Monday, February 4, 2019

Update On An Incredible Re-Fracked CLR Rattlesnake Point Well -- February 4, 2019

Note: this was done quickly. There will be factual and typographical errors. It has not been proofread. I was interrupted by family commitments.

I have purposely not been updating the CLR wells in Rattlesnake Point because:
a) I have updated them often; and,
b) the folks on Wall Street will tell me I'm cherry-picking my wells to post.
But I have no choice but to post this one.

I don't have time to write my own note, and I couldn't write it any better, so here is the note I received from the reader who alerted me to this well:
If you are impressed with the Bridger well what do you think about Mountain Gap 31-10H #17100?

Mountain Gap well is a Continental re-frac that runs parallel to and about a mile west of the Bridger well.

As memory serves the initial frac on both were similar and the initial production for the several years prior to the re-frac was similar. Based on permit numbers it looks like they were permitted about the same time.

The difference? Mountain Gap was re-fracked after CLR had some history from the re-frac of Bridger. So is the difference in results based on knowledge or geology?
My notes follow:

The CLR Mountain Gap wells are tracked here, but have not been updated recently.

Okay, so before you look at the production profile of this well, note a couple of things:
  • the lousy 24-hour IP of 240, following the original open hole frack back in 2008
  • look at the production in 6/18 (June, 2018)
  • this is a 50K-well: tagged
  • compare that production with production one year earlier, 6/17 (June, 2017)
  • from the well file:
    • the plan was to extend the existing lateral by 677' to a TVD of 11,246' and a MD of 21,247'
    • introduction: COP originally drilled the Mountain Gap 31-10H .... within the Rocket prospect...the well was drilled to completion from its start on April 4, 2008, and completed on May 3, 2008. 
    • CLR acquired the well from COP and, with changing laws, was able to secure permission to drill more lateral footage in order to increase productivity of the well.
    • This report primarily concerns re-entry drilling information only, but an entirely different operator. Where available, salient points from the original drilling events have been included. [The geologist then goes into great detail about how much more they learned during the re-drill -- between the first well and the re-drill.] [It appears the geologist wanted to drill a bit longer but "due to hard-line TD restrictions, we were unable to proceed far enough to ....]
    • background gases were generally between 2600 - 3200 units over the short course of the well, with a 10,000-unit peak circulated up as reaming began
    • all three samples contained significant levels of frack sand (note how the geologist spells "frack"], though the TD sample indicated a sharp drop in the level of frack sand included. As this well was fracked in open-hole fashion by the initial operator, this is neither unexpected nor alarming
    • [the geologist believed] that we finished at least nine feet under the Upper Bakken, with the bit likely finishing in the final peak above zone
    • [by the way, some of the best writing by geologists I have seen in many, many reports that I have read -- two geologists signed off on this report, September 23, 2017]
    • the original well was drilled back in 2008; that wellbore was 8,617' total lateral: 6,364' (74%) in the target zone; 2,253' (26%) was above the target zone
    • open hole frack with 1 million lbs of sand;
    • data for the re-frack was not at the NDIC file, but according to FracFocus: 10 million gallons of water; 85% water by mass; which is a typical frack completion in 2018
So, with all that, here is the production profile (I recommend that for folks that are over the age of 56 and disciples of Art Berman -- they should be sitting down). Recent production below (full production profile at this post):

PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare

Remember, the reader who sent me this, asked me this question:
So is the difference in results based on knowledge or geology?
Here is my reply:
To answer your question, I think it's a bit of both.

I don't have the knowledge or resources to do a statistical review, but it's my impression that some fields (some locations) in the Bakken are much better for re-fracks. It may have to do with natural fracks or the geologists may have better knowledge of certain areas, for example, North Dakota's micro-seismic array may be better in some areas than others.

In addition, there is no question that, geologists and roughnecks have learned a lot over the years. The geologists have learned a lot about the geology but the roughnecks need to keep the wellbore in the  hole and now screw things up by dropping tools down the hole, etc. The roughnecks in the Bakken, I would bet, are among the best in the world. Scratch that. The best in the world.
Note: the first well, 76% of the time within the zone. I'm sure Harold Hamm's expectation is 95%+ time within the zone. I did not see that data for the second well; it's probably there if one has time to read the graphs.

But this is an incredible well.

No comments:

Post a Comment