Friday, July 22, 2011

Interesting Group of Wildcats -- Near Dublin Oil Field -- Bakken, North Dakota

Update

July 2, 2013: see comment this date below. A reader updates these wells:
All of the Petro-Hunt wells/permits are now under G3 (Halcon). G3 has applied for an order authorizing drilling and completion of 7 wells in each existing spacing 1280 spacing unit described as Sections 1 and 12; Sections 2 and 11, in T157 R100.

They have permitted the STORHAUG 157-100-2B-11-2H, file #24679. Regarding the OSTAD 157-100-2D-1-1, G3 has temporarly abandoned the well and is looking to either plug and reclaim, or turn into SWD.

The Hanson 33-28H just came off confidential list and is producing since April 2013. It has 38 frac stages and in 34 days of production has produced about 14,700 bbls.
April 4, 2012: reading the well file for #21161, Ostad 157-100-2D-1-1; a Madison well;  suggests that the well is dry; still on DRL status of 11/12;

March 30, 2012: remember that string of Petro-Hunt wells just outside the Dublin oil field? Well, the Dublin oil field has been extended and they are now part of the field. I noted this when this well was reported on the March 30, 2012, daily activity report. This well is just inside the northeast corner of the Dublin oil field, but is considered a wildcat; probably will be a horizontal going north two sections, and outside the Dublin oil field
  • 21043, 554, HRC/Petro-Hunt, Pankake 157-99-6A-7-1H, wildcat, Bakken, just inside the northeast corner of Dublin oil field north of Williston near the Divide County line; t12/11; cum 195K 10/16;
March 29, 2012: finally we see which formation Petro-Hunt is targeting in that string of wildcats near Dublin: Madison (see below)
  • 21161, TA, HRC/Petro-Hunt, Ostad 157-100-2D-1-1 -- A bit to the south-- Madison; still being reported as DRL as of 11/12
December 27, 2011: A reader sent me this comment:
If you look at the cancelled permit by Petro-Hunt for well #21666, you will notice that they are targeting the Red River C and not the Madison in 157-100-3. Petro-Hunt and Zenergy have been duking it out with each other in the Dublin and Marmon fields. Petro-Hunt has the 3D seismo info for these tracts and it appears from this cancelled permit the RRC is the cause of the contention from these two operators.
Note:
  • 19811, PNC, Kirby 158-99-33B-3-1, wildcat, RED RIVER; A bit to the northeast
  • 21666: canceled -- a Red River permit -- PNC, Petro-Hunt, Eidsvoog 157-100-3B-4-1
  • 20412: also canceled -- a Bakken permit -- PNC, Zenergy, Eidsvoog 3-10H
  • 21568: also canceled -- a Red River permit -- PNC, Petro-Hunt, Smith 157-100-3D-1-1
July 22, 2011: NDIC hearing dockets, case 15222: Zenergy, extend Dublin-Madison; 8 320-acre units; 1 hz well on each unit;

See also this post on the Storhaug well, a wildcat, probably now in the Dublin field.

Original Post
(well data updated occasionally)

Based on information from a reader, Zenergy and Petro-Hunt are targeting the Red River formation in the Dublin/Marmon fields, as well as the Bakken.

Dublin oil field is a very small oil field far north of Williston but yet in Williams County, near Divide County. It's a bit irregular in shape due to a constellation of Madison wells in the southeast corner of this field; the field is about six sections in size (very small) (posted July 22, 2011) but with a string of wildcats in the immediate vicinity, I expect the Dublin field to be extended. 

The area is in a non-descript part of North Dakota that simply represents some of the best grain producing acreage in in the country. I don't know who settled this area originally, but I bet it was Russians (Ukranians), Germans, Syrians, or Norwegians.

