Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 9, 2015 at 1:51

That's a much better result, olddog.  Of course the well was probably a good candidate for refrac considering that the original frac was not very effective.  I think there are a significant number of wells that fit this profile and might make good candidates for refrac.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James W. Mangham on April 9, 2015 at 11:14

Encana did a refrack of Crestwood Land 4H-1 in T13 N R10 W in Red River Parish.  We got the first refracked payment in Feb 2015 for production in Dec 2014.  Beginning refrack production was only about 1/5 of the original first month production on that well.  On the original production it took 7 or 8 months to get down to 1/5 of the 1st full month's production. Talk was that they messed up the refrack somehow but that was not official information.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 9, 2015 at 11:24

Thanks, James.  Little is being made public regarding the details of the re-fracs being conducted in the Haynesville Shale Play.  It appears to be a steep learning curve for choosing the best well candidate profile for a re-frac and actually executing the pressure pumping operation.  The one thing we know is there is a lot of un-stimulated and/or under-stimulated rock in the majority of Haynesville Drilling Units.  The remaining reserves are vast but a challenge to unlock.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DellP on April 9, 2015 at 14:19

Something else which may play into this:

Fairly new "CLEAN" well stimulation technique using fluorinated propane.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by olddog573 on May 5, 2015 at 2:07

This Vine Refract is still holding, wonder how long it will take CHK to get into refracs?

December 205

January 107826 (3.478 mcf/day)

February 97693 (3.489 mcf/day)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 21, 2015 at 1:52

Thanks for the update, od.  So far so good.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 6, 2015 at 2:35

U.S. shale oil firms say refracking not the best path in downturn

Tue May 5, 2015 5:58pm GMT  By Anna Driver and Ernest Scheyder

HOUSTON/WILLISTON, N.D. May 5 (Reuters) - Refracking, the practice of fracking an oil and gas well a second time, is still too unpredictable to rely on as a way to slash costs and increase output during the oil price slump, top U.S. shale oil executives said on Tuesday.

Oilfield service companies, including Schlumberger NV and Baker Hughes Inc., have touted refracking as a cheap way to revive output from existing shale wells. Output from existing wells, measured in barrels per day, normally drops as much as 70 percent in the year of operation. Also, some wells were not thoroughly fracked the first time.

But executives from producers say the refracking technology, while promising, remains tricky.

"We have not tried any refracks. Our outlook on that is that it is really technical," said Bill Thomas, CEO of EOG Resources Inc., widely regarded as one of the most efficient U.S. shale oil producers. "We believe that just drilling a new well, and kind of starting fresh ... is probably the preferred way to go."

In fracking, a mix of pressurized water, sand and chemicals is injected into a well to force out oil and gas. In one type of refracking, tiny plastic balls, known as diverting agents, are pumped into wells to block older fractures and increase the overall pressure of the well so output climbs.

Output from a new well can be easier to forecast than output from refracking.

"Right now we see that (refracking) as a good forward option," said Chuck Meloy, the outgoing head of U.S. onshore exploration and production for Anadarko Petroleum Corp., a leading independent. "We'd like to see the technology improve and get enhanced some and make it more predictable."

Oilfield services companies, which have laid off thousands of employees and seen revenue plunge after a 50 percent collapse in crude prices since June, have talked up refracking because it would allow producers to save money on drilling, normally about 40 percent of the cost of a new well.

Pullbacks by producers will likely lead to a drop in U.S. crude production this quarter, according to government forecasts.

In Schlumberger's first-quarter results report, Chairman and CEO Paal Kibsgaard said the company expected the refracking market to expand.

"This is quite a significant market opportunity," he said on the company's conference call. He added that Schlumberger was prepared to "foot the entire bill for the refracturing work, and then get paid back in production." (Reporting by Anna Driver and Ernest Scheyder; Writing by Terry Wade; Editing by Phil Berlowitz and David Gregorio)

http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL1N0XW1UX20150505...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DellP on May 6, 2015 at 4:15

Trade secrets, and so nobody really knows? Stock options
& Credit Default Swaps (leveraging) to hedge the bet?  Just
my two cents, but it seems that seismic charts would weigh
very heavily into such decisions? I'd also think that very radical
chemistry (downhole cracking, reactors) would better the odds;
but raise flags?

