Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by dbob on February 27, 2012 at 15:34

Joe

take a look at this completion by Anadarko.  http://webapps.rrc.state.tx.us/CMPL/ogmappcontents/cmplcontents/pro...

 

Permalink Reply by John Matherne on February 28, 2012 at 2:31

I could not get this link to open.

Permalink Reply by dbob on February 28, 2012 at 3:32

John

 

Its a link to the completion report for Anadarko's FORESTAR BYERLEY A-32 UNIT API # 351-30869, an Austin Chalk Well in NEwton County, Texas. 

11,192 Mcf, 1058 bbls of condensate, and 4727 bbls of water.

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on February 28, 2012 at 11:57

dbob,

I could not get the link to open the page either.

Looks GREAT!!!! The chalk is definately here and loaded with oil but the problem is their drilling and production techniques in this area. The questions arise: Is this a long lateral well? Did they do anything to enhance the production at completion? Did they acidize the well after completion? Did they do a gravel/sand pack before they started production and got an IP?

I think they need to move those people that drilled that well over here and see if they can do a better job of drilling and completing wells in this area.

Permalink Reply by dbob on February 28, 2012 at 14:22

Proposed lateral length was 8500' but the actual length looks like 6200'.  Well was acidized with 3571 bbls of acid, and had some type of application of 5988 bbls of slick water.  

Hopefully I've gotten the key details to attach.  

If you want, I've got a few other recent monster Chalk wells - we could start a different discussion on those if you want to give folks a chance to look at the public data/technical details.  

Attachments:

• cmpl_RptForm_cmplusr_1330478386828.pdf, 26 KB

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on February 28, 2012 at 18:24

dbob,

Starting a new thread would be good. As long as there is enough info flowing to keep it going. 

OK, the 3571 bbls of acid is almost 150,000 gallons of acid. My theory is you want to pump as much acid as you lost mud to the formation while drilling. The 5988 bbls of slick water is 250,000 gallons of water with a surfactant and poppant. It looks like they did a mini-frack or a gravel/sand pack on the well. This is exactly what I've been saying all along. Also, they did not make the 8000 ft lateral they proposed. At 6000 ft that's pushing it. In a well fractured area they should not be drilling over 5000 ft in the lateral, there is no need to.

Also of note none of the wells in this area have been drilled or completed with these methods. I really don't understand what they are doing in this area or why. Its like the Texas crew has one method and the crews in this area are asleep or something and have no idea what they are doing.

Permalink Reply by Thomas LaSalle on March 2, 2012 at 5:17

Joe,

I am a rookie here, but have been following the blogs regarding APC's 'curious' techniques employed in their Austin Chalk efforts in Pointe Coupee PH, LA.  Is it possible the techniques used for Lacour 43 #1 are for data gathering purposes?  Even though it may not be successful, perhaps they don't really know until they do it?  If they do plan to drill a number of wells in this play, hopefully these early ones are just for data-gathering purposes and they will 'quickly' learn how to improve their techniques.

Your comments seem 'on point' and very logical, so I am just trying to understand why a large company such as APC goes through these steps.

Keep up with the blogs as they are very helpful to a lot of folks. 

Permalink Reply by William C. Morrison on March 2, 2012 at 10:27

That would be a very expensve data gathering exercise.  They are in it for the money, the oil, not the data per se.

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on March 5, 2012 at 14:21

Thomas,

There is no need to drill for info on these wells. That would be the stupidest thing for a company to do or admit to. Fifteen years ago when CHK was drilling in the Chalk; the company and McClendon were sued by the shareholders for not being competent in drilling in the Chalk in Louisisna and the shareholders won. If you notice CHK is not a player in here and I doubt that they will be unless they get money from possibly the Chinese or someone outside of the company. They got burned badly back then both from the standpoint that the wells were not that productive, they did not know where to drill or how to complete the wells and the shareholders stuck it to them for not being competent.

These companies don't need to be in here experimenting and getting data. Both Pryme and APC are setting themselves up for shareholder suits much the same as CHK back then. They are spending a lot of shareholder money and not getting the results they should.

There are proven techniques that work in the chalk. The Texas well is proof of that. Again, I cannot understand why they would use one technique in Texas and then not use the same technique in this area. 

My opinion is: APC's crew working in this area is incompetent. They are using sand and shale drilling techniques to drill the Chalk. That is what I've said from the beginning and that won't work. They are just messing up the formation and the play in this area. 

The question in my mind now is: Can a Land/Royalty owner sue a company for incompetence in drilling a well on their property? When a person leases to a company then there seems to me to be an expectation that the Company will use the "best and proven practices" in exploring for and producing from the target formation. 

Permalink Reply by Craig Wascom on March 5, 2012 at 17:03

Joe

I have seen you write about "messing up the formation" several times. As a land/royality owner 1000 feet outside of the Lacour unit I am concerned. What is "messing up the formation"?

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on March 5, 2012 at 21:42

Craig, 

They are pumping mud into the formation while drilling and not clearing it. They are not supporting the formation with a gravel/sand pack at completion. Those are two things that it looks like they did in the well in Texas that they are not doing in this area.

Further, there is no reason to setup 1980 acre units in chalk other than to tie-up lease acreage. You can't drain that acreage with a single well in chalk. When you have these wells that they have screwed up and are producing minimally and you spread that around 1980 acres the land/royalty owners won't get much and they will have no recourse with the large units as far as a Pugh Clause is concerned. So they are stuck. The Commissioner of Conservation should have never allowed those size units without a supplemental drilling plan in place and a plan to truly develop the Chalk in this area. I went to the first pre-app conference and tried to tell the land owners that. The attitude was we haven't had any activity in this area in years and we'll let them do what ever they want. Just drill baby drill. I left at that point and have not been back to another pre-app hearing since. The president is set for large units.

Permalink Reply by littleasy on March 6, 2012 at 4:52

CHK was taken to the woodshed not because of their approach but because of a stock pump and dump scheme.  As far as data goes, APC has UPRC's data on the LaCour property and wells drilled in the early 90's.  That said, I would agree that something doesn't seem right.  Maybe it's misdirection on APC part or the rock properties make current completion methods inappropriate.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• Next ›
• Page