Sorting Out A Mystery Of A BR Archer Well In Charlson Oil Field -- October 13, 2019

Disclaimer: in a long note like this there will be typographical and factual errors. There is at least one glaring error in an original source at the NDIC file report which I did not mention. I often see things that do not exist. I did not look at all wells in the immediate area of #26419. There may be other explanations for the huge jump in production in #26419. Regardless of the jump in production, the mom-and-pop mineral owners should be thrilled to see this huge jump in production (unless they hate paying more taxes to the IRS and the state of ND). It is very possible I made a very simple error/mistake that completely negates this entire post. I certainly could have mis-identified permit numbers, which I have done before. If so, that's fine; some reader will note it and bring it to my attention. I'm simply trying to better understand the Bakken. For all I know, it was simply a work-over rig or perhaps a small meteor strike.

Note: there's a similar mystery surrounding another Petro-Hunt in Charlson oil field, #26206. See this post.

The Original Post

Begun October 12, 2019

Completed October 13, 2019

Back on February 7, 2017, this post: "Possibly a record post-shut-in-production jump in the Bakken."

I was curious to see how these wells were doing two years later. Wow, what an adventure!

The well:

• 26419, 2,904, BR, Archer 14-25TFH, Charlson, t2/14; cum 605K 8/19;

Note before going further:

• this is one of several BR Archer wells
• this BR Archer well was a Three Forks well drilled back in 2014; 
• in five years, this well had produced over 600,000 bbls of oil

The first thing I noticed: the BR Archer wells were very, very good wells, but interestingly, some of the wells had been recently taken off line for a short period of time. That piqued my interest. I thought I was only going to be updating total production but immediately there was a puzzle. Why were these really good wells coming off line?

This was the biggest puzzle: the production profile of this well (#26419) did not make sense to me.

Look what happened to production between 3/18 and 9/18 (see portion of full production profile below). The huge jump in production meant that this well had to have been re-fracked.

But, neither FracFocus nor the NDIC file report showed any re-frack. Wow. I  had not seen this before. I had not seen such a huge jump in production in which there was not a re-frack. It just doesn't happen. Period. Dot.

Again, look at the jump in production -- an "old" well plateauing out to 5,000 bbls/month and then a huge jump in production -- as much as 26,000 bbls/month -- with no evidence of a re-frack. I had no idea what was going on. This did not make sense.

BAKKEN	12-2018	31	18781	18778	3802	19123	19012	0
BAKKEN	11-2018	30	21154	21181	3991	22822	22708	0
BAKKEN	10-2018	31	25796	25830	3781	30081	29954	0
BAKKEN	9-2018	30	23855	23388	3686	27707	27592	0
BAKKEN	8-2018	12	4106	3853	960	5087	4991	54
BAKKEN	7-2018	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	6-2018	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	5-2018	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	4-2018	0	0	245	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	3-2018	18	2794	2749	414	5023	4953	0
BAKKEN	2-2018	28	4563	4463	654	3103	3023	0

That's a huge jump, from 3,000 in 3/18 (only 18 days) to 26,000 in 10/18. The only thing that could explain this was a re-frack and yet there was no re-frack.

So, we had this jump from 3,000 bbls/month to 26,000 bbls/month and no evidence of a re-frack.

Obviously there had to have been a neighboring well that had been re-fracked.

So, let's go to the map.

Wow, that turned out to be a bummer.

Note that there is no neighboring well to the well in question (#26419) -- yes, some relatively close wells but they were all the same age or older than the well in question and thus they could not have been related to that huge jump in production.

Nothing made sense.

I zoomed in on the map.

I expanded the area of the map.

 
Again, nothing jumped out at me, unless one looked at those #338XX wells to the north of the index well, #26419. If so, this is something I had never seen before (or don't recall seeing, or missed) and I Iook at literally every well that's been drilled in the Bakken since 2007.

