| 10/1/2014 | 10/01/2013 | 10/01/2012 | 10/01/2011 | 10/01/2010 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active Rigs | 191 | 187 | 186 | 201 | 143 |
Wells coming off the confidential list today were posted earlier; see sidebar at the right.
Wells coming off the confidential list Thursday:
- 26936, drl, Hess, SC-Norma-154-98-0706H-5, Truax, no production data,
- 27030, 551, CLR, Myrtle 6-7H1, Northwest McGregor, t7/14; cum 12K 7/14;
- 27351, drl, Hess, GN-Beulah-158-98-0508H-1, Rainbow, no production data,
- 27585, drl, BR, Haymaker 11-15TFH, Elidah, no production data,
- 27754, drl, BR, CCU Olympian 44-35TFH, Corral Creek, no production data,
- Operators: Statoil (8), CLR (2), Whiting,
- Fields: Sakakawea (McKenzie), Patent Gate (McKenzie), Banks (McKenzie), Bluffton (Divide)
- Comments: Whiting has a permit for a wildcat in Golden Valley, 6-140-104; this will be near Camel Hump oil field to the north; in 1985, a Red River well was drilled in this same section (NE quarter); dry; Samson Resources, Waldahl 1;
- 23890, 1,002, Slawson, MacCougar 2-30-19H, Big Bend, t8/14; cum 7K 7/14;
- 25675, 2,921, Statoil, Lucy Hanson 15-22 5TFH, Catwalk, t11/13; cum --
- 25823, 628, Slawson, Diamondback 3-21H, Van Hook, t7/14; cum 21K 7/14;
- 26386, 352, Oasis, Hardy 5892 43-9H, Cottonwood, t8/14; cum --
- 26482, 101, Oasis, Conry Federal 5992 43-21 1H, Cottonwood, t8/14; cum --
- 26630, 630, CLR, Mack 11-2H1, Antelope, Sanish, t8/14; cum 2K 7/14;
- 26631, 289, CLR, Mack 10-2H3, Antelope, Sanish, t8/14; cum 2K 7/14;
- 26632, 202, CLR, Mack 9-2H2, Antelope, Sanish, t8/14; cum 1K 7/14;
- 26633, 481, CLR, Mack 8-2H, Antelope, Sanish, t8/14; cum 2K 7/14;
- 26778, 704, EOG, Mandaree 110-05H, Squaw Creek, one section, t9/14; cum --
- 26876, 292, CLR, Lawrence 9-24H, North Tioga, t9/14; cum --
- 27274, 346, Slawson, Cruiser 3-16-9H, Big Bend, t7/14; cum 33K 7/14;
- 27594, 352, Slawson, Challenger Federal 6-29-32TFH, Big Bend, t9/14; cum 6K 7/14;
- 27755, 2,100, EOG, Parshall 75-2127H, Parshall, ICO, t9/14; cum --
- 27757, 1,174, EOG, Parshall 73-2127H,Parshall, ICO, t9/14; cum --
Why are the CLR ears back antelope wells so crappy in IP?
ReplyDeleteThere are so many possible explanations. This discussion goes back to the discussions we all had back in 2007 - 2010 when we were all debating the importance of IPs. I'm not going to start that discussion all over again.
DeleteI have a tag at the bottom of the blog, "IPs," which will take you to some early posts when IPs were discussed in this context. Unfortunately not much help there, but it's a start. Also at the FAQ page, question 13 addresses the issue to some extent.
For me, IPs are simply one data point, though a very important data point in my mind (others disagree) if the IPs are considered in context with the other data.
It might be helpful to go back and look at the Hawkinson wells:
http://themilliondollarway.blogspot.com/2011/08/oakdale-oil-field-update.html