# Stanley, ND oil drilling



## Bucky Goldstein

I haven't heard much on this site about the oil drilling out west.

Anybody have any useful info?

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=4155639&page=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/us/01dakota.html

Might be old news...but is anyone on this site involved in any aspect?


----------



## cavedude

I worked on the rigs the past two summers and this winter and this bakken(land formation for oil) could supposedly be one of the biggest ever recorded. and it could stretch as far as minot


----------



## R y a n

Wow that was a cool pair of stories...

Boy if these articles even come close to being accurate on the size of the boom... wow

Hunting is going to drastically change in those areas too..


----------



## Cyrus

Very good reading, thanks for posting.


----------



## neb

I live in Mt. where the drilling has been for 2 years and it has been wild I think alot of good in the oil but it has it's draw backs also. Thinks will change and has here. There is alot of money out there for sure. I also know it does effect the hunting. I seen the first boom and things can get interesting when the drilling leaves. I do think people in the area are aware of what can happen after seeing the last boom. The oil they are recovering from ND is some of the best quality the world offers. This is good for the area and the state I would think.


----------



## TANATA

We need more drilling because my truck loves the gas and burns some oil up so I need more and cheap too!!! :lol:


----------



## h2ofwlr

Maybe the state of ND should but a small per barrel tax on the oil to help keep open the smaller schools from consolidating further, and help to do upgrades to the school buildings like reapirs, and also get computer labs, etc... which the towns and students really need.

For instance, I have heard of serioius talk of Lakota and Michigan combining to form a consolidated school district. Holy smokes, kids would be on a bus for well over 2 hours a day. Not good. Let these smaller districts stay as is, and with a small influx of oil tax $, they could stave off consolidation.


----------



## fargodawg

a buddy of mine is a 'landman' in the stanley courthouse, sounds like he is busier than I thought


----------



## Bucky Goldstein

It seems like this is news to some of you Nodakers as well.

The area could end up looking like SE Saskatchewan with all the drills.

Reminds me of a flick I recently saw:






Great movie based on _Oil! _, a novel I had to read in school.


----------



## dblkluk

Its a pretty big deal up here right now.

Several large oil companies are moving offices/operations into Minot even.

I know some people are apprehensive about a "boom" but In my opinion its great for our area.



> The area could end up looking like SE Saskatchewan with all the drills.


Already does. The area from Stanley to Parshall is full of rigs right now.


----------



## Bucky Goldstein

I didn't know that. I've never been through the area when it has been light out.

How are the oil companies treating the locals? Ie have you seen a lot of good paying jobs popping up?


----------



## dblkluk

> How are the oil companies treating the locals? Ie have you seen a lot of good paying jobs popping up?


Plenty of jobs out there right now. Lots of 18 year old kids making 70k a year, working the rigs.


----------



## cavedude

Bucky Goldstein said:


> It seems like this is news to some of you Nodakers as well.
> 
> The area could end up looking like SE Saskatchewan with all the drills.


I dont want to end up like *canada* 
...........................................:withstupid:


----------



## nickle ditch

cavedude said:


> Bucky Goldstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like this is news to some of you Nodakers as well.
> 
> The area could end up looking like SE Saskatchewan with all the drills.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont want to end up like *canada*
> ...........................................:withstupid:
Click to expand...

Why?


----------



## Bobm

nickle ditch said:


> cavedude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bucky Goldstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like this is news to some of you Nodakers as well.
> 
> The area could end up looking like SE Saskatchewan with all the drills.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont want to end up like *canada*
> ...........................................:withstupid:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

Sure would improve the caliber of women in Nodak  :wink:


----------



## Bucky Goldstein

cavedude said:


> I dont want to end up like *canada*
> ...........................................:withstupid:


Ooookkayyyy...


----------



## mudstud

h20fwlr, FYI, the state of ND does impose an extraction tax on every barrel of oil produced in the state. Also, the state of ND has plenty of money. Are you suggesting we increase the oil extraction tax? Or are you just blowing smoke about something you know nothing about?

FWIW, I've worked in the oil field in the Williston Basin for 30 years and live in Minot.


----------



## adokken

I worked in the oil field in the early fifties, the sad part of it is that I met and married in my mind the best looking farm girl in Montrail Co. Her home was right i n the middle of the county,and she does not own any minerals.But I still got the best end of the deal. 
The best part of this field its oil will stay in the US. We should build our own refinery in North Dakota.


----------



## Dick Monson

> We should build our own refinery in North Dakota.


Adrian, what's the best way to do that? State funding, private investment, or a combination? If the state bank and mill work out so well, why not this too.


----------



## cavedude

nickle ditch said:


> cavedude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bucky Goldstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like this is news to some of you Nodakers as well.
> 
> The area could end up looking like SE Saskatchewan with all the drills.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont want to end up like *canada*
> ...........................................:withstupid:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

it was just a joke. didnt mean to offend anyone :lol:


----------



## adokken

Dick and I do not know what the best way to do it, But I do not think we would not have the opposition to it like the bank in the early days.


----------



## olariuo

dblkluk said:


> How are the oil companies treating the locals? Ie have you seen a lot of good paying jobs popping up?
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of jobs out there right now. Lots of 18 year old kids making 70k a year, working the rigs.
Click to expand...

I'm interested in working the rigs. Can you give me the names of a few companies which I could contact regarding jobs please?

Thank you.


----------



## R y a n

Dick Monson said:


> We should build our own refinery in North Dakota.
> 
> 
> 
> Adrian, what's the best way to do that? State funding, private investment, or a combination? If the state bank and mill work out so well, why not this too.
Click to expand...

I agree Dick!

ND should have it's own state refinery. I really can't think of a down side?

Is there one?

Anyone?


----------



## cgreeny

I have heard there is talk of them building one first on the resevation between New Town and Stanley. I also heard rumor of possibly building another one off the reservation lands. Who knows though, so far all of it is speculative rumors. I heard this, I heard that. I wish they would do it and get it done, but I think the hoops the EPA has setup is a major hurdle.


----------



## dblkluk

olariuo said:


> dblkluk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are the oil companies treating the locals? Ie have you seen a lot of good paying jobs popping up?
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of jobs out there right now. Lots of 18 year old kids making 70k a year, working the rigs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm interested in working the rigs. Can you give me the names of a few companies which I could contact regarding jobs please?
> 
> Thank you.
Click to expand...

www.jobsnd.com

Plenty of them on this site..Just search oil field jobs.


----------



## Skip OK

R y a n said:


> Dick Monson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should build our own refinery in North Dakota.
> 
> 
> 
> Adrian, what's the best way to do that? State funding, private investment, or a combination? If the state bank and mill work out so well, why not this too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree Dick!
> 
> ND should have it's own state refinery. I really can't think of a down side?
> 
> Is there one?
> 
> Anyone?
Click to expand...

RYAN,

There are quite a few down sides.

First, the thing is/was expected to cost $2Billion; about half to build it and about half to get it permitted. Permitting is expected to take several ( about 10) years, during which time the project will generate zero revenues.

Second, the time it will take to pay back the cost was projected to be about 20 years. As a side note, there hasn't been a 20 year period in the history of the "petroleum industry" where refineries consistently made profit; refinery margins are some times positive and sometimes negative.

Right now, in fact, the "downstream" end of the business , refining, transportation and marketing, is not nearly as profitable as the "upstream" end, exploration and production.

If I had $2 Billion right now, I would put it in the bank at regular passbook savings rates, which stink, rather than investing in a refinery.


----------



## buckseye

Hey Adrian.. I probably worked on that same rig 25 years later.

Hmm I didn't know the Mrs. was from Mountrail County, I've been meeting a lot of people from out that way lately. It looks good for the folks in that area, should be a few new millionaires. I wish they would get over here and drill on my land.


----------



## SiouxperDave25

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflif ... newssearch


----------



## R y a n

If there really is that much oil, that means there really is that much $$$.

