Wednesday, June 7, 2017

MRO Re-Frack -- June 7, 2017

17097, 421, MRO, Ladonna Klatt 24-22H, Chimney Butte, t6/08; cum 362K 4/17; re-fracked late 2014;

Production profile around that time:

BAKKEN6-20153031093161165029662188266
BAKKEN5-20153143744330220043223240430
BAKKEN4-20153046464668238739262906346
BAKKEN3-20153161156101338450283959230
BAKKEN2-20152850865178324947453711342
BAKKEN1-2015311006310600620296098089262
BAKKEN12-2014291541414706107491501912707501
BAKKEN11-201471147137913371252101872
BAKKEN10-20143199611024511791103398690397
BAKKEN9-2014941813590038683190177
BAKKEN8-20140000000
BAKKEN7-2014191228056055
BAKKEN6-20140000000
BAKKEN5-201427151318402611763137768
BAKKEN4-2014301815160649021561644138
BAKKEN3-2014311912186239522581763104
Posted by at
Labels:

Case Study -- Jump In Production After Neighboring Wells Were Fracked -- June 7, 2017

Updates

September 7, 2019: was off line for15 months; has now just come back on line. 

June 9, 2017: see first comment. This is incredibly important. Apparently the first well was a Three Forks well, not a middle Bakken well. This really makes sense trying to explain the production profile: the comment --
Very interesting! I did some research too, Way back in the well file (I have the premium subscription with NDIC) it shows that this is a Three Forks well. Back before Continental did the tests which showed there were two separate zones, all the wells were called Bakken... so this makes sense that this well showed these results with the nearby Three Forks wells being fracked....
Original Post

Disclaimer: in a long note like this, there will be typographical and factual errors. In addition, I may have missed something important, and/or there may things I am mis-reading. If this is important to you, go to the source.

This is being posted for an individual interested in "re-fracks" in the Bakken. 

For reasons I discussed with that individual, it is very tedious to research data on "re-fracked" wells in the Bakken.

This is how I do it:
1) I go back to "Retrieve Well Production History" at the NDIC site
2) I then go through the scout tickets/file reports one-by-one. This is incredibly tedious. This would be a good summer job for a high school student; and/or better yet, someone should be able to write an "app" that would do this
3) instruct the high school student or the "app" to a) go through the scout tickets chronologically; b) identify any wells with "unusual" (set your own parameters) production patterns
4) try to explain any jump in production using a) the file report; b) FracFocus; c) other sources
In this particular case, I started with file #17000 and worked chronologically to the first well a) with an unusual production profile; and, b) one that I had not identified before.

In just a matter of minutes I came across this one, #17086 and noted the unusual jump in production back in June, 2016.

I pulled that one aside, and then:
a) checked the file report for sundry forms that might explain the jump in production
b) retrieved the API number from the scout ticket and check FracFocus
These are the results.

 The index well:
  •  17086, 560, Newfield, Jorgenson 1-15H, Lost Bridge, t11/08; cum 276K 4/17; the production profile showed a huge jump in production in June, 2016
Looking at the GIS map at the NDIC site, I noted the graphic that is depicted below the spreadsheet. Note the four horizontals that "cross" the index well.

