March 6, 2015: from a reader over at the Discussion Group -- I did a little 3-D mapping of these wells and it looks like the north pad targets the upper Three Forks with the exception of one well that is lower. The south pad is just the opposite- all but one wellbore in the lower Three Forks, one in the upper horizons. Thank you. I will go back and use the terminology that the operator used. Comment: I just went back through the file reports, updated what I found in the wells below, and agree with you 100%. Thank you -- I was unaware of the differences in the formations in this area, the Antelope Oil Field, the Sanish pool. Much like the Sanish Oil Field, Whiting.
March 6, 2015: by the way -- note that according to the NDIC this well -- completed back in 2008 is still flowing without a pump (caveat: sometimes NDIC data is not updated -- there have been instances in which wells have been put in and the NDIC still shows the well as "flowing" without a pump, according to some readers. I would not have first-hand knowledge of that. But again, look at this, still "F" for flowing without a pump:
- 17214, 443, Hess, AN-Evenson-152-95-0310H-1, Three Forks (geological report, though application said Bakken NOS), F, 2 sections, open hole, 1.4 million lbs, t11/08; cum 196K 4/17; (off line March/April/May 2014) (still "F" as of 4/17)
March 6, 2015: the note below is very long, and my original comments come somewhere near the bottom/end of the post. The reader who first noted these wells responded to my comments and added some new thoughts. These are his thoughts, edited to fit the narrative below.
Looking at the drilling unit to the west of these wells might provide some additional information. The drilling unit immediately to the west is where the Bice 1-29H well was drilled, which is the very first Three Forks well that CLR drilled (as far as we are aware).Excellent observations and questions. The most frustrating thing is that operators are managing production (choking back) because of the low prices and if the production of these wells fall, it is hard to determine if it was due to purposeful choking back or if due to well dynamics regardless of price. The writer makes a great observation about the amount of salt water that has to be trucked away.
When the "companion" middle Bakken Bice well was drilled, there was much discussion regarding communication between the two. If I find the original post, I will link it later (it won't be hard to find).
The reader sorted the Hartman wells out, based on the order in which they were fracked (my spelling, not his). The reader felt that in the case of TF2 and TF3 (second and third benches, respectively), the second well fracked is doing much better than the first. The question: if there is communication, are frack solids from the second well interfering (plugging) the earlier fracked well?
The reader also noted that although they are into a few months of production, the water production has stayed the same for the last two months, but oil production has increased by over 20%. Looking at the new tank battery scheme, it appears the oil is transferred directly to the pipeline network whereas the salt water waste is trucked out. The question: is water removal bottle-necking oil production?
The reader also noted that fracking these Hartman wells used volumes about twice that used on the Hawkinson wells and the Hartman wells are spaced about half the distance of the Hawkinson wells. Result: the volume of frack solution per volume of reservoir is actually 4 times greater than that used in the Hawkinson wells. Observation/comment: it's possible the Hartman wells are still in the flow-back / clean-out stage; if so, production numbers may improve going forward.
Finally, a note on spelling. I know the spelling of frac / frack and its variations is a sensitive subject to many, especially the roughnecks in the field who first broke open the Bakken. The reader who provided the notes above prefers to use "frac" and so it was me to who changed the spelling to keep the blog consistent. I apologize for stepping on the toes of those folks who prefer the alternate spelling. No disrespect is meant.
Some time ago I talked about heel-to-toe wells neighboring toe-to-heel wells. A reader over at the discussion group noted these ten wells demonstrating that pattern: six wells run north (heel-to-toe) and four other wells run south, in the opposite direction, toe-to-heel, relative to the six wells running north (if that makes sense). See screen shot of all ten wells:
The six wells sited in section 10-152-95; all six run north into section 3:
- 28395, 969, Hess, AN-Evenson-LW-152-95-1003H-2, Three Forks B1, 4 sections, 35 stages, 2.4 million lbs, Antelope, t1/15; cum 127K 4/17;
- 28072, 1,336, Hess, AN-Evenson-LW-152-95-1003H-1, Bakken NOS (application; geologic report -- upper portion of the middle Bakken), 4 sections, 35 stages, 2.4 million lbs; t1/15; cum 160K 4/17;
- 27798, 1,032, Hess, AN-Evenson-152-95-1003H-9, Three Forks, second bench (application and geological report), 2 sections, 35 stages, 2.5 million lbs; t1/15; cum 147K 4/17;
- 27797, 1,044, Hess, AN-Evenson-152-95-1003H-8, Three Forks first bench (application and geological report); 2 sections, 35 stages, 2.3 million lbs; t12/14; cum 123K 4/17;
- 27796, 949, Hess, AN-Evenson-152-95-1003H-7, Three Forks second bench (application and geological report), 2 sections, 35 stages, 2.2 million lbs, t12/14; cum 91K 4/17;
- 27795, 910, Hess, AN-Evenson-152-95-1003H-6, Three Forks first bench (application and geological report), 2 sections, 35 stages, 2.2 million lbs, t12/14; cum 126K 4/17;
The four wells sited in section 3-152-95; all four run south into section 10:
- 25698, 1,056, Hess, AN-Evenson-152-95-0310H-5, Three Forks NOS (application; though the geologic summary says middle Bakken), 2 sections, 26 stages, 1.8 million lbs, t6/14; cum 104K 4/17;
- 25699, 1,253, Hess, AN-Evenson-152-95-0310H-4, Bakken NOS (application, and geologic summary), 2 sections, 26 stages, 2.5 million lbs, t5/14; cum 186K 4/17;
- 25700, 1,263, Hess, AN-Evenson-152-95-0310H-3, Three Forks NOS (application, though the geologic summary says middle Bakken), 2 sections, 35 stages, 2.5million lbs, t5/14; cum 2207K 4/17; (off line Nov/Dec 2014)
- 25701, A, Hess, AN-Evenson-152-95-0310H-2, Bakken NOS (application; geologic summary a bit hard to sort out), 2 sections, 35 stages, 2.5 million lbs, no test day but active and producing, s5/14; cum 137K 4/17; (off line Nov/Dec 2014, and still off line January 2015, but apparently back on line February 2015)
A screen shot of these four wells:
A singleton well further to the east, running south, sited in the same section as the 4-well pad, section 3:
- 17214, 443, Hess, AN-Evenson-152-95-0310H-1, Three Forks, F, 2 sections, open hole, 1.4 million lbs, t11/08; cum 195K 4/17; (off line March/April/May 2014)
Comments (these are all personal opinions; I have no training or background in the oil and gas industry; these opinions may be completely wrong; no one else may agree with me; there may be typographical and factual errors on this page; I don't always double/triple check postings; if this information is important to you, go to the source, starting with the NDIC):
- these are all incredibly good wells
- the operator sometimes listed the pool as the Sanish; other times, the operator listed the pool as the Three Forks; I listed them all as Three Forks (I do not know if there is a fine distinction between the Three Forks and the Sanish in the Antelope field)
- these wells are all so similar (and so good) that it's really hard to tell if there was any advantage to drilling ~ half of them from the south, and ~ half of them from the north, but it certainly looks like this was done for that purpose, as a test; they easily could have all been drilled on the same pad in the north or the south
- bottom line: I don't know if it made a difference drilling them in opposite directions
The "Halo" Effect Of Fracking
One question the reader did not ask about was the "halo" effect of fracking wells near existing wells.
The most recent fracking was done too recently to be able to tell with one exception.
Look at #25700. This well is one of the older wells, tested back in May, 2014. It came off line when neighboring wells were fracked in the January, 2015, time-frame. After the neighboring wells were fracked in the January, 2015, time-frame, #25700 was put back on status. It's very subtle, and may not mean anything, but prior to that neighboring fracking it produced 11,373 bbls in 31 days; after the neighboring wells were fracked, that same well produced slightly more (11,729 bbls) in 2/3rds the time (only 20 days). In fact, it's slightly worse: prior to the fracking, it got down to less than 9,000 bbls in 30 days and then less than 6,000 bbls in 26 days. Obviously the data is minimal, and there could be other factors (the operator could have modulated the production for some reason prior to neighboring fracking), but it certainly appears there is evidence of the "halo" effect.
I did not check the depths, but I assume all the depths were similar since they all were targeting the same pool/formation.
To re-cap, look for evidence of the "halo" effect in this well:
- 25700, 1,263, Hess, AN-Evenson-152-95-0310H-3, Three Forks, 2 sections, 35 stages, 2.5million lbs, t5/14; cum 110K 1/15; (off line Nov/Dec 2014) (as of 4/17, no data for a re-frack over at FracFocus):
|Pool||Date||Days||BBLS Oil||Runs||BBLS Water||MCF Prod||MCF Sold||Vent/Flare|
More Evidence of The Halo Effect?
Below is the production profile of that well (#17214) just prior to the neighboring fracking in the January, 2015, time-frame, and right after. The monthly production has declined quite significantly by this time, so it's not easily visible, but note that prior to the neighboring fracking, we were seeing 1,200 bbls/month; after the neighboring fracking we started to see around 2,400 bbls / 31 days. When looking at production, be sure to look at total number of days of production in any given month. It's subtle; I wouldn't bet the farm on it, but it is interesting.
One Pipeline Not Vetoed By President Obama
Pipeline co-writer Brian Carman dead at age 69. From wiki:
The Chantays were formed in 1961 when five high-school friends decided to start their own band. Bob Spickard, Brian Carman (co-writers of "Pipeline"), Bob Welch, Warren Waters and Rob Marshall were all students at Santa Ana High School in California, when a local group called the Rhythm Rockers inspired the five to form the Chantays. In December 1962, the group recorded and released "Pipeline," which eventually peaked at No. 4 on the Billboard Hot 100 in May 1963. The track also peaked in the UK Singles Chart in 1963 at No. 16. The Chantays recorded their first album in 1963, also titled Pipeline, which included "Blunderbus" and "El Conquistador." Their follow-up album was Two Sides of the Chantays in 1964.