Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe Deerhunter on February 9, 2012 at 17:10

Whoa, Nelly!!

That would indeed be wondrous, but I am not holding my breath.  OK, it was coming in short pants for a moment there.... but it can't really spread out evenly, that much, that long... can it?

Permalink Reply by DavidR on February 9, 2012 at 17:15

Well, I think you'd want to take into consideration that SWN's 500K acres actually covers about 1M acres and I think he was referring to 3B bbl/recoverable over the 1M acres; they've carefully planned their leasing so as to control close to twice the acreage they've actually leased.

  Either way, sounds okay to me ;)

Permalink Reply by Bill Dailey on February 9, 2012 at 18:30

I just listened to the tape of Mueller's presentation again.  He said, "On our 500,000 acres, again, with just a little bit of core data, and a couple of vertical wells to help us figure this out, we think we have about 30 billion barrels in place, and you got 10 percent recovery factor, we have the potential of about 3 billion barrels of oil."  So, I could be wrong, but sounds like he is referring to the 30 B bbls being in just the SWN 500,000 acres.  However you may be right about him considering the actual "control" acreage to be about twice that.  But, like you say, either way, sounds okay.

Permalink Reply by obed w odom on February 9, 2012 at 19:24

I think Bill Dailey's analysis is right. SWN's total Brown Dense acreage is 500,000, and this is what Steve Mueller is referring to when he estimates 3 billion barrels of recoverable oil. He says their other 500,000 acres is located elsewhere in the United States, but hasn't divulged yet exactly where it is.

You're right that the total Brown Dense acreage may be around 1M, but I think Steve Mueller was referring only to the 500,000 that SWN has under lease.

Permalink Reply by DavidR on February 9, 2012 at 20:39

If you guys are right, and you may be, that's great, since it would presumably imply double the amount of recoverable oil (6B bbl) over the entire area (~1M ac) SWN plans to drill.

Maybe it just keeps getting better ;)

Permalink Reply by obed w odom on February 9, 2012 at 7:58

Steve Mueller also said that the biggest question now is the tightness of the formation. He said the average permeability is about 0.1 millidarcies and they just have to wait to see what kind of production this will yield after the well cleans up. He said that in the future they may have to use more horsepower in the fracturing.

On the positive side he said they had completed their 6700-ft lateral in the Garrett Lick Creek well in Claiborne Parish, and that this required only 22-23 days, much less time than their 3600-ft lateral in the Roberson well.

Permalink Reply by Stacy Fife on February 7, 2012 at 11:43

Where is the Roberson?

Permalink Reply by Freighttrain on February 7, 2012 at 12:12

The Roberson well is in Columbia County, Township 15, Section 18-S / 19-W.

Permalink Reply by Joe Deerhunter on February 7, 2012 at 16:17

Just east of the intersection of Hwy 98 with the Calhoon road, if I recall right.  you can't see it from there but you'll see the driveway with the "keep out" signs!

Permalink Reply by Mike McNeill on February 9, 2012 at 19:31

Can someone provide me, in non-technical laymen's terms, a short single-paragraph summary of what Thursday's comments mean in practical terms?

Permalink Reply by Lerret on February 10, 2012 at 5:08

My big concern remains the water disposal. If they can keep the formation relatively dry they  can live with an 1 bbl oil to 10 bbl water cut, but much higher and disposal costs eat a chunk into them.  I would not worry about the permeability at all.  it's the water.... the Ellenberger problem that plagued the Barnett in parts of that play that had Ellenberger adjacent the Barnett

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