Saturday, March 10, 2018

Weeks 9 And 10: February 25, 2018 -- March 10, 2018

I guess I forgot to post the top stories for week 9.

The big non-energy stories this past week:
The Top Bakken Stories

MRO is reporting huge wells in Bailey oil field
Random look at a re-entry, re-fracked CLR Bridger well
QEP reports five nice wells
Slawson with permits for a 7-well pad in Elm Tree
Enerplus plans more growth in the Bakken
Average daily production per well improves in the Bakken
WPX to focus on the Bakken and the Permian
Huge jump in production in this well; no re-frack data

Random update of an XTO Kaye well following a neighboring frack 

Bakken economy
North Dakota ranks #1 in quality of life 
Two new elementary schools for Williston; addition to Williston High School 

By Section

155-96-17, Brooklyn, CLR, Rolf

154-100-24, Avoca, CLR, Rader

154-94-17, Alkali Creek, Krieger, and Kulczak

154-91-11, Sanish, Murex, three big wells;

153-97-8, Banks, Whiting, Hellandsaas and Frick 

153-94-35, Hess, Alkali Creek, multiple pads; EN-Sorenson wells

153-92-15, Sanish, Sinclair, Uran wells;

153-91-27, Sanish, Whiting, Liffrig / Fladeland

153-91- 91, Sanish, Whiting, Olson et al, 

152-99-25, Banks, CLR, Lansing

152-98-31, Banks, Oasis, Hagen / Hagen Banks wells

152-94-35, Antelope-Sanish, MRO pad

152-93-9, Four Bears, Bruin, Fort Berthold wells

152-91-11, Parshall, EOG, Van Hook wells

152-91-10, Sanish, Whiting, Pennington, Sorenson, Tollefson, etc.

152-93-30, Reunion Bay, MRO, USA wells; also, here;

151-98-18, Siverston, Oasis, Johnsrud Federal

151-95-8, Blue Buttes, Hess, BB-Federal;

151-95-5: Blue Buttes, Hess, BB-Chapin and BB-Federal

151-94-26, Antelope, Bruin E&P, Fort Berthold wells;

151-94-17; Antelope-Sanish, EOG, Clarks Creek; Enerplus, Danks

151-94-8, EOG, ERF; 

151-94-14, Reunion Bay, MRO, Jones/Lun/Others

151-93-20, Martha Grube USA, et al, MRO, Reunion Bay;

151-93-8, Becky USA, et al, MRO, Reunion Bay;

151-93-2, Tommerdahl USA, et al, MRO, Reunion Bay; 

151-92-3, Big Bend, Slawson, Pike Federal;

150-93-12, Tara Jo, et al; MRO, Reunion Bay;

150-93-9, Flynn, et al; MRO, Reunion Bay;

150-92-28, Van Hook, QEP, MHA wells;

149-94-23, Squaw Creek, WPX, Badger, Beaver, Warrior, Minot Grady;

149-93-30: Mandaree oil field; Enerplus, "cat" wells

148-96-5: Lost Bridge oil field; Lost Bridge; Deep Creek Federal/Jorgenson

147-96-36: Corral Creek; CLR, State Weydahl

147-96-34: Oakdale; CLR, Whitman

147-93-14: Moccasin Creek oil field; MRO, 

147-93-8: Moccasin Creek oil field; Enerplus, "cat" wells

146-94-14: Bailey oil field; MRO, incredibly good wells

145-94-14: Bailey oil field; MRO, starting to see activity, 8/19; Lily Reiss, re-fracked;

147-96-36 -- Corral Creek -- CLR -- Weydahl And Brandvik Wells -- March 10, 2018


December 2, 2020: production data updated. 

October 19, 2019: production data updated; many SI/NC wells now completed and reporting

  • 32813, 1,978, CLR, State Weydahl 9-36H, Corral Creek, t12/18; cum 327K 10/20;
March 20, 2019: link here --
  • 32812, 2,098, CLR, State Weydahl 8-36H1, 55 stages; 14.6 million lbs; Corral Creek, t12/18; cum 475K 10/20; spacing unit: four sections/2560 acres; from FracFocus: 12.9 million gallons of water, 87.447% water by mass;
March 11, 2019: at least one Brandvik well was highlighted in CLR's February, 2019, corporate presentation as one of its top recent wells;

January 3, 2019: production updates and also below.

November 1, 2018: data for wells updated (see below); wells have been fracked but still on SI/NC list; FracFocus shows that the new wells were fracked with less than one million gallons of water. A moderate frack is 5 million gallons of water; a typical frack is 10 million gallons of water in the Bakken. These small fracks are mysterious.

June 18, 2018: a reader noted that several of the CLR Weydahl and Brandvik wells in the graphic below have been moved to abandoned (AB) status. In the graphic below, the Weydahl State wells run south; the Brandvik wells run north. From the reader:
Quick update on something I found this morning in Dunn... 6 wells now off track and  delayed by CLR in Dunn.

CLR - 147-96-36 - DUNN - DMR NDIC CHG’D status of 5 State Weydahl & Brandvik wells & 1 Jim Creek Pletan well 146-95-7 from NCW to AB status.
I looked at those wells and other wells in the area and noted that there are several other wells in the area that were taken off line by CLR in the last couple of months. 

I only looked at one file report regarding one of the involved wells. There is a letter from the NDIC dated June 13, 2018, in the file report for #30367. The letter states in part:
Please be advised that the NDIC discontinued the non-complete waivers (NCW) option for wells effective December 31, 2017.
Wells approved for NCW status were allowed to continue in that status for a period of one year from the date the status was last approved.
The NCW status was last approved June 12, 2017, for the wells listed on the attached page.
The NEW status is hereby revoked for each well and each well has been placed on abandoned (AB) status. 
But this is key, and is in the second to last paragraph in the letter:
  • Please submit plans to bring the wells back into compliance with ... code.
I'm going out on a limb here but my hunch is that this is simply an administrative "kick" to get CLR to move on the wells that were in NCW status which expired. I may be wrong, but I see this fairly often -- or I think I see similar examples fairly often -- in the daily activity report.

Two things: the state is giving CLR an opportunity to bring these wells into compliance -- i.e., complete them and bring them into production; and, AB is not the same thing as PA (permanently abandoned. This is another good example of the importance of a good working relationship between the oil industry and the state regulators, and everything I see suggests the relationship is working just fine.

Original Post 

: from a reader --
Weydahl was the local banker in Killdeer; never ranched nor farmed. However, he was known to take some mineral rights as "spiff" for a land, cattle or equipment loan.  I'll bet there are a lot of ND stories like this.  (The local attorney did the same...)
A dozen nice wells; I believe he passed away long before he saw any
For newbies: drilling units in the Bakken vary. Some are 640 acres; currently, the standard drilling unit is 1,280 acres. Overlapping drilling units of 2,560 acres are becoming the standard to capture "orphan" oil along section lines. For various operational reasons one occasionally sees 5,120-acre drilling units. With all the various sizes in drilling units, it's difficult to keep track of or "figure out" well density. We'll come back to this later.

In addition to the size of the drilling units, the "Bakken" has several payzones of interest. The middle Bakken is the most familiar and is pretty much found throughout the "Bakken" in North Dakota. The middle Bakken (dolomite), right now, is the only "Bakken" formation being targeted (with some rare exceptions, but there is also the upper Bakken and the lower Bakken (shale). In addition, there is the "Three Forks" which has a smaller geographic footprint than the middle Bakken but is still "widespread" in the "Bakken." Some folks talk about the Three Forks as "pinching out" around the circumference of the "Bakken." There are four payzones of interest in the Three Forks: the upper bench (T1); the second bench (T2); the third bench (T3); and, the fourth bench (T4). Everyone agrees that T1, T2, and T3 are worth exploring. Not much has been said about T4.

In the very, very best "Bakken" some suggest as many as six horizontals will target each of the four formations/sub-formations: middle Bakken, T1, T2, and T3.

In the very, very best "Bakken" some suggest, at a minimum, (four times six =) 24 horizontal wells are likely to be running through any given section. Whether a given horizontal is spaced for 640 acres, 1,280 acres, 3,256 acres or more, some envision 24 horizontal wells running through any given section (640 acres) in the very, very best "Bakken." Some suggest as many as 40 horizontal wells could run through a given section.

How does one get to 40 horizontal wells running through one section? When one looks at a section from a golden eagle's point of view, one can imagine ten (10) horizontal wells running parallel through each of the four payzones (four times ten = 40).

In fact, some argue that in the very, very, very best "Bakken" even more than ten horizontal wells might be placed for some, but maybe not all, payzones. This was talked about frequently in older posts, various "arrays" are tagged at the list of tags at the bottom of the blog.

In a general sense, the above is accurate. There is much, much more to the story. Not everyone agrees with my exuberance but so far, after following the Bakken since 2007, it seems to hold true. 

For all: it is becoming increasingly difficult to track how various areas of the Bakken -- down to the granularity of a section (640 acres) is doing. Or how to track what various operators are doing in various areas of the Bakken -- down to the granularity of a section (640 acres).

I used to do it by "families." See link at sidebar at the right to see what I mean by families. I assume I will continue to add families to the list and continue to use this method.

However, a reader suggests if I want to track the Bakken at a more granular level, at a level of a particular section (640 acres) regardless of the size of all the drilling units, I should track it by section, using this format for easier searching: township-range-section (numbers and dashes only). For example, tracking section 36 in township 147N-96W, I would simply call it "147-96-36."

I've been using a variation of that method for summarizing the monthly dockets and the daily activity report, and I am not sure if I will change the format for those reports. For consistency, I may. Time will tell.

But now, when placing an NDIC graphic on a post, I will put the new format in the subject line (when I remember).

Today, I am looking at section 147-96-36. The graphic:

The wells:
    Most are still SI/NC, but production runs are starting to show. On January 12, 2019, some of these wells that were SI/NC went back to conf. I was told early on when I was blogging that that "never" happens. Almost across the board, these wells are extrapolating to 50,000 bbls/well the first full month. Older wells are showing jump in production.
    • 32815, 2,242, CLR, Brandvik 9-25H, Corral Creek, FracFocus, 4/1/18 - 4/27/2018; 548,091 gallons of water; 88% water by weight; t12/18; cum 377K 10/20; 60 stages; 10.8 million lbs; 71K in one month;
      PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
    • 32816, 1,272, CLR, Brandvik 10-25H2, Corral Creek, 60 stages, 7.7 million lbs, t12/18; cum 367K 10/20;
      PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
    • 32817, 1,632, CLR, Brandvik 11-25H, Corral Creek, 60 stages; 10.8 million lbs, t12/18; cum 301K 10/20;
      PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
    • 32818, 1,176, CLR, State Weydahl 10-36H2, Corral Creek, 56 stages; 10.6 million lbs, t12/18; cum 314K 10/20; off line as of 1/19; still off line as of 4/19; back on line 6/19; huge jump in production;
      PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
    • 32819, 1,392, CLR, State Weydahl 11-36H, Corral Creek, 56 stages, t12/18; cum 333K 10/20;
      PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
    • 30365, 2,528, CLR, Brandvik 5-25H1, Corral Creek, t1/19; cum 423K 10/20; huge well; almost 50K one month (2/19);
    • 30366, 2,558, CLR, Brandvik 6-25H, Corral Creek, 4 sections, 55 stages; 10.1 million lbs, t1/19; cum 307K 10/20; huge well; 50K+ in 2/19;
    • 30367, 2,318, CLR, Brandvik 7-25H2, Corral Creek, 4 sections, 82 stages, 10.1 million lbs, t1/19; cum 248K 10/20; see this post; huge well; 40K+ in 1/19; offline as of 3/19; remains offline through 4/19;
    • 30362, 2,575, CLR, State Weydahl 5-36H1, Corral Creek, t1/19; cum 430K 10/20; FracFocus, 6/18/2018 - 7/11/2018, 679,000 gallons of water; 87.5% water by weight; 17K 1/19; huge well; 48K in 2/19;
    • 30363, 2,446, CLR, State Weydahl 6-36H, Corral Creek, t1/19; cum 165K 10/20; FracFocus, 6/18/2018 - 7/11/2018; 662,920 gallons of water; 87.4% water by weight; 18K 1/19;
    • 30364, 2,988, CLR, State Weydahl 7-36H2, Corral Creek, t1/19; cum 227K 10/20; Frac Focus, 6/18/2018 - 7/11/2018; 453,948 gallons of water; 87.8% water by weight; 39K 1/19;
    • 32812, 2,098, CLR, State Weydahl 8-36H1, Corral Creek, starting to produce, FracFocus, 743,606 gallons of water; 87.4% water by weight; t12/18; cum 475K 10/20; 51K 1/19; huge well;
    • 32813, 1,978, CLR, State Weydahl 9-36H, Corral Creek, beginning to produce, 9/18; FracFocus, 5/23/2018 - 6/17/18; 749,087 gallons of water (no typo); 87.3% water by weight; t12/18; cum 327K 10/20; 50K 12/18; huge well;
    • 32814, 2,110, CLR, Brandvik 8-25H1, Corral Creek, t1/19; cum 354K 10/20; FracFocus, 5/23/2018 - 6/17/18; 568,755 gallons of water (no typo); 87.4% water by weight; 59 stages; 10.8 million lbs; 53K 1/19; huge well; 54K 1/19;
    • 32818, 1,176, CLR, State Weydahl 10-36H2, Corral Creek, t12/18; cum 314K 10/20; off line as of 1/1; still off line as of 4/19;
    • PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
    • 32819, 1,392, CLR, State Weydahl 11-36H, Corral Creek, FracFocus, 3/1/2018 - 3/29/2018; 767,682 gallons of water; 87.8% water by weight; 56 stages; t12/18; cum 333K 10/20;
      PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare

    • 23785, 400, CLR, State Weydahl 3-36H1, Corral Creek, t8/13; cum 384K 4/20; production has reached a plateau; ready for a mini-frack or a new full frack; waiting to see result of neighboring fracks; off-line as of 5/18; huge jump in production in 4/18; off line as of 6/18; another jump in production 2/19;
    • 23786, 691, CLR, State Weydahl 2-36H, Corral Creek, t8/13; cum 412K 10/20;ditto, #23785; off-line since 2/18; remains off line as of 11/18; back on line 4/19; looks like nice jump in production;
    • 29555, 1,497, CLR, State Weydahl 4-36H1, Corral Creek, t7/15; cum 459K 10/20; this well is clearly better than the two wells drilled in 2013; two years younger than the 2013 wells and it had already surpassed the production of each of the 2013 wells; not yet a candidate for a mini-frack or a new full frack; waiting to see result of neighboring fracks; see full production profile at this post. API: 33-025-02680. According to FracFocus, last fracked in June, 2015; off line as of 1/19; still off line through 4/19 though one day in 4/19;
      Now, for a little gedanken: if you were a geologist put in charge of developing a one-section parcel of land in the "Bakken," a 640-acre section. How would you proceed? I assume the first thing one needs to determine is the number of wells that will be needed to ultimately "drain" the entire 640-acre section, all four or five formations/sub-formations of the "Bakken/Three Forks."

      Then, once one determines the number of wells needed, one would present that to the governing board, and if the board agreed, then the geologist would "farm out" that section to the geologists working for him/her, and would tell each to start designing a specific well.

      The lead geologist would identify each needed well by some name, for example Weydahl #1, Wehdahl #2, Weydahl #3, etc.

      It appears that CLR is numbering the State Weydahl wells chronologically, regardless of the formation (H, H1, H2). That's unfortunate because that doesn't give us any indication how many wells for each payzone (subtotal) and all wells in total will be drilled.

      Right now, the numbering system takes us through four middle Bakken wells; four T1 wells; and two T2 wells. Clearly there will be many more than four middle Bakken horizontals running through this section.

      EOG numbers their wells a bit differently in the Sanish. Looking at their numbering system, one gets an idea how many wells EOG may be planning to drill in any given section.

      Idle chatter: a reader noted that CLR seems to put "all" its wells on SI/NC status as soon as they are drilled. My thoughts, not ready for prime time:
      It seems about 20 - 50% of wells coming off confidential list (all operators) are DUCs (SI/NC).
      CLR no longer uses any hedging. My hunch is that they are "hedging" differently.
      Now that the state gives them two years to complete a well, simply fulfill all contracts with refiners/pipelines, but once the contracts are met, put all new wells on SI/NC status and wait to complete them when necessary (to meet contract requirements) and/or when the spot price is right or when another operator needs oil to fulfill a contract and has come up short.
      Two years is a long, long time in the oil business and CLR may be playing this to its advantage. Remember, it was the oil industry that sought the two-year rule (that produced all the DUCs) during the Saudi Surge -- never let a crisis go to waste -- now that the Saudi Surge is over, and price of WTI has recovered, the state could go back to the one-year rule, but my hunch is that "everyone" likes the two-year rule.
      Why not maximize profits/royalties? And if two-year rule works, why change it back to one year?

      Update On The Canadian KinderMorgan TransMountain Pipeline -- Now It's Getting Serious - Wine Boycotts -- March 10, 2018

      Update on the Canadian's Kinder Morgan TransMountain pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia that is being held up by British Columbia. Burnaby is back in the news. I've blogged about Burnaby before; here is one link. With a name like that, I keep thinking Burnaby is in Australia. Whatever.

      A reader writes:
      A relative of ours lives in yuppie, high-rise, water-view Vancouver - so she's surrounded by urbane "Keep it in the ground" pacifist socialists.  She's lived and worked around the world and has a great grasp on the fact that when the USA sneezes, Canada catches cold. 
      About a month ago she said it would take an army to get the expanded TransMountain (KinderMorgan) pipeline through Burnaby to the coast.  Just a couple days ago, she totally re-read her tea leaves and said it will happen sooner than she ever thought.

      Background tidbit: There's been a tiff between Alberta's Governor Rachel Notley (Alberta wants to ship oil, obviously) and the governor of BC.  Alberta had banned the import of BC wines -- 😏

      Trudeau has oddly enough cut through some of Burnaby's red tape in the permitting process.

      Anyway - apparently there was some well managed publicity that seemed quite effective.  The gist was that USA was supporting the obstruction of Canadian pipeline expansion in an attempt to sell US oil and decrease Canadian competition.  There was also other publicity along the same lines blaming the Russians.  She summarized by saying that now the argument is framed such that if you don't support pipeline expansion you aren't a patriot.

      I chuckled and told her throughout all the twists and turns of DAPL, we had never blamed the Canadians.
      So, that's the background. Today, an article from Alberta is ready to decide on the nuclear option -- stop shipping oil to the refineries in British Columbia! And it turns out the vignette related above is absolutely accurate -- right down to the "wine embargo." From the linked article:
      Alberta’s government may be considering a suspension of crude oil shipments to British Columbia in the latest episode of what is turning into a drama series starring Canada’s biggest oil producer and its neighbor who wants to stop the extension of a crude oil pipeline to its coast.
      In the provincial government’s Speech from the Throne, Alberta’s Lieutenant Governor Lois Mitchell said that all options for retaliation against B.C.’s opposition to the Trans Mountain expansion are on the table. Mitchell recalled a decision by a former Alberta PM in the early 1980s to reduce oil flows to refineries in eastern Canada by 15 percent in reaction to the federal government’s National Energy Program that Alberta saw as a threat to its energy industry.
      [BC took action to stop the pipeline.] In retaliation, Alberta announced a boycott on B.C. wine imports and on electricity imports. B.C. changed its mind about a proposal to change the rules for shipping oil through its territory that would have reduced oil flows for the duration of a study on oil leak response mechanisms. The study would have taken about a couple of years and many saw the proposal as a stalling tactic.
      The federal government, meanwhile, has so far proved incapable of making the two provinces kiss and make up. At a recent meeting with the public, PM Justin Trudeau reiterated that Ottawa stood behind the Trans Mountain expansion, and that has been about it from the referee.
      With such a history, it was only a matter of time for Alberta to strike back with something bigger than a wine boycott.
      I never realized the BC wine industry had that much influence. Truly amazing.

      Update On Governor Moonbeam's Bullet Train -- One Can Read The Writing On The Wall -- Simply Pouring Money Down A Hole -- March 10, 2018

      Updates to the California Bullet Train are tracked here

      This was the last update regarding the proposed "bullet train" between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
      From The St Louis Dispatch, January 16, 2018:
      • estimated cost for first phase climbed by 35% this week to $10.6 billion
      • first phase: 119 miles; Central Valley
      • entire project now projected at $67 billion; when voters approved project in 2008, project estimated to cost $40 billion
      That was just two months ago. Wow. Now, today, this update from The Los Angeles Times:
      • the price of the California bullet train project jumped sharply
      • the headline: the total cost is now projected to be $77.3 billion
      • in fact, it's worse -- that's just low-balling; the "PR" folks didn't want to headline the fact that the "final" bill could be as high as $98.1 billion, which, of course, rounded is $100 billion
      • state population: 40 million 
      • still only $2,500 per each California legal resident
      Date of completion:
      • partial operation: no sooner than 2029 -- four years later than the previous projection
      • segment from San Francisco to Bakersfield (are you kidding?)
      • full system not operational until 2033
      The only question Californians have: how much money will be spent on this project before it's finally scrapped?

      If you read the article, that's essentially what the writer is asking.