Today, another Hess well was reported on the NDIC daily activity report: #18228, EN-Uran-154-93-1213H-1 (this link is now broken; suggestion that this dual lateral abandoned the Middle Bakken, and this is a fracked Three Forks Sanish well). Based on its designation, it's a long lateral. The IP was reported to be 225. This is about the same as other IPs for Hess wells in the same area; in fact the nearest Hess well to the EN-Uran had an IP of 225 (coincidentally) and another Hess well had an IP of 425. None of these are exciting. These wells are in the Robinson Lake field, just west of the prolific Sanish field. Adding insult to injury, this newest well (#18228) is exactly one mile west of the Sanish. Actually, none of the wells in the immediate area are all that exciting, on either side of the Robinson Lake/Sanish line. [Update, November 5, 2013: #18228 has now produced 136,560 bbls of oil.]
Perhaps more frustrating: this well was advertised as a dual lateral. If this is a dual lateral, it raises even more questions about the IP. Dual laterals target two formations: in this case, the two formations would be the Three Forks Sanish and the Middle Bakken. (See note above regarding abandonment of the Bakken lateral, and is now only a Three Forks Sanish well.)
Sinclair, yes, Sinclair, has a well 3.4 miles southwest of this newest Hess well (IP, 225) that reported an IP of 685. Not necessarily all that exciting, but better than 225 (by about three times).
We've been "spoiled" by four-digit IPs in the Bakken.
Update: even folks on the Bakken Shale Discussion Board asked about the poor performance (this link is now broken). At Bakken Shale, ChemGuy says "Bad frac. Only a couple of stages were depolyed (sic) ... Second lateral has not been frac'd yet." That may be, a bad frac, but all their wells in this area had similarly low IPs.
BUT, I am still waiting to see what the six Hess wells on one pad in Ross field do!
UPDATES
Update, October 22, 2010: It looks like I wasn't the only that has raised questions about the wells that Hess drills (this link is now broken).
Have a look at the Hess dual lateral in 156-94, section 17. The well, spud in 17, goes north into sections 8 and 5. The geologist's report would lead you to believe this well should have been, at the very least, an average Bakken producer. It has produced, so far, a total of 108 barrels of oil. Hess also drilled a diagonal long lateral Bakken well in 17 and 20, and this well is a stinker also. Consistently, the Hess Bakken wells seem to be the worst wells in the play. I don't understand how the investment community is letting Hess get away with saying otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI will take your word for it; I won't look it up right now.
ReplyDeleteBut I agree with you, although I have tried to moderate my comments in the past.
About a year or so ago, maybe longer, I kept referring to Hess wells as "lackluster" wells (in hindsight I might have been being generous).
Shortly after talking about "lackluster" Hess wells, I received some comments that said Hess was actually doing quite well. I backed off and gave Hess the benefit of the doubt.
But, after six to twelve months of watching them, I have been umimpressed. I have the same thoughts you do. I assume NDIC is overwhelmed and it may not be their mandate, but it seems the regulatory commission needs to do some statistical analysis and get on those producers that seem not to be maximizing opportunities.
Again, if I am wrong in my subjective comments regarding Hess, I welcome some solid, objective counterpoints.
Okay. I was curious I looked at the first well you referenced: #18288, EN-Davis-156-94-0805H-1; spudded 11/09; tested 2/10. IP not provided; cumulative oil, as you said, 108 bbls. It was shut in from the very beginning and remains shut in. No explanation in the well file. Two laterals (MB and TFS) and a sidetrack. Difficulty with 18-stage fracture stimulation.
The second well you referenced: #17887, EN-Joyce-156-94-1720H-1; spudded 4/09; tested 6/09; IP: 165. Cumulative oil 35K over almost 2 years; less than 1000 bbls/month recently. Worse than lackluster.
I can't argue with you. I picked up on this early on; gave Hess benefit of the doubt when I got pushback from other readers; but you are correct.
It seems that BEXP broke the code when others thought they were "blowing smoke." Whiting, Oasis, Murex, Slawson doing well. EOG initially good, but lately not impressed. Even CLR seems to have more mediocre wells lately.