Our flow rates our lower than our neighbours who are using...

Our flow rates our lower than our neighbours who are using different completion engineers. Is it our land or our completion techniques??

Approach controls their own completions and BHP/ Petrohawk favour Schlumberger . We have Baker using slick water and CCPP.

Slick water uses a friction reducing agent with the water to reduce the pumping pressure required.

The flow rates of MPO are described as mixed at best by Ross Craft (Approach CEO) who believes that completion is key. He has stated in their last presentation that if the friction reduction agent goes above 5 to 5.5 gallons per thousand the oil production rate drops dramatically as the field is under-pressured , the friction reducer blocks the larger oil molecules. Was this a problem?

How else can we get production up and costs down?

MPO has used cement case plug and perf (CCPP). The other option is OHSM or open hole with no cement casing along the horizontal leg. Baker and Packers Plus have similar concepts for Open Hole MS using hydraulic packers at each segment and sleeves opening to allow frac fluid to flow into the path of least resistance along the isolated segment length.

Cement casing restricts flow to the perforated area where open hole sleeve systems allow the high pressure liquid to flow out larger openings finding the natural fractures between the segments. Reported increases are of 30 to 50 % increases in productivity with OHMS over CCPP method in other fields.

From a director of another company " We currently frac with three, full-time crews; two from HAL and one from BHI. The prototype we are using is sliding sleeves with balls that disintegrate, as opposed to the plug and perf technique. Plug and perf took 40 stages and two weeks while sliding sleeve took 30 stages and just a little over 24 hours. That saved us $1 million to $2 million in costs.

Time , cost and water savings are possible with OHMS along with the production gains possible.