Note: I did this relatively quickly and there may be more content / typographical errors than usual.
The Bakken never ceases to amaze me.
I was updating the Hess "SC-4WX-153-98-3130" in Banks oil field when I noticed some subtle changes in the production profiles over the past few months.
Going to the map, I was unable to find any explanation for the change in production profiles, specifically no new wells and no new completions, at least that was easily noticeable.
But I was curious. If one finds small production changes in new wells, one might find significant changes in older wells.
Fortunately, there was an old well in the area of interest.
The well:
- 20222, 873, Hess, 3WX 3-1H, Banks, t9/12; cum 303K 11/21;
Full production is posted here.
Here is the months of interest:
BAKKEN | 1-2021 | 31 | 4875 | 4742 | 4620 | 8582 | 7610 | 662 |
BAKKEN | 12-2020 | 31 | 3945 | 4137 | 3301 | 6818 | 5885 | 623 |
BAKKEN | 11-2020 | 20 | 2960 | 2820 | 2267 | 4404 | 4098 | 113 |
BAKKEN | 10-2020 | 28 | 4012 | 4174 | 3403 | 6637 | 6290 | 75 |
BAKKEN | 9-2020 | 29 | 5619 | 5353 | 5228 | 8930 | 5051 | 3589 |
BAKKEN | 8-2020 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 7-2020 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 6-2020 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 5-2020 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 4-2020 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 3-2020 | 4 | 53 | 195 | 26 | 41 | 0 | 35 |
BAKKEN | 2-2020 | 11 | 136 | 236 | 152 | 154 | 71 | 48 |
BAKKEN | 1-2020 | 6 | 877 | 709 | 101 | 1242 | 1189 | 1 |
BAKKEN | 12-2019 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 11-2019 | 6 | 205 | 485 | 44 | 229 | 138 | 84 |
BAKKEN | 10-2019 | 11 | 886 | 1173 | 699 | 1218 | 0 | 1116 |
BAKKEN | 9-2019 | 11 | 1220 | 891 | 331 | 1604 | 0 | 1513 |
BAKKEN | 8-2019 | 5 | 68 | 0 | 0 | 49 | 0 | 40 |
BAKKEN | 7-2019 | 4 | 92 | 0 | 0 | 55 | 0 | 52 |
BAKKEN | 6-2019 | 2 | 71 | 0 | 0 | 262 | 0 | 41 |
BAKKEN | 5-2019 | 31 | 71 | 396 | 46 | 382 | 16 | 68 |
BAKKEN | 4-2019 | 25 | 812 | 795 | 572 | 332 | 66 | 27 |
BAKKEN | 3-2019 | 15 | 2699 | 2411 | 1901 | 250 | 98 | 2 |
BAKKEN | 2-2019 | 2 | 90 | 466 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 1-2019 | 27 | 3942 | 3787 | 3008 | 5138 | 4404 | 486 |
BAKKEN | 12-2018 | 9 | 2501 | 2343 | 1781 | 3091 | 2604 | 397 |
BAKKEN | 11-2018 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 10-2018 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BAKKEN | 9-2018 | 3 | 49 | 221 | 38 | 132 | 103 | 4 |
BAKKEN | 8-2018 | 31 | 1255 | 1381 | 529 | 3005 | 1673 | 1023 |
BAKKEN | 7-2018 | 31 | 1206 | 1160 | 263 | 2734 | 2034 | 403 |
BAKKEN | 6-2018 | 30 | 1126 | 1112 | 501 | 3075 | 2361 | 435 |
BAKKEN | 5-2018 | 31 | 1376 | 1380 | 581 | 4410 | 3630 | 484 |
This well was producing about 1300 bbls/month back in mid-2018. Then it's very noticeable, the volatility in production, but finally in September, 2020, we saw the jump in production, and the well was back to steady performance.
No obvious explanation from the map. Time to check the file report: nothing. I have no idea. Either a work-over on this well, or some work on one of the neighboring wells.
There was a lot of activity in the neighboring wells (fracking) back in 2020 but that wouldn't explain the jump in production in this well in 2019.
Maybe a reader knows.
But the bottom line for me is that mom-and-pop mineral owners never know what surprises might show up in their next month's royalty checks.
Twenty years from now they're going to say "we under-estimated the Bakken." LOL.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.