ok, order # 12268 was the original order for this area, and apparently penn v's spacing unit includes sec 3 & 10. so i suppose you can also assume 2 & 11 and 1 & 12.
On Nov 6, 9:33 pm, "Rufus O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey Elwood, > Where did you find that info....haven't seen it before... the 'up to > two' or the quadrants info on Murphy Creek... That is one huge field > now. Ok, so it's 'up to two".. so let's say the PennV puts two on each > of 10.11.12., so far they are doing all due-North orietations with the > vert on the South-midline. Then they do what Steve described to get > 2-3 more sliding between those with expanded 2560's using section 11 > as the 'common' sections . Wow, That would be 10-12 wells on the > equivalent of 6 sections. That's pretty darn dense, if you ask me. And > that's not bringing up Steve's 'future' view of the East-West > orientations on same sections.... pretty spooky stuff. Won't be room > for a cow to graze. I know this is all hypothetical, but... still, in > the Bakken, seems like the 'rules' are there to be broken and are > changing faster than we can post... > > On Nov 6, 6:37 pm, elwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
