Happy New Year, all. Hope it brings health and wealth to everyone.
Is anyone aware of any increased interest in or increased activity in the Austin Chalk or Buda, in the general area where Wilson, Atascosa and Karnes meet? Or even Pearsall?! (Remembering the infamous Lang 11-H).
I have seen several operators and wells northeast of this area, up the Wilson-Karnes line, 20+ miles away NE.
Looks like all that is being targeted in this area lately is Eagle Ford. EOG and Gulftex as operators
In my (admittedly unpracticed) use of the TXRRC website, I see (I think) that since January 1, 2018, there have been175 AC permits submitted for Karnes County, 7 AC in Wilson, and 5 AC in Atascosa. The Karnes AC permits have been somewhat E and NE of the point where those 3 counties intersect.
There may be a feature on that website that shows a map of the well locations, sorted by AC, but I don't know how to use it. Probably takes a more sophisticated software package such as Drilling Info to pull that up.
Anyway, just wondering if anyone had picked up on any seismic or leasing interest in the AC in those environs.
James and Mark, There have been several wells drilled in our area ( southeast corner of Frio county ) that the permits showed the target being Buda, Eagleford and AC but the more recent permits are Eagleford and Buda. I haven't been able to get any info as to how they turned out but I'm still trying. Cabot drilled a few before they sold and now Venado is going after the same formations in the new wells they are drilling.
I am not an expert in the use of the TxRRC website, but I did do a bit of research on the Cabot/Venado wells you cited. Frio County wells permitted from 01/01/2017 till today for Austin Chalk (in addition to other formations that you cited).
The Weldon Scharp West unit well was completed in the Lorenzo Austin Chalk formation, and is a very poor well.
The Dauntless Unit had completion in the Eagle Ford, but apparently not in AC, and looked very prolific.
James, I am by no means an expert either and appreciate all the help I can get! I would be completely clueless if it wasn't for all the info that we received from the folks on this site when this first started. One thing I don't understand is when you look at the permit for the wells, it will show two or three target formations but as you saw on the completions you mention, it is completed in one formation. Thanks for the info on the wells and hope you have a great year!
The fields and formations listed on a permit are NOT target formations - they are references to established fields in the area of the well. Sometimes you will see up to a dozen such fields / formations depending on the area.
Or just the term "Wildcat" if the new well is not located near any historical fields.
Figuring out what formation an operator is targeting can be tricky - and oftentimes one has to wait until the completion is field (and then still have to confirm target by checking perforations and/or lateral location versus offsetting well control and data).
Thanks Mark, I'm still learning and appreciate all that you and others contribute to my education. I truly miss all of the posts we had on this site in the beginning when there were so many in the conversations.
I do agree that the early days on these discussions were very interesting and educational (e.g. the original Eagle Ford Forum). But there seems to be a normal evolution for all these discussion sites, i.e. start show, get very hot and intense and then slowly but surely die out to next to nothing over time.
Part of that is tied to individuals becoming more and more educated and aware over time - which is a good thing.
James mentioned the Lang 11 - that discussion thread was massive and pretty entertaining as I think back about it.
Thanks for the info, Mark.
It's a bit confusing. For example, in the wells in northern Karnes County that have Austin Chalk listed on the permits, some do not have Eagle Ford on the permits IIRC, although they are clearly in a well-established Eagle Ford field.
Part of my response to Mr. Crawford was my assessment of completion and in which formation. When you call up the PDQ of the wells, there is a formation listed. Can one take that as the actual formation at which the completion and production are occurring, or is there further obfuscation?
It is a confusing situation for sure. It is interesting to see many AC targeted wells omitting the corresponding Eagle Ford field info from permits in Karnes County - but including it in other areas (e.g. Frio Co).
PDQ info is normally pretty accurate as to which zone the lateral is being drilled into.
But (always a but with me, I guess) this can also be misleading in some respects, e.g. if a lateral is drilled into the Upper Eagle Ford, it will frac up into the AC and mechanically co-mingle both intervals. Examples of this are present in Karnes County based on what I have seen in certain areas.
Sometimes the well name and number can be an indicator of target. EOG uses three digit well numbers (e.g. 101, 102, etc) to ID their AC horizontals. Magnolia does the same as do a few other operators. Marathon adds "AC" to the lease name to ID the zone for their horizontals.
That being said, there are many wells that don't have hints as to lateral target intervals and completion zones. And one is forced to pull offsetting vertical well data, ID formation tops and tie in directional MWD survey data to ID and confirm the target interval.
My property is just north of the Lang Unit (EOG) and south of Gawlik (now Recoil Resources, formerly Marathon). I just received a lease offer from Recoil Resources.
Great you got an offer from Recoil.
Recoil is a new private equity group that is run by Charles Cusack (ex top geo / manager in both Petrohawk and Halcon). Company is composed of some pretty savvy individuals with a LOT of unconventional experience.