Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on July 18, 2010 at 15:06

Wonderful work! Thanks. I do this by hand and you obviously have a program that gets the data.

However, there is one problem with the analysis. It is not by day. Take well #1 on your list. G. Lormand was completed on 1/22/10 so the production was only 98 days, not the four months that your schedule indicates. If you are rounding (which is not good), it is far closer to 3 months than four.

Also, all production is by unit (terrible reporting by LDNR, which should do it by well AND by unit) so Roos 32 is more than one well for 13 of the 14 reporting months. Not that I wouldn't like to have Armand's royalty from only one of the two wells.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on July 18, 2010 at 15:13

W.R.,
You are right, but Led still did a great job with what a lot of people had been wanting to know. None of these types of analysis can be perfect.

Thanks Ledlights.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on July 18, 2010 at 15:22

I agree and certainly conveyed my thanks to Ledlights for his technical prowness and work effort on our behalf. Just in case you or anyone missed it, my words were "wonderful work. Thanks."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on July 18, 2010 at 18:09

W. R.,
I saw what you said, I meant no disrespect. I said you were right.
I just liked the post, realizing some inacuracies.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on July 18, 2010 at 15:52

W.R.:

Not to beat you about the head and shoulders, but this is information freely offered in the public domain. You could probably find out what the cum. production in the Roos unit has been on a per well basis, but it will more than certainly be fee-based info (unless someone in the unit with a paystub wishes to share their statements.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ledlights on July 18, 2010 at 16:35

Thanks W.R.

Since I my minerals are 99% in Texas, I rarely use Sonris - and my inexperience apparently shows. I did not even realize that the production was reporting for units rather just for wells (I don't have a clue as to why). I guess I'll have to spend a little more time getting familiar with Sonris. I just assumed that Roos well was one rocking well. Maybe I don't have to feel quite so bad about our Texas wells?

I have commented elsewhere that I was aware that my averages could include partial initial months. I deleted some of the zero months reported in Sonris so that would not bend those averages, but I left what were obvious partials - as you mention. If this was something besides recreational work I probably would have to fix this. As it is, if I post any results in the future, I will include a warning about that inaccuracy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ledlights on July 19, 2010 at 10:23

So the listed completion date or the "effective date" is considered the first day of production?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on July 18, 2010 at 17:15

Hardage:

I'm afraid they are, if they are completed to the same zone. The LUW code will embrace cumulative production from the unit well, as well as any substitute well(s) and/or alternates. The column "well count" will signify (with reasonable accuracy) how many wells are reported on the same LUW.

At this point, many of the Haynesville units have only one completion in them, but as more infill developement and alternate wells are brought online, this will change. At least unless or until the "fair drillers" have their say about it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ledlights on July 18, 2010 at 19:41

I am posting an updated version which includes info about how many wells are included in each production sum and when additional wells were added in the production reports. Interestingly - in one report there was production reported when there were supposedly 0 wells producing and one of the unit reports - Sample 4 - seems to switch from one month to the next back and forth between 1 well and 2 wells reporting production.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ledlights on July 18, 2010 at 19:42

Here's the updated screenshot

Attachments:

• LaHSWells_04_2010.jpg, 164 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ledlights on July 19, 2010 at 10:12

Thanks Lethal,

If you hold minerals in (or even near?) those units then those totals must be things of beauty.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on July 20, 2010 at 0:05

ledlights, et al.....Thanks again for your time and energy. As has been repeated here by Shale Geo and others, IP is certainly an important indicator of the poential of a well, but it is certainly NOT the only one. For example the, George Lormand 4 1-H in 13/11 is a monster well with one of the highest IP's in he play at 28,751 mcf/day. It has a cum production in its 1st 4 months of 1.663 B's. It started producing on the 22nd of the month, so its 1st month was only a partial month. Now lets look at the Ninock 34 in 15/11. It had an IP of 21,800 mcf/day and didn't make your list of the best wells. It also started producing in the 22nd of its 1st month. In its 1st 4 months it produced 1.834 B's, clearly more gas than the well some consider to be the best well in the play. Obviously, IP's don't mean everything. It will be interesting to see how those two new wells in Texas with IP's over 30,000 mcf hold up.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page