Patterson well

I looked in the sky and it is orange. Oh yes I have seen this before only its a lot bigger, what I drove down the road to see was the utica well being flared off on the patterson well. It had to be four or five times the size of the marcellus well flare which was in of itself a pretty good one. This well has a marcellus and a utica on it as a"test well". Looks like they passed the test. It is amazing and really hot from afar. It was raining and so as the flame was taller than the flare pipe, the groud was steaming all arond.

Views: 38538

Attachments:

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on February 23, 2013 at 11:37am

Hilcorp grew up in the Eagle Ford of Tx.  They specialize in wet gas and light oils.

Where did you see the oil amounts listed? What about condensates?

Permalink Reply by cheliped on February 23, 2013 at 11:22pm

Dennis and Glen,

Is that a good condensate number =40.83?  if not what is a good condensate number for a well?

Permalink Reply by MANDERSON on February 24, 2013 at 12:36am
That's not much condensate or oil at all.
Permalink Reply by craig on February 24, 2013 at 12:53pm

Dennis, I believe what CHK is doing is hiding their numbers by using BTU levels (which is unknown to us) in their calculations. I only saw a check stub once, but I believe it was #BTU's/mfc or was it cf? I understand natural gas needs to be 1000 BTUs  or close when entering a pipeline. They can hide these condensate numbers by selling/using higher BTU #'s in their accounting. I believe CHK got constrained on selling gas from the Thompson well for awhile because the BTU's were too high. Not sure what they are doing about it.

Permalink Reply by Trapper on March 14, 2013 at 8:40am

https://www.paoilandgasreporting.state.pa.us/publicreports/Modules/...

I noticed that both Patterson wells reporting are designated N under the horizontal header......Are they getting this much gas from Vertical wells? Or is this a typo?

Also , I wonder why the other two wells on site are not tied inline yet? Does anyone out there have any answers?

Permalink Reply by Chris Crawley on March 14, 2013 at 9:13am

Glen,

It appears as though both the wells very originally permited vertical and under revision they were changed to horizontal, I think.

Both the current production wells permits are now listed as: 

1):  073-20353-01 , & 2) 073-20345-01

Permalink Reply by Trapper on March 14, 2013 at 9:22am

Thanks Chris. I just happened to scroll over far enough to notice this and thought there was no way they could be verticals...lol

Permalink Reply by Trapper on June 1, 2013 at 11:11am

Have the other 2 wells been hooked up to pipeline yet?

Permalink Reply by mike on May 29, 2015 at 5:25am

Here we go another well @ Patterson pad. This time its Sidwinder drilling rig 62 the pics are from today May 29 2015

Attachments:
Permalink Reply by Trapper on May 29, 2015 at 5:35am
Thanks Mike. Good to hear from you!
I wonder why they keep drilling here and let so many other leaseholds languish? In the next 16-18 months they will have to re-sign thousands of acres to hold on to them. One would think they'd be concentrating on getting wells drilled elsewhere to hold as many of us as they can in this limited time frame.....?
Permalink Reply by KAR on May 29, 2015 at 6:14am
One simple reason is that the pad is already built... A lot cheaper to drill off a previously built pad than to build a new one. Especially if starting out in a new area.
Permalink Reply by Trapper on May 29, 2015 at 7:50am
Thanks KAR. I just keep hoping for them to branch out and make some new pads. I'm only 3 or 4 miles away and the Tennessee runs through several hundred feet of my p roperty. A pad would sure put a smile on my face! Lol!

RSS

© 2025   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service