The Bakken In Graphs And Tables -- February 9, 2019

Updates

February 12, 2019: continuing the discussion -- I have looked at almost 1,000 scout tickets from file number #28000 to #28700, and then #18000 -- #18037. Some observation, with regard to "Bakken" wells. Again, this is from the scout tickets alone, regarding the "pool" designation:

• almost 100% of scout tickets designate "Bakken" as the pool; the only ones not designated as "Bakken" are about ten "Bakken/Three Forks" pool wells in Keene oil field
• the "Bakken" is designated as the pool regardless of whether the formation targeted is the middle Bakken or any of the benches of the Three Forks
• of the almost 1,000 scout tickets I have looked at so far, one field is unique: every "Bakken" wells in the Keene oil field is designated at "Bakken/Three Forks" on the scout ticket. This is regardless of operator, and extends back to the first "Bakken" well to the most recent "Bakken" well
• I have found not one scout ticket that designates the pool at "Three Forks"
• the fields immediately surrounding the Keene oil field, all use the "Bakken" pool designation and not "Bakken/Three Forks"
• looking at the geologist's reports for Keene oil field, the field has the typical geology seen across the Williston Basin where the Bakken exists: upper Bakken, middle Bakken, lower Bakken, Three Forks (benches may or may not be separated out), Birdbear
• there are a dozen or so "Sanish" wells but that designation is better understood

February 10, 2019: The original post brought us full circle to an issue that we discussed in the early days of the boom.


A reader responding to the original post has it exactly right.

His interpretation helps explain what I was missing and what I could not figure out and why I was so confused. For now, I will post the reader's interpretation -- which I think is exactly on target -- and perhaps later, make some additional comments. It's a long note, but the bottom line is that the "Bakken" production referenced in the original post includes both the middle Bakken and "most/all" of the Three Forks wells, all benches, drilled during the Bakken boom.

If I correctly understood your comparisons of Bakken and Three Forks production by years, I think there might be something lost in terminology.

The ND Oil and Gas Division has chosen to use the term “Bakken” for all zones from 50 feet above the upper Bakken shale to the top of the Bird Bear formation. This group term includes the middle Bakken and all four benches of the Three Forks. In this case the name Bakken does not mean only Middle Bakken.

When you review the individual well files, the group name “Bakken” includes about 6500 middle Bakken wells and 5500 Three Forks with some over 80% of these being 1st bench, with balance being mostly 2nd bench and only very few 3rd bench. The wells in Divide County and southern Billings County are mainly Three Forks wells but by the ND O&G group definition of “Bakken”, these Three Forks wells are included as Bakken wells. I guess this overlapping naming system makes it easier in writing and enforcing regulations, but is makes it confusing when trying to get detail on which specific zones of the Bakken/Three Forks complex are involved in oil and gas production.

The ND O&G production summery includes zones such as Bakken/Three Forks and Three Forks only. Many of the wells in these categories are old vertical wells which were completed in overlapping zones. Some might be newer horizontal wells which were drilled on the edges of the basin where the lower Bakken shale is not present and the horizontal well made intermittent contact with both the middle Bakken and Three Forks bench one.

The Three Forks wells do make a major contribution to ND oil and gas production but their production is often lost in the group name “Bakken”.

The reader provided his methodology:

FYI, here’s my methodology. I took each township in what appears to be the core area and assigned it an EUR potential. This included the number of pay zones (MB, TF 1, 2, 3) and their quality which resulted in an ultimate potential of each spacing unit in that township. I did the same for each township in non-core areas. Most of these non-core units have only two pay zones and some only one. It was an interesting challenge.

Now technology and the price of crude can take over and do their magic!

The last two years have brought unbelievable changes.

Original Post 

With Some Editing Following The Reader's Comments Above

30-second elevator speech:

• production from the Bakken, calendar year, 2017: 360 million bbls
• production from the Three Forks, calendar year, 2017: 2 million bbls
• USGS 2013 Survey, technically recoverable oil
• Bakken: 3.7 billion bbls
• Three Forks: 3.7 billion bbls

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

The Post

Production in the Williston Basin by formation (link here):

YEAR	Bakken	Three Forks
2017	361,131,625	1,713,089
2016	348,961,329	2,063,186
2015	397,684,040	3,198,603
2014	361,654,835	3,477,315
2013	284,554,268	1,631,693
2012	215,490,552	735,568
2011	126,178,063	563,459
2010	85,075,338	464,976

The graph:

Modified graph: it is impossible to see the Three Forks production in the graphic above, so I modified the graph by changing the middle Bakken production -- moving the decimal to the left by two spots. In other words, in the graph below, for it to be accurate, the middle Bakken production is 100x more than shown. The Three Forks data is unchanged.

Note: this was done quickly, not triple-checked and there are likely to be typographical and facutal errors. If this information is important to you, go to the source.

