rufus, i have no knowledge of what they are doing in mt with their super units and maybe steve or someone else could address the question of how ownership is shared when lands are drilled across spacing units. i was merely stating that it is possible that the sharing of revenues was on a basis other than acerage.
a "tract" of land such as in a secondary recovery unit is just an area with common ownership within that tract. and a tract can be any size, as long as the ownership is exactly the same (mineral, overriding royalty ond working interest) throughout. so a tract could be a 40, 80, 160, etc. i will take a look at the 2560 acre unit in the sanish field refered to above by kcpdmp and see what i can find out. On Nov 5, 9:32 pm, "Rufus O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Elwood, > 'tract weighting within a unit' --- what are you calling a 'tract'? A > well? a measure of land within a section? > Tell me about some of the other types of 'units' not a drilling unit/ > spacing unit...? is the Fed Exploratory Unit the same animal, > vegetable or mineral as an 'assessment unit'? > > On Nov 5, 6:10 am, elwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > rufus, there are other types of units than drilling units (where every > > mineral acre is equal to every other mineral acre). iow, other > > parameters can be brought into play, like cumulative production, net > > hydrocarbon pore volume, current production rate, acres, number of > > usable wells and each tract is given a participation in the unit > > according to the weighting of each of these parameters. this is done > > typically for a secondary recovery unit although i have seen a case > > where a unit was formed just to manage primary production. and if this > > type unit is created, every mineral (and working interest owner) would > > participate in the entire unit according to their unit participation. > > > a federal exploratory unit is another animal and i will let someone > > who knows more about the subject comment on that. > > > On Nov 4, 9:18 pm, "Rufus O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Anybody home out there? What, no opinions? No theories? > > > Ruf > > > > On Nov 3, 12:33 pm, "Rufus O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I recently read that in Montana there has been some activity with > > > > merging 2, and even 3 1280-acre spacing units to create mega-spacing > > > > units with entirely new well density allowances.... I can't seem to > > > > backtrack to the article to post it, but the gist of it was that once > > > > a 1280 had hit it's max density, that it merges with an adjacent 1280 > > > > to create a 2560 or merges 3 separate 1280's to create a 3840-acre > > > > unit where addt wells with different orientations are being allowed. > > > > Anybody hear anything else about this? If this IS being done, it > > > > brings me to the following question: > > > > How many spacing units can an individual section,or portion thereof, > > > > be part of? > > > > For example: let's take a section 4 over 9 standup - can section 4 > > > > concommitantly be in a section 5 and 4 laydown unit? And then again, > > > > into a 4-3 laydown unit at the same time... ?? > > > > Rufus- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
