Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Case Study -- Jump In Production After Neighboring Wells Were Fracked -- June 7, 2017


September 7, 2019: was off line for15 months; has now just come back on line. 

June 9, 2017: see first comment. This is incredibly important. Apparently the first well was a Three Forks well, not a middle Bakken well. This really makes sense trying to explain the production profile: the comment --
Very interesting! I did some research too, Way back in the well file (I have the premium subscription with NDIC) it shows that this is a Three Forks well. Back before Continental did the tests which showed there were two separate zones, all the wells were called Bakken... so this makes sense that this well showed these results with the nearby Three Forks wells being fracked....
Original Post

Disclaimer: in a long note like this, there will be typographical and factual errors. In addition, I may have missed something important, and/or there may things I am mis-reading. If this is important to you, go to the source.

This is being posted for an individual interested in "re-fracks" in the Bakken. 

For reasons I discussed with that individual, it is very tedious to research data on "re-fracked" wells in the Bakken.

This is how I do it:
1) I go back to "Retrieve Well Production History" at the NDIC site
2) I then go through the scout tickets/file reports one-by-one. This is incredibly tedious. This would be a good summer job for a high school student; and/or better yet, someone should be able to write an "app" that would do this
3) instruct the high school student or the "app" to a) go through the scout tickets chronologically; b) identify any wells with "unusual" (set your own parameters) production patterns
4) try to explain any jump in production using a) the file report; b) FracFocus; c) other sources
In this particular case, I started with file #17000 and worked chronologically to the first well a) with an unusual production profile; and, b) one that I had not identified before.

In just a matter of minutes I came across this one, #17086 and noted the unusual jump in production back in June, 2016.

I pulled that one aside, and then:
a) checked the file report for sundry forms that might explain the jump in production
b) retrieved the API number from the scout ticket and check FracFocus
These are the results.

The index well:
  •  17086, 560, Newfield, Jorgenson 1-15H, Lost Bridge, t11/08; cum 276K 4/17; the production profile showed a huge jump in production in June, 2016
Looking at the GIS map at the NDIC site, I noted the graphic that is depicted below the spreadsheet. Note the four horizontals that "cross" the index well.

Of those wells, interestingly only one was a middle Bakken, and all were fracked shortly before June, 2016, when it was noted that production for #17086 jumped:
  • 32581,  Three Forks, t6/16; 50 stages, 5.6 million lbs;
  • 29856, Three Forks t6/16; 50 stages, 3.5 million lbs;
  • 32092, Three Forks, t/16; 50 stages, 5.6 million lbs;
  • 29857, middle Bakken, t6/16; 50 stages, 5.6 million lbs;
Production profile for #17086 after neighboring wells were fracked:
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare

When I see a jump in production of this magnitude, I assume the well was re-fracked. And in this case, it is very possible the well was re-fracked but there is no evidence that it was:
  • no sundry form
  • no FracFocus data: (API: 33-025-00729)
  • on a completely different pad than where neighboring wells were fracked 
The graphic:

No comments:

Post a Comment