"Preliminary" data for this well has been reported often on the blog in the past few weeks. Now we have the "official" word. And it's huge.
Added later: not only that, the parent well seems to be doing very, very well, contrary to what many have opined in the past, and it appears the daughter well will be a much bigger well than the parent well. But again, remember, I am inappropriately about the Bakken. One assumes the "parent" well has long been paid for.
Added later: see more about these wells at this post.
The well:
- 36922, AL/A, MRO, Lang USA 41-8TFH, Reunion Bay, first production, 10/20; t--; cum 206K 2/21. The MRO L-O-T-V pad is tracked here. Note: 64,505 bbls over 17 days extrapolates to 113,832 bbls of crude oil over 30 days; 26,150 bbls over 8 days extrapolates to 98,063 bbls of crude oil over 30 days.
Pool | Date | Days | BBLS Oil | Runs | BBLS Water | MCF Prod | MCF Sold | Vent/Flare |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BAKKEN | 2-2021 | 28 | 27922 | 27988 | 24527 | 62227 | 59251 | 2790 |
BAKKEN | 1-2021 | 31 | 31653 | 31782 | 30434 | 47235 | 45363 | 1741 |
BAKKEN | 12-2020 | 30 | 55580 | 55486 | 51198 | 73570 | 70260 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 11-2020 | 8 | 26150 | 26539 | 22025 | 30526 | 28983 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 10-2020 | 17 | 64505 | 63607 | 67387 | 67918 | 44020 | 20158 |
On another note, just out of curiosity, how is this "daughter" well doing in comparison to the "parent" well? Remember, the experts tell us that the "daughter" wells in the shale will do significantly worse than the "parent" wells, and, furthermore, could irreparably damage the parent wells. So, let's look.
The parent well in this case:
- 18693, 560, MRO, Betty Shobe USA 41-8H, Reunion Bay, t9/10; cum 353K 2/21; recent production; full production profile can be found at this post.
Pool | Date | Days | BBLS Oil | Runs | BBLS Water | MCF Prod | MCF Sold | Vent/Flare |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BAKKEN | 2-2021 | 28 | 5396 | 5375 | 3791 | 1014 | 714 | 297 |
BAKKEN | 1-2021 | 26 | 3894 | 3853 | 2840 | 623 | 478 | 143 |
BAKKEN | 12-2020 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 11-2020 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 10-2020 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 9-2020 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 8-2020 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 7-2020 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 6-2020 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 5-2020 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 4-2020 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 3-2020 | 25 | 1359 | 1758 | 693 | 1527 | 0 | 1303 |
BAKKEN | 2-2020 | 5 | 160 | 0 | 130 | 180 | 0 | 153 |
BAKKEN | 1-2020 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 12-2019 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 11-2019 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 10-2019 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 9-2019 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 8-2019 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 7-2019 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 6-2019 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 5-2019 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 4-2019 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 3-2019 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 2-2019 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 1-2019 | 16 | 736 | 765 | 230 | 798 | 30 | 640 |
BAKKEN | 12-2018 | 31 | 1561 | 1508 | 477 | 1827 | 1228 | 323 |
1. I love the Bakken too. But, you can't make a generalization, off of a cherry-picked single example. Instead, you need to do an overall comparison.
ReplyDelete2. Note: Rystad says it is true that many daughters are as good (or even better) than old parent wells, but that is because of the shift in technology (bigger fracs) over time. If you look at same completion method, there would still be a general worse performance of later secondary wells in units that have had a parent running, depleting pressure. CLR backs them up as well with their spacing studies, showing that per-well performance drops as you downspace. This is not the end of the world of course. But is normal in oil/gas. Drilling Info also did a systematic study showing tighter spacing lowers production from same vintage wells..
Well, that's a bummer. And, yes, those would be the experts.
Delete