Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on May 12, 2010 at 13:35

In Louisiana, they decline 80-85% in the first year

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on May 13, 2010 at 8:25

CE, all shale gas wells (and tight sandstone wells) have a high initial decline rate that slows over time. This is related to the formation's low permeability (ability to flow natural gas) and the associated fracture stimulation required to make an economic well.

Permalink Reply by Chuck Thomas on May 16, 2010 at 13:17

What is the amount of gas required to make a economic well? I realize some well cost more , but in general what would be a average figure?

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on May 16, 2010 at 13:44

Chuck, most operators would like recover a least 4-5 Bcf (billion cubic feet) of natural gas per well dependent on the particular area of the Haynesville Shale play.

Permalink Reply by Chuck Thomas on May 16, 2010 at 15:32

Over what length of time are we speaking of? What would be the average per month they wish for? They speak of some of these wells losing 85 percent in the first year, so it must be a while for even a 30 mcf well to come to that total.

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on May 16, 2010 at 16:46

Chuck, most operators are using a producing well life of +/- 30 years for the ultimate reserves estimate. A 6 Bcf well would average 16.7 MMcf per month over a 30 year life.

Permalink Reply by DEM on May 17, 2010 at 5:34

Just curious as to where the information is coming from that the number of million cubic feet of gas is now at 3. Is this a confirmed source? Last I heard its inital rate was 6.650 million cubic feet of gas then was changed to show an increase at 11.??. I know the well is on an adustable choke for reasons as listed on other posts ie. gas prices, cutting back flow for better and longer production etc... Now I see this posting of 3mcf. Just wondering where all the information is coming from. Thanks!

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on May 17, 2010 at 6:11

The Whitton 1H was tested on Mar. 19. April will be it's first full month of production and nothing is reported on TRRC yet. So, whoever this person is (CE) they seem to be on a campaigne to downplay Devon well results in particular and Shelby/San Augustine results in general. I have seen no less than three such posts lately by this person on different pages... hmmm, could there be an ulterior motive?

Permalink Reply by Chuck Thomas on May 17, 2010 at 6:27

If you are speaking about me on the Snell well at Choice, I have mineral rights across the road so in no way would I want it to look bad. My friend who is in that 690 acres had been reading the meter that (i guess) shows production. I was repeating the production figure of 1 1/2 mmcfd on a quarter inch choke. I was trying to figure out if Devon would drill across the road with this well having that production. My minerals were released 2 months ago by Devon. Before when I quoted a well going from 6 m to 3 m cfd it was a repeat from some one else saying this. I am not down playing any well just trying to figure out if it is profitable to drill across from the Snell well.

Permalink Reply by CE on May 17, 2010 at 6:52

Definitely not downplaying anything jffree1. To the contrary, my wife has an interest in both the Whitton and Adams wells so there is no ulterior motive.

Permalink Reply by shelbyco on May 17, 2010 at 8:42

The change to show an increase to 11.?? was apparently an error that stemmed from a typo on another site. 6.650 was apparently correct. The well produced right at 116 MCF in March according to RRC. I do not know when the well went into production and, as a result, don't know how many days this production covered in March.