Top Ten Producers -- 2012, 2012, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 -- Bakken, North Dakota, USA

Top ten producers in the Bakken, North Dakota, 2012. See story here.
Barrels of oil per day
List updated from Whiting Corporate Presentation 4Q12 

• 1. Whiting Oil and Gas Corporation, 66,156
• 2. Continental Resources, 65,141
• 3. Hess Corporation, 64,657
• 4. Brigham Oil & Gas, 50,325
• 5. EOG, 46,091
• 6. XTO Energy Inc. 33,148
• 7. Marathon Oil Company, 31,194
• 8. Petro-Hunt, L.L.C., 25,743
• 9. Slawson, 21,058
• 10. KOG, 20,423
• 11. Oasis, 20,013
• 12. Burlington Resources, 19,798
• 13. QEP, 17,521
• 14. WPX, 17,043
• 15. OXY USA, 15,187
• 16. SM Energy, 12,665
• 17. Zavanna, 10,991
• 18. Enerplus, 10,568
• 19. Hunt, 9,955
• 20. Newfield, 9,437

Top ten producers in the Bakken, North Dakota, 2011. See story here.

• 1. CLR: 19.034 million, 543
• 2. EOG: 16.071 million, 341
• 3. WLL: 14.701 million, 422
• 4. HES: 14.145 million, 635
• 5. BR: 8.715 million, 266
• 6. MRO: 6.987 million, 228
• 7. BEXP: 6.598, 114
• 8. Slawson: 6.255, 124
• 9. Denbury Onshore: 4.619, 322
• 10. Petro-Hunt, 4.612, 207 

Top ten producers in the Bakken, North Dakota, 2010. For full list and source, click here.

Producer: barrels of oil in 1000s; barrels of water in 1000s; number of wells; average production/well

• 1. EOG: 17,132; 4,896; 259; 66,146
• 2. WLL: 13,706; 10,291; 341; 30,278
• 3. CLR: 12,148; 11,156; 415; 29,272
• 4. BR: 9,420; 23,419; 221; 42,624 (see note at bottom of page to help explain production)
• 5. Hess: 6,970; 16,878; 445; 15,663
• 6. Marathon: 5,389; 1,586; 175; 30,794
• 7. Slawson: 4,604; 1,320, 84; 54,810
• 8. BEXP: 3,317; 2,867; 58; 57,190
• 9. Encore: 3,274; 21,564; 297; 11,023 (see note at bottom of page to help explain production)
• 10. XTO: 2,166; 1,632; 152; 14,250

********

Top ten oil producers, 2009, North Dakota (full list here):

Producer: barrels of oil in 1000s; barrels of water in 1000s; number of wells; average production/well

• 1. EOG: 13,040; 1,398; 152; 85,789
• 2. BR: 10,674; 21,113; 201; 53,104
• 3. CLR: 8,185; 7,789; 319; 25,658
• 4. WLL: 6,761; 8,837; 254; 26,618
• 5. Hess: 6,606; 18,621; 422; 15,654
• 6. Marathon: 4,065; 965; 132; 30,795
• 7. Encore: 3,068; 25,368, 287; 10,690 (see note at bottom of page to explain  this)
• 8. Slawson: 1,923; 583; 46; 41,804
• 9. Murex: 1,921; 1,070; 117; 16,419
• 10. XTO: 1,918; 955; 109; 17,596

Comments/observations/trends:

• It's all about net acreage in the Bakken. Of the top four producers, both years, BR has the least acreage, and BR dropped from second to fourth place in 2010. I expect the gap to widen in 2011. Interestingly, Hess may have the most acreage in North Dakota (depends on sources for data; Hess has at least 750,000 and may have more than 900,000 acres. If more than 900,000 acres, it is number one in the state. Production/well is a significant problem. I blogged about that from the beginning.) See note at bottom of page for additional information regarding BR.

