Updates
Later, 9:22 a.m. CT: I made way too many errors in original post. I've left the comments in place, but have removed my terrible arithmetic. No excuses for all my errors. Thank you to all for pointing them out.
Original Post
Disclaimer: I often make typographical and/or factual errors. If this is important to you go to the source.
From the October, 2019, hearing dockets:
Case (not permit) 28055, CLR, Elm Tree-Bakken, on an existing 2560-acre unit, sections 2/3/10/11-153-94, 27 wells; McKenzie and Mountrail countiesThe graphics:
Existing wells: see this post -- one was a second bench Three Forks well; the other was a first bench Three Forks well --
- 32605, 1,995, CLR, Charolais North Federal 1-3H1, t9/16; cum 548K 10/18; SWNW 26-154-94, 2200' FNL and 492' FWL, Elm Tree, 24,741', 9-5/8 inch, 46 stages, 10 million lbs; 24,741 feet; surface hole in section 26-154-94; bottom hole in section 10-153-94; API: 33-061-03938, according to FracFocus, it was fracked 8/7/17 - 8/14/16, with 9.1 million gallons of water; water, 88% of proppant by mass; sand 11% of proppant by mass, the first bench of the Three Forks, t6/19; cum 637K 7/19; less than three years old;
- 32606, 2,305, CLR, Brangus North 1-2H2/Brangus Federal 1-2H1, SWNW 26-154-94, 2200' FNL and 537' FWL, Elm Tree, 24,628', 9-5/8 inch, 46 stages; 10 million lbs; 24,942 feet, API 33-061-03939; according to FracFocus, it was fracked 7/30/16 - 8/7/17, with 8.6 million gallons of water; water, 88% of proppant by mass; sand 11% of proppant by mass, the second bench of the Three Forks, t9/16; cum 613K 7/19; less than three years old;
Your math seems off. 2 miles is 10,560 feet. 27 wells would give an average spacing of 391 ft. Maybe a little less with setbacks.
ReplyDeleteGiven, they are doing several benches and probably wineracking, I don't think 400 ft spacing is so crazy.
Also, the parent wells showed high results. This usually means you can/should develop the prospect at tighter spacing. Even with some drop-off from competition, the marginal wells are still economic. (Conversely, poorer areas should be developed at wider spacing.)
You are very, very correct. I am wrong. Forgot about all the benches. Sorry, my bad.
DeleteThe number of benches is not the point. Even just at a single layer, the math gives you 391 foot spacing. (2*5280)/27 = 391.
DeleteI think you are mixing up acres/well with ft of spacing. 2560/27 -> little under 90 ACRES/well. Not feet of spacing.
ReplyDeleteTo get the feet of spacing, you take the width (2 miles wide or 10560 ft) and divide by wells. So (2*5280)/27 -> little under 400 ft spacing.
Was trying to figure out how you got 90 ft spacing. Yards versus feet doesn't do it. You are mixing up feet spacing, versus acres.
FWIW, I would stick to feet spacing. That's the physically meaningful metric for density of drilling up units. Works regardless of the length of the wells. Acres/well, works for verticals but gets screwed up for horizontals.
And the number of benches has nothing to do with this.
Sophia needs to help you on laying out the horizontals in a unit. ;-)
Okay.
ReplyDelete