Sounds Like Last "Ditch" Effort To Stop DAPL -- March 20, 2017

Over at KSL:

The company building the Dakota Access pipeline said Monday that the project remains on track to start moving oil this week despite recent "coordinated physical attacks" along the line.

The brief court filing late Monday from Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners didn't detail the attacks, but said they "pose threats to life, physical safety and the environment."

The filing cited those threats for redacting much of the rest of the 2½-page report, but ended: "These coordinated attacks will not stop line-fill operations. With that in mind, the company now believes that oil may flow sometime this week."

A spokeswoman for the company declined to elaborate on the types of attacks. A spokesman for the Morton County sheriff's office, the center of months of sometimes violent conflicts between protesters and law enforcement, didn't immediately respond to an email.

Going to social media sites suggest that gun shots were fired at the workers. Those reports were from several days ago. One assumes law enforcement has this under control by now. 

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

The Apple Page

On a "blah" day for the market, down a bit, not much excitement. One exception: Apple shares had a great day. I believe Apple hit a new all-time record high closing. With a market cap of $742 billion, it's the most valuable company publicly traded in the US. It well exceeds Alphabet (Google) and Facebook. I don't even look at Exxon Mobil any more.  Walmart? I think market cap for Apple is about 3x Walmart.

And tomorrow? This should be interesting:

Oasis Ceynar Update; Claystone and Shale -- March 20, 2017

Updates

May 10, 2017: the geologist's report is finally posted. #32801 is a first bench well.

March 21, 2017: in the update immediately below, the reader says the original Patsy well just to the south of the Ceynar 11T is a Second Bench producer. If I am correct, the reader is talking about #20689. It took a lot of "digging" at the file report to find it, but yes, that's accurate, the target was the second bench for this well:

• 20689, Oasis/Zenergy, 1,202, Patsy 5-8HTF, Siverston, 25 stages, 2.8 million lbs , t11/12; cum 148K 1/17;

I've talked about the "history" of the middle Bakken/Three Forks first bench/Three Forks deeper benches, but I won't repeat that here.

March 21, 2017: a question was raised whether #32801 was a first or second bench well. I think you can skip the entire original post. A reader clears it up (a big "thank you"to the reader):

The Ceynar 11T is a First Bench Three Forks well.  The claystone (shale) marks the bottom of the First Bench. The top of the target zone is 11,291 ft.  If it were a Second Bench, the horizontal leg would be drilled at about 11,340 ft TVD.

By the way, the original Patsy well just to the south of the Ceynar 11T is a Second Bench producer. 

The Patsy was drilled by Zenergy and it now owned by Oasis.  It’s horizontal leg runs

south through sections 5 and 8. 

Oasis’ naming pattern is as follows:  T (First Bench); T2 (Second); T3 (Third) B (Middle Bakken).

Original Post

Update: on the March 31, 2017, daily activity report, the name of the well for #32801 was corrected (see below; correction has been made; mostly like a first bench Three Forks well)

Over at the "Discussion Group" a reader asked about:

• 32801, drl, Oasis, Ceynar 5298 43-32 11T, Banks, 

This well should be a Three Forks well. The reader wonders whether this is a second bench Three Forks well. I don't know yet, but still looking. Maybe someone has more information.

The application stated the target was a first bench well, but the name of the well was slightly different in the application:

• Ceynar 5298 43-32 11T, Banks,

Note: no "T" after the 43-32; now  "T" has been added to the "43-32." I don't recall seeing this nomenclature before. I don't see this "T" on any of the documents in the file report. I suppose it could be a typographical error but I've never seen a typographical error in the legal name of a well on an NDIC scout ticket (I have seen typographical IP errors).

The most recent sundry form received in February, 2017, still shows this as "Ceynar 5298 43-32 11T" and no change in the name. I suppose it's possible the scout ticket with "43-32T" is a typographic error. 

From the planning report, this looks like a second bench well:

By the way, the reader noted a new marker (a new formation/sub-formation) below the target landing: Claystone 1st. I don't recall seeing Claystone 1 before.

Googling "claystone" reveals that this appears to be simply a general name for type of sedimentation that is found between different payzones?

