Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 22, 2010 at 3:34

Such is the nature of Smackover exploration. Unlike the Haynesville Shale, the Smackover is not generally productive over a wide, contiguous area. A location a relatively short distance from a dry or uneconomic well may prove to be quite productive. And that area of economic production may be relatively limited in size. Operators drill one successful well and then "step out" from there until they define the economic limits of that field.

Permalink Reply by L Davis on June 22, 2010 at 5:16

What you describe about Smackover exploration is the typical approach to exploring the top of the Smackover from which all Smackover production todate has come from. S AR looks like a pin cushion from all the wells that have tried to tap every hump, lump, bump, trap, ect that might hold Smackover oil. From my research the top of the Smackover is not oil source rock but a holding trap for oil that came up from the brown dense at the bottom of the Smackover. The brown dense is 200-300 feet thick and is foumd at the bottom of the Smackover anywhere the Smackover is found. Could it be that since the brown dense is so dense, it may take a whole new appraoch to unlocking the key to producing the brown dense?

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 22, 2010 at 5:27

Any idea of the porosity and permeability of the brown dense? If it is source rock and reservoir rock, it is probably low perm similar to other "tight" formations. Then the key is horizontal drilling and multistage fracture stimulation. As with most of the formations we discuss here, the petrophysical characteristics likely vary by area to some degree. Even with horizontal wells, I think it is likely that the Smackover will not be continuously productive over a large, contiguous area. With the price premium for crude, it doesn't need to be. How many recent SMK wells in the state line area have been horizontals completions?

Permalink Reply by L Davis on June 22, 2010 at 5:52

Again, based on what I have read the porosity and permeability is in the 0% to 3% range. I am not aware of any Smackover completions involving horizontals. The Lafayette County and the Strong well in eastern Union County were vertical tests of the brown dense. I suppose the vertical tests did not justify the expense of going horizonal. These wells probably provided useful data about the brown dense. There was a cotton valley horizonal well in Columbia County recently. There has been a lot of horizonal drilling in the Fayettivlle shale further north in AR. Several companies must think they can do something with the brown dense based on the widespread leasing in S AR.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 22, 2010 at 8:37

I look forward to an operator finding the right spot to drill a horizontal SMK well.

Permalink Reply by L Davis on June 22, 2010 at 8:57

There has been a lower SMk permitted in the Dorcheat Macedonia field of Columbia County. This is the first AR lower SMK with horizonal that has been permitted in AR. This is the same area that the horizontal cotton valley well was drilled. The vertical depth is 9900 feet and total length is 13880'. I do not think that drilling has started. I do not see much on the blog about activity in the brown dense in N LA. Results in both LA abd AR in the brown dense affects both states as it is a common formation for both. I appreciate your comments on the brown dense.

Permalink Reply by Aubrey C. Sanders, Jr. on June 29, 2010 at 11:34

I expect first horizontal Smackover well to be drilled by XTO and located in North Shongaloo- Red Rock Field. Perhaps on my land. If not on mine very nearby. They permitted Murphy well for horizontal initially, but repermitted vertical.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page