Pages

Sunday, February 1, 2015

Strange Production Profiles In Two Huge Wells On The Edge Of The Bakken -- January 1, 2015

Updates

February 2, 2015: a reader writes me regarding the production profiles of the two wells below. He notes the high volume of water. Some would consider these "water wells" that also happen to produce some oil. The writer suggests that at current prices, these wells won't have much of a future; very costly to dispose of that water.
 
Original Post

Look at the original post regarding these two wells.

I was curious to see how they were doing. The production profiles of both wells are very interesting; it's hard to believe that this is purely coincidental (both wells decreasing exactly at the same time) or that it's a natural decline (Bakken wells decline quickly but not this fast, and in both cases, the wells were actually taken off-line for a number of days immediately after two big months of production -- in bold red). The Anderson well was taken completely offline in December. No, it certainly looks like there is another reason for the share decline in production.
  • 25995, 642, Cornerstone, Anderson B-2413-6191, Clayton, 33 stages, 5.1 million lbs, t5/14; cum 58K 12/14; 
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
BAKKEN12-20140000000
BAKKEN11-201419182218919042401126441272
BAKKEN10-201431344934761795922256091461
BAKKEN9-2014304567466921912775776070
BAKKEN8-20143153415440249741010299470
BAKKEN7-2014315828577429122796078050
BAKKEN6-2014131793141010379141013450
BAKKEN5-201430118051270443679733871880
BAKKEN4-201427142181386646520364135060
BAKKEN3-2014268929866244574364135060
BAKKEN2-201456942438466103780

  • 26033, 626, Cornerstone, Hinds C-0631-6190, Northeast Foothills, t4/14; cum 63K 12/14;
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
BAKKEN12-2014302254268513249000
BAKKEN11-201430277525221615165965515931
BAKKEN10-20143134343265190261964878931
BAKKEN9-20143041774560211397345840
BAKKEN8-2014314537441008386830
BAKKEN7-2014213804401917590590658010
BAKKEN6-20142952574869254817936430
BAKKEN5-20143010602110534516414649144990
BAKKEN4-20142816174161475481514583144430
BAKKEN3-2014247218691936202665565350
BAKKEN2-2014102410199316587217021200

******************************
Global Warming

Updates

February 2, 2015: this is pretty cool. I wrote the "original post" below on the evening of February 1, 2015, just after the end of the Super Bowl, and then this morning a readers sent me a very insightful article from the WSJ on the same subject.  
Hurricanes are likewise used as an example of the “ever worse” trope. If we look at the U.S., where we have the best statistics, damage costs from hurricanes are increasing—but only because there are more people, with more-expensive property, living near coastlines. If we adjust for population and wealth, hurricane damage during the period 1900-2013 decreased slightly.
At the U.N. climate conference in Lima, Peru, in December, attendees were told that their countries should cut carbon emissions to avoid future damage from storms like typhoon Hagupit, which hit the Philippines during the conference, killing at least 21 people and forcing more than a million into shelters. Yet the trend for landfalling typhoons around the Philippines has actually declined since 1950, according to a study published in 2012 by the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate. Again, we’re told that things are worse than ever, but the facts don’t support this.
Original Post

Everything I've ever read about global warming says that increased precipitation is to be expected with global warming. Some sites that confirm that:
And yet here we are, San Francisco gets no rain in January for first time in 165 years.

All global warming sites, including the five linked above, also talk about more severe and more frequent hurricanes. In fact, since Katrina (2005), there have been almost no hurricanes to hit landfall in the US. This has been one of the quietest periods in hurricane activity since the data has been tracked.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.