Saturday, January 20, 2018

Random Update Of A BR Jerome Well With An Increase In Production -- January 20, 2018

This page will not be updated.

In an NDIC letter dated July 19, 2016, this well was designated a "stripper well." There is no evidence that it was ever re-fracked:
  • 17291, 756, BR, Jerome 1-15H, North Fork, t2/09; cum 236K 11/17;
Note jump in production in mid- to late-2016. With such a jump in production, I would assume that the well has been re-fracked. I don't know. No sundry form and nothing in FracFocus to suggest it was re-fracked (though I could have missed something):

POOLMONTHDaysBbls OilRunsBbls WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldFlare
BAKKEN5-20173082097922235711147110730
BAKKEN4-20171219225114120
BAKKEN3-20173081338695508211944118700
BAKKEN2-2017271125010848648816216161490
BAKKEN1-20171651475406439034433192211
BAKKEN12-20162984058810535690087946995
BAKKEN11-2016301344712915877820039157354230
BAKKEN10-2016291266712617776614568014496
BAKKEN9-201629101949913627912098012029
BAKKEN8-201620687771214971894218893
BAKKEN7-20160000000
BAKKEN6-20160000000
BAKKEN5-20162188513654268780826
BAKKEN4-201630995684286130601231

The graphic:


The neighboring well was fracked 6/1-8/2016:
  • 30282, 2,806, BR, Jerome 21-15MBH, North Fork, 27 stages, 5 million lbs, t9/16; cum 188K 11/17;
By the way, #17292 shows the very same story. I just don't have the time or interest to repeat a similar story.
  • 17282, 765, BR, Kirkland 1-33H, t10/08; cum 217K 11/17;

Why The Bakken Was So Exciting In The Early Days -- January 20, 2018

This page won't be updated.

A few months ago I started tracking wells that produced in excess of 50,000 bbls in a single month, a phenomenon that was occurring more often in 2017 with higher intensity fracks (more stages; more proppant).

But as it turns out, there was an occasional well in the early days that produced in excess of 50,000 bbls in one month. Look at this one. EOG drilled a short lateral that produced 50,042 bbls in its first month of production:
  • 17287, 1,137, EOG, Austin 22-31H, Parshall, t10/08; cum 893K 11/17;
POOLMonthDaysBbbls OilRunsBbls WaterMCF prodMCF SoldFlare
BAKKEN9-20093022435220061004107159738831
BAKKEN8-20093128544288139411270111701852
BAKKEN7-200927252382482718091093293191484
BAKKEN6-2009302688227211875521428162250
BAKKEN5-2009311982719522356992309768
BAKKEN4-20093015957156154787607726
BAKKEN3-20092715010158062735807226
BAKKEN2-20097520653270248602461
BAKKEN1-2009117379732640359303556
BAKKEN12-2008311992919909175963909493
BAKKEN11-2008303283532722155516527016385
BAKKEN10-20083150042484771199225250025097

Note again, this was a short lateral. Extrapolated to a long lateral, this well produced 100,000 bbls of crude oil in the first month back in 2008; a open hole frack using about 2 million lbs sand.

Random Update Of An EOG Short Lateral In Parshall Oil Field -- January 20, 2018

The well:
  • 17277, 1,594, EOG, Westgard 1-28H, Parshall, one section/short lateral; t5/10; cum 348K; FracFocus, no record of a re-frack; note production jump, 10/16; note the increase in flaring after 12/16:
BAKKEN7-201731423942091780120889860
BAKKEN6-2017304960506020621315815256
BAKKEN5-20173162306248217215131071190
BAKKEN4-201730611160772232126187937
BAKKEN3-2017317189709923701469319898
BAKKEN2-2017285612561528551205354623
BAKKEN1-2017316453644935241418496670
BAKKEN12-2016295895607135381268289752
BAKKEN11-2016265885573729481383115919
BAKKEN10-20161341834061299485071335
BAKKEN9-20160000000
BAKKEN8-201623140271522
BAKKEN7-201631131212031164471932
BAKKEN6-201630127812791184552056

Neighboring fracked wells:
  • A neighboring well, #30856, was fracked 8/13 - 9/22/2016. Another neighboring well, #30781, was fracked over a period of time, the frack ending 9/4/16.
The graphic:

Random Update Of A BR Copper Draw Well In Blue Buttes -- January 20, 2018

Summary: this is a long note. I'm not sure about this, but it appears that #17271, a middle Bakken well was re-fracked in late 2014, about the same time a neighboring Three Forks well was fracked for the first time. I may have it wrong, but I think that's correct. It was interesting to note that throughout the file report, from the original permit through the original frack, #17271 was referred to as a middle Bakken well, but at the time of the workover/re-frack, the sundry forms called it Bakken/Three Forks. I do not know what the significance of that, if any. Probably no significance.

Disclaimer: in a long note like this there will be factual and typographical errors. If this is important to you go to the source.

There is nothing new to learn about the Bakken in this note; there is nothing new here. I was struck by the jump in production of #17271 and was interested in why that occurred.

**********************************
Background

This is pretty cool. Note the production profile of this well during this period of time, back in early 2015:
  • 17271, 312, BR, Copper Draw 34-34H, t6/08, middle Bakken; cum 422K 11/17; original frack in June, 2008, open hole, 1 million lbs of sand; re-frack  7/13 - 11/22/2014; Bakken/Three Forks, 30 stage frack; slickwater, about 4 - 5 million lbs proppant,
BAKKEN1-20162472957811352615364153050
BAKKEN12-2015311042910008217421181211040
BAKKEN11-2015301006310315203017052169780
BAKKEN10-2015311208712169241723390233130
BAKKEN9-2015301249312284250113239131640
BAKKEN8-2015301242312428238313595117421779
BAKKEN7-201531138381407223551244398122554
BAKKEN6-2015301854818302268614753146780
BAKKEN5-2015312338723333338918147154882582
BAKKEN4-2015301981119790308723925160897762
BAKKEN3-20153121210213615133979397160
BAKKEN2-2015282100721024710610359102890
BAKKEN1-201516118401144247794000
BAKKEN12-20140000000
BAKKEN11-2014353415341444368194496363
BAKKEN10-20140000000
BAKKEN9-20140000000
BAKKEN8-20140000000
BAKKEN7-20140000000
BAKKEN6-20142282855184354300
BAKKEN5-20143129362678644408040030
BAKKEN4-201481378123918286476976

The jump in production was due to a re-frack.

Looking at the graphic:



#23646 was fracked in early-to-mid 2013 so was not a factor. [However, #23646 might have showed a small bump in production in this same time period, but certainly not as significant:
  • 23646, 2,325, BR, Copper Draw 24-22TFH 2SH, Johnson Corner, t7/13; cum 257K 11/17;
BAKKEN10-201531469947611625661665960
BAKKEN9-20153050084935151361495153978
BAKKEN8-201531532151421969693318925021
BAKKEN7-201525903852024652427523752
BAKKEN6-20153065906569287196202359361
BAKKEN5-201530748574723485799642893683
BAKKEN4-2015309277949153831096294321509
BAKKEN3-201513645759762119670406695
BAKKEN2-20150000000
BAKKEN1-20150070000
BAKKEN12-201412317113011
BAKKEN11-20140000000
BAKKEN10-20140000000
BAKKEN9-2014101290000
BAKKEN8-20148204020822061647231624
BAKKEN7-201426650165351134755107551
BAKKEN6-201430747575750433064

But then we look at #28348. See production profile below. It was clearly fracked about that time frame under discussion. It had to have been fracked before 3/15. It turns out that #28348 was fracked 11/14 - 1/15.
  • 28348, 1,920, BR, Copper Draw 41-27TFH, Johnson Corner, Three Forks, 35 stages, 4.1 million lbs, t3/15; cum 234K 11/17;
BAKKEN7-2015312583125868558032864345029395
BAKKEN6-2015955615423244181714737692
BAKKEN5-20150000000
BAKKEN4-20150000000
BAKKEN3-20152214393143931048603506035

I initially thought #17271 jump in production was due to a neighboring well being fracked. But I was wrong. FracFocus showed that it had been fracked and sundry forms also confirmed it has been re-fracked.

Bottom line: not much to see here. Nothing new. Simply, it appears, an older well re-worked/re-fracked about the same time a neighboring well was fracked for the first time.

No big deal.

Random Update Of Another MRO Re-Fracked Bailey Well -- Pelton #17255

This page won't be updated.

