Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on May 8, 2009 at 1:48

Gray,
Yes, it appears to me that 239234 is a horizontal CV well, and is probably in the same unit as 209512.
Actually, after a little further checking, I found about 16 wells in Sections 1, 2 and 3 that appear to me to be in the same CV unit as 209512. They are not different formations or zones, all CV, but all in the same unit, therefor the monthly production shown is exactly the same for each well. The monthly production shown on Sonris is unit production, which will include every well in the unit. This well seems to have a very large unit.
Check Sonris for wells in Sections 1, 2 and 3, T16N-R6W, and you can get the serial numbers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark on May 8, 2009 at 3:44

Has there been any word on intitial results for XTO's M. Gulley 1-12H?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on May 8, 2009 at 4:20

Mark, sorry but is that a Texas or Louisiana well?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark on May 8, 2009 at 4:46

I believe Texas and it has a long lateral and large treatment volume which is what started my curiosity.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on May 8, 2009 at 11:09

Mark, you were correct about the well being in Texas and details are below. I could not locate any test information or confirm the current status of the well. XTO has already permitted the 13H well in the same lease.

Midyett-Gulley #12H Well (Permit #672048)
Panola County
Lateral Length - 7576'

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on May 8, 2009 at 4:29

I just updated the list to squeeze in the Petrohawk Powers well at #14 bringing the total to 20 wells. So in honor of the Indy 500 let's see if anyone can "bump" their way into the Top 20 before the Great Race.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chattykathy on May 18, 2009 at 10:35

What about Encana's well in Sec. 8 of 14n14w Desoto. Word is that it came in at 90mcf a day initial production and choked back to 14

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on May 18, 2009 at 11:21

Les doesn't add unreported rumors. Oh, and 90,000 cf/day won't make the wall.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on May 18, 2009 at 11:26

CK, the following well tested at 13,446 Mcfd on a 20/64 choke which is a similar choke size to the other wells listed. There has been no public information that would support such a high well test rate.

EnCana, Burford Land 8 #H1 Well, Serial #238820, S8-T14N-R14W

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on June 18, 2009 at 11:34

Les,

You can add Sample 4, #238,246, in 4, 14N, 11W. This well was completed in December 2008, but was reported at an IP rate of 5+mmcfd because of completion failures. In March, the well was recompleted and produced 631,370 mcf in April, for a IP of 21.046 mmcfd for 30 DAYS. I believe a 30 day average of over 20+mmcfd will qualify for the Hall of Fame.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on June 18, 2009 at 17:27

Your facts are a little off here, w r . Petrohawk drilled 2 wells in 14/11, Section 4. The Sample 4 #1 (Serial # 238246) did, in fact, have casing issues and had to be severely curtailed. It had an IP of 5.129 million, Later, Petrohawk drilled the Sample 4 #2 Alt. Serial # 238828 (a different well) and it had an IP of 23.73 million and is listed as the # 6 well in the Haynesville Hall of Fame list. The 631,370 mcf production you see in April is total production for BOTH Sample 4 wells for April.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on June 18, 2009 at 17:48

SB, thanks for digging up the clarification.

• ▶ Reply

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