I zoomed in on the #338XX wells. It turned out that #33817, a section line well, was closest to the index well. See map above.

I looked at the history of #33817.

Wow! Eureka! Paydirt!

#33817 was fracked just before the huge jump in production for #26419 in 10/18.

Wow. I had not seen this before. The "child" well did not parallel the "parent" well for the entire length of the horizontals. The "child" well and the "parent" well aligned for only half of the horizontal.

All wells under discussion are two-mile-long laterals, but the index well and the neighboring #338XX wells only exist side-by-side for half their lengths (I note this on the map below: a heavy red line where the wells parallel each other and a thinner red line where they do not). 

Interestingly enough, the frack for #33817 was a relatively moderate frack. Production profile and frack data for #33817 at this post.

Relationship between #33817 and the index well:

• #33817 and #26419 are 0.11 mile (580 feet) apart (horizontally).  
• but note this:
• #33817 is a middle Bakken well;
• #26419 is a Three Forks well;

The next 338XX series well to the west is #33814. Relationship of #33814 to the index well:

• #33814 is a Three Forks well; awesome!
• it is located 0.2 mile (1056 feet) to the west of the index well
• it was a very, very small frack, only 5.1 million lbs of sand (51 stages)
• production profile for this well is here;

Okay, so there you have it. Data points, facts, comments, opinions:

• #26419 is a Three Forks, first bench well, based on the name of the well, the permit and the Weatherford geological well report;
• the well was completed in February, 2014; was a great well and then showed the typical Bakken decline, plateauing at a very respectable 5,000 bbls/month by 8/17
• in early 2018, it was taken off line for five months
• when it came back on line, production jumped from 5,000 bbls/month to an astounding 26,000 bbls/month, minimally better than the original frack, but the anticipated decline occurred more quickly; but it maintained high production for several months; full production profile is posted elsewhere (see link above)
• the huge jump in production all but suggested this well had been fracked
• neither FracFocus nor the file report showed any data to suggest the well had been refracked
• it's been more than a year; the paperwork is "not in the mail"
• at first glance there were no obvious neighboring, recently-fracked wells that could account for the huge jump in production
• far to the north, and paralleling only half of the #26419 horizontal were #338XX series wells on a single pad that might have played a part
• the geographic location and timing of the fracks of the #338XX series wells would account for the jump in production of #26419
• #26419 is a Three Forks (that in itself is unusual, so early in the Bakken, to see a Three Forks well)
• closest to this Three Forks well was a middle Bakken well (#33817) -- about 500 feet west
• then, 1,000 feet to the west was another Three Forks well
• fracks for both the #33817 and the #33814 were moderate and small fracks, respectively
• I have not seen moderate and small fracks result in a neighboring well to have such a huge jump in production as we see in #26419
• there is a third #338XX well on that pad fracked at the same time as the others (actually there are four)
• there is a research paper out there, which I have linked elsewhere, published very early in the Bakken boom that suggested that the "parent-child uplift" phenomenon existed but it required three neighboring wells to be fracked simultaneously to affect a "parent" well 
• it's hard to believe that a small frack in the same formation one thousand feet away caused a huge production jump in #26419
• if not, then it was a middle Bakken well only 500 feet away that was also additive

One more thing:

• the index well, #26419, an Archer well, is a BR-operated well (Burlington Resources/COP)
• the #338XX pad to the west is a Petro-Hunt pad
• think about that, especially from BR's viewpoint

And:

• these wells are in the Charlson oil field; that field is tracked here;
• the Charlson oil field is one of the most interesting fields in the Bakken
• it was "discovered" very early (see this post); it was this field that excited me as much as the Parshall oil field at the time;
• the webmaster for a Bakken discussion group and another blogger first noted what an incredible field this was going to be
• the Charlson is among the handful of early Bakken fields that stood out: Charlson, Parshall, Grail, Sanish
• at one time, the Charlson had bragging rights to the most successful in the Bakken; I think that still holds true but do not quote me on that
• since then there have been more record-setting wells in the Bakken
• for how prolific this field seems to be, it is being drilled out very, very slowly, at least compared to a couple of other fields held by other operators

