Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 20, 2015 at 12:31

Not a re-frac, TL DS1.  New wells.  The LUW Production section of the well file is the cumulative total production of all wells reporting under that specific LUW code.  Here is the list.

LUW Code	LUW Name	LUW Type
616088	HA RA SUDD;	2

Effective Date	End Date	Well Serial	Well Status	Field Id	Organization Id	Well Name	Well Number	Parish Code
20-FEB-15		248120	10	4541	E183	HA RA SUDD;AMS TIMBER 5	002-ALT	16
20-FEB-15		248119	10	4541	E183	HA RA SUDD;AMS TIMBER 5	001-ALT	16
17-FEB-15		248123	10	4541	E183	HA RA SUDD;GENTRY 5	003-ALT	16
16-FEB-15		248122	10	4541	E183	HA RA SUDD;GENTRY 5	002-ALT	16
16-FEB-15		248121	10	4541	E183	HA RA SUDD;GENTRY 5	001-ALT	16
01-JUL-13		239745	10	4541	E183	HA RA SUDD;FULLER 5	001	16
09-MAR-10	30-JUN-13	239745	10	4541	C084	HA RA SUDD;FULLER 5-13-13 H	001	16

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 20, 2015 at 12:36

Not a re-frac.  Three new wells.  Congratulations.

248121	HA RA SUDD;GENTRY 5	001-ALT	4541	E183	16	12419	16654	16795	1	616088	2	10
248122	HA RA SUDD;GENTRY 5	002-ALT	4541	E183	16	12504	16333	16500	1	616088	2	10
248123	HA RA SUDD;GENTRY 5	003-ALT	4541	E183	16	12546	16691	16845	1	616088	2	10

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TL DS1 on May 20, 2015 at 13:07

The breakdown shows each individual well. My original well is now putting out the amount in my original post. Don't know why that well would now be putting out 6 times what it did 3 months ago if it wasn't re-fracked.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 20, 2015 at 13:20

Click on the Serial Number for each well (first number in blue).  Look under LUW Production.  You will see that the production for February (partial month) and March (first full month) are identical.  If you look up February and March production for your original well,  you will see that it is also the same.  That's because these are not production numbers for individual wells but cumulative production for all the wells in the unit.

There is no re-frac.  There are three new alternate unit wells in addition to the original unit well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TL DS1 on May 20, 2015 at 13:32

Skip,

The info on my check stub shows the production of each well. The production for the month was 1.33 billion for all 6 wells. Again, my original well is making 6.6 times what it did in Jan. As you know DNR info is not up to date.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 20, 2015 at 13:36

TL, yes production reporting to the state is two months behind the fact.  What was the January production for you original unit well?  And the February and March production for the same?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TL DS1 on May 20, 2015 at 13:48

Skip,

The last normal month (Dec) showed 23 MM per month. This check for March showed 153 MM.

Jan. was only 6 MM because they evidently shut it down to frac.

Feb. was about 48 MM (partial month)

(Had to go back and edit some dates)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 20, 2015 at 14:06

Gotcha.  Thanks for the details.  The are so few wells that we can identify as re-fracs and then follow the decline rate to get a feel for how effective they are from an economic stand point.  If the technology and cost work out a good percentage of the ~2300 currently producing HA wells may be good candidates.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 23, 2015 at 2:24

The legal implications of consent to re-frac a well by working interest owners is an unsettled question under Louisiana law.

Refrac Obligations Under Model Form JOA-How Will Louisiana Courts Interpret? (Excerpt)

By David J. Rogers on May 22, 2015 Posted in News drilldeeperblog.com

In this period of depressed oil and gas prices, many companies are considering refracturing and/or reworking older wells to gain production at lower costs than from drilling new wells. Refracking allows companies to extract more hydrocarbons from already existing wells by recompleting the well. Nowadays, companies have better technology and are more efficient in their completion techniques and thus are able to capture additional hydrocarbons from existing well bores. For example, instead of spending around ten million dollars to drill and complete a new well in the Haynesville shale in Northwest Louisiana, a company can usually refrac an existing well for around two million dollars. Along with the cost savings, the results also look promising. According to Comstock Resources 2015 first quarter earnings call:

We [Comstock] began the year by executing our first refrac of a Haynesville shale well during the first quarter of 2015. Following the refrac, the Pace 33 #1 well in DeSoto Parish, Louisiana, had an initial production rate of 4 million cubic feet per day, which was an eight-fold increase from its 0.5 million per day production rate before the refrac. We’re currently producing this well at a stable rate of 3.5 million cubic feet per day.

This example is just one of many where refrac operations on existing wells in shale plays have been profitable. However, refracs also pose risks, including the total loss of a well bore resulting in both additional costs and no production.

Despite these risks and as the technology continues to improve, refrac operations are likely to become even more common in shale plays.  Thus, it is helpful to review common contractual provisions that may address or affect refrac operations.

Companies operating under joint operating agreements and those looking to acquire interests in properties burdened by such agreements should be mindful of how such agreements may affect refrac operations. Many standard form joint operating agreements do not specifically address the refrac of a well already producing in paying quantities. Thus, the question arises whether a party is allowed to undertake refrac operations without all parties’ consent for wells that are producing in paying quantities. Moreover, if a party does not consent, can that party be treated as a non-consenting party and thus be subject to the non-consent penalties under the terms of most joint operating agreements.  At present, there does not yet appear to be a Louisiana case decided on these questions, and the jurisprudence from neighboring Texas is unsettled.

Link to full article: 

http://www.drilldeeperblog.com/2015/05/refrac-obligations-under-mod...

Permalink Reply by olddog573 on May 27, 2015 at 14:32

http://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/052715/chesapeakes-enorm...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TL DS1 on May 28, 2015 at 4:34

Good info. Thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on July 7, 2015 at 19:20

Bloomburg likes Refracking - says it's there is a "fever" around it although the technology is new.

This is a very positive article claiming 30% MORE gas from refracked wells than from new ones. What do you guys think?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-06/refracking-fever-...

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page