Bakken Fatigue?

A reader asked whether we might be seeing "Bakken fatigue" based on a couple of recent headlines. I provided a very, very lengthy answer (which I might post on the blog sometime this weekend).

I should have read my mail first, before writing that long post.

A reader just alerted me that the hearing dockets were out for October, and directed me to look at Case 21145:

Application of EOG Resources, Inc. for an order authorizing the drilling, completing and producing of a total of sixteen wells on an existing 1280-acre spacing unit described as Sections 30 and 31, T.152N., R.94W.; a total of thirty-four wells on an existing 1440-acre spacing unit described as all of Sections 13, 24 and 25, less Lots 1-4 in each section, T.151N., R.95W.; a total of thirty-four wells on an existing 1920-acre spacing unit described as Sections 25 and 36, T.152N., R.95W. and Section 1, T.151N., R.95W.; and a total of thirty-four wells on an existing 2560-acre spacing unit described as Sections 6, 7, 18 and 19, T.151N., R.94W., Clarks Creek-Bakken Pool,McKenzie County, ND, eliminating ....

In case that's hard to read:

• 16 wells on an existing 1280-acre unit;
• 34 wells on an existing 1440-acre spacing unit;
• 34 wells on an existing 1920-acre unit; and,
• 34 wells on an exsiting 2560-acre unit.

Bakken fatigue? Only for the roughnecks.

Regular readers know the significance of Clarks Creek and EOG.

This is what sections 13 - 24 - 25 in 151-95 look like now:

Zooming in on the wells/permits already there:

Imagine 34 wells in this spacing unit.