March 21, 2017: another nice note from a reader, reminding me how surveyors "corrected" for errors and "irregularly-shaped" townships --
Regarding the sub-divisional lines for section 2 (per original GLO survey): the SW and SE quarters are regular - contain 160 acres with the north line of said quarters established one-half mile north of south line, thus the mid-section line.
Government lots 5-12 (middle and lower tiers) are also regular 40 acre tracts (1320' x 1320') so lots 1-4 (upper tier) get all the error when closing on the parallel, and in this case creating tracts less than 40 acres.Later, 2:02 p.m. Central Time: a reader provided some insight regarding section 2-152-99 below which will help explain things. But it probably doesn't answer the question whether the SWD well CLR is proposing is converting an older Monroe well or drilling a new one. These are the comments the reader had regarding the graphic below:
1) I am not familiar with case, but Township 152 closes on a standard parallel and section 2 would have all the error for said township on the north, therefore creating a series of government lots. This can create a lot of confusion when crafting a legal description.From another reader: you are looking at this as 160 acre. The well's operator is breaking this 160 acre piece into 40 acre squares., thus technically these wells are in the NE corner (40 acre square) of the SE corner (160 acre.)
2) Section 2 is very long. Therefore twelve (12) government lots make up the north half and in reality there is no NW or NE quarter.
From those comments that would put #22891 in the NESW "area" of section 2.
It concerns section 2-152-99. These are all "Monroe" wells.
To me the 8-well pad seems to be in the NESE quadrant but the scout ticket shows them to be in the SENE quadrant (which is very, very close).
The four well pad is in the NWSW quadrant (per the scout ticket and the graphic above).
#22891 is in the SENW quadrant.
The reader noted that case #25706, Thursday, March 23, 2017, NDIC hearing dockets that CLR requests: "application ... for an order ... authorizing saltwater disposal into the Dakota Group in the Monroe SWD well, NESW section 2-152-99, Banks Field ...
I don't see an existing Monroe well in NESW 2-152-99. The oldest and most likely well would be #22891 but not only is it not in the location noted in case #25706, it seems to be a pretty good well. So, I do not understand the case as written unless CLR is going to drill a "new Monroe" well. Generally, if I recall correctly, a case to convert an existing producing well to a SWD well would use the word "convert." So, most likely a new SWD well in this section?
- 22891, 947, CLR, Monroe 1-2H, Banks, t8/12; cum 305K 1/17;
|Pool||Date||Days||BBLS Oil||Runs||BBLS Water||MCF Prod||MCF Sold||Vent/Flare|