The well:
  • original frack: 17255, 465, MRO, Pelton 24-31H, Bailey, , t9/08; cum --
  • re-frack: 17525, 1,799, MRO, Pelton 24-31H, Bailey, 45 stages; 5.2 million lbs, t4/17; cum 321K 11/17;
Recent production profile:

PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
BAKKEN11-2017301350713516970890962997175
BAKKEN10-2017311531315358111211028908468
BAKKEN9-2017301637016300122761211241586024
BAKKEN8-2017312027920304163841497952447381
BAKKEN7-20173125626255912547718929147514540
BAKKEN6-2017241817718187196131325039107265
BAKKEN5-20173123337233662894817072108113582
BAKKEN4-2017787278599215625619763308
BAKKEN3-20170000000
BAKKEN2-2017820218440163934
BAKKEN1-20173189687520768831796
BAKKEN12-20162977175618760834711


Original production:
BAKKEN5-20093114321394775435430
BAKKEN4-200925174221382138568560
BAKKEN3-20092826152173508122412240
BAKKEN2-20092832733364762141514150
BAKKEN1-20093141144244967158215820
BAKKEN12-200831490249551177126312630
BAKKEN11-200830607260431658275627560
BAKKEN10-20082852985234847145514550
BAKKEN9-200820658761262196000
BAKKEN8-20080000000

Week 3: January 14, 2018 -- January 20, 2018

Operations
XTO with two 75-stage fracks
Bakken powers ahead with 58 active rigs
Monthly North Dakota crude oil production by field
CLR reports two huge fracks in Elm Tree oil field 
A record well in North Dakota?
ND crude oil production increased month-over-month
A monster well -- Whiting's Liffrig well in the Sanish -- has been updated 
The BR Mathistad wells have been updated

Natural gas
Natural gas production in North Dakota hits an all-tine high

CBR:
Canadian rail doing just fine, thank you

Bakken economy
The Bakken shows continued signs of improvement

Commentary
Is the weekly rig count still relevant?

Miscellaneous
Random update of EOG activity in North Dakota in calendar year 2017

The Energy And Market Page, T+364 -- January 20, 208

Trucking: trucking companies race to add capacity, drivers as market heats up -- WSJ. This seems like the third or fourth post on this subject in the last six months. And again,
Carriers are also investing in new equipment. In December, fleets ordered 37,500 big rigs, the highest monthly total in over three years.

Pen And Ink, A Cocktail Napkin, And Some Idle Time On My Hands -- Nothing About The Bakken -- January 20, 2018

Updates

February 16, 2018: in the note below I came up with a "target price" of $193/share for AAPL. That was January 20, 2018, almost a month ago. Now, today, Business Insider says Wall Street analysts polled by Bloomberg have an average price target of $191, nearly 12% greater than the current price. 

Original Post

 From the weekend print edition of the WSJ, Saturday, January 20 - 21, 2018, doing the math, analysts suggest that AAPL will declare a special dividend of $2.35/share once the repatriation dust settles. In addition, the analyst suggests Apple will target $71 billion in share buybacks, and increase the dividend by $1.00/share over two years. The current (annual) dividend is $2.52. I can't post the electronic link because I'm reading this in the print edition. But I'm sure the story is easy to find for those interested.

All things being equal (and, in this case, they are not) a $71-billion buyback will boost the current $180-share-price to $193/share.

The current dividend works out to 1.41% per annum. Disregarding the special one-time dividend, a $3.50 dividend for a $193-share stock comes out to ... drum roll ... 1.8% per annum.

Disclaimer: this is not an investment site. Do not make any investment, financial, job, travel, or relationship decisions based on what you read here or what you think you may have read here. If this is important to you, go to the source. And get your own cocktail napkin.

Disclaimer: I make a lot of simple arithmetic errors, but no algebra is required in accomplishing the the math above. A lot of assumptions were made, and a lot of data was taken from unnamed analysts, so the likelihood of any of this being accurate is pretty remote. On the other hand, the law of large numbers often holds, and the numbers themselves look very, very realistic.

Fake News -- It Never Ends -- January 20, 2018

Wow, it's hard to keep ahead of all this fake news. One has to always be on one's toes, as they say in the midwest. 

Yesterday, Yahoo!Finance had a banner suggesting that Obama's first year stock rally was better than Trump's first year stock market rally. I made my comments at the link.

It turns out it was fake news anyway. Whatever.

From a screenshot taken yesterday on a story reported the day before by CNBC. If it's a business story on CNBC, it has to be true. The screenshot:

So many story lines, but I have to move along.

By the way, the Dow went from solidly negative to solidly positive at 2:23 p.m. Friday afternoon (yesterday) immediately after it was reported that Senator Charles Schumer had left the White House with no budget deal in hand, and by implication, the US was headed for a government shutdown.

That tells me the market was very, very happy with that outcome.

We'll see Monday.

