I had to type it in if it does not work I will try to copy and paste.

Views: 2026

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks I should have thought of that.

Thanks for the perspective!


You are correct, the attached spreadsheet supports your depth claim. All of the best Utica performing wells in the 4th qtr are at a greater depth.



David,  The wells I followed in Columbiana, seem to have the pressure to flow, they all appear the same machinery.  The north Halcon wells in Trumbull, that I studied, have engines, pumps?

Two years ago, I was told by my good friend's son the project geologist with Laredo in the Permian basin that pressure is never the issue, they induce pressure, it is VOLUME.

Didn't have an app to open your SS on my tablet but today was able to view it on my cpu.
Thank you.
Finding wells with significant oil production at about 5800'.
Noticing one well depth highlighted and a couple of others at / near that depth offset within the column.
One in Guernsey looks good - terrain there rolls a bit.
Thinking tabulated depths are from the surface location of the wellhead (not referenced to sea level) - correct ?
Also thinking (for the Guernsey well especially) higher terrain may be adjacent to wellhead amplifying (natural / available) geo-pressure - don't know however (well may be located in a valley / 'hollow' (holler) for all I know).
Reads to me like (in Ohio) the higher up the west side of the Appalacian Escarpment the well is the better.
Thanks again.

Northern vs. Southern....huh :

Speaking only for myself (but thinking there are others who perceive things similarly) the words northern vs. southern are merely a generalization.

The generalization to me applies as development so far seems to be confined to southeast Ohio.

Also the Deep vs. Shallow terms (to me) seem to be another generalization.

I think only more drilling will prove what is deep enough vs. what is not.

Also I think it may prove that 5500' is deep enough to produce economically.

Also noting that the Utica is supposed to be about 5500' deep to it's top in southeastern Ashtabula County and about 350' thick with the Point Pleasant about 85' thick at the Utica's base (putting the bottom of the Point Pleasant at about 5850' deep). That may prove to be deep enough to produce economically for all we know.

Would like to see the E & P crews punch some more holes myself.

Probably easier to pick the lower hanging fruit right now (as I've read quite a few times elsewhere on these pages) but none the less would like to see change.

Is 6000' the minimum depth to term a strata deep and not shallow ?
How about 5850' deep ?
Is that shallow and not deep ?
I think if it produces it's deep enough myself.
That's my point.

depth determines ground  pressure.

Is 5850' deep enough ? ?


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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service