Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Devon Richland Farms 74H-1 Result

Devon's timid frac design has resulted in another underwhelming TMS result.  I hear that they only averaged 100,000-150,000# of proppant per stage.  It resembles a Les Miles second half play call.

SONRIS reports this:
COMPLETED 4/29/12 AS A OIL WELL IN THE TUSCALOOSA MARINE SHALE RES;PM F 259 BOPD; 151 MCFD; 2700CP; 09/64 CK; 470 BWPD; 1.8%BS&W; 583 GOR; 40.9 GRVTY PERFS 13718-18146' (ST: 10)

Lets hope that their "sandbagging" us again like on the Soterra 6H-1.  All I can say is "Put in Jarrett Lee!".


  1. Looks like the mediocre well performance of this DVN well is due more to the lateral being too short, rather than the stages being too few. The results from those two ECA wells will be very interesting. Looks like ECA is going for the brass ring by pushing the envelop on lateral length as well as number of stages.

  2. # of stages is a product of the lateral length. Proppant volume is a frac design decision. Both have impact. Over time, we should be able to align frac parameters with results.

  3. I think # of stages does NOT have to be fixed to lateral length. Three similar lateral lengths in the illustration above, about 4,200 ft, have # of stages varying from 13 to 20. DVN's well with 20 stages did considerably better than the well with 13 stages (however, not on the well with 15 stages). I'm sure rock properties and stage volume would be contributing factors, however. I would conclude that DVN's decision to place their stages 200' apart in the lateral yielded better results than the well with 13 stages that placed those stages 300' apart. Actually, DVN's spacing for stages is tighter than ECA is planning for their long laterals, which is 250' to 300'. Seems like, in general, longer laterals, with tighter spacing for stages, will yield higher Initial Potential. This stands to reason, however, there must be an economic limit to this theory.

  4. Regardless of the technicalities, it appears to me that this level of production isn't high enough to make the TMS a viable play.

    I don't know how soon these drilling companies expect to get their money back from a well, but I estimate an AVERAGE production of 200 barrels per day will take them roughly 2 years to get their money back. I'm guessing that's about a year and a half more than they had hoped.

  5. The 2 Encana Anderson wells should be a better indicator of play viability than anything Devon has done so far. I agree with Kirk. Devon seemingly has not been willing to spend as much on completing the wells as Encana has. Encana is using much much more proppant per stage, which may indicate a much better frack job than the Devon wells. IMO

  6. I think we're all saying about the same thing. These TMS wells will require more complex (and more expensive) completions to make the TMS play viable. In general, longer laterals, shorter spacing on frac stages and more proppant per stage will make better producers. Encana's planned completions appear to take these variables to the next level. It will be very interesting to see the results.