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

Number of Wells Drilled In North Dakota, 2000 - 2017

Includes all wells, including salt water disposal wells and injection wells.  Link here.

Year	Number of Wells
2017	1,033
2016	756
2015	1,579
2014	2,350
2013	2,176
2012	1,995
2011	1,300
2010	862
2009	522
2008	581
2007	359
2006	317
2005	240
2004	223
2003	216
2002	164
2001	190
2000	138

The graphic:

Production:

And imagine: the Bakken is said to be "peanuts" in size compared to the Permian. Can you imagine?

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

Idle Calculations

Using Back-of-the-Envelope

In round numbers, the Bakken/Three Forks first bench is producing 400 million bbls of oil each year.

Over twenty years that translates to 8 billion bbls of crude oil. Not boe but crude oil.

Some folks think that "they" will drill for 70 more years. Let's say 50 years.

Unfettered, it was assumed by some that the Bakken could produce 2.2 million bopd.

Let's say 1.5 million bopd, not much more than the current production rate.

x 365 days = 550 million bbls/year (which is in the current ballpark of 400 million bbls/year).

x 50 years = 27,750 million bbls or nearly 30 billion bbls.

The 2013 USGS survey:

• the mean: 7.4 billion bbls of recoverable oil
• the maximum estimate: 11.4 billion bbls of recoverable oil

Leigh Price's original paper: a reservoir of 500 billion bbls.

Ten percent primary recovery across the entire basin: 50 billion bbls.

The law of big numbers: everything seems to be in the same ball park.

Every one percent of 500 billion bbls = 5 billion bbls = about 275,000 bopd over the 50 years.

Currently producing about 1.3 million bopd, 275,000/1,300,000 = 20% increase in daily production.

Preliminary Study Regarding The Middle And Lower Benches Of The Three Forks -- Geo News -- December 9, 2018

This was posted as an update to an earlier post but it is too important to be lost, so I am reposting it:

Don sent me a link to an article in the January, 2018, issue of Geo News. It should download as a pdf on your desktop:

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/documents/newsletter/2018Winter/Examination_of_Middle_Three_Forks_Hydrocarbon_Charge_and_Production.pdf

From that article:

There is currently limited geological information available regarding the petroleum geology and economic importance of the middle to lower Three Forks.

Resource assessments of the Three Forks Formation have ranged from approximately 2 to 4 billion barrels of recoverable oil, but these assessments have been limited to the upper Three Forks (Nordeng and Helms, 2010; Gaswirth et al., 2013).

This article reports the preliminary findings of a recently initiated study on the origin and distribution of oil saturations within the middle Three Forks. It also reviews the present production footprint of 2nd bench horizontal oil wells and projects their potential future distribution.

In addition, I am examining oil saturations and hydrocarbon production in the lower Three Forks (3rd and 4th benches).

The author is Timothy O. Nesheim.

As noted, this article is a "work in progress." Unless I missed it, the author did not provide estimated reserves in the middle or lower benches of the Three Forks.

Don suggests it is likely that this paper is part of the ongoing USGS survey of the Bakken/Three Forks.

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

See How Many Faces You Recognize

Sun Records Medley

Putting The Bakken Into Perspective -- December 9, 2018

Updates

Later, 10:07 a.m. CT: Don sent me a link to an article in the January, 2018, issue of Geo News. It should download as a pdf on your desktop:

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/documents/newsletter/2018Winter/Examination_of_Middle_Three_Forks_Hydrocarbon_Charge_and_Production.pdf

From that article:

There is currently limited geological information available regarding the petroleum geology and economic importance of the middle to lower Three Forks.

Resource assessments of the Three Forks Formation have ranged from approximately 2 to 4 billion barrels of recoverable oil, but these assessments have been limited to the upper Three Forks (Nordeng and Helms, 2010; Gaswirth et al., 2013).

This article reports the preliminary findings of a recently initiated study on the origin and distribution of oil saturations within the middle Three Forks. It also reviews the present production footprint of 2nd bench horizontal oil wells and projects their potential future distribution.

In addition, I am examining oil saturations and hydrocarbon production in the lower Three Forks (3rd and 4th benches).

The author is Timothy O. Nesheim.

As noted, this article is a "work in progress." Unless I missed it, the author did not provide estimated reserves in the middle or lower benches of the Three Forks.

Don suggests it is likely that this paper is part of the ongoing USGS survey of the Bakken/Three Forks.

Original Post

At one million bopd, the Bakken produces (365 million bbls x 3 years =) one billion bbls every three years. Unfettered, of course, the Bakken could produce more than 2 million bopd, or one billion bbls every year and a half.

So what?

At the sidebar at the right, there is a long list with "Other Formations." Here is the link to "Norway," for example.

And from that page, the most recent post:

December 8, 2018: from Equinor's website, this date -- Johan Sverdrup—the North Sea giant Johan Sverdrup is one of the five largest oil fields on the Norwegian continental shelf.

With expected resources of between 2.1—3.1 billion barrels of oil equivalents, it will also be one of the most important industrial projects in Norway in the next 50 years. The development and operation of this enormous field will generate revenue and provide jobs for coming generations.

My hunch is that the next USGS survey of the Bakken/Three Forks will be the equivalent of adding several such fields to the Williston Basin. It is unlikely the next survey will include Three Forks B2 and B3 because so few wells have been drilled into the lower Three Forks. 

Huge News! USGS To Reassess The Bakken -- December 11, 2017

Data points from The Bismarck Tribune:

• ND leaders pressed for reassessment
• that was the headline but a few "ifs" and "buts"
• last assessment was in 2013; at that time:
• the Three Forks crude oil formation was deemed recoverable, bringing future resources to be tapped in the Williston Basin up from 3.7 billion barrels to 7.4 billion barrels of oil
• possible natural gas production also rose from 1.9 trillion cubic feet to 6.7 trillion cubic feet
• the 2013 survey is linked at the sidebar at the right; here's the link:http://themilliondollarway.blogspot.com/2013/04/usgs-doubles-estimate-of-bakken-74.html

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

Electricity, Spot Prices Elsewhere

New England: spiking to $60/MWh
Australia:

• South Austrailia: will spike to $350/MWh
• Victoria: will spike to $290/MWh

Back To The Permian -- November 17, 2016

This morning on MSNBC Morning Joe it was mentioned that the USGS analysis of the Permian showed:

• 20 billion bbls
• largest continuous reservoir USGS has ever surveyed
• 3x the size of the Bakken

I took another look at the first note at the blog regarding this new survey. At the post, the Permian:

• an estimated and previously unaccounted for 20 billion bbls crude oil
• 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas; and, 
• 1.6 billion bbls of natural gas 

Let's go back to some earlier posts on the size of the Bakken:

• a trillion-bbl reservoir?
• Bentek: 2.2 million bopd
• USGS 2013 Bakken-Three Forks: top line estimate: 11.4 billion bbls
• Bakken production through 2040

Comments derived from those links regarding the Bakken follow.

A trillion-bbl reservoir:

• the trillion-bbl reservoir first posited by CLR, was eventually pulled back to the Leigh Price number, 500 billion bbls
• a 3% primary recovery rate of 500 billion bbls = 15 billion bbls
• a 10% primary recovery rate of 500 billion bbls = 50 billion bbls

Bentek and EIA, Bakken production 2040:

• 1.5 million bopd average through 2030; 2016 - 2030 =  15 yrs x 365 days/yr x 1.5 million bopd = 8,200 million bbls = 8 billion bbls (sub-total)
• 2.0 million bopd average, 2031 - 2040) = 10 years x 365 days/yr x 2 million bopd = 7,300 million bopd = 7 billion bbls (sub-total)
• 1 million bopd average after 2040 through unknown number of years
• total estimate based on Bentek, EIA presentations in the past: 8 billion + 7 billion + x billion = at least 15 billion bbls
• everyone pretty much agrees 3% recovery rate is a very, very conservative recovery rate for the Bakken; Whiting has suggested as much as 8%

USGS Permian and Bakken surveys

• for the Bakken-Three Forks: top-line estimate -- 11.4 billion bbls
• I've not see USGS's top-line estimate for the Permian; the headline number is 20 billion bbls
• 20 billion bbls is not 3x the size of the Bakken
• but that's about right: USGS mid-range estimate for the Bakken: 7.4 billion bbls; for the Permian: 20 billion bbls

This graphic was posted by the EIA earlier this year, August 22, 2016:

Note the amount of dark blue (Bakken) vs the Wolfcamp (blue).

In light of the new USGS survey of the Permian the graph will have to be re-done (I would suppose).

ND State Senator Asks For Updated Study Of Fossil Fuel Reserves In Western North Dakota -- October 22, 2015

The Dickinson Press is reporting:

U.S. Sen.  John Hoeven, R-N.D., has asked the U.S. Geological Survey to update the agency’s study of recoverable reserves of oil and natural gas in the Williston Basin.

At Hoeven’s request, USGS released the study of recoverable oil reserves in April 2013 that found there are approximately 7.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil, more than twice the previous estimate in the Williston Basin. The report also estimates there is 6.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

If you do the math, add the natural gas (boe) to the crude oil, and then divide that number into the natural gas (boe), the number suggests 13% of the crude oil / natural gas mix is natural gas.  

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

President Obama Vetoes Defense Appropriations Bill

Bill Had Unprecedented Bipartison Support

Extremely Rare For A President To Veto a Defense Appropriations Bill

Vetoed Over Two Minor Issues, All-Political 

The House of the Rising Sun, The Animals

Looking Forward, Looking Back -- August 4, 2014

From the archives. (Same story at this website.)

