Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Case Study -- Jump In Production After Neighboring Wells Were Fracked -- June 7, 2017

Updates

June 9, 2017: see first comment. This is incredibly important. Apparently the first well was a Three Forks well, not a middle Bakken well. This really makes sense trying to explain the production profile: the comment --
Very interesting! I did some research too, Way back in the well file (I have the premium subscription with NDIC) it shows that this is a Three Forks well. Back before Continental did the tests which showed there were two separate zones, all the wells were called Bakken... so this makes sense that this well showed these results with the nearby Three Forks wells being fracked....
Original Post

Disclaimer: in a long note like this, there will be typographical and factual errors. In addition, I may have missed something important, and/or there may things I am mis-reading. If this is important to you, go to the source.

This is being posted for an individual interested in "re-fracks" in the Bakken. 

For reasons I discussed with that individual, it is very tedious to research data on "re-fracked" wells in the Bakken.

This is how I do it:
1) I go back to "Retrieve Well Production History" at the NDIC site
2) I then go through the scout tickets/file reports one-by-one. This is incredibly tedious. This would be a good summer job for a high school student; and/or better yet, someone should be able to write an "app" that would do this
3) instruct the high school student or the "app" to a) go through the scout tickets chronologically; b) identify any wells with "unusual" (set your own parameters) production patterns
4) try to explain any jump in production using a) the file report; b) FracFocus; c) other sources
In this particular case, I started with file #17000 and worked chronologically to the first well a) with an unusual production profile; and, b) one that I had not identified before.

In just a matter of minutes I came across this one, #17086 and noted the unusual jump in production back in June, 2016.

I pulled that one aside, and then:
a) checked the file report for sundry forms that might explain the jump in production
b) retrieved the API number from the scout ticket and check FracFocus
These are the results.

The index well:
  •  17086, 560, Newfield, Jorgenson 1-15H, Lost Bridge, t11/08; cum 276K 4/17; the production profile showed a huge jump in production in June, 2016
Looking at the GIS map at the NDIC site, I noted the graphic that is depicted below the spreadsheet. Note the four horizontals that "cross" the index well.

Of those wells, interestingly only one was a middle Bakken, and all were fracked shortly before June, 2016, when it was noted that production for #17086 jumped:
  • 32581,  Three Forks, t6/16; 50 stages, 5.6 million lbs;
  • 29856, Three Forks t6/16; 50 stages, 3.5 million lbs;
  • 32092, Three Forks, t/16; 50 stages, 5.6 million lbs;
  • 29857, middle Bakken, t6/16; 50 stages, 5.6 million lbs;
Production profile for #17086 about the time four neighboring wells were fracked:

BAKKEN2-201728708869142563892766522030
BAKKEN1-2017318087863729659039869862
BAKKEN12-201631857383632318880365082032
BAKKEN11-20163077927660273558738284775
BAKKEN10-20163175207860268865711836109
BAKKEN9-201630907489583078982873872171
BAKKEN8-2016311539615098563417597141643154
BAKKEN7-2016311737017744962719641387615486
BAKKEN6-20161473766688801460952785699
BAKKEN5-20167143046531110
BAKKEN4-20160000000
BAKKEN3-20160000000
BAKKEN2-2016220004720464
BAKKEN1-2016311179136012521041089741
BAKKEN12-201531129011871452005977749
BAKKEN11-201530123114811301560391899
BAKKEN10-201531130118651401756533945
BAKKEN9-20153012604641481969908791


When I see a jump in production of this magnitude, I assume the well was re-fracked. And in this case, it is very possible the well was re-fracked but there is no evidence that it was:
  • no sundry form
  • no FracFocus data: (API: 33-025-00729)
  • on a completely different pad than where neighboring wells were fracked 
The graphic:

4 comments:

  1. Mr. Oksol
    I've checked maybe 130 wells or so halo hunting.
    I start with the Gis map and randomly hunting down 'older' wells by their permit # that have a few newer wells close by.
    Then I check the older well's production history to see if/when the bump up happened.
    I then check completion dates on nearby wells.
    There has been about a 90%/95% correlation with increase and coincident frac'ing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. Much could be said about all this. Something tells me the oil service companies like HAL are aware of this, and operators are aware of this. I don't think it "moves the needle" yet for the big companies, but over time, I think it's going to be a big, big deal.

      Just beware: some wells with huge jump in production were re-fracked at same time as the newer wells were fracked.

      Delete
  2. Very interesting! I did some research too, Way back in the well file (I have the premium subscription with NDIC) it shows that this is a Three Forks well. Back before Continental did the tests which showed there were two separate zones, all the wells were called Bakken... so this makes sense that this well showed these results with the nearby Three Forks wells being fracked...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, wow, wow. That really had me perplexed. That does explain a lot. Huge piece of information. Thank you.

      At the sidebar on the right, I have a link to a 2009 article:


      Simultaneous Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments in Adjacent Horizontal Wells

      Link here:
      http://themilliondollarway.blogspot.com/2010/08/another-first-for-north-dakota_19.html

      At that post, scroll down to that article, click on it, and a PDF will download. I may have misread it ... I read it quickly and that was a long time ago -- the authors specifically stated fracking three (3) horizontals simultaneously was the key. At least that's what I thought they said. The article was difficult for me to read.

      Delete