Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on August 17, 2009 at 6:07

PBOL, realize this was a vertical well completion so not really indicative of the production potential for the area. Also, Burk may lack the technical savy to make good Haynesville/Bossier Shale completions.

Permalink Reply by Charmine on August 17, 2009 at 6:36

Also, I know you are on here quite a bit. I have lost track of what is going on, but am back now as the landmen are calling again. What I am trying to figure out is what is the closest producing Haynesville well to Center. According to the Texas RRC website, there are 4 completed wells in Shelby County. Do you know off the top of your head, the API# on these 4 wells? I would like to watch them, and see what or if they are producing. I do OK with the RR GIS viewer, but obviously not that great, if I missed the above info! I know there is a lot of chatter about producing wells, but it would seem like I need more then chatter to bring back to the landman, if I decide I am ready to negotiate. I understand that talk of force pooling is a scare tactic, so I am not sure if I should be concerned about CHk landman talking about going ahead without us.

Permalink Reply by king john on August 17, 2009 at 6:55

Les , i was looking over your texas well list and i wonder if you may have some insight into why the IPs are lower. they are all H-wells but much lower IPs. do you think it is a technical issue or a matter of quality of the formations. i must have missed it when you posted it. where is it located?
kj

Permalink Reply by Charmine on August 17, 2009 at 7:04

A compiled list of Texas HS wells, with numbers? Yea, I have been looking, hoping for one!

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on August 23, 2009 at 18:15

KJ, several operators have commented that the Bossier Shale in Texas has a higher clay content. This makes the formation less brittle and more difficult to fracture.

I do keep waiting for the results from the EOG Gammage well to see if may confirm the higher rate seen in the Common Resources well area.

By the way, what were you trying to locate?

Permalink Reply by Charmine on August 17, 2009 at 6:23

I've looked at this 10 times- thanks les, you are right. It doesn't have the H whereever the H is supposed to be, and the depth isn't right. I totally missed that part, as I was so excited that it said Haynesville in the field part. Why does it say Haynesville in the field part then?

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on August 23, 2009 at 18:19

PBOL, this well is completed in the Haynesville Formation in the Center Field and I am assuming it is Haynesville Shale.

Permalink Reply by Charmine on August 24, 2009 at 3:51

Yea, good to hear! So Les, why is it not a horizontal then?

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on August 24, 2009 at 4:04

PBOL, certain operators (Burk, NFR, Valence, etc) have been drilling several of these small rate vertical Bossier/Haynesville Shale wells in Texas. I don't really understand their logic for drilling these verticals since it is not clear the wells are economic and I think much of the acreage may already be held by production. These are smaller operators and may not have the technical or financial resources to take on the drilling and completion of a horizontal shale well. I wonder if they plan to eventually farm-out or sale these deeper rights to a larger company.

Permalink Reply by Charmine on August 24, 2009 at 4:24

OK Les, I guess that makes a bit more sense. I couldn't understand the production numbers either. They didn't seem very high. So this would explain the lower numbers, as in because they haven't been able to do the horizontal frac?

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on August 24, 2009 at 4:34

PBOL, because the well does not have a horizontal lateral it will produce at the low rates you saw in the report. The initial flow test was only 83 Mcf per day.

Permalink Reply by Charmine on August 24, 2009 at 4:41

How often are the reports updated. I see the last set of numbers are from back in May.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page