Rewritten Post
I really blew it on this one. See "original post" below. Then read the comments at the bottom of the post. I have updated the post as it should have been written:
NDIC report here.
19196, 2,395, Murex, Ventura 11-2H, West Bank, Bakken; spudded 8/10; tested 11/10; 45K in first four months.
Here's the production history:
- 10/10, 31 days of production: 472 bbls produced; 0 "runs"
- Fracked 10/29/10
- 11/10, 30 days of production: 27,215 bbls produced; 26899 bbls run
- 12/10, 31 days of production: 10,427 bbls produced; 10,479 bbls run
- 1/11, 31 days of production: 7,331 bbls produced; 7,169 bbls run
- 2/11, 28 days of production: 10, 915 bbls produced; 10,763 bbls run
- First the decline rate is typical of a Bakken well, but one always wonders if to some degree it is intentional.
- Second: the well was fracked on October 29, 2010 -- look at that huge bump. It is truly incredible. At one time there was thinking that horizontal wells would eliminate the need for fracking which was used in vertical wells.
- It's possible that the production was slightly affected by weather in January.
- Based on number of ports, this looks like a 19- or 20-stage frack stimulation
- This was a sand frack; no mention of Slick Water or gel, although I don't know if they necessarily post that
- No acid was used; some folks feel strongly that acid improves a frack
*******
Original Post (for archival purposes only; please disregard)
NDIC report here.19196, 2,395, Murex, Ventura 11-2H, West Bank, Bakken; spudded 8/10; tested 11/10; 45K in first four months. This well has an interesting production history.
Here's the production history:
- 10/10, 31 days of production: 472 bbls produced; 0 "runs"
- 11/10, 30 days of production: 27,215 bbls produced; 26899 bbls run
- 12/10, 31 days of production: 10,427 bbls produced; 10,479 bbls run
- 1/11, 31 days of production: 7,331 bbls produced; 7,169 bbls run
- First the decline rate is typical of a Bakken well, but one always wonders if to some degree it is intentional.
- Second thing I noticed: either it's a typographical error, or something very, very strange. The report says that October, 2010, was a full month (31 days) of production and yet the total produced was less than 500 bbls. If accurate, this tells me that initial reports of how a well is doing have to be taken with caution especially if the number is low. If there was a not a typographical error, this well was having difficulty in October, but the driller sorted it out, and by the end of the second month had a great well. The well is still listed as "flowing." No pump has been put on the well.
