Pages

Saturday, October 12, 2019

ShaleProfile -- Update Through April, 2019

Link here.

The link will take you to a "commercial" site; lots of stuff behind a paywall, but the stuff that is free is worth reading.

I noted one particular item that caught my interest. It has to do with "well productivity."

Some direct quotes from the linked article:
In the comments section at the bottom of this post, I will comment on some recent articles that questioned whether well productivity is stalling in the Permian.

Oil production from horizontal wells in these states grew to close to 7 million bo/d in April (after upcoming revisions), setting a new record. That would represent a y-o-y growth of 1.3 million bo/d, but the rate at which production is increasing has slowed down since the end of last year.

Also here you can see that well productivity increased significantly over the years, and is still going up, although the rate of growth is going down. But what if you normalize for the lateral length, which has increased in almost all of the basins?
The current report is focused on the Permian. The author writes that it will post an update on the Bakken when the next Director's Cut is released next week.

Since about 2010, "all" Bakken wells are drilled with 9,000-foot horizontals, the "standard" Bakken long lateral, cutting through two sections (1280-acres). Horizontal lengths have not been standardized in the Permian based on what is reported at DrillingInfo.

I'm sure the folks at ShaleProfile will "normalize" something for the Bakken to make their point, but anecdotally I see ever-increasing productivity from Bakken wells. The same is seen at the EIA "dashboards":

EIA dashboards:
Wow, wow, wow. I haven't looked at this in a long, long time. This is incredible.

To get to the spreadsheet:
This is huge.

I followed this data for years, posting updates every so often. And then about two years ago I quit tracking it for various reasons. Mostly because I wasn't interested in the data any more; I understood what was going on. Remember, the purpose of the blog is to help me understand the Bakken; it's not about capturing all the Bakken data or archiving it all. Once I understand something about the Bakken, I often lose interest.

But look at this: during the boom, in the early days of the Bakken and continuing into 2013, on a "daily oil per well" basis, the wells were setting records, as high as 140 bbls/day/well across the entire Bakken (including all the old wells and the dreaded Bakken decline rate).

Then starting in early 2016, "daily oil per well" dropped below 100 bbls/day and gradually leveled off at about 90 bbls/day. I assumed it would go lower and lower as older Bakken wells grew older and older.

Had the "daily oil per well" continued to drop we would have seen any number of "negative" stories about the Bakken. I would have become depressed.

But out of curiosity, after seeing the ShaleProfile report today, I was curious. What does the "Bakken daily oil per well" show?

Wow, wow, wow. The Bakken is back above 100 bbls/day per well.

That's huge. Folks don't realize this. This was not supposed to happen.

Almost no Bakken wells are abandoned. There are thousands of Bakken stripper welsl; thousands of Bakken wells that are producing less than 500 bbls/month -- that's less than 20 bbls/day/well. It would seem impossible for the few wells that start production each month to "offset" these old, old, old wells.

One would expect the overall Bakken daily oil per well to keep falling. But to see the number turn the corner (from 94) and bounce back to 104 is, to say the least, quite incredible.

Anecdotally, I've noticed how incredible the wells are -- MRO, CLR, WLL, WPX -- incredible  work but I never expected this:


When did we last see numbers above 100 bbls/well/day? Back in 2015. Four years ago.

Peak oil? What peak oil?

Hubbert.

And the wells are costing much less now (2019) than they did in 2015.

One last thing. Up above I wrote:
Almost no Bakken wells are abandoned. There are thousands of Bakken stripper welsl; thousands of Bakken wells that are producing less than 500 bbls/month -- that's less than 20 bbls/day/well. It would seem impossible for the few wells that start production each month to "offset" these old, old, old wells.
Know what else is interesting?

The old, old, old Bakken wells don't get worse, and worse, and worse. Most of them level off / plateau off at 300 to 500 bbls/month. (Meanwhile, the new wells simply get better and better).

But some of the old, old, old Bakken wells jump in production (halo effect; parent-child uplift).

My hunch is that "Bakken daily oil per well" will be fodder for Bakken naysayers, but I'm not sure.

This could be quite interesting.

4 comments:

  1. As you noted, daily oil per well is a confusing metric because it confounds well age (a population feature) with well productivity at a given time in life. For instance, if you have NO change in average well producuvity, no refracks, no halo effect (not saying this is the case, but as a thought experiment for a simple case), you will still see changes in oil per well over time, just based on population dynamics. The drop in oil/well after 2015 and then reversed in 2018 can be explained purely based on the drop in new completions after the crash and then the reversal to getting more completions (since the boom).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree completely. What amazes me is that daily oil per well is not trending toward 30 bbls/day. Go back to the NDIC spreadsheet and go back to the 1960s or thereabouts.

      The "word on the street" is that Bakken wells have this horrendous decline rate, go to zero, and one needs to keep drilling to "maintain." In fact, despite all these old wells and more old wells remaining on line every day, the daily production per well actually increased.

      I truly never expected to see that. Repeating myself, I expected daily oil production per well to trend to 30 bbls per day.

      By the way, this NDIC spreadsheet only considers active wells; taking old wells off line will improve the overall production number. This number would be even more amazing if all "stripper" wells were removed from the statistics.

      Delete
  2. Yes, looking at the Bakken will show an area with minimal change in lateral length. Thus improvements are not from that lever. You can normalize by frac size, I guess.

    It's not clear to me this normalizing is the right way to think about the problem, especially if your answer from the normalizing is the wells aren't really getting better. After all, learning to do bigger fracs (or them getting cheaper, which is similar issue), is a form of technology improvement.

    Heck, even getting longer laterals is a form of improvement. You weren't doing it before, after all. Yes, you do chew up more land. But it does enable wells in more mrginal areas (or at lower prices) also.

    I'm not 100% against normalizing. I'm not 100% for it either. Think there are insights either way. For that matter, there are other features (such as spacing density) that will affect per well metrics and land utilization (EUR/acre). But these are rarely normalized. (CLR has done some nice unit EUR calcs in density spacing pilots and some companies have mentioned "upspacing" to improve per well results. But I've never seen the shaleprofile author/commenters discuss spacing density.

    In addition, any per well metric ignores the efficiency improvements in rig speed. Again, I'm not 100% in favor of per well productivity or per rig. You have to look at each for insights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice note. Thank you.

      With regard to normalizing -- frack stages and amount of proppant -- this is another arena in which Wall Street analysts are making things too simplistic.

      I have several posts on better completion strategies, and it's not simply "more sand."

      Delete

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