Cheers!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 7, 2015 at 10:56

Here is an excellent example of how confusion is created by writers that don't know their subject.  It happens all too frequently in the online articles that come across my computer.  Re-fracking a vertical well is nothing like re-fracking a horizontal well.  Vertical wells have been successfully and economically re-fracked for years.  Here the writer is making statements about the Barnett Shale where the formation was developed with vertical wells for years before horizontal drilling became the norm.  Devon and Chesapeake seem to be making statements about vertical re-fracks and Anadarko is referencing re-frack technology for horizontal wells.  The tiny balls don't increase pressure as such.  They temporarily block some existing perf clusters so that the pumping pressure can be concentrated in specific, often new, perf clusters to create new fracture networks. 

Devon, Chesapeake see refracking prospects in Barnett wells in Texas

Wed May 6, 2015 7:34pm GMT

HOUSTON May 6 (Reuters) - Devon Energy Corp and Chesapeake Energy Corp said on Wednesday they see an opportunity to produce more natural gas in the Barnett Shale in Texas with a second round of fracking on older wells.

The companies, two of the largest operators in the Barnett during the natural gas boom where production peaked in 2012, believe they can breathe new life into wells that were fracked while that technology was still in the early stages, executives said on earnings calls.

"We've seen such a dramatic improvement in our completion results with the newer technology," said Tony Vaughn, executive vice president for exploration and production at Devon. "We've gone back and are starting to test some of these new completion techniques with our existing (wells)."

During hydraulic fracturing - or fracking - water, sand and chemicals are blasted into shale and other rocks to create fissures that allow oil and natural gas to flow out.

In one type of refracking, tiny plastic balls, known as diverting agents, are used to block older fractures and increase the overall pressure of the well so output climbs.

Devon has completed about 50 refracks on vertical Barnett wells and expects to complete a 200-well program this year, said Vaughn.

Chesapeake is also testing refracks in the Barnett, where it has identified more than 1,000 wells where the technology might work. So far it has tested nine wells using two different techniques, Jason Pigott, executive vice president for Chesapeake's southern division, said on a conference call.

Not everyone is sold on the emerging technology.

On Tuesday, executives at Anadarko Petroleum Corp and EOG Resources Inc said refracking is still too unpredictable to rely on as a way to slash costs and increase output during the oil price slump.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on May 10, 2015 at 7:09

Skip,

I agree that Devon was specifically referring to re-fracs of vertical wells, however I can't see in the above article that Chesapeake necessarily was referring to vertical Barnett Shale wells. In the Haynesville, CHK is obviously referring to horizontal re-fracs;  Very possibly Mr. Pigott was referring to horizontal re-fracs in the Barnett as well.  Also, I can certainly understand why Anadarko and EOG would be perfectly willing to let others prove up the technology.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 10, 2015 at 10:30

Pigot goes straight from talking about Devon re-frack plans for vertical wells to talking about Chesapeake re-frack plans without stating that he is now referring to something beyond vertical wells. If he is referring to horizontal wells being at least some part of Chesapeake's plans he fails to make such clear. 

This goes back to multiple GHS discussions, some now several or more years old. where refracks of vertical wells get confused with those of horizontal wells.  The first is common, the second is not.  Even now.  Horizontal well re-frack knowledge and technology is still in its infancy. 

The reason it will remain part of the conversation is the fact that horizontal operators now know that their early wells left a lot of rock unstimulated and a lot of stages not contributing to production.  A Schlumberger scientist, in a scholarly paper presented at a Paris industry symposium a couple of years back stated that to that point their data set showed that on average 35% of stages and 40% of perf clusters in horizontal wells did not contribute to production.  That's too much value to leave behind in horizontal wells so the efforts to come up with an economic re-frac technology will continue.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TL DS1 on May 20, 2015 at 12:26

Looks like my original well in 5-13-13 in Desoto Parish was re-fracked when the new wells were done. It is now putting out as much as it did when 6 months old. It is now 5 years old. Will have to watch it to determine decline rate. Serial #239745. DNR has not updated it yet but my check stub shows the increase.

The last normal month (Jan) showed 23 MM per month. This check for March showed 153 MM. Operator is EXCO.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page