Thursday, March 5, 2015

A Random Update Of the CLR Hartman Wells In Chimney Butte -- March 5, 2015


May 4, 2019: in general, it looks like the production from the Hartman wells -- not good. 

July 8, 2018: production data as been updated; the graphic of this area has not changed.

July 26, 2016: a reader who follows these wells closely provided a comment at this post:
There hasn't been much news about benches 2 and 3 lately. Note that Hartman wells in Dunn county as part of a density test by CLR where they placed 6 new wells next to 2 existing wells. The two 3rd bench wells represent the last time I looked: a total bust with one and the second 3rd bench well was the most productive of the 6 new wells with the other. Go figure?
That third bench well that was "a bust" has been abandoned. There is nothing in the file report to explain why it might have been a bust. Doesn't make sense. 

March 13, 2015: a reader, Dan, who follows these wells very closely sent me the original information below. Today, he follows up on those initial thoughts:
 I looked at CLR's most recent presentation and saw the graphic of update on enhanced recovery techniques in McKenzie and Williams counties (slide 10) so I was curious how the Hartman MB wells along with the two Bice wells stacked up after 90 days of production.
I was surprised to see the older wells with less frac effort as pretty comparable with the baseline wells in the graphic.
The 3-28H and 10-28 exceeded the slick water comparison which especially with the 3-28 surprised me.
You can see in the attached file I listed the 5 MB wells in the order they were drilled in a spreadsheet. Some interesting decline curves with these wells. Interesting production rates based on frac effort. Clearly the well that stands out the most is the Hartman 10-28. Its peak production month was less than 3-28H but when you look at the last month of the 90 day calculation the daily average was way above any of the others.
In the next couple months it will be very interesting to see what the decline rate does. The obvious difference with 10-28 is the frac effort. The more subtle difference is the fact that 10-28 is sitting atop an irregular pyramid of lower bench wells with an H1, H3, and H2 within 477' to the left and an H2 and H3 within 318' to the right (based on your distance shown previously and I averaged).
So, with that, a question: is all the extra production due to the frac effort or is part of the extra production due to the "composite effect" of a number of wells so close?
I see CLR has taken out another stand-alone MB permit for the Hartman unit. I wonder if that well will be drilled as a mirror frac effort of the 10-28 to try get a feel for how much impact the "composite effect" is having?
One last thought, if the two new wells remain as hardly worth pumping I wonder if it would be a good time for CLR to turn these wells into injection wells and attempt to replicate their success of fire flood secondary recover which they have perfected in the Cedar Hills field in Bowman County? Some years ago I can remember hearing the officers making the comment in a conference call that they intended to use their Red River success in Cedar Hills as a model for their efforts in the Bakken. 
Original Note 

A reader was kind enough to send a production update of the CLR Hartman wells in Chimney Butte, section 28-146-95:

The reader noted:
  • Of the six most recently completed Hartman wells, a 3rd bench Three Forks wells was the second best (only the most recent middle Bakken well was better).
  • The other 3rd bench Three Forks well looks like a total bust at this point.
The Hartman wells in section 28-146-95:
  • 23212, 1,656, CLR, Hartman 4-28H, 30 stages; 2.7 million lbs, t12/12; cum 182K 12/19; -- needs to be re-fracked;
  • 23213, 1,703, CLR, Hartman 3-28H, 30 stages; 2.8 million lbs, t12/12; cum 218K 12/19; -- needs to be re-fracked;
  • 27452, 829, CLR, Hartman 10-28H, 30 stages; 6.6 million lbs, t10/14; cum 244K 12/19;
    small jump in production, 12/19;
  • 27450, 348,CLR, Hartman 8-28H1, 30 stages; 6.2 million lbs, t10/14; cum 214K 12/19;
  • 27454, 450, CLR, Hartman 6-28H2, 30 stages; 6.1 million lbs, t10/14; cum 165K 12/19;
  • 27451, 254, CLR, Hartman 9-28H2, 30 stages; 6 million lbs, t10/14; cum 144K 12/19;
  • 27453, PA/AB/IAW/AB/54, CLR, Hartman 5-28H3, 30 stages; 2.9 million lbs, t1/15; cum 1K 1/15; abandoned after 8 months of minimal production; nothing in the file report to suggest why;
  • 27455, 426, CLR, Hartman 7-28H3, 30 stages; 5.5 million bls, t11/14; cum 186K 12/19; -- definitely needs to be re-fracked;
Other Hartman wells to the east in the same section:
  • 21524, 732, CLR, Hartman2-28H, 35 stages; 3.6 million lbs, t5/12; cum 302K 12/19;
  • 17530, 780, CLR, Hartman1-28H, a Three Forks well, a cased hole, 2.1 million lbs, t11/09; cum 335K 12/19;
  • 30668, PNC, CLR, Hartman11-28H, no production data, PNC date: 1/19; -- interesting.
Production profiles (production data will be update above, and not necessarily repeated below):
  • 27453, PA/IAW/54, CLR, Hartman 5-28H3, 30 stages; 2.9 million lbs, t1/15; cum 1K 1/15:
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
  • 27455, 426, CLR, Hartman 7-28H3, 30 stages; 5.5 million bls, t11/14; cum 186K 12/19;
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare

  • 27451, 254, CLR, Hartman 9-28H2, 30 stages; 6 million lbs, t10/14; cum 144K 12/19;
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare

  • One of the wells, a third bench Three Forks well, #27453 stands out: remarkably low IP and poor production.
  • It looks like the earlier two Hartman wells were fracked with around 3 million lbs of proppant, while the most recent six Hartman wells (file numbers in bold were fracked with about double that amount, about 6 million lbs. The exception, of course, was that TF3 well, #27453, fracked with about 3 million lbs. I did not look at the geology reports. I did not see an obvious reason why this particular well was fracked with only 3 million lbs (I did not look very hard and may have missed something).
  • Note also the production profile of this poorly performing well (#27453), paying particular attention to the very few days it has actually been producing. Obviously this well is having its challenges.  
  • Note that the wells on these two pads were fracked with 30 stages. An older middle Bakken well, #21524, was fracked in 35 stages but with only 3.6. million lbs of proppant.
General comments, mostly for newbies (these are my opinions; they may be completely off-base; maybe no one agrees; I have no background or formal training in the oil and gas industry; take these opinions for what they are worth; they are free, so perhaps worth about that much) :
  • I was initially excited by the lower benches but when the numbers started coming in, perhaps not as good as expected. 
  • the middle Bakken is well-delineated; operators know where the best spots are
  • the Three Forks upper bench is somewhat delineated but certainly not as well delineated as the middle Bakken
  • the lower benches are not delineated at all. If it weren't for the fact that the lower benches are part of the Bakken play, most lower bench Three Forks wells would be considered wildcats at this point
  • right now, there are some great lower bench Three Forks wells, but it's certainly "iffy." With the pullback in prices, I've seen several permits for lower bench wells be changed to middle Bakken wells or TF1
  • I doubt we will see much new lower bench drilling with prices below $75
Having said that, the majority of new permits being issued during this period of severe drop in oil prices are for 6 - 8 wells in the same location which may include more than just the MB and TF1.

No comments:

Post a Comment