Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Aubrey C. Sanders, Jr. on September 15, 2008 at 5:38

Yes, this is very common. Reservoirs are set up to delineate areas of geologic continuity in a formation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by phaco on September 15, 2008 at 6:31

So, does this imply that there are multiple areas of production within the HS?

I would also ask you to look at the HK log of the Elm Grove field well EGP 9 #15 as published on page 10 of the June 2, 2008 pdf file (sorry, I don't have the link). If you examine the log, the curves above the lower red line do not match up with the curves below the lines. Note that the "Base Haynesville" overlaps part of the depth as printed on the log. If you print off this page and measure the distances between 11,000 ft and 11,100 ft and then measure the distance between 11,100 ft and what is suggested to be 11,200 ft, I believe you will find a significant difference. I do not know if this is significant or whether Reservoir B has been omitted from the log, or if I am totally out to lunch on all of this.

But, if Reservoir B exists and all production to date has been from just RA, all I've got to say is, "WOW".

Just an observation and a request for additional comments from those more knowledgable in such matters. Thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Geo-Bcf on September 15, 2008 at 6:48

Please find an example of how the HS RA was defined at Johnson Branch Field. The reservoir A appears to be defined as the entire Haynesville Shale interval. That being said, there may be different intervals within the RA that may require additional horizontal wells. This is an early exhibit and very little info has been released since.

Attachments:

• 1625_001.pdf, 56 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by phaco on September 15, 2008 at 8:09

Your log shows 577 ft of HS RA. The best wells published to date are in the Elm Grove 222 ft of shale. Is this typical? Fracturing/drilling technique? Other?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Geo-Bcf on September 15, 2008 at 10:31

I believe that CHK was defining everything from the LCV to the Smackover as HS RA at Johnson Branch. The only logs I have seen to date have been in the public domain (HK, PV, CHK). The HK - EGP 9 #15 reported 222' but it was a net thickness greater than 12% porosity (not sure what the gross interval is or how HK defined the HS interval at Elm Grove). The CHK log did not have a porosity log so I am not sure how they compare.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kay DS1 on February 15, 2009 at 5:10

Wow, you wrote this a long time ago. Did you get an answer? I think you are right though. Let me know.

• ▶ Reply