Pages

Thursday, January 25, 2018

Random Update Of A BR Dimmick Lake Well That Had a Significant Jump In Production -- January 25, 2018

So, you are a mineral owner. You have a payment due on your new Porsche. And you have a well or two. And your royalty payments are generally decreasing as production decreases, just as you would expect, nothing unusual. Than, all of a sudden your royalties jump 7x what you were used to getting and you know you don't have a new well. What's going on, you ask?

A reader had that experience. He took a look at "his" well and the production history:
  • 16791, 436, BR, Demicks Lake 41-18H, Dimmick Lake, t3/08; cum 106K 11/17. The reader's well was only off-line for about a month, and this was the production history. It went from a well producing less than 100 bbls/month (worthy of being shut it) and now it's producing upwards of 5,000 bbls/month (in fact, it might be more once we see a few more months of data):
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
BAKKEN11-201730462848691671565455800
BAKKEN10-2017610357002708913712186
BAKKEN9-20171240010058028
BAKKEN8-20173165021081219
BAKKEN7-20172859051153015
BAKKEN6-2017301012261106293
BAKKEN5-2017317101112350
BAKKEN4-20172563221206132700
BAKKEN3-20171226013000
BAKKEN2-20172810603169990

There was nothing to explain the jump. The jump was too small to indicate a re-frack. The natural question: was their other activity in the area?

So, he looked at the two nearest horizontals, which weren't all that "near." FracFocus has not data (yet) indicated these two wells were fracked. But the file report showed that they had been fracked:
  • 33338, 420, BR, Demicks Dodge 1AMBH-ULW, Dimmick Lake, 4 sections, t12/17; cum -- ; API 33-053-07949, stimulated 9/17; 62 stages, 10.4 million lbs, all 100 Mesh;
  • 33339, 168, BR, Dodge 1B TFH, Dimmick Lake, t12/17; cum -- ; API 33-053-07950, stimulated 9/17; Three Forks; 63 stages; 10.7 million lbs, all 100 Mesh
The graphic:

There are several story lines here, all of which have been discussed ad nauseum at the blog, so I won't continue to ramble. 

And, yes, the reader was able to make that monthly payment on his new Porsche.

By the way, two other questions should jump out at you. What about #17200, and what was the original production data for #16791?

First, #17200 -- unfortunately it showed no jump in production. Maybe we need to check again later on.

Second, what was the original production for #16791 when it was first fracked back in early 2008? Yeah, it was a pretty lousy well, #16791 after initial frack:
BAKKEN7-2008311244106318399419410
BAKKEN6-20083092685687158415840
BAKKEN5-20083131583140370658965890
BAKKEN4-2008305812577582611290112900
BAKKEN3-200831474145282282723772370

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.