  Not all Haynesville operators are enamored with drilling 10K to 15K laterals like CHK.  Some prefer 7500' laterals.  Those that do have numerous alternate well applications that look like this however many also include in the same application matching wells drilled in the opposite direction which gives a more obvious rational for this particular well group design.  In other words, GEPH will use the same surface locations to drill 7500' laterals north at some point in the future.  It is helpful to keep in mind that no Haynesville operator intends to leave one recoverable mcf behind if they can help it.  They will design groups of wells to produce as much as they can as cheaply as they can.

Listen to Skip. The economics of drilling 10-12 of the 7500' wells over the three (3) sections might look better in the area than drilling 5-6 10K wells and 5-6 single section 4500' laterals. There are a lot of reasons for companies to continue changing the drilling plans as new data becomes available.

I think it is easy for the public to get focused on long laterals since the energy media touts lateral length to the exclusion of other equally or more important well design elements.  Here in the LA Haynesville/Bossier basin, there are two elements of the new well designs that are more important than lateral length.

When the state approved Cross Unit Laterals, the wells labeled "HC", they effectively removed the "no perf" zones on the north and south ends of each single section drilling unit.  That is a lot of rock that was not previously stimulated (fracked) and therefore not produced.  That is a lot of gas that is now produced by HC wells.  Add this to the new "high intensity" completion designs and you have the main reasons why well EURs have increased so much.  Early Haynesville wells might have had about 1200# of proppant per linear foot of perforated lateral.  Now the average across all the Haynesville operators is in the range of 2800# to 3400#.


© 2020   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service