Week 11: March 12, 2017 -- March 18, 2017

For some reason I forgot to post top stories of the week over the weekend. I will do that now, even though it will include some posts from today and yesterday.

Last week winter storm Stella rolled into the northeast US; for the most part it appears to have been over-hyped, at least as far the three major urban centers go: Boston; NYC; and, Washington, DC.

There were many, many posts on Whiting's incredible Rolla Federal wells, but I only linked one post below. I track the Rolla Federal wells here.

Operations:
Number of active rigs jumps to 50 (32 last year at same time; represents a 56% increase year-over-year)
Completion data for 3Q16 and 4Q16 wells updated
Whiting reporting some huge Rolla Federal wells, including 52K/first month of production
Update on an Oasis Rolfson well; nice results
Update of a very nice Whiting Flatland Federal well
Another well with nice post-shut-in production jump
Comments by Lynn Helms, NDIC/Director
EIA released its most recent drilling report

Pipeline
Appeals court won't take DAPL case; sets stage for oil to start flowing soon; a lot of chatter that DAPL might start flowing Monday, March 20, 2017, but no news reports yet

Fracking
Update of recent completions in the Bakken 

Bakken 101
Previously posted: break-evens in the Bakken

Random look at unusual configuration of Whiting wells in area of the microseismic array
Bakken 2.0: pad drilling; more rigs; a few new permits; a few permits renewed, DUCs completed
The shale revolution, in Zero Hedge
Backwardization vs contango 

Other
Two more wind farms proposed for North Dakota (Xcel)  

Huge Jump: To 50 Active Rigs! -- March 20, 2017

Active rigs: this is a pretty big deal. Some time ago I asked folks if they thought when/if we would ever see 50 active rigs in North Dakota again. The best answer was a reader with some close-hold information suggesting that we would see 50 active rigs by June. I was skeptical; I did not think we would see 50 active rigs in North Dakota in 2017, but here it is, on the first day of spring, 2017, and we have 50 active rigs. Compare to 32 one year ago, and 107 two years. Fifty rigs now easily beats 107 rigs two years ago. 

Active rigs:

	3/20/2017	03/20/2016	03/20/2015	03/20/2014	03/20/2013
Active Rigs	50	32	107	195	184

Two wells coming off confidential list Tuesday:

• 19947, conf, Trendwell Energy Corporation, Matter State 3-17H, Woburn, acquired from Cornerstone Resources in 2016; originally drilled/stimulated late 2011/early 2012; back on confidential status; first IP back in early 2012: 208, 1 stage, 80,456 lbs sand/proppant; stimulated 11/12/2011; followed by second frack, 17 stages, 1.31 million lbs; stimulated 1/3/2012; cum 25K as of 8/16; producing very, very little on a monthly basis through 8/16; Trendwell has two permits in ND: #1147 and #16220, a Madison well, active and in Lignite oil field; Trendwell increased production of the Madison well (#16220) from 150 bbls/month to 1,800 bbls/month in January, 2017, when it came back on line after being off-line for about five months; see this post for more information;
• 32500, SI/NC, XTO, Werre Trust Federal 14X-34AXD-N, Bear Creek, no production data,

Trendwell Energy has been added to "Bakken operators."

Seven (7) new permits (from Friday and Monday):

• Operators: Sinclair Oil & Gas (3); Whiting (3); Newfield
• Fields: Little Knife (Dunn); Moccasin Creek (Dunn), Pembroke (McKenzie)
• Comments: Sinclair's permits are in Little Knife; Whiting's are in Moccasin Creek

Correction to 3-16-17 report: the seven permits listed as cancelled were actually renewed (the data will be corrected at the original post)

Thirteen (13) permits renewed (Friday and Monday):

• BR (7): three Curtis permits and four Saddle Butte permits, all in McKenzie County
• Whiting (3): three Roggenbuck permits, all in Mountrail County
• Crescent Point Energy: one CPEUSC Manchuk permit, in Williams County
• Lime Rock: one State Dvorak permit, in Dunn County
• Resource Energy Can-Am: one Marlys permit in Divide County

