Saturday, July 20, 2019

Hey, How About This Well? Still Flowing Naturally -- EOG, Austin, Parshall Oil Field -- July 20, 2019

Note: a reader provided a series of replies to the last couple of posts. To make the replies easier to access, I have copied and re-posted those comments at this post

The well:
  • 25374, 1,414, EOG, Austin 39-3204H, Parshall, 60 stages, 14.6 million lbs, 1920 acres, t9/13; cum 1,0449,497 bbls 5/19; according to FracFocus, fracked from 7/6/2013 to 8/8/2013; went off-line as of 9/18; F; back on line as of 11/18; 
Still flowing naturally; not on a pump as of 5/19, latest data available.

There are several other "locations" in this section, but only one other production well, #17122, which is also a nice, short lateral, on a pump. See below the spreadsheet below.

Recent production:
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
BAKKEN5-20193152535231852587324918451
BAKKEN4-20193050435029802521023776960
BAKKEN3-201931589458259725173220132656
BAKKEN2-201928582458271082384222416971
BAKKEN1-2019317205719310325963243721087
BAKKEN12-201831766076772002528123789988
BAKKEN11-201817290727804371634015524553
BAKKEN10-20180000000
BAKKEN9-201800450000
BAKKEN8-2018315039519826824097172926313
BAKKEN7-2018315438545112324231870415031
BAKKEN6-2018305600564412124277227031090
BAKKEN5-201822400639641111645915855260
BAKKEN4-201830613360721102246121674303
BAKKEN3-201831649665631122296821969496
BAKKEN2-20182862096059992039619722220
BAKKEN1-201831696070091292207620797778

The other producing well in this section:
  • 17122, 581, EOG, Austin 23-32H, Parshall, t8/09; cum 669K 5/19; production profile of this well when the neighboring well was fracked:
    BAKKEN1-20143140794039125262524740
    BAKKEN12-20133143254270129259924480
    BAKKEN11-201329450345731782538237024
    BAKKEN10-2013316030607028231032643305
    BAKKEN9-20131941214109387197818840
    BAKKEN8-20130000000
    BAKKEN7-2013182666264398330232160
    BAKKEN6-20133048085158192582356730
    BAKKEN5-201331517348881976190594594
    BAKKEN4-20133052245224305000
    BAKKEN3-2013315689571422168266229442
    BAKKEN2-201328538753622006393618770
    BAKKEN1-201331629363382557354710495
    BAKKEN12-20123161996189231000

The Petro-Hunt USA 2D-3-1H Well In Charlson Oil Field, An Update -- July 20, 2019

Note: a reader provided a series of replies to the last couple of posts. To make the replies easier to access, I have copied and re-posted those comments at this post 

Back in early 2010, I posted this bit of trivia:
The most successful well to date in North Dakota sits in the Charlson: file #16059, the USA 2D-3-1H, a Petro-Hunt, LLC, well that was spudded in October, 2006. To date, it has produced 915,000 barrels of oil. That well targeted the Three Forks Sanish. [At $60/barrel = almost $55 million in about 3 years]. UPDATE: USA 2D-3-1H hit a record this past June, 2010: one million bbls of oil cumulative. 
I'm not exactly sure what that "most successful well to date" was based on. Other wells in North Dakota have out-produced #16059. Perhaps I meant the "most successful Bakken well to date." If that's what I meant, I doubt that is still true. Certainly other Bakken wells have out-produced this well (maybe I will check later). 

Whatever. It's been a great well. It was a very, very short lateral, and is still the only horizontal in that section. That won't last long: #36341 in that section is on the confidential list. Can't wait to see how that one plays out. It looks like it will be another short lateral that will parallel #16059 but in the opposite direction. Testing "halo effect"?

The well:
  • 16059, 729, Petro-Hunt, USA 2D-3-1H, Charlson field, t10/06; cum 1.727438 million bbls 5/19; still producing 4,000 bbls/month; it appears this well was never fracked (based on two corroborative forms in the file report); recent production:
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
BAKKEN5-20193144994432488731607316
BAKKEN4-20193040064016791684306815
BAKKEN3-20193141524166573734407128
BAKKEN2-20192837273720398717906984
BAKKEN1-20193142854285449900508789
BAKKEN12-20183142394232525787407658
BAKKEN11-20183041294538488781407772
BAKKEN10-20182434983460381787707877
BAKKEN9-20183037403831475947209472
BAKKEN8-20183137913871526958509585
BAKKEN7-20183138654091560933509335
BAKKEN6-20183041073793471891208912

FWIW: US CO2 Emissions To Drop In 2019

Faux environmentalists can ride this horse for decades:
  • climate changes are so subtle, "they" can say whatever they want; impossible to prove fake;
  • global warming / climate change / extreme weather has simply become a religious cult; it is not science; was never science;
  • atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise slowly for decades, maybe eventually plateau off but it will be long after most of those reading this will be long gone;
  • George Carlin had it right
Link here.


US emissions, from EIA link above, 1.5 billion metric tons:


The slope of that bar graph "curve" tells me that the faux environmentalists can ride this horse for decades. Emissions in 1Q19 (most recent quarter where data is available): just short of 1.4 billion metric tons; five years ago, 1Q14, emissions were just slightly above 1.4 billion metric tons -- and that's after putting a lot of coal miners out of work, and decades of wind/solar development.

USA Today ranked the top 25 countries by CO2 emissions from fossil fuels:
  • #1 - China: 9.8 billion metric tons
  • #2 - US: 5.3 billion metric tons
  • #6 - German: 0.8 billion metric tons
But look at this, change in CO2 emissions since 1992:
  • China: 270% (no typo)
  • US: 1.8% (essentially flat)
  • German: - 17% (wow)
CO2 emission intensity (CO2 emissions / GDP per capita):
  • US: 5.4 billion metric tons / $54K = 0.1
  • China: 9.8 billion metric tons / $15K = 0.7
  • Germany: 0.8 billion metric tons / $45K =  0.02
Germany, at 800 million metric tons is 5% of US and China combined.

China has an intensity of 35x that of Germany.
China has an intensity of 7x that of the US.

All Politics -- Let's See How Mainstream Media Handles This One -- July 20, 2019

To the best of my knowledge, President Trump has not interceded on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein, an old white man.

However, from The Daily Mail --


Doesn't seem to fit the profile of a white supremacist.

Tesla Selling Point: Re-Sale Value -- July 20, 2019

I could be wrong but I thought re-sale value was a huge selling point for Tesla.

The "official lowest" price for a Tesla Model 3 was $49,000 last summer (2018), multiple sources including this one.

July 20, 2019, from multiples sources, this via google: "prices for a Tesla Model 3 start at $35,000 before incentives."

So, before we even begin haggling, your Tesla that cost you $49,000 last year is now worth $35,000 (before incentives).

One word: ouch.

********************************
ISO Not So ISO

ISO New England:
  • 61% natural gas
  • 17% nuclear energy; maxed out at 3.3 GW
  • 6% oil  -- wow
  • 2% coal -- wow
But look at this, from NYC:
  • Long Island, Occasional-Cortex' backyard: $220
  • West of the city, West-A: $112
  • NYC-UJ: $73

$220 vs coal at $15? Long Island-K out to save the world. Can you imagine how much this would cost a high energy user like Amazon? Wow.  Occasional-Cortex saved Amazon from a debacle of Biblical magnitude.

Wow, wow, wow.

The utilities warned them.

MRO Almost Breaks All-Time IP Record In The Bakken -- July 20, 2019

The wells:
  • 34859, 4,748, MRO, Rochelle USA 21-17TFH,  API: 33-061-04222, Reunion Bay, t5/19; cum 41K over 18 days; extrapolates to 68,440 bbls over 30 days;
  • 34862, 6,026, MRO, Turkey Feet USA 41-17TFH, Reunion Bay, t5/19; cum 29K over 12 days; extrapolates to 71,010 bbls over 30 days;
  • 34861, 5,243, MRO, Atkinson USA 31-17TFH, Reunion Bay, t5/19; 29K over 14 days; extrapolates to 62,104 bbls over 30 days;
  • 34860, 7,889, MRO, Bruhn USA 21-17H, API: 33-061-04223; Reunion Bay, t5/19; cum 64K over 20 days; extrapolates to 96,615 bbls over 30 days;
  • 35323, 9,614, MRO, Driftwood USA 41-17H, Reunion Bay, t5/19; cum 32K over 10 days; extrapolates to 96,270 bbls over 30 days;
  • 34858, 4,866, MRO, Miriam USA 11-17H, Reunion Bay, t51/9; cum 40K over 20 days, extrapolates to 59,670 bbls over 30 days; 
  • 20050,
  • 20051,
The wells to the east:
19298,
19299,
35318,
35319,
35320,
35321,
35322,

