WLL Acquires More Acreage in Montana Bakken

I don't follow the Montana Bakken -- there is just too much data. I cannot even keep up with the North Dakota Bakken as it is.

Having said that, WLL has reported some great wells lately, and now they report they've acquired a significant amount of acreage in the Montana Bakken.

I assume we will see a few WLL rigs in North Dakota move to the Montana side of the state line, thus decreasing the number of active rigs in North Dakota.

This will put more pressure on fracking crews and rigs and pipelines. I'm still convinced we haven't seen anything yet.

Remember, all those Elm Coulee wells drilled between 2000 and 2006 were probably single-stage fractures.

Analysis of the Seven WLL Wells Reported Out Today

Among others, the following Whiting wells were released on today's (September 8, 2010) daily activity report:

• 17776, 2,548, WLL, Annala 12-33H, Sanish, t3/10; cum 270K 5/12;
• 17917, 1,782, WLL, Olson Federal 42-8H, Sanish; t5/12; cum 316K 5/12;
• 17935, 2,863, WLL, Curren 11-14H, Sanish; t4/12; cum 161K 5/12;
• 18003, 2,198, WLL, Holmberg 44-24H, Sanish; t4/12; cum 131K 5/12;
• 18399, 2,685, WLL, Rohde 43-1H, Sanish, t8/10; cum 197K 5/12;
• 18462, 2,249, WLL, TTT Ranch 12-25H, Sanish; t4/10; cum 268K 5/12;
• 18559, 2,123, WLL, Platt 43-28H, Sanish; t4/10; cum 178K 5/12; 

If those IPs don't impress you, maybe the production runs will:

• 17917, 1,782, Olson Federal 42-8H: 71k bbls in 90 days and no decline over three months
• 17935, Curren 11-14H: 50k bbls in 90days; minimal decline over three months
• 18003, Holmberg 44-24H: 50k in four months; a bit of a decline over four months
• 18339, Rohde 43-1H: 81k in 3.5 months; +/- decline
• 18462, TTT Ranch 12-25H: 74k in 3.3 months; no real decline
• 18559, Platt 43-28H: 70k in 4 months; some decline

If you have the time, you should take a look at the NDIC GIS map server and get an idea of what's really going on in the core of the Bakken.

1. All of these wells are in the Sanish oil field, one of the two most prolific fields in the North Dakota Bakken.
2. All wells target the "Bakken Pool," but the Bakken Pool includes both the Middle Bakken formation and the Three Forks Sanish formation. Over time, my hunch is that there will be a 50/50 split between Middle Bakken and Three Forks Sanish wells, although all will be "Bakken Pool" wells on the NDIC reports.
3. The wells with file numbers lower than 17800 are probably first and second generation fractured wells (that is, some single stage fracture as well as some double-figure stage fractures, but none that have seen super-fractures (40-stages and more).
4. The wells completed after June, 2010, might be super-fracked wells, but we don't know yet. Only recently have we heard drillers talking about super-fracked wells, and it seems Slawson took the lead in this arena.
5. Whiting is now putting as many four wells in a section. CLR does that with Eco-Pads; Whiting is doing it differently. Some argue that an Eco-Pad delays production; some say production on the first of the four wells on an Eco-Pad won't start producing oil until all four wells on the Eco-Pad are completed (I haven't confirmed that). A good example is the Arthur-Hegler CLR Eco-Pad; the first well was completed a while ago; the fourth, recently, and no news yet.
6. All wells below are Whiting wells and all are long laterals (two sections).

So, let's take a look at these wells in more depth:

• 17776, Annala 12-3H: parallels #16871, reported out in December, 2008, 1,567.

• 17917, Olson Federal 42-8H: parallels 17158, reported in April, 2009, 4,184. Also in the very same section(s): 17917, June, 2010, 1,934; 17700, August, 2009, 3,889; and 18278, May, 2010, 2,895.

• 17935, Curren 11-14H: neighbors include 17935 and 18536. The former reported out in June, 2010, 3,311; and the latter reported out in December, 2009, 1,640. The latter (18546) was a TFS well, as others in this posting probably are.

• 18003, Holmberg 33-24H: parallels 17284, May, 2009, 1,152; and 17240, April, 2009, 1,680.  18947 is still confidential and 19366 is a brand new permit.

• 18359, Rohde 43-1H. There are four other wells in the immediate vicinity of this well. 17603, October, 2009, 2,825; 18297, April, 2010, 2,987. All five of these wells are in the same section except for 18399 (the Rohde 43-1H0 which is in section 1-153-92, right on the border of 6-153-91 where the other four wells are.

• 18462, TTT-Ranch 12-25H: parallels 18004, January, 2010, 1,582; 18462 is in the same immediate area but still confidential.

• 18559, Platt 43-28H, is right next to 18213, May, 2010, 3,609.

Bottom lines:

• I don't think one has to look at individual wells to see what is going on. Just look at the IPs above, and realize that there are a minimum of four wells in rock-throwing distance of each other (I can't throw very far).
• WLL is reporting outstanding IPs on wells that are targeting both the TFS and the MB from the same section in the core of the Bakken.
• The general consensus is that the Bakken formation and the TFS formation do not communicate; I think the jury is still out on that, but I don't think it matters. It appears that tapping into one formation has no effect on wells in a formation immediately above/below it.
• Older wells with one-stage fractures and low double-digit fractures are probably candidates for increased fracturing in the future.
• I think everyone is underestimating the amount of oil that is going to be taken out of the core Bakken; I don't think the producers are talking about that. 

Coffee table conversation: these wells are going to pay for themselves in the first year of production, and will continue to produce for thirty years. The decline rate will be horrible. Production will level off. They will be re-fracked seven years from now. Leases will be held indefinitely by production. EUR/well in the core Bakken will exceed 900,000 barrels. If there are four wells in a section, that works out to almost 4 million barrels per section EUR in the core Bakken. There are thirty-six sections in a township in North Dakota. There are about six full townships in the Sanish oil field.  Price of oil will trend higher over the next twenty years.

WOW WOW WOW DAR WLL

Wow, wow, wow.

Today's activity report (daily activity report = DAR).

Look at those WLL wells.

When I get time, I will provide analysis and commentary regarding these phenomenal wells.

Two Nice Slawson Wells

Yesterday's daily activity report:

• 18717, 1,306, Slawson, Sauger Federal 1-22H, Van Hook

This comes just after the record-breaking 40-stage fracture by Slawson:

• 18596, 1,311, Slawson, Atlantis Federal 1-34-35H, Van Hook

Slawson is private.

The best way to get involved with Slawson is by ponying up money to be a partner (working interest).

Short of that: NOG partners with Slawson, as well as most other operators in the Bakken.

I accumulate shares in CLR and NOG; and will open a position in EOG today. I continue to have mixed feelings about EOG, but this is what pushed me to finally do this; also this article.

Update on Global Warming (Everything to Do With the Bakken)

US and Dutch scientists have revised estimates of ice loss from Greenland and west Antarctica, the major components of concern.

How far do they recommend revising estimates? .... drum roll .... by half.

To put things in perspective:

• Right now, due to the ice melting, oceans are rising at the rate of 0.2 inch/year
• Revising the ice loss by half, would mean the oceans are rising at the rate of 0.1 inch/year

Yes, you read that correctly. Under the worse conditions, the current pace of ice melting is resulting in oceans rising at 0.2 inch/year but in fact that may be overstated by 100%.

It is said that this 0.2 inch compares "dramatically" with 0.07 inch/year ocean rise in the 1960s. I guess if the true figure is closer to 0.1 inch (as suggested by the article, unless I'm misreading it, which is very possible due to my rose-colored glasses), that compares to the 0.07 inch back in the 60s. (There cannot possibly be any statistical difference between 0.1 inch and 0.07 inch when talking about the rise in ocean levels, can there?)

Incidentally, much of this has to do with glacial weight, which I don't understand, but I do understand the statement in the linked article that says the glaciers began "to retreat" (that would be shrink in size) 20,000 years ago. Isn't that when man started using oil for mass transportation?

I can't make this stuff up.

Oh, one last thing. The writer uses the adjective "dramatically" in comparing the effect of the 0.2 inch ocean rise with 0.07 inch rise. I wonder what adjective would be used if he were to ask what effect a meteor, the size that wiped out the dinosaurs, hitting the earth would have on us in 2010? Just asking. [I made that comment as a throwaway; now today, I see that there is a report that two asteroids "buzzed" earth in the past 24 hours. I gotta go buy some lottery tickets.]

I can't resist. I think in science class today, I will have the students take a 12 oz glass of water and add enough water to make the water rise 0.07 inch; and then take another 12 oz glass of water and have them add enough to make the water rise 0.2 inch, and then see if they can tell the difference.

Local Newspaper Front Page Story: How to Read An Oil Permit

Let's see: the current boom started in North Dakota in 2006. It started in Montana (in Elm Coulee) just across the  state line in 2000.

This is a great front page story, how to read an oil permit, but it sure seems it took a long time. Okay, okay, maybe I'm a bit too snippy this morning.

But for newbies, this might be of some interest.

Minot is just east and just outside the core area of the Bakken, but the industry is moving east and will eventually get to Ward County (Minot's home). In addition, lots of oil professionals are working out of Minot, which some consider preferable to Williston, the center of the Basin.