Previously, the record for active drilling rigs in North Dakota was 148 in October 1981. State oil activity has spiked dramatically in the last year, with an increase of approximately 100 drilling rigs.I posted 148 yesterday and a viewer pointed out he/she had seen 149 for a short period before it dropped back to 149.
Because rigs come on and go off the list on a regular basis as they move from job to job, it is obvious that the active drilling rigs could increase. The "149" number is the low number of active drilling rigs at this moment. Most likely there is at least one other drilling rig that is being moved and ready to start drilling.
In addition, many rigs recently brought to North Dakota are being moved into Montana and so one can expect flux regarding this active drilling rig number. But this is clearly a most remarkable milestone.
According to the Herald, the number of active wells also hit a record: 5,005 (in July, 2010).
The Bismarck Tribune also reports on the story with additional statistics.
- North Dakota produced 9.9 million bbls of oil in July (a new record)
- Estimates are North Dakota will produce 10.5 million bbls in August with 5,200 active rigs
- Two years ago USGS estimated up to 4.3 billion barrels of oil could be recovered from the Bakken
- Since then, NDIC estimated another 1.9 billion barrels of could be recovered from the TFS
- Time to drill a well has decreased from about 45 days in the past couple of years to about 20 days
- Original estimates were that only 1 - 3 percent of oil in place could be recovered; in most recent presentations, some companies estimate they are already taking 8 percent from some of the core area wells
In discussions of ND rig counts comparisons are made to the previous highs of the 1980s, and it's common to see references to 'modern' rigs being 4 to 8 times more efficient. This begs the question: What, in this context, is meant by more efficient?
ReplyDeleteI assume there could be many definitions. While standing outside as the bus monitor this morning, using my iPad, the first thing I think of is barrels of oil per day per rig. Other definitions could factor in cost but with changing value of dollar or peso or ruble that would be more difficult. I like barrels of oil per day per rig, which is how an inanimate rig would want it, for bragging rights. Inanimate rigs would not care about cost.
ReplyDeleteWhile my opinion means nothing, I'm inclined to relate it to drilling distance/time. Speaking of the iPad, I made the pithy comments about it the other day. I'm enamored of mine also but wasn't so lucky as to get the magical model. The closed box design is challenging - to put it kindly.
ReplyDeleteHow interesting! Your definition is much better. What I described was completely wrong -- I am quite impressed with your response -- I think I first saw "efficiency" in a newspaper article. The barrels of oil/day/rig has more to do with the formation, the fractures, the pump, but certainly not the rig itself that drilled the well. Hmmm....I am quite embarrassed (I am not being cynical) -- that's why I love the blog. I learn things. Without opening another can of worms, I guess those who write those articles should be suggesting the wells today are 4 to 8 times more productive than wells in the past. I remember now: it was a quote by Mr Helms who said that one well these days is producing 4 to 8 times what a well did in the past, so comparing 140 rigs today is not the same as comparing 140 rigs back in the 1980's.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your kind response.
I do love the iPad. Some describe it as a huge iTouch (or iPhone without the phone part) but it is so much more. And it is literally the perfect size for viewing while standing around waiting for something to pass.
Typical 1980’s verticals involved ~8000 feet of drilling associated with a single rig set up. Typical Bakkens are ~20,000 feet. A Hess dual lateral is about 30,000 feet and for 3 and 6 well pads this is 90,000 and 180,000 feet respectively. Together with feet/hour increases one can imagine what might underly the efficiency increases cited. Again, this is just me guessing.
ReplyDeleteThe iPad is fundamentally a Touch/iPhone writ large, but the size increase together with other additions, makes it more useful. The brilliance of the Touch/iPhone is the interface, especially the finger drag and finger spread magnification. It was an effective way to solve the problem of navigating large web pages and their associated links, on a tiny screen. Apple didn’t create this interface. It was created for the handicapped by a company Apple purchased. For me, its greatest value is as a highly portable, fast access web browser for coffee table, kitchen table, bathroom, and on the move. Beyond this, it’s bringing touch screens to fruition for the masses.
Regarding ‘crystal clear’, I attribute this perception to pixel density. Quite apart from brands, it relates to screen size and resolution. The iPad is at about 132 pixels per inch. If you’re familiar with less, it's perceived as crystal clear and if you’re accustomed to more, it’s a bit fuzzy.
Thank you for your obvious dedication to this blog. I’ve posted several anonymous comments over the past month or so, occasionally as Hess342, and some of them are barbed, but the intent is spirited conversation with a person of intersecting interests.
Thank you for your kind comments. I try very, very hard not to step on any toes when I post. I do post inappropriate, sarcastic comments on the Yahoo Apple message board -- but that's because I get furious with the bashers.
ReplyDeleteI have learned a lot from this blog and appreciate all the coments. I can only assume the following people are laughing at me with some of the things I write (the list is not complete): geologists, land men, roughnecks, etc.
By the way, did you see Mercedes is giving all it's sales people iPads so they can show features of the car without having to go back to the office? Also, they can update information immediately. The same will happen with real estate agents. (Anyway, I thought it was Mercedes. I could be mixed up on that but I think I'm right.)
We're up to 151 rig at 3:10 pm pacific time.
ReplyDeleteIncredible. You beat me to it, and I just looked at that page about two hours ago. Absolutely incredible. This calls for a stand-alone post.
ReplyDelete