*North Dakota should immediately start the process to build 2 refineries. Make them state owned and subsizdized. Start the process now.*

I don't care how much red tape is encountered. *Make it happen.* Once the process is started it will snowball and happen quicker. With the state's backing and citizen support, we can make it happen even quicker.

And no the cost doesn't matter. When you start looking at the revenues generated by this oil, North Dakota is simply missing the boat by letting the opportunity to refine it without it needing to leave the state.

There is simply no damn reason that gas isn't $1.00 a gallon in North Dakota right now. None. Period.

You all are being hood winked by business interests who are reaping the real profits. For every $1 paid to a landowner for their oil, The BIG OIL companies are reaping $5-$10 additional dollars.

Most people just can't fathom those large numbers or comprehend their meaning. Meanwhile, all that profit to North Dakota goes elsewhere.

I wonder how long it will take North Dakota's state "leaders" with teaching college degrees to figure it out?

All of you should be writing dozens of letters to your state reps demanding they take control of the coming wave of explosion. Get ahead and get started now.


----------



## cgreeny

Well how much money from the oil industry is going to the state right now. Example extraction taxes. I believe we are going to be several hundred million in excess to what the state needs to pay for. U believe last year they spend alot of it or directed it to education for the state, Why couldnt they use some of that money?


----------



## huntin1

cgreeny said:


> Well how much money from the oil industry is going to the state right now. Example extraction taxes. I believe we are going to be several hundred million in excess to what the state needs to pay for. U believe last year they spend alot of it or directed it to education for the state, Why couldnt they use some of that money?


More like $1 Billion.

http://www.jamestownsun.com/articles/in ... ction=news



> State confirms $1 billion surplus by next summer
> By Janell Cole, N.D. Capitol Bureau, The Jamestown Sun
> Published Tuesday, August 05, 2008
> 
> BISMARCK - North Dakota's state surplus will top $1 billion by next summer, the state's budget director and Gov. John Hoeven said Monday.
> 
> *More than half the surplus amount is unexpected windfall from oil taxes collected in the state's booming western energy industry.*
> 
> "What it says for North Dakota is that we're doing very, very well," said state Budget Director Pam Sharp. "I think it's possible, very possible, with this kind of balance, for us to give meaningful tax relief."
> 
> If the excess does reach the predicted $1.076 billion, the amount could theoretically be divvied up as a payment of about $1,681 for each of the 640,000 residents of North Dakota.
> 
> No one is suggesting reducing the excess to zero through lump-sum payouts to state residents, but Hoeven said it could mean he'll plump up a previously announced $300 million plan to cut property taxes while pumping more money into public schools.
> 
> He also said it could mean he will propose an income tax reduction bill in the 2009 Legislature.
> 
> That was not, however, Hoeven's endorsement of the initiated income tax measure voters will see in November, sponsored by the Americans for Prosperity.
> 
> That group has criticized the growing surplus for months as while collecting signatures for their measure that would slice the state individual income tax rates in half and corporate income taxes by 15 percent.
> 
> The new surplus projection includes higher general revenues - mostly sales and income taxes - totaling $454 million of the excess. The rest is extra oil taxes of just under $623 million. Sales and use taxes generate the most money of any source in the state, 37 percent of all general fund revenue.
> 
> The state also has a $200 million budget stabilization fund that can't be spent unless revenues dip into the negative.
> 
> Americans for Prosperity spokesman Dustin Gawrylow of Bismarck said Monday that his group is "happy that there will no longer be any disagreement about how large the surplus has become, and we thank the governor for pointing out that a full one-third of the projected surplus is from non-oil tax revenue streams."
> 
> In June, Gawrylow's group predicted the surplus would range between $969 million and $1.19 billion.
> 
> Hoeven's opponent in the governor's race, Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo, said he asked questions more than a year ago about whether the state would see a surplus of more than $1 billion.
> 
> "It's come true," he said. "And it's literally a case of mismanagement."
> 
> Mathern contends the Republican majority and the Hoeven administration "were lowballing" state revenues purposely during the 2007 budget writing.
> 
> Sharp said she was hesitant to predict a billion-dollar surplus until research by the state's revenue consultants and business leaders in recent weeks confirmed it. She had told every meeting of the lawmakers' Budget Section for the past year that revenues were continuing to come in higher than was expected during the last session.
> 
> The projection released Monday was a regular biennial estimate that comes halfway through the state's two-year budget cycle. It is also is the first peek at possible revenues for 2009-11 and will help Hoeven write his proposed budget for the next two years.
> 
> Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman, Sen. Ray Holmberg, R-Grand Forks, said the forecast signals that what legislators and Hoeven have been doing is working.
> 
> "The news is good, obviously," he said Monday. "The voters, with the income tax measure coming up, are going to be given a very simple choice: Do we cash in our chips or do we allow the state to continue the policies of investing in economic growth?"


