June 15, 2013: an enquiring mind wonders why the production numbers for four (4) wells didn't show up on the NDIC April production report. I have no idea what he/she is talking about; those wells show on my copy of the NDIC April production report. It also appears, based on other threads at the site, some folks are unaware of the staggering infill program that has begun in the Bakken. Some are aware of the program, but some are unaware of it.
June 13, 2013: enquiring minds are struggling with the definition of "increased density." It is a natural progression from wildcat to drilling out established oil fields. The definition can be found in multiple locations but even this site has the definition; it is simply another name for "infill" well. There are so many story lines here but I won't get into them. Too many inconvenient truths. This is one.
June 12, 2013: in this thread, an enquiring mind is asking for location of the wildcat mentioned at the very beginning of the thread. I assume they are talking about a wildcat well on the confidential list that is about 25 miles southeast of Minot:
- 24329, dry, Cambridge Production, Larson 1, this is their first well in North Dakota; DRY according to sources, June 14, 2013; see linked article;
June 11, 2013: This might be interesting to follow -- a series of OXY USA wells in Manning oil field. [One day later: "or not."]
May 30, 2013: an enquiring mind wants to know the permit numbers for the eight wells that Surge is cancelling. They are listed here. That was easy.
May 8, 2013: I always enjoy these little bits of cocktail chatter. It helps one understand the Bakken. An enquiring mind is asking if anyone knows whether the horizontals will run north or south with regard to #25328 and #25329. It is said that "25329" is not shown on the map; in fact it is, if one zooms in. Based on how far they are set back from the section line, my hunch is both will run south. If they were going to run north, they would have been sited closer to the section line. That's my hunch. For what it's worth. However, the name of the wells provide the answer. Both #25328 and #25329 are "Tuhy" wells, which means both horizontals will run south; if they ran north, they would be named State Lazorenko wells. #16451, a Gerald Tuhy, well is in the same section as #25238 and 25329, and Gerald Tuhy runs south.
May 4, 2013: enquiring minds are not yet talking about the 23 cases in this month's NDIC hearing dockets in which the oil industry is assessing risk penalties against non-participating owners; the results (which won't be broadly accessible) will be interesting.
April 15, 2013: It looks like one enquiring mind is about to be voted off her own island. Unless I'm missing something, her recent note suggests that she is questioning the authority of the NDIC to allow more than one well per spacing unit. She may be correct. I don't know. Two issues: the code was written for "pools" and conventional reservoirs; and, unintended consequences. I have said many times, those mineral owners with one well in the "very best" Bakken will have at least 12 wells before this is all over; those in the "good" Bakken will have at least 8 wells; and everyone should have a minimum of 2 wells, maybe 4 wells. (My numbers have changed over time as the Bakken experience has changed.) One individual has written me who has two wells and he expects to have at least 24 wells before this is all over. I think we're too far down the road to put the genie back in the bottle, but my hunch is that anyone seriously arguing for only one well per spacing unit in the Bakken will be, as I said, voted off the island. Her other alternative is to win one of the three statewide offices that would make her a member of the NDIC.
April 12, 2013: it looks like following the Bakken Shale Discussion Group is about ready to come to an end for me. I've learned a lot from the site. Teegue is an incredible fund of knowledge. But the contributors are starting to become downright nutty.
April 11, 2013: scroll down to the April 11, 2013, discussions at this thread to see the folks who are getting ready to sue the Bakken operators are starting to get their facts together regarding fracking. According to the "the enlightened one," fracking has two "faces." I suppose that's possible. I would have assumed the fracking was radial in nature, but perhaps the fracking is designed to frack along two faces. It would be quite a trick. It is interesting that they have stumbled upon the fact that natural fracking extends from "zero" to "infinite" and every point in between. That is absolutely accurate and makes this whole issue very, very problematic. In some areas there may be no natural fracking; in other areas the natural fracking may be so extensive, manmade fracking is hardly needed. Obviously that would affect the size of the spacing units if done "scientifically/geologically." This is going to get very, very interesting, very, very quickly.
April 5, 2013: It appears enquiring minds are ready to spend their money for lawyers. I've seen this movie before and it's not going to be pretty. Wow, I'm glad I don't hold any mineral rights. There is a recurrent theme at the discussion group that some folks are worried that oil companies are going to hold leases by production and then not drill wells. Not gonna happen. All they have to do is look at the GIS map server and look at the monthly dockets. CLR, OAS, BR, and KOG, just to name a few of the more prominent names are pretty much Bakken-centric and can't quit drilling -- not at these prices. And if the price of oil plummets, mineral rights owners would be better off if the companies waited to drill anyway. Sure, companies with plays elsewhere, like Hess and EOG, might be not as concerned about drilling in the Bakken, but my hunch is that these examples are far and few between. Everything I've read suggests operators are drilling as fast as capex, takeaway capacity, workforce, and environment allow them to drill. Another author who said it much better than I (said it).