Disclaimer: in a long note like this there will be typographical and factual errors. There is at least one glaring error in an original source at the NDIC file report which I did not mention. I often see things that do not exist. I did not look at all wells in the immediate area of #26419. There may be other explanations for the huge jump in production. Regardless of the jump in production, the mom-and-pop mineral owners should be thrilled to see this huge jump in production (unless they hate paying more taxes to the IRS and the state of ND). It is very possible I made a very simple error/mistake that completely negates this entire post. I certainly could have mis-identified permit numbers, which I have done before. If so, that's fine; some reader will note it and bring it to my attention. I'm simply trying to better understand the Bakken. For all I know, it was simply a work-over rig or perhaps a small meteor strike.

Parent / Child Wells -- Random Note -- October 11, 2019

Well, look at this.

Regular readers of the blog know that I am inappropriately excited about the "halo" effect -- that jump in production seen in Bakken wells when they are brought back on line after being off line for a few weeks or a few months while neighboring wells are fracked. In some cases (rarely) the "parent" well is off-line for less than a month.

I tag posts discussing this phenomenon as "halo" or "jump in production." I noted the phenomenon almost a decade ago but had not seen validation from a credible source.

[The very first post that was tagged with the halo effect was dated August 19, 2010. Link here: http://themilliondollarway.blogspot.com/2010/08/another-first-for-north-dakota_19.html.]

I did receive a phone call from an analyst at the largest fracking company in the Bakken at that time about six years ago asking me about my observations. The analyst said his company was referring to these as "parent/child" wells. I did not post the specifics of that phone call at that time assuming that some of the information I had been told was proprietary.

[I was in Belmont, MA, when I received the phone call. I was last in Belmont, MA, in 2013: that's why I know that the phone call was at least six years ago.]

I continue to look for validation from credible sources. About a month ago, maybe two or three months ago, I started getting hints of validation from Whiting. I think I have posted some of that, but I can't recall for sure.

Break, break.

It's my observation that the parent / child interaction in the Bakken is "positive." Either there is no effect, a subtle effect, or a huge positive effect, but I have not seen any suggestion that the parent / child interaction is "bad news" in the Bakken.

On the other hand, however, there have been numerous stories in the popular press that this is not the case in other shale plays. There are concerns, particularly in the Permian, that new wells (or "children" wells) are having an adverse effect on older wells ("parent" wells).

Break, break.

Tonight, in the process of looking for something else, I ran across this slide in a recent Whiting presentation.

The link: https://event.webcasts.com/viewer/event.jsp?ei=1260399&tp_key=d761d52d8c.

Slide #9.

Screenshot:

Note: "Parent / child well activity [in the Bakken] is positive vs experience in other shale plays."

By the way, that one slide above has many, many other interesting data points. 

Random Look At Another Well With Jump In Production -- October 9, 2019

I'm ready to head to bed; it's 11:29 p.m. CT. I've just finished another episode of "Perry Mason" over at Amazon Prime.

But I want to see how long it takes to find another interesting story from the Bakken.

One year ago, "new wells reporting, 4Q18."

Wow, in half a minute, half a dozen wells I could have reported.

I'll post this one:

• 32843, 45 (no typo), BR, Remington 4B MBH, Blue Buttes, t11/18; cum 220K 8/19; a huge well despite the IP (which is typical for BR):

Pool	Date	Days	BBLS Oil	Runs	BBLS Water	MCF Prod	MCF Sold	Vent/Flare
BAKKEN	8-2019	31	17042	17145	6404	40296	34907	5249
BAKKEN	7-2019	31	23703	23721	8036	35149	28182	6854
BAKKEN	6-2019	30	27647	27558	7817	36783	33205	3462
BAKKEN	5-2019	31	32877	33048	9755	45178	41146	3923
BAKKEN	4-2019	30	28130	27979	6816	35144	31994	3063
BAKKEN	3-2019	31	28702	28760	7539	38842	35140	3601
BAKKEN	2-2019	28	22537	22640	5543	28052	27985	0
BAKKEN	1-2019	29	23432	23231	6103	25750	16395	9343
BAKKEN	12-2018	31	16014	15824	3025	17975	14143	3816
BAKKEN	11-2018	2	381	381	7050	1516	765	750

Tested 11/18.

