Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on February 11, 2009 at 15:53

Bad link maybe?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ALongview on February 11, 2009 at 15:57

1.5 quadrillion cubic feet. That is the first time I have ever seen that kind of a number in an article that wasn't talking about our national debt or stimulus package.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on February 11, 2009 at 16:12

Les - In your opinion, is there any chance ... even a slim one ... that our ng could be turned into a major export industry? I know we've discusssed the lack if LNG facilities, I'm not sure about CNG. It just seems to me, given the demand in S. America & Europe, and with the games that Russia plays, more effort should be going into our export of product. We'd give the Russians a run for their money. :0)

Thanks, sesport

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on February 13, 2009 at 8:34

Sesport, believe it is a slim chance. Even Aubrey McClendon stated this week that political & financing issues and the lead time for projects make it a remote possibility. This is reason Chesapeake is focusing their efforts on growing demand for natural gas in the US (read power generation & transportation fuel).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by North LA on February 11, 2009 at 17:20

Thanks for posting this!

1500000000000000cf. That's about double the initial projections. I wonder why they increased projections so much.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on February 12, 2009 at 5:17

I think it's because they know the boundaries of the field will be much larger than originally thought, especially to the north.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by North LA on February 12, 2009 at 5:35

That would be good news for a lot of people.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JWC on February 12, 2009 at 7:11

Checkmateking...just wondering why you feel the boundaries of the field are much larger to the north? Thanks for your input.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on February 12, 2009 at 10:48

Well the original core area, as outlined by both Petrohawk and Chesapeake showed the zero out line at the 19N/20N border. This was based on a failed JW operating vertical well, they said the frac screened out and that the well was no good, of course no log was released. We now know from several penetrations in the immediate area that not only is the shale zone present in the area, but it is the thickest found so far. This has opened up thousands of new acres and several new test wells going north. Not only has the field expanded to the north, but to the west as well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ALongview on February 12, 2009 at 11:01

Checkmateking, Do you have an opinion as to how far south this will go?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by North LA on February 12, 2009 at 15:55

I might as well ask how far east also :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on February 13, 2009 at 10:06

I don't mind giving anyone my opinions, but keep in mind they are just that. I know plenty of people may disagree with me and they may very well be right, so here we go. Going South is a whole different ball game, the zone is there but the trick is just how deep is it, and will it be economical to drill, I think we can say for sure based on various wells that the known economical southern extent is as far south as Zwolle. When you get down to 12,000 -13000+feet your looking at alot higher temps and pressure. This would be a good question for Les B, he has much more knowledge when it come to the technical aspects. I think with better technologies, higher gas prices, and more experience the southern side of the play has alot of upside potential. Going east and west we run into the same problems as going north, the core area H-shale become interbedded with sandstones and various other types of strata, sandstone, lime, etc.
The questar report shows some really great new wells in 9W, I think 8W is safe to say for now( this could be extended) I have heard various geologists argue back and forth as to whether the zone is present in the eastern portion of the Terryville field. One geo will look at a log and say yes and one will look at a log and say no. My dad likes to refer to geologists as underground weathermen, they are right about half the time.

• ▶ Reply

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