That well dropped from 17mmcf to 10mmcf per MONTH over the first year. That is from approx 566 mcf per day to 333 mcf per day. You have to understand the way vertical vs horizontal wells produce.
The vertical well never has the high initial rates of a horizontal well and thus never has the high declines. A vertical well production profile is like a horizontal well production profile 1 or 2 years in. If you are factoring a 30% decline rate for these horizontal wells then you are grossly overestimating the potential reserves.
totally agree choppy. i was posting monthly figures. please dont suggest i am using those figures as daily production figures.. i am not forgetting to factor in anything choppy. i observe all the monthly flow rates and i see very healthy wells in the adi acreages, i dont see that in the AZZ well so far for instance..
choppy, your misquoting something and attributing it to me.. and i again point out that what i put on the forum had an author whom was john campbell, not myself.. i merely looked around for wells that he may be quoting and found one, and as i said, the well went from 17mmcfpm to 12 mmcfpm over the 12 months, 30% decline, which i assume is what john used.. i have not studied declines so far as most of the conoco wells are in the chalks, these are the first wells that are proper in the eagleford. i also noted several obvious grammer mistakes and its very likely there are further mistakes in the transcripts. i also agree that JC has never been correct on anything on the eagleford up till now when he has dramatically changed course and derision on the play itself, the jvp and the operator.
most wells have declined 80%, that what the jvp are relying on, i was just pointing out that there is data pointing to a slower decline..
choppy, when you say.."Sorry AgentM, but 30% is a pipe dream. 70% is much more likely. The trend average is around 70-80% so far." then i agree entirely on the pipe dream, but i was just pointing out how john may have concluded it. and with higher calorific content and very much high end results from the chalks/eagleford completions drilled by hilcorp, i think the economics are very much in control atm on a stellar acreage position.
i have seen many presentations where the declines of the wells are mentioned
this from a broker covering aut
Shale Attributes
The Eagle Ford shale is in its infancy with a production history of less than 2 years. However the results seen to date suggest that it could be one of the most productive and high value shales. Some 50 wells have now been drilled with a success rate of 100%. Decline curves used to predict the wells were initially based on those observed in the Haynesville Shale, however early results suggest that the initial decline rates are lower than this.
Decline is estimated at ~80% in year 1 followed by ~45% in year 2 and 30% in year 3. Chesapeake Energy has been operating in the Haynesville for a number of years and recently published a decline curve based on the aggregated data from 56 wells from 2008, as did Petrohawk Energy in a recent presentation:
i note these comments in a recent presentation by aut in april
Production casing strings have not yet been installed in these wells.Competitor reports indicate improved production following ultimate
deployment of production tubing.
Preliminary Results Indicate Robust Economics
Industry analysis shows the Eagle
Ford to be one of the best shale
plays in North America
Project Returns improve with
increased Condensate and NGL
yields
AUT acreage has condensate yields
of 75 – 300 bbl/mmscf and high
yield gas ~1250 BTU/scf
AUT’s initial well results compare very favourably with the best regional Eagle
Ford wells
The solid IP rates extrapolated using analogue decline rates suggest that within the current cost structure, AUT’s Eagle Ford shale acreage will be very
economic