Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Is Crescent Point Pulling Out Of North Dakota? -- August 27, 2013

A reader sent me this:
Have also noticed that Crescent Point Energy has had little to no activity in the area just to the north of these wells; some of their permits are about to expire.

Does anyone know what happened to Crescent Point? Are they concentrating their efforts in Canada and Utah? 
This might explain some of the back story, posted back in May 14, 2013 (when you get to the link, scroll down to the original post):


Crescent has 8 active permits in North Dakota. Interestingly, none of the permits/wells below have a date for coming off the confidential list suggesting they have not been spud.
  • 22323, 181, Crescent Point, CPEUSC Makowsky 31-30-158-99W, t10/14; cum 108K 2/16;
  • 24062, 505, Crescent Point, CPEUSC Narcisse 8-5-158N-99W, t12/14; cum 103K 2/16;
  • 24072, 342, Crescent Point, CPEUSC Holmes 8-5-158N-100W, t3/15; cum 84K 2/16;
  • 24451, 128, Crescent Point, CPEUSC Ruby 17-20-158N-100W, t3/15; cum 66K 2/16;
  • 24695, 297, Crescent Point, CPEUSC Campbell 7-6-158N-100W, t3/15; cum 68K 2/16;
  • 24710, PNC, Crescent Point, CPEC Marino 25-36-162N-102W,
  • 24719, PNC, Crescent Point, GO-Riders 158-99-1522H, 
  • 25055, 288, Crescent Point, CPEUSC Dressler 36-25-158N-100W, t9/14; cum 114K 2/16;
And more concerning, Crescent has no active drilling rigs listed in North Dakota today

Crescent Point Energy corporate presentations are located here. The August, 2013, presentation:
  • the company has 6,680 net wells in its "development inventory" but only 575 are in the US (ND/MT)
I didn't find the presentation particularly enlightening, but certainly nothing to suggest much interest in North Dakota Bakken right now.


  1. I just viewed the Crescent Point presentation for Sept. 2013. In the presentation they talk about receiving regulatory approval for waterflood recovery wells in the Bakken.

    However, the Bakken they are talking about is the Viewfield Bakken in Canada. No mention of anything in ND.

    1. Thank you. Yes, with some of these areas along the border, one has to keep track of what they are talking about; I have made mistakes; hopefully, I'm catching them. If the name of the field is not familiar to me, it is a tip-off that it is in Canada.

  2. I know they (Crescent Point) invoked a "continuous drilling clause" for 210 days on some land trying to be "re-leased" in 158N-100W sec-28. and supposedly have no intention of drilling... as most of acreage is controlled by another outfit.. it just delays potential to re-lease.

    1. Whenever I see these stories about delays -- whether it involves permits or leases or drilling -- I put it into perspective. Harold Hamm says he can get a permit to drill from North Dakota in 30 days; once the Feds start applying their fracking rules to BLM land (which is much more than just the reservation in North Dakota), Harold Hamm expects the process to take 9 months. And, of course, that will be a trickle down -- everything will be similarly delayed.

    2. I have interest in 158N-100W-28. Zenergy just completed a well that includes that section. I also have interest in Section 21 (just to the north), which the lease is about to expire.

      Is this the section you are talking about, since section 28 is in production.

      Also what is "continuous drilling clause"?


    3. Hopefully Dennis sees your comment and replies.

      1. Sections 33 and 28 is one 1280-acre spacing unit and that's the spacing unit that you mention that Zenergy has just drilled (21496, Hanson 33-28H).

      2. The two sections north of this spacing unit is another 1280-acre spacing unit, sections 21 and 16. I do not see any permit in either section 21 or 16 of 158N-100W.

      3. I don't see any Crescent Point permits in section 28, so I don't know how they could invoke a continuous drilling clause (unless they had a working interest, but I wouldn't think they would be the one to file the request).

      4. The "continuous drilling clause" can be found several places on the net. This may be a pretty good explanation:

      and then this, which is much more difficult to understand:

      5. As I understand it, if the lease were to expire while the operator was drilling in good faith, the operator can be given additional time past the expiration date of the lease, to continue drilling. In general, I believe, in North Dakota it is about 90 days (and depends on the lease). Operators have argued that preparing a pad, or driving a rig to the pad, or setting up a rig, is evidence of "continuous drilling" but the lessor would tend to differ, in many cases.

      6. But if the operator doesn't even have a permit, it's hard to believe he could invoke the clause. I suppose he could stake the area of the lease, and suggest that he was getting ready to drill. That would explain Dennis' comment that the operator was trying to get an additional 280 days to "save" the lease.

      7. By the way, one can see the challenges to operators if the Feds get involved with the permitting process. Operators would not be able to wait to the last year of the least to start the permitting process, at risk of losing the lease because it might take longer than a year to get to the permit. NDIC suggests it could take up to 9 months to get a permit if the Feds get involved. But I digress.

      8. Disclaimer: this is all personal opinion, two cents worth, idle chatter. Do not take my word; this is just how I see it until experts tell me differently. I do not have formal training in any of this and do not own any mineral rights.

  3. Thanks for the reply.

    I'm thinking Dennis may have the wrong T & R. As I mentioned I have interest in section 21, but I also have interest in section 16 and these two sections are in the same spacing.

    We just leased section 16 and section 21 is up very soon. I'm hoping the Feds stay out of the "private" side of drilling...they have no business there, as I think the state/NDIC is doing a good job regulating the drilling activity. (just my 2 cents)

    1. I agree completely (with regard to the Feds and the state).

      The Feds will simply slow things down; they will rubber stamp what the states are doing as long as all the forms are submitted with "i's" dotted and "t's" crossed.

      In the big scheme of things nothing will change: if you dislike how NDIC is doing things, you will still dislike the NDIC. If you like the way NDIC is doing things, you will still like the NDIC. The only thing that will be different is you will have nine (9) months to think about things instead of just 30 days.