Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by DJG on May 6, 2010 at 6:30

The Smith well is permitted as a horizontal, but I imagine that their plan was to first go deep vertically for testing and logging purposes and then following through with the horiztonal fracturing and completion.

Permalink Reply by DJG on May 6, 2010 at 5:06

The pad for the Smith 1-H well is just South of 87 just about 1/8 mile off of the HWY. I'm not in the area, but Baker-Hughes shows that the rig is still drilling on that site as of last Friday 4/30.

Perhaps they are prepping pad sites for additional wells/units that have not yet been designated?

Permalink Reply by geezer on May 6, 2010 at 6:40

You guys are a lot more active on this site than me so; I will yield to your knowledge ut at the same time ask a question.
I see the rig on the south side of 87; but in looking at the permit, dated 2/2-2/4/10, for Chesapeake- Smith 1H, the API # is 419-31546. When I pull up the GIS map viewer on this permit, it takes me to the location I am speaking of; 1 mile north of 87 and east of FM1645. This is well before 1645 intersects 87. There is a large pad there that was built after the Adam's site began drilling.
There is a Smith 1, which shows to be south of 87 but it shows to be completed early last year.

Permalink Reply by JC on May 6, 2010 at 6:50

Maybe the Smith 1 is the vertical that was drilled. They are now on the same pad drilling a horizontal. Maybe that is what it is?

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on May 6, 2010 at 7:15

The Smith #1 well completed (?) last year was a Burk Royalty vertical. Chesapeake unitized the same acreage for the Smith #1H. The Burk well is still shut-in the last time I looked at it and is on the Gas Proration Schedule as belonging to Unit Petroleum with a status of T.A. (temporarily abandoned).

geezer, when you go to that location on the GIS map... zoom out 3X and then move north so you can see the bottomhole (end of the lateral) of the horizontal well and you will find the API # of the Smith 1H.

Permalink Reply by geezer on May 6, 2010 at 7:32

Yes, I see this but the question remains:
Who is drilling on 87 right now, and what is the pad on 1645? As soon as that permit was issued in February, it showed up on the GIS map and they began building the pad. I live off of 1645 and saw the haul truck going by by the hundreds.
The Samford site is about 3 miles north on 87.

Permalink Reply by geezer on May 6, 2010 at 7:22

When I get home Friday, I will do more than turn around in the drive of the location I am speaking of. There is about 100' of pines between 1645 and the pad; but you can see well enough to recognize a large pad of some kind.
On the GIS map, there IS a black line that runs between 419-31431, Smith 1, to 419-31546, Smth 1H. I do not know what this represents.

Permalink Reply by DJG on May 6, 2010 at 7:33

On the GIS map, the pad for the Smith 1-H well is the Pentagon that is at the bottom of that line in the drawing that you mentioned. The bottom hole for the 1-H well is the termination of the horizontal lateral that is being drilled underground and that is where the other end of the line stops and where the "1-H 31546" is listed on the map.

The original Burke/Smith #1 well is adjacent to the pad for the 1-H and is noted on the GIS map as the red circle that looks like a landmine - which designates that it is currently shut in.

Hope that helps.

Is the other pad site that you are mentioning found on the East or the West side of Hwy 1645?

Permalink Reply by CE on May 12, 2010 at 5:20

Hate to bring bad news but I heard that the initial flow is disapppointing

Permalink Reply by king john on May 13, 2010 at 3:02

ce, what kind of number did you hear ? also did they have any mechanical problems?
kj

Permalink Reply by JC on May 13, 2010 at 3:07

Disappointing can mean several things, were they expecting a huge number and it is not as big as they thought, or is it just not producing much of anything. Sure has been a lot going on out there, pretty sure they are burning it off right now. Would be nice to hear some numbers.

Permalink Reply by shelbyco on May 13, 2010 at 4:19

Whether or not something is "disappointing" is a subjective thing. It is based on one's expectations. I am curious to find out what the objective numbers are. Whatever they are, they don't seem to be discouraging Devon from leasing minerals and permitting wells (Patricia Samford, for instance) in this area.

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