- 22883, 509, Whiting, Cvancara 21-14TFH, t11/12; cum 145K 6/22;
Recent production:
| Pool | Date | Days | BBLS Oil | Runs | BBLS Water | MCF Prod | MCF Sold | Vent/Flare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BAKKEN | 6-2022 | 30 | 3317 | 3270 | 4012 | 2015 | 1826 | 129 |
| BAKKEN | 5-2022 | 19 | 1218 | 1231 | 3162 | 964 | 913 | 13 |
| BAKKEN | 4-2022 | 19 | 1925 | 1975 | 4148 | 1553 | 1242 | 277 |
| BAKKEN | 3-2022 | 31 | 5039 | 5312 | 11283 | 4926 | 3719 | 1145 |
| BAKKEN | 2-2022 | 18 | 4405 | 4048 | 3503 | 3655 | 3619 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 1-2022 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 12-2021 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 11-2021 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 10-2021 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 9-2021 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 8-2021 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 7-2021 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 6-2021 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 5-2021 | 12 | 197 | 245 | 292 | 188 | 188 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 4-2021 | 30 | 518 | 525 | 675 | 509 | 509 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 3-2021 | 31 | 629 | 605 | 796 | 612 | 550 | 0 |
| BAKKEN | 2-2021 | 28 | 514 | 518 | 642 | 458 | 402 | 0 |
See first comment. My reply is brought up here for easier browsing / search:
1. This was not a "long period of no production." This is about standard -- perhaps a bit longer than usual -- for a Bakken well to be taken off line when a neighboring pad of wells are being fracked. A pad of wells being fracked may be as many as eight, and that takes a bit of time to get that work done before the older, neighboring well(s) can be placed back on line.
2. A long period of no production in the Bakken is at least one year.
3. Experts opine that a well that is taken off line for two years or more is at (high) risk of being lost for good. This is not true in the Bakken. I see many wells that have been off line for two years, and come back fine. In fact, knowing the peculiarities of shale, one almost expects production to come back better than not when off line for more than two years.
4. As far as production goes after being off line, many categories:
4a. I seldom see a loss of production after a well comes back on line, but it can happen.
4b. Most wells return to about the same production that they were before they went off line: no decrease, no increase.
4c. A well that jumps from 500 bbls/month to less than 4,000 bbls/month is a reflection of other fracking in the area and is NOT indicative that the well was re-fracked.
4d. A well that jumps from 500 bbls/month to 5,000 to 12,000 bbls/month is more difficult to sort out. It is still likely not due to a re-frack but due to fracking activity in the area. But some re-fracks result in new production of 8,000 to 12,000 bbls/month.
4e. A re-frack -- a successful re-frack -- needs to show a production jump to 20,000 bbls/month or more.
5. Some operators and some fields seem much more likely to report older wells with huge jump in production after neighboring wells are fracked. One of the most successful operators when it comes to a huge jump in production in an old well affected by newly fracked neighboring wells is MRO. The field that seems one of the best by far is the Bailey oil field, and also the Reunion oil field. In both cases, they are often MRO wells.
6. There are so many examples of this phenomenon, I no longer track these wells at the blog site where I used to track them. It would simply take too much time; now I simply "tag" them.
7. As a rule, when I see a jump in production in an older well that has recently come back on line, I no longer check the file reports to see if it was re-fracked. Based on the parameters set above, I can generally guess what the story was. In addition, as a rule, I no longer care why a well's production jumped. I understand what's going on -- right, wrong, indifferent -- and the subject no longer interests me.
7a. In addition, with feedback from small mom-and-pop mineral owners, they don't care either why there was a jump in production. They just love the larger royalty check.
8. In a long note like this, there will be content and typographical errors.
when you see a well like this with a long period of no production - does that mean it was refracked? Or would you see some permit that indicates that other than just the production report?
ReplyDelete1. This is NOT a long period of "no production." This is about the typical amount of time a well is taken off line while a neighboring pad of wells is being fracked.
Delete2. A "long period" of no production is at least one year.
3. Some "experts" suggest a well that is "offline" for two years will not be able to return to production. That is not true in the Bakken. I see many Bakken wells that have been off line for two years or more and come back into producio098 7rw
q`
1. This was not a "long period of no production." This is about standard -- perhaps a bit longer than usual -- for a Bakken well to be taken off line when a neighboring pad of wells are being fracked. A pad of wells being fracked may be as many as eight, and that takes a bit of time to get that work done before the older, neighboring well(s) can be placed back on line.
Delete2. A long period of no production in the Bakken is at least one year.
3. Experts opine that a well that is taken off line for two years or more is at (high) risk of being lost for good. This is not true in the Bakken. I see many wells that have been off line for two years, and come back fine. In fact, knowing the peculiarities of shale, one almost expects production to come back better than not when off line for more than two years.
4. As far as production goes after being off line, many categories:
4a. I seldom see a loss of production after a well comes back on line, but it can happen.
4b. Most wells return to about the same production that they were before they went off line: no decrease, no increase.
4c. A well that jumps from 500 bbls/month to less than 4,000 bbls/month is a reflection of other fracking in the area and is NOT indicative that the well was re-fracked.
4d. A well that jumps from 500 bbls/month to 5,000 to 12,000 bbls/month is more difficult to sort out. It is still likely not due to a re-frack but due to fracking activity in the area. But some re-fracks result in new production of 8,000 to 12,000 bbls/month.
4e. A re-frack -- a successful re-frack -- needs to show a production jump to 20,000 bbls/month or more.
5. Some operators and some fields seem much more likely to report older wells with huge jump in production after neighboring wells are fracked. One of the most successful operators when it comes to a huge jump in production in an old well affected by newly fracked neighboring wells is MRO. The field that seems one of the best by far is the Bailey oil field, and also the Reunion oil field. In both cases, they are often MRO wells.
6. There are so many examples of this phenomenon, I no longer track these wells at the blog site where I used to track them. It would simply take too much time; now I simply "tag" them.
7. As a rule, when I see a jump in production in an older well that has recently come back on line, I no longer check the file reports to see if it was re-fracked. Based on the parameters set above, I can generally guess what the story was. In addition, as a rule, I no longer care why a well's production jumped. I understand what's going on -- right, wrong, indifferent -- and the subject no longer interests me.
7a. In addition, with feedback from small mom-and-pop mineral owners, they don't care either why there was a jump in production. They just love the larger royalty check.
8. In a long note like this, there will be content and typographical errors.