220K by 8/19, less than a full year later.

Note the IP.

Neighboring well, #17118, Remington 14-11H, remains off line (8/19).

Note: it was tested 11/18.

Another neighboring well:

• 23250, 2,806, BR, Lovaas 11-1MBH, Blue Buttes, t1212; cum 418K 8/19; prodution period of interest:

BAKKEN	5-2019	31	13452	13600	1952	17712	17096	539
BAKKEN	4-2019	28	14749	14402	3548	4763	569	4124
BAKKEN	3-2019	29	11770	11626	3515	4201	986	3143
BAKKEN	2-2019	28	14113	14295	3877	6055	2263	3722
BAKKEN	1-2019	31	25414	25317	7056	10550	8599	1874
BAKKEN	12-2018	18	14260	13561	3547	16829	16784	0
BAKKEN	11-2018	1	0	0	0	30	30	0
BAKKEN	10-2018	0	0	190	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	9-2018	18	2238	2309	428	3497	3452	0

This well comes off the confidential list at the very same time a neighboring well is fracked.

After this well comes back on line its production jumps from 4,000 bbls/month (8/18) to an astounding 25,000 bbls/month (1/19). 

The Bakken never ceases to amaze me. It is now 11:39 p.m.

It took ten minutes to find this well and post it. 

Zavanna Completing Its George Wells in Stockyard Creek; Jump In Production Noted -- October 9, 2019

Updates

March 17, 2021: a Zavanna George well has just gone over 500K bbls crude oil. See this post.  

The Zavanna George pad:

The wells:

• 22044, 700, Zavanna, George 19-20 1H, t10/12; cum 517K 1/20;
• 35170, 306, Zavanna, George 19-25 2HXW, t4/19; cum 184K 1/20;
• 29800, 301, Zavanna, George 19-30 3TFHXW, t4/19; cum 184K 1/20;
• 29799, 301, Zavanna, George 19-30 4H, t4/19; cum 203K 1/20;
• 35171, drl, Zavanna, George 19-30 5TFH, first production, t--; cum --;
• 35172, 556, Zavanna, George 19-30 6H, t4/19; cum 217K 1/20;
• 35173, 33 (no typo), Zavanna, George 19-30 7TFH, t4/19; cum 123K 1/21;

Original Pad 

These two wells (#29799, #29800) were permitted back on October 23, 2014:

• 29799,  218, Zavanna, George 19-30 4H, Stockyard Creek, t4/19; cum 105K 8/19;

Pool	Date	Days	BBLS Oil	Runs	BBLS Water	MCF Prod	MCF Sold	Vent/Flare
BAKKEN	8-2019	31	20174	19161	27479	41121	35698	4961
BAKKEN	7-2019	31	18591	17016	24898	25657	24729	466
BAKKEN	6-2019	30	29327	27140	36529	39205	34660	4098
BAKKEN	5-2019	27	36681	34885	44695	48523	48121	0
BAKKEN	4-2019	8	412	219	4956	532	413	0

• 29800, 301, Zavanna, George 19-30 3TFHXW, Stockyard Creek, t4/19; cum 56K 8/19;