Don sent me a link earlier today regarding an early story of the Bakken, which then then led me to a very nice analysis of the Bakken which was published at The Oil Drum in 2008. It is a very, very good overview of the Bakken. The author also lays out a very, very nice analysis of the likely amount of oil that the Bakken might produce.

It's a long article, and I heartily recommend newbies read it to help them put the Bakken - 2008 in perspective to the Bakken - 2014.

So, how much did the writer think the Bakken was capable of producing. From the article:

Will Bakken ever produce as much as 4.1 billion barrels (= 3,649+500 million barrels), the amount suggested by the USGS estimate? It seems very unlikely. Production so far has been 111 million barrels. If the industry is able to discover several more prolific areas such as the Elm Coulee field in Montana (43 million barrels, or 38% of the Bakken oil recovered to date), it might be possible to increase this recovery to 500 million barrels, or 4.5 times the current production. Is total production of 500 million barrels likely? It's difficult to say. The USGS estimate is vastly higher than this, so much less likely.

If 500 million barrels turns out to be the ultimate recovery, the recovery factor would range from 0.13% to 0.25% of estimated oil in place. This very low percentage recovery of the estimated oil in place is not unreasonable if one considers that many of the more marginal areas of the field are likely to be deemed sub-economic and will never be drilled and produced. Technology improvements that will inevitably be made during an era of high energy prices will undoubtedly render some of this more marginal oil recoverable, but the total recovery is still likely to be low.

It appears the writer suggested, back in 2008:

• 0.13% to 0.25%: recovery rate of original oil in place;
• not much more than 500 million bbls over the lifetime of the Bakken; 
• marginal areas of the field will be deemed sub-economic; and,
• although there would be technological improvements, making more marginal oil recoverable, the total recovery is still likely to be low

Where are we today?

• 1 million bopd (about 300 million bbls/year, I suppose, starting this year); and this is just North Dakota; The Oil Drum author was talking about the entire Bakken;
• a recovery rate of somewhere between 3% and 8% is the general consensus, but some think the recovery rate is more than 8%;
• even the "marginal areas" (whatever that means) are being drilled aggressively; whether they will be found to be sub-economic will not be know for awhile, but oil companies certainly think drilling at the edges of the Bakken are worth the effort/financial risk; and,
• this is all primary production; secondary and tertiary production will increase ultimate recovery

North Dakota produced 313,801,706 bbls of oil in calendar year 2013, according to the NDIC.

Cumulative production by formation, according to the NDIC, to date:

• Bakken: 831,017,850 bbls (moving toward 1 billion bbls of oil from the Bakken)
• Bakken/Three Forks:  3,590,399 bbls
• Three Forks: 145,747 bbls
• Sanish: 22,539,246 bbls
• Pronghorn: not yet separated out

Total: 857,293,242 bbls from the Bakken Pool (moving toward 1 billion bbls of oil from the Bakken)

In comparison, the next most prolific formation:

• Madison: 939,049,431 bbls; in continuous production in North Dakota since the 1950s

The Oil Peak folded up its tent a year or so ago; the Bakken seems to be getting busier.

Oh, back to that question whether the Bakken would ever produce 4.1 billion bbls of oil?

4.1 billion / 300 million = 14 years.

Or 4.1 - 857,293,242 = 3,242,706,758
3,242,706,758 / 365 million = 9 years.

The contributor who wrote the linked article at The Oil Drum: Piccolo, a petroleum engineer working in the petroleum industry. I can see why he/she used an alias. LOL.

By the way, how much OOIP was "Piccolo" willing to concede that existed in the Bakken?

0.20% of what = 500 million bbls (from "Piccolo").
The "what" = 250 billion bbls,
The general consensus is that the recovery rate, at minimum, is 3%, and might be 8%.

3% of 250 billion bbls = 7.5 billion bbls to be recovered at 3%.

7.5 billion bbls / EURs of 603,000 bbls = 12,438 wells at 2,000 wells/year = 6 years of wells. About two years of wells are already drilled. Something tells me the 3% recovery rate OR the 250-billion-bbl OOIP estimate is far too low.

Check out the original Leigh Price paper.

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

Looking Forward, Looking Back, Slim Dusty

OBSERVATION 6: Random Observations Regarding the USGS 2013 Assessment of the Bakken: UND-EERC

This may or may not be trivial with regard to the USGS 2013 Assessment of the Bakken.

Check out the USGS 2013 PowerPoint presentation [The USGS Report on the Bakken] regarding the assessment of the Bakken. Slide lists the "Non-USGS Cooperators." Notably absent is UND and/or UND-EERC. The only academic entity listed is the Colorado School of Mines. Perhaps UND and UND-EERC are closely aligned with the North Dakota Geological Survey and perhaps the UND folks had some input.

Maybe I'm just super-sensitive but it certainly seems UND/UND-EERC should have been part of the process.

OBSERVATION 5: Random Observations Regarding the USGS 2013 Assessment of the Bakken: The "F95" For The Bakken Actually Decreased

The very first slide (after the introductory stuff), the USGS asks the question: why assess the Bakken  ... again? Because the "Three Forks Formation was not assessed in 2008."

There were several additional reasons, but it seems from the report that the USGS did not actually consider any of those additional reasons, based on the results (substantial increase in number of wells, longer well prouction histories, new technology, increased cooperation from industry experts, etc).

The "new" 2013 number for the Bakken Formation: 2.81 to 4.61 (mean: 3.65 billion bbls).

The  "old" 2008 assessment for the Bakken Formation: 3.0 to 4.3 (mean: 3.65 billion bbls).

Although the mean remained the same, the "F95" for the Bakken actually appears to have decreased. (This is based on the narrative for 2008 and the slide presentation for 2013, but those are the numbers provided.)

That's the observation. It's hard to believe that five years of new data, new technology, more wells, increased fracking stages/well, the assessment did not result in any change in the mean, either up or down. There are four possibilities for the Bakken mean not to have changed over five years:

a) the Bakken Formation was not reassessed; only the Three Forks
b) the oil industry has not gotten any better at recovering oil from the Bakken Formation
c) the oil industry has gotten better but the USGS took that into consideration back in 2008, and thus no change in the assessment
d) the USGS is really, really good at making estimates, and five years later, their assessments have not changed for the Bakken Formation

OBSERVATION 4: Random Observations Regarding the USGS 2013 Assessment of the Bakken: The Pronghorn Member

From the report:

The Pronghorn Member of the Bakken Formation, although geologically and stratigraphically defined as part of the Bakken Formation (LeFever and others, 2011), is assessed with the Three Forks Formation.

Where present, the Pronghorn Member is in fluid communication with the underlying Three Forks reservoirs.

Two comments:

• this is an administration decision, to include the Pronghorn Member with the underlying Three Forks reservoirs (note the plurality of reservoirs when discussing the Three Forks Formation)
• noting that the Pronghorn Member is geologically and stratigraphically defined as part of the Bakken Formation (and has been so defined at least since 2011) provides scientific basis for the NDIC's decision to redefine stratigraphic limits as requested by the oil industry

And that's it. Nothing controversial. Simply an observation and a couple of comments.

But, I cannot resist: It would be interesting to read the 2011 Julie LeFever paper that explains why the Pronghorn Member, lying below a tight shale formation, and communicating with the Three Forks Formation, is geologically and stratigraphically defined as part of the Bakken Formation; and, then, of course, why oil from the Pronghorn Member will be considered Three Forks oil.

I assume the answer to the second part of that question/statement is based on precedence and commingling. It makes sense to assess Pronghorn Member oil with the Three Forks Formation oil,  going back to hydrocarbon "fingerprints."

But the 2011 Julie LeFever paper should make interesting reading:

LeFever, J.A., LeFever, R.D., and Nordeng, S.H., 2011, Revised nomenclature for the Bakken Formation (Mississippian-Devonian), North Dakota, in Robinson, J.W., LeFever, J.A., and Gaswirth, S. B., eds., The Bakken-Three Forks Petroleum System in the Williston Basin: Denver, Colo., Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, p. 11 - 26.

The North Dakota Geological Survey, Geologic Investigation No. 165 (GI-165) provides a very nice graphic of the three members of the Bakken, as well as five (5) members of the Three Forks. This is a must-read document: it points out that "current industry terminology refers to the member 5, 4, 2, and 1 as benches (i.e., member 5 is referred to as the "First Bench").

.... It is interesting to compare the oil saturations against the water saturations. Oil saturations are consistent through the Bakken, but tend to taper off below member 5 ("First Bench"). Correlations become especially important in the Continental Resources, Inc. -- #1-3H Debrecen well where the highest oil saturations are in the Pronghorn Member of the upper Three Forks. In contrast to the cross-sections wells, the EOG Resources, Inc. -- #2-11H Liberty has oil saturations throughout the Three Forks section.

... An abundance of fractures appear to coincide with higher water saturations in the Three Forks. The opposite is reflected by fractures in the Bakken. ... The absence of significant amounts of clay suggests that the marker bed that denotes the top of member 4 ("Second Bench") may not confine a fracture stimulation treatment as previously thought. ... A preliminary examination of the Three Forks  Formation raises some interesting questions as to how extensive is the resources, what are the controlling factors, and what constitutes the reservoir. Additional examination of new cores may answer some of the questions.

OBSERVATION 3: USGS Needs To Improve on Style: Slide 17 Legend

A better graphic -- A huge thank you to a reader; see comments. Now, why couldn't the USGS have done this in the first place? The link: http://i.imgur.com/pdRjCZc.jpg

Updates

Original Post

This post refers to the USGS PowerPoint presentation for the 2013 Assessment of the Bakken/Three Forks.  

At slide 17, the USGS provides a graphic of the relative size of the various basins of continuous oil reservoirs, such as the Bakken, in the United States, to include Alaska. If one is trying to downplay the size of the Bakken, this is pretty successful.

Each basin/locality has a green "dot" varying in size based on the size of the reservoir. The USGS uses four dots to represent four "sizes":

• less than 0.1 billion bbls
• 0.1 to 0.5 billion bbls
• 0. 5 to 2.0 billion bbls
• greater than 2.0 billion bbls

That was fine when the largest continuous reservoir, the Bakken, was estimated to be 3.6 billion barrels back in 2008. But with the new estimate, the graphic needs to be updated.

Take a look at the graphic (slide 17 at the link). There is not a whole lot of difference in the size of the green "dots" for the Permian, the Western Gulf, and the Williston Basin. In fact, a newbie glancing quickly at this one slide would not be all that impressed with how much bigger the Williston Basin is compared to the Permian or the Western Gulf based on the graphic or the size of the dots.

But then look at the numbers:

• Permian Basin (Midland-Odessa): 0. 51 billion bbls
• Alaska North Slope (Prudhoe Bay): 0.94 billion bbls
• Western Gulf (Eagle Ford) Basin: 1.73 billion bbls
• Williston (Bakken/Three Forks) Basin: 7.38 billion bbls

The Williston Basin, at 7.38 is more than 4x greater than the Western Gulf (Eagle Ford). And then, get this: the Williston Basin's continuous oil reservoir is almost 15 times larger than the Permian Basin (Midland-Odessa).  The "green dot" overlying North Dakota should be twice as big as it is.

Having said all that: my hunch is that the estimate for the Western Gulf (Eagle Ford) continuous reservoir is significantly underestimated, and will be revised upward in the next assessment.

OBSERVATION 2: Random Observations Regarding the USGS 2013 Assessment of the Bakken: The Four Benches of the Three Forks

Widely released yesterday were two USGS products: a four-page glossy and a 20-slide Power Point presentation. Both of them are linked at the this post.

Slide 6 of the PowerPoint Presentation shows the three sub-formations of the Bakken formation: upper, middle, and lower.

That slide also shows the "Pronghorn Member/Sanish Sand."

Interestingly enough, the slide does not show the four benches of the Three Forks. In fact, it does not even show the "upper" and "lower" units, though these are mentioned in passing in the glossy: "The Three Forks Formation reaches a maximum thickness of 270 feet in the central portion of the basin and is divided stratigraphically into lower and upper units, with variable oil saturations."

USGS assessments are based on the results of completed wells, past and present. At the time of the assessment, I would assume 90% of the Three Forks wells targeted the upper unit, and none targeted the deeper unit that Continental Resources refers to as the third and fourth bench. Indeed, it was only in the past month or so that the first well was successfully drilled into the third bench (and it is producing oil).

US Government Agency Announces "Another Bakken" Discovered In North Dakota! USGS Doubles Estimate of the Bakken: 7.4 Billion Bbls Of Recoverable Oil; And That's The Mean; Top Line Is 11.4 Billion Bbls; Both Numbers Considered Conservative By Some

The Official USGS Survey
The USGS Report on the Bakken 
(PowerPoint Presentation) 

Observations

Observation 1: TOC
Observation 2: The Four Benches of the Three Forks  
Observation 3: The relative size of the Bakken compared to the two Texas basins
Observation 4: The Pronghorn Member
Observation 5: The "F95" for the Bakken Formation actually decreased slightly
Observation 6: Where is UND / UND-EERC?

Other Sources

Unofficial: a trillion-bbl reservoir?

Updates

September 26, 2019: estimates, updated.

June 16, 2018: the next USGS survey of the Bakken/Three Forks was scheduled for 2020. North Dakota congressional representatives successfully lobbied the USGS to begin the survey sooner. That was announced on December 11, 2017. This suggests to me that the USGS should begin the new survey not later than by the end of 2018. Let's hope.

May 10, 2013: back-of-the-envelope calculations. The four counties with the most activity: Dunn, McKenzie, Mountrail, Williams, around 10,000 square miles. One section is a square mile. It's pretty much agreed there will be four wells in each section in this part of the Bakken: 40,000 wells. EURs/well of 500,000 are certainly likely. 40 x 500 = 20,000 x 1,000 x 1,000 = 20 billion bbls of oil in these four counties.

Now, let's say someone suggests 4 wells/section throughout the entire 4-county area is a little optimist, then we have one-half of Burke County (500 sq miles); Divide County (1,000 sq miles); Stark County (1,000 sq miles -- where Whiting's Pronghorn Prospect is): 2,500 sq miles = 2,500 sections. Let's say just two wells per section at 300,000 bbls EUR. 2 wells/section x 2,500 sections = 5,000 wells x 300,000 bbls = 5 x 300 = 1,500 x 1,000 x 1,000 = another 1.5 billion bbls, which is extremely conservative.

