Pages

▼

Friday, February 25, 2011

Trivia Hour -- NDIC Hearing Dockets -- March, 2011: How Much Can One Find in the March Dockets? -- Bakken, North Dakota, USA

NDIC has posted the March, 2011, hearing dockets, and I have posted a brief summary of same.

See the trivia one can derive from the hearings:

1. It's not just about the Bakken any more! Look at this:  "proper spacing for the Lodgepole."
  • 14304: MRO, proper spacing for Murphy Creek-Lodgepole, Dunn County
  • See comments below [this item was added to original post. Thank you to those who missed my oversight on this one.]
2. We are starting to see as many as four wells on 640-acre spacing units
  • 14428: Enerplus, complete not more than 2 wells on a 320-acre unit, and not more than 4 wells on a 640-acre unit in Mandaree-Bakken, Dunn, McKenzie (one of several examples)
3. Slawson is going to try something we don't see often: going into a producing horizontal well, but opening the vertical portion to another formation
  • Case 14386: Slawson wants to go back into Ambush 1-31-30H and open a portion of the vertical section of the well to the Lodgepole Formation in Williams County
4. Williams County is going to get really, really busy
  • 14418: EOG, complete not more than 2 wells in each 1280-acre unit; 15 units, 30 wells, Painted Woods-Bakken, Williams
  • 14419: EOG, complete not more than 2 wells in a 1280-acre unit, Rosebud, Williams
  • 14421: EOG, complete not more than 2 wells on each 1280-acre unit; 3 units, 6 wells total, Round Prairie-Bakken, Williams
5. Larger units
  • 14085, cont'd: Zenergy, extend Van Hook-Bakken, 1 3840-acre unit, 9 wells, eliminate the 1220 setback rule
  • 14321: Hess, to establish a 2560-acre unit in Manitou or Alkali Creek-Bakken, Mountrail 
6.  For all those naysayers who said EOG was leaving Bottineau and the Spearfish -- not so fast
  • 13429, cont'd: temporary spacing for Boundary 4-27H, Bottineau (Spearfish)
7. Wildcats farther east, all the way into Ward County
  • 14371: Behm, complete a vertical well, Halden 11-8, Ward, 8-156-87; this is a vertical well; what formation is Behm targeting?
8. Many great fields getting bigger; just a couple examples
  • 14363: Enerplus, to establish 7 1280-acre units in Heart Butte-Bakken, 4 wells each, Dunn
  • 14354: Enerplus, to establish 4 1280-acre units in South Fork-Bakken, 4 wells each, Dunn
9. New fields? One of many examples:
  • 14309: Cornerstone, establish 14 640-acre units in Burke County
10.  WLL is "putting the pedal to the metal in the Sanish":
  • 14327: WLL, to establish 2 additional wells to be drilled on 10 spacing units in the Sanish-Bakken pool, Mountrail County, 20 wells in all
11.  It looks like ALL the drillers are getting tired of production restrictions due to flaring and lack of infrastructure. They've thrown in the towel and are asking for relief in the most prolific (and "oldest" Bakken field in North Dakota, the Parshall. After the 4Q10 earnings reports, one understands why these companies want restrictions lifted; the flaring restrictions and North Dakota winter depressed production significantly
  • 14434: EOG, Slawson, Hunt, BEXP, Sinclair, to allow flaring of gas unrestricted in Parshall-Bakken, Mountrail  
11. Everyone is getting into  the act. In the old days, it was only WLL that put 6 - 8 wells on a 1280-acre unit; now everyone is doing it; one of many examples:
  • 14075, cont'd: Newfield, create 1 1280-acre unit, Williams, 5 wells including the existing well

I'm curious if anyone else can see any trends, innovations, or peculiarities in the NDIC March hearing dockets? Or something I missed or misinterpreted?
at

10 comments:

  1. Bakken OwnerFebruary 25, 2011 at 10:53 PM

    Marathons 14304 asking for spacing of Murphy lodge pole seems to suggest that they think lodgepole wells will be successful

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousFebruary 26, 2011 at 7:52 AM

    Im surprised you don't highlight Case 14304. MRO application to determine proper spacing for lodgepole pool in Dunn County.
    Darwin 14-35H was completed 1/29/09 on 640 acre spacing unit as horizontal Lodgepole. It has produced only 26,937 bbl of oil but I wonder how much restriction it has on it. Original choke size was 5/32, first full month of production 27 days in May of 2009 was 615 bbl last full month 31 days in Jan 2011 was 753 bbl. There was a spike in May of 2010 (17 months after completion) of 2,540 bbl.
    If the three forks formation source rock is the lower bakken why wouldn't the lodgepole be sourced by the upper bakken?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bruce OksolFebruary 26, 2011 at 7:58 AM

    Yes, I completely missed that. This is why.

