Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on June 19, 2009 at 3:01

Thanks SB.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Buddy on June 19, 2009 at 9:41

W.R., Spring and Les: P'hawk began fracing the Sec 8 Sample well yesterday or the day before - word of that one should be coming out soon.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on June 19, 2009 at 15:46

SB,

We have so few units/sections with more than one well. As more drilling occurs, will the production of all wells in the unit be combined and reported as if one well? If so, it will be impossible to tract decline rates of individual wells. Bummer if this is the case.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on June 18, 2009 at 17:50

WR, thanks for taking the time to provide the information even though it was for two wells as noted by Spring Branch.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on June 18, 2009 at 17:51

Please note the updated list is available at the following location:

http://haynesvilleshale.ning.com/group/drillingriglocations/forum/t...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on June 19, 2009 at 8:58

Les, please note that w.r. frank discovered well # 22 for the Haynesville Hall of Fame list...........in 13/11, Section 25. Way to go w.r.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RJ on June 20, 2009 at 11:19

OK we have the best now how about the bottom wells. Can you do a bottom 20. Maybe then we could get some sort of average.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on June 20, 2009 at 16:25

The worst wells would be that way because 1) they were out on the edge of the geographical limits of the play, as in T 19, or 2) they had mechanical or casing problems and are not representative or 3) they were drilled very early in the play when the companies were drilling science projects, with short horizontal laterals, few fracs, little proppant, and were in general trying to be very secretive. In all three cases they are not representative of the play. We will eventually come up with average IP's for the wells, but the averages will be for different areas of the play. For example, the average for a well in Bethany-Longstreet will be different from the average for a well in Elm Grove, or Holly, or Swan Lake/Thorn Lake, or Bull Bayou.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The Old Goat on June 21, 2009 at 1:54

Where did this information come from? I have mineral holdings in 24 T13N R11W and have not been informed of the completed well production report. Sonris does not report a completion on well #239163. Are we now making up our own facts?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 21, 2009 at 2:34

Good morning, TOG. I do not see the well you mention on Les's list or in the discussion thread. Your comment however caused me to look at the well you mention on SONRIS. There is no completion information under "Scout Info". However it does state that the well has been "potentialed". If you look at the third file section below the Scout Info, you will find "Well Allowables" and the number 19,317 MCFD. This is the Initial Production (IP) for well #238976. If you would like to confirm for yourself that the figure for Allowables is the same as that for IP, you can look at some of the other wells on the list. 238976 appears to be a darn good well. Congratulations.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on June 21, 2009 at 15:37

Dear AH TOG,

Since I am the one who posted the information, let me suggest you read, or re-read, what I said. I said well # 239,163 had been potentialed on Sonris at 20.765 mmcfd. I did NOT say it had been completed. I suggest you read Skip and Jim Krow's posts below. I also suggest you go to SONRIS and read about a well before you accuse somebody of "making up facts."

Why would somebody give you a production report on section 25 if you have property in section 24?

I was trying to supply early positive info I discovered on Sonris, which, frankly, is positive to you if you have land in an adjoining section. You should thank me, rather than attack the messenger. That is what is wrong with this site! We all make errors, but we try not to "make up facts." Get off my case!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The Old Goat on June 21, 2009 at 8:01

My mistake on the well section. sec25 not 24(did not proof read) 025-13N-11W has been reported on this site as completed and producing 20.8MMCFD but I can find no production records to back that up.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page