BR Activity In The Charlson -- To Include A Re-Entry Well -- December 29, 2024

Locator: 44565B.

This post is update: link here. 

The maps:

The wells:

• 37620, conf, BR, Sequoiafill 1A, Hawkeye,
• 37619, conf, BR, Sequoiafill 1B, Hawkeye,
• 37618, conf, BR, Sequoiafill 1C, Hawkeye,
• 37617, conf, BR, Sequoiafill 1D, Hawkeye,
• 37616, conf, BR, Sequoiafill 1E, Hawkeye,
• 37615, conf, BR, Sequoiafill 1F, Hawkeye,
• 37614, conf, BR, Sequoiafill 1G, Hawkeye,

• 17309, conf, BR, Washburn 44-36H, Charlson, last sundry note dated 8/17/23 before well went confidential again; operator requesting TA extension; plans to re-enter on/about 4Q24 in order to bring well back on line; originally drilled back in 2008, IP of 270; open hole frack;
• 40566, conf, BR, Burned Edge 2A-ULW, Charlson,
• 40567, conf, BR, Burned Edge 1A-ULW, Charlson,

Fracking -- WSJ Bios — February 19, 2024

Locator: 46847FRACKING. 

********************
WSJ Bios

The more WSJ  bios I read, the less I'm impressed. It started when I read Nicole Nguyen's bio after her reporting on Amazon some weeks ago.

Now, this one: 

The writing may be excellent but absolutely unhelpful with regard to investing.

Flashback, from August, 2022: America's newest energy crisis:

In the big scheme of things, August, 2022, is just a bit more than a year ago. 

This article was an absolute "disaster." A year after this article was written, the picture has changed completely.

****************************
Fracking -- And Now Re-Fracking

Currently, new permits in North Dakota have just crossed the "40530" chronologic number. The newest permit is #40531, an Enerplus Deuce permit. Every well with a permit number below 25000 will have to be re-fracked. Bakken wells began around 16500.  Around 10,000 wells will need to be re-fracked? How many Bakken wells are  being drilled each year right now? About a thousand?

Re-posting.

Link here.

https://www.hartenergy.com/exclusives/super-dug-enerplus-banks-underappreciated-bakken-refracs-205287

https://onepetro.org/URTECONF/proceedings-abstract/22URTC/2-22URTC/D021S030R002/489246

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/ExxonMobil-New-Fracking-Technology-Can-Double-Oil-Output.htmlhttps://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/ExxonMobil-New-Fracking-Technology-Can-Double-Oil-Output.html

From the blog:

• re-fracking, the blog.
• MRO re-fracking, the blog.
• MRO pads, the blog.
• the Bailey oil field, the blog.

Also, see tags.

Re-posting, as an example, from the MRO Bailey oil field inventory: 

MRO may, again, get recognized as the best / most interesting "medium-size" operator in the Bakken for 2019.

See this link, #18842, Tescher 11-27H.

CLR has its Brooklyn oil field; MRO has its Bailey. Two typical MRO Bailey re-frack wells:

The well:

• 18842, 135, MRO, Tescher 11-27H, Bailey, section 27-146-93, 33-025-01071, t8/10; cum 469K 4/20; re-fracked, 8/11/2017  - 8/25/2017; 5.9 million gallons of water, small-to-moderate frack; a neighboring well, #16753, was fracked at the same time; an even small frack, 4.1 million gallons of water, and another great result; these are the only two wells in this 1280-acre drilling unit; cum 624K 12/23;
  

 Re-frack production:

BAKKEN	5-2018	31	16838	16832	9470	10652	7558	1839
BAKKEN	4-2018	24	15235	15196	13210	10041	2693	5591
BAKKEN	3-2018	25	15477	15521	18044	10768	8433	538
BAKKEN	2-2018	26	17356	17282	18611	11692	6384	3322
BAKKEN	1-2018	29	23820	23889	30412	17041	13573	759
BAKKEN	12-2017	22	20852	20816	24612	14321	8282	3699
BAKKEN	11-2017	25	16547	16593	18778	11933	8981	1047
BAKKEN	10-2017	31	28177	28108	34755	19296	13632	2465
BAKKEN	9-2017	16	16166	16203	142	11650	1128	8706
BAKKEN	8-2017	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	7-2017	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	6-2017	2	11	49	49	37	25	0
BAKKEN	5-2017	31	869	839	194	746	433	36
BAKKEN	4-2017	30	839	845	201	748	438	42
BAKKEN	3-2017	29	797	771	284	692	371	79
BAKKEN	2-2017	28	767	789	172	682	393	39

The well:

• 16753, 314, MRO, Repp 34-34H, Bailey, t1/08; cum 485K 12/23; re-frack production:

BAKKEN	9-2017	28	15352	15356	19387	7931	154	5990
BAKKEN	8-2017	28	12296	12173	13984	6389	2949	2011
BAKKEN	7-2017	23	10766	10744	12528	5861	2108	2490
BAKKEN	6-2017	18	14004	13925	10084	7036	819	4617
BAKKEN	5-2017	1	27	0	92	14	0	11
BAKKEN	4-2017	26	451	397	124	385	59	127
BAKKEN	3-2017	31	566	597	159	460	175	41
BAKKEN	2-2017	28	521	611	144	436	207	5
BAKKEN	1-2017	31	582	548	158	498	245	5
BAKKEN	12-2016	31	539	542	158	463	214	5
BAKKEN	11-2016	30	609	582	154	453	193	15
BAKKEN	10-2016	31	600	587	158	464	213	1

XOM: Could Double Shale Production With New Technology, Completion Strategies -- June 6, 2023

Locator: 44850B.

From a reader:

Funny they bring up fracking & refracs in this Exxon article (see below).

We haven’t seen any refrac activity on any of our mineral tracts in any of about nine counties since 2919. That’s not how good operators run wells that have been  & still are above great rocks with more OIP/oil in place.

Thing is it’s good for oil & gas interest asset owners & operators to leverage wells that have fallen to slower production. I agree with Exxon that a lot of oil is being left in the rocks & frac technology can be leveraged on new & existing wells, a win/win for ND & all involved in my honest opinion.

Good topic to review possibly on your blog. I may have missed some articles, not certain. I can’t be the only owner not seeing refracs since Covid struck? 🧐😉

ExxonMobil: New Fracking Technology Can Double Oil Output

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/ExxonMobil-New-Fracking-Technology-Can-Double-Oil-Output.html

I had a note on this subject in draft for several days before getting the note above from that reader yesterday.

Here's my reply:

Poorly written but I want to get this subject off my desktop. I think folks will understand what I'm trying to say, though poorly written. It was written quickly in an "In 'N Out" hamburger restaurant in Richardton, TX, yesterday, while waiting to interview a cybersecurity expert. 

Here's the note, unedited, not proofread, and not ready-for-prime-time:

XOM talk about doubling production from shale oil with new technology / new completion strategies.

This is the “Disney conundrum.” To get investors excited about potential of shale holdings and to "talk their book" to investors, XOM can post stories about “doubling” production from existing properties with new technology and new completion strategies.

But by doing so, they make surrounding acreage that much more valuable/costly/expensive, which means that if XOM wants to buy neighboring minerals, they will pay a higher premium.

My hunch, XOM knew about “doubling” production with new technology / new completion strategies many years ago, but now that most folks are aware of that, XOM felt safe to start talking about it.

Everything that follows is anecdotal based on following the Bakken for over a decade now.

All older Bakken wells, certainly those with file numbers below 25XXX need to be re-fracked (or re-drilled). The first Bakken wells began with five numbers around 165XX. Older Bakken wells were fracked with old completion strategies.


Some/many/most of those older wells will not be re-fracked or re-drilled. Operators will simply plug and abandon them and start over in the same location with a minimum of four to six wells on a paid ini the same location.

They’re probably able to drill and complete two wells these days for the price of one well at the time of the original Bakken boom (2000 in Montana, 2007 in North Dakota through 2010, or thereabouts).

And at the end of the day, instead of one parent well ini a given location, any given operator will have four to eight wells in that same location (on the same, but much larger pad). In addition, the infrastructure for getting out to the site (a road) and the pad will already be in place. Infrastructure of gathering oil production and getting it into regional pipelines will also already be in place, saving money, time, and minimizing further environmental impact.

So there’s that.

Now, with regard to re-fracking, I’m not aware of much re-fracking per se. Which suggests to me that Mike Papa (EOG) may have been correct, suggesting it will simply be more feasible to simply re-drilling wells rather than re-fracking existing wells.

