September 29, 2013: EOG announces 34 wells on a drilling unit, and TR&E were last seen discussing the issue of flaring natural gas. LOL.
September 24, 2013: now that the Bakken Shale Discussion Group is effectively shut down (archives are not even accessible), I'm getting a lot of personal e-mail requesting data that the group used to provide. Because I don't have internet at home, I may not get to the e-mail for a few hours. But I reply to all non-spam e-mail.
September 20, 2013: I see an enquiring mind is wondering why "his" permit east of Minot was cancelled. LOL. And so it goes. Huge thanks to another reader.
September 16, 2013: I see TR&E are still talking about flared natural gas. Huge thanks to another reader.
September 14, 2013: I am told that the biggest story this week over at the TR&E discussion group is pondering the question: "hey, where did everyone go?"
September 9, 2013: it looks like the Bakken Shale Discussion Group is shutting down.
September 8, 2013: Due to some emotional misinformation some enquiring minds are under the impression that the Three Forks formation is thicker than the middle Bakken. That may be true in some areas, but is certainly not true in all areas. In fact, in some areas, the Three Forks thins out pretty remarkably. Interestingly, in the Whiting presentation for August, 2013, Whiting clearly shows the Three Forks as thinner than the middle Bakken. Take a look at slide 10. The middle Bakken is clearly thicker than the Three Forks in much (all?) of the graphic. On another note, it is interesting to note that Whiting notes four zones in the middle Bakken, Zones A, B, C, and D.
September 8, 2013: wow, another Indian has left. First, Craig Cooper called it quits (see link below, September 6, "friendly). Now, another individual has has his full of "North Dakota friendliness": Bob Finley calls it quits. Sad face. The triumvirate (T-R-E) is driving everyone away. Just as well. Nonsense.
September 6, 2013: heaven help this poor enquiring mind, asking the simple question why the rig has been moved off "his" pad. I assume the drillers reached total depth, and now they are waiting for the frack team to come in. Wonders never cease.
September 6, 2013: so much for "discussion" for enquiring minds. Wow. Another individual cut off at the knees for talking about the Bakken. This puts the "friendly" in North Dakota. LOL.
September 4, 2013: enquiring minds provide a great example of a well that will be shut in or permanently abandoned if it is not allowed to flare gas. It is producing almost no oil, no natural gas, and it is so remote that it is not a bit economical to put in a natural gas gathering pipeline. I assume the flaring is almost minuscule. At the link, see the comment made this date at 9:20 a.m. The well itself has been on-line since 2008 and has produced less than 50,000 bbls of oil. The well serves a purpose for Statoil otherwise they would have abandoned it already. Currently, the well is producing 300 bbls of oil /month. At $100 at the wellhead --> $30,000/month. It is producing 0.3 MMCFT/month of natural gas; at $5.00 at the well head, this is $1.50 at the wellhead. My math might be off, but I doubt it. If enquiring minds are worried about wasting natural gas, it would help to use better examples.
September 1, 2013: an enquiring mind wants to know if a well is sited in a section adjacent to where he has mineral rights, will he participate in royalties? No.
August 31, 2013: finally, an adult steps in with regard to the silly discussion regarding flaring. He is correct: Lynn Helms and the NDIC can stop the flaring immediately. The NDIC only has to do two things: a) deny all waivers/requests for extensions to flare; and, b) deny any more multi-well pad drilling where service lines are not in place. With regard to investors and fracking: I am an investor and I am skittish, and so are many other investors with whom I correspond. The activists will do what they can to shut down the Bakken. Right or wrong, that is the perception of some of us who invest in the Bakken through equities. That is also true for developers based on personal correspondence. There was no explanation why "service lines" are not being put in by the operators which suggests a lack of understanding by the adult with regard to the economics of drilling, or a lack of understanding on my part. I'm willing to learn. Certainly the operators are not be discouraged from putting in these service lines by the commission. By the way, I do not find the monthly "Director's Cuts" political in any sense of the word. Ninety-four percent of the information is simply statistical and factual. The other six percent is narrative and provides insight to how the commission is interpreting the information. I am surprised the NDIC is so transparent; no other state provides such expansive information and comment, and I have spent a fair amount of time looking for data from other states. Ohio releases statistical information once a year, I thought I read somewhere. I'm sure I will be corrected. I would think folks would be happy to see how the commissioner interprets the data. However, even if the six percent narrative is political, or if the entire document is political, I am surprised someone would be aghast. I am unaware of almost anything not being seen politically these days. I think baseball scores involving the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox have become political. But the writer's concern does provide some insight into the ban on any political discussion at that site. By the way, I am 100% in favor of that ban. If the ban were not in effect, ninety-four percent of the comments would be political in nature.