    I started transcribing the list as quickly as I could to get it for my readers. As I was going along, I realized there were really some great cases that I needed to highlight or I would "forget" them, so I began highlighting as I went along. When blogging, you have to be careful about highlighting because it can mess up format elsewhere.

    Well, by the time I started highlighting, I was already far enough down that I had already forgotten about 14304 which I think was the first one on the list.

    My bad! That was the first one I typed, and it blew me away to see "proper spacing for the Lodgepole." With all my interest in what's going on in the Lodgepole that caught my attention, and then I completely forgot to add it to this abbreviated list.

    Well consider it done. I will add it and I am thinking of putting it at the very top.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousFebruary 27, 2011 at 5:54 PM

    The misinformation being presented, and continuously re-presented, on this site is astonishing. Marathon is not asking for proper spacing. The state is required to set proper spacing by law after previously setting temporary spacing. Temporary spacing was set for only the section where the Darwin well is located because that is what Marathon wanted at that time based on its development plans for the formation, which were none. It is almost certain that permanent spacing will be set for only that one section because the well is not economic. The well's production is not being restricted. Just like the well in Mercer Co., it is what it is and wishful thinking isn't going to change it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bruce OksolFebruary 27, 2011 at 6:14 PM

    I appreciate any correction to mistakes.

    I thought cases before the NDIC were applications, or requests (as in "asking"). If I'm wrong, I stand corrected.

    Regardless, I appreciate clarification on Darwin 14-35H.

    With regard to production (and I won't mention anything about chock size / restriction) but the monthly production from this well has been very erratic:

    June 2009: 341 bbls
    Sept 2009: 2,139 bbls
    Mar, 2010 (albeit a short month): 408 bbls
    May, 2010: 2,540 bbls

    I purposely did not comment on "source rock" because that is a much bigger discussion than can be handled in comment section.

    Please continue to provide insight where misinformation is being presented, and continuously re-presented.

    My intent is not to misrepresent anything; I try very, very hard to link anything presented as fact.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousFebruary 27, 2011 at 7:02 PM

    Bruce: For all you do, I lift a home-brewed ale to you. As a dedicated reader of your blog for several months now, I thought it time to say "thank you" and "keep up the good work".

    From Illinois

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bruce OksolFebruary 27, 2011 at 7:21 PM

    Thank you for you kind remarks.

    I have learned a lot. I knew "nothing" about the Bakken when I started. I did not even understand "fields" when I started. The site has come a long way.

    It started out purely as an educational site. Over time it has evolved, but I don't have any hidden agenda.

    I just think the Bakken is very, very fascinating.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousMarch 16, 2011 at 12:10 AM

    In regards to the Roberts Trust 13C-2HTF I dont understand how Enerpus Resources (U.S.A) INC. could make such a mistake on a 320 acre section is it really that hard to stay within regulation boundaries ? From what I see on a document infront of me this isn't the first time this has happend.I dont want to indulge to much information becuase, I just dont know what reactions my statements could make. I just thought that you might be able to enlighten me on some information that I might not know about.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousDecember 23, 2011 at 7:50 PM

    Sometimes they just don't have a lease agent for the well to service it or don't want it producing because the labor to deal with it hauling water/oil simply isn't available at the moment. Give a few years when more infrastructure is in place and labor available and the wells will either produce more or a workover rig may do a refrack. Some wells produce to pave the way and others are poker chips to be used later. as long as a well is producing something the lease remains active (tied up) even if the production is minimal.

    Just my theory

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bruce OksolDecember 23, 2011 at 8:11 PM

    I don't think you are too far off; there's a lot more to this business than simply pumping full out.

    Folks that watch the pumpers have many, many stories of the pumpers stopping and starting on (what appears to be) a completely random schedule.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.