22485, see below, EOG, Hawkeye 102-2501H, Clarks Creek,
22486, 2,421, EOG, Hawkeye 102-2501H, Clarks Creek,
22487, drl, EOG, Hawkeye 102-2501H, Clarks Creek,
Now would be a good time to look at "wells to watch, part II."
When you get to the link, note the EOG wells at the Clarks Creek oil field.
Also, this would be a great time to re-read Mike Filloon's article on EOG's completion techniques, written before Mike would have had data regarding the EOG Hawkeye well noted below.
I will really be disappointed if none of the regional papers pick up on this story. Even for the Bakken, this is a huge story. There are many, many story lines -- most of which I am not even aware. "Anonymous" -- sometime ago -- alerted me to these wells. The first one came off the confidential list earlier this week:
- 22486, 2,421, EOG, Hawkeye 100-2501H, Clarks Creek (see stand-alone post);
3-section spacing (1,920 acres); will this be a long lateral (9,000
feet) or a much-talked-about-seldom-seen-super-long lateral (14,000
feet)? I'm betting the latter. If accurate, a huge "thank you" to a
reader. This well is NORTHEAST of Watford City. Did Lynn Helms misspeak
or was he misquoted in The Bismarck Tribune when he said there was a gusher NORTHWEST of Watford City?
If there is still another gusher NORTHWEST of Watford City that is
better than this well, we are talking some big wells in the Bakken; t9/12; cum 235K 2/13; turned out to a super-long lateral, 15,000 laterally; a Three Forks well.
Again, if this is not the gusher Mr Helms was talking about a few months ago, this is an even bigger story. Can you imagine another well that will be bigger than this one? This well is northeast of Watford City; The Bismarck Tribune reported that the gusher would be northwest of Watford City.
It turns out this well was a super-long-lateral (15,000 feet). For newbies, a short lateral is about 4,500 feet. A long lateral is about 9,000 feet. Early in the Bakken boom, most horizontals were short laterals, only 4,500 feet. The norm (now): long laterals, about 9,000 feet. However, there is a discussion among Bakken operators about which is more cost effective: short laterals vs long laterals.
So, now we have a very long lateral, something we haven't seen before in the Bakken. I think this is the first lateral of this length in the Bakken (even longer than those under the river).
Note: a Three Forks well.
|Pool||Date||Days||BBLS Oil||Runs||BBLS Water||MCF Prod||MCF Sold||Vent/Flare|
Look at the cumulative production: 213,000 bbls in less than 5 months. For newbies, one expects a Bakken well to produce 100,000 bbls in the first year, though many do not. I am not aware of any Bakken well to hit 200,000 bbls in less than a year (I assume there are some but don't know); this well hit 213,000 bbls in less than 5 months. Note that this well is not hooked up to a gas line (all gas is being flared) which suggests that the well might be choked back.
Again, "anonymous" alerted me to these wells some time ago and suggested there is much more to the story than just simply good luck. Neither the geologist's drilling report nor the completion data is yet posted at the NDIC web site. Once that is posted, we will know more.
Another bit of trivia: this spacing unit is still being determined. The operator is asking for a 3-section spacing unit (vertical, sections 25, 36, 1). Due to the way the well is sited, etc., according to the NDIC, the spacing unit will be 1,741 acres, less than 3-section spacing (1,920 acres). The horizontal runs parallel to the east line of the spacing unit, and is offset from the east line by 900 feet. At some point, one would expect an overlapping spacing unit to be approved to allow a horizontal to run down the length of the section line.