The Bakken is tertiary/quandary play in an old oil region. Oil production in the Williston Basin began in earnest in the early 1950's, and many fields underwent tertiary production for decades. Thus final production in the Bakken formation (part of the underlying source structure) is most certainly a final production event, whether one describes it as Tertiary ver 2.0 or Quandary ver 1.0 is beside the point. The Bakken represents the final final production in a subsection of entire Williston structure.
In no part of the Bakken is there injection of fluid to alter the chemistry or rheology of the oil. The only attempt at enhanced oil recovery which would be classified as secondary recovery has been recent testing by HESS through gas injection in one well and recovery in another (not a full project effort). This gas injection is intended to be immiscible, not intended to alter the chemistry of the oil (that would be a fully miscible flood). As a consequence, it does not classify as tertiary recovery or the name you made up Quandary whatever. Get it through your thick skull, this is not even close to Tertiary recovery.
As per Tertiary definition, fracting involves the use of long-chained molecules called polymers to increase the effectiveness of waterfloods, or the use of detergent-like surfactants to help lower the surface tension that often prevents oil droplets from moving through a reservoir.
Entirely incorrect as I have told you when you posted this nonsense last time. Fracking (almost always slick water these days) involves little in the way of additives and those additives are there to help with the effective distance and interconnectivity of the fracture network created. The surfactants used are to reduce the friction of the injected water which allows water and sand to be pumped at much higher rates allowing for larger fracture networks. It has nothing to do whatsoever with altering the chemistry or wettability of the oil given the production counts not on what oil is intersected by the fractures but the amount of microporosity that can be connected to minor cracks and their interconnectivity with the mega fractures. The vast majority of produced oil will never see any of that injected fluid and you certainly don't want it to react with the fluid given the nanodarcy permeability which would get blocked quite easily if a gel formed (quite common). So once again, this is not Tertiary recovery, not a chance.
The same can be said re Permian. It is the main oil producing section of the Mid-Continent Oil Producing Area. It was here that Spindletop blew its cork back in 1901, and likewise the entire region (which the Permian is only a part) has undergone secondary and tertiary methods for decades. Now the Permian is also undergoing complex, costly and final Quandary enhanced oil recovery.
My God....why do you keep posting claims that are so far from reality as to just be plain stupid?
It is called the Permian basin because the main producing horizons are all of Permian age. The basins (eg: Midland, Deleware) are nowhere near the East TX/LA basin where Spindletop was drilled. Completely different stratigraphy, completely different reservoirs and completely different trap types. Spindletop discovery sits on and around a Jurassic salt dome (a structural trap), the producing horizons are Pliocene to Eocene in age (so you are only off by say 90 to 100 My) and they are very porous and permeable sandstones.
There is no unconventional reservoir in the Permian basin that has been subject to Tertiary recovery, there is no place where unconventional reservoirs have been subjected to Secondary recovery either. There are conventional reservoirs in the Permian that have been subject to secondary recovery and in some cases tertiary miscible CO2 floods (eg. Occidental). The conventional reservoirs in the Permian basin are clastics and carbonates with relatively high porosity and permeability and have been produced for decades. They are nothing like the unconventional reservoirs which have been subject to E&P in well less than a decade.