Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 20, 2008 at 4:50

I would hate to see a total ban on vert drilling into the HA, You will see many as test wells in thefringe areas, where they will produce what they can to try and recoup some of the cost.

Also, you never know what the future will bring in terms of better technology.

That being said, in current conditions in proven areas, I do believe that Conservation should take some stand on how the HA is developed. One of the goals of the Office of Consv. is to allow for efficient exploration of hydrocarbons, while limiting the number of wells drilled. This is the guiding principle of spacing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on November 20, 2008 at 11:11

Conservation was initially put together to make sure reservoirs were not OVER drilled and OVER produced. That's where the spacing limitations came from. Plus, there needed to be some protection to keep a company from draining other folks. By drilling vertical wells in lieu of horizontal wells, companies definetly won't be OVER drilling or OVER producing so I don't think that will be a problem. Drainage protection, maybe a good issue to pursue, particularly if your unit has a dinky vertical well and the adjacent lease/unit has a booming horizontal well.

But you'll have a fight. Where would they stop? Regulating the number of perforations, the amount of frac's performed, the volume of the frac's? Slippery slope! First tenent: make sure hydrocarbons are not wasted. Second, protect against leakage across lease/unit lines. After that, don't know. Don't think its their job to maximize the income/net present value. If you get the max out, Conserv. probably isn't concerned if you get it in 5 years or 50.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on November 21, 2008 at 3:37

But in the reg's "efficient" is focused on "not wasting" as in not wasting any gas or not wasting any money drilling extra wells to help protect your resource. They do not focus on getting the gas out in a timely fashion, just that none is wasted and that extra wells aren't drilled/wasted. Again, 5 years or 50 years, the reg doesn't care as long as recovery is not harmed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 21, 2008 at 3:49

Actually, Conservation tends to push towards slower recovery rates. Through the use of allowables and well spacing. This is due to tha fact that some formations can be damaged if they are pulled to hard, which sometimes causes the oil or gas in the formation to be unrecoverable or recoverable at great expense or effort. This may not apply to the HA shale, but time will tell.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 21, 2008 at 4:13

A damaged formation won't produce anything.

I've seen good wells pulled to hard. You end up with tanks of salt water and not much oil.

I've seen gas wells start producing sand. Do you know what sand does to the wellhead? The equipment at the wellsite? Sand coming out of a well with high pressure gas is like a sandblaster.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 20, 2008 at 6:15

Watch out Jim, you going to get KB all riled up.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 20, 2008 at 7:58

I've been an innocent spectator to some good ones...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 20, 2008 at 8:37

No, just wanted somthing new, I've always been a history bufff.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by louisiana lady on November 20, 2008 at 12:01

Thanks to everyone for the info. As an outsider, it appears that the rules might need some updating with respect to HA wells. What worked for CV and other formations might not address particulars for the shale. In trying to sort out why a permit could be granted with limited leased minerals and less actual knowledge of existing geo, I have more questions than answers. I expected a more professional approach and not the "squatters rights" movement that seems to be in process from the first pre-app hearing I attended.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by louisiana lady on November 20, 2008 at 12:15

That is my take, and I went into this hearing with a different perspective entirely. Thought with the dollars at stake, that it would be a more professional presentation. Left with entirely different ideas. Didn't go as a rabble rouser...they made me one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 20, 2008 at 12:59

Good grief!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on November 20, 2008 at 13:04

LL, one approach would be for the state to require the unit operator to file a development plan within one year of receiving the unit approval. This is similar to feds requiring development plans for offshore leases. Another possibility would be to require units to the reduced in size after ten (five?) years, releasing any acreage that has not been developed. Developed acreage would be defined as a certain distance from horizontal wells or vertical wells. Therefore horizontal wells would hold more acreage and reward those efforts. I know this is out of the box, but it could be implemented.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page