Monday, June 17, 2019

ConocoPhillips Hebert #1 Result

ConocoPhillips (COP) released an initial potential for the Hebert #1 on Friday.  Like the McKowen #1, it begs many questions.  If these volumes are post-flowback then this is a very disappointing result.  The details will become apparent over the next 1-2 months.

Initial Potential (IP): 206 barrels of oil per day, 134 thousand cubic feet of gas per day, and 4279 barrels of water per day.

COMPLETED 5/21/19 AS A OIL WELL IN THE AUS C RA SUA RES;PM F; 206 BOPD; 134 MCFD; 3729 SITP; 1871 CP; 27/64 CK; 4279 BWPD; 650 GOR; 37 GRVTY; PERFS 14086-19320' (ST: 10)
SONRIS

Let's start with what we don't know:
-Frac design: proppant/water volume, stage/cluster details, and pressures
-Reservoir pressure
-Mudlog: lithology and gas
-Geosteering; wellbore path and landing zone
-Timing of the volumes that were released as the initial potential 
-Chlorides of the produced water. Is is frac or reservoir water?

There are several potential interpretations from this limited amount of data:
1) The Austin Chalk in this area might not be brittle enough so it doesn't respond well to a "high proppant" frac.  COP obtained a conventional core of the entire Austin Chalk in their 3rd well, the Erwin #1.  They have good "rock" data to make this determination.  I'm highly confident that the Erwin #1 will be landed in the best target zone.
2) Landing too high above the base of the Austin Chalk results in the frac penetrating too high into the more water-saturated reservoir section.  I didn't have a 2D seismic line through this wellbore like I did for the McKowen #1 so I can't analyze as accurately the landing zone of the horizontal wellbore.  I generated a grid on the Base of Austin Chalk ("BAC") horizon from surrounding vertical wells which allowed me to examine the landing zone location.  I estimate that the wellbore was consistently located approximately 80' above the BAC.  I would ideally seek a lower landing zone to best impact the highest TOC section.  Without having COP's geosteering data, it's hard to be confident on the landing zone interpretation (see graphic below).
3) The results that were submitted represent a time period early in the flowback period where the frac water volume is very high.  Future monthly production volumes will prove or disprove this theory.
4) The "high proppant" frac is intersecting natural fracture clusters that are connected to water-wet zones.  Both the McKowen #1 and Hebert #1 are located above deep-seated, dip-trending salt ridges that could have created abundant natural fractures (future post).
5) Austin Chalk oil in this area might be thermally immature.  COP's core data from the Erwin #1 will prove or disprove this theory.
6) Being that we're on well result #3 in the Louisiana Austin Chalk 3.0 era, much research and development lies ahead.  Continued trial and error will be required during the first fifty wells.  The "Permian mania" didn't happen after the first three horizontal Wolfcamp wells.





1 comment: