Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on March 4, 2012 at 4:20

L Davis,

Thanks for the info.

Permalink Reply by Herman (Chuck) Plonnigs, III on March 4, 2012 at 5:01

Thanks for the info L Davis

 

One should remember patience.

 

How many holes were drilled by Higgins and Lucas before Spindletop?

Permalink Reply by L Davis on March 7, 2012 at 3:27

Link to article on Magnolia Reporter

 

http://www.magnoliareporter.com/news_and_business/local_business/ar...

Permalink Reply by DavidR on March 7, 2012 at 8:35

The comments are important for those who are less interested in the Louisiana portion of the play.  The suggestion, at least, is clear: there is fundamentally no reason the Roberson well could not produce 500 bopd if it were fracked differently.  Some have characterized it as "bungled", but he makes a strong case for having done precisely what they did:

“If we had fracked into that water zone, then that would have basically drowned out the entire well, and we wouldn’t be able to make any commercial production at all. What happened was we barely got up 100 feet up in the formation, we actually fracked – this is a 500-foot-thick rock – we actually fracked less than a third of the rock, with what we were doing.

And we’re sure now that we are not going to frack into the water zone that’s up above us,

The Roberson well was fracked at the bottom of the Brown Dense zone, which Mueller described as the worst rock in the zone.

There is no suggestion here that the region of Roberson is in any way inferior to that of the new wells, and in fact, one could easily imagine a second well at the location or making use of the vertical portion of the well to frack into the upper portion of the zone in the future.  This would appear to have been a conservative approach which had the desired effect -- to allow them to gather science and make improvements on subsequent wells.

It may be that the play improves toward the south east.  Or maybe not; that's what they are trying to find out.  There is nothing in that statement that suggests the location of Roberson is any better or worse than any other location.  Only that the rock at the bottom of the zone is not ideal.

This is a significant clarification I think over what was said during the conference call and a net positive for those of us with interests in the Arkansas portion of the play.

Permalink Reply by Noah Brenner on March 7, 2012 at 8:49

Steve Mueller said today that production from the Roberson was "going up" as the well returned more of the frack fluid- wouldn't give a new flow rate but said oil was increasing and the water cut was going down-

Permalink Reply by North LA on March 7, 2012 at 10:40

Where did you hear that? Just wondering.

Permalink Reply by Noah Brenner on March 7, 2012 at 11:50

I ran into him at a conference in Houston and asked him for an update- I'm not sure if that "going up" is a significant amount or not but thought I would pass it along

Permalink Reply by Timothy W. Hurckes on March 21, 2012 at 8:22

Does the AOGC disclose what the production of the Roberson well is anywhere on their website?

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 21, 2012 at 8:37

No completion or allowable report has been entered in the AOGC database.

Permalink Reply by Timothy W. Hurckes on March 21, 2012 at 8:42

Thanks.  Would you post a link to where the report would be filed?

On the earnings release conference call, Steve Mueller said that the one-day rate was 103 bopd.  Noah Brenner posted a week later that Steve said that the oil rate was going up as the frack fluid return diminished.  I was wondering how high is up?  (oil production rate on this well, not a generic commment!)

Permalink Reply by Ed on March 21, 2012 at 9:59

Links expire in a few hours. You have to go to the AOGC website>Document Image System>Enter the system>Well Files>permit # 45015. You will see 14 lines of files right now, more will be added when they report.

Permalink Reply by DavidR on March 21, 2012 at 12:18

Those dates are in DD/MM/YYYY format (i.e., that's Jan 4, 2012) ;)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page