Pool	Date	Days	BBLS Oil	Runs	BBLS Water	MCF Prod	MCF Sold	Vent/Flare
BAKKEN	8-2019	31	5626	5344	17484	18022	8760	8800
BAKKEN	7-2019	31	9135	8361	21766	17083	16277	344
BAKKEN	6-2019	30	21158	19580	38115	31619	22054	9118
BAKKEN	5-2019	17	18314	17417	30840	25119	24866	0
BAKKEN	4-2019	5	1579	839	9815	738	663	0

This was was permitted even farther back, December 12, 2011:

• 22044, 700, Zavanna, George 19-30 1H, Stockyard Creek, t10/12; cum 404K 8/19; no evidence this well was re-fracked: a) production jump did not exceed newly fracked offset wells; b) FracFocus: only frack was in 2012; c) no sundry form at NDIC to suggest a re-frack;

Pool	Date	Days	BBLS Oil	Runs	BBLS Water	MCF Prod	MCF Sold	Vent/Flare
BAKKEN	8-2019	31	13117	12458	23146	29601	13844	2627
BAKKEN	7-2019	31	10493	9604	27184	19742	11788	1416
BAKKEN	6-2019	30	6884	6371	34181	8450	6318	1685
BAKKEN	5-2019	0	0	0	0	477	45	0
BAKKEN	4-2019	8	163	87	4441	142	17	36
BAKKEN	3-2019	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	2-2019	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	1-2019	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	12-2018	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	11-2018	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	10-2018	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	9-2018	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	8-2018	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	7-2018	0	0	0	0	3912	3912	0
BAKKEN	6-2018	25	1892	2107	1580	2041	1481	187
BAKKEN	5-2018	31	3352	3208	2283	4409	3912	35

Permitted more recently:

• 35170, 306, Zavanna, George 19-25 2HXW, Avoca, t4/19; cum 106K 8/19;

Pool	Date	Days	BBLS Oil	Runs	BBLS Water	MCF Prod	MCF Sold	Vent/Flare
BAKKEN	8-2019	31	19101	18141	24456	33433	25687	7284
BAKKEN	7-2019	31	23089	21133	35462	30819	29720	637
BAKKEN	6-2019	30	28160	26060	42905	37026	28832	7747
BAKKEN	5-2019	29	33908	32248	52466	41841	41826	0
BAKKEN	4-2019	6	1900	1010	8982	718	599	0

Additional George wells are yet to be reported.

CLR Has Completed Angus Federal 6-16H2; Older Well Back On Status; Small Jump In Production

A neighboring well has just been completed and is producing:

• 33965, SI/NC, CLR, Angus Federal 6-16H2, Elm Creek, 26,729 feet; producing as of 5/19; three Forks, second bench; t5/19; cum 568K 1/24;
  

The well:

• 20804, 329, CLR, Angus 1-9H, 30 stages; 2.7 million lbs, t2/13; cum 310K 7/19; offline as of 12/18; still offline 4/19; back on line as of 5/19; a middle Bakken well; cum 401K 1/24;
  

Recent production; small jump in production:

Pool	Date	Days	BBLS Oil	Runs	BBLS Water	MCF Prod	MCF Sold	Vent/Flare
BAKKEN	7-2019	31	4482	4166	3802	6872	3605	2877
BAKKEN	6-2019	27	3536	3840	3573	5553	2115	3149
BAKKEN	5-2019	9	1315	806	640	729	62	628
BAKKEN	4-2019	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	3-2019	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	2-2019	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
BAKKEN	1-2019	1	0	187	22	0	0	0
BAKKEN	12-2018	25	1625	1687	548	4847	4437	75
BAKKEN	11-2018	30	1952	2054	666	4360	3428	538

This Is Absolutely, Positively, Not Happening InThe Bakken -- September 20, 2019

The note below is pretty much complete; there may be some fine tweaking but consider it done.

