Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joseph on March 16, 2009 at 7:42

ShaleGeo and skip peel. SS just loaded their new presentation. They have some new charts. Any thoughts?

http://www.ssenergyinc.com/i/pdf/SSEY_Corporate_Overview_March09.pdf

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Count of Monte Cristo on March 16, 2009 at 9:36

I think that they'll have to produce some good initial flow rates from Haynesville wells before anyone takes them seriously. Problem is they don't have the expertise to drill horizontal wells...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on March 16, 2009 at 9:46

Dantes,
The initial flow rates that were very dissappointing were in the Pine Island/Dixie fields 19N 15W-14W The Franks and Hall wells both IP'ed around 2-2.5 MMCFD, The Sharp Well in Longwood-18N-16W I beleive IP'ed around 7 and dropped to 4 quickly, it looks like low porosity and lower pressures have quite a signifigant effect as you go north. Let's hope the Prescott well 19N-13W has better luck, I want to see what CPeake can come up with.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Count of Monte Cristo on March 16, 2009 at 10:35

So even though the shale is thicker up at Caddo Pine Island, it's not producing as much as the Elm Grove wells?? I don't know much about geology, but it seems odd that it would be thicker yet less gas would be produced...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 16, 2009 at 11:14

Count. The short answer is yes. I suggest you review the discussion thread, Mystery of the Northern Wells Solved?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on March 16, 2009 at 15:53

It seems at this point the lower porosity and pressure has a much greater bearing than thickness. Rumour has it that it's extremely difficult to fracture.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 16, 2009 at 16:07

Checkmateking. When considering thickness, I believe that there is a distinction to be made between gross thickness and net thickness. I would prefer for one of our experienced members to tell us the difference. And I would further point out that there are three HA reservoirs referenced in drilling & production unit applications. Reservoirs A, B, & C. The majority of applications are for A. A small minority for B. And very rarely, C.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on March 16, 2009 at 16:28

I have seen gross thicknesses up to 800 feet, this is the entire interval from the upper bossier to the bottom of the Haynesville, I remember some discussions Jay had on this when talking about some gross intervals in the Bethany Longstreet Field, the thickness of the lower productive Haynesville Shale or Lower Bossier in TX will be the net thickness.

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on March 19, 2009 at 10:26

The shale north of I-20 is turning out to be a diffrent kind of rock. more importantly, it is a clayier shale thatr contains higher organics. These northern wells are also producing a good amount of condensate.

I have heard much talk that the shale in the northern areas is not reacting well to a standard water frac, and the possibilty of a gel frac is being considerd.

In any event the condensate has been causing some problems for these wells and is a factor in the lower IP rates of gas.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on March 19, 2009 at 10:53

Baron, you must have been at the Shreveport Geological Society luncheon @ the Petroleum Club on Tuesday. It was staled that the rock was not necessarily lower porosity, but was much shalier and that condensate was indeed an issue.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 19, 2009 at 10:58

Baron. I have anticipated some attempts using different completion profiles for the wells north of I-220. Let us know what you can when that occurs. I think HK's S L Herold will give us an idea if the shale is different between I-20 and I-220. It is completed and flowing to sales but not announced that I am aware of.

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on March 16, 2009 at 16:10

The Sharp well is in 18/15, Section 7

• ▶ Reply

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