Enverus Blog

Insights across the energy value chain

As more and more Haynesville production data becomes available I think it is interesting to begin to compare operator’s performance.  The most active operators on the Louisiana side of the Haynesville now have more than a years worth of production data so let’s take a quick, first look.  First, we will identify the top operators and compare their acreage on a map.  This will give us a first impression of the number of wells and location of their acreage. Then we will use HPDI production tools to generate Type Curves for the top 5 operators. Finally, we will put the numbers together and attempt to draw some conclusions.

Below is a map of the Louisiana Hayneville Shale wells, colored by top 5 operators and bubbled by Prac IP (2nd month production).   KCS is the 6th most active but is owned by Petrohawk so we will go ahead consider them one. The Prac IP gives us a relative basis with which to compare wells against each other.  Two things stand out immediately. One, Chesapeake has double the wells of Petrohawk and KCS combined and is concentrated out West in DeSoto and Caddo Parish.  Two, judging by the magnitude of the Prac IPs, a sweet spot seems to exist further East where Petrohawk and KCS are focused.  .

A Quick Comparison of the Heavy Haynesville Hitters

Next, lets look at each operators Type Curve using HPDI Production Tools, beginning with the most active and working our way down.

Chesapeake: Peak Gas – 202,477 Mcf

A Quick Comparison of the Heavy Haynesville Hitters

Petrohawk and KCS: Peak Gas – 385,893 Mcf

A Quick Comparison of the Heavy Haynesville Hitters

EnCana: Peak Gas – 248,747 Mcf

A Quick Comparison of the Heavy Haynesville Hitters

EXCO: Peak Gas – 279,233 Mcf

A Quick Comparison of the Heavy Haynesville Hitters

Comstock: Peak Gas – 237,695 Mcf.  Also note the strange increase in production, this could be due to a variety of factors.

A Quick Comparison of the Heavy Haynesville Hitters

Finally, lets compare in one table.

A Quick Comparison of the Heavy Haynesville Hitters

It is difficult to pinpoint exact reasons why Petrohawk dominates and Chesapeakes falters in this quick study.  Judging by Chesapeake’s history in the US gas shale arena, it would not be wise to blanket them as a bad operator.  This may be to due lack of premium acreage relative. It may be that many of their wells came online at an earlier point in the learning curve.  It should be obvious by now that as the industry progresses through the learning curve, engineering practices improve and production follows.  Wells that come online now will undoubtedly be superior to similar wells that came online more than one year ago.  As well, we did not look at decline percentage or project EURs which may swing Chesapeakes way.

This quick overview sets the stage for more in depth studies which Drillinginfo Energy Strategy Partners is currently conducting on the Haynesville.  Take a look at the Drillinginfo Haynesville Unconventional Update for more analysis.

The following two tabs change content below.

Justin Birmingham

Justin Birmingham is a Research Analyst at Drillinginfo. He creates proprietary research studies, works with statistical models and manages datasets for the DI Analytics team. Justin earned his Bachelor of Science from Texas State University – San Marcos.