Update
March 8, 2012: the discussion continues. An individual from Hawaii has summarized my thoughts quite well. Check out "kuaudave" and his/her comments at this link, March 8, 12:03 a.m.
March 6, 2012: Teegue's board is nothing if it's not predictable -- today Teegue suggested the topic be taken over to the water cooler if "they" introduce politics into the discussion. I did not see any indication of politics in the discussion, but I did see a lot of apologies to Teegue. "They" desperately don't want to be kicked off the discussion board. I see that the most recent post (by BRI-VA) references my blog which is blogga-non-grata. It will be interesting to see what the response is. Generally, Teegue will respond that this blog is a joke and he won't "recognize" it. In this case, BRI-VA is only referencing a very important link for surface owners which I can guarantee practically no one on the Bakken Shale Discussion Group has seen. BRI-VA takes great risk in referencing this blog. If one references my blog at that site more than once, they are generally threatened with being "kicked off the island." A third time, and it's all over.
March 6, 2012: Wow, I think it's time for Dufus to take the conversation over to the water cooler, over at Teegue's Bakken Shale Discussion Group. (See link below.) Teegue is starting to get a bit hot under the collar (see Teegue's long entry at the link this date). In my eyes, Teegue has always been correct with regard to the Bakken, but I think he is wrong in this case. Read the entire thread at the link below. Then come back here and read the following. Tight oil/unconventional oil/shale oil is something new for everyone involved. One can argue, under oath, that a single horizontal well can drain a 1,280-acre spacing unit, but it will take 30 years or longer, and a lot of oil will be left behind because of the ineffectiveness of the frack more than 500 feet away. One can argue that by putting in additional wells/infill wells/density wells one can drain the spacing unit in a shorter period of time, and, oh by the way, recover more oil than a single horizontal. Teegue is thinking like a non-participating mineral rights own who inherited a few acres from his grandfather; others are thinking like oilmen. Much more could be written, but it starts to open more Pandora boxes.
March 5, 2012: I hope the folks who argue against Teegue know they could be excluded from the discussion group.
Original Post
Elsewhere there is a nice discussion regarding the optimum lateral spacing for horizontal wells in the Bakken.
There are several issues brought up: how far from the lateral is oil recovered; is technology changing things; do models have to be updated; are EURs increasing due to improving technology and experience? It's a messy discussion (skipping from topic to topic) but the data points are interesting and helpful in understanding the Bakken.
This was the question, and rhetorical answer:
The original question asked here was how far oil is recovered from the lateral. Marathon's evidence shows it is recovered from at least 3/4 mile over 25 years, upon which legal determinations have been made regarding that only one well is necessary in a unit.I guess there are at least two questions: a) how far is oil recovered from a lateral; and, b) how far out is fracking effective, which I started discussing a long, long time ago, and a question that operators are discussing in their corporate presenations.
I do agree that EURs are increasing due to improving technology and experience.
I understand "pressure" arguments for liquid pools; I don't understand "pressure" arguments as well when discussing "tight" or shale oil.
Teegue's point is simple. The marathon evidence is what perpetuates 1280 acre spacing units. The long term reality is it will be rare that only one lateral is drilled per layer. The idea of a non-centered well in such a large unit will effