I wonder if anyone can speak to why the Mapache Grande 003 well (which includes section 3 of block 25) is producing so much oil for so long while the Mapache Grande 001 (which includes section 4 of block 25), is profitable for all involved, but it is not near as productive as the 0003 well.
Over ten years after the Mapache Grande 003 well was drilled, it is still producing 19,500 bbl a month!! More recently, the Mapache Grande 001 was drilled and over the first year averaged 6,482 bbl per month.
The Mapche Grande 003 did go after both the Wolfcamp and Strawn formations. The Mapache Grande 001 only went after the Wolfcamp. I wonder if the difference in production is because of what formation it went after or what formation was even available. Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks!
Hello, would you happen to mean the ‘Thunder Valley 003’ in Scurry County? It’s been a whopper of a well for that county line area. Since June of '21, its monthly average matches your quoted production number of 19,500 bbls.
Happy New Year!
Well, Thunder Valley 003 is close by but they are two different wells. You’re right that Thunder Valley 003 is in Scurry County, but Mapache Grande 003 is all in Mitchell County, but barely. Mapache Grande’s 003’s wellhead is about 3/4 of a mile south of Thunder Valley 003. It runs from Blk Y, sec 27 to Blk 25, sec 3. Mapache Grande 003’s abstract number is A381.
The only “Mapache” well totally in Mitchell County that I’m seeing on the RRC’s website map is the Mapache 003 (no “Grande”); abstract 381 as you mentioned. It’s lifetime production over 10 years looks to be 20,629 bbls from the Wolfcamp field & 101,789 bbls from the Strawn.
The nearby Thunder Valley 003 well, abstract 516, in Scurry County has produced 856,913 bbls so far, according to the RRC. There’s a parallel Thunder Valley 003 2H shown as well, but only the 1H production info is mentioned.
Like I said, the Thunder Valley 003’s lifetime monthly average is almost exactly the same as the figure (19,500 bbls) you initially stated. Are we searching two different websites &/or maps to derive our info? I didn’t mean to throw a wrench in your question.
I just discovered that one well data site conflicts with another site concerning the production of the Mapache Grande 001 and the Mapache Grande 003. So, take the figures quoted with a grain of salt. Any recommendations on an accurate source to determine well production?
The Mapache 3 Unit 1H (API 42-335-35886) was completed in August 2014 as in Enterprise (Strawn) field under RRC 08-45987. In July 2020 it was renamed the Mapache 003 Unit and either recompleted or moved to Garden City, S (Wolfcamp) field and is producing under RRC 08-54936. You have to combine the production numbers under both RRC lease numbers for the full production history of the well. 2024 production is less than 1,000 bbl/month. Drilling location for Mapache 003 is in Mitchell County. The Mapache Grande 001 (API 42-415-35667) has drilling location in Section 1, Block 3, Scurry County, and its producing wellbore is in both Scurry County AND in Section 4, Block 25, Mitchell County. It is producing under RRC 8A-60631. RRC is great site for well/lease production. Are you possibly using a site which is combining multiple wells and lease numbers into a joint production total?
These are all Strawn A oolitic limestone wells. No Wolfcamp to be had here because it is too immature. This is all drilled on a structure and you are getting off structure once you get into Mitchell County.