Pages

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Van Hook Field Update

Van Hook Field 
(News at bottom)

Original Post (results updated)

This field is just a few miles south of New Town and entirely within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation.

The Van Hook field is nestled among some great producing fields: it shares borders with the Parshall to the east; the Sanish to the north; and the Big Bend to the west. Heart Butte is on the south. The field is "owned" by EOG with some very impressive Slawson wells and a couple of Marathon wells. Based on the number of permits canceled, new operators, name changes, permits lost/gained by competing operators suggests this has been a very dynamic field.

The Van Hook field is a rectangular field with a bit missing (under the river) and a bit added. The rectangle has four quadrants: NW (T152N-92W); NE (T152N-91W); SE (T151N-91W), and SW (T151N-92W).  The bit added is the northwest quadrant of T150N-92W. In all, Van Hook has exactly 100 sections.  Most of the sections have "long lateral" access to mineral rights under the river.

Based on rig count, the Van Hook may be the one of the most active fields right now. There are six (6) rigs on site in this field, with at least one rig in all quadrants except the southeast quadrant.

Here's the breakdown with comments:

NE (Van Hook Township; 152N-91W): 12 producing wells; 1 rig on site; 2 wells almost complete (#18432, rig off site; 18504, rig off site); and four (4) confidential wells, all multi-well pads. These are all EOG, Slawson and Whiting wells.

NW: 6 producing wells (NR; 1,274; 599; 290; 1,208; 825); 1 rig on site (#18595); 4 confidential wells; #18199 (290 bopd, going north) is on same pad as #17748 (1,208 bopd, going south).  #18407, Slawson, Ripper 1-22H, 2,369 is in this quadrant, still confidential.

SW: 1 producing well (309 bopd); 7 confidential wells, several multi-well pads; 4 rigs on site.

SE (Liberty Township, 151N-91W): 2 wells being drilled (rigs off-site); 2 rigs on site in this quadrant; 2 confidential wells; and four permits (#17992, #18038 and most interesting of all, the "Liberty" wells, #18827 and #18828).  These two (18827/18828 are on the same pad. Permit 18877 is on same pad as 17992. 18884 is new permit, on same pad as 18066, being drilled.The SE quadrant is along the east edge of the river, and the horizontals will start to go under the river in this area.

The addition to the rectangle: 5 confidential wells, 1 rig on site (#18630, Zenergy).

For the wells that I have IP data, EOG unless otherwise indicated (some have been added since original posting:
  • 17280, 1,080, EOG, Van Hook 5-11H, s10/08;  t--; cum 371K 9/12
  • 17349, 929, EOG, Marathon,Voyager 1-28H, t11/08; cum 169K 9/12
  • 17463, 825 , EOG,  Van Hook 3-24H, t7/09; cum 306K 9/12
  • 17613, 690, EOG, Van Hook 2-24H, t7/09; cum 385K 9/12;
  • 17619, 1,571, EOG, Van Hook 6-14H,  t12/08; cum 438K 9/12;  
  • 18220, 846, Slawson, Coyote 1-32H,  t9/09; cum 149K 9/12;
  • 18251, 1,390, EOG, Van Hook 100-15H, 20k in first two months, TFS,  t11/09; cum 352K 9/12;
  • 18327, 898, Slawson, Tarantula 1-16H, t3/10; cum 131K 9/12;
  • 18407, 2,369, Slawson, Ripper 1-22H, t2/10; cum 164K 9/12;
  • 18595, 1,131, Slawson, Atlantis Federal 1-34-35H, t7/10; cum 246K 9/12;
Ripper is in section 22-152-92, the northwest quadrant of the field. Needless to say, there is a lot of activity in that area right now. The Van Hook 6-14H in the northeast quadrant. The Van Hook 5-11H well was listed as a Van Hook well but is sited just inside the Parshall oil field and is a horizontal entirely within the Parshall. The Voyager 1-28H is a short lateral going directly south in section 28; there is a rig on site at #18495, Voyager 2-28H, but according to the GIS map server, it actually sits inside section 33 just on the south side of section 28. A more proper name would be Voyager 1-33H.

