Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 4, 2011 at 14:41

The L. Smackover ain't the Haynesville or the Eagleford.  And likely has unique petrophysical characteristics such as those noted earlier in this discussion thread.  It would be a mistake to judge any facet of this completion design against those of other formations in other plays.

Permalink Reply by North LA on February 4, 2011 at 14:58

"It would be a mistake to judge any facet of this completion design against those of other formations in other plays."

 

Well I hope they learned their lesson. Did they acidize it with Hcl?

Permalink Reply by j garrett on February 4, 2011 at 16:54

21 stage

 

Permalink Reply by jeff boler on February 4, 2011 at 13:33

Thanks Paul, good information...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 4, 2011 at 15:12

If you guys will be nice to Bill Meaney, maybe he'll come back and tell you.  LOL!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by North LA on February 4, 2011 at 15:19

Aren't both the Eagleford and Smackover brown dense carbonate mudstones?  The differnce is EF is Calcium carb and Smk is Lime therefore it would make since to use HCL in the SMK right ????

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 4, 2011 at 15:47

Composition varies by location.  And the specifics of the L. Smackover in this location are not contained in the completion report.  I doubt any operator drills an expensive well and then scrimps on the completion design or ignores the science.  Whatever the specifics involved I think that Anderson and Brammer designed a completion with the intent to make a commercial well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jeff boler on February 6, 2011 at 5:59

Calcium Carbonate and Limestone are synonymous. The Eagleford is a shale formation, though it is quite calcarious - has a considerable amount of carbonates (limestone). Distinguishing between carbonates and shales (clay) can be very easy, or it can be very difficult and require a lot of guesswork. When a formation is composed of 50% shale and 50% Carbonates, many Geologist would describe it as a calcarious shale and many would describe it as an argillaceous limestone (argillaceous is from the Latin word for clay) and still others might call it a marl. If you gave the same sample to 100 different geologist, you would likely get 100 different descriptions for identical samples.

 

HCl is an important tool for distinguishing between shales and carbonates. When dropped onto a clean, uncontaminated cutting, the release of CO2 will be observed if carbonates are present. The more the sample fizzes the more calcarious it is. If the cutting can be completely broken down by the acid, then calcite was key to the formation's framework and you definitely have a Limestone. Then you can proceed to estimate the clay content by the amount of residue left behind to determine if the limestone is argillaceous or not. On the other hand, if the formation does not break down and the cutting remains whole, then the matrix is supported by clay and described as a shale. Again, there is a lot of guesswork here, which is not that bad when the same geologist consistently describes all samples in question. It is the compounded human error integrated at tour change and crew change that has really lead to a lot of Mud-Log inconsistencies.

 

The Haynesville Shale itself is considered by many to be a carbonate. Clastics such as sand, silt and, shale(clay) are all made of the same stuff, just different grain sizes - fairly simple. Deposition Rates are key to understanding their nature. Unlike clastics, carbonates and especially carbonate porosity can get very deep in quite a hurry and require high order differential equations to describe mathematically. A given carbonate can offer huge amounts of porosity, yet little or no permeability (or connectivity of that porosity).

 

Paul Hess is an expert in this arena and would be far better suited for describing the many complexities of carbonate porosity such as moldic formations, dolomites, inter-crystaline porosity, etc. 

 

I hope that this helps a little... Please find the attachment, Carbonates are the reason that Saudis' Oil and Gas fields are so prolific...

Attachments:

• Microporosity in Arab Formation Carbonates, Saudi Arabia.pdf, 1.3 MB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by North LA on February 6, 2011 at 6:36

Thanks!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jeff boler on February 6, 2011 at 6:04

Here's another helpful presentation / article....

Attachments:

• Carbonate Porosity Families and Their Reservoir Potential.pdf, 6.7 MB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 7, 2011 at 5:30

New Permit/Horizontal Well:

 

44405 03 027 11808 Brine Supply Well 75 Village TVD: 8080' Smackover Lime
Albemarle Corporation SHL: 1871' FSL & 252' FWL Columbia MD: 12035'
P.O. Box 729 PBHL: 724' FSL & 600' FWL
Magnolia, AR 71754 21-17S-19W
Savanna Latitude: N 33.24046605º
2/21/2011 Longitude: W -93.08745477º

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 7, 2011 at 5:48

The Field is Village.  The county is Columbia.  It's a relatively deep Smackover permitted horizon considering how far north it is located and it is a horizontal well indicated by the True Vertical Depth being 8080' and the Measured Depth being 12,035'.  The horizontal SMK Watson-Scott well, which is the one we were previously following, is located in S12 - 18S - 23W.  This well in S21 - 17S - 19W is approximately 5 miles further north and 14 miles further east but still located in the same county.  As has been stated a number of times, one well does not make or break a prospect.  And the Lower Smackover is a logical target for horizontal completions.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• …
• 25
• Next ›
• Page