Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rock Man on April 2, 2021 at 16:04

Building on Skip's comments, it is obvious that the Operator ran into some problems while drilling the lateral on #252182 and had to stop short of the original permitted lateral length (which would have put the lateral 500' into Section 27).

I have attached the original permit plus the amended permit - note the plats. The amended permit states that changes to permit were tied to "as drilled" well results.

Reasons for terminatng the lateral early are unknown and will most probably never be discussed in filed State / SONRIS reports. Odds are it was a mechanical issue that forced operator to end the hole at that point in order to "save" the hole that they had drilled to that point.

The amended permit shows the end of the lateral being 738' north of the Section 22 / Section 27 boundary.

The operator losing over 1200' of lateral for this well doesn't help them one bit - this shorter lateral will probably reduce overall production by close to 25% of they wouldh have had if they could have achieved the original permit TD / end of lateral.

I understand the disappointment of not getting any cash flow from this well - but the upside may be that in the future, you will see a well that includes the entirety of Section 27 in the productive lateral instead of only a small part of Section 27 (i.e. less than 10% as per the original 252182 permit).

Attachments:

• Permit Plat 252182.pdf, 430 KB
• Amended Permit Plat 252182.pdf, 183 KB

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