i should say the exhibits for 10545 are available now. the exhibits for 10685 will probably be available the day after the court hearing.
the exhibits for case 10545 will definitely help you understand what they are saying in case 10685, if you note that the hess exhibits for 10545 and the petrohunt exhibits for 10545 did not match in field boundaries, but that hess did propose wells for the surrounding wells of the smaller hess field. suzanne On Oct 31, 1:34 pm, shamlet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the exhibits are available now and the NDIC has mailed them to me > already. i received them yesterday. > > suzanne > > On Oct 31, 11:01 am, go-devil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > #10545 will not be available for another month. > > > On Oct 31, 10:36 am, shamlet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > this is a completer case, as far as i can see. > > > case 10545 exhibits from hess and petrohunt didn't match. hess' > > > exhibit of the east tioga oil field was more restrictive in boundary > > > but their proposed wells (of 1 per spacing unit) did include much of > > > this new proposed field. petrohunt's exhibit of this same field was > > > larger and the proposed wells were 2 per spacing units. > > > > if you are interested in this application, i would urge you to get the > > > exhibits from case 10545 so that you can see what they planned. > > > > one of the reasons that hess' exhibits were more restrictive may have > > > to do with hess' interest in each spacing unit. therefore, it might > > > not be hess that drills these new proposed spacing units. > > > > i am pleased because all of our mineral rights will probably be > > > drilled in this field now, limited by the # of drilling rigs > > > available. > > > > i will listen to the hearing and request a copy of the exhibits once > > > the hearing has been conducted. > > > > suzanne > > > > On Oct 30, 5:16 pm, go-devil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Not permits but spacing for possible permits. > > > > Case No. 10685: > > > > Application of Petro-Hunt, LLC for an order extending the boundaries > > > > of the > > > > North Tioga Field to include Sections 6, 18 and 19, T.159N., R.93W.; > > > > Sections 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23 and 24, T.159N., R. > > > > 94W.; > > > > Section 31, T.160N., R.93W.; Sections 25, 26, 27, 34, 35 and 36, T. > > > > 160N., > > > > R.94W.; the E/2 of Section 8, the W/2 and the SE/4 of Section 30, T. > > > > 159N., > > > > R.94W.; and the NE/4 of Section 20, T.160N., R.94W., Burke County, ND; > > > > establishing 18 1280-acre spacing units in Zone IV of the North Tioga- > > > > Bakken Pool described as Sections 18 and 19, T.159N., R.93W.; Sections > > > > 1 > > > > and 12; Sections 2 and 11; Sections 3 and 10; Sections 4 and 9; > > > > Sections 7 > > > > and 18; Sections 8 and 17; Sections 13 and 24; Sections 14 and 23; > > > > Sections > > > > 15 and 22; Sections 19 and 30, T.159N., R.94W.; Sections 20 and 29; > > > > Sections 25 and 36; Sections 26 and 35; Sections 27 and 34; Sections > > > > 28 and > > > > 33, T.160N., R.94W.; and Section 31, T.160N., R.93W., together with > > > > Section 6, T.159N., R.93W.; and Section 32, T.160N., R.94W., together > > > > with Section 5, T.159N., R.94W., and for such other relief as is > > > > appropriate.- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
