Monday, February 26, 2018

Another Random Look At A Strange Phenomenon In The Bakken -- February 26, 2018

Updates

September 15, 2018: checked FracFocus again; no data to suggest this well was re-fracked; see this post. 

March 26, 2018: production data updated --

PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
BAKKEN1-20183120892211181504238788369021638
BAKKEN12-20173126355262142335946285444111627
BAKKEN11-2017325481923143332072656534
BAKKEN10-20170000000
BAKKEN9-20170000000
BAKKEN8-20170000000

Original Post 

Wow, wow, wow, take a look at this post and then the production update below.

FracFocus has no data that this well has been re-fracked.

From the linked post above: "So, now, pick another horizontal. Let's pick #19397."
  • 19397, 417, CLR, Buelingo 1-20H, Elm Tree, t3/11; cum 309K 7/18; (note, it's even started flaring again):
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
BAKKEN11-2017325481923143332072656534
BAKKEN10-20170000000
BAKKEN9-20170000000
BAKKEN8-20170000000
BAKKEN7-20170000000
BAKKEN6-20170000000
BAKKEN5-20170000000
BAKKEN4-2017002100000
BAKKEN3-20170000000
BAKKEN2-2017227247131801470122670
BAKKEN1-201731112912024452163182293
BAKKEN12-201630144012134412228194651
BAKKEN11-20160000000
BAKKEN10-201626188420693633539326178

I selected that well simply because of its location near wells that had been recently fracked (see its location at the graphic at the linked post above).

As of November, 2017, it was too early to say what would happen but considering that the well produced more oil in 3 days than it had produced in 30 days prior to being taken off-line was quite interesting.

So, here we go. We now have another month of data:


PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
BAKKEN12-20173126355262142335946285444111627
BAKKEN11-2017325481923143332072656534
BAKKEN10-20170000000
BAKKEN9-20170000000

When I see a production number like this (26,355 bbls in one month) I can only assume the well was fracked or re-fracked. In this case, FracFocus has no data that this well was fracked; there are no sundry forms in the file report suggesting this well has been re-fracked.

Interestingly enough, this well didn't even produce this much oil when it was initially fracked:


BAKKEN9-20112144514515812487548750
BAKKEN8-201131587357701030805680560
BAKKEN7-20113162886396118582197569650
BAKKEN6-201130666569101228858747173870
BAKKEN5-201131744176561395102499524725
BAKKEN4-2011308927874719971158680493537
BAKKEN3-2011301402613414470117110017110

I'm not saying this well was not refracked but I haven't seen any sundry form or FracFocus data to suggest it wasn't. But if it wasn't, this is quite stunning. The next question, of course, is how sharp the decline will be.

No comments:

Post a Comment

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