Disclaimer: in a long note like this there will be typographic and factual errors. After spending a lot of time on this, I hope I didn't make a really simple mistake. But I probably did. If I did, I will find it tomorrow. Whatever. I may be seeing things that don't exist. I am inappropriately exuberant about the Bakken. I guess this is for my own use. Don't quote me on any of this. If this is important to you, go to the source.
Comment: for newbies, I think this well teaches us a lot about the Bakken. It's the kind of stuff analysts on Wall Street in NYC really don't have time for.
Another comment: This is another one of those posts where I assume landmen and roughnecks will laugh at me. That's fine.
But I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to the Bakken. The Bakken never ceases to amaze me and I never get tired of looking at it or blogging about it. I do hit a wall once in awhile, but the "bad periods" only last a few days at most.
Again, for newbies, I have no background or training or experience in oil exploration and production. Nada. Nil. Zilch. I probably understand 3% of what I read about the Bakken. But I've been blogging about the Bakken since 2007 and it never gets old.
I think operators are still learning about the Bakken. I think there are a lot of surprises left.
*********************************
So, let's get started. Earlier tonight I was looking at a well with this production profile over the last few months:
| Pool | Date | Days | BBLS Oil | Runs | BBLS Water | MCF Prod | MCF Sold | Vent/Flare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BAKKEN | 12-2016 | 31 | 10011 | 10082 | 3771 | 24441 | 23965 | 260 |
| BAKKEN | 11-2016 | 30 | 12178 | 12310 | 5268 | 28301 | 28092 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 10-2016 | 27 | 16111 | 15966 | 7797 | 32522 | 29791 | 2543 |
| BAKKEN | 9-2016 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 8-2016 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 7-2016 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The full profile is here.
For one to really understand the post, it's important to look at the full profile.
The full profile is here. (All three links take you to the same "full profile" -- but I'm serious -- you have to spend some time with the "full profile" of this well), the index well:
- 17400, 546, Petro-Hunt, Sherven Trust 27B-2-4H, Charlson, t3/09; cum 265K 12/16; about 1 million lbs first frack; second frack and second IP later.
I did not stumble upon this well by accident. There is a method to my madness. Be that as it may.
This is an important well. It tells us much about the future of the Bakken. It brings up many, many questions. And provides a bit of insight regarding the Bakken and a bit of insight regarding unconventional plays.
I don't understand the specifics, but the short story appears to be this:
This well was originally drilled as a middle Bakken well back in 2009. For a 2009 well, it was not bad, with an IP of 546 bbls of oil and an early production profile that looked like this:
| BAKKEN | 6-2009 | 30 | 6623 | 6580 | 521 | 8376 | 0 | 8166 |
| BAKKEN | 5-2009 | 31 | 8686 | 8668 | 705 | 10714 | 604 | 9893 |
| BAKKEN | 4-2009 | 30 | 12416 | 12334 | 1300 | 15568 | 4076 | 11282 |
| BAKKEN | 3-2009 | 8 | 3310 | 3059 | 1390 | 1627 | 1410 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 2-2009 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 1-2009 | 1 | 7 | 254 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 12-2008 | 30 | 948 | 961 | 5 | 1852 | 0 | 1635 |
| BAKKEN | 11-2008 | 8 | 1239 | 711 | 1 | 845 | 0 | 635 |
| BAKKEN | 10-2008 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 9-2008 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 8-2008 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 7-2008 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 6-2008 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 5-2008 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 4-2008 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Once fracked, its first month of production was a pretty decent (for that time period) 13,416 bbls/month and then the typical dreaded Bakken decline, down to less than 9,000 bbls the very next month.
Then something happened. Maybe it was being re-worked, who knows, I couldn't interpret the report, but landmen and roughnecks will understand it, but the bottom line is this: the production profile looked like this:
| BAKKEN | 5-2016 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 4-2016 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 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 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 12-2015 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 11-2015 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 10-2015 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 9-2015 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 8-2015 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 7-2015 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Even if you have no background in oil exploration, I think the data above is pretty clear cut. The hint: all the zeros. For newbies, this tells us that from March, 2015, to May, 2016, this well was shut-in, not producing a thing. If this was Apollo 13, this was the "Houston, we have a problem" moment.
Again, I don't understand the lingo, so I don't know the specific cause, but suffice it to say, somehow the well was screwed up.
But this is the Charlson field and Petro-Hunt had the lease and didn't want to lose a good well. The Charlson is a very, very good field. (Teague first identified the Charlson as a great Bakken oil field, and I owe him a lot for pointing that out.)
