A Follow-Up To A Reader's Inquiry Regarding EOG In The Bakken -- October 22, 2022

Note: there may be typographical and content errors. I have been known to make huge errors on reading the NDIC map. Read at your own risk.

In early October, a reader asked about EOG in the Bakken. 

This past week the November, 2022, NDIC hearing dockets were posted. The following is a case, not a permit:

Wells of interest:

• 17485, 749, EOG, Burke 19-28H, Parshall, t7/09; cum 318K 8/22;
• 18366, 1,497, EOG, Burke 29-33H, Parshall, t6/10; cum 277K 8/22;
• 17068, 1,206, EOG, Burke 1-34H, Parshall, t11/08; cum 406K 8/22;
• 16768, 1,441, EOG, Austin 2-03H, Parshall, t12/07; cum 694K 8/22;
• 17075, 2,310, EOG, Austin 9-11H, Parshall, t6/08; cum 827K 8/22;
• 32720, 2,086, EOG, Austin 45-1113H, Parshall, t8/18; cum 323K 8/22;
• 32719, 1,868, EOG, Austin 46-1113H, Parshall, t9/18; cum 173K 8/22;
• 32718, 1,667, EOG, Austin 465-1113H, Parshall, t9/18; cum 232K 8/22;

Miscellaneous notes:

• it was my understanding that EOG was pretty much "done" with the Bakken and, instead, concentrating on the Permain; to see EOG back in the Bakken is amazing;
• this is quite surprising -- to see EOG back in the Bakken ....
• note the chronological numbers in bold above -- we've talked about this before
• tell me that EOG is not unitizing the Parshall by telling me EOG is not unitizing the Parshall
• when I see this "activity" and the production data from these "early" wells, I am more convinced than ever that Leigh Price was right;
• one wonders whether EOG geologists are re-reading the Leigh Price paper that was never formally published