The wells farther east:
34896,
34897,
34898,
34899,



From FracFocus:
  • 34859, 33-061-04222: 7,463,738 gallons of water (moderate amount, not out of hte ordinary); 90%water in the frack
  • 34860, 33-061-04223: 10,288,478 gallons of water (upper end, but not a record); 91% water; 
The graphics:






Really Nice Reporting And Headline From The Bismarck Tribune; Deserves A Shout-Out -- July 20, 2019

Re-posting. The original post was posted a few days ago; the update was added today.
Updates

July 20, 2019: a breath of fresh air. After the misleading headline and poor writing regarding a recent "pipeline leak/spill" (see original post), The Bismarck Tribune did a thousand-percent better with report of a second, similar leak, again east of Williston. Story here. Marked improvements:
  • headline clearly states it was "produced water," not oil
  • the lede provides very good description of location in general (3 miles southwest of Epping, and specifically (pastureland)
  • in the lede includes owner of the pipeline
  • leads with amount of leak in barrels (which we like but is not the industry standard) and then provides the industry standard (in gallons)
  • really, really good reporting with perfect headline
Original Post
 
The Bismarck Tribune has a headline today: "Williams County pipeline leak spills into Missouri River tributary." Two things the headline conveniently left out:
  • it was a "produced water" pipeline, not an oil pipeline (but yes, produced water probably has some oil in it)
  • the name of the tributary (all we got was "about 20 miles east of Williston; in this day and age, someone would have the exact GPS coordinates)
It appears the leak occurred "on/in" the ground and then an unknown amount of the produced water made its way to a tributary of the Missouri River; this is much different than a pipeline transiting (above, below, or through a waterway).

I'm glad these stories still make headlines: it tells me such spills are incredibly rare, to still get a headline above the fold on the front page.

This particular pipeline was owned by a midstream company involved in wastewater disposal; it was reported the same day it happened; and, regulators are already in place to observe the clean-up and mitigation.

My hunch: it will be a non-story by tomorrow, and we will be fortunate to get some type of follow-up through the Tribune
************************************** 
Only 123 Million Views
Tunak Tunak Tun, DahlerMehndi

Week 29: July 14, 2019 -- July 20, 2019

Top international non-energy story:

Top international energy story:
Top US non-energy story:

Top US energy story:
Top North Dakota non-energy story:
Top North Dakota energy story:
Geoff Simon's top North Dakota energy stories:
  • Natural gas constraints limiting crude oil production in North Dakota 
  • Work set to begin on Williams County wind farm,
  • Work on new Long X Bridge begins Monday; US Highway 85; south of Watford City; just south of entrance to North Unit, TR National Park
  • Williston airport (XWA) still on track for October opening
  • Persistent heavy rain
  • North Dakota Supreme Court sides with state in mineral royalty dispute 
  • Watford City voted the nicest place in North Dakota by Reader's Digest editors 
Director's Cut:
Operations:
Flaring:
Bakken economy:
Bakken economy:

Wind Project Soon To Break Ground -- In The Middle Of The Bakken -- July 20, 2019

Updates:

Later, 2:56 p.m. CT, from a reader:
Well, no actually not. More people are understanding that wind and solar power needs backup for the 70% of the time it's not producing electricity.
The latest hot button item for solving this problem is grid scale utility lithium battery storage. $100's of millions have already been spent worldwide, (including in surprise -- California), for this "new" technology (Exxon brought us lithium batteries 50 years ago).
Here's what the Manhattan Institute tells us about battery storage:
China already dominates global battery manufacturing and is on track to supply nearly two-thirds of all production by 2020.  The relevance for the new energy economy vision:
70% of China’s grid is fueled by coal today and will still be at 50% in 2040. This means that, over the life span of the batteries, there would be more carbon-dioxide emissions associated with manufacturing them than would be offset by using those batteries to, say, replace internal combustion engines.
Comment: so, batteries don't solve the problem either. This, ironically, will be the argument that renewables (wind and solar) will use when explaining why they won't include battery back-up in their projects. "Because batteries" don't solve the problem."

From Geoff Simon's top ND energy stories this past week:
Work set to begin on Williams County wind far, Tradewind Energy; 300-MW Aurora Wind Farm; northeaster Williams County; up to 121 turbines spanning 44,000 acres; centered five miles northwest of Tioga; range in size from 2.0 to 4.8 MW; includes construction of a 20-mile 345 KV transmission line; will terminate at Basin Electric Power Cooperative's Tande Substation east of Tioga in Mountrail County; $385 million.
************************************
On Another Note -- 

Link here. Provided by a reader.


But it makes us feel good.