super tight spacing on CHK wells - 250'

Long wells Harrison county.......can this be right?......3 wells with lateral spacing at 250'?......they could pack 7 wells in this 416 acre unit (9 wells if the state relaxes the 500' standoff).....and these are 7,000' laterals!....they show recently drilled........good to see chk trying some different completion techniques.....will be interesting to see production numbers..........this is the tightest spacing i have seen.

Atlas' nearby Reese/Cramblett wells are at 450' spacing there should be some production data on those for 4th qtr.........a bunch of others are at 500' or more..........but 250' is tight.....super tight.

Views: 7510

Attachments:

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on February 7, 2014 at 12:32pm

Mr. Booger,

There is a belief that the laterals do not drain as large an area. 3D models of "frac jobs" show fractures shorter than anticipated. Therefore, companies are experimenting with smaller spacing between laterals.

Permalink Reply by Booger on February 8, 2014 at 2:45am
Yes. Some are also using different techniques. In other plays, EOG has outperformed their peers by 2 to 3 times with a frac technique that somehow uses much more water and sand, but makes shorter fracs (but more fracs) and they not only reduce spacing.....but also produce more....and with less decline.
GPOR appears to have been experimenting for a while in the Utica (boyscout, darla).......but this is the first I have seen from CHK.....and the boldest, in regards to tight spacing....
Also interesting on the plat it shows that GPOR owns some surface and mineral rights in this unit. Maybe their teaming up on this experiment.
Permalink Reply by Dave C on February 8, 2014 at 3:44am

Booger we are part of Rice's Bigfoot well pad  (7h and 9H wells).  Looking on their permit application they received a variance to reduce the distance to 500 feet between the wells.  They are running them parallel to each other at 500 feet the entire 10,000 feet length of the wells.  I am new to all this and wondered if this is an example of trying a different technique? 

Permalink Reply by Bill Barnaby on February 8, 2014 at 4:03am

Not sure how new you are here but just a quick update on the 7h, they plugged it and decided to drill the 9h  due to pressure issues in December.

Permalink Reply by Dave C on February 8, 2014 at 6:28am

Bill I was aware of that, but thanks for making sure.  I am new here, but have been trying to keep up with information specific to the Bigfoot well pad.

When I was informed of 7H being plugged in late December, I was told as long as they could control the pressure on the 2nd well they would still be drilling two wells at Bigfoot.  They said the second well (if drilled) would be drilled while the rig is there now.  At that time I was not given any specific information on the placing of a possible second well.  I haven't spoke with anyone credible since then, but I keep searching ODNR for any updates. 

So, is the close spacing and long parallel wells that were initially planned at Bigfoot indicative of these different techniques? 

Permalink Reply by Booger on February 8, 2014 at 6:15am

Dave- noticed that same configuration on rices' nearby bluethunder well also..........the length of the wells make them look closer on the viewer, but 500 feet seems to be the new norm for spacing........although they could be experimenting, I would think all the gascos are experimenting at some level.......those are some longer than normal laterals.

Permalink Reply by Dave C on February 8, 2014 at 6:34am

Thanks!

That is what I thought looking at them but wanted someone's more experienced opinion. 

Permalink Reply by Chris F on February 18, 2014 at 3:18pm

It might have to do partially with the sand they are using. 100 Mesh spec or finer doesnt require the propants that the coarser sand requires, and can create finer fractures opening up a larger fraction of a given volume.  Im sure there is more to it than that, but i think that might be a contributing factor.

Permalink Reply by Booger on February 19, 2014 at 2:26am

Chris- that is interesting..........i never pictured the fractures in that small of a scale......but it makes sense that smaller sand would get into smaller cracks.

what do you mean about small sand not needing propants?......i thought that the sand is the propant...?

Permalink Reply by Paul Martinelli on February 19, 2014 at 2:32am

As i understand it....the propants  are the material/process that creates the fractures and pushes the sand into the fractures.

it is mostly water.

Permalink Reply by Brian Powers on February 19, 2014 at 2:48am

Paul -

The viscous gelled fluid creates the hydraulic fractures and transports the proppant into the fracture, the proppant holds the crack open after the hydraulic pressure is released and theoretically allows fluid or gas to flow through the proppant pack and eventually to surface. The finer proppant sizes (100 U.S. mesh grading finer to silica flour) are often used to bridge very small fissures to prevent excessive fluid leak-off and premature termination of the frac job. Excessive fine material in the proppant pack reduces prop pack permeability, sometimes to the point of complete flow impediment.

Brian

Permalink Reply by Paul Martinelli on February 19, 2014 at 3:15am

As always....TY for your excellent technical information.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service