Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Pennant Energy Inc PENFF



GREY:PENFF - Post by User

Comment by AlternativeViewon Jan 26, 2012 5:31pm
196 Views
Post# 19454583

RE: This was supposed to be a tech play, not geo

RE: This was supposed to be a tech play, not geo

Well then: If this was only a technical play then we must assume it was a technical failure.  Lots of things can go wrong with a frac.

My concern is with the well spacing / drainage radius (cylinder for horizontal wells).  Yingling talked about spacings of 4 wells per section, or 28 wells on their 7 sections of land.  Elsewhere there is discussion of the 2,744 meter horizontal leg through the Montney formation.

A section of land measures 1 mile on each edge.  This is 1,600 meters across.  Clearly then, these long reach horizontal impact more that 1 section each.  So the rational of 1 well per quarter section or 4 wells per section seems to loose meaning.

Things typically get pushed to their breaking points.  I suspect that the breaking point with long reach horizontal product wells might be when they pump a frac down one well and it ends up in the production stream of the neighbours well.

<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>