Views: 898

Replies to This Discussion

Is the Blairstown Field just a little north of Baywood and east of Slaughter?

John    East B.R.P

There is no Blairstown Field that I find.  It is possible from the lack of producing wells in that area that this is a new field names by COP in this application.  Looks to be just west of Bluff Creek.

I am confused ( nothing unusual about that ) but your post title has Blairstown Field.  COP AC Drilling Unit.

John Lann   EBRP

LOL.  When a company applies to the state for a drilling unit, that unit must be located in a field.  If there is no existing field, the company makes up a name.  I looked for wells in 3S- 3E to see if one was listed in the Blairstown Field.  None were.  So then you search by the parish, East Feliciana.  There is no Blairstown Field listed there either but E Feliciana has many Wildcat wells.  That means that they were drilled but were not productive.  You have to have producing wells to establish a field.  That leads me to believe that this is a new field named by COP to comply with state regulations. 

<wildcat wells....drilled but were not productive>>>

Would be interesting to know if those  wildcat wells were cased all the way down before they were perfed and P&A or P&A with future potential.

They are all old wells but go ahead and look.

Would they be old Austin Chalk or Tuscaloosa.  

John  EBRP

Wildcat wells do not have a listed formation and old wells don't get deep enough to test either formation you mention.  The one well that had a producing formation was Upper Wilcox.  This general area has little well control for AC or TMS.

Here is a list of E Feliciana TMS wells.  There are six, 5 producing going back to 2011.

10

243162

L TUSC A RA SUB;HURST

001

29-APR-11

T212

56-1S-3E

2666

CHIPOLA

13600

10

243337

BEECH GROVE LAND CO 68 H

001

02-JUN-11

G104

68-2S-2E

1366

BEECH GROVE PLANTATION

18590

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

244122

RICHLAND FARMS INC 74 H

001

18-NOV-11

G104

74-1S-2E

7705

RICHLAND PLANTATION

19000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

245359

L TUSC A RA SUC;HURST

002

31-AUG-12

T212

56-1S-3E

2666

CHIPOLA

13500

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29

246408

L TUSC A RA SUD;MORROW

001

06-MAY-13

T212

57-1S-3E

2666

CHIPOLA

13500

10

247705

BEECH GROVE 94 H

001

28-FEB-14

G104

94-1S-2E

1366

BEECH GROVE PLANTATION

21000

Lack of deeper control in this area will probably mean COP drills a vertical pilot hole before plugging back to go horizontal.

Additional costs for an already expensive operation.

Agree.  However I would like to require an appropriate well log run in the vertical wellbore.  A number of us focused on NW LA were excited to think that early Haynesville Shale wells would discover productive conventional pay in the process of drilling their pilot holes. The incidence of that was incredibly small.  Many Haynesville wells were drilled in areas with little or no well control. Those companies, with all depth rights in many cases, were only interested in the Haynesville and in a hurry to HBP land and cut costs.  An opportunity for the state and mineral owners was lost.

I would anticipate that COP would run at least basic open hole logs in any vertical pilot hole. Minimum would be a Gamma Ray / Resistivity combo unless mud log shows indicate a need to add porosity tool (density / Neutron / Sonic) to the logging plans.

Also assuming that there will be an intermediate casing log run for shallow part of the hole / probably covering Miocene / Frio / Vicksburg / Wilcox sections. Same log selection criteria for this section, i.e. only run full log suite if drilling shows show some positive indicators.

COP will be focusing on the AC and will probably run full log suite for that part of the hole. And perhaps even obtain whole core or rotary sidewall cores. But to save money, I would only expect basic correlation log in the shallower part of the hole.

Having a situation where the state would require logging would be complicated - what would be required? Basic correlation log? Or more extensive porosity tools? And what about liability if the operator feels that running more logging tools compromises the integrity of the wellbore?

If the state was in better financial shape, it could consider some form of incentive for performing logs with cooperation between Department of Natural Resources and company geologists regarding how and where.  I'm not up on historic production in the central LA parishes so it would be hard to judge what benefit might be realized.  In NW LA there are an astounding number of conventional reservoirs that have limited areal extents.  Have all the productive lands been discovered?  An interesting question best answered by professionals who know the area and history.

Although it has not been bandied about in some time, the issue of emerging unconventional E&P in NW LA was a huge hit for small to modest size independent E&P companies.  Land owners wanted Haynesville lease terms and bonuses which independents could not pay.  And Haynesville operators gobbled up a lot of acreage in all depth leases that has not been farmed out.  Those independents were struggling to find affordable opportunities to explore before the shale.  After, it became much harder.  When those companies lose out on business opportunities, the private mineral owners and the state lose out on the royalty revenue.  I think there may be significant quantities of conventional reserves that are tied up to the extent that they may one day become stranded.

RSS

Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com

Not a member? Get our email.

Groups



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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service