The impact of fracking new wells on production of neighboring old wells is interesting, exciting and very rewarding for mom-and-pop mineral owners where one or two or four new wells definitely impact their “mailbox money.” However, for big operators, it’s unlikely that this effect, which I refer to as a “halo” effect has much impact for a big operator.

To specifically answer the question: why are we seeing so few re-fracks in the Bakken. 

Answer: operators are managing their assets. I'll talk more about this later. We've addressed it before. Operators are generally "E&P" companies, focused on "E" as much as on "P."

The Bakken Never Ceases To Amaze Me; Remind Me Again About Hubbert's Theory -- November 28, 2021

On my way to looking up something else, I happened to come across a great well.

I was checking up on wells that came off the confidential list in 4Q15, six years ago. I only got through a handful of such wells when I stumbled upon this.

I ran across a couple of BR CCU Gopher wells that had a very interesting production profile; that led me to check up on #30780.

The four well pad:

• 30777, 1,960, BR, CCU Red River 7-2-15TFH, Corral Creek, t10/15; cum 248K 9/21;
• 30778, 1,844, BR, CCU Red River 8-2-15MBH, Corral Creek, t9/15; cum 311K 9/21;
• 30779, 2,325, BR, CCU Gopher 1-2-15TFH, Corral Creek, t9/15; cum 240K 9/21;
• 30780, 2,525, BR, CCU Gopher 2-2-15MBH, Corral Creek, t9/15; cum 419K 9/21;

Recent production:

• #30778:

Pool	Date	Days	BBLS Oil	Runs	BBLS Water	MCF Prod	MCF Sold	Vent/Flare
BAKKEN	9-2021	23	1018	1015	2981	1384	1383	0
BAKKEN	8-2021	31	1415	1413	3991	1658	1653	4
BAKKEN	7-2021	31	1319	1320	4245	1493	1216	276
BAKKEN	6-2021	30	1222	1215	4604	1164	1065	98
BAKKEN	5-2021	11	750	747	1260	1081	530	551
BAKKEN	4-2021	2	8	8	1	4	4	0
BAKKEN	3-2021	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	2-2021	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	1-2021	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	12-2020	0	0	125	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	11-2020	29	3073	3104	1583	4148	3608	514
BAKKEN	10-2020	31	2912	2883	2222	2329	1777	525
BAKKEN	9-2020	1	119	0	77	102	102	0

• #30779:

Pool	Date	Days	BBLS Oil	Runs	BBLS Water	MCF Prod	MCF Sold	Vent/Flare
BAKKEN	9-2021	30	1214	1207	4484	1429	1416	12
BAKKEN	8-2021	31	1255	1248	3640	1755	1206	548
BAKKEN	7-2021	10	384	381	423	213	213	0
BAKKEN	6-2021	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	5-2021	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	4-2021	0	0	2	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	3-2021	12	403	423	666	320	320	0
BAKKEN	2-2021	28	1588	1589	3222	2991	2048	941
BAKKEN	1-2021	4	255	232	0	193	190	0
BAKKEN	12-2020	0	0	52	0	0	0	0

For newbies, when you see production profiles like that in the Bakken, it generally means one thing: a neighboring well is being drilled, fracked, or re-fracked.

It didn't take long to find that well:

• #30780:

Pool	Date	Days	BBLS Oil	Runs	BBLS Water	MCF Prod	MCF Sold	Vent/Flare
BAKKEN	9-2021	22	7397	7353	8350	5935	5722	208
BAKKEN	8-2021	26	7481	7498	9311	8533	8475	54
BAKKEN	7-2021	31	10410	10402	13761	13071	10825	2241
BAKKEN	6-2021	24	7893	7840	10753	9451	7702	1745
BAKKEN	5-2021	5	3038	3172	5346	3391	3328	62
BAKKEN	4-2021	30	24767	24820	37597	29574	29562	0
BAKKEN	3-2021	31	36792	36776	37948	45281	45257	0
BAKKEN	2-2021	10	13578	13393	7288	9197	9186	0
BAKKEN	1-2021	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	12-2020	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	11-2020	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	10-2020	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	9-2020	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
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	1	0	30	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	3-2020	13	491	614	370	436	433	0
BAKKEN	2-2020	29	2053	2143	1282	415	412	0
BAKKEN	1-2020	31	2579	2530	1502	731	481	246

So, let's see if the file report this well has anything to add: nope, nothing. The most recent sundry form is dated 2016, a workover. So, this well was re-fracked. 