August 26, 2013: elsewhere they seem to be unable to answer a very simple question. If flaring is a waste, then "they" simply have to shut down any well that is flaring gas; it's very simple. In fact, in a few months this should all take care of itself when the Feds implement new fracking rules which will ultimately result in less drilling and less flaring. This is not rocket science.
August 22, 2013: elsewhere an enquiring mind is asking about "non-consent insurance." The individual brings up an issue that I anticipated a year ago; I don't remember if I blogged about it. I anticipated that pad drilling would become a significant issue for small royalty owners to participate in drilling a well. This well needs to be shut down -- it is simply flaring (and wasting) too much natural gas. [Update: the replies, once again, speak volumes about how much folks know about the process, and the incredible laboratory the Bakken has been for the nation's energy revolution. They also don't understand the economics of an oil well; if it costs $10 million to put in a natural gas pipeline and the natural gas will ultimately pay back $1 million, it doesn't make sense to put in the pipeline, now does it? With their kind of thinking, might as well shut down the well. And for them, the following video:
August 18, 2013: elsewhere it appears all the questions have been answered; there have been no more new posts since August 11, 2013, one of the longest stretches in which no one has posted anything.
August 7, 2013: an enquiring mind has highlighted a perfect example of a well that would be shut down if the operator was forced to run a pipeline all the way to the well; so little natural gas is being produced it would not be economical; in fact, so little crude oil is being produced about the only thing this well appears to be good for is holding the lease by production. And this is a perfect example of why I moderate comments. I hate to embarrass folks.
August 7, 2013: this should be interesting to follow -- an enquiring mind asks --
Looking at the GIS map server, I see no permitted location in this section (12-153-98). In addition, according to the GIS map server, there is only one "Hayes" well and that is the Hayes 1-6H. Finally, well file numbers issued by the NDIC do not exceed five digits, currently running in the 25000 range. Well #180989 simply does not exist -- at least in my database.Does anyone know how I can keep track of this well, especially the number 180989? Well #180989 Hayes 11X-18 in McKenzie Co. ND with the legal description Sec 12 Twn 153N Range 98W.
August 6, 2013: an enquiring mind wants to know what Hess is requesting when asking to produce oil at an unrestricted rate and flare gas produced in association with the production. This is a standard boilerplate request. The NDIC requires that flaring end by six- to twelve-months after a well begins production (I forget the exact rules). But at some point, flaring at a specific well has to end; if not, the operator is penalized. Operators can ask for a waiver and they routinely do so when, for economic reasons, they continue to flare natural gas. The NDIC, from my limited experience, seems to take a reasonable view when adjudicating these requests. The Baskin oil field is relatively undeveloped and the natural gas gathering and processing infrastructure is either not in place or inadequate in size to "handle" the natural gas that is a by-product of the Bakken oil play.
August 2, 2013: this should be an interesting thread to follow. A question is being asked about "overlapping units" and the GIS map server. The individual actually brings up a couple of points.
Disregard the comment "some operators request one over the other." Overlapping spacing units has nothing to do with "preference" by "operator" -- per se.
However, the other question is much more interesting: how can one tell where the overlapping spacing units are by using the GIS map server?
This is the best I can do. Go to the GIS map server. Zoom in so that you are looking at these fields: Twin Valley in the far northwest; Antelope in the far east/northeast; Reunion Bay in the far east/southeast; and, Elidah in the far southwest. At the legend on the right side, put a check mark in the square box opposite "2560 Acre"; a dot in the circle opposite "2560 Acre"; and, a check in the square box opposite "1280 Acre." You will see a portion of the GIS map server with lots of teal (greenish-blue) and a bit of purple. The teal is 1280-acre spacing; the purple is 2560-acre spacing.
