Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 7, 2012 at 9:43

Marc, I do not have the slightest idea.  I'm sure we all would like to see a completion report.  However from the prelim report that completion might be in the Norphlet, not the Lower Smackover.

Permalink Reply by Marc Stepman on August 7, 2012 at 11:32

HI Skip

The Norphlet would be interesting.  Perhaps if it is it will open up another avenue allowing the play be productive and work out. 

Marc

Permalink Reply by obed w odom on August 7, 2012 at 14:11

Skip, I could be wrong but I'm thinking that the 7700' where they say they started the horizontal might represent measured depth rather than vertical depth, and that the portion between 6470' and 7700' might be their curve. If that is the case their vertical depth would seem to be about 7250', still above the Norphlet.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 7, 2012 at 14:28

obed, the 7660' is the pilot hole depth.  They drilled completely through the SMK and the Norphlet.  IMO the well was then plugged back and the curve was kicked off at 6470' and  with a radius inclination of 8 degrees per ~100' .  The well was then horizontal at 7700' and the length of the lateral was 7700' to 11095'.  It looks to me that they tested both formations and liked what they saw in the Norphlet better. 

Permalink Reply by obed w odom on August 7, 2012 at 15:51

We agree that the horizontal started at 7700 feet, but I think this is measured depth rather than vertical depth. In other words, I think the curvature of 8 degrees per 100 feet means 8 degrees per 100 feet of arc and not 8 degrees per 100 feet of vertical depth. I think the former would generate a smooth curve and the latter would not. Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

Permalink Reply by Rockman Jr. on August 8, 2012 at 3:29

 

Skip and Marc-  According to the survey that showed up on SONRIS in May, the horizontal portion of the hole varies between 7317' and 7404' depth below the surface along the entire lateral, with the lateral starting at 7700'  to the bottom of the hole at 11,095'.  The well history and work resume document shows the top of formation for the Norphlet at the well to be 7550'.  I am with Mr. Odom in wondering why you guys are talking about the Norphlet on this well; it looks like they stayed at least 150' above the top of the Norphlet for the entire lateral.

One thing I wonder about on this well is after DEVON and SWN had such poor luck in the bottom-most portion of the LSBD, why did DAN A HUGHES target that portion of the formation; especially after the feedback from SWN indicating they would be targeting a more shallow depth of formation for their follow-on attempts in the LSBD?

Another question I have is why they did the well plan they executed: the well bore  crosses portions of three sections, when it seems that they might have been able to limit it to two.  Do they see something in the seismic or are they simply unfamiliar with unitization practices in Louisiana? 

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 8, 2012 at 3:40

Thanks, Rockman.  I went to the well file and reviewed the MWD survey.  You are correct.  Considering the pilot hole I'd venture a guess that the horizontal was landed based on a core and log.  As to the reason for the three sections, my guess would be the well is a test and not intended for production.  It's a non-unitized, lease well designed to test a target cross section and therefore is not designed for future unit production.  Dan A Hughes has few LA wells that they drilled as operator but I'd be stunned if they were not aware of LA unitization regs.

Permalink Reply by courtney oliver on August 8, 2012 at 4:42

Dan knows the unitization reg. very well

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