Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Reason #5 Why I Love To Blog -- The Amber Renee; Permitted For Re-Entry -- December 3, 2014

Updates

August 24, 2019: I've seen the "R" in permits mean different things to different folks, to include, "revised" and "re-enter." In this case the Sophia Drake was never spud, and the Amber Renee was a great well until it was taken off line. Now, the Sophia Drake (with a slightly new name, and a new permit) will be drilled; and, a "different" / "new" Amber Renee will be drilled, see graphic:


July 2, 2016: update. Why the Amber Renee is on TA status
 
Original Post
 
With a long post like this, there may be factual and typographical errors. If this information is important to you, go to the source.

I don't own any minerals in the Bakken. One well means nothing more to me than any other well except for the specifics about the well. But I do have to say that there are a few wells in the Bakken, that for whatever reason, "stick out" for me. The "Amber Renee" well is one such well.

First, I like the name. Amber Renee. A perfect name for a young woman and/or a Bakken well. On the other hand, not a good name for a Kentucky Derby thoroughbred. For the latter, a better name, Runstowin.

Second, the Amber Renee got my attention when after producing about 800,000 bbls of oil, the operator shut it down. That gets my attention.

But now this. In the December 3, 2014, daily activity report, Murex has indicated that it wants to re-enter the well:
PERMITTED FOR RE-ENTRY:
#18408 - MUREX PETROLEUM CORPORATION, AMBER RENEE 25-36H, NWNW 25-154N-91W, MOUNTRAIL CO., 250' FNL and 510' FWL, DEVELOPMENT, SANISH, API #33-061-01156
When you look at the scout ticket below, note:
  • IP
  • total production to date
  • "F" -- no indication this well has been put on a pump (but sometimes there are reporting errors)
  • how very, very little water has been produced; great expense for wells with lots of water to be disposed
  • the monthly production of this well when it was taken off-line
*******************************************

As noted above, I've enjoyed following this well. Here are the previous posts regarding this well:

From June 19, 2014:
Back on line:
  • 18408, 1,945,  Amber Renee 25-36H, Sanish; one mile to the west of the Chandler James; t2/10; F; 821K 12/13 -- 661K in first two years; no pump; still 9K/month 1/13; IA 1/14; now back on line apparently (shown as "A" but still no new production except a bit of natural gas sold in 4/14); on January 27, 2016, I noted this well was now "AB" -- abandoned;
From March 30, 2014:
In the Sanish, Murex has taken the Amber Renee off-line (as of January, 2014). It is now listed as "inactive." Could it be related to activity planned for the Jacob Daniel well south of the Amber Renee? Right now I don't see any other activity on the GIS map server.

[For some background to Murex, a reader noted that the company was featured in a Forum article some years ago. I remember that article and have it linked elsewhere on the blog. Here is the original story.]

The Amber Renee is a huge well. It was spud December 21, 2009, and drilling stopped on January 12, 2010. A frac tree was installed in May, 2010. It looks like it was fracked with 14 perforations and with slightly less than 900,000 lbs of sand. It was tested February 27, 2010, with an IP of 1,945. With a TD of 16,000 feet it extended slightly longer than a short lateral (but was planned as a long lateral based on a 1280-acre drilling unit) in the Sanish. A marked increase in gas (10,000+ units) was noted in the lateral. Interpretation of other data suggested a natural fracture. At 16,050 feet there were indications that there might be communication with a neighboring well (Jacob Daniel 25-36H, now Jacob Daniel 25-36H-RE (#16839), a short lateral) and the drilling was stopped.
From April 15, 2013
The Amber Renee well was completed/tested almost exactly three years ago. It has produced about 750,000 bbls in those three years. It is still producing about 10,000 bbls/month, and is not on a pump (based on the scout ticket)
  • 18408, 1,945,  Murex, Amber Renee 25-36H, Sanish, one mile to the west of the Chandler James; s12/09; t2/10; F ; "long" lateral; cum 750K 2/13; 
This well is considered a "long lateral" but, in fact, is quite short, barely extending in to the second section;  the Chandler James is in the same section, running parallel to Amber Renee, but is a "full" long lateral.
From August 1, 2011:
18408, 1,945, Amber Renee 25-36H, was spudded December 21, 2009. It still is producing 30- to 35,000 bbls/months. As of June 30, 2011, Amber Renee had produced 476K bbls of oil (at $50/bbl = $24 million). I believe the Amber Renee was a 14-stage frac.
From February 21, 2011:
18408, 1,945, Amber Renee 25-36H, was spudded December 21, 2009. It still is producing 30- to 35,000 bbls/months. As of 5/13, Amber Renee had produced 777K bbls of oil (at $50/bbl = $24 million).
From "Things To Follow Up On":
18408: flowing, no pump; ever fracked? In same section as 17263. As of October 25, 2014, no frack data in file; sundry form scanned in but no frack data.  Also, 17500: no frack data and no explanation why well taken off-line recently. Sister well #18912 was taken off line in 2014 at same time #17500 taken off-line.
 ***********************************************

In one of the entries above, it was noted that the Amber Renee might have been interfering with the Jacob Daniel. From the GIS map server, note the Amber Renee (#18404) to the northwest; Chandler James to the northeast; and, Jacob Daniel to the south:


************************************************

The scout ticket with the production profile only since March, 2013:

NDIC File No: 18408    
Well Type: OG     Well Status: IA     Status Date: 2/25/2010     Wellbore type: Horizontal
Location: NWNW 25-154-91      Latitude: 48.138199     Longitude: -102.329314
Current Operator: MUREX PETROLEUM CORPORATION
Current Well Name: AMBER RENEE 25-36H
Total Depth: 16050     Field: SANISH
Spud Date(s):  12/21/2009
Completion Data
   Pool: BAKKEN     Comp: 2/25/2010     Status: F     Date: 2/27/2010     Spacing: 2SEC
   Pool: BAKKEN     Status: LOC     Date: 12/3/2014
Cumulative Production Data
   Pool: BAKKEN     Cum Oil: 821537     Cum MCF Gas: 573256     Cum Water: 6856
Production Test Data
   IP Test Date: 2/27/2010     Pool: BAKKEN     IP Oil: 1945     IP MCF: 230     IP Water: 0
Monthly Production Data
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
BAKKEN10-20140000000
BAKKEN9-20140000000
BAKKEN8-2014251133061053
BAKKEN7-20140000000
BAKKEN6-20140000000
BAKKEN5-20140000000
BAKKEN4-20140000110
BAKKEN3-2014000167000
BAKKEN2-20140000000
BAKKEN1-20140000000
BAKKEN12-20133030727254494030
BAKKEN11-2013306697670257987498740
BAKKEN10-201331699469995214292142920
BAKKEN9-201330679968095210402104020
BAKKEN8-20133175127555551128610919367
BAKKEN7-201331797180016711733117330
BAKKEN6-201330814883336211581115810
BAKKEN5-201331829981966812270122700
BAKKEN4-2013309058917310512578125780

But there is more to the story. Below is the production profile of the Jacob Daniel well in late, 2009, through late, 2010 (see if you spot the obvious).

The Jacob Daniel (during the period the Amber Renee was fracked):

BAKKEN9-20103086358713126439143910
BAKKEN8-20103190499220441374437440
BAKKEN7-201015310223821473169216920
BAKKEN6-201086000110
BAKKEN5-20100000000
BAKKEN4-20100000000
BAKKEN3-201031000000
BAKKEN2-2010172250110
BAKKEN1-20101484491303703700
BAKKEN12-200931512957150288928890
BAKKEN11-200930529753380307230720

*******************************

But there is even more to the story. There is a third well in that section, the Chandler James. This is the production profile of the Chandler James around this same period of time:

BAKKEN5-201031121991157574606860680
BAKKEN4-201030187511892567959295920
BAKKEN3-201031213952200267933593350
BAKKEN2-20102820769205635010242102420
BAKKEN1-201031183961857523908590850
BAKKEN12-20092320106196175710859108590
BAKKEN11-20092922025229616612131121310
BAKKEN10-200931375843727413821062210620
BAKKEN9-200930383303862729322059220590

***************************************

For the rest of the discussion, I am going to assume that:
  • the Amber Renee was completed/fracked/tested in late February, 2010
  • the two other wells in this section (Jacob Daniel and Chandler James) were NOT re-fracked or re-worked during this same period of time
  • that there would be little reason for the operator to manipulate production during this period of time
With those assumptions, there are two observations resulting in two conclusions (one "firm" and one "maybe, but it's a stretch."

The first observation and first conclusion: Note that the Amber Renee was fracked in February. The horizontal to the south (Jacob Daniel), coming close to the Amber Renee, was taken off-line during that time period. When it came back on line, its production jumped significantly, from 5,000 bbls/month to 9,000 bbls/month. If the assumptions are correct, it's hard not to conclude that fracking the Amber Renee did not affect the Jacob Daniel, at least for a short period of time (double negatives, but I think you understand what I'm trying to say).

The second observation: the third well in that section, the phenomenal Chandler James, parallels the Amber Renee but is much farther way than the Jacob Daniel. The Chandler James was not taken off-line during the time period when the Amber Renee was fracked. Look closely at the production profile of the Chandler James prior to February, 2010, before the Amber Renee was fracked -- almost a typical "Bakken" decline, starting September, 2009, at 38.3K; then to 37.6K the following month; then 22.0K; then 20.1K, and finally 18.4K in January.

Interestingly enough, there was a jump in the following month, the month that the Amber Renee was fracked. The Chandler James went from 18.4K in January, 2010, to 20.8K in February, and and an even bigger increase the following month to 21.4K before starting to taper.

If the assumptions are correct, it's hard to argue that fracking the Amber Renee had not effect on the Chandler James.

The second conclusion: "maybe, but I think it's a stretch." The two parallel horizontals are so far away it's hard to believe fracking the one had an effect on the other. So, I won't argue with folks who suggest that my assumptions are wrong, or that it's simply an anomaly, a not unusual variation in monthly production in the oil patch. But it is interesting.

By the way, this whole discussion has huge implications if the slump in the price of oil persists for two years.

2 comments:

  1. You could invent a new stat. BO per PS (Pound of Sand).

    Almost 1.0 so far.

    Anon 1

    ReplyDelete