Update
I am wrong with these examples regarding wells being placed back on the confidential list. Teegue provides a good explanation. The Pronghorn State Federal 21-16TFH is on the confidential list. Again, the Bakken Shale Discussion Group is the authority on Bakken issues. I am only an amateur, trying to figure out the Bakken. I'm learning as I go along. Please go to the link: lots of great information regarding the Bakken.
Original Note
I could be wrong, but my database is usually pretty accurate. This well was confidential at one time; one could access the drilling report. Then it went on DRL status. Tonight, while updating Whiting wells in the Pronghorn prospect, I noted that this well is back on confidential status.
This appears to be accurate. It is listed as confidential but yet one can access the 141-page file report which would normally not be there if this well had been on confidential list all the time.
The reason for noting this can be found at this post.
If I am wrong regarding this well I apologize, but this is the way it seems to me.
On another note, it looks like Whiting might have another good well in their Pronghorn prospect:
- 20504, conf, Whiting, Pronghorn Federal 21-13TFH, Park, 60,000 bbls < 3 months; 2/12
First, you never said #20504 was back on the CS, as suggested in "a good explanation" link. On this post you are only stating its a good well.
ReplyDeleteAt least that's what my eyes see above.
That being said, on the other issues, you have nothing to apologize. Not everybody is an expert authority on everything. I appreciate the info that is provided on Bakken Shale Discussion Group, and your site also. I have learned so much from both! If it wasn't for you, I wouldn't have been pointed in the right direction on many subjects. Keep up the great site! Jeremy
Thank you for your support. I agree with you. I have learned a lot from the Bakken Shale Discussion Group. I use that site often to look for topics on which to blog.
DeleteI could be embarrassed by my naiveté in my early days of writing about the Bakken and have thought of deleting early postings, but they serve some archival purpose, I suppose. I am learning as I go along, and I don't mind correcting errors. The whole purpose of the blog was a way for me to keep track of what was going on in the Bakken and realized HTML was the best way to do that. It only made sense to share it because folks let me know when I made errors, and they send me great links I would otherwise miss.
As one very, very small example, without the blog and without the BSDG I never would have figured out the geologic formations as well as I think I have. And I still have a lot to learn in that area.
Thank you for taking time to comment.