"Wish list" and "must haves" for a site location

I've been mulling some of the things that I want in order to grant a site location.  I figured I might as well ask others what they would "want" and what they would "have to have".  At one time it seemed like it was eminent and now probably further down the road, but I thought it would be a good discussion.

 

One of the things that I want most is a maximum frac zone.  I hate to tell the company how to produce but when they get around to producing my property, I want the maximum possible.  Has anyone heard of this being a requirement.  I've heard they can slant the pipe down toward the section line and then "fish hook" it back toward the opposite section line.  I've heard that Exco has done this successfully, but I don't know how much is urban legend and how much is fact.

 

Also does anyone have a guideline for the price based on what wells close by are producing.  Example:  In an area where wells are IP'ing at 10mmcf per day on 24/64 choke as opposed to an area where wells are IP'ing at 20mmcf per day on the same choke and similar frac lenght.

 

Any other ideas?

 

 

 

Views: 65

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on February 15, 2010 at 19:14
I'm leased to ECA. I honestly think that I would make it a requirement that they drill the well instead of SWEPI.
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on February 15, 2010 at 19:14
I have a no surface clause in my lease.
Permalink Reply by oil guy on February 16, 2010 at 5:02
I definitely agree with Jay on this one. We as landowners don't need to stick our noses into the engineering side of the business. These wells are expensive and have enough risk that a prudent operator will want to maximize its investment without the input from landowners. If I were an operator and a landowner insisted on dictating how I was to drill, complete and produce my well, I'd pass on that section.
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on February 16, 2010 at 6:29
I don't want to dictate the flow rate, just the lenght of the lateral. Do y'all think this is asking too much.

I would just rather a 5800 foot lateral than a 4000 foot lateral.

I'm afraid that their main objective is to HBP.

My main objective is for them to maximize my return. I am not concerned about IP rates.

I'm just afraid if they begin with a shorter lateral that all of the rest of the wells will follow suit.

It looks like HK is drilling most of their wells in the area from the adjoining section to maximize their lateral lenght.

Are my fears unfounded? If so why?

Just like in a lease, I realize I only have one shot at getting it right. I have a great oil and gas attorney, but wanted to see what things I should be thinking about in advance.
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on February 16, 2010 at 6:40
That is why it is great to have y'all around.

I assumed that longer was better.

I just wanted to make sure that "whatever" they do is good for both the company and me.

I realize that most of the time our desires are NOT mutually exclusive.
Permalink Reply by Bob and Lisa on February 16, 2010 at 7:16
I have to agree with oil guy on this one, the engineering is better left to the operators. They've been out there doing this for a long time, they know what's best on that end. Let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be.
Permalink Reply by Buddy on February 16, 2010 at 7:47
Parker: This "fish hook" you speak of is sometimes referred to as a back build as well. Petrohawk has done it successfully down in Red RIver Parish - their well was just north of the section line, they drilled down and then turned south into the adjacent own's land and section (with permission) and then turned north crossing back over the section line and drilled north. Was a very good well too.
Permalink Reply by S.H.M. on February 16, 2010 at 8:00
"fish hook"

--

this just amazes me. I know I am niave but to be able to control that drill/bit at those depths and snake it all over is...just amazing to me.
Permalink Reply by Buddy on February 16, 2010 at 10:45
And that should have been the adjacent owner's land...
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on February 16, 2010 at 11:24
Buddy,

Thanks for clearing up the terminology. I heard "back build" mentioned on here, but I thought that was where they did the pad from the adjoining section.
Permalink Reply by Henry on February 16, 2010 at 12:58
Parker,
One thing you might wish to stipulate is that the well must be a horizontal well. You laugh. But, Chesapeake is drilling some verticals (e.g., 35-12-11). You best believe I'd be one unhappy mineral owner if someone drilled a vertical to HBP me.
Permalink Reply by Bacon on February 16, 2010 at 8:41
Since your with ECA, I'd try and restrict the horizontal to a north south orientation. I think they gave up on their east west thing but just to be safe.

RSS

Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com

Top Content 

1 Comstock October Presentation

Comstock October Presentation
2 Authority for Expenditure

Authority for Expenditure
3 Unleased Mineral Interest

Unleased Mineral Interest
4 Alarm Bells Are Ringing

Alarm Bells Are Ringing
5 Arkansas Smackover Lithium Play

Arkansas Smackover Lithium Play
6 For Erica Woodward

For Erica Woodward
7 Request to GHS.com Members

Request to GHS.com Members
8 How EVs are changing the future of oil demand - IEA

How EVs are changing the future of oil demand - IEA
9 Black Stone Minerals offer to buy

Black Stone Minerals offer to buy
10 Louisiana not keeping pace with new orphan oil and gas wells

Louisiana not keeping pace with new orphan oil and gas wells

Not a member? Get our email.

Groups



© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service