Full production report is located here.

And that's going to take us to the other Gopher wells. Stay tuned.

An Old BR Well Drilled Back In 2011 Jumps 20x In Oil Production -- July 18, 2021

The BR Chuckwagon wells are tracked here.

The well (previously posted but not the full production profile):

• 20528, 2,892, BR, Chuckwagon 21-15MBH, Sand Creek, Bakken, t12/11; cum 167K 4/19; cum 257K 5/21; full production profile here;
  

A sundry form stating an approximate start date of October 17, 2019:

BR ... requests to re-stimulate[this well]. It is our intent to remove the existing artificial lift equipment, perform a log to confimr 7" casing integrity ... a plug and perf stimulation will be performed, followed by a coil tubing cleanout.

Recent production:

Pool	Date	Days	BBLS Oil	Runs	BBLS Water	MCF Prod	MCF Sold	Vent/Flare
BAKKEN	5-2021	16	3018	3518	5872	12098	8947	3151
BAKKEN	4-2021	30	9245	8995	14869	41767	41619	148
BAKKEN	3-2021	24	9151	9177	13948	27001	26998	0
BAKKEN	2-2021	28	11827	12223	16415	30617	30437	176
BAKKEN	1-2021	19	9625	9439	17266	25536	24909	624
BAKKEN	12-2020	4	1899	1431	5519	5347	5346	0
BAKKEN	11-2020	1	2	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	10-2020	26	13747	14132	18996	34495	0	34495
BAKKEN	9-2020	27	16402	16213	24009	37361	0	37361
BAKKEN	8-2020	23	11701	11494	26238	30070	3724	26346
BAKKEN	7-2020	1	1	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	2	0	0	5227	313	0	313
BAKKEN	3-2020	1	87	87	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	2-2020	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	1-2020	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	12-2019	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	11-2019	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	10-2019	6	128	488	131	470	0	470
BAKKEN	9-2019	30	563	416	563	2511	0	2511
BAKKEN	8-2019	31	758	982	754	2855	2395	460
BAKKEN	7-2019	31	805	716	946	3881	3881	0

A Bakken Well With Multiple Jumps In Production -- BR, Kellogg, Elidah Oil Field -- December 24, 2019

Full production profile at this post. 

The well:

• 16890, 321, BR, West Kellogg 24-31H, Elidah, t4/08; cum 312K 10/19;

After initial completion, back in 2008:

BAKKEN	8-2008	29	2034	2104	541	2040	0	2040
BAKKEN	7-2008	31	2136	2119	895	2481	0	2481
BAKKEN	6-2008	30	2099	2155	1001	2298	0	2298
BAKKEN	5-2008	31	3721	3313	1288	4264	0	4264
BAKKEN	4-2008	30	5959	5873	3641	3641	0	3641

Then, in 2014, a huge jump in production, after a re-frack:

BAKKEN	7-2014	31	15187	15087	6358	77	0	0
BAKKEN	6-2014	30	20071	20524	7006	75	0	0
BAKKEN	5-2014	12	7464	6715	0	30	0	0
BAKKEN	4-2014	5	10163	10163	12290	31671	0	31659
BAKKEN	3-2014	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	2-2014	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	1-2014	31	179	244	75	509	424	8

 And, now, another jump in production:

BAKKEN	10-2019	29	7980	7890	8064	20000	19928	0
BAKKEN	9-2019	22	6176	6097	7188	15621	15566	0
BAKKEN	8-2019	31	7750	7540	11638	19811	19734	0
BAKKEN	7-2019	30	236	225	103	470	396	0
BAKKEN	6-2019	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	5-2019	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	4-2019	24	967	1334	1027	2230	2134	36
BAKKEN	3-2019	31	2478	2303	984	4749	3633	1039

$8 Million In One Year For An Old Bakken Well -- BR Merton -- October 21, 0218; The Dreaded Bakken Decline Rate

Neither NDIC nor FracFocus has data to suggest this well was re-fracked:

• 17471, 793, BR, Merton 1-3H, North Fork, t4/09; cum 460K 8/18; look at production jump that begain in 8/16, but note the huge production in 4/17 --

BAKKEN	7-2017	30	14488	14307	2055	17533	17461	0
BAKKEN	6-2017	30	17683	17545	3203	24372	24298	0
BAKKEN	5-2017	31	18681	18871	4745	25391	25314	0
BAKKEN	4-2017	30	20653	20495	5775	29028	28954	0
BAKKEN	3-2017	31	18489	18798	5004	25614	25537	0
BAKKEN	2-2017	28	18978	18572	5026	25288	25218	0
BAKKEN	1-2017	30	14007	14279	4472	19425	19352	0
BAKKEN	12-2016	28	10688	10526	4128	11625	11555	0
BAKKEN	11-2016	16	9260	9348	3349	13085	13045	0
BAKKEN	10-2016	18	7527	7402	2085	9306	9263	0
BAKKEN	9-2016	29	13522	13593	3454	18355	18283	0
BAKKEN	8-2016	21	10333	10192	3016	11993	11945	0
BAKKEN	7-2016	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	6-2016	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	5-2016	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	4-2016	24	1274	1388	1169	2454	2394	0
BAKKEN	3-2016	31	1814	2138	1527	3404	3327	0
BAKKEN	2-2016	29	1734	1422	1421	3175	3103	0
BAKKEN	1-2016	31	1982	1915	1548	3178	3101	0
BAKKEN	12-2015	31	1758	1881	1368	2430	2345	8
BAKKEN	11-2015	30	1793	1914	1429	2206	2131	0
BAKKEN	10-2015	31	1970	1863	1572	2769	2692	0
BAKKEN	9-2015	30	1983	1826	1616	1935	1860	0
BAKKEN	8-2015	31	2054	2226	1607	1714	1636	0

The graphic:

Note the two wells running opposite direction of #17499 (the well noted above).

Both those wells were fracked at the very same time the production of #17499 jumped significantly, in 8/16:

• 25199, 2,928, BR, Merton 21-15MBH 2NH, North Fork, t8/16; cum 379K 8/18;
• 25201, 3,360, BR, Merton 21-15TFH 3NH, North Fork, t8/16; cum 395K 8/18; 

Now, of the two wells running north, what well was closed to the index well, #17471, a middle Bakken well?

The answer: #25201, a Three Forks well.

In the year after the frack of the neighboring wells, the index well produced 174,309 bbls, well above the 20,000 bbls it produced in the previous 12 months.

174,309 - 20,000 = 172309 bbls x $50 = $8.6 million over 12 months for a well that appears not to have been re-fracked. (It is possible the well was re-fracked; I just don't see the data that would "prove" it.)

*******************************

I Just Love Reading Anecdotes About Paul Dirac

From The God Problem, Howard Bloom, c. 2016, p. 542:

With his pointed chin, his high forehead, his near-Mohawk-like-shock of hair, and his intense eyes, Paul Dirac looked as if he was flying through life.

But he was doing it quietly.

So quietly that if he spoke two sentences during a dinner party, it was counted as a night of stunning loquacity.

For example, there was the dinner party where Dirac was seated next to another bright man known for his silence, the celebrated E. M. Forster. It is said that Dirac and Forster both sat in utter wordlessness through the soup course. Then, just before the main course arrived, Dirac became chatty. He turnd to Forster, whose works he had read, and asked, "What happened in the cave?" He was referring to a cave that had appeared in a crucial scene in Forster's book A Passage to India. And those six syllables were Dirac's only words. Forster said nothing. But he had been listening. He was just thinking the question through. Both Forster and Dirac remained in silence through the main course. They maintained their silence until the dessert arrived. Then Forster turned to Dirac with an answer: "I do not know."

No wonder one of London's newspapers said Dirac was "shy as a gazelle, and modest as a Victorian maid."

Upon re-reading that, one wonders if "internally," both Forster and Dirac were running at what "we" would consider "normal" time. Is "time" relative? Is time "relative' for each of us? Or think about the time delays in interviews on television between an anchor in New York City and a talking head in Tel Aviv.

Paul Dirac, by the way, is more commonly remembered as Paul A. M. Dirac. I wonder if he thought about his "A. M. Dirac" moniker and the moniker of E. M. Forster.