- The current breakdown of wells on the confidential list (by producer)
- A Lodgepole well coming off the confidential list, but still no production information
I'm going out on a limb because I am an amateur when it comes to the oil industry, and I probably know only one percent of all there is to know (if that much), so take what I present as facts with a grain of salt and check with experts if this issue is important enough to you.
My understanding of the process is this.
First, the oil company only has to request that the well be held in confidential status and that request will be automatically granted.
The period of the confidential status in North Dakota is six months. That is a fact. The question is when does the clock start ticking.
My understanding is that when the permit is requested, the oil company requests that the file/well be designated a "tight hole." That indicates that the well will be on the confidential list when the well is spudded.
This was taken from a reliable source and sounds "legal" enough to suggest it is accurate:
"All information furnished to the director on new permits, except the operator name, well name, location, spacing or drilling unit description, spud date, rig contractor, and any production runs, shall be kept confidential for not more than six months if requested by the operator in writing. The six-month period shall commence on the date the well is completed or the date the written request is received, whichever is earlier. If the written request accompanies the application for permit to drill or is filed after permitting but prior to spudding, the six-month period shall commence on the date the well is spudded."Once the confidential period is up, the well will automatically come off the list six months later. There are no extensions. The producer can release information before the six months are up, but it is at the producer's discretion. I assume that if there are partners, the partners must not release information prematurely without the okay of the producer who filed the permit.
The obvious reason why producers want their wells to be confidential is to prevent a run-up in the cost of leases if the well was successful, or for other producers to flock to the a new area. Even if a producer has a lease, another producer can come in "top lease."
About a year ago, someone questioned the need for the "confidentiality" of these wells now that "everyone" knew productive the Bakken was. My knee-jerk reaction was to agree. But now that I see the various estimates of how much recoverable oil is in the Bakken, I now understand the continued need for confidentiality. It is also obvious that some fields are better than others, and in large fields, some areas may be better than others.
******
There are some things that remain confidential even when the wells come of the confidential list. The biggest secret, of course, is the use and make-up of proppants. One of NDIC's mandates is to maximize oil production and efficiency since the state has a vested interest. The state and surface owners would like to minimize the number of wells required in any given area. Producers would like to maximize oil production from each well. Producers are continually working to improve their techniques: the optimum number of fracture stages, the best mix of proppants, the length of the laterals, and so forth.
When oil companies do not share this information, common sense tells me that opportunities are being missed.
Great strides have been made in medicine because medical researchers publish results of medical studies, ultimately leading to better diagnostic and therapeutic modalities.
Somehow, it seems that the NDIC should require "best practices" and it's hard to do that without sharing information. The oil companies will argue that it is in their best interest to use "best practices" but without sharing information how does one know what works best. I am not advocating the public disclosure of proprietary information but I think there are ways that "best practices" could be shared without breaching that confidentiality.
But in the big scheme of things, the confidentiality list seems to be doing what it was intended to do.
By the way, North Dakota requires core samples of all wells being drilled to be sent to the NDIC library, which I believe is at the University of North Dakota. This library is one of the reasons why the Bakken was able to be developed so quickly. So much information on the geology of the Williston Basin was already known when the current boom began, eliminating the need for additional exploratory wells. It is incredible that one seldom sees an exploratory well being drilled in North Dakota (I don't include "wildcats" targeting the Bakken or Three Forks as "exploratory").
******
I mentioned earlier that I was frustrated that the Zastoupil (#19258) well has come off the confidential list but no production data was provided. It is possible that this is simply an administrative issue, and that we will see production runs a month from now when paperwork catches up with the NDIC. I can only imagine how busy they are.
Just would like to say thanks for sharing your knowledge, I live away from North Dakota have one well getting ready to come off the confidential list and one with a permit and wouldn't even know that if someone locally hadn't shared it with me. I find it all little amazing that they don't even tell you that they are permiting your land or drilling. So am now trying to educate myself and your blog has been very helpful in that process.
ReplyDeleteYou are very welcome. You are not alone. I know folks in eastern North Dakota who are quite unaware of what is going on in the west.
ReplyDeleteIt can be very difficult to find specific information on my site but there are several ways to search, I have tags at the bottom of the blog, and links on the right sidebar.
When I'm not on the road I post up to five (5) stand-alone posts every day but I also update up to a dozen previous posts.
When your well comes off the confidential list, I will post it under "New Wells Reporting" which is linked on the sidebar on the right. That is updated every day.
Great information...very helpful.
ReplyDeleteThank you Bruce.
I agree with your view on this whole subject, but it seems to me that when they drill a second or third well in the same formation (bakken) and in the same spacing (1280 acres) that the second or third well should not be allowed to go on the confidential list.
ReplyDeleteThank you for stopping by, and your support.
ReplyDeleteI can't argue.
In the early days of this boom, the six-month waiting period was frustrating for me. But now, it seems not to matter to me at all, except in some cases, such as the Zastoupil/Lodgepole well.
My hunch is that for the designated fields in the North Dakota Bakken, the six-month confidential period matters little to anyone except the mineral rights owners, and the various competing E&P companies.
And maybe that's the crux of the matter: many (most?) wells are shared risks among partners. It's possible the confidentiality plays into those business arrangements. I really don't know.
But for me, it is what it is, and except for the isolated case, it doesn't affect me any more.
Can you explain what happens when wells in confidential status change to permit now cancelled status? In this case there were two wells in Active status in this section and five more in confidential status. Then the oil company, Petro-Hunt in this case was bought by another oil company and the wells in confidential status are now PNC. Does confidential status mean that those wells were being drilled? Is it just that the new company needs to file a permit? Or did those wells never get drilled?
ReplyDeleteI don't own mineral rights, so I cannot speak from experience. The folks over at the Bakken Shale Discussion Group can probably do a better job of answering that question.
DeleteHaving said that, this is my thought process: a company drilling a well would not stop drilling simply because ownership had changed. I would assume the buyer/seller would have negotiated what to do with wells in the process of being drilled.
Permits that were canceled for "wells" on confidential status were probably not yet being drilled. The seller would no longer be drilling these and thus would cancel those permits. The buyer of this acreage would go through the permit process to get new permits for these sites if they plan to drill there.
But regardless of the physical status of the wells (pad preparation, initial spud, drilling, completion), if the permits were canceled, new permits would be needed by the buyer if these wells were to be drilled/completed.
I suppose it's possible the wells were drilled to total depth (horizontal completed, and the rig moved off site) and they were waiting to be fracked. In this case, that's a most likely scenario considering they were on confidential status. If so, the buyer will be eager to complete them, no doubt, and will get the necessary permits.
That's how I see it. But again, I don't have personal experience; the folks over at the Bakken Shale Discussion Group would.