There are no hamlets, villages, or towns in this field; the field is just a few miles south of New Town.

NEWS

August 1, 2010: Spotted Hawk Development bringing excitement to the Van Hook.

May 19, 2010: New permit: #19047, Slawson, Revolver 1-35H.

May 6, 2010: New permit: #19000, Slawson, Goblin 1-26H.

April 30, 2010: [Update: PNC] One  new permits: #18979, EOG, Liberty LR 14-23H. According to this message board, Liberty LR 14-23H is on a 1600-acre spacing unit. This will require a 2.5 mile horizontal lateral. It looks like it will be spudded in late summer/autumn, 2010.


April 29, 2010: Two new permits: #18970, Slawson, Pike Federal 1-3-2H; #18971, EOG, Liberty 09-23H.

April 27, 2010: New permit, #18963, Zenergy, Dakota-3 Spotted Rabbit 14-23H (I guess Zenergy is competing with Slawson for best oil well names).

April 26, 2010: New permit, #18954, Slawson, Nightcrawler 2-17H, SESW 17-152N-91W.

April 6, 2010: Another Liberty well permit: #18884, Liberty 21-12H, SESE 12-151N-91W.

April 1, 2010: Another Liberty well (see March 18, 2010, entry): #18877, Liberty 103-13H, NWNW 13-151N-91W.

March 18, 2010: The EOG Liberty wells on one pad, section 36-151N-91W; interesting nomenclature for the EOG wells.


Updated: partial update, October 19, 2012

6 comments:

  1. What do you think happened to the well path on EOG well 18828? Zoom in on 151 91 34 and you will see three lines. Thanks for any info.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I see those (well paths) periodically. Occasionally someone over on the Bakken Shale Discussion Board (see sidebar on the right) will discuss them. I have no idea. Anything from mechanical problem to new information found while drilling.

    The wells, in this category, that interest me most are the ones that have an IP that appears to be awful; and, then, the company sells the well to someone else, and the new operator is able to up the production five to ten times. It certainly suggests to me that some crews really know what they are doing; others not so much. Or maybe a bit of luck.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So - take a look at the new eog permits 20037 & 20038 o 151 91 11. These are both LR and scheduled to be very long laterals under the lake. Both locations are east of a current well path from #18101. Is there some risk that the new wells could intersect the exsisting well bore? Or should we assume the new wells will be cemented back past any possible intersection. Let me know what you think. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I just looked at the GIS map server. I see what you mean. But I'm not worried. These guys are so good they will not run bore holes into each other. They will go over or under 18101. Great comment, though; it will be fun to watch.

    But on another note, regarding this general area: this is really exciting: MRO just reported a well with an IP of 4,867:

    18043, 4,967, MRO, Arvid Bangen USA 31-18H, Wildcat, Bakken. 18-150-92. Labeled as a wildcat but now in the Van Hook.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I just looked at 18040 on that section. It had a 24 hour flow rate of around 900 bblspd and is currently around 550 bblspd after 77 days of production.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, the decline rate is horrendous in the Bakken. The reasons for some of the decline rate is explainable and very interesting, but I leave that to the blog itself. In the comment section, it becomes an ongoing discussion.

    Oh, I can't resist. One example. Not this well; it could be any well. Let's say a hypothetical well comes in at 5,000 bbls/day on the 24-hour flowback. Now let's say that well is not hooked up to a pipeline (not unusual in the Bakken; that's one reason ENB has announced its decision to double its pipeline capacity in the Bakken). Now let's say there's only eight tanks - the tanks are 400 bbls -- on the pad (and that's a fair number in the Bakken. Now let's say there's a shortage of trucks to truck the oil out. You see where I'm going with this. I haven't even gotten into the financial reasons why wells are choked back (taxes and hedging would be two good places to start.

    Wow, I think I will do a stand-alone posting on this.

    But if the rate is down to 550 bblspd after 77 days of production that does not surprise me. It is what it is. At 550bbls/day x 77 days x $50/bbl, that's $2 million.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.