Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve on September 11, 2014 at 2:25

GDP seems to believe that the decline rate may be reduced in areas where fewer natural fractures occur. Their theory is that where there are lots of natural fractures the wells get a bump in initial ip rates, but those wells decline at a greater rate. Similar wells with lower 24 ip rates,such as the Beech Grove and the SLC,will have slower decline rates but their EURs should be about the same. They seemed to believe that the occurrence of natural fractures had something to do with TVD but Kirk seems to think that local geology not depth will determine where the most fractures occur. Maybe we will eventually see a deep TMS well with a little more gas and lots of natural fractures yielding an ip over 2000 - that would be nice for the Felicianas.

Permalink Reply by Keith on June 26, 2014 at 3:38

 

 I think each frac interval is more independent everything being equal the frac interval is it own zone. Now I agree that a longer lateral gives you a somewhat lower decline curve, simply because the extra oil is naturally being choked back and crowded out by the added production and somewhat by the friction of the added production tubing.

I don't think that hurts my question about the current average 1 year decline curve in all of the wells drilled so far. So for I have heard 80%. I hope new techniques and learning the area can get that number to go down.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 1kw6x71km1v37 on June 26, 2014 at 6:44

<As the laterals get longer in the TMS the decline curve could get flatter>>>

It begs the question could decline curves go flatter in the west where the TMS is more carbonaceous with less clay to gum up the works. Just speculating.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith on June 26, 2014 at 6:54

I hope that's the case cheap shot. That would be a fair trade off. Let's say the past wells in the west including the EOG wells in the middle but further west than the current focus area has a better decline curve.

So would a well that is sub 1000 BPD that has a 60% decline rate be seen as just as good as a well that produces around 1500 bpd but has a 80% decline rate year over year?

I know from my experience in the conventional oilfields, oil companies want all they can get as fast as they can get it. Even if it damages the formation and the longevity of the field. A big example of that is the way the American companies that previously owned Aramco (in Saudi Arabia) produced the prolific fields in that country.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 1kw6x71km1v37 on June 28, 2014 at 6:37

Is there even yet a producing TMS well in eastern LA or southwest MS that is considered to be economic at today's prices?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith on June 28, 2014 at 7:01

Good Question!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by tc on June 28, 2014 at 7:16

Between 5-10 wells.  The Crosby & Anderson 18 wells have produced around 180,000 bbl of oil, or around $18m in revenue.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jim weyland on June 28, 2014 at 7:24

from my marketing gas, ect. for a couple of e&p entities, i also did the 'hook-ups'.

if hypothetically there were three different takeaway pl options, let's say an interstate, an intrastate and a gathering company. from my parochial perspective, the interstate almost always would be correct choice but it would invariably be the slowest to get things done. the intrastate would be the next choice, they offer much less rate and take protection than an interstate, but they'd hook you up way sooner than the interstate. the fastest hookups of the three would be the gathering company, they usually would offer competitive terms for a limited period of time, let's say two years. once two years were up, they'd really put the wood to you.you know, bend over so we can discuss the new terms and conditions.

so, which choice would management almost always want? the quickest hookup.

it took me a while to understand their points of view, that is, any unit not sold today will be the last unit produced before p and a. in other words a dollar today beats a dollar five years from today.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith on June 28, 2014 at 8:05

Jim are you on the right thread?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jim weyland on June 28, 2014 at 8:16

keith, i was trying to respond to your earlier comment about producers trying to produce as much as they can as soon as they can. sorry if my post seems to be out of left field,

jim

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith on June 28, 2014 at 8:19

Yeah, I read it three times and I'm still lost.

Can you explain it maybe at a lower level for dummies like me. I need all the info I can get.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jim weyland on June 28, 2014 at 8:23

my point was/is that producers want their money today which i felt was the same point you made in the last paragraph  inre: the arabian american oil company's production practices when they were still controlled by american companies.

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