Update On The Bridger Wells In Rattlesnake Point Oil Field -- December 4, 2016

In a long note like this, there will be typographical and factual errors. The NDIC map server was a bit tough to sort out but I think I have it correct; but there could be errors. If this information is important to you go to the source.

In a long commentary, facts and opinions will be interspersed. It is often difficult to separate facts from opinions.

If something appears wrong, it probably is.

Finally, I did not proofread this page in its entirety. I consider the page to be a PAGE IN PROGRESS FOR AT LEAST A WEEK giving readers a chance to weigh in on the post.

************************************

To bring yourself up to speed regarding with the Bridger wells, check out this post first, where I track the Bridger/Bonneville wells.

There appear to be eleven (11) CLR Bridger wells. The Bridger wells are on Bridger pads as well as Bridger-Bonneville pads, all in Rattlesnake Point oil field.

The Bridger wells run from the south to the north; the Bonneville wells run from the north to the south.

The eleven (11) Bridge wells are broken down as such:

Five "H" wells, MB: middle Bakken wells. Four of the five "H" wells have been completed and are producing.

Three "H1" wells, TF1: Three Forks, first bench. Only one H1 well has been completed.

Three "H2" wells, TF2: Three Forks, second bench. Only one H2 well has been completed.

Here are the Bridger wells. It's a busy slide. I've tried to line up the "H" wells across the top; the "H1" wells in the second line; and, the "H2" wells along a third line. The "t" date is the month/year the well was tested; generally a well is tested within two months after the well is completed. FracFocus will report exactly when wells are fracked.

SI/NC (DUCs): these wells have been drilled to total depth; they were not fracked at the time they were completed. It is possible they have been fracked; if so, their production reports will soon be available.

************************************

Observations

#17089, middle Bakken well, was completed 4/08. The production profile is quite unusual. Notice the production profile from 7/14 to 4/16.

By 7/14 this well had plateaued at 350 bbls / month. Then taken off line, and production jumped to 3,000 bbls of oil per month. Some suggest this could be simply due to built up pressure while the well was taken off line but that pressure should have "exhausted" itself after a couple of months. Note that the increased production has lasted for many months. It's hard not to think that this increased prodution was due to two "neighboring wells" fracked at this time (8/15).

The problem is that the middle Bakken well that was fracked 8/15 is 1,320 feet away; and, the other "neighboinrg" well that was fracked was from a different formation, the TF1.

But, it's been talked about before the geologic relationship between TF1 and the middle Bakken.

Here's the production profile for #17089:

BAKKEN	6-2016	30	2106	2220	602	2532	159	2373
BAKKEN	5-2016	31	2319	2231	677	2778	34	2744
BAKKEN	4-2016	30	2141	2021	605	2542	247	2295
BAKKEN	3-2016	31	2076	2036	667	2494	16	2478
BAKKEN	2-2016	26	2085	2201	935	2472	34	2438
BAKKEN	1-2016	31	2849	2922	1090	3370	37	3333
BAKKEN	12-2015	27	2602	2678	1158	3065	0	3065
BAKKEN	11-2015	3	321	227	82	382	0	382
BAKKEN	10-2015	31	2198	2014	1407	2610	0	2610
BAKKEN	9-2015	30	2101	2227	2428	2513	0	2513
BAKKEN	8-2015	21	1219	911	2978	1364	0	1364
BAKKEN	7-2015	0	0	99	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	6-2015	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	5-2015	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	4-2015	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	3-2015	1	0	0	3	0	0	0
BAKKEN	2-2015	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	1-2015	28	335	429	112	192	147	45
BAKKEN	12-2014	31	482	437	153	339	331	8
BAKKEN	11-2014	30	533	687	158	392	252	140
BAKKEN	10-2014	22	407	222	345	461	110	351
BAKKEN	9-2014	30	443	670	183	438	366	72
BAKKEN	8-2014	31	474	448	150	378	243	135
BAKKEN	7-2014	31	506	452	143	364	279	85

*********************************************

Now, take a look at two middle Bakken wells that were fracked back in 2/10. What was the production profile at the time the middle Bakken well that was fracked 8/15?

First, #19013:

BAKKEN	1-2016	31	3036	3306	2380	3640	2381	1259
BAKKEN	12-2015	31	5649	5789	5098	6372	4417	1955
BAKKEN	11-2015	22	3537	3205	4020	2854	2043	811
BAKKEN	10-2015	23	7429	7771	7373	8736	5626	3110
BAKKEN	9-2015	30	13506	13079	14062	16404	6351	10053
BAKKEN	8-2015	26	13306	13330	16161	15741	9783	5958
BAKKEN	7-2015	9	231	225	222	443	443	0
BAKKEN	6-2015	30	1276	1333	460	1925	1817	108
BAKKEN	5-2015	31	1390	1335	468	1786	1631	155
BAKKEN	4-2015	30	1395	1336	527	1892	1569	323
BAKKEN	3-2015	31	1639	1795	585	2142	2090	52

It's hard to believe that taking a well off-line for less than a month resulted in a build-up in pressure to the extent that production went from 1300 bbls/month to 13,000 bbls/month.

Now, #19011:

BAKKEN	1-2016	12	688	1319	214	879	287	592
BAKKEN	12-2015	31	1787	1449	930	1917	674	1243
BAKKEN	11-2015	12	109	0	307	71	7	64
BAKKEN	10-2015	6	140	0	508	89	0	89
BAKKEN	9-2015	21	1001	1307	269	1033	58	975
BAKKEN	8-2015	26	2969	2840	1012	2903	1730	1173
BAKKEN	7-2015	12	647	670	219	621	621	0
BAKKEN	6-2015	30	2471	2687	608	3243	2921	322
BAKKEN	5-2015	31	2504	2242	675	2956	2270	686
BAKKEN	4-2015	30	2569	2727	707	2871	2192	679
BAKKEN	3-2015	31	2874	2931	712	3186	2981	205

I can't make any sense out of #19011. This well's production profile has been very erratic over varying periods. One can see the difficulty of figuring this well out when it was only on line for only 6 days in October, 2015, (producing a trivial 140 bbls) and on line for only 12 days in November, 2015, (producing a trivial 109 bbls).

***********************************

What I Will Be Watching For

With regard to the halo effect, the next data point to watch will be the production profile of #17089 when #31846 is fracked.

With regard to the halo effect, the next data point to watch will be the production profile of #29552 when #31847 is fracked.

With regard to the halo effect, the next data point to watch will be the production profile of #29554 when #31845 is fracked.

********************************

Discussion to continue.

****************************

Because this was a particularly long note, I had my assistant check the numbers: