EUR Type Curves: Bakken Vs Permian -- August 12, 2019

Updates

August 13, 2019: a reader responded to my rambling note below. The reader brought up some incredibly important notes, some points that I had forgotten, and thoughts on the Rystad analysis.  Most important:

• right now, the length of laterals in the Bakken are longer than the "average" horizontal in the Permian (which, by the way, would lead to another discussion, but for another day; so comparing the Permian with the Bakken is comparing apples with oranges; and, 
• the CXO Dominator project was a test project; testing to see what optimum spacing might be in that area of the Permian

Here is the reader's remarks:

I wanted to comment on your latest post on Permian and Bakken EURs - in my opinion one needs to have more context before making any assumptions from those graphics: 

1) The Dominator Project referenced in the Rystad graphic are 1 mile long laterals that costs 40-50% less than the typical 2 mile laterals in the Bakken or 2 mile Permian so payout isn't apples to apples 

2) The Rystads type curve graphic looks extremely misleading. This is a very misleading graphic for attempting to prove Permian shale wells aren't meeting expectations - where did these expectations originate to begin with ? 

Type curves in tight oil are driven by spacing so without knowing the spacing assumption behind the Rystad Type Curves, there is no way to find this credible. 

Permian operators are still experimenting with spacing and this latest "Dominator Project" from Concho was a spacing experiment that didn't pass the economic test. They were testing the upper bounds of spacing and it didn't work out but from what I've seen, they in no way were claiming this spacing was verified as optimal or a base assumption for their acreage

Could spend hours discussing this topic but all I have for now

This will be re-posted later as a stand-alone post. It's that important.

Original Post 

I never tire of comparing the big three, the EIA dashboards:

• EIA pdf, Bakken: https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/drilling/pdf/bakken.pdf
• EIA, pdf, Permian: https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/drilling/pdf/permian.pdf
• EIA, pdf, Eagle Ford: https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/drilling/pdf/eagleford.pdf

Lynn Helms once said that going head-to-head, mano-a-mano, Three Forks wells might be better than Bakken wells.

I don't know the Permian well enough to really say, but based on very limited data, it certainly appears that going head-to-head, mano-a-mano, the better Bakken/Three Forks wells might be better than Permian wells; and, taken as a whole, the Bakken might be better on a "per acre" basis if that makes sense. I don't know. Just idle rambling.

What got me to thinking about this (again), were these graphics over at #OOTT this morning:

The graphs above are for CXO in the Permian.

I am not aware of having seen similar graphs in the Bakken.

On the contrary, it seems that "EUR type curves" in the Bakken show/showed better production with current spacing. Spacing does appear to vary across the Bakken which, of course, makes sense. Those who have followed the Bakken from the very beginning are very aware how the EUR type curves have changed over time. An excellent example of a Bakken EUR type curve from November, 2016:

Clearly, in the better Bakken, operators are "demanding" 100K wells in the first top three months of production.