The Croff oil field caught my attention with the Kummer well being reported today:
- 22193, drl, QEP, Kummer 1-6/7H, Croff, a Three Forks well:
| Pool | Date | Days | BBLS Oil | Runs | BBLS Water | MCF Prod | MCF Sold | Vent/Flare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BAKKEN | 11-2012 | 30 | 34418 | 34098 | 5689 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 10-2012 | 31 | 48373 | 47905 | 15916 | 39474 | 39474 | 0 |
For newbies: this is huge. Almost 100,000 bbls in the first two months. I have some reviewing to do: to see how common it is for a well of this magnitude to show absolutely no natural gas by the second month. [See comment below: oil and gas production figures arrive at different times, and most likely the natural gas production numbers have simply not been updated.]
Another note: this well is important for another reason. This field, the Croff field, sits right in the middle of a huge sweet spot in the Bakken, more specifically the middle Bakken. Now, we have a huge Three Forks well. Harold Hamm opines that the Three Forks could be much thicker than the middle Bakken, and that in places, the Three Forks could have four benches (four payzones) vs just one payzone in the generally thin middle Bakken.
IIRC: At the time QEP acquired Helis acreage, QEP stated that Helis used ceramics in completing/fracking a well; and that QEP did not use ceramics. QEP planned to not use ceramics in the Helis acreage. I do not see the completion / fracking report yet in the file for this well at the NDIC site, and I don't find the well at the national database but I could have missed it.
The file report said that the middle Bakken showed promise as a secondary site to explore in the future, and although the report said the same for the Tyler, it seemed not quite as enthusiastic. Other formations were said to be poor candidates for future exploration.
That's incredible -- and I'm curious. Do you know of other wells with that kind of production???
ReplyDeleteNot off the top of my head, nor at the tip of my tongue, but I do believe there are a few.
DeleteThe EOG Austin wells in the Parshall field come to mind. See "Monster Wells" linked at the sidebar at the right.
One example:
16885, Austin 8-26H. Spudded in 2008, now producing about 4,000 bbls/month. Here is what it produced the first few months, back in 2008:
March: 53,736 barrels
April: 35,662
May: 30,474
June: 26,178
July (only half month of production)
August: 26,508
September: 37,793 (not much of a decline yet, huh?)
October: 30,362
Now for bragging rights, this was only a short lateral. The QEP Kummer well is long lateral, I assume, so take the short lateral EOG Austin well above and double those numbers. And the EOG well was drilled in 2008 with that technology and fewer frack stages (the report does not include the completion report, so I do not know how may frack stages).
Two minor things, The lack of gas is probably a report delay as oil and gas are sometimes not reported at the same time, According to my reading it is the amount or volume of fracking material used that tends to improve a wells output. It will be interesting to see how much and what type of proppant was used.
ReplyDeleteIn an earlier post concerning cheasapeake, I checked one of there well files and they took some cores, and they tried to complete the well near the scallion lodgepole. There was very limited shows and gas reading in the well.
Thank you; I was really surprised. I couldn't imagine a well producing at least a bit of natural gas. I learn something new every day. Thank you. That explains it; I will update the post.
DeleteYes, I seem to recall Chesapeake/Scallion --- I think the Scallion is also referred to as the "false Bakken" in some places or by some folks.