March 1, 2013: after this post, I will be starting a page 4 of this highly popular segment of the MillionDollarWay. This should get everyone's attention. The site is actually inside Williston city limits according to the NDIC GIS map servers, in the northwest corner of Williston, and the northwest corner of section 15-154-101. I believe this information is not new: this BEXP site has been discussed before. But it will be very, very interesting to follow. It appears Google maps now shows the pad. It is almost exactly two miles west of where the Williston bypass intersects "2&85" north of Williston. Compared to other single well pads in the immediate area it seems to be about two- to three-times larger. There is currently one 4-well pad, three of which are on DRL status and run south; the fourth is still confidential.
February 26, 2013: an enquiring mind wonders why a well has been placed on inactive status after only a few months of production. There are four wells on this pad; all wells look quite nice; one looks very nice. The scout ticket shows them all without a pump (F). My hunch is that now that all wells are in, CLR is ready to start putting in pumps.
February 26, 2013: a reader inquired about a recent permit for a microseismic array. Perhaps this thread will develop into something. By the way, the microseismic arrays are one reason the Bakken has been so successful.
February 25, 2013: this is an interesting data point -- the price point for a multi-well pad in the Bakken. The writer at the link suggests $8,000 / 5-acre single well pad was what he remembers from a few years ago. He is curious what current multi-well pads "go for."
February 19, 2013: an enquiring mind asked about production number for two Big Bend wells; provided.
February 19, 2013: an enquiring mind is looking for production data for five wells. It would be a lot easier if permit numbers/file numbers would be provided. Having said that, three of the wells are "Oil for America" wells and are "dry" for all practical purposes. The Sharon well had an IP for oil of "zero." The fifth well, an SM well, had an IP for oil of 23.
February 14, 2013: Yesterday I noted three interesting threads over at the Bakken Shale Discussion Group.
The third of the three, regarding 160-acre spacing in the Parshall oil field just got more interesting. It is important to note that I am not saying this is 160-acre spacing, others are saying it.
From that thread that started the discussion:
The first 160-acre spaced wells in the Core area, the Wayzetta 022-1509H and 149-1509H, had maximum rates of 1,185 and 1,265 Bopd, respectively.
- 22703, conf, EOG, Wayzetta 22-1509H, the well file shows this well to be on a 1920-acre spacing unit, going through three sections, 9/10/15-153-90. The well is still on confidential, so Larry must have source of information to provide an IP.
- 22704, conf, EOG, WAyzetta 149-1509H, the well file shows this well to parallel #22703 -- 1920-acre spacing through the same sections, 9/10/15-153-90; the well file includes a drilling report suggesting this well has been drilled, waiting completion at time of filing. The well is still on confidential, so Larry must have a source of information to provide an IP.
February 10, 2013: this will be an interesting thread to follow. The thread has gotten a bit off-topic from how it started, but it will shed more light on the Bakken. An enquiring mind noted that a Three Forks well produced a bit of oil initially, and then no more oil, but only natural gas. Another voice who seems to know what's going on suggests that "fracking into a gas cap" is unlikely since "shales & 'shale-like' reservoirs don't have gas caps in the conventional sense. So, something to follow. I have seen this once before in the Bakken.
The discussion relates to this well:
- 21484, 1,483, BR, Bartlett 31-16TFH, t9/12; cum 2K 12/12; with the following production:
| Pool | Date | Days | BBLS Oil | Runs | BBLS Water | MCF Prod | MCF Sold | Vent/Flare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BAKKEN | 12-2012 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2841 | 0 | 2836 |
| BAKKEN | 11-2012 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 85288 | 0 | 85283 |
| BAKKEN | 10-2012 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 88133 | 0 | 88133 |
| BAKKEN | 9-2012 | 14 | 1961 | 1924 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
February 7, 2013: update: my answer was incorrect; the unusual spacing unit was due to the boundary of the National Park; my explanation following is incorrect; an enquiring mind noted an unusual spacing unit. The Bakken spacing unit for the following wells are noted, according to the NDIC GIS map server, to be a 1600-acre spacing unit encompassing sections 5, 8 and the northeast half of section 17-140-100. There are several1600-acre spacing units on the GIS map server and there are 1700-acre spacing units that are similarly unique. The odd-shaped spacing units allow the spacing unit to fit inside a designated oil field. The NDIC had a couple of options: change the boundaries of the oil field, or designate a unique spacing unit that fits the existing the oil field. It makes a lot more sense for the oil company / the NDIC to simply "fit" the well into the boundaries of the existing oil field. There are two wells in this peculiar-shaped spacing unit:
- 24236, drl, Whiting, Babeck 31-5PH, Park,
- 24237, drl, Whiting, Babeck 41-5PH, Park,
Most of the spacings of unusual size are simply to prevent waste and avoid orphaning acres that may not support drilling on their own.
ReplyDeleteThank you for clarification.
DeleteI wish I had posted my original note as "a hunch" to explain the original post. I was on the right track, but I posted wrong information as "fact" which bothers me. I need to be more careful in the future.
Regardless, thank you for taking time to comment.