Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on April 7, 2014 at 6:49

Skip:

Is there a corresponding increase on rig count, or just more efficient usage of existing crews and equipment already in place?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 7, 2014 at 6:58

Dion, aside from some specific exceptions, mainly EXCO, HA operators are predominantly permitting and drilling Cross Unit Laterals (CUL).  To make a determination on the percentage of CULs in the total would require reviewing each rig drilling on a given date.  The answer, in general, I think is yes. The average linear feet of perforated lateral drilled per well has gone up and is going up.  Additionally CHK has moved new rigs into the play over the last 4 months or so.  The correlation of rig count to amount of shale produced is no longer a good metric without some adjustment factor for longer laterals.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 8, 2014 at 4:11

EXCO has yet to permit a HA CUL well although they maintain their pace of development.  SWEPI also has no CUL wells but they only permitted 10 HA wells in 2013 and 4 to date in 2014.  Of BHP Billiton's last 9 HA permits, 5 are CUL.  Since their first permitted CUL well EnCana has a total of 64 HA well permits, 41 of which are CUL.  Since their first permitted CUL well Chesapeake has 59 HA well permits, 54 of which are CUL. 

Operators are naming their CUL wells with the sections being produced and "HC" to designate a CUL (HA RA SUAA;R O Wilson 9-4 HC). 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on April 10, 2014 at 3:45

EXCO is short on funds and minimal to no money to increase drilling activity IMO 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kittycatmama on April 10, 2014 at 3:53

Skip, hasn't EXCO applied for CULs in Sec. 10 of 14/14 Desoto?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jkw3 on April 10, 2014 at 5:32

Yes,  EXCO applied for five CULs in Sections 10 and 15-T14N-R14W, DeSoto Parish, and the application was heard by the Commission on April 1st.  These were proposed laterals of varying lengths based on EXCO's attempt to drill up tp (and cross) a major fault crossing Sec. 15.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 10, 2014 at 13:34

EXCO applied for alternate unit well spacing approval.  There are no permits to drill for any EXCO CULs, yet.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by VSC DeSoto South on April 10, 2014 at 16:20

Any idea why swepi is dragging their feet?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 10, 2014 at 16:35

SWEPI (Royal Dutch Shell) has plenty of other global drilling opportunities with better economics than the Haynesville Shale at current NG prices.  Their JV partner, EnCana, can drill any wells required to maintain leasehold.  If NG prices were to improve SWEPI could ramp up Haynesville production quickly. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 1kw6x71km1v37 on April 12, 2014 at 14:20

CROSBY 14      14-2S-7W       VD 15,549       TD  5658     

SERIAL NO.    247504

This ought to be be one to watch as it passes through the Austin Chalk on the way to the Wilcox(?) and anything else in between. I don't remember anybody else being permitted that deep to date in this immediate area.

This well should fall in or next to the Fullerton/Whiskey Chitto Field in the noted Masters Creek fairway that runs west to Burr's Ferry on the Sabine River.  UPR and Sonat has some pretty good chalk wells in that area, but got sucker punched bad when the bottom fell out in '99.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 12, 2014 at 14:38

cs, I think you mean MD as in Measured Depth.  The Sugartown Field (8744) has a number of wells in that depth range and greater.  247504 has a TVD of 15,549' and a MD of 21,206', both permitted as opposed to actual depths.  And similar to others in the vicinity like 246627.  Doesn't appear to be plowing any new ground but I hope it's a good well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 1kw6x71km1v37 on April 13, 2014 at 4:58

I thought the wells in the Sugartown Field were shallower than you cite. My mistake. Sugartown Field would be good wells if drilled today at today's prices. Rapid payouts were the hallmark in the '90s, and then a long ride down to the bottom. Sometimes, a short ride. And sometimes, no commercial production. I don't know how it averaged out back then. I think not too good. But Lordy, at the acreage those existing AC wells are holding. I don't know how far east the AC play got before it collapsed. But word was the operators were going to drill it from the Sabine River to Alabama.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page