Talk:Oil well

message: The section on cost twice calls construction of oil wells "extremely expensive", but fails to say relative to what.  This seems POV.  It also claims that "Onshore wells can be considerably cheaper", but gives a wide price range of $1 million - $15 million, which (at current exchange rates) overlaps the range given for offshore wells.  Finally, the "extremely expensive" designation seems meant to apply to oil wells as a whole, but the only examples given are offshore wells near Britain. -Dmh
: For example, a mile of new 3-lane motorway costs about £20 Million, comparable to the cost of a new high-pressure, high-temperature North Sea well.  Whether the well is expensive depends more on the worth of the oil it produces than the absolute cost.  Presumably one does not drill a well with the expectation of losing money.  -Dmh 20:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard that offshore drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico (US) currently cost around $300,000 per day to contract, while onshore drilling rigs in East Texas currently cost around $20,000 per day, and these rates are going up from month to month! One engineer for an operator company recently told me that their average cost for drilling and completing an onshore well is around $1.8 million (compared to $800,000 a couple of years ago). --Altailji 07:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Extremely expensive"

message: Discussion of the typical depths reached in the drilling process would be informative. I have not seen anything addressing this aspect of the process. Does the industry have standards for what might be called shallow, normal and deep? -DDD
The maximum drill depth seems to be accurate based on the "The Physics Factbook" (citations should be independently verified), but the deepest seem to be research projects or non-oil wells.  The deepest oil well I could find reference to is Z-11 at Sakhalin-I, in the Sea of Okhotsk (Russia), with a depth of "11,282 meters" (37,016 feet).  The term used to refer to this type of drilling is "Extended Reach Drilling (ERD)", and after a quick net search, I found the following list of the "Top 20 ERD wells" (again should be independently verified).  This list is clearly old as it doesn't include Z-11, and it most likely contains a combined list of oil and non-oil wells.  Finally, as mentioned above these deep wells are quite rare and it would be helpful to have an understanding of normal drill depths and costs. dain 18:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: just a note - those wells on the ERD list are not really very deep, in terms of depth below the surface -- the measurements, 11,000 meters etc., are along the drill string, which is at a significant angle to the surface.  The next column, TVD, refers to true vertical depth - so those wells on that table are only reaching depths on the order of 1500-2800 m below surface.  The deepest oil exploration well, in terms of depth below the surface, is something like 30,000 ft, in Oklahoma USA (don't have the reference at hand, sorry).  Cheers Geologyguy 18:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Drill depth"

message: Re rigs pulling 4-joint stands ("fourbles"), I made a slight edit to remove the "newer" description.  In 1956 I roughnecked on a barge-mounted steam-powered rig in the swamps of South Lousiana that had a 189' derrick with 40' square rig floor. (The typical standard derrick of the era was 156' high with a 30' square floor.) It handled fourbles of Range 2 DP (or maybe thribbles of Rg 3 DP?) and my driller found out the hard way that you can't stand back this much 2-7/8" tubing without a belly board partway up in the derrick!  Some modern offshore rigs may pull 120' stands, and other rigs used in effect the bottom 3/4 of a fourbles derrick to get the larger rig floor and racking space -- but only pulled thribbles.  
Irv (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Drilling"

message: Those North Sea well costs from 1998 are out of date.  I will look for some up to date stats.  A dirty old semi-sub can cost $400k a day easily in the Central North Sea (water depths ~500 ft), while renting a snazzy 5th generation drill ship for use West of Shetland can easily be $750k a day.  These are before you consider the costs of the service companies and equipment.  The directional contractor can cost $100k a day on top, then theres the mud, skip & ship, casing, completions, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.32.212.11 (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Well Costs

message: There is a page at Well drilling, which covers much of the same material as this page. I'd reccomend merging the two. Tommfuller (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm I think it's possible, but it looks like both pages could be pretty large when they're more or less complete.  If they were to be merged, I think well drilling should come into oil well, since this article is about various stages other than the actual drilling of the well.  But if you do that, you're kind of ignoring water wells, which are significantly different and probably have an article of their own.  I think a "see main article: well drilling" in the drilling section of this article is a good idea, but I don't really support an all out merge... TastyCakes (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I think mud logging is a subset of well logging and the two shouldn't be merged.  Merging mud logging into the well logging article would mean that all the other well logging subsets like sonic, neutron density, caliper, SP, resistivity etc would have to as well.  I think all these articles are notable and substantial enough to have their own articles.  Unless you were talking about the mud logging, mud logger and mud log articles, I agree those three should be merged, I think into mud logging.  TastyCakes (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Well Drilling page

message: Taxes and economic limit ==
It was mentioned tax implication is one reason why a well in its economic limit is anandoned. It is a normal accounting practice to make cost provision in anticipation of likelyhood of a well being abandoned in the near future and this cost is usually not allowed for tax purposes,in what ways should this cost provision be reported in order for it to be allowed for tax purposes? -(lbo)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.248.10.108 (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxes and economic limit (2) 

message: How are they able to estimate how much oil is available at any given site? --Enigma55 (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a basic outline of the process at Petroleum_reservoir#Estimating_reserves. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estimating size of source 

message: This article doesn't discuss any quantitative physics of oil wells at all, which predominate the literature on oil wells. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 06:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow what you mean by quantitative physics of oil wells. Are you talking about borehole logging ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm talking about basic physical considerations during the life of a well, such as stress, hydraulic pressure formulas, leakoff and flowback. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 07:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Yes, you're right. It probably won't be fixed unless you do it yourself. The article doesn't seem to have many active editors. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  physical considerations 

message: Why is there a Wiki Project United States and a Wiki Project Russia tag on the talk page? As for the article, I think the citation tag should be removed, because it appears as though there are sufficient citations now. Just a thought.  Tboii99  ✉  02:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary tags? 

message: Oil well drilling problems has been suggested to be merged into this page. However, this could affect the impartiality of this article. Any opinions? smileguy91talk 23:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is copyvio anyway (obvious copy & paste).  I'm simply redirecting; if there's anything worth salvaging, please do so.  — kwami (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: The file :File:Labeled oil derrick.JPG, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at :File:Labeled oil derrick.JPG. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days.  Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use candidate from Commons: [[:File:Labeled oil derrick.JPG]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Oil well. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070519031720/http://www.geo.uw.edu.pl/BOBRKA/DATY/daty.htm to http://www.geo.uw.edu.pl/BOBRKA/DATY/daty.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.cseg.ca/publications/recorder/2004/06jun/06jun-ancient-chinese-drilling.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This a very doubtful and unencyclopaedia phrase. Who "said" this?
"The ancient records of China and Japan are said to contain many allusions to the use of natural gas for lighting and heating."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CA10:18A0:F8A9:B971:610C:5436 (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Said to contain..." by who?