A Reader Has A Question On Four Zavanna Wells In Stony Creek -- January 27, 2015

Over at the discussion board:

Permits #29507-8-9-10: These diagonal wells are listed for sections 3 and 11 only (T155-R100). However, I don't see how they can avoid going through section 2 as well. Anyone know what's going on there? Would this end up being 3 sections sharing production equally?

The wells in question:

• 29507, SI/NC, Zavanna, Shepherd 3-11 1H, Stony Creek, API: 33-105-03771, middle Bakken; estimated to be 41 feet thick; sMarch 26, 2015; re-entered to drill the vertical and curve on May 12, 2015; a 4-foot target; gas averaged 1,000 units; trip gases as high as 5,696 units; TD reached on May 29, 2015; borehole exposed to 94% of ideal target zone; permit application shows this well to be a 1920-acre spaced well; sections 3/2/11-155-100. 
• 29508, SI/NC, Zavanna, Shepherd 3-11 2TFH, Stony Creek, API: 33-105-03772, Three Forks 1st bench, sMarch 25, 2015, low gas units during lateral; first bench is estimated to be 23 feet thick; target zone is 6 feet; wellbore exposed to 70% of the productive first bench, but only 7% to the ideal target zone (there were some challenges drilling this lateral); re-entered on June 2, 2015, to begin the lateral; reached TD on June 12, 2015; permit application shows this well to be a 1920-acre spaced well; sections 3/2/11-155-100. 
• 29509, SI/NC, Zavanna, Shepherd 3-11 3H, Stony Creek, API: 33-105-03773, middle Bakken; sMarch 22, 2015; re-entered for vertical hole and curve on March 25, 2015; largest gas show was 1,504 units; middle Bakken is estimated to be 41 feet in thickness; target zone is 4-feet thick; re-entered on June 17, 2015, to drill the lateral; 60% of the lateral borehole exposed to ideal target zone; permit application shows this well to be a 1920-acre spaced well; sections 3/2/11-155-100. 
• 29510, SI/NC, Zavanna, Shepherd 3-11 4TFH, Stony Creek,  API: 33-105-03774, Three Forks 1st bench, sMarch 19, 2015, re-entered for the vertical and curve segments on April 12, 2015; re-entered for the lateral segment on June 24, 2015; reached TD on June 30, 2015; 69% of the lateral borehole exposed to ideal target zone, total drilling days: 24; permit application shows this well to be a 1920-acre spaced well; sections 3/2/11-155-100. 

Because these wells are the confidential list, I cannot see the application to see the spacing.

However, by using the NDIC GIS map server one can get a pretty good hunch what is going on.

Bottom line: these four wells -- all on the same pad in section 3-155-100 -- will be 1920-acre spacing, and folks with acreage in sections 2, 3, and 11 will receive royalties from these wells based on 1920-acre spacing.

See graphics below.

With regard to the nomenclature of wells: operators have their own way of naming wells, but generally when the horizontal crosses more than one section, the first section number is where the well will be sited (or nearest section to where production will start) and the second section number is where the horizontal will end. Intervening/adjacent sections affected are generally not in the name of the well.

************************************

Graphics and Background

Because these wells are on the confidential list, we do not know the spacing of these wells. From the name of the wells, we can surmise the beginning and the end of the horizontal lateral (as noted above): the wells will start in section 3 and end in section 11.

So, let's go to the NDIC GIS map server. In North Dakota, the entire Bakken is pretty much spaced at 640-, 1280-, 1920-, or 2560-acre spacing. There are some variations in special circumstances.

In the graphics below, the red arrow points to the four-well Zavanna pad in question.

640-Acre Spacing Graphic

So, at the NDIC GIS map server, click on 640-acre spacing for this area. Yes, these sections are spaced at 640-acres but with the name ("3-11") it is very, very unlikely these would be spaced at 640 acres. So ignore this graphic.

1280-Acre Spacing

For 1280-acre spacing in this area. Without looking at the map, there was a remote possibility that the spacing could have been 1280 acres (very, very, very remote, as the reader at the discussion board noted) but when you see the NDIC GIS server map, it is clear this is not going to happen. These sections are not even spaced for 1280-acre spacing. So, ignore this graphic and 1280-acre spacing.

That leaves 1920-acre and 2560-acre spacing, both of which were possible and very likely either could have been. But looking at the map, we might be able to predict.

1920-Acre Spacing

First, 1920-acre spacing in this area. It fits perfectly. Interestingly, of note, there is no surrounding 1920-acre spacing identified, but there is 1920-acre spacing for these wells. The red arrow is moved a bit lower so it would not hide the "**1920** -- that means this is a case before the NDIC for approval, for 1920-acre spacing. Now to check the other possibility (see the last graphic on this page).

2560-Acre Spacing

Finally, for 2560-acre spacing in this area. Note that this area is not even spaced for 2560-acre spacing. Could there be a mistake on my part, clicking the wrong spacing? Nope, there is an example of 2560-acre spacing (to the west) but it does not affect the wells in question.

So, bottom line, my hunch -- and all it is is a hunch because these wells are still on the confidential list: these four wells will be 1920-acre spaced wells affecting sections 2, 3, and 11 in T155N-R100W.

This 1920-acre spacing does not change/affect earlier wells that are already producing and spaced at 640-acre (first graphic above).