(bold added by me)

huntin1


----------



## Skip OK

R y a n said:


> If there really is that much oil, that means there really is that much $$$.
> 
> *North Dakota should immediately start the process to build 2 refineries. Make them state owned and subsizdized. Start the process now.*
> 
> I don't care how much red tape is encountered. *Make it happen.* Once the process is started it will snowball and happen quicker. With the state's backing and citizen support, we can make it happen even quicker.
> 
> And no the cost doesn't matter. When you start looking at the revenues generated by this oil, North Dakota is simply missing the boat by letting the opportunity to refine it without it needing to leave the state.
> 
> There is simply no damn reason that gas isn't $1.00 a gallon in North Dakota right now. None. Period.


RYAN,

I am assuming that you're not being sarcastic, but if you're not, then you need to rethink your position.

First, getting through all the red tape as you put it is no where near as easy as you suggest. Just dealing with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will undoubtedly take 3-5 years and several tens of millions of dollars. Every single person in the US that doesn't like the idea of an extra refinery (and there are many) can force the policy decision into Federal Court, to address almost any environmental issue you can think of. Also, you have to deal with the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the historical Preservation Act, CERCLA, RCRA, and at least a dozen other FEDERAL acts before we even consider any state and local statutes.

No matter how attractive any project is, there will be some opposition, and we have had over 30 years for the opposition to a refinery to learn how to do it.

Next, as to your claim that money doesn't matter; well that is absolutely untrue in any endeavor but particularly so when you are planning what is essentially an economic investment. If it were not so, we'd all have own own nuclear reactors just to cut down on electric bills.

If a refinery can pay its way and keep afloat(notice I didn't say make a profit) fine, put one in. To do so when you know it will fail is not just stupidity; for a government, it is malfeasance in office.

One important reason why North Dakotans aren't seeing $1 per gallon gasoline is that the raw material for fuel, crude oil, costs about $2.60 per gallon, even before you refine it. Another reason is that the Feds and the state add about $0.35-0.40 per gallon fuel tax. The state also gets a% of the value of the produced oil, so artificially lowering the oil price hurts the State

It would make far greater sense for the State of North Dakota to simply give back that extra $1 billion in tax revenues to each citizen. That way, they could get a break on high fuel costs without having built a white elephant.


----------



## USAlx50

I hate treehuggers with a passion..


----------



## R y a n

Skip OK said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there really is that much oil, that means there really is that much $$$.
> 
> *North Dakota should immediately start the process to build 2 refineries. Make them state owned and subsidized. Start the process now.*
> 
> I don't care how much red tape is encountered. *Make it happen.* Once the process is started it will snowball and happen quicker. With the state's backing and citizen support, we can make it happen even quicker.
> 
> And no the cost doesn't matter. When you start looking at the revenues generated by this oil, North Dakota is simply missing the boat by letting the opportunity to refine it without it needing to leave the state.
> 
> There is simply no damn reason that gas isn't $1.00 a gallon in North Dakota right now. None. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> RYAN,
> 
> I am assuming that you're not being sarcastic, but if you're not, then you need to rethink your position.
> 
> First, getting through all the red tape as you put it is no where near as easy as you suggest. Just dealing with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will undoubtedly take 3-5 years and several tens of millions of dollars. Every single person in the US that doesn't like the idea of an extra refinery (and there are many) can force the policy decision into Federal Court, to address almost any environmental issue you can think of. Also, you have to deal with the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the historical Preservation Act, CERCLA, RCRA, and at least a dozen other FEDERAL acts before we even consider any state and local statutes.
> 
> No matter how attractive any project is, there will be some opposition, and we have had over 30 years for the opposition to a refinery to learn how to do it.
> 
> Next, as to your claim that money doesn't matter; well that is absolutely untrue in any endeavor but particularly so when you are planning what is essentially an economic investment. If it were not so, we'd all have own own nuclear reactors just to cut down on electric bills.
> 
> If a refinery can pay its way and keep afloat(notice I didn't say make a profit) fine, put one in. To do so when you know it will fail is not just stupidity; for a government, it is malfeasance in office.
> 
> One important reason why North Dakotans aren't seeing $1 per gallon gasoline is that the raw material for fuel, crude oil, costs about $2.60 per gallon, even before you refine it. Another reason is that the Feds and the state add about $0.35-0.40 per gallon fuel tax. The state also gets a% of the value of the produced oil, so artificially lowering the oil price hurts the State
> 
> It would make far greater sense for the State of North Dakota to simply give back that extra $1 billion in tax revenues to each citizen. That way, they could get a break on high fuel costs without having built a white elephant.
Click to expand...

Hi Skip

I was not being sarcastic. I was being deadly serious.

Wow after reading your reply (and previous post), I am curious as to your sources and background.

1. Do you have experience in the industry? If so, what?
2. What are your sources?

You seem to think that we should throw our hands in the air and give up. That is coming across loud and clear. Are you basically stating that no new refinery project anywhere in the country has a chance of succeeding? Should we just all give up as a collective whole in the United States? Right now there is plenty of crude sitting on transport ships around the world. There is truly zero reason for this hysteria. The problem is all our current refineries are at total capacity and operating on a continual basis at nearly 100% production ability. We NEED new refineries in the U.S. The economic climate and support of the average American citizen has never been higher in recent memory.

I'm still adamant about my position. I could care less if it costs tens of millions of dollars. Once again I'll state that yep it sounds like a lot of money. But citizens have a hard time comparing the relative cost of entry (or barriers to entry if you will) as compared to future earnings potential. If the project(s) generate the state $100 Million dollars over 10 years, does an initial $50 investment seem wise? Since the refineries will be in existence for 25 years, a project would likely amortize its initial investment across a longer time frame. That further reduces the entry cost.

By no means am I saying that money doesn't matter. What I am saying is that North Dakota has to look at it as a long term strategic investment, not only for profitability, but for its downstream economic revenue generation opportunities, let alone the gasoline savings for its citizens. Furthermore, as you alluded to earlier, gasoline isn't even the most profitable part of a refinery. The profitable aspects of a refinery is all the various by products that refineries create as I am sure you well know.

I'm not certain why you think every refinery will not be profitable. That is ludicrous. When viewed as an entire multi product strategy, a refinery can profit.

Heck, you could consider that if the State started getting into the oil game by assisting with in-state oil exploration, drilling, and pumping assistance, and figured out a way to become a state run oil corporation that gave it's citizen's kickbacks as compensation for providing oil loans to instate companies, it could profit further on the oil. There are many creative alternative ideas on how to make the whole enterprise profitable for the state and its citizens.

But if we continually start from the "glass is half empty" starting point, we are doomed to failure.

And that seems to be what you are suggesting over and over.


----------



## Skip OK

RYAN,

I am an Oil & Gas regulator/manager on Indian Lands in Oklahoma, I have a BS in Petroleum Engineering and 32 years experience in the upstream part of the business.

As part of my job with the Indians, I have looked into the idea of building a refinery from scratch and the economics are, frankly, appalling.

There are good solid reasons why no one has started a new refinery in the US for 30 year, and they are not all related to environmental whackos.

For that time period, while the number of plants has greatly decreased our actual refining capacity has gone up. The reason is simple economics; you get a FAR better return out of expanding facilities than you get by building from scratch.

