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 Chris F on February 19, 2014 at 12:45pm

I might have had some terminology wrong, what i meant as i understood was that the finer sand might not require additional chemicals to keep the sand in suspension as much as a coarser sand would.  Thats just speculation though, could be wrong...

Permalink Reply by Booger on February 8, 2014 at 6:21am

US - they may very well have long fractures on these early wells with 1,000' spacing.....if so, it would be tough to drill in between.

these newer techniques somehow create more fractures but shorter in length.....the only way I can figure how that is possible is using more perforations and less pressure.....

so maybe they could go in between older laterals with newer techniques - all depends on how much unfractured space is left there.

Permalink Reply by BIG on February 8, 2014 at 9:42am

I have been posting this past month that smaller spacing was being tested.  This is why landowners with older leases and 160 unitization language need to take the offers that oil companies offer them to amend.  If the landowner continues to hold out the oil company will just unitize them in a narrow 160 and drill a 7,000-10,0000 feet lateral.  Ultimately, the oil companies will just stop offering money on the amendments.  Better take the deals while they are still available.

Permalink Reply by Dodge Charger on February 9, 2014 at 2:27am

I've seen costs of well pads posted in discussions, and they aren't inconsequential (at least in my mind).  Just seems to me that too many wells at only 160 acres each would seriously add to the overhead costs of construction, which, needless to say, affects bottom line.  No?

Permalink Reply by Booger on February 9, 2014 at 3:09am
DC,
There would still only be one pad......costs wouldn't change.....what BIG is talking about was being done even with large spacing.......the reason the gascons want you to amend is that it simply gives them more flexibility to HBP.
Permalink Reply by Dodge Charger on February 10, 2014 at 3:40am

Thanks B,

I understand there would still be one pad per unit. My line of thinking was if the unit size is only 160 acres, there could/would be more units and that would mean more pads.  But if you're implying that the hole they drill on the 160 is just to have it HBP -- and then at some other point in the future get the lease modified for larger unit size -- and then go back and drill more  laterals from the same, existing pad... I guess that makes sense.

So, is that what you meant?  LOL

Permalink Reply by Booger on February 10, 2014 at 3:51am

kindof.........but i'm pretty sure there can be multiple units with only a single pad....and the pad itself might not even be included in any of the units that are drilled from it........i've seen several chk units in carroll that started out that way, not sure if they changed or not......was told by chk landman that they do that, when people don't amend............that would suck to have a 10acre pad on your land and the 10acres to be left out of a unit.

Permalink Reply by David Perotto on February 9, 2014 at 3:29am
Drilling an extra lateral does increase total well pad costs. These costs are more than offset by an increase in total well pad production. These techniques will maximize the recovery of the oil and gas in place.
Permalink Reply by Bill Barnaby on February 8, 2014 at 5:02pm
What offers have folks had to ammend besides do it or hit the road?
Permalink Reply by Booger on February 9, 2014 at 3:19am
Bill,
I was thinking the same thing. I haven't heard of gascos offering anything but threats.......although I am still not convinced that not amending is better than amending.
Permalink Reply by BIG on February 9, 2014 at 4:08am

I have only heard of amending from a 160 to 640-1280, no money.  This is how it was done in Carroll County.  If you don't amend you would be stuck in a 160 unit with one well.  If you are in a 640-1280 you have a chance that 8-10 wells will be drilled and you would participate in all of them.  There is more money for you in terms of royalty.  Why do you think companies what to buy your mineral rights, to be in one well or multiple wells.

Permalink Reply by bo boboski on February 9, 2014 at 5:43am

True; BIG.  Those selling their mineral rights now will be surprised when they find out that they could of gotten royalties off 16/18 wells in a single unit,on a single pad. Maybe, with the "triple play" 24 wells?. Decline curves or not. When one lateral declines,there will be plenty more right beside it.500  ft. spacing, 3 or more formations? Anadarko is now experimenting with a horizontal drill thru the Clinton, for OIL!. I like the Analogy from one dude; Do you want a little $$$ now, or LOTS of $$$ later?

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service