Flat production of 1,000 bbls of oil per day for February and March:
|RPT DATE||LUW CODE||STORAGE FAC||DOC USE||WELL CNT||OPENING STK||OIL PROD(BBL)||GAS PROD(MCF)||DISPOSITION||CLOSING STK||PARISH|
I was told a couple of months ago by a LNG person on receiving end that they were receiving gas but it had stopped and he said it was extremely good clean gas. Not sure if that helps or means anything.
Lisa's comment would seem to support that fact that the gas is not sour. Nor does it contain a lot of inert components like nitrogen or CO2. Thanks for posting.
I guess we will never find out the gas quality (Btu / NGL yields) nor prices that were paid for this gas.
I see on the la state potential report dated 3/24/20 that the choke was 39. under remarks it says tested with electronic metering and that the system oil was sold to plains marketing.
Thanks for posting that, The "39" is probably a refence to a 39/64" choke size.
I am guessing that gas contracts are usually not posted on SONRIS / this would at least give us an idea of pricing metrics for this gas and if there would be a Btu correction or if the gas was going to processing plant to strip out NGL's.
Where do you see the test rate for May 24 of 937 bbls? If that is correct, that is very significant because it means the well has been producing essentially flat for 4 months (Feb and March have already been reported) and has cum'd 120,000 bbls.
I have been through all the SONRIS paperwork on the one completed Southwind SWD and can't find any information on max injection volumes or similar info. Only the perf interval (about 500' gross interval in what I believe is the Wilcox). No logs on SONRIS.
Is there someone else to in SONRIS to look for this data>
Texas RRC filings have all this detail - would think that SONRIS would do the same.
Side note - I wonder if they had been problems with this SWD that contributed to the Temp P&A decision?
13,000 BW per day / 390,000 BW per month may add up to some overpressured SWD zones pretty quickly
Louisiana now relies on Frac Focus regarding completion details. Go to their website and input the API number. I've got the formula for calculating the amount of proppant if you need it.
That helps for the Crowell well as to completion details but doesn't help with the SWD injection well details as to injection volumes.
I've never searched for SWD injection volumes. That data is not part of the SONRIS well file or the Document Access reports. I'll look at other search options and contact the staff if I don't find any reports.
Skip, thanks for looking into this. My gut is telling me that the SWD capabilities of the well that Crowell water was going to has a big part to play in what is happening here.
Imagine if SWD injector goes down or is only working at a lesser than planned capacity. With a 13,000 BW per day rate, on site temporary storage and subsequent SW trucking off site would create a crazy and expensive situation for the operator.
The second SWD well should be operable soon. I haven't looked at the coordinates but it is in the same section and I assume close enough to avoid truck transport costs. You might want to look at the formation where the salt water is being injected. If lower SWD costs are a key to economics, there may need to be one or two per producing well and they must be carefully controlled not to cause the kind of seismic problems that have occurred in OK and E TX.
Injection interval is in the Wilcox - some very good high P&P sands there. But the question will be the lateral extent of the individual SS zones into which the water is being injected - and you can't "map" this based on only a couple of wells.
Injecting 400,000 BW per month will fill up a sand and start to create abnormally higher pressure over time. And subsequently limit the ability of a SWD well to take water volume / one can only cram so much water into a finite / limited interval.
May need several SWD wells per producer in a "most probable" situation.
And what does a SWD injector cost? Another $750,000 to one million plus??
It is looking more and more like there is way too much water here to have economic Austin Chalk production like we are seeing in the Crowell. 13 BW for every BO killing the project here.
And with frac'ing, you can avoid the water (and the natural fractures that contain it).
© 2023 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher). Powered by