So, very, very conservative, 20 billion bbls. USGS says 7.3 billion, and Lynn Helms says the 5% probability figure of 11 billion bbls is a reasonable target. And I do believe that folks like Harold Hamm were looking at 20 billion bbls recoverable from the middle Bakken alone, even before considering the Three Forks. 

May 10, 2013: I just noticed that Lynn Helms, Director, NDIC, released a press release on the USGS 2013 survey of the Bakken. He said he was happy with the survey, stating clearly that the figure of 11 billion barrels of recoverable oil was an appropriate target. The mean of 7.38 billion bbls was not mentioned, suggesting that Lynn Helms feels strongly that 11 billion bbls is the more likely figure.

May 6, 2013: Minneapolis StarTrib article on assessment.

Later, 5:27 pm: Carpe Diem's take on the new assessment.

“These world-class formations contain even more energy resource potential than previously understood, which is important information as we continue to reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign sources of oil,” said Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell. “We must develop our domestic energy resources armed with the best available science, and this unbiased, objective information will help private, nonprofit and government decision makers at all levels make informed decisions about the responsible development of these resources.”

Does this mean SecInterior Sally Jewell will support fracking?

Later, 2:59 pm: The Oil & Gas Journal is reporting: 

The Bakken and Three Forks formations in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana hold an estimated mean of 7.38 billion bbl of undiscovered, technically recoverable crude oil, the US Geological Survey announced.

The updated assessment represents a two-fold increase from the 2008 estimate of 3.65 billion bbl in the Bakken, it noted.

The update includes the Three Forks for the first time.

USGS’s latest assessment found that the Bakken has a 3.65 billion bbl estimated mean resource—unchanged from 5 years ago—and Three Forks has an estimated mean 3.73 billion bbl. The formations’ combined estimate ranges from 4.42 million bbl, with a 95% chance of production, to 11.43 billion bbl, with a 5% chance.

Other data points:

• 6.7 Tcf of associated / dissolved natural gas
• 0.53 billion bbls of natural gas liquids 

The narrative continues:

Gas estimates ranged from 3.43 Tcf (with a 95% chance of production) to 11.25 Tcf (with a 5% chance) and 0.23 billion bbl (95%) to 0.95 billion bbl (5%) of NGLs. These estimates represent a nearly three-fold increase in mean gas and NGL resource estimates from the 2008 assessment, due primarily to the inclusion of Three Forks Formation, USGS said.

Later, 12:17 pm: Tweets keep coming. Bits and pieces starting to flow re: USGS estimate: Hoeven: 7.4 billion is a mean number. Top line is 11.4 billion barrels.  Hoeven says both numbers likely conservative. Just between you and me, there is a huge difference between 7.4 billion and 11.4 billion. Using a calculator, I get a difference of 4 billion. The four-billion-delta exceeds the 3.6 billion bbl USGS estimate in 2008. In other words, the USGS has just announced "another Bakken" has been discovered in the United States. It is located, coincidentally enough, in western North Dakota.

Original Post

The Grand Forks Herald is reporting:

The U.S. Geological Survey said today there is nearly twice as much recoverable oil in the Williston Basin than its estimate of five years ago.

The USGS has determined that there are approximately 7.4 billion barrels of oil that could be pumped from western North Dakota and eastern Montana.

The last USGS study, released in April 2008, identified 3.65 billion recoverable barrels of oil in the Bakken formation. The new estimate includes oil that could come from the Three Forks formation in addition to the Bakken formation.

Some have already noted: 3.65 x 2 = 7.3. The new estimate is 7.4. So I don't quite understand the GFH's reporter saying that the "7.4 is nearly twice as much." The fact is: 7.4 is more than twice as much. And then we find out that 7.4 is the "mean" number; in fact, the top line was significantly higher. [Later: now that I see more data, as provided by The Oil & Gas Journal, it makes sense why the GFH reporter said "nearly twice as much."]

We'll have to wait to see the report for the full details.

If the recovery rate is 5%, then we're talking 148 billion bbls of original oil in place.

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

Later, 11:57 am:

Platts is now tweeting:

USGS estimates about 7.4 billion barrels of undiscovered/technically recoverable oil lies in the Bakken and Three Forks tight oil formations.

I wonder where that "undiscovered" Bakken/Three Forks oil is? I assume much of it is under Harold Hamm's oil rigs, and much of it is under the multi-well pads going in. As my daughter would text: LOL.

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

A reader sent me a very lengthy comment regarding the USGS 2013 Survey of the Bakken/Three Forks. I am including it here for archival purposes. It will be interesting to come back in five years and re-visit this analysis:

Some thoughts regarding the recent USGS assessment of the undiscovered oil and gas in the Bakken/Three Forks.