First, just the basic equipment costs are extraordinarily high. Some of the plants in Oklahoma opted to install the equipment needed to make the ultra-low sulfur deisel. Why didn't they all do it? The average cost for the new equipment was over $100 Million per unit. (this came from an economic analysis of the Refining Industry commissioned by the Oklahoma State Commission on Marginally Economic Wells)

Now I will state for the record that I think the permitting processes are revolting. NEPA is a very good law; it is supposed to ensure that any time a Federal official makes a decision affecting the environment that official must not only consider the effect of his/her decision but must also document that consideration. This tends to keep people sincerely looking at how our actions affect others.

The way this actually works, however, isn't quite the same. Groups opposed to a project throw any roadblock they can in the path of the decision maker. In turn, the Feds get a mindset of not considering the action but rather figuring out how they can style the decisions that the proposed action can sidestep those minefields.

If I could change the world, I would make the permitting process much more about answering questions such as "Will this project have a net positive effect or a net negative effect on the community", rather than "what can we do to derail THIS project".

I would also greatly prefer to have some way to reward region which take concrete steps to provide energy independance and conversely penalize areas that choose to NOT develope their resources.

For instance I would classify the various states depending on each states willingness/ability to produce its own power. States that have the resources and chose to develop them , such as North Dakota or Wyoming or Alaska would get a higher priority to available fuel supplies than states the don't have resources, such as Hawaii, or Minnesota, but THOSE states would have priority over states that could produce energy but chose not to, such as Florida (at least FL to date). This would encourage everyone to address energy shortages seriously.

And yes, there IS an energy shortage; world wide, we have used more than we produced either two of the last three years or three of the last four. We use global stockpiles for the difference, but one of these days that may not be available.

And I am NOT saying we should throw our hands in the air. Rather I am attempting to point out that, just like any other industry, there is a real good chance for somebody to lose money in refining; and that the amount of money one could lose could be staggering.

If, as you seem to suggest, North Dakota should simply build a refinery just to subsidize the citizens fuel bill, there is a better solution. Simply give the citizens of the state a rebate to offset the added fuel cost.

It was once suggested that the national war on poverty could be one, and at a substantial cost savings. Just pay every single person whose income was below the poverty line enough so that they were "out of poverty", and close down all the welfare/public assistance offices nation wide. The saving of not operating the welfare programs would more than cover the cost of the payments.


----------



## buckseye

These horizontal wells are producing enough oil to build anything needed. Take an average well of only 1000 barrels a day, at $120 a barrel that's $120,000.00/day, multiplied by 365 is $43,800,000.00/year. That's one well folks. OMG what happens when we have thousands of these wells producing?

Mineral owner share is usually around 16.6667%, that is about $7,300,146.00/year. Most wells have multiple mineral owners that divide up the royalty based on their net acreage in the well spacing.

I really don't think money is the problem.


----------



## tumblebuck

buckseye said:


> These horizontal wells are producing enough oil to build anything needed. Take an average well of only 1000 barrels a day, at $120 a barrel that's $120,000.00/day, multiplied by 365 is $43,800,000.00/year. That's one well folks. OMG what happens when we have thousands of these wells producing?
> 
> Mineral owner share is usually around 16.6667%, that is about $7,300,146.00/year. Most wells have multiple mineral owners that divide up the royalty based on their net acreage in the well spacing.
> 
> I really don't think money is the problem.


*AVERAGE* well of "only 1,000 barrels a day"...where are you getting your numbers? The "average" well in ND produces much less.


----------



## dblkluk

tumblebuck said:


> buckseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> These horizontal wells are producing enough oil to build anything needed. Take an average well of only 1000 barrels a day, at $120 a barrel that's $120,000.00/day, multiplied by 365 is $43,800,000.00/year. That's one well folks. OMG what happens when we have thousands of these wells producing?
> 
> Mineral owner share is usually around 16.6667%, that is about $7,300,146.00/year. Most wells have multiple mineral owners that divide up the royalty based on their net acreage in the well spacing.
> 
> I really don't think money is the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> *AVERAGE* well of "only 1,000 barrels a day"...where are you getting your numbers? The "average" well in ND produces much less.
Click to expand...

I was noticing that.. I believe the average ND well produces around 200 barrels a day.


----------



## buckseye

Haha they produce 400-700 before completion. One out Parshall way is 2350 barrels aday. Alot are more than 1500.


----------



## tumblebuck

From the ND oil and gas commission page (format doesn't work well with cut and paste):

ND Monthly Oil Production Statistics
Year Month BBLS Oil Daily Oil Wells Producing BBLS Per Well Daily Oil Per Well
2007 10 4006947 129256 3617 1108 36
2007 11 3923132 130771 3624 1083 36
2007 12 4216637 136021 3645 1157 37
2008 1 4266763 137638 3661 1165 38
2008 2 3997348 137840 3658 1093 38
2008 3 4456130 143746 3717 1199 39
2008 4 4520324 150677 3772 1198 40
2008 5 4845407 156303 3797 1276 41

The last number in the row is the daily oil per well. There may be a few select wells that produce 1,000 barrels to begin with but after all the "easy" oil is extracted, production goes down fast.


----------



## buckseye

Those are obviously vertical numbers, no one would spend 5 million to make a well that produced those small numbers. Haha you need to update yourselves abit.


----------



## dakotashooter2

A refinery on the east end of the state wouldn't be all bad either now that we have a pipleline from Canada passing through the state. By tapping into that and the local ethanol plants it would seem to be a winner.


----------



## Skip OK

According to the Energy Information Agency the average North Dakota well produces a little less than 45 Bbl oil per day.

Before you start talking about how much money an oil well generates per year, please remember that a lot of people get their cuts off of the total.

Say your well makes $100 per day. Before you get any money the lessor gets his royalty (around here that's 20% but lets say it is 12.5%), plus the state gets taxes (NKD charges 5% GPT + 6.5% Extraction tax or 11.5%). Your $100 looks more like $76, and that's before you start paying for operatiuons and capitol costs.


----------



## nickle ditch

Anyone know how long these Bakken wells produce before you get some water issues? That is a concern with the Bakken wells up here.


----------



## buckseye

I don't know where you get your information, but the average well production is 35.485 barrels a day. There are some 3880 wells producing 4,266,763.00 barrels a month with a daily production of 137,683.00 barrels a day. This average is the vertical wells as well as the horizontal wells. The horizontal well are always big producers.

I think they have learned a lot more about well placement and have less problem with water and gas both. The bakken has clear liquid gold in it, it requires very little refining. This is the oil we should gear up to refine.


----------



## Skip OK

buckseye said:


> I don't know where you get your information, but the average well production is 35.485 barrels a day. There are some 3880 wells producing 4,266,763.00 barrels a month with a daily production of 137,683.00 barrels a day. This average is the vertical wells as well as the horizontal wells. The horizontal well are always big producers.
> 
> I think they have learned a lot more about well placement and have less problem with water and gas both. The bakken has clear liquid gold in it, it requires very little refining. This is the oil we should gear up to refine.


The information comes via EIA. Here's a website for all 50 states:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/

From the North Dakota page, I got the following:

Monthly production for March, 2008 ---4,454 thousand bbl

Number of oil wells --- 3,196 (in 2007)

Since March has 31 days, I divided 4,454 by 31 and got 143.677 thousand bbl per day for the state.

I then took THAT number and divided it by 3196 and got 0.0449554 thousand bbl per well or 44.9554 bbl per day per well.

But whether the average is 35 or 45 or 100, really doesn't matter. None of these volumes makes enough money to make building a refinery from scratch a good idea.

Upgrading the present Mandan refinery, even doubling its size would prove to be more attractive, I think. You could do it a piece at a time, so it could still generate income through the expansion. Of course I haver no direct knowledge of this plant or how it is run, so there may be reasons this couldn't or shouldn't happen


----------



## buckseye

oil and gas division of nd is where you wanna look. www.oilgas.nd.gov


----------