Of those wells, interestingly only one was a middle Bakken, and all were fracked shortly before June, 2016, when it was noted that production for #17086 jumped:
  • 32581,  Three Forks, t6/16; 50 stages, 5.6 million lbs;
  • 29856, Three Forks t6/16; 50 stages, 3.5 million lbs;
  • 32092, Three Forks, t/16; 50 stages, 5.6 million lbs;
  • 29857, middle Bakken, t6/16; 50 stages, 5.6 million lbs;
Production profile for #17086 after neighboring wells were fracked:
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
BAKKEN5-20180000000
BAKKEN4-20181000000
BAKKEN3-2018229571422343129301110
BAKKEN2-20182846875082220343291103967
BAKKEN1-201831455642902567411927421098
BAKKEN12-20173150945340289060735161633
BAKKEN11-201730637061593975645810305158
BAKKEN10-2017245405519031435589415348
BAKKEN9-201728438645301937486518792734
BAKKEN8-201728562449802472579605544
BAKKEN7-20170000000
BAKKEN6-201710282933172827360503532
BAKKEN5-20172918481181431861421621280718564
BAKKEN4-201753322619221018
BAKKEN3-2017123454633342380203
BAKKEN2-201728708869142563892766522030
BAKKEN1-2017318087863729659039869862
BAKKEN12-201631857383632318880365082032
BAKKEN11-20163077927660273558748294775
BAKKEN10-20163175207860268865711836109
BAKKEN9-201630907489583078982973882171
BAKKEN8-2016311539615098563417597141643154
BAKKEN7-2016311737017744962719641387615486
BAKKEN6-20161473766688801460952785699
BAKKEN5-20167143046531110
BAKKEN4-20160000000
BAKKEN3-20160000000
BAKKEN2-2016220004720464
BAKKEN1-2016311179136012521041089741

When I see a jump in production of this magnitude, I assume the well was re-fracked. And in this case, it is very possible the well was re-fracked but there is no evidence that it was:
  • no sundry form
  • no FracFocus data: (API: 33-025-00729)
  • on a completely different pad than where neighboring wells were fracked 
The graphic:

Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

Ten New Permits; Sixteen Permits Renewed; And, 21 Wells Approved For "Tight Hole" Status -- June 7, 2017

Active rigs:

$45.876/7/201706/07/201606/07/201506/07/201406/07/2013
Active Rigs522682194189

Ten (10) new permits:
  • Operators: CLR (8), WPX, Sinclair
  • Fields: Elidah (McKenzie); Reunion Bay (Mountrail); Lone Butte (McKenzie)
  • Comments: all eight of CLR's permits are in NWNE/NENE 30-151-97; although two will be separated from the other six (see graphic below)
Sixteen permits renewed:
  • CLR (10): three Flint Chips permits (Dunn County); two Dennis permits (Dunn County); two Berlain permits (McKenzie County); two Charleston permits (Williams County)
  • BR (6): three Midnight Run permits in McKenzie County; three Patton permits in Dunn County
Twenty-one (21) wells approved for "tight hole" status:
  • CLR: 10
  • BR: 6
  • Whiting: 5
******************************
Posted by at

Atmospheric CO2 -- May, 2017

Source here.


 Essentially no change month-over-month.

Insignificant change year-over-year.

*****************************
For AGW Deniers

I post these monthly "atmospheric CO2" updates because I'm truly curious to see how this plays out over the next three decades.

I'm pretty convinced that no one can predict that the earth's average global temperature will be 2 degrees warmer one hundred years from now.

This is pretty timely:why you should be skeptical of global warming alarmists. From lifezette:
When it comes to the global warming debate, both alarmists and critics agree on one thing: The earth has warmed by roughly 0.8 degrees Celsius over the past 150 years. It’s the cause of this warming, however, that remains in dispute. And while the public is constantly bombarded with messages about the evils of carbon dioxide emissions, there are actually compelling reasons to believe that contemporary global warming has been driven by rising solar output, not carbon dioxide.
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

"Holy Nightmare, Batman, What Do We Do Now?" -- Saudi Cash Reserves -- As Of April, 2017

Most recent data (April, 2017):



It appears the March to April (2017) decrease was greater than the February to March (2017) decrease. One would expect that all things being equal, it will only get worse for Saudi Arabia with summer approaching. Remember: Saudi says they are talking about total production cuts (not just export cuts, but total production cuts) and going into the summer months, Saudi Arabia exports less oil (thus less revenue) because they need their own oil to run their air conditioners. Yes, they use oil to make electricity. 

Source: https://tradingeconomics.com/saudi-arabia/foreign-exchange-reserves.

For past posts on Saudi's cash situation, click on the "Saudi_Cash" tag.

"Holy, nightmare, Batman! What do we do now?"
Posted by at
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)