It seems to me, based on current development, the estimate is conservative, but 7.4 billion barrels is a lot of oil! It would take average production of over 600,000 barrel of oil per day in North Dakota to produce this amount in 30 years.  We know it is likely total production for the Bakken zones will continue beyond 30 years but it seems obvious there will need to be very high production in the next 10 years or so to get a 600,000 barrel average over the long term.

It also appears, USGS did not re-visit their 2008 Bakken only numbers even though new fracking and completion techniques have revolutionized development in the past five years.  They added the 3.7 billion barrel estimate for the Three Forks with very little direction as to “sweet spots” or the role of the various “benches” in this zone.  The only conclusion has to be the Three Forks contains a little more producible oil than the Middle Bakken alone. 

I have difficulty matching the USGS study will current production results and actual drilling/permitting programs. For example, the Nesson-Little Knife Assessment Unit is an area almost 150 miles north to south and from 25 to 40 miles wide.  Since the south 20 miles of this unit has not shown much promise in the Middle Bakken, I only included the 130 miles (N-S) and 30 miles average east to west.  This results in 3900 square miles or 1950 1280 acre production units.  The USGS Middle Bakken study shows 1.149 billion bbls of recoverable oil in this unit.

Divide 1950 units into this estimate and it results in a little less than 600,000 barrels per 1280 acre unit.  The USGS also referred to something less than 300,000 barrels ultimate recovery for a well draining 400 acres in “sweet spots.”  Is the USGS assuming two 300,000 barrel wells per unit or three 200,000 barrel EUR wells per unit?  Scanning the area from north of Dickinson to the north end of the Nesson Anticline and reviewing current production results, drilling and permitting, 2 or 3 Mid Bakken wells per unit with a total EUR for the entire 1280 acre unit of less than 600,000 barrels doesn’t seem to match with reality.  Many units approach or exceed this total in their first two or three years of production. 

I did a similar study of the Central Basin Assessment Unit.  This unit may make sense from the geological perspective but actual drilling and production results vary greatly.   A large portion of the this AU in North Dakota is in the “sweet spot."

The Montana segment has had less drilling and less impressive production results so far.   In North Dakota this AU has about 1,625 1280 acre drilling units.  If you allocate 90% of the undiscovered oil in Central Basin Unit to the North Dakota units, you again get about 600,000  barrels of recoverable Middle Bakken oil from each 1280-acre unit.  From an economic unit perspective this would be about two Middle Bakken wells per unit.

Continental Resources would be through drilling with one per unit with their 603,000-barrel-per-well estimate. (I think this is very optimistic, but 350,000 to 450,000 bbls of oil per well in “sweeter spots” seems more reasonable). 

I will concede that the 2013 USGS numbers might be “spot on.”  Time will tell.  For me, I will pay attention to what current operators in the Bakken are doing.  These operators most certainly have their own set of numbers for the acreage they control.  The actual pay-out of these wells will determine future development. Theory and analysis are important but cannot replace actual results. 

Perhaps clarification from USGS concerning recovery by 1280-acre unit will help in understanding their methodology. 

Finally, I’ll say it again:  “7.4 billion barrels is a lot of oil!"

It sure is. 

New Survey of Non-Bakken Recoverable OIl in the Williston Basin Requested -- North Dakota, USA

The USGS accomplished two surveys in the Williston Basin in 2008.

• One survey was of the Bakken pool.
• The other survey was of the non-Bakken pool. 

The results:

• The Bakken survey, 2008: 3 to 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil
• The non-Bakken survey, 2008: 200 million barrels of recoverable oil

Today it is being reported that US Senator Hoeven of North Dakota is asking for the USGS to re-accomplish that non-Bakken survey of the Williston Basin.

The  USGS in its 1995 survey estimated there was 150 million bbls of recoverable oil in the Williston Basin (I am not sure if that included or did not include the Bakken pool; that was before the 2000-Bakken boom that began in Elm Coulee, Montana).

Regardless, thirteen (13) years later, in the 2008 USGS survey of the non-Bakken formations in the Williston basin, the USGS estimated there were 200 million bbls of recoverable oil in non-Bakken Williston oil basin.

The estimates between 1995 and 2008 were not all that different -- they were certainly within the same ballpark as estimates go in the oil industry. It's hard to believe that after thirteen years of new technology (particularly hydraulic fracking) and thirteen years of new data (core samples, seismic data), the estimates between 1995 and 2008 were so similar.

The recent excitement in the Tyler formation alone suggests a new survey is needed. But before the survey is accomplished, let's see a few new Tyler wells with new technology. That might help the USGS surveyors. Also, maybe we should wait to see what the Canadian drillers can do with the Bottineau County Spearfish wells.