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

Off The Radar Scope: Rigs Do Matter 

This is interesting. I had not thought of this. Because there is so little national news regarding the Bakken and because the Permian is getting all the press, a lot of folks outside the region mistakenly think the Bakken has completely slowed down. An operator looking for capital among investors (east coast, west coast) were surprised to hear that the Bakken was still very, very active. Potential investors were surprised to hear that North Dakota was producing as much oil with 50 - 60 rigs as the state was producing (actually more) than when there were 200 rigs in the Bakken (lousy grammar on my part).

So: the number of rigs does matter when it comes to "demonstrating" activity (and perhaps investor interest). That driller, by the way, suggests that North Dakota would likely produce upwards of 2 million bopd in about three years. If the takeaway capacity was sufficient and the price "right," I think we could be at 2 million bopd now.

In addition, see first comment:

Regarding the linked articles below: Basic concept, not news. Poorly explained (some mistakes).

Also, despite the shift to closer spacing [in the Bakken?], we are still not seeing a dropoff in performance. Obviously there must be other aspects that are improving and the net result is okay, on average.

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

The Note

The world's top oil basin is running out of space -- link here.
Permian "child" wells may cut oil recovery up to 20%, bank says -- Bloomberg.

I'm in a rush right now so I will have to come back to this, but this is so not happening in the Bakken.

First of all, it's an old story regarding the Permian, previously posted on the blog, but both Bloomberg and oilprice make it sound like something new.

From the linked articles:

But whatever. It's not happening in the Bakken.

I don't have the statistical analysis, but I have the anecdotal evidence to make that statement. But Whiting does. Exhibit A:

I don't know the Permian at all. I follow it a little bit and have noted a few things. Most important(ly): it appears unconventional / shale basins are not all alike.

I am inappropriately exuberant about the Bakken, so everything that follows, take with a grain of salt. This is my worldview of the Bakken vs other shale plays, particularly the Eagle Ford and the Permian.

First, I think the Bakken is still going to be the best of the three plays (Bakken, Permian, Eagle Ford) in these categories:

• effect the Bakken will have on the state economy compared to that of the Permian/Eagle Ford and the Texas economy
• the amount of money that will be returned to mom-and-pop mineral owners in North Dakota on a per capita basis compared to those in Texas
• crude oil production per well

Now, with regard to the linked articles above, that "child" wells are a challenge in the Permian. It appears to be quite the opposite in the North Dakota Bakken (I can't speak to the Bakken in Montana and/or Saskatchewan).

It certainly appears the operators have figured out the "Goldilocks" density, although even that will change / improve over time.

It appears that in Tier 1, middle Bakken, six wells in 1280-acre spacing will be the norm.

It appears that in Tier 1, first bench Three Forks, six wells in 1280-acre spacing will also be the norm.

All other tiers and all other Bakken formations, the jury is still out.

To see examples of well density in the Bakken, click on the follow tags:

• density projects;
• 24-well array; 
• 28-well density;
• 64-well density;

Years ago I noticed the positive impact that "child" wells had on their parents and on their sibs. I have blogged about that often. An analyst / research student working for Halliburton telephoned me years ago to discuss this with me (he called me; I didn't call him).

I devoted an entire site to these "wells of interest." At the index to that site, one can see all the examples of the positive impact of "child" wells. I think at one time they were called "daughter" wells, but I don't recall for sure. The list of wells has gotten so long, I've pretty much quit doing that. Whether I've "proved" the point or not to others bothers me not at all. I believe what I see.

The Bakken is a bit easier about which to generalize. For the most part, when we talking about the Bakken now (2014 - 2018) we are talking about one formation, about 20 to 40 feet thick, pretty much being fracked about the same by all operators.

I have no clue about the Permian but it's my understanding the unconventional target formations in the Permian are many and they are thick. So, when I see a Bloomberg article with so much generalization it makes me wonder. If I were following the Permian or interested in the Permian I would want to know a lot more specifics.

They used to talk about the Bakken development being like a baseball game and early on we were only in the first inning. No one makes that analogy any more but I would guess we might be in the third inning.

