Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on March 20, 2009 at 5:18

Maybe the leassor's that signed a lease for units of 640 acres could consent to large units if developers consent to drilling two consecutive wells.

Or maybe the Unit order could REQUIRE two wells within a specific time period.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 20, 2009 at 5:29

We can discuss this issue in a general sense or in the particular sense of this unit app. This if obviously a case unique to urban drilling in densely populated areas. And as it relates to the development of substantial adjoining mineral estates. I do not find your opinion that "bigger units (in certain instances) are necessary in order to completely develop ..." to be applicable in this instance. In fact the decisions made by the state in regard to this application should be the result of a bigger picture approach. The ramifications are considerable and far reaching. For mineral owners, the City and E&P companies.

Permalink Reply by Buddy on March 20, 2009 at 5:35

Brave: You do know that the Hamel Well is permitted to only 12,200 feet? I would bet they come back later and "horizontal it".

Permalink Reply by Buddy on March 20, 2009 at 4:31

Brave: Well 239339 on Sonris is the Chesapeake Peironnet Well. Permitted TVD of 11,876 and MD of 20,000 feet. This is the longest that I've seen. If you look at the plat in the well file, it appears that the MD is a bit less than 20,000 feet. This well is near the boat launch just above Lock and Dam 5 on the Caddo side of the Red River. Who knows how far these boys can drill. The latest report has them over 15,000 on this one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on March 20, 2009 at 5:38

No

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 20, 2009 at 5:40

Jay. No?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 20, 2009 at 5:42

braveheart. We're talking about two different issues here. Your comment in a general sense has some merit. I am attempting to focus attention on this particular unit app and its potential consequences.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on March 20, 2009 at 5:43

braveheart,

If they developed with 5280 or longer laterals, how significantly would that lower drilling costs?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on March 20, 2009 at 5:52

It appears that the longer laterals are producing significantly larger volumes of gas, if this holds true for the super long laterals maybe the diminished royalty argument is a mute point.

Maybe.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Buddy on March 20, 2009 at 7:29

Parker: Questar drilled a Cotton Valley horizontal in Red River Parish and were super pleased with it and still are - has been on line for roughly 6 to 8 months. Their thought - and it makes sense to me - that instead of drilling one every 20 acres, do one vertical and multistage frac in the horizontal and voila, lots of gas! They save $$ because of the one vertical hole.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on March 20, 2009 at 7:32

Buddy,

I was trying to look at it from a mineral owner in the area's view.

At first blush, it sounds like a bigger unit would be a negative, but since the longer laterals produce more gas it may not be a problem.

Also the less they spend on drilling the more they can drill.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on March 20, 2009 at 14:03

Buddy - This was my thought, too, months ago when someone was not pleased at being HBP with a vert. well. I researched tons of info re. redrilling to sidetrack & go horizontal, but not being an expert I'm not sure I completely understood under what circumstances it can or can not be done. I simply know that it indeed is being done.

That said, and IMHO, I believe it will save money AND headaches with surface issues related to environmental glitches. Whether this will be the case re. drilling along the western bank is yet to be seen.

Best - sesport :0)

• ▶ Reply

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