"Anonymous" alerted me to an interesting wildcat in Williams County near Divide County. There is a string of wells running west to east near the Dublin oil field. I would assume the Dublin oil field will be extended to include these wells (if not the Dublin, one of the other neighboring fields). The status of the wells below (note one of the wells is in Oliver oil field, west of Dublin.  [July 28, 2011: someone else has also noted the increased activity in this area -- note there are now three new permits in one section -- section 2 of 157-100; northwest quadrant; northeast quadrant; and southeast quadrant; only quadrant not yet permitted in this section is the southwest quadrant.]
  • 19646, 482, HRC/Petro-Hunt, Storhaug 157-100-2A-11-1H, Bakken, Dublin/wildcat; t8/11; cum 198K 10/16;
  • 19811, PNC, Kirby 158-99-33B-3-1, wildcat, RED RIVER; A bit to the northeast
  • 20412, PNC, Zenergy, Eidsvoog 3-10H
  • 20723, 279, HRC/Petro-Hunt, Hokanson 158-99-32D-29-1H, wildcat;  t11/11; cum 119K 10/16;
  • 20953, 343, HRC, Johnson Family Trust 157-100-4A-9-1H, Marmon/wildcat, 2/12; cum 90K 10/16;
  • 21027, 699, Kraken Operating/CLR, King 1-5H, Oliver; t2/12; cum 123K 10/16;
  • 21036, PNC, Petro-Hunt, Storhaug 157-100-2B-2-1,
  • 21040, 353, HRC/Petro-Hunt, Helstad 158-99-34D-27-1H; t12/11; cum 135K 10/16;
  • 21043, 554, HRC/Petro-Hunt, Pankake 157-99-6A-7-1H, wildcat, t12/11; cum 195K 10/16;
  • 21161, TA/DRL/SI/DRY, Petro-Hunt, Ostad 157-100-2D-1-1 -- A bit to the south-- Madison
  • 21326, PNC, Petro-Hunt, Swenson 157-100-1C-2-1, Dublin; PNC 7/12;
  • 21496, PNC, Petro-Hunt, Hanson 33-28H, Dublin/wildcat
  • 21746, 653, Oasis/Petro-Hunt, Mary 3-10H, wildcat; s9/11; Madison; t1/12; cum129K 10/16;
  • 21747, 685, Oasis/Petro-Hunt, Hanson 34-27H, Dublin, t12/12; cum 136K 10/16;
  • 21748, PNC, Oasis/Petro-Hunt, Mad Dublin 1-3H, Dublin/wildcat; still LOC 1/15;
  • 21860, 100, Crescent Point Energy, CPEUSCO PAOPAO 35-26-158N-100, a Madison well; t3/12; cum 184K 10/16;
  • 21882, PNC, Petro-Hunt, Dullum Family Trust 157-100-2C-1-1, wildcat,
  • 22323, 181, Crescent Point Energy, CPEUSC Makowsky 31-30-158N-99W, Ellisville/wildcat; t10/14; cum 128K 10/16;
  • 22456, 247, HRC/Petro-Hunt, Hoff 157-100-1A-12-1H, Dublin, t112/12; cum 196K 10/16;
The new wells above are all located within a stone's throw of six older wells, four still producing, two abandoned:
  • 11290, 175, Denbury Onshore, Westerso 13-6, s5/7/90, 303,109; 11/12; , Dublin, Madison; producing, pump; t6/90; cum 319K 10/16;
  • 11490, 31, Rim Operating/SM Energy, Curran 1 1, s4/21/85, cum 383K 10/16; Dublin, Madison; producing, on a pump
  • 12638, 62, Vanguard Operating, LLCWISCO, Hoff 33-1, spud 5/21/89, cum 113K 10/16; Dublin, Madison; producing, on a pump
  • 10329, PA/116, Dekalb Energy, State Gafkjen 1, Dublin, mulitple payzones; ~ 12,000; PNA
  • 13472, PA/25, Berco, Gafkjen State 1-36, Dublin, 10,578; Dublin, Madison; ~ 11,000;  PNA
  • 10893, 114, Denbury Onshore, Eidsvoog 1, spud 8/18/84, cum 280K 10/16; Dublin, Madison, producing, pump
Notice: these are Madison formation wells, and it appears "they" are not done with the Madison yet. From the July, 2011, NDIC hearing dockets (see first comment below):
  • Case 15222: Zenergy, extend Dublin-Madison; 8 320-acre units; 1 hz well on each unit; Williams
Very, very exciting!  This represents four more sections. 

21 comments:

  1. check out case 15222 on the July 20th docket... it looks like zenergy is going to put eight more madison wells in the dublin field

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are SOOO correct. Thank you for alerting me to this. I have added it to the post above. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the link you posted on the "Fracking Companies" site.

    I think there is something very interesting going on in this area. And it all began with the extreme interest of several companies wanting to lease a year or two ago. They seemed very anxious and because of this, we negotiated very good leases with them.

    Now they have started drilling and we are waiting to see why they were so anxious.

    PS...this area was settled by Norwegians)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Norwegians, huh?

    I appreciate that update. Smile.

    And then I realized with an oil field named Dublin, I had forgotten to include the Irish.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I noticed Zynergy cancelled all of there permits it this area. Why would that happen/why would they do that?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I see that periodically, where a company will cancel a group of permits. They might be simply re-surveying new spots in the immediate area based on new data from other wells in the area. They could be swapping acreage, selling / buying acreage. I really don't know. I can't keep up as much while traveling but once caught up, I will see if I can see what might be going on.

    The folks over on the Bakken Shale Discussion Group (linked on the sidebar at the right) might also have some ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Regarding the Ostad (#21161) the NDIC still has this listed as DRL status. Also, if it were a dry hole, why would they keep the well head on the well bore?...wouldn't they have plugged it and removed the well head?

    What does ROS stand for next to the CPEUSCO PAOPAO well?...also what does LOC mean?

    ReplyDelete
  8. For all references to specific wells, I try to be consistent. I update them periodically, infrequently, and irregularly. The "stuff" in red is the status of the permit/well or the IP. This will change over time (except the IP) and I don't always update them. (But when they are updated, I don't add a new date to the original post, so that is one inconsistency in the blog.)

    ROS: rig on site. (NDIC does not use this for status.)
    LOC: location. Permit only. No drilling has begun.

