the ndic establishes spacing zones (i.e. zone I may be for 640's, zone II for 1280's,etc.) in each field area, usually according to what is asked for in the hearing application . sometimes the commission will combine applications and try to resolve the spacing for a whole area in a singal hearing. usually, the operators can work out how they want each area spaced, but if a dispute arises, the commission has to resolve the dispute.
On Sep 30, 12:17 pm, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK I had a hunch about this but did find a reference that was > consistent with my hunch > > The reference > ishttp://en.allexperts.com/q/Oil-Gas-3147/2008/8/lay-spacing-units.htm > > Apparently if the two sections are one atop the other NS, that is a > standing up spacing unit, whereas if the two sections are beside each > other > EW that is a laying down spacing unit. > > It must be kept in mind that these spacing units are tenatively > approved before the drill bit hits the ground. It may turn out that > unforseen things happen during drilling--commonly perhaps a lateral > that cannot be drilled as long as planned. As a consequence, a driller > might decide on the spot that it would be better to convert a single > 1280 acre spacing to twin 640 acre spacings. Generally a driller can > do these things if there is an obvious reason to change the plan...The > spacing on any well is not truly official until after the official > post drilling pooling hearing in Bismarck. I think that is the main > reason for the legal term "other relief as appropriate"...basically > the driller in the initial approval has the option to change what he > does w/o having to go back for another hearing assuming that the > change is reasonable given the new circumstances only apparent after > drilling commenced. Otherwise the driller would have to immediately > stop drilling and wait weeks to schedule a new hearing. Think of an > airplane that puts in a flight plan. A storm builds and the pilot must > decide in the air on the spot to change the route. He doesnt go back > to the airport and file a new flight plan, but surely he calls the > tower to tell them what the amended route will be. > > I don't really know anything about the zone thing except to say that > oil exists at different vertical depths and a dry well at one depth > may be a productive well at another. Once the driller has the lease he > is free to check out whatever possibilities might be thought to be > economically productive. That apparently was part of what was going on > when EOG was drilling to over 13,000 ft in the Winnepeg formation, but > it looks to me as if the experiment failed or some production would be > forthcoming. > On Sep 30, 12:39 pm, go-devil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > David, > > Brighams asking for Stand Up Spacing Units in Alger-Bakken Pool. What > > is a Stand Up? > > In a different case, same hearing a company is asking for 1280 spacing > > in Alger Bakken Pool Zone II. It also states: > > For which spacing has been established on the basis of one horizontal > > well per 1280 acres and such other relief as is appropriate. > > Are these the same Fields and different Zones? > > Is it one well per 1280 unless relief is needed, meaning another well? > > Thanks > > > On Sep 30, 8:25 am, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I honestly don't see any issue with this. If companies want to do two > > > mile laterals and believe that such an approach is working, which this > > > spacing permits, so be it. It looks to me like the plan is to > > > ultimately drill at least two wells per 1280 acre spacing, so in the > > > end they have well counts similar to one well per section spacings, > > > but with the longer laterals. Granted that the royalty payments get > > > divided up among mineral owners on both sections, and there may be > > > year long time lag before the second well is drilled, but this should > > > tend to smooth out royalties over time for every mineral owner. > > > > On Sep 30, 10:51 am, go-devil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > David, Larry, Teegue, > > > > I see in a Hearing reports for Oct. 08 that Brigham is pushing for 22 > > > > various 1280 Spacings, > > > > I know Hess permitted a 1280 combining Section 32 and 29 of 156/92. > > > > In Brighams request it asks for 1280 spacing on Section 32 of 156/92 > > > > with Section 5 of 155/92. > > > > Any ideas as to the outcome here? > > > > > On Sep 30, 4:47 am, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Yesterday's 9/28/08 daily activity report was especially interesting > > > > > because it includes initial production information (ip) for a large > > > > > number of wells by many different drillers in the state including > > > > > several EOG wells just off confidential. > > > > > Linkhttps://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/dailyindex.asp > > > > > > Of the wells listed the first place goes to EOG drilled Austin 26 in > > > > > SE Austin with an official ip of 3070 bopd. > > > > > > The silver medallian goes to EOG's School 16 on the south side of > > > > > Parshall TWP bringing in an official ip of 1721 bopd. > > > > > > On the other end we now know for sure that, sadly, Behm's Edwards 1 > > > > > was not a producer. > > > > > > We have producing wells coming in as low as 17 and 30 bopd. I wonder > > > > > how many of the wells coming in at 100 bopd or less will still be in > > > > > production a year from now..It takes 3-4 bopd I think just to cover > > > > > the costs of pump operation already in place. > > > > > > Can anyone tell me exactly what is going on with 17058 Shell Creek > > > > > State 1 01 drlled as a second well in 1 152 90 (Parshall TWP up by the > > > > > primary already producing "Long" well in that section). I know it was > > > > > scheduled to be a test well of some sort.The report says they drilled > > > > > to 13,459 ft into the Winnepeg formation, but apparently has not been > > > > > put into production. > > > > > > For those of you with EOG holes drilled awaiting the pooling hearing > > > > > for your section, a bunch of these are scheduled to take place on > > > > > October 23rd in Bismarck. Check the Oct 23rd hearing dockets page on > > > > > the dmr site, as this was just posted yesterday > > > > > . > > > > > Figure a minimum of 2-3 months from the hearing date to when a royalty > > > > > check shows up in your mailbox. :-) > > > > > > Those of you with a pooling hearing scheduled October 23rd should > > > > > receive legal papers within a few days I would think telling you the > > > > > official hearing has been scheduled and you can show up if in Bismarck > > > > > you are unhappy with the pooling scheme (not that it would do any > > > > > good, LOL).You can also listen in on the hearing live via the Web > > > > > starting at 9 AM on the scheduled hearing day. Most of this is routine > > > > > and if no owners are present to complain about something, the hearing > > > > > goes smoothly and very quickly. But occasionally someone wanders in to > > > > > raise an interesting issue. > > > > > After the hearing, the last step is for the title owners to do one > > > > > final check on who owns the mineral interest in each section, to make > > > > > absolutely certain there are no errors when the checks are cut. The > > > > > companies take extraordinary steps to assure the accuracy when they > > > > > get nearly to the check cutting stage, and that is why this seems to > > > > > take a little longer than it otherwise might. By the time you get your > > > > > first check,your well will likely have been producing for sale for > > > > > nearly 6 months. > > > > > The first check usually includes royalty payments for the first 2-3 > > > > > months of production combined.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bakken Shale Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bakken-shale-discussion?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
