I used to trust the US Coast Guard. Now I wonder.
First, it looks like the US Coast Guard may have been ultimately responsible for the BP rig toppling. (If I find the source for this story, I will link it -- don't have the time now.)
Second, the US Coast Guard was adamant about delaying BP's plans to cap the well; BP went ahead anyway, capped the well and stopped the flow. (If I find the source for this story, I will link it -- don't have the time now.)
Third, earlier today the US Coast Guard reported an oil sheen one mile long and 100 feet wide following the explosion on an oil rig offshore Louisiana, today, September 2, 2010. It is now being reported that no oil sheen exists. I'm beginning to think the US Coast Guard is getting press releases printed up in Washington, DC, and reporting them as local updates.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Look Back on the Bartleson 1-3H
Because of the recent excitement and the ensuing discussion about the recently-announced 40-stage fracked well by Slawson, I started looking for other data to compare.
During that search I realized I had not included the "famous" Bartleson 1-3H (#16346), spudded back in November, 2006, which, to date, has produced more than 345,000 barrels of oil. This well and this information has now been added to my site on "the early Bakken wells, 2004 - 2006."
Something tells me the Bartleson was fracked with one stage. I could be wrong, and there's always a chance there has been a work-over rig. Regardless, this well was "spuddedfrackedandcompleted" at the beginning of the current boom in the Bakken. I can only assume the technology has advanced significantly since then, and thoughts about how to drill and complete a well has changed likewise.
During that search I realized I had not included the "famous" Bartleson 1-3H (#16346), spudded back in November, 2006, which, to date, has produced more than 345,000 barrels of oil. This well and this information has now been added to my site on "the early Bakken wells, 2004 - 2006."
Something tells me the Bartleson was fracked with one stage. I could be wrong, and there's always a chance there has been a work-over rig. Regardless, this well was "spuddedfrackedandcompleted" at the beginning of the current boom in the Bakken. I can only assume the technology has advanced significantly since then, and thoughts about how to drill and complete a well has changed likewise.
Bring It On! 40-Stage Fracturing in North Dakota -- Another First! -- September 2, 2010
Rocky Theme Song
Back in October, 2009, I linked a story from "Next Big Future" about 60-stage fracks in the near future.
Well, it looks like the future just got a bit closer (production data might be updated).
Slawson's 40-stage fracturing of the Atlantis Federal 1-34-35H in the Van Hook oil field (file number 18595) resulted in an IP of 1,131, but produced almost 40,000 barrels in the first 30 days [cum 369K 8/17;]. The average amount of oil produced per day almost equaled the initial 24-hour production, something heretofore unseen. (I assume there are some exceptions to that statement.)
- 18595, 1,131, Slawson, Atlantis Federal 1-34-35H, t7/10; cum 369K 8/17;
The 40-stage fractured well (the Atlantis Federal) is in a very good field, the Van Hook field. This particular well is a long horizontal and almost all of it under the river (which of course makes no difference; the well sits on land alongside the river).
This validates my often-expressed feeling that fracturing is very, very local. Fracturing doesn't go out very far. Fracturing doesn't have an effect farther out than about 400 feet at most, in my humble opinion, to coin a phrase. Which leads to two things: 1) they're going to increase the number of stimulation stages if it's cost effective; and, b) there are going to be a lot more wells running parallel to each other in each section in the better Bakken areas.
For newbies, some have opined that it costs about $200,000 for each additional stage of fracturing, but I don't know if that number decreases a bit per stage after you get above 30 stages. It probably doesn't take much longer to do 40 stages than to do 30 stages, and if it doesn't take much longer, then the personnel costs aren't much of an additional factor. Water and sand is fairly inexpensive except for the transportation, but ceramics are very, very expensive in comparison.
So, we'll see. I would like to see a) press release from Slawson talking about this well; and, b) expert opinion from some geologists.
The important point here is that back in October, 2009, experts said we were headed for 60-stage fracturing. Most people did not believe that. I questioned it.
And this is why I love following the Bakken. By the way, technology advances in the Bakken are being taken overseas and to other shale fields in the US, for example the Eagle Ford in Texas.
Yup, another first for North Dakota: 40-stage fracturing. Bring it on!
Stability of EOG Wells
There is an interesting observation over on the Bakken Shale Discussion Board. Because I don't have access to the same data, I cannot verify the veracity of the observation, but my hunch is that the observation is accurate: EOG wells specifically, and probably Bakken wells in general, will stabilize after two to three years of production.
"David" has noted that EOG wells are consistently pumping 4,000 to 5,000 barrels/month after 2 - 3 years of production.
If accurate, my hunch is that the operators are cracking the code on a) the optimum length of horizontals; b) the optimum number of frack stages; and, c) the optimum mix of proppants (water, sand, ceramics).
It should also be noted, that once the wells are stabilized, the operators have great latitude in daily production of an individual well.
On top of this, once these wells start to decrease significantly in production, work-over rigs can go back in, resulting in better production.
The amount of production is only a small part of the entire story, however, when it comes to the business end of the story. Over time, the pipeline infrastructure will improve, and it is probable that, all things being equal, the delta between the price for Bakken oil and the price for Texas crude will narrow, making these wells even better wells financially even if production drops a bit.
"David" has noted that EOG wells are consistently pumping 4,000 to 5,000 barrels/month after 2 - 3 years of production.
If accurate, my hunch is that the operators are cracking the code on a) the optimum length of horizontals; b) the optimum number of frack stages; and, c) the optimum mix of proppants (water, sand, ceramics).
It should also be noted, that once the wells are stabilized, the operators have great latitude in daily production of an individual well.
On top of this, once these wells start to decrease significantly in production, work-over rigs can go back in, resulting in better production.
The amount of production is only a small part of the entire story, however, when it comes to the business end of the story. Over time, the pipeline infrastructure will improve, and it is probable that, all things being equal, the delta between the price for Bakken oil and the price for Texas crude will narrow, making these wells even better wells financially even if production drops a bit.
Unemployment and Statistics (Nothing to Do With The Bakken)
A senior writer for CNN writes today: "By historical standards, the labor market is recovering nicely."
That was the opening paragraph. The headline: "Jobs Recovery is Stronger Than Past Recessions."
Talk about misleading. This has to be a press release written by the administration.
This is a great example of playing with statistics.
This is how the writer can state the jobs recovery is stronger than in the past. In October, 2009, unemployment was 10.1%. Last month, the unemployment rate had dropped to 9.5%. And that leads the writer and the headline writer to say that "the labor market is recovering nicely." Wow, talk about rose-colored glasses. I am an eternal optimist but even I can't make that stretch.
On the other hand, the country continued to lose jobs for eleven months following the end of the 1990-1991 recession; and, "everyone" agrees that the jobless recovery following the 2001 recession lasted nearly two years after the end of that recession.
The difference is that the current recession has resulted in an unprecedented loss of jobs. There have been 8.4 million jobs lost in this recession and although there has been job growth, it is statistically insignificant. With the current pace of hiring, it will take us a minimum of three years to get back to where we started at the beginning of the downturn, and there are indications that hiring may have slowed down. We will know more tomorrow.
So, yes, technically, one can argue that job growth has been faster in this recession than in two previous recessions, but when seven (7) percent of workers lost their jobs, it would only make sense that there is a larger pool of unemployed eager to get back to work, and thus a statistically "better" jobs recovery than previously but raw numbers suggest otherwise.
Personally, when 8.4 million folks lose their jobs, I don't see a whole of difference between 10.1% unemployment and 9.5% unemployment, especially when one understands that those folks who have quit looking for work are no longer counted among the unemployed. With an economy this bad that has resulted in 10% unemployment, many have simply quit looking.
My rant for the day.
That was the opening paragraph. The headline: "Jobs Recovery is Stronger Than Past Recessions."
Talk about misleading. This has to be a press release written by the administration.
This is a great example of playing with statistics.
This is how the writer can state the jobs recovery is stronger than in the past. In October, 2009, unemployment was 10.1%. Last month, the unemployment rate had dropped to 9.5%. And that leads the writer and the headline writer to say that "the labor market is recovering nicely." Wow, talk about rose-colored glasses. I am an eternal optimist but even I can't make that stretch.
On the other hand, the country continued to lose jobs for eleven months following the end of the 1990-1991 recession; and, "everyone" agrees that the jobless recovery following the 2001 recession lasted nearly two years after the end of that recession.
The difference is that the current recession has resulted in an unprecedented loss of jobs. There have been 8.4 million jobs lost in this recession and although there has been job growth, it is statistically insignificant. With the current pace of hiring, it will take us a minimum of three years to get back to where we started at the beginning of the downturn, and there are indications that hiring may have slowed down. We will know more tomorrow.
So, yes, technically, one can argue that job growth has been faster in this recession than in two previous recessions, but when seven (7) percent of workers lost their jobs, it would only make sense that there is a larger pool of unemployed eager to get back to work, and thus a statistically "better" jobs recovery than previously but raw numbers suggest otherwise.
Personally, when 8.4 million folks lose their jobs, I don't see a whole of difference between 10.1% unemployment and 9.5% unemployment, especially when one understands that those folks who have quit looking for work are no longer counted among the unemployed. With an economy this bad that has resulted in 10% unemployment, many have simply quit looking.
My rant for the day.
Another Reminder of Upcoming Activity in Bottineau County
The news story in the Minot Daily News is simply an announcement of an upcoming oil conference in the city, but it confirms that "oil activity in Bottineau County will increase exponentially."
Exponentially.
Exponentially.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)