Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on February 2, 2009 at 18:30

Joe,

Can you say 60MMCFD again.

I just like the sound of it.

WOW!

Tell 'em to keep practicing before they get to my neck of the woods. The 100MMCFD sounds even better, NOT THAT I WOULDN'T TAKE 60!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on February 2, 2009 at 16:37

Joe, actually the permit was for "Smackover". Not sure which lease you are referring to since the unit included numerous individual tracts of land (ie leases).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Hahn on February 2, 2009 at 18:38

Les,
I was referring to #238108 (Colbert Well) in RRP. See my previous posting on first page. This is the one engineering made a miscalculation, and Encana now has another Rig going for the HS, (the original intent as was explained to me)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on February 2, 2009 at 19:05

Joe, that is the well I am referring to. The permit was for Smackover rather than Haynesville Shale. But that just seems to be the way EnCana was permitting wells at that time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Hahn on February 3, 2009 at 3:39

Gotcha

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by North LA on February 3, 2009 at 4:42

Les,

They permitted through the conservation hearing as the Jurrasic formation defined as approx 10,000ft to 13,500ft. I would guess that covers 2-3 different formations. HS/Smackover/Bossier shale. So much for being specific. I guess formations have different definitions based on which field they are in?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on February 3, 2009 at 5:14

North LA, just to clarify that units are established as you mentioned for a zone that may cover several formations. The Jurrasic Zone established by EnCana would likely encompass the Bossier Shale, Haynesville Shale and Smackover Sandstone. When individual wells are permitted, they have a single formation listed on the permit such as Haynesville or Smackover. It some cases the names are the same (ie Haynesville Zone & Haynesville Formation). Zone names can vary between fields but the formation names should be more consistent.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by North LA on February 3, 2009 at 5:16

Thanks for the clarification. So are you saying that well is actually a Smackover well and not a Haynesville shale well? Because if that's true it could make things interesting.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on February 3, 2009 at 5:21

North LA, no actually I think the permits have been mis-stated and should have shown the wells as Haynesville rather than Smackover.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Hahn on February 3, 2009 at 7:00

Based on information provided from Encana, because of the specificity of the lease language, they just recently put another rig on the same pad and are in the process of drilling another Colbert well into the Haynesville to ensure they maintain the terms of the lease.

Permalink Reply by redrivergal on February 18, 2009 at 8:26

Joe Hahn, Les B, or anyone else familar with the Encana/Red River Parish wells,

Have you heard what the early testing results were in mmcfd for the following three RRP wells:

1. Colbert, #238108, Sec 16-13N-09W, on La 786
2. J.W. Adcock Inv 29H #238349, Sec 029-13N-09W, on the Joe Adcock Road, and
3. Elmwood Land 33H, #238485, Sec 033-13N-09W.

I believe they just finished fracing the latter two. Thanking you in advance for your time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Hahn on February 18, 2009 at 9:11

Completed the J.W. Adcock well, but not yet in production. They are in the process of fracing the Elmwood and should finish up sometime this week. I "heard" some test results on the Adcock well, but these are not confirmed. Based on what I heard, preliminarily it is a good well. Significant amount of mmcfd.

• ▶ Reply

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