    Now, for the Ostad well. For argument's sake, let's say the company plans to abandon the well (this may/may not be true).

    So, for argument's sake, let's say the company plans to abandon the well.

    First, the NDIC won't report it abandoned until they get the paperwork from the oil company. These companies are extremely busy; this paperwork is probably pretty low on the "to do" list.

    Second, there is a huge manpower shortage in the Bakken. Why send out a team to plug a well when the company is racking and stacking jobs that need to get done?

    Third, whether they do it themselves, or contract it out, it costs at least a little to plug a well. Pushing this expense into the future makes perfectly good business sense.

    So, maybe this has all been done, and the paperwork is in the mail. Anyway, that's my thought on the subject. Again, just opinion. And, this all assumes the company plans to abandon the well.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks...makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are welcome. And again, I could be WAY wrong, but those are my thoughts. (The land men and operators are probably laughing -- they know the real reason -- smile.)

      Delete
  10. Folks, thank you for the detailed discussions you have posted. This is the only place i can find talk about my mothers interests. She is suffering from End Stage Renal Disease and at the moment the amount of money we have is determining the value of treatment she is getting. We have interest in T157-R100-3 and 10, and T158-R100-33. I try to pay attention to what's going on but wish i had more time. As far as i know she's had the rights since 1982 and nothing has ever produced except for the recent Mary #3-10H, i was told by the operator of scheduled spud dates for the other 2 confidential wells in sec 3 and no date set for the one in T158-R100-33. I have seen a few of the more recent applications including the new smaller unit applications but it seems that when you get your hopes up they cancel them. We have to sell something and i'd like to know if anyone can speculate as to what might be the better performer or any other insight that would help. It's depressing enough to see the sections next to us having produced for so long, I'd be devastated to find out i made a partially informed wrong move.

    Regards,
    ChuckT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, that's a tough one. They are all Zenergy wells and Zenergy has a pretty good track record.

      You might also want to ask your question at Teegue's Bakken Shale Discussion Group (linked at the sidebar at the right); don't mention my site; the folks running that board don't want to hear about this blog.

      Also, at the top of my blog is a tab to "Mineral Rights." There are some forums there that might provide some information.

      As you noted, there are two wells in section 3-157-100 that are on confidential list. It's possible that one of the two (21748) might run north into 34-158-100.

      Hopefully some other readers can provide more insight into your question than I can.

      Delete
  11. I've seen recent applications for this area, including the smaller units, but don't know what to make of it. Even if i could grasp it, it seems they get canceled once you start to get happy. My mother has End Stage Renal Disease and the money we have determines the value of care she gets. We are close to broke so we have to sell some rights. She has interest in T157-R100-3 and 10, and T158-R100-33. I'm trying to speculate which is a better performer (potential performer?). As far as i know she's had the interest since early 1980's and it's never produced until recently (Mary #3-10H). I was told by the operator of spud dates for the 2 other confidentials that were applied for around that time in the same section and no set date for the confidential in T158-R100-33. I would hate to make a wrong decision because the consequences are more than just monetary. If anyone here could offer some insight help me make a more informed decision it would be greatly appreciated.

    Regards,
    ChuckT

    ReplyDelete
  12. I have been monitoring this area for sometime and have interest in several sections in T157 R100 and T158 R100. All of the Petro-Hunt wells/permits are now under G3 (Halcon). G3 has applied for an order authorizing drilling and completion of 7 wells in each existing spacing 1280 spacing unit described as Sections 1 and 12; Sections 2 and 11, in T157 R100.

    They have permitted the STORHAUG 157-100-2B-11-2H, file #24679. Regarding the OSTAD 157-100-2D-1-1, G3 has temporarly abandoned the well and is looking to either plug and reclaim, or turn into SWD.

    The Hanson 33-28H just came off confidential list and is producing since April 2013. It has 38 frac stages and in 34 days of production has produced about 14,700 bbls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you very much for that update; it helps when folks send me updates; makes things go faster. Too much to keep track of.

      Delete
  13. Have also noticed that Crescent Point Engergy has had little to no activity in the area just to the north of these wells; some of their permits are about to expire.

    Does anyone know what happened to Crescent Point? Are they concentrating their efforts in Canada and Utah?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This might explain some of the back story, posted back in May, 2013:

      http://themilliondollarway.blogspot.com/2013/05/crescent-points-ceo-calls-north-dakotas.html

      On the other hand, Crescent has 8 active rigs in North Dakota right now, which is a pretty good number.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the reply. However, I do not see where they are active. I looked at the NDIC Active Drilling Rig list and there is not one Crescent rig that is drilling on the list.

      Delete
    3. You are correct. I was hasty in my response; those were 8 permits, not active rigs.

      I have correct data here:

      http://themilliondollarway.blogspot.com/2013/08/is-crescent-point-pulling-out-of-north.html

      And as you have noted, Crescent has no active rigs in North Dakota.

      Delete
  14. Just noticed that even if Crescent Point isn't drilling right now in ND, they are renewing their permits. They renewed two permits shown in the Oct. 7 NDIC Daily Activity Report.

    ReplyDelete