Petro-Hunt had a gazillion options, but it appears it came down to two options:
a) re-drill the well, drilling a new lateral and targeting the same formation, the middle Bakken; or,They chose the latter.
b) re-drill the well, drilling lower, and targeting the Three Forks.
But you know, you know what's really cool? They didn't do the simple thing, the obvious thing. They didn't target the first bench of the Three Forks; they targeted the second bench of the Three Forks.
So, now look at the events:
First, the index well, #17400, first drilled as a middle Bakken, initial production, after that frack back in 2009:
| BAKKEN | 5-2009 | 31 | 8686 | 8668 | 705 | 10714 | 604 | 9893 |
| BAKKEN | 4-2009 | 30 | 12416 | 12334 | 1300 | 15568 | 4076 | 11282 |
| BAKKEN | 3-2009 | 8 | 3310 | 3059 | 1390 | 1627 | 1410 | 0 |
Then, the dreaded Bakken decline (see full profile, linked above) until March, 2014, when production for one month surged to almost 20,000 bbls from only 6,000 bbls the month before (and it was off-line for two days):
BAKKEN | 4-2014 | 30 | 4383 | 4235 | 2015 | 8016 | 7706 | 99 |
| BAKKEN | 3-2014 | 31 | 18919 | 19052 | 5669 | 27213 | 14889 | 12107 |
| BAKKEN | 2-2014 | 26 | 5668 | 5574 | 2551 | 7352 | 2003 | 5168 |
What could explain the jump from 6,000 bbls to 20,000 bbls in one month? I have no idea. LOL.
But it is interesting that a neighboring well was fracked just prior to that surge:
NDIC File No: 26205 API No: 33-053-05205-00-00
Well Type: OG Well Status: A Status Date: 2/1/2014 Wellbore type: Horizontal
Location: NENE 28-153-95 Latitude: 48.049781 Longitude: -102.893604
Current Operator: PETRO-HUNT, L.L.C.
Current Well Name: SHERVEN TRUST 153-95-27B-3H
Elevation(s): 2347 KB 2321 GR 2323 GL Total Depth: 16331 Field: CHARLSON
Spud Date(s): 11/5/2013
Completion Data
Pool: BAKKEN Perfs: 10560-16331 Comp: 2/1/2014 Status: AL Date: 9/19/2014
Cumulative Production Data
Pool: BAKKEN Cum Oil: 196095 Cum MCF Gas: 377642 Cum Water: 47771
Production Test Data
IP Test Date: 2/2/2014 Pool: BAKKEN IP Oil: 1514 IP MCF: 2952 IP Water: 3814
See the graphic below to note where #26205 is in relationship to the index well.
So, we have an index well that jumps in production from 6,000 bbls to 20,000 bbls month-over-month with no obvious explanation but a neighboring well was fracked at just that time.
Sherlock had a way to explain this.
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
****************************
Stick with me. It gets more complicated. Or at least more interesting.
Note that another neighboring well was fracked in February, 2015 (#27375) (see graphic below). One might expect something similar. But the index well was shut-in at that time, so we will never how interesting it might have been.
******************************
Fast forward to 2016. Petro-Hunt has this really cool well in a really cool field, the Charlson, but the well is messed up. Something screwed up the well. Petro-Hunt had a gazillion options, as noted above, but decided to re-drill the well and target the second bench of the Three Forks.
I find that really gutsy; really cool. Re-drilling the middle Bakken with a new lateral would have guaranteed another good well, but Petro-Hunt decided to test the second bench of the Three Forks.
Perhaps it was just something the CEO wanted to do, or perhaps the geologists saw stuff from the original work and were curious what the second bench might do. So, the re-drill targeting the second bench of the Three Forks got them this:
| Pool | Date | Days | BBLS Oil | Runs | BBLS Water | MCF Prod | MCF Sold | Vent/Flare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BAKKEN | 12-2016 | 31 | 10011 | 10082 | 3771 | 24441 | 23965 | 260 |
| BAKKEN | 11-2016 | 30 | 12178 | 12310 | 5268 | 28301 | 28092 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 10-2016 | 27 | 16111 | 15966 | 7797 | 32522 | 29791 | 2543 |
| BAKKEN | 9-2016 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 8-2016 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Not too shabby, as we used to say.
******************************
I will stop here. There's enough stuff here to keep me busy for hours, asking questions, positing opinions, but we'll leave it at that.
Here's the graphic:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.