Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paul M. Hess on February 20, 2011 at 0:39

Thanks, Jeff! A very interesting log. I definitely need to get my hands on some literature to better understand these newer "high tech" logs.

Permalink Reply by jeff boler on February 20, 2011 at 14:54

Paul, that is a traditional log made to look fancy... I had the gamma-ray plotted un-smoothed from 0 to 150, smoothed from 0 to 300 and then just colored the area in between dark blue. I also plotted the total gas analysis in the same track and played around with the 'area fills' option until I thought I had a log that looked 'high-tech'... Everything that appears extra is redundant information, except for the middle trace which plots ECD, BHT, Porosity (as derived from ND), and unfortunately I can't recall what the dashed line in that track represents.

Permalink Reply by Paul M. Hess on February 21, 2011 at 0:31

Thanks, Jeff! That possibility crossed this one track mind of mine. It is so in tune to the good ole DIL that I didn't give it another thought. Does appear to be a slight bit of fracturing in it. As I said before, natural fractures, IMHO, are the key! Whether it is Barnett, Fayetteville, Bossier/Haynesville, Marcellus, Woodford, Eagleford, Bakken, brown dense and so on, natural fractures and in situ porous stringers, and well designed completions, will be the key to the sweet spot wells. Thanks again for the log---

Permalink Reply by Bob Nies on February 20, 2011 at 9:33

Been away these past six weeks, so it was interesting to dig in and get up to date.... as I commented back then, this is going to be a slow process in developing a stock price because of all the uncertainties on this project.... until there is a CAOF test (after the frack job is complete), we will not see much action on the stock price.

Potential based on actual production "might" look like this!!!!

10 MMCFDP = $2.50 per share

20 MMCFPD = $5.00 per share

30 MMCFPD = $10.00 per share

Anything above that and Katy bar the door.....

 

Just my way of looking at this......

 

I think that whoever mentioned getting in an industry partner for a properly engineered Smackover/Norphlet test will be the way for MNLU to go... it fits their modus operandi.

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on February 20, 2011 at 13:13

Many of them have tested a lot less than that, Jay.  A vertical I have an own minerals in ....Section 5 of 13/9 (Encana) IP'd @ 312 mcf.  In the adjacent section 6, the well IP'd 18.7 million and made 2 Billion in 4 months.  Lucky me!

Permalink Reply by jeff boler on February 20, 2011 at 14:39

As this thread has mentioned on numerous occasions:

 

-The haynesville in North LA is 200' thick, it is 2000' thick in this well which is more comparable to the horizontal lengths in North LA...

 

-Pressure in North LA =8000psi; Pressure in this well =21000psi

Permalink Reply by jeff boler on February 20, 2011 at 14:46

Do you really think that Mainland would have risked what they did for a 1 MMCF/D Well. This project was developed by the engineer who drilled the original well for chevron, and he knew what was down there. 

Wells that threaten a blow-out when you have 19 lb/gal mud in the hole tend to produce more than 1 MMCF/D. 

Permalink Reply by Flip Phillips on February 21, 2011 at 6:24

Few questions for the board:

Can a vertical well be converted to a horizontal after the fact? Say they wanted to go horizontal at the 15,000 mark, could it be done?

Secondly, wouldn't 'natural fracking' have an inherent permeability greater than nanodarcies? Seems logical.

Lastly, wouldn't fracking a 2000' section in a vertical well be similar to fracking a 2000' horizontal section? Again, thinking logically (and naively), isn't the bulk of shale grained (layered, seamed) horizontally. And if so, I would think forcing frac material with the 'seams' would be better than perpenticular to the seams.

Thanks

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 21, 2011 at 6:49

Flip, as long as the casing is of sufficient diameter, yes to going horizontal.  Fractures, naturally occurring and propagated by the hydraulic frac, are important but the natural permeability will still factor into the production.  In comparing lateral length and orientation to horizontal Haynesville Shale wells in NW. LA.,  the average length is ~4500', so 2000' is about 45%.  And you are thinking logically regarding the difference between the formation by vertical vs. horizontal cross section.  In my backyard the operator drills through the entire extent of the shale and then selects the depth that appears to contain the superior net pay.  They attempt to keep the full lateral length in that defined portion of the gross thickness.  Laterals here are drilled on an approximate north/south axis in order to intersect as much of the naturally occurring fractures as possible.  The few wells with east/west laterals have been poor producers and are few in number.

Permalink Reply by jeff boler on February 22, 2011 at 21:29

I think you are forgetting the Natural Fracture System which will have permeabilities in the 10's to 100's of darcies.

 

Have you read this discussion??? Because it appears that you read one or two post and then blindly react to them without considering the big picture. I hate to be rude, but over the last 8 months you have shown a pattern of not considering all the facts.

Permalink Reply by jeff boler on February 22, 2011 at 22:00

Why don't you post this log so that we can all take a look... Not the Log Header, but the actual Log...

Permalink Reply by Flip Phillips on February 20, 2011 at 12:06

Man..... the more posts I read, the more Q? I have. I'll just sit back, watch.... and hope these points are addressed. I'd be happy to contribute if I could, but you guys are light years ahead of me. I will say that I've gotten a sense that the departing CEO was not a freindly/compatable/getalong.. (my words) CEO and it might be a good thing that he's out.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 42
• 43
• 44
• 45
• 46
• …
• 64
• Next ›
• Page