The spacing units are lined with a white border (generally - almost always -- along section lines). The teal and the purple spacing units are "standard" spacing units. Now, lean back in your chair a bit, and look for "**1280** and/or **2560** on the GIS map server. Those represent "overlapping spacing units. The number (either a **1280** or a **2560** is placed at the "bottom" of the overlapping spacing unit.
So as an example: in Blue Buttes, 151N-95W, just along the south section line of sections 9 and 10, you will see **2560**. That means that sections 4,3, 9, and 10, is an overlapping spacing unit.
Disregard the numbers preceded by a "c" in this discussion. Numbers with a preceding "c" means that these spacing units are still being considered by an active case (hearing docket case).
July 27, 2013: a penny for your thoughts.
July 18, 2013: a thread on EOG's water injection in the Bakken.
July 15, 2013: speaking of enquiring minds, the other day someone mentioned he never understood "cross wells." I posted an explanation of cross wells back in 2010. The search engine for the blog is incredible.
July 15, 2013: an enquiring mind is wondering why #17389, EN-Cvancara, is on "IA" (inactive status). The well is a good well, not yet on a pump. It was taken off-line for a few days in April, 2013, but is now back on-line and producing. It may have been brought off-line to put on a pump. But the fact that production did not increase in May, my hunch is that a pump was not put on. More likely is the fact that two wells on/near the drilling pad of #17389 were fracked on/about April, 2013, most like necessitating taking #17389 off-line. No one has yet provided the enquiring mind a response, but one of two things will likely occur: a) no response ever; or, b) cut and paste of what has been posted. [Update, July 16, 2013: the well is back on active status. End of mystery, if there ever was one.]
July 10, 2013: for those folks interested in partnering with an oil company drilling an oil well in lieu of leasing their minerals, this thread, starting about July 9, is helpful, if not interesting. Or is that interesting, if not helpful. Whatever. But this individual elected to participate in a well that was estimated to cost about $10 million before drilling began, and apparently has ballooned to $16 million. (Investing in Hollywood movies has a very similar history well known to those who produce movies.) A three-percent interest in a $10 million well would cost you $300,000 up front; ballooning to $16 million would cost you an additional $180,000.
July 8, 2013: I've linked this thread before, but Craig has it exactly right in is post of July 8, 2013. I was hoping someone would articulate it as well as he did. I tried but knew I couldn't, so didn't. Craig will now be jumped on and skewered by others instead of a serious (intelligent) discussion.
June 30, 2013: here we go again.
June 27, 2013: an enquiring mind seeks information on lease rates for several locations, and wonders about future prospects. The individual notes that two of the locations do not have any any active wells. Unless I am misreading the NDIC GIS map server, in fact, all locations have horizontal laterals, and thus the leases are held by production. This area is right in the heart of the Bakken and there will be at least a dozen wells in each spacing unit before it's all over, and possibly many, many more.
June 22, 2013: an enquiring mind is asking how to figure decimal interest on division orders complicated by a pre-existing 4.5% royalty deed clause. It's a very, very good question; I had a devil of a time figuring it out. A reader sent in an easy explanation.
June 21, 2013: an enquiring mind is curious to see what an additional wellhead is worth to the operator. There is currently one wellhead on "his" pad and has been offered $5,000 for a second wellhead. Imagine a pad with 14 wells --> $70,000 plus, of course, royalties from the additional wells if the surface owner still retains some of the minerals. Staggering.
June 19, 2013: Z-Man's Energy Brain posted a nice link to a Samson Resources presentation in this thread. Z-Man's comment: Samson is drilling a vertical program, east of where we normally think of Bakken//TFS, skip to slide 26 at the presentation.
The presentation: http://www.samsonoilandgas.
June 15, 2013: an enquiring mind is wondering about an "entry referring to non-cash charges for 'impairment' to its proven and unproven properties." That's a great question. A definition can be found here. My hunch: Magnum Hunter lowered the value of some of its property. For example, Magnum Hunter could have been carrying $5,000/acre for some of its acreage, but now realizes it may be worth closer to $3,000/acre.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.