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.
The obvious question is when was the well frac'ed?
ReplyDeleteThe well was fracked October 29, 2010.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for taking time to comment. I post quickly. If no one comments, it either means, the data is correct, or correct or not, it is of minimal interest to readers.
When I got your note, I agreed with you -- what a stupid post -- the obvious question was: when was it fracked? and I didn't answer that.
In addition to knowing the frack date, we now have another month of production which I will add to the original post.
In February, a 28-day month, the well outproduced the two previous months, both 31 day-months. And in one case, by a significant amount -- perhaps weather related.
In addition, with regard to fracking. Based on the number of ports, it looks like a 19- or 20-stage frac. No acid was used. Interesting. Some folks say acid improves a frac. Maybe, maybe not.
It was a "sand frac." The phrase "Slick Water" was not seen.
I will update post and incorporate your comments. I blew it on this one.