hi rufus, sec.s 10,11 and 12 of 142-95 are in "zoneIV" of murphey creek and allow "up to two" hz wells per 1280 acre unit.
On Nov 6, 12:30 pm, "Rufus O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Elwood, > I saw the 'can of worms' potential and figured we should all get some > info on it so nobody gets blind-sided - it really could be a > situation. > This is what I am thinking Penn Virginia is setting up to do --no, I > don't have anything factual to go on, just a hunch looking at their > current layouts in 10, 11, and 12 of 142-95. > Take a look, then reread Steve's comments and see if it doesn't look > and sound similar as the 'framework' for a mega-unit... > > On Nov 6, 7:51 am, elwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > ok, with respect to the sanish pool: > > > whiting drilled the locken 11-22h in a 1280 ac unit consisting of > > sec.s 22 & 23 and the leffrig 11-27h in a 1280 ac unit consisting of > > sec.s 26 & 27 in 153-91. > > > whiting intended to drill these wells as multi laterals, but because > > of drilling problems were not able to get the job done. > > whiting petitioned the commission to create an "overlay" 2560 ac unit > > covering all 4 sections. and as i understand it, revenues from the > > locken and leffrig will continue to be distributed as before. > > and production from mcnamara 42-26h will be shared equally by everyone > > in the 2560 acre unit. whiting tap danced around the question of > > protecting correlative rights by testifying that the wells had similar > > production and reservoir characteristics. > > > there was some objection expressed by mineral owners, but the > > commission granted whiting's request anyhow. i sort of doubt that > > this will become the standard procedure. for example, what if the > > locken and leffrig did not, as whiting claims, exhibit similar > > reservoir and production characteristics ? someone would probably > > object and if they were able to present a valid case, i dont think the > > commission could validly protect correlative rights with a formula > > based only on acreage. > > > damn, rufus you've opened up a can of worms. > > > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
