Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by harley on February 23, 2010 at 1:53

Good information ShaleGeo. Will the 18/64 choke be considered the smaller choke size or will they even be smaller? Thanks for the info

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on February 23, 2010 at 2:34

smaller

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on February 23, 2010 at 3:51

Harley, I think it was more like a 14/64" choke.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on February 23, 2010 at 3:55

Jay, Questar is also now restricting initial flow rates and monitoring performance. Two potential factors mentioned for performance impact were (1) partial fracture closure or (2) uneven de-watering on flowback.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on February 23, 2010 at 6:01

Keep beating it (along with the vertical drilling v. horizontal). This 2 issues will determine the value of our minerals long term.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lodwick on February 23, 2010 at 8:01

Keith, can you clarify the vertical drilling v. horizontal issue?
Thanks,
Lodwick

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lerret on February 23, 2010 at 8:39

Actually, the reserves in each are the same, it is just a matter of how much area is drained. The horizontal well will drain a larger area, but whether there is 16 wells or 32, it just matters that what the total drainage area that is effectively drained really is.

The choke problem is interesting, and typically the EUR is affected by the choke. Total open flow can damage a hole almost immediately under unfavorable circumstance (e.g.- high formation pressures.) I do find some wells where a catastrophic cessation of production is not well understood, but may relate to flowing too high volumes causing a casing collapse.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on February 23, 2010 at 21:00

ShaleGeo, et al.......One thing I heard them clearly say on the Petrohawk call was that they were going to further test and use the restricted rates in approximately 80% of the play to reduce decline rates and maintain pressures longer. However, they also clearly stated that in the best 20% of their acreage, where the perm and porosity were the greatest, it would serve no purpose and that they would continue to produce those wells on regular chokes, which I took to mean 22 to 24/64. They indicated that in these wells, the pressures and production were holding up better than those in the other 80%. They also indicated that in these wells the EUR's were up to and possibly exceeded 15 B's per well. That is stronger than Nellie's breath! Your thoughts about this?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on February 23, 2010 at 21:15

Jay has been saying that Elm Grove is the best rock.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by king john on February 24, 2010 at 0:53

goshdarn, can you define "good rates"... is that number inline with the anticipated decline of 80-90 % for the first year?
kj

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by king john on February 24, 2010 at 7:39

thanks gd. thats certainly less of a decline rate than ive seen. thanks for posting that. i'm in texas and dont use sonris. it seems like a much better tool than we have on the texas side.
kj

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on February 24, 2010 at 6:49

Headed to the farm, Jay?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page