The Permian? Easily the first inning, maybe the bottom of the first inning. But that's it. Based on what little I know about the Permian it sounds like there is a lot to learn. My hunch is that the operators have gone after the absolutely easiest stuff to lift.

Oh, a random note: in the Bloomberg article they talked about "dry" wells in the Permian. That's interesting. Hitting a dry well in the Permian has to be concerning. There are no "dry" wells in the Bakken. We've talked about that before. Yes, some wells are reported as "dry" but that's because of a failure of the well itself, usually a failure in the cementing / casing process. But if the well is completed in the Bakken it will strike oil.

It may not be an "economic" well but we've discussed that also. But it won't be dry.

I have yet to see more than a handful of recent middle Bakken wells abandoned due to low oil production.

Old Buelingo Well In Elm Tree Oil Field With Jump In Production -- August 30, 2019

Old Buelingo well with huge jump in production. See this link.

Halo Effect -- Bakken Style -- August 29, 2018

Reporting today:

• 34789, 3,051, WPX, Sweet Grass Woman 22-15HD, Spotted Horn, t7/19; cum --; (#22629 -- still too early to tell, #29445 -- huge jump in production, #34646)

Four Sweet Grass Woman wells fracked; completed; reporting.

A neighboring well:

• 29445, 2,441, WPX, Emma Owner 23-14HB, Spotted Horn, t3/16; cum 518K 6/19; the Emma Owner wells are tracked here; recent production --

Pool	Date	Days	BBLS Oil	Runs	BBLS Water	MCF Prod	MCF Sold	Vent/Flare
BAKKEN	6-2019	30	10816	10596	8840	15031	13406	0
BAKKEN	5-2019	31	12016	12028	9513	16246	13778	700
BAKKEN	4-2019	30	12848	12942	10308	17371	14603	926
BAKKEN	3-2019	31	14060	13995	11805	19009	14571	2452
BAKKEN	2-2019	28	11256	11321	11265	15219	11722	1862
BAKKEN	1-2019	23	9132	9036	10881	12347	3815	7125
BAKKEN	12-2018	31	18159	18187	29445	24550	6586	15551
BAKKEN	11-2018	4	1798	1727	2245	2431	1206	726
BAKKEN	10-2018	17	3045	3089	2000	4116	1886	1513
BAKKEN	9-2018	13	2009	2039	1163	2717	1562	604
BAKKEN	8-2018	31	5000	4939	2380	6760	3984	1789
BAKKEN	7-2018	31	5393	5441	2053	7292	4505	1738

Follow-Up On A Nice WPX Wolf Well In Squaw Creek -- August 18, 2019

The well:

• 19973, 141, WPX, Wolf 27-34H, Squaw Creek, t7/11; cum 265K 2/18; -- that was back on 2/18 -- cum of 265K; now, cum 346K 6/19;

Production back in 2018 when neighboring wells were fracked:

BAKKEN	4-2018	30	7989	8091	4628	13876	9925	2315
BAKKEN	3-2018	31	10269	10546	6137	17838	12699	3417
BAKKEN	2-2018	10	2667	2561	1441	4633	1164	3001
BAKKEN	1-2018	11	3724	3658	1855	6480	607	5352
BAKKEN	12-2017	31	6820	6601	6417	11848	5254	5231
BAKKEN	11-2017	30	6405	6442	7452	11124	5747	4080
BAKKEN	10-2017	31	8714	8708	9157	15136	7997	5574
BAKKEN	9-2017	30	8504	8631	13802	14771	7696	5553
BAKKEN	8-2017	20	3026	2901	10314	5256	2736	1948
BAKKEN	7-2017	1	2	0	1	4	0	4
BAKKEN	6-2017	20	891	958	417	1548	1013	121
BAKKEN	5-2017	31	1376	1307	639	2389	1467	151
BAKKEN	4-2017	30	1341	1331	708	2328	1350	223

This page won't be updated. The Wolf / Rachel Wolf wells are tracked here.