Idle Rambling On A Saturday Morning -- Something To Take One's Mind Off The Crushing Government Shutdown -- January 20, 2018

Wow, I'm in a good mood. A reader told me that one of the things he likes about the blog: the links to other sites, found on the sidebar at the right. I don't know if he's talking about links to other Bakken-related sites; other shale oil sites in general; other energy sites;, or the sites that have nothing to do with the Bakken or energy.

I've always said one cannot fully understand the Bakken without putting it in perspective. I don't often go to all the other linked sites -- there is simply not enough time -- but last night I went through the links of "non-Bakken featured blogs." I continue to be impressed by all of them, including:
At wind energy watch, I was particularly stuck by the situation in Hawaii. It turns out that the wind farms are killing bats. From the link:
Decades after the Hawaiian hoary bat was labeled an endangered species, its population remains a mystery to scientists – which is why Maui conservation groups are hesitant over one wind farm’s request to increase the number of bats it’s allowed to incidentally kill.
Kaheawa Wind Power II, a 21-megawatt wind energy facility on the slopes of the West Maui Mountains, wants to increase the number of permitted bat fatalities from 11 to 62 adults and nene fatalities from 30 to 48 adults over the next 15 years.
But this is how the wind developer responded to those concerned about the bats:
Just because we’re killing more than we thought we would kill doesn’t mean we should get a permit to kill more,” Albert Perez, executive director of Maui Tomorrow, said during a public hearing Monday. “We may be undermining the recovery of the species. We have no idea because we don’t know the true population.”
Just because we’re killing more than we thought we would kill doesn’t mean we should get a permit to kill more,” 

The other sites had similarly interesting articles that I would otherwise miss.

********************************
Meme: Nuclear Energy Is Very Cheap

I plead guilty. I've always said nuclear energy, along with coal, is/are the least expensive forms of energy. Maybe not.

It's a long, long story, but bottom line is this: when one factors int he cost of cleaning up a nuclear plant mishap/accident/disaster, those cost savings/cheap energy arguments disappear fairly quickly.

A reader alerted me to an update on the clean-up costs of the Fukushima nuclear power plant:
The government has said that it expects total costs for decommissioning, decontamination and compensation to reach 21.5 trillion yen ($194 billion).
I don't know what "$194 billion" means to the Japanese. But this puts it in perspective: 
The national budget of Japan, a record-high, is somewhere north of $800 billion.  So, this cleanup will cost the equivalent of 1/4 of the nation's entire current budget. 
But it gets worse: the banker's "rule of 72":
According to Wiki, that number in 2012 was only $100 billion.  So, that number has doubled in 5 years. The bankers' convenient "Rule of 72" would work out to a 14 percent annual increase.  If I'm still around in 2022, I'll check, and will expect that cleanup number to be increased to $400 billion (roughly half of this year's budget for the entire nation of Japan)  What a crushing weight on that economy.
So, put that in your nuclear pipe and smoke it the next time someone, like me, tells you that nculear energy is inexpensive. Or better yet, tell it to the Japanese.

*********************************
Amazon HQ2 And United 

This is pretty cool. A couple of days ago I  posted my thoughts on where Jeff Bezos would site Amazon HQ2: Raleigh, NC. [Of course, running a close second would be northern Virginia due to the proximity of his Washington Post headquarters.] But I digress.

So, it was quite coincidental/timely that I came across United Van Lines annual "2017 United Movers Study"and the "North American Moving Services 2017 US Migration Report."

At the link to the United Van Lines, note the map is interactive.

The data appears very similar but I prefer the red/blue/grey map that North American has.

United survey - outbound:
  • the list pretty much stays the same from the previous year
  • two new stays have made the top ten list: Massachusetts and Wisconsin
  • Illinois moved to the top of the list; it had been in the top five for the past nine years 
  • notables on the outbound list: New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts (in the American survey below -- Maine and Rhode Island have both gone back and forth in inbound and outbound moves -- thus rounding out the New England states for the most part)
United survey - inbound:
  • new to the list: Colorado and Alabama
  • notables on the inbound list: South Dakota, Washington, and Oregon
American survey - outbound:
  • top five: Illinois, CT, NJ, CA, and Michigan
  • California made its first debut in the top 5 most outbound states
  • Connecticut has consistently been in the top ten of outbound moves since 2013; it was #1 in 2013, and #2 last year (2017)
Much, much more at the two links.
American survey - inbound:
  • top five: AZ, ID, NC, SC, TN -- and that's why I think Bezos will lean toward Raleigh, NC
  • Tennessee made its first debut in the top 5 most inbound states 
**********************************
How's The Blog Doing?

Glad you asked. A screenshot of a google search earlier this morning: