Update
This pad, in fact, has two wells on it, not one as I said in the original post -- the Brad Olson 9-16 2H and the Brad Olson 9-16 3H. The eighteen tanks are still impressive, but it appears that four of them are for salt water, leaving an average of seven tanks per well. Again, a big thank you to whomever set me straight on this.
Original Post
I joke with those who go out with me to look at wells that one can always identify a BEXP well. This photo is worth a thousand words.
This is the Brad Olson 9-16 3H well. The permit number is 19085. It was spud August 16, 2010; completed and tested on April 24, 2011. Production data is not yet available, but its IP was 2,172. The status of this well is listed as flowing.
Update, not in the original posting; see comment below: the second well is the Brad Olson 9-16 2H well. The permit is 19086. It was spud July 13, 2010; completed and tested on November 2, 2010. Its IP was 2,472. Through March, 2011, this well has produced 47,302 bbls of oil; in March, 2011, it produced 3,627 bbls over 14 days of production. The well is still listed as "flowing" by the NDIC. There is a pumper on the pad so perhaps the paperwork has not caught up with the picture.
Three additional photos of this well pad:
i wish the Holte well in se divide co.had that many tanks. jj
ReplyDeleteYes, it's pretty impressive. Sometimes I think BEXP does this just to get venture capitalists and Wall Street analysts excited when they come out to tour the Bakken.
ReplyDeleteAnd you can bet they are touring the Bakken.
Given that I'm a MO in the Brand Olson wells, I hope the number of tanks is no joke.
ReplyDeleteNo, I was joking. This is going to be a great well. I don't think it's a tank battery for commingling oil from other wells, because the other BEXP wells in the area also have a fair number of tanks. I think this is the real deal. Of course, it could also mean, that BEXP will have to send out trucks less often to empty the tanks. (Which, after this very severe winter, and now muddy roads interfering with truck traffic, this may not be a bad thing.)
ReplyDeleteMore to follow, I'm sure.
Bruce, maybe this post should read the Brad Olson 2H and the Brad Olson 3H as there are 2 wells on this pad (one with pump and one flowing)as seen in your photo. Due to there being two wells on this pad there is really only 9 tanks per well. And remember some of the tanks are for the holding of salt water. The Brad Olson 1H (not shown) has 10 tanks on it.
ReplyDeleteWhat does it mean when you say one can always identify a BEXP well? One can assume that from your postings that to some degree you feel that BEXP is really "puffing up" reality. I have no idea, but?
If this is true and on the other end of the spectrum, one would have to look at other companies such as EOG and wonder are they understating things or do they need help in their kitchen due to their horrendous well performance numbers in many cases.
I for one think Brigham has done an outstanding job "cracking" the code for the Bakken and has helped to bring the Bakken to the forefront.
You are correct; I missed that and will update the posting: among these 18 tanks, I believe there are four tanks for salt water. Thus, about seven tanks per well.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to BEXP and IPs, I have discussed that before.
I think there are two issues:
All things being equal, some drillers/operators are better than others; my hunch is it has to do with "completing the well," i.e., the fracking.
The second issue is business plan. No, BEXP is not inflating their numbers/their IPs in the way that some folks have been suggesting.
It appears there is still discussion among the experts whether high initial production is better than lower initial production, again, all things being equal. I've talked about that before and it's too long to go into in a comment section.
I might address the issue again (from my non-professional perspective) since it can be difficult to find specific past postings.
Continuing from my comment response above: yes, I have told many folks privately (but have not yet posted this on this site, until now) that I am very, very impressed with BEXP and I think they have broken the code on fracking the Bakken. I have noted that others have not done as well. Specifically, a long time ago I said that about Hess and was challenged on it, so I am a big more circumspect.
ReplyDeleteI still feel three years cumulative production is a better indicator than the IP. But, again, having said that, BEXP seems to have cracked the code, and more and more pundits are saying the same thing.
Doesn't BEXP have a comprehensive pipeline system for delivering frac water, and transferring oil, water, and nat gas from each well site to a central location? Wouldn't this type system negate the needs for extra tankage?
ReplyDeleteThat I don't know, whether BEXP has a comprehensive pipeline system. I hear bits and pieces about how some companies are piping water directly from the river to the well site for fracking, but I don't know the extent of that.
ReplyDeleteBut all (most) of the wells in the Williston area have tanks. Even where there are some old Madison wells that are on a pipeline in the immediate area of a new Bakken, I see new wells with tanks on the pad.
The local news today that oil companies are scrambling to react to the moratorium on driving on county roads suggests that most still need to get to their wells to haul away oil stored in the storage tank. According to the newspaper, the usual calendar schedule is to truck out the oil from the strorage tanks every three days.