Random Case Study Of WPX Wells In Reunion Oil Field -- March 26, 2018

Updates

November 15, 2018: production update for #19246:

Pool	Date	Days	BBLS Oil	Runs	BBLS Water	MCF Prod	MCF Sold	Vent/Flare
BAKKEN	9-2018	30	3399	3385	1458	4811	4286	0
BAKKEN	8-2018	31	3604	3586	1642	5021	4464	0
BAKKEN	7-2018	31	4339	4406	2072	5585	3462	1262
BAKKEN	6-2018	28	4228	4220	3316	5441	2204	2423
BAKKEN	5-2018	27	1102	1123	359	1419	483	437
BAKKEN	4-2018	30	1327	1344	534	1712	1188	0
BAKKEN	3-2018	31	1679	1558	654	2161	86	1498
BAKKEN	2-2018	4	123	140	306	241	8	0
BAKKEN	1-2018	1	1	0	2	231	0	0
BAKKEN	12-2017	8	299	342	179	624	457	0
BAKKEN	11-2017	30	1145	1105	280	2034	1657	0
BAKKEN	10-2017	31	1527	1558	382	2027	1465	0

 

Original Post

 

Incredibly nice well comes off line:

• 19246, 1,425, WPX, Wells 32-29H, Reunion Bay, t3/11; cum 546K 1/18; 

Recent production:

Pool	Date	Days	BBLS Oil	Runs	BBLS Water	MCF Prod	MCF Sold	Vent/Flare
BAKKEN	1-2018	1	1	0	2	231	0	0
BAKKEN	12-2017	8	299	342	179	624	457	0
BAKKEN	11-2017	30	1145	1105	280	2034	1657	0
BAKKEN	10-2017	31	1527	1558	382	2027	1465	0
BAKKEN	9-2017	28	1343	1316	492	1729	1051	164
BAKKEN	8-2017	31	2471	2505	438	3180	2384	137
BAKKEN	7-2017	31	2986	2989	465	3843	2747	379
BAKKEN	6-2017	30	3017	2978	524	3883	2318	857
BAKKEN	5-2017	31	3474	3486	619	4470	2787	914

For wells like this -- 3K/month after seven (7) years of production and a cumulative of over one-half million bbls of oil -- and then taken off-line -- one suspects some activity in the area -- 

The graphic:

From the graphic: two things to key in on.

First, #28590:

• 28590, 1,258, WPX. Victor Elk 32-29HB, Reunion Bay, t1/15; cum 313K 1/18; look at the jump in production 1/18; FracFocus does not show any re-frack but that could be due to the fact that paperwork not yet received; no sundry form to suggest any plan to re-frack (this well will be interesting to follow -- to see if re-fracked or not); it was recently off-line for all of 22 days; look at recent production:

Pool	Date	Days	BBLS Oil	Runs	BBLS Water	MCF Prod	MCF Sold	Vent/Flare
BAKKEN	1-2018	27	16599	16784	7564	18375	12960	3396
BAKKEN	12-2017	12	1399	1353	1112	1509	801	406
BAKKEN	11-2017	30	4854	4949	2194	5373	3135	1334
BAKKEN	10-2017	22	3509	3274	1701	3884	1926	1241
BAKKEN	9-2017	30	4655	4814	2603	5153	1527	2741
BAKKEN	8-2017	31	4857	4719	2905	5377	3705	754
BAKKEN	7-2017	31	4983	5122	2734	5516	3761	824
BAKKEN	6-2017	30	4362	4313	2576	4830	2125	1854
BAKKEN	5-2017	18	2958	3028	2154	3275	1757	877
BAKKEN	4-2017	30	4761	4705	3333	5271	2910	1492
BAKKEN	3-2017	31	4798	5032	3684	5311	3590	810
BAKKEN	2-2017	28	5992	5927	5498	6632	5245	386

The second thing to key in on: the three wells on confidential status -- #32671, #32672, #32673. All three have been fracked based on production data on the confidential scout tickets:

• 32671, 10K produced after well completed; number of days of production not known;
• 32672, 18K produced after well completed; number of days of production not known;
• 32673, 19K produced after well completed; number of days of production not known;

These are going to be very nice wells. My hunch: 150K+ in first six months.

Now, let's see if FracFocus has anything: yes, they have all been fracked, see dates of frack below --

• 33-025-03139, 12/172017/ - 1/4/2018;
• 33-025-03140, 12/162017/ - 1/4/2018;
• 33-025-03141, 12/172017/ - 1/4/2018;

I'm not going to go through all three because completion strategies are generally similar on neighboring wells fracked at the same time. I looked at two frack reports and the frack reports are almost identical (at FracFocus). Wow, these are small fracks, less than 6 million gallons of water.

33-025-03140: 

• 5,418,936 gallons of water
• 45,221,021 pounds of water 
• water was 87.43% by mass
• 87.43% of ? = 45.221 million lbs
• 51,722,545 total pounds
• sand: 11.75%
• 11.75% of  51,722,545 total pounds = 6077399 lbs of sand
• my estimates seem to come in low, so my hunch is that about 8 million lbs of sand used in the frack; a relatively small frack by today's standards; or maybe "moderate" would be better adjective. Whatever.

So, we learned or noted several things from this exercise simply by noting that a great well had recently come off-line and the obvious question was why? What did we learn or note?

• yes, indeed, there has been recent activity in this area that is not shown by the NDIC map
• three wells have been completed and will report out in the near future (that data is available over at the NDIC but it's irrelevant to me, so I won't look it  up)
• we observed a neighboring well that was taken off-line for 18 days and when it came back on-line production jumped from 4,000 bbls / month to 18,000 bbls / month
• generally a well is taken off-line for a longer period of time if it is going to be re-fracked, suggesting this well was not re-fracked; on the other hand, the jump in production was so great, it's hard to believe it was not re-fracked -- perhaps a mini-re-frack? but I would expect FracFocus to have that data -- it does not
• the amount of water used was incredibly low -- only 5.5 million gallons of water; a typical EOG well in a different field would have used 10 million gallons 
• the amount of sand on a percentage basis was higher than what I normally see; I normally see about 8% sand by mass; this frack used almost 12% by mass
• FracFocus does not identify the size of the sand used; we will have to wait for the operator's report

We will learn a lot more when the wells come off the confidential list.
 
Also noted: #29737 was taken off line for 20 days in December, 2017, and 17 days in January, 2018. It will be another month before we see if that well was affected. #29737 is 211 feet east of #19246.