Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on July 24, 2011 at 7:12

That is certainly what it would appear to be.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on July 24, 2011 at 7:19

The weird thing is that the proposed true vertical depth is the same on both, but the measured depth is 1000 feet longer on the second one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aubrey C. Sanders, Jr. on July 24, 2011 at 9:15

Sounds like some kind of dual completion to me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bill R on July 24, 2011 at 9:37

Okay, I'll bite.... what is a dual completion?

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on July 24, 2011 at 9:59

Bill,

That's when they produce two or even three separate zones through two or three production strings from one well head. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 24, 2011 at 11:32

Aubrey, this well would not be a dual completion as they are two separate wellbores.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 24, 2011 at 11:30

HY, the second well has a shallower proposed TVD (12000 ft) than the actual TVD (12493 ft) drilled in the first well.  This would indicate the second well is likely a proposed Mid-Bossier Shale test as the first well was completed in the Haynesville Shale.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by FXEF on July 24, 2011 at 12:05

Hale,

These are two completely different wells, with different surface locations and bottom hole locations. Most likely all the two wells will share is the pad site and the HA RA SUU;GETULIO BREWER 3 H name.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on July 24, 2011 at 14:47

FXEF,

You are right. Two entirely different wells. But only about 30' or 35' apart. And they have to share the same surface location. And share very near the same PBHL. It has to be Haynesville/Bossier completions. They could not drill another Haynesville at that position. I have a felling when they complete the new well, it will be at a true vertical depth less that the 12000' they listed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on July 24, 2011 at 14:01

I agree with FXEF. 

Look at the surface location and bottom hole location for  240551.  They are:  369' FSL & 380' FWL OF SEC 34. PBHL: 330' FSL & 380' FWL OF SEC 3.

Look at the surface location and bottom hole location for 243564.  They are:  322' FSL & 359' FWL OF SEC 34. PBHL: 343' FSL & 356' FWL OF SEC 3.

The two surface locations are 50' apart.  Looks like two different wells to me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aubrey C. Sanders, Jr. on July 25, 2011 at 9:21

Certainly not  a dually.  I should have read the permits for myself.\

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on July 25, 2011 at 9:28

Its a stacked Lateral. Please not the first well was drill deeper, all the way to 12,493.

 

This was approved in June, unit order is attached.

Attachments:

• 00000EB7_1[1].pdf, 99 KB

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page