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

Updates

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:

Pool	Date	Days	BBLS Oil	Runs	BBLS Water	MCF Prod	MCF Sold	Vent/Flare
BAKKEN	5-2018	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	4-2018	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	3-2018	22	957	1422	343	1293	0	1110
BAKKEN	2-2018	28	4687	5082	2203	4329	110	3967
BAKKEN	1-2018	31	4556	4290	2567	4119	2742	1098
BAKKEN	12-2017	31	5094	5340	2890	6073	5161	633
BAKKEN	11-2017	30	6370	6159	3975	6458	1030	5158
BAKKEN	10-2017	24	5405	5190	3143	5589	41	5348
BAKKEN	9-2017	28	4386	4530	1937	4865	1879	2734
BAKKEN	8-2017	28	5624	4980	2472	5796	0	5544
BAKKEN	7-2017	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	6-2017	10	2829	3317	2827	3605	0	3532
BAKKEN	5-2017	29	18481	18143	18614	21621	2807	18564
BAKKEN	4-2017	5	33	226	192	21	0	18
BAKKEN	3-2017	12	345	463	334	238	0	203
BAKKEN	2-2017	28	7088	6914	2563	8927	6652	2030
BAKKEN	1-2017	31	8087	8637	2965	9039	8698	62
BAKKEN	12-2016	31	8573	8363	2318	8803	6508	2032
BAKKEN	11-2016	30	7792	7660	2735	5874	829	4775
BAKKEN	10-2016	31	7520	7860	2688	6571	183	6109
BAKKEN	9-2016	30	9074	8958	3078	9829	7388	2171
BAKKEN	8-2016	31	15396	15098	5634	17597	14164	3154
BAKKEN	7-2016	31	17370	17744	9627	19641	3876	15486
BAKKEN	6-2016	14	7376	6688	8014	6095	278	5699
BAKKEN	5-2016	7	143	0	465	31	11	0
BAKKEN	4-2016	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	3-2016	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	2-2016	22	0	0	0	472	0	464
BAKKEN	1-2016	31	1179	1360	125	2104	1089	741

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: