Should I curb my enthusiasm? At other discussion groups and through comments to this blog, I am told on a daily basis I need to curb my enthusiasm. Well, ....drum roll... I feel vindicated. Even the NY Times now recognizes that second tier companies have been buying up outstanding stateside acreage while the majors have missed the opportunity, spending their money acquiring and exploring acreage in politically unstable countries overseas. The story was buried deep in the business pages. December 15, 2009.Question: is EOG looking at 570 more wells in the Parshall oil field?
I have no idea if this is a big deal or not. I have not followed "dockets" for the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) in the past so I have nothing with which to compare. But the NDIC has released the docket for December 17, 2009.
The December 17th docket is 19 pages long. Repeat: 19 pages long.
Let's look at one case, just one case from that 19-page docket. This is case 11939 from EOG:
1. EOG wants to extend the Parshall or Van Hook-Bakken Pool to include the following:
Sections 12, 13, 19 - 36 in 151N-90W (20 sections); and,2. EOG also wants permission to drill up to three horizontal wells for each 640-acre spacing unit (that is three wells in each section: one in the upper TFS, one in the lower TFS, and one in the middle Bakken) for the following:
Sections 9, 16, 21 - 28, 34 - 36 in 151N-91W (13 sections); for a total of 33 more sections.
Sections 1 - 36 in 151N-90W (36 sections); and,Does this add up to 190 sections? And is EOG asking permission to drill three horizontal wells in each of these sections? If so, that's 570 wells and that's just one case (albeit, perhaps the biggest case).
Sections 1 - 36 in 152N-90W (36 sections); and,
Sections 1 - 6, 8 - 17, and 19 - 36 in 153N-90W (34 sections); and,
Sections 1 - 36 in 154N-90W (36 sections); and,
Sections 25 - 28, 31 - 36 in 155N-90W (10 sections); and,
Sections 1, 10 - 15, 23 - 26, and 36 in 151N-91W (12 sections); and,
Sections 1, 2, 11 - 15, 22 - 26, 35, 36 in 152N-91W (14 sections); and,
Sections 5 - 8, 17 - 20, 29 - 32 in 153N-89W (12 sections).
I may have misread this, or may not understand it, but that seems to be what EOG is requesting.
You can access the full 19 pages of the December 17, 2009, docket at https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/dockets/2009/docket121709.pdf
I suppose I need to curb my enthusiasm. I have included a summary of the entire docket here.
I think you know what you read. Believe it. I see $150 once people figure out that Papa runs his company well, and he knows the balance of NG vs oil is crucial to cash flow. He is several steps ahead of competitors.
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping. My intuition says I have to agree with you. I went back and looked at the July 21/29 docket just out of curiosity, and EOG was just as active on that one -- not as active as case 11939 above -- but still very, very active. I am quite impressed.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the Van Hook and the Big Bend oil fields (adjacent to each other) are getting a lot of attention right now, especially from Slawson (not publicly traded, but often partnered with NOG, others). I posted an update on that activity on December 13, 2009; you can find it by going to the "Bakken: NOG" page or to "Wells to Watch" and scroll down to other wells in the Van Hook oil field. Very exciting stuff, especially if you are a fan of Slawson.
ReplyDelete