Three permits cancelled:

• Hess (3): three SC-Mari permits in Williams County

Two producing wells (DUCs) reported as completed:

• 31288, 903, Enerplus, Ocotillo 149-92-35A-04H, Heart Butte, t3/17; cum --
• 32457, 1,438, Hess, BB-Federal 151-95-1708H-8, Blue Buttes, t2/17; cum --

Question Regarding CLR SWD Well In Banks Oil Field And March, 2017, Heaing Docket Case -- March 20, 2017

Updates

March 21, 2017: another nice note from a reader, reminding me how surveyors "corrected" for errors and "irregularly-shaped" townships --

Regarding the sub-divisional lines for section 2 (per original GLO survey): the SW and SE quarters are regular - contain 160 acres with the north line of said quarters established one-half mile north of south line, thus the mid-section line.

Government lots 5-12 (middle and lower tiers) are also regular 40 acre tracts (1320' x 1320') so lots 1-4 (upper tier) get all the error when closing on the parallel, and in this case creating tracts less than 40 acres.

Later, 2:02 p.m. Central Time: a reader provided some insight regarding section 2-152-99 below which will help explain things. But it probably doesn't answer the question whether the SWD well CLR is proposing is converting an older Monroe well or drilling a new one. These are the comments the reader had regarding the graphic below:

1) I am not familiar with case, but Township 152 closes on a standard parallel and section 2 would have all the error for said township on the north, therefore creating a series of government lots. This can create a lot of confusion when crafting a legal description.
2) Section 2 is very long. Therefore twelve (12) government lots make up the north half and in reality there is no NW or NE quarter.

From another reader: you are looking at this as 160 acre. The well's operator is breaking this 160 acre piece into 40 acre squares., thus technically these wells are in the  NE corner (40 acre square) of the SE corner (160  acre.)

From those comments that would put #22891 in the NESW "area" of section 2.

Original Post

 

A reader picked up on this. I'm having trouble making sense of it; I must be misreading something. Maybe a reader can help sort this out (see comments above).

It concerns section 2-152-99. These are all "Monroe" wells.

To me the 8-well pad seems to be in the NESE quadrant but the scout ticket shows them to be in the SENE quadrant (which is very, very close).

The four well pad is in the NWSW quadrant (per the scout ticket and the graphic above).

#22891 is in the SENW quadrant.

The reader noted that case #25706, Thursday, March 23, 2017, NDIC hearing dockets that CLR requests: "application ... for an order ... authorizing saltwater disposal into the Dakota Group in the Monroe SWD well, NESW section 2-152-99, Banks Field ...

I don't see an existing Monroe well in NESW 2-152-99. The oldest and most likely well would be #22891 but not only is it not in the location noted in case #25706, it seems to be a pretty good well. So, I do not understand the case as written unless CLR is going to drill a "new Monroe" well. Generally, if I recall correctly, a case to convert an existing producing well to a SWD well would use the word "convert." So, most likely a new SWD well in this section?

• 22891, 947, CLR, Monroe 1-2H, Banks, t8/12; cum 305K 1/17;

Recent Monthly Production Data:

Pool	Date	Days	BBLS Oil	Runs	BBLS Water	MCF Prod	MCF Sold	Vent/Flare
BAKKEN	1-2017	31	2659	2583	968	4507	4035	0
BAKKEN	12-2016	31	2809	3005	1042	5894	4993	420
BAKKEN	11-2016	30	2783	2860	1002	4474	3994	15
BAKKEN	10-2016	31	3040	2932	1167	4997	4516	0
BAKKEN	9-2016	24	2006	1934	707	3099	2559	250
BAKKEN	8-2016	31	2601	3002	1072	4421	3969	0
BAKKEN	7-2016	31	2943	2656	1125	4858	4377	0
BAKKEN	6-2016	28	2408	2187	875	3612	3110	103
BAKKEN	5-2016	31	2720	3087	943	4140	3659	0
BAKKEN	4-2016	30	2589	2324	947	3977	3520	0
BAKKEN	3-2016	31	2654	2719	985	4108	3627	0