Let’s go through a whole paragraph and see if we can make it better. I basically do this for a living, but y’all need to do this for every
piece of writing you do once you think you’re done with it.
Here’s the original paragraph:
The eight wells on the pad were more aligned with the natural fracture system and had kh’s (perm-height) of 6.3-35.6 md-ft, and
producible areas of 4.3-6.69 acres. This is great for approximately 12 months of production for wells to reach their acreage target of 15 acres in this amount of time. Only two wells of the eight were under 5 acres areas of production. The downside to these wells were that we took shut in pressures during the slickwater pad, but we were not down long enough to watch the pressure leakoff
and look for the start of closure, and relate that to a fluid efficiency.
Here’s what we are going to change:
• kh’s to kh values
• hyphens used in a range of numbers to n-dashes
• “This is great” to “This is acceptable”
• Never use the word “downside” in a report that goes to managers, if you can help it.
• We polish up a little wording so it sounds less vernacular and more professional.
Here’s the edited paragraph:
The eight wells on the pad were more aligned with the natural fracture system and had kh values (perm-height) of 6.3–35.6 md-ft and producible areas of 4.3–6.69 acres. This is acceptable, as the wells have been producing for 12 months and are on track to reach their producible acreage target of 15 acres. Only two wells of the eight had producible areas less than 5 acres. For these wells, shut-in pressures were measured during the slickwater pad, and the wells were not shut in long enough for the pressure leakoff to
reach the start of closure, so we were unable to relate that to fluid efficiency.
Now, doesn’t that read much better?
Typo of the Day:
Read this in a New York Times Bestselling novel over the past weekend.
Can’t you just picture the doctor who delivered the baby holding one end of the umbilical cord and playing it like a string base??