Possible Halo Effect Of An EOG Well Recently Brought Back On Line -- December 2, 2016

Check later:

Start before 25005; 25005; 25006; 25007; 25008; 25009; 25010; 25011; 25012; 25016; 25033; 25034; start with 25035. 

Updates

December 17, 2016: this is a very interesting subject. I've long wondered how far out -- radially -- fracking is effective. The payzones in the Bakken are very thin -- 50 to 80 feet -- so I'm not going to worry about horizontals separated vertically. I'm simply concentrating, for now, on horizontal wells in the same payzone (generally the middle Bakken).

When the Bakken boom began a lot of folks were to led to believe or believed for some reason that the Bakken would "average" about one well per section. Based on some early CLR wells, it was clear to me that there would be multiple wells in each section and I blogged about that early on. I was the first one to talk about that on a blog on a regular and a frequent basis.

As the horizontals increased in number in one section, the question naturally arose, how close can a horizontal be drilled without impacting a neighboring horizontal. A section is 5,280 feet x 5,280 feet. Generally speaking, we are now seeing spacing of six horizontals across one section/one payzone which works out to about 800 feet separation.

So, let's say the separation gets down to 500 feet between horizontal wells (again, horizontally, not vertically). If the data confirms that if a new frack has no effect on an older well 500 feet away -- again, no effect -- then the question naturally arises: can the horizontal separation between horizontals be decreased further.

Caveat: higher intensity fracking became more common in 2016. One would assume that would extend the radial efficacy of fracking.

More rambling: it's important to remember proved reserves are based on potential for economic recovery. One begins to wonder if high-intensity fracking might increase/expand the number of "sweet" spots in the Bakken, if that makes sense. We're already seeing that in stories about the Permian: that better technology / improved completions have increased the inventory of future drilling sites for companies operating in the Permian.

To me this is very confusing. I have two problems: I have trouble understanding it, or conceptualizing it; and, I have trouble articulating it. For now, all I can do is wait and watch, or is it, watch and wait?

December 16, 2016: from a reader with regard to the halo effect:

You are the only one pushing the "halo effect" narrative.  It is probably just pressure buildup from the well being off line.  Would get the same effect even if no nearby frack, just gave the well a rest and brought it back on line.  Easy to test. 

Go look at what happens when CLR brings wells back on line from shut in (with no nearby drilling).  Bet you see a "halo effect" there also.  Which just means there is no such thing as halo effect.  Bashing the nearby well doesn't make the existing well produce better.  All you see is a temporary blip up from shutin in during completions. 

It's crazy to think there is some super secret halo effect that companies don't talk about, but Bruce Oksol has detected.  After all there are all kinds of companies touting their advances in proppants and other aspects of well design.  If there were a halo effect, we would hear it on the investor calls.  And service companies would spread the knowledge all over the place.

How many times must you be told this?  The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

Later, 4:06 p.m. Central Time: I have added this to my FAQ list, #81, following a comment from a reader  --

81. What do you mean by "halo effect" when neighboring wells are fracked? When existing, neighboring wells are very, very close to new wells that are being fracked in the same formation, common sense suggests that some of the "new" fracking might extend to the older, existing wells.

In fact, there are numerous examples in which an existing well shows increased production after a neighboring well is fracked.

However, I have always had a concern that the increased production is simply a result of increased pressure building up while the existing well is taken off-line during the fracking of the neighboring well.

Once the older well is brought back on line the increased production is simply due to pressure that has built up and once the well has been back on line for a few months, production returns to what it would have been regardless.

That's why I call it the "halo effect" -- it is very likely that it is simply a build-up in pressure and has nothing to do with the fracking of the neighboring well per se. So, for now, the "halo effect" is simply an observation and I am not making any conclusion why it is happening. But yes, my initial enthusiasm regarding the "halo effect" and what I originally implied, may be (and is likely to be) completely wrong, and due more to my inappropriate exuberance about the Bakken than a rational explanation.

Regardless of the reason for the "halo effect," it will often result in increased "mailbox money" for a few months (all things being equal) when the well is brought back on line, but don't expect it to necessarily continue forever.

Original Post

 

I will come back to this one later. It shows the halo effect of fracking, I believe:

• 16795, 1,519, EOG, Austin 4-09H, Parshall, open hole frack, 2.6 million lbs; t12/07; cum 656K 10/16; API: 33-061-00570;

Monthly Production Data

Pool	Date	Days	BBLS Oil	Runs	BBLS Water	MCF Prod	MCF Sold	Vent/Flare
BAKKEN	10-2016	31	3899	3809	859	3014	1447	1315
BAKKEN	9-2016	30	4707	4720	1172	3216	2972	0
BAKKEN	8-2016	31	4168	4177	2455	2420	2143	26
BAKKEN	7-2016	31	4654	4639	1685	2303	2037	29
BAKKEN	6-2016	30	4649	4579	2286	1596	1266	86
BAKKEN	5-2016	27	3357	3374	2899	1178	734	234
BAKKEN	4-2016	3	190	95	514	49	49	0
BAKKEN	3-2016	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	2-2016	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	1-2016	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	12-2015	1	0	0	47	10	10	0
BAKKEN	11-2015	21	1403	1480	698	1125	720	243
BAKKEN	10-2015	13	981	930	427	723	519	109
BAKKEN	9-2015	27	1419	1434	86	1271	1018	37
BAKKEN	8-2015	31	1837	1851	113	1639	1049	338
BAKKEN	7-2015	31	1892	1901	114	1568	1280	39
BAKKEN	6-2015	30	1867	1872	109	1436	1105	87
BAKKEN	5-2015	28	1768	1776	107	1322	1075	21
BAKKEN	4-2015	30	2205	2187	172	1444	1176	25
BAKKEN	3-2015	31	2467	2500	207	1606	1314	40
BAKKEN	2-2015	28	2285	2285	124	1514	1269	17
BAKKEN	1-2015	31	2610	2617	149	1735	1420	6

Screenshot of the area under discussion: