Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 21, 2010 at 7:40

Yes, but only slightly so. All reporting is running behind. The potential test report along with the completion report will likely show up soon. And the update may even include the first month's production. There's nothing to do but wait. Good Luck.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on September 21, 2010 at 8:20

some curious comments on SONRIS inspection reports. Looks like they were producing fluids into reserve pit and had problems with the production pit. The pit is now closed.

Also, they had communication with another well during the frac HA RA SU101;REEVES 18 Sec 18 15N 13W

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LWC on September 21, 2010 at 8:23

Are you referring to the Marion Reeves Well (S#241080)?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on September 21, 2010 at 8:41

No, #240799, see s-t-r as posted above

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on September 21, 2010 at 8:56

If it is possible for a well in one section to frac into a well in a different section, as happened in 15/14, Section 13 and 15/13 Section 18, that tells me the Operator (Exco) either didn't adhere to the 330' buffer zone or that the 330' buffer zone around each section isn't enough. I own minerals in 15/13, Section 7. How can I be assured Exco didn't frac into Section 7, also???

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on September 21, 2010 at 9:39

first of all, these wells are within their unit boundries. second, just because the perfs are within 330' of the unit line, there is no assurance a frac won't go further than that.

I have heard several reports of wells comunicating.

As to your question about them fracing into your section, they may have. This is not a violation of the mineral code.

§8. Landowner's right of enjoyment for mineral extraction

A landowner may use and enjoy his property in the most unlimited manner for the purpose of discovering and producing minerals, provided it is not prohibited by law. He may reduce to possession and ownership all of the minerals occurring naturally in a liquid or gaseous state that can be obtained by operations on or beneath his land even though his operations may cause their migration from beneath the land of another.

Acts 1974, No. 50, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1975


Check your lease and see what kind of demands you can make on your operator to prevent any drainage if your worried.

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on September 21, 2010 at 9:41

By the way, these two wells were over a mile apart

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 21, 2010 at 9:47

Baron, a mile seems an extreme length of travel for a single frac zone. Was this an out of zone frac by both wells that communicated over a mile or just one? In either case, it would put a whole new spin on off set drilling to protect reserves.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on September 22, 2010 at 4:42

All I know in this case is the relative distance and the reports on SONRIS. I have heard other confirmed reports of other wells communicating. In one example one well went from producing gas at a good rate to producing frac fluid from a nearby well that was being completed. Sounds like communication to me...

It could be possible that there was a fault, the fracs can follow a fault.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on September 22, 2010 at 4:53

I posted in the summer of 2008 about what a rig hand had told me that happened in Red River Parish. He said that he worked for Trinadad and two rigs were drilling in adjoining sections and another well was being fraced in another adjoining section and that the frac job communicated on both the drilling rigs and that it stuck their bit down hole when it happened. Some shalers on this site didn't believe the story.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 22, 2010 at 5:15

TD,P, I questioned whether your example was a fracture communication or seismic shock from a nearby frac stage that caused the bit to stick. No offense intended. There is a difference in the two.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on September 22, 2010 at 13:48

My conversation was with the rig hand and he told me that this was not in their game plan, communication was not in the picture but that they did communicate. Shock and fluid communication are different, I agree but the shock was on the low end of stick of what could happen. Fluid could be the next.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page