|EOG Dupuy 20H-1 (Source: SONRIS)|
I've been asked by many if I think that operators release lower numbers on purpose. The guidelines for initial potential reporting are very loose. In this play with the acreage mostly leased up, I don't see any reason for that. The table below compares the IP vs IP30's for the wells. There is no real trend. In shale plays, I believe that the IP is not very important. While it is the first data point, I believe that the first really relevant data point is the IP30. It illustrates real production over a month. When you compare IP's or IP30's between wells, choke size is important.
Even more important is the IP180 representing six months of production. The Encana Anderson 17H-1 has an IP180 of 72755 BO and 23354 MCF. The Encana Anderson 18H-1 has an IP180 of 89391 BO and 28051 MCF. I consider those to be impressive.
My well costs of $10.3 million has also generated questions. Daily rig rates and frac costs on a per stage basis are well known, so calculating costs is fairly straight forward. I presented some play economics several months ago using $10.2 million. I believe that EOG will quickly have costs below $10M on Dupuy offsets.
Those that have followed this blog since March, 2011 know that I don't post hearsay and rumors. I prefer to post information once I feel confident that it is accurate. I also provide technical information to support it. There are many chat websites where you can go to get enthralled with rumors. That is not the goal of this website.
Those that are viewing this blog to gain confidence in purchasing public stock of TMS operators are advised to do your own research and investigation.
The comment box below provides the opportunity for anyone to join the discussion. If you're really bold, post under your real name. Those anonymous internet names remind me of the old CB Radio handles in the 70's. With that, I conclude with "10-4 good buddy. I'll be 10-10 on the side".