April 3, 2013: where's Dufus? Elwood needs to take his comments on Mr Helms over to the water cooler.
April 1, 2013: sounds like they need to take this to the water cooler. It sounds like someone doesn't understand the bureaucracy. Maybe we should let the Feds regulate the oil and gas in North Dakota.
April 1, 2013: an enquiring mind has an unfounded worry. But folks could provide him/her a lot of information if he/she provided permit numbers, or legal well names. If folks want information, they have to come at least halfway with information. But to answer his question: he will have at least four more wells if he has one well in the Bakken. And, so, yes, he will see a lot of dime. And $100 bills.
March 31, 2013: someone is as tired of "Wormy" as I am.
March 31, 2013: I see enquiring minds are asking about overlapping 2560-acre spacing units. A quick explanation can be found here. I'm sure Dufus will see this as a land grab by the nasty oil companies. And, yes, the individual at his post is missing something.
March 29, 2013: the disparity in the knowledge about the Bakken is incredible. The boom began in 2000 in Montana; in 2007 in North Dakota. I have been posting up to ten (10) Bakken posts daily since 2009; some days more. And still there folks who don't know the basics when it comes to the Bakken. I see some enquiring minds are wondering what "LOC" means when it comes to NDIC oil and gas permits. To the best of my knowledge, "LOC" does NOT mean "site is being prepared." Based on what I've seen, "LOC" means a permit to drill at a specific location has been issued. If "LOC" means a site is being prepared there a lot of sites that seem to take forever to be prepared (#21387 was issued a permit back in April, 2012, and is still "LOC"). In addition, QEP spent a lot of money preparing a site for #18956 for naught; that permit was cancelled if that's what LOC means.
March 23, 2013: Rufus, I see, can't see beyond her own wells. (same link as an earlier one) What a dufus. The first thing that caught my attention was the the fact that it was likely that the operators in the San Juan Basin were eying Bakken-like shale. Then I noted the potential, about 6 billion bbls, very similar to the USGS estimates for the Bakken. And then this: the more states that embrace fracking, the better it is for all of us. Nothing like "scaring" folks away from "her" discussion group. That was the first time I saw Will at the discussion group; what a nice welcome from Rufus.
March 20, 2013: with the NDIC site now down for five days, I see that folks at the Bakken Shale Discussion Group are starting to post stories about the very interesting, highly prolific, much talked-about San Juan Basin in New Mexico.
March 9, 2013: well pad surface rates.
March 1, 2013: very, very reliable source providing very, very interesting information. See Z-Man's input at this thread; looking for time-date stamp of 11:51 a.m., March 1:
Re: the Polar - they're doing a 6 middle Bakken, 6 Three Forks pilot there (3 in the upper bench, 3 in the 2nd bench), wells 800 feet apart and in the TFS, 50' apart vertically ... testing communication on a bit bigger scale than they have in the past. Results by year end.
Over
two years ago, one can find posts suggesting that the effectiveness of
fracks in the Bakken suggested 500-foot separation. They're getting
closer.
These are probably the wells Z-Man is referring to; this was taken from a post dated December 14, 2012:
With regard to the eight new KOG permits: all eight are in the same section - 27-154-98. There are already three other wells in this section, all on confidential status, which means that there will be eleven (11) wells sited in this section. So, these are the permits for this section (the P Wood wells are tracked here):
- 24374, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-3-27-34-14H, Truax,
- 24375, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-3-27-34-14H3, Truax,
- 24376, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-3-27-34-15H, Truax,
- 24604, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-4-27-34-13HB, Truax,
- 24605, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-4-27-34-13H3, Truax,
- 24606, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-4-27-34-13HA, Truax,
- 24607, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-4-27-34-14H3, Truax,
- 24608, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-2-27-34-15H, Truax,
- 24609, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-2-27-34-16H3, Truax,
- 24610, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-2-27-34-16H, Truax,
- 24611, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-2-27-34-16H3A, Truax,
In addition to these, add these two:
March 1, 2013: I am eager to see the replies. I do believe this contributor has asked the same question some time ago.
- 24649, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-3-27-34-14H, Truax,
- 24650, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-3-27-16-3H, Truax, (running north)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.