Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jim on April 18, 2013 at 6:49am

Good Question, but I have another question in this ball park.  Is the horizontial drilling technology so good that a driller can drill off of your property and connect into your neighbors horizontial.  Can you imagine drilling a horizontial 14,000 feet long from east to west and then drilling a 14,000 foot long horizontial from west to east and connecting them.  Maybe someone can answer both.  We landed robots on mars with no problem.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Area Man on April 18, 2013 at 9:43am

I'll try to hit both.  Quick answer, no wells are not re-entered to drill additionally (post frac) and while we have the technology to hit another wellbore, there isn't really a reason to do it.

 

To the OP - there are a number of things installed to produce a well, casing/liner, plenty of doo-dads on the surface, etc.  All of that would have to go in order to re-enter the hole and drill further.  It would be easier and much cheaper to put another wellbore in right next door.  No real reason to extend an existing well.

Jim - the problem with making one GIGANTIC well would be, at minimum, completining it.  Yes, you've now created a monster wellbore, perhaps longer than drilling in one direction was possible, but now you need to pump water and sand down the entire length or what was the point?  That is where everything breaks down - the pressure you'd need to force sand ~20,000' away, friction all along, and maintaing a high rate... not realistic.  No real reason to do this kind of thing onshore - just move one unit up and drill another well.

 

Good thoughts these, but remember cost is the biggest driver and things are GENERALLY not too expensive onshore.  Just drill another well!

 

Hope that helps.

Cheers!

-AreaMan

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on April 18, 2013 at 2:42pm

AreaMan,
Maybe something like the following to use in the
low geo-pressure oil window in the west Utica ? :

Is it possible to drill a downward sloping lateral
with a cavity at it's terminus; then drill another
vertical into the newly created cavity ?
Next step would be to fracture the shale
around the lateral and drain to the new
cavity by gravity. The last step would be to
lift the production to the surface and collect it.
Thinking this may work for low geo-pressure
areas.
What are your thoughts ?
Possible ?
Make any sense ?
Maybe steam to thin the production
for drainage ?
J-O

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on April 18, 2013 at 2:59pm

Pump Jack and /or steam lift ?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Area Man on April 19, 2013 at 4:40am

Somewhat, but you could accomplish the same with a well that is drilled toe-up (the toe is the final point in the well, toe-up meaning the well is drilled up-dip so it finishes higher than where the lateral landed).  In this case, your hydrocarbons can migrate with gravity down the well bore to the vertical portion of your well where you can have any type of lift system.

Definitely a good thought and we do drill toe-up wells in situations where pressure is not sufficient to lift the liquids.

 

Cheers!

-AreaMan

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on April 19, 2013 at 5:34am

AreaMan,
Thanks for your reply.
Thinking there's the 500' radius from the
initial vertical to the horizontal to contend
with.
Also, it would seem to me that lift pressure
would have to be applied behind the column
of oil you're lifting to the surface.
Just thinking out loud.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on April 19, 2013 at 6:43am

Since you haven't replied to my most
recent question I'm thinking you're
satisfied that the 'toe up' technique
can somehow accommodate everything
that a 'double vertical' can.
Maybe it's possible then to insert a
flexible steam line deep into the bore
(all the way to the toe perhaps) - then
turn the steam pressure on and push
the oil up the vertical (around the
flexible steam line) to the surface and
collect it.
Does that skin the cat ?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Area Man on April 19, 2013 at 6:56am

Sorry for the delay, I only check periodically throughout the day.

 

In any case, I'm not sure steam flood would be a great solution out here - you're more thinking of a high viscosity hydrocarbon/oil like tar sands.  The issue we have in the Marcellus/Utica (and other shale plays) is the low permiability of the source rock.  The hydrocarbon molecules are restricted due to the tight squeeze out of the rock.  The ideas you have would be more applicable in a conventional setting where the permiability is high(er) but the oil is too low quality to flow efficiently.

Keep firing off questions though - its always good to think through these issues and not get stuck in a mold.

Cheers!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on April 19, 2013 at 7:39am

Certain articles I've read call the oil found in the western Utica 'Black Oil' and I've been thinking it as on the more viscous side (accurate ?).

But, that not withstanding, I think I'm reading that you believe the western Utica shale as not easily fractured / too tightly packed / too sticky (accurate ?).

If too sticky then perhaps frac and re-frac.

If not too sticky but only too tightly packed or perhaps a combination of too sticky and too tightly packed then perhaps frac and re-frac would still work.

Did anybody try any of these techniques in the western Utica ?

Perhaps not as they're probably looking for the easiest oil they can find first.

Maybe they'll do all of the above later in the play.

What's your read on it all ?

Incidentally, our ground is in the southeastern quadrant of Ashtabula County.  The reason we're so interested in the western oil window is that we believe the quicker they crack the code on recovering the oil there - the better off the whole of Ohio will be.

Would really like to see them shake a leg on all of this !

 

Thanks AreaMan

J-O

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Area Man on April 19, 2013 at 7:53am

I think "black oil" is more to distinguish between condensate/natural gas liquids (NGLs) then to describe the oil itself.  I'll refrain from going too much more in depth though, because I honestly don't know.  I haven't ventured that far west with the Utica and could only speculate what operators are doing.

But, to answer your questions more generally - if the hydrocarbons are too viscous, frac/refrac won't do a heck of a lot for you.  Hydraulic fracturing is to allow the wellbore to contact more rock essentially, the fluid properties would remain unchanged and it would still be challenged to flow.  I don't think that's an issue for the Utica at all - perhaps for the shallow, more conventional targets (which, by the way I believe that Marksman company is chasing - my guess, but it seems to NOT be Utica).  Everything I've seen, even the oil phase of the Utica is still relatively high API (high quality, low viscosity).

As well, you're correct in thinking easy oil first - the more challenging stuff will be sought after eventually.  I think most operators are trying to find the largest volume of liquids they can produce cheaply.  More marginal prospects will have to wait their turn.

-AreaMan

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on April 19, 2013 at 10:00am

Steam flood only to provide the pressure to lift then (if as you say the oil isn't too viscous and will flow readily anyway).

Then it sounds like the only concern would be to make sure they've done a good fracturing job (as you say - open more shale area to the bore - make it more permeable - loosen the squeeze).

Fracture and Re-fracture if necessary.

Permalink Reply by TM on April 19, 2013 at 8:09am

The well in Tuscarawas County that is in production now had 38 degree light crude oil in it. Would this be low viscosity oil? I am sure the farther west you go in the oil window it would get even heavier.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page