I heard some other glimmer recently that was pro halo effect. Not sure if it was DrillingInfo, Rystad, CLR, Shaleprofile, or what source. Essentially the insight was that child wells are not just typically lower production themselves but also impact the parent negatively (after all their is well to well competition). This is basically the case in other basins. But the one exception was the Bakken. That in the B, the child wells were not only better than parent but also some uplift of the parent. This is because old completions were so poor. E.g. might not be seen if you did a child of a current completion.I wouldn't take any of this as total validation. Just some inklings starting to back you up.I still prefer to see some statistical study (DrillingInfo is great about these kinds of analyses) that filters pairs of wells and looks at the impact. Nor just random data points that may not represent average effect (issue with your aenecotes and WLL chart...need to show whole dataset not a few points that happen to show an impact...maybe others don't).Other issues with the WLL chart: need to see a control versus just resting the well (there is a down time while you frack the child). And using producing days versus calendar days...obscures the financial impact of the down time and also that resting is going on. Another issue is that the post-child frack time is very short. They say they have 2500 producing days, but you have way less than that post frack (50?) Need to see long term behavior. I think megafracks started in late 2017 or at latest early 2018, so there should be more wells where we can see over a year of decline.
1. You are correct; folks reported that daughter wells were coming in lower; and, in addition, hurting parent wells. A lot of mineral owners were said to have been upset when operators decided to drill daughter wells.2. You are correct: limited well experience and limited time experience.