Random Example Of The "Halo Effect" -- September 2, 2020

 The "halo effect" was not particularly remarkable in this well, but it was present, nonetheless. Note: I am calling it a "halo effect" but not attributing the "halo effect" to anything specific. I'm only saying that this well showed a jump in production after returning to production after neighboring wells were fracked. Some of this jump in production is simply due to "pent up" pressure having been off lien for a few months. But in my mind, I don't care what causes the halo effect: for the mom-and-pop mineral owners it's a pleasant surprise. There had been so much talk that new, neighboring wells would have a negative impact on older wells. 

This completely violates Hubbert's peak oil law which was said to apply from the single well to the oil field to the oil basin to the global oil production. 

Much more could be said; I will leave it at that for now.

Example of the halo effect:

• 19996, 1,148, Slawson, Alamo 2-19-18H, Big Bend, t6/11; cum 547K 7/20; off line 5/20; returning to production 7/20;
  

BAKKEN	1-2018	31	6311	6467	3582	5358	4045	488
BAKKEN	12-2017	31	7495	7404	8181	5875	3642	1281
BAKKEN	11-2017	30	9177	9132	11870	6411	2277	3001
BAKKEN	10-2017	25	7644	7493	15565	5076	1983	2195
BAKKEN	9-2017	25	5483	5507	6557	4046	2486	861
BAKKEN	8-2017	11	3612	3583	3119	2813	1959	413
BAKKEN	7-2017	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	6-2017	12	581	662	1034	618	483	4
BAKKEN	5-2017	26	1467	1582	696	1276	953	33
BAKKEN	4-2017	30	823	728	360	707	550	7
BAKKEN	3-2017	27	818	898	346	708	573	0
BAKKEN	2-2017	28	1231	1322	795	899	759	0