Updates: The Raw Data
April, 2019:
- DUCs: 962 (down 6 from last report)
- inactive: 1,625 (down 72 from last report)
- total: 2,587 (down from 2665 last month; this represents about 1,000 more wells than will be drilled this calendar year; 2,561 is about the number of wells North Dakota will complete every three years)
- WTI was about $2/bbl higher in April, 2019, compared to March, 2019
- 2,665 last month was probably an all-time high
March, 2019:
- DUCs: 968, up 74 from last report
- inactive: 1,697, up 30 from last report
- total: 2,665 (up from 2,561 last month; this represents about 1,000 more wells than will be drilled this calendar year; 2,561 is about what North Dakota will complete every three years)
- I do believe that this (2,665) represents an all-time high)
February, 2019:
- DUCs: 894, up 27 from last report
- inactive: 1,5667, up a whopping 150 from last report
- total: 2,561 (up from 2,332 last month, about 800 more wells than will be drilled this calendar year)
January, 2019:
- DUCs: 867, up 44 from last report
- inactive: 1,517, up 8 from last report
- total: 2,384 (up from 2,332 last month, about 800 more wells than will be drilled this calendar year)
December, 2018:
823,
down 134 from last report -- huge decrease
- inactive: 1,509, up 128 from last report -- wow, look at that jump in the number of inactive wells
- total: 2,332 (down slightly from 2,338 in the last report; but 2,332 wells is still way
more than the total number of wells that will be drilled in North Dakota
this year)
November, 2018:
- 957, down 2 from previous report
- inactive: 1,381, up 18 from previous report
October, 2018:
- 959, up 31 from previous report
- inactive: 1,363, up 23 from previous report
May, 2018:
- 955, up 13 from previous report
- inactive: 1,569, down 48
April, 2018:
942, up 26 from previous report
inactive:
1,521, down 132
March, 2018:
916, up 15
inactive:
1,653, down 1
February, 2018:
901, up 48
inactive:
1,654, down 100
January, 2018:
853, down 24
inactive:
1,554, up 85
December, 2017:
877, down 6
inactive:
1,469, down 23
November, 2017:
October, 2017:
September, 2017:
853, down 10
inactive:
1,444, down 54
August, 2017:
863, down 26
inactive:
1,498, up 20
July, 2017:
889, up 34
inactive:
1,478
June, 2017:
865, up 35
inactive:
1,458, down 53
May, 2017:
830, unchanged
inactive:
1,511, up 45
April, 2017:
830, up 141
inactive,
1,466, up 167
March, 2017:
689, down 110
inactive:
1,299, down 312 (need to correct typo at that post)
February, 2017:
799, down 3
inactive:
1,611, down 67
January, 2017:
802, down 5
inactive:
1,678, up 105
December, 2017:
807, down 32
November, 2017:
839, down 21
inactive:
1,519, up 16
October, 2017:
860, unchanged
inactive:
1,500 (unchanged (AB and IA)
September, 2017:
August, 2017:
888, down 24
inactive:
1,514, up 44
July, 2017:
912, up 25
inactive:
1,486, down 98
June, 2017:
887
inactive:
1,584
May, 2017:
931, up 39
inactive:
1,584, down 6
Original Post
See Director's Cut, May, 2018, data.
From the June 29, 2018, update, now updated through most recent data, adding data for May, 2018:
From most recent data, May, 2018 - May, 2017, most recent to oldest, which brings us up to date:
- taken from my posts on the blog. In May, 2017, I started posting
DUCs and inactive wells on a regular basis. It's too time consuming to
go back and fill in the few months in
which I did not post data so I'm not going to fill in that bit of
missing data. I think the existing data tells the story.
- data below: month/year, DUCs, inactive wells. All data below, including the up/down change were taken directly from the NDIC Director's Cuts
- range:
- an outlier, March, 2017: 689
- otherwise, a low of 799 in February, 2017
- a high of 955 in the most recent month, May, 2018
- not graphed, but the trend for the past four months has been up
- January, 2018: 853
- up 48 in February, 2018, 901
- up 15 in March, 2018, 916
- up 26 in April, 2018, 942
- up 13 in May, 2018, 955
Inactive wells:
- in data presented, we have never gone above 1,700 inactive wells
- number of inactive wells in the past three months are among the highest numbers in the data presented
Disclaimer: in a long note like this and with so many numbers, and no triple-checking and no
NYT fact-checker, there will be factual and typographical errors.
