Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike on December 15, 2009 at 12:07

This really makes you wonder. XTO is drilling a vertical on a 40 Acre unit and going deep. Devon, on the other side of the county, is drilling a directional practially next to the Kardell. Devon's area should be derisk for another horizonal. What's going on?

Permalink Reply by gassed on February 2, 2010 at 4:13

so there looking for the motherload

Permalink Reply by adubu on December 15, 2009 at 12:14

that should test the Haynesville(Cotton Valley) Lime and Smackover which are below the shale formation--general are know to be good gas formations

Permalink Reply by ALongview on December 15, 2009 at 12:19

So this area could potentially produce from :
1.James Lime
2.Pettit
3.Middle Bossier
4.Haynesville
5.CV Lime
6.Smackover
Not too bad!
Will they ever produce from 3 or 4 formations from the same unit? How long would that take 40-50 years?

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 15, 2009 at 12:33

Just a reminder that a number of the wells you are discussing may not be drilled for production. As the prospective nature of E. TX. minerals become more obvious and draws the attention of capable E&P companies, development strategies demand some hard facts. The kind that can only be gained by poking a hole (or two) in the ground. Here's an excerpt that details one such hole. One that Encana and SWEPI used to inform their NW. LA. shale play.


CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY HAYNESVILLE SHALE PLAY IN NW. LOUISIANA

The first Haynesville Shale well in the state of Louisiana was permitted January 12, 2006 by Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. as a product type “00” (No Product Specified). It was drilled in Section 15 – Township 13N – Range 9W of Red River Parish in the Martin Field. The JUR RA SUA; ADCOCK INV LP ETAL was assigned serial #232697 (API Number 17081208570000). It spudded February 27, 2006 and drilled to a depth of 12,878’. On November 16, 2006 its status was reported as code 27 (Waiting On Orders). Encana converted the well to an “Observation Well” with status code 31 (Shut-In Dry Hole – Future Utility) on January 26, 2007. Since January 27, 2007, it’s last report date, it remains a code 27. From spud to final status report – 364 days. It has never been completed.

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on December 15, 2009 at 16:32

That's my thought. A look at the map shows no wells within nearly a 5 mile radius (except for two dry holes the NE in the same survey) so I think they need to see what's there before deciding how to proceed. Terrific spot to name a new field if they were inclined to do that.

Permalink Reply by DJG on December 15, 2009 at 20:07

The new W1 permit is still showing a completion depth of 14,300' but a total depth of 17,200 for a wildcat field.

http://webapps.rrc.state.tx.us/dpimages/img/700000-799999//PR000074...


A number of other recent deep well permits in Shelby/SA counties are stating intentions for horizontal completions in either the Bossier or Haynesville formations but they will first drill much deeper (16-20k') for "exploritory" / logging purposes.

I.e.:

Peace 1H Well/Shelby:
http://webapps.rrc.state.tx.us/DP/drillDownQueryAction.do?fromPubli...

4 formations targeted / 18,800 completion - 20,000 total


Whitton/Shelby:
http://webapps.rrc.state.tx.us/DP/drillDownQueryAction.do?fromPubli...

3 formations targeted / 18,500 completion depth

Interestingly, this one even states that it is an exploritory test well on the permit.



New Horizons/Panola:
http://webapps.rrc.state.tx.us/DP/drillDownQueryAction.do?fromPubli...

Completion depth of 10,770 in Bossier / Total Depth 19,500'


Pilot 1-H/Shelby:
http://webapps.rrc.state.tx.us/DP/drillDownQueryAction.do?fromPubli...

Completion target - Waskom Haynesville / Total Depth 19K'


Barton 2-H/Nacogdoches:
http://webapps.rrc.state.tx.us/DP/drillDownQueryAction.do?fromPubli...

4 target formations / completion depth of 18.5K


And I suspect also Adams/Shelby and the new Jarry well in Shelby as well....



Jffree1/Skip,

What is your take on these?

It appears that there is more of a trend of late for recent permits to target multiple formations and having completion depths much lower than where Haynesville/Bossier formations should be?

On the one hand this deeper drilling could just be for exploritory and test purposes as explained, but it is happening with much more regularity it really does feel like there is more going on than just a fishing expedition??

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 16, 2009 at 3:12

D. I do not have sufficient data to give a good answer. My suspicion is that there is a lack of good science from existing wells. You can look at the depth of those existing wells in a given area and determine whether my guess may be valid. There are portions of the Play in LA. where there has never been a well drilled deeper than 7 or 8,000' for miles in any direction. And others where the deep wells are so old that the logs are not useful for current purposes. I further suspect that companies permit "observation" wells to extreme depth just in case they may choose to drill beyond their actual target formation based on the data generated.

Permalink Reply by Lorissa Gail on February 9, 2010 at 9:13

Could this be done to counter a pugh clause that is in most leases and hold more formations for the O/G company?

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 9, 2010 at 9:17

If the lease depth clause reads, "...the deepest depth drilled plus 100 '", yes. If the lease depth clause reads, "...the deepest depth produced plus 100', no.

Permalink Reply by Lorissa Gail on February 9, 2010 at 9:37

I am going to pull out my lease and read the wording carefully!

Thanks!

Permalink Reply by DJG on February 9, 2010 at 13:03

Also need to be careful of wording like "deepest depth capable of producing"...

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page