These Whiting wells have been previously reported at this site, but they were taken from a corporate presentation. Many folks would not have seen the results at that time. Now they are off the confidential list, and a broader audience will see them.
Folks, these are very, very good wells.
CLR asserts that higher IPs result in improved EURs and BEXP says higher IPs result in wells being paid off more quickly.
Here are the Whiting wells that came off the confidential list today:
- 19174, 2,090, WLL, Kannianen 43-33H, Sanish, Bakken
- 19029, 2,411, WLL, Heiple 11-3H, Sanish, Bakken
- 19025, 1,361, WLL, Moore 11-7H, Sanish, Bakken
- 18965, 1,264, WLL, Satterthwaite 13-7H, Sanish, Bakken
- 18943, 2,169, WLL, Locken 14-9XH, Sanish, Bakken
- 18869, 947, WLL, Smith 44-26H, Sanish, Bakken
It wouldn't let me comment in the geology section so I'm going to put this here... feel free to delete it.
ReplyDeleteYour Post:
"During the "Bakken boom," there seems to be confusion with "Three Forks Sanish." Early on, that was how it was referred to: the "Three Forks Sanish." Over time, the "Sanish" was dropped, and it was simply "Three Forks." But on file reports, especially Whiting file reports, one sees "Sanish" standing alone. According to the "Petroleum Geology of North Dakota's Williston Basin (linked above also), "Sanish" was another name for the Bakken formation (Table 1, 1977). Further down in the article, it states that the Three Forks overlies the Birdbear formation; and, in turn, the Three Forks overlies the Bakken. (So, there is still a bit of confusion between the geologists and the NDIC administrative nomenclature.) According to the report at the link, the "Sanish" is an "informal unit," Sanish sandstone which overlies the Sanish itself. "
If there was confusion it has been cleared up. The Sanish or sanish sand to some geologists is a member of the three forks formation and I think there are something like 7 or 8 members now. (increased because of the increase in well data and core) The Sanish represents a lateral change in the depositional environment which I think was sea to beach or near shore, but I don't remember off hand. Last year there was a thesis from Colorado school of mines published on the Three Forks, but it has been awhile since I read it.
I think the NDIC fixed the wording of the post regarding the bakken and three forks with respect to each-other.
Now reads:
"The Bakken Formation conformably overlies the Three Forks Formation in the basin center, and unconformably...
I will eventually write a geology section for thebakkenformation, but I haven't had time to work on the site at all lately.
Thank you very much. Any help on this subject is appreciated. Several comments:
ReplyDelete1. With 7 or 8 members, the "Sanish" potentially becomes more confusing.
2. It appears that there is still differences in how producers classify things; how NDIC administratively classifies things; and how to update past logs (which I don't think will happen).
3. Whiting consistently calls it the Sanish (at least that's what I see), and CLR consistently refers to it as the Three Forks. The company geologists may disagree with me but that's my perception and among laymen, I probably follow this discussion as much as anyone. In my mind, I have a good feeling for what's going on (even if I'm wrong, I have my own "picture").
4. The problem I have is how to explain this in a 30-second soundbite to newbies before their eyes glaze over.
5. My own site has evolved over the past two years, and it might be smart of me to delete some of the old posts which might confuse things.
6. Please write to correct me when I make glaring errors on the geology. We all learn that way. I accept that kind of criticism very well. Other criticism, maybe not so well. Smile.
1. When I say 7 or 8 members it isn't anything the general public will ever see. The members are referring to different paleoenvironments, and the only one that is probably worth mentioning to the public is the sanish. All of the other units have much lower porosity and permeability.
ReplyDelete2. true
3. Whiting probably call it the sanish because the sanish member is constrained to a fairly small geographical area and their original fields are within the area.
4. When I have time I will try to clarify in the geology section of my site. You are more than welcome to copy over if you source. (You typically source even when I wouldn't expect it.)
5. I like old information. It shows the evolution of not just your site, but seems to represent the general understanding of the oil producing units as a whole.
6. Not that you are checking our page yet, but if you do please feel free to do the same. (grammar, spelling, and convoluted sentences are probably my most common mistakes)
If only I had bought SSN when you mentioned it the first time...
I will add your site to my Bakken links/external links on the sidebar at the right.
ReplyDeleteI particularly enjoyed your recent blurb on the EPA and fracturing (with diesel fluid). Very, very scary. It appears the EPA is playing fast and loose with the rules.
With regard to Moto's points above: thank you for your comment, "...it shows the evolution of not just your site, but seems to represent the general understanding of the oil producing units as a whole."
ReplyDeleteWow, there were times when I thought classifcations/nomenclatures/etc. were changing, but I wasn't sure. It's nice to hear that, indeed, they are evolving.
I can only imagine how busy the NDIC must be trying to keep up with this activity in western North Dakota.
By the way, I agree with your comments with regard to WLL and "Sanish." I've always enjoyed seeing them use "Sanish." It almost suggests some pride of ownership, if that makes sense.
I'm sure with SSN, you are not alone.