Until we get Bakken 3.0, I think the "Bakken 2.5" theme is the jump in production seen in many older Bakken wells seven years out; the jumps in production are due to any number of reasons; often we do not know why there are huge jumps in production but the operators know.After reading that the reader wrote:
I had planned on further research before e-mailing you, but your comment re: Bakken 2.5 prompted this early stage comment.
Reading the September 1, 2019 article from the JPT titled "Right Sized Fractures ... Robust Monitoring ..." [Archived] ... some pertinent info ... [In addition to that JPT article, see also, the September 1, 2018, JPT article, "Extreme Limited-Entry Perforating Enchances Bakken Completions."]
The numerous iterations of 'frac hits' have prompted industry pros to adopt precise terminology to more effectively describe this stuff, now described as "fracture derived interactions".
The "water hits" are events wherein only frac fluid (essentially water) impacts with older offsets (aka 'parents/aunts/cousins/whatevuh').
One small operator recently said at a conference that water pressure increased shut in wellbore pressure 2 to 3 thousand psi in older, offset wells (that's a lot) before bleeding down over a several week period.
Some quotes ...
"It was pretty eye opening", "... bumps in production and drops in GOR - every single time, without fail".His (small Texas operator engineer) working theory is that frac fluid pushes gas back into solution producing a stronger drive, meaning more oil.
"Oil banking" (increased oil production) was found in 14% of 70 wells that had "water hits".
These Texas guys should [take another look at the Bakken and specifically what CLR, MRO, XTO, etc., are doing].
Bakken operators are WAY ahead of the curve in all of this.Some might argue that the "halo effect" will come to be recognized as an early inning observation of an exceptionally significant process in this shale revolution.
There is much to take away from this.
First, I need to subscribe to JPT. LOL.
Second, the shale revolution will generate a jargon of its own and it may take awhile for terms and definitions to be agreed upon / accepted.
It was only a few months ago we referred to "parent/child uplift" as one example of the "halo effect."
Back on June 10, 2019, I had a post on "Jargon 101 -- the Bakken Revolution." It looks I have to update that post and link it at the sidebar at the right.
Anyway, I will use the terminology I've been using, "halo effect," "jump-in-production," parent/child uplift" but will now add "the Bakken magic."
Apple's Steve Jobs would have called it that. From that link, one of the comments:
Back in Steve's day everything was a "miracle."Pretty funny.
On Another Note
In conventional plays, the "thickness" of the play was deemed important. Many (most) have suggested that is also true of shale.
I have never bought into that -- that thickness of the play is the be-all and end-all. I would argue quite the opposite (again, not to be taken out of context).
A thought experiment, particularly in light of the JPT articles linked above.
Assume there are two shale plays.
Assume both of them are estimated to have the same amount of original oil in place, or the same amount of recoverable reserves.
Assume both plays are identical with regard to geographic footprint, i.e., both are same size in surface area measured in square miles.
The only variable is this: one play is 40 feet thick; the other play is 400 feet thick.
Which unconventional play would you rather own? The one that is 40 feet thick, or the one that is 400 feet thick?