Great idea, seen some of these publicly traded companies that will only keep the most recent quarters earnings presentation available on their website - goes to show how quickly things can change sometimes, some don’t want everybody to see how wrong they can be sometimes haha!
It’s not the porosity that is the issue, the matrix porosity in the woodford is almost always greater than the porosity in the clean intervals of the Sycamore that have become horizontal targets of late. What is different is the magnitude and intensity of natural fracturing present in the Sycamore (mississippian age rock) vs Woodford (devonian age rock). Remember the Miss Lime play in northern Oklahoma? Sometimes the initial wells in the section would have huge IP’s and look great, but infill wells would always greatly under perform the initial well. Same issue in the Sycamore, not surprising given that we are talking about Miss age rock in both cases.
Operators are not clueless when it comes to this fact and that’s why you see well density for the Sycamore of 2-4/unit vs. 5+/unit for the Woodford despite the fact they are of comparable gross thickness.
I thank both of you for your input and information. There is not enough well information in the springboard area for me to get a good handle on the reserve potential on per unit basis.
Do you believe that the reserve potential is similar to the woodford but will take fewer wells to recover, much like the springer? or is it the case that optimum well density and recovery has just not been sorted out yet and we just don’t know. With the co-develpment of the reservoirs I hope CLR has a better handle on this than what has been publicly shared.
Geologist here… It all comes down to the interconnectedness of the pores through the permeability. More natural fractures will be enhanced by the frac so better permeability. Think of a series of barbells set up end to end-or the old Tinker Toys. The ends are the pores and the middle is the permeability. A straight wide bar in the middle is much easier to get through than a skinny twisted bar. Short term production is coming from the pores via the permeability very close to the borehole and the enhanced permeability due to the frac. As time goes on, the molecules of hydrocarbons have to come from farther and farther away through very tortuous routes similar to a tree route system.
Not enough public information yet for us general mineral owners to get an idea of the different production amounts. The companies have more confidential data.
TS & Jake:
I’m sorry. I meant the Springer, not the Sycamore. The wells that I have participated in, in the general area, are running about 8-10% porosity in the Woodford vs. 12-14% in the Spinger. The recovery factors in the Springer are running about 15% vs. 10% for the Woodford. It doesn’t matter to the mineral owner, but sure does to the working interest owners because we have to spend more money to get the same amount of hydrocarbons.
The Sycamore wells are running about 8% porosity with 8% recovery factor.
The company presentations are nothing more than sales brochures to get Wall Street to buy their stock. They should always be taken with a grain of salt, so to speak. That is why they use “BOE” instead of actual BO/MCF. It makes it easier to be wrong, but like you say:
Todd M. Baker