Pages

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

First Well With 2560-Acre Spacing -- Bakken, North Dakota, USA

Well, this is very, very interesting.

Folks have been opining, wondering, speculating, arguing, elsewhere, how anyone is going to be able to drill a well on 2560-acre spacing.

Well (no pun intended), I think we got ourselves our first example. (Note: I'm sure someone will tell me it's been done a hundred times before and that this is no big deal. But it's the first time I've seen it, and the first time I've blogged about it, so for me -- and, perhaps, me alone -- it's a big, big deal.) But I don't quite understand what I'm seeing. First, here's the well:
  • 19666, 1,028, MRO, Elk Creek USA 33-12H, Lost Bridge, Bakken (note spacing: 4 sections). The well is located in Lost Bridge oil field, west of the reservations, about 20 miles NNW of Killdeer, as the crow flies.
But this is what still needs to follow. There are two wells on this pad (the other is 19667, and that long horizontal goes south. The 19666 long horizontal goes north).

Each horizontal, as noted, is a long horizontal: 19666 goes north into sections 12/1 - 148-96, while 19667 goes south into sections 13/24 - 148-96.

The GIS map server confirms that this is 2560-acre spacing. This suggests to me that whoever owns any mineral rights in any of these four sections will collect royalties from both horizontals.

But I think this answers the question: just because it's "2560-acre spacing," doesn't mean the operator has to push the horizontal four miles or more.

See third comment below for explanation why "2560-acre spacing" is chosen: it has to do with the "500-foot setback rule."

One can go to the GIS map server and locate other 2560-acre spacing units. I checked out #19712, CLR, Ivan 1-29H: it's a long horizontal, but the scout ticket says it's only 2-section spacing. This is the same for its sister well, #19586, He 1-20H (one 2560-acre spacing, but yet being reported as "2-section spacing."  I wonder if there is an error, an inconsistency, a change in spacing rules, or most likely, I'm misreading/misunderstanding something. It wouldn't be the first time.

(Same with #17770/#17742: two long horizontals drilling on 2560-acre spacing, and the scout ticket for both shows 2-section spacing.)

Other wells coming off confidential list today: 
  • 19471, 1,412, Fidelity, Behr 16-21H, Stanley, Bakken,
  • 20323, DRL, BR, Midnight Run 11-1MBH, Union Center, Bakken,
Note: one of three wells reporting today was not fracked/completed.

For once, it looks like Fidelity has a good well. Which reminds me: the MRO well above is another in a string of good wells being reported by MRO. I remember about a year ago, an "expert"told me that MRO doesn't report wells with IPs greater than 500 bbls, and seldom about 300 bbls. MRO must have gotten the memo.

8 comments:

  1. Just wondering what the spacing will be on the border sections since they appear smaller than others. I have minerals in Williams County in a border section.

    ReplyDelete
  2. NDIC's GIS map server will tell you exactly what the spacing is for all of of the oil patch in North Dakota.

    If you are unfamiliar with the GIS map, I have instructions elsewhere on the blog, or you can just tell me what section(s), and I can tell you the spacing.

    The border areas (along the Montana state line) west of Williston are 960-acre spacing, Hebron oil field, for example, and south).

    ReplyDelete
  3. We have mineral acres that were originally developed in a 1280 spacing unit that has now become part of a 2560 unit. The production from the first well is still based on the original division order and the (eco pad) wells are based on a new division order that used a multiplier that is half the first order but we are included in production from all 4 wells.

    It is my understanding that the bennefit from this spacing configuration is that with the 1280 unit there is a required set back of 500' on both ends. With the 2560 the set back requirements still apply on the ends but not the middle, therefore each of the four laterals tap into another 500' of oil bearing rock.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Very, very interesting. That explains it.

    I was just talking to someone about the 500-foot setback earlier today and this explains it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I AM ONE OF THE OWNERS of WELL # 19666 & 19667 horizontal legs running north and south ,1028 bopd So I will get paid royalties from both horizontal legs?Marcella Haman Bis.n.d.Feb.12 2012

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone else will have to answer. I don't understand the question. If you "own" #19666 and 19667 you will be getting a lot more than royalties.

      Delete
  6. Bruce,Thank you for your response.The Question,is I am one of 500 owners,of well # 19666 and well # 19667.You got me curiou, you saying that I will get a lot more then royaltys.I leased for 3/16 %.Hope you can understand my question better now.Thanks Marcella

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I misunderstood. When you said "owned" these two wells, I assumed you had a working interest in the well.

      Delete

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