• Based on what I'm seeing so far in 2011, it's very possible both CLR and WLL will jump to number 1 and number 2, and it's possible WLL will be number 1. 

• Encore (now part of Denbury -- DNR): see note in bold red at bottom of this page to explain Encore -- VERY IMPORTANT.

• Hess, XTO, Murex with poor production well. Murex dropped off the top ten list for 2010.

• Slawson has improved its production/well.

• EOG's production/well dropped significantly from 2009 to 2010. If folks remember, the initial EOG wells in the Parshall oil field were stunning (2009); since then, less so. 

Hey, you forgot BEXP in 2009? Where's BEXP (2009)? Did you forget BEXP?  Nope. In 2009, BEXP was number 18. BEXP went from #18 in 2009 to #8 in 2010, probably the biggest jump. Folks used to "laugh" about BEXP's "inflated" IPs, but maybe they were "real."  In 2009:

• #18. BEXP: 601; 469; 17; 35,352

One can argue BEXP rose to #8 based on huge increase in number of wells (from 17 to 58) but BEXP's production/well also increased significantly.

I did these lists quickly; did not double-check for typographical errors or check for calculation errors. If anyone spots an error, and I'm sure there are some, please let me know.  Comments on trends, observations, explanations, all welcome.

I think going back to 2008 is comparing apples and oranges because so much has changed in the Bakken in the past four years. But for those who are interested, here is the same data (full list here):

Top ten oil producers, 2008, North Dakota (full list here):

Producer: barrels of oil in 1000s; barrels of water in 1000s; number of wells; average production/well

• 1. BR: 12,106; 17,743; 164; 73,817
• 2. EOG: 8,613; 970; 66; 130,500 (checked twice)
• 3. CLR: 6,507; 6,366; 296; 21,983
• 4. Hess: 5,491; 2,066; 389; 14,116
• 5. WLL: 3,895; 9,269; 244; 15,963
• 6. Encore: 3,312; 26,188; 300; 11,040 (see note at bottom of page to explain this)
• 7. MRO: 2,395; 607, 80; 29,938 (double-checked)
• 8. St Mary: 1,817; 6,453; 257; 7,070 (wow)
• 9. Petro-Hunt: 1,558; 4,314; 157; 9,923 (wow)
• 10. Murex: 1,129; 874; 110; 10,264

And, while we are at it, let's look at data from 2007.

Top ten oil producers, 2007, North Dakota (full list here):

Producer: barrels of oil in 1000s; barrels of water in 1000s (other data not provided by linked source)

• 1. BR: 12,690; 12,091
• 2. CLR: 5,147; 4,117
  
• 3. Hess: 4,190; 16,696
• 4. Encore: 2,260; 25,247 (see note at bottom of page to explain this)
• 5. WLL: 2,299;9,574
• 6. St Mary: 1,978; 6,718
• 7. Petro-Hunt: 1,515; 4,217
• 8. EOG: 1,453; 0.918 (almost no water)
  
• 9. Zenergy: 1,179; 4,118
  
• 10. BTA: 795; 1,866 

VERY IMPORTANT -- VERY IMPORTANT -- EXPLANATION FOR ENCORE "WATER PRODUCTION"

The majority of Encore's production was from wells drilled during the1970's and 1980's. Encore purchased old wells which were drilled into the Madison or other formations (not the Bakken). 

In addition, many (if not most) of those were being produced with enhanced recovery (EOR). In other words, these were water flooded units using vast volumes of water pushed through the formation to drive the oil out. 

So Encore's (now Denbury's) low oil production and high water production are distorting whatever results they've had over the past few years as they drilled into the Bakken formation.

Burlington Resources, as another longtime ND producer, may have their results also skewed by these same factors. 

The above information/explanation was provided by a reader.  This makes all kind of sense. DNR is perhaps the #1 operator in the oil patch for enhanced oil recovery (water-flooding and CO2 injection). It now makes more sense why DNR was interested in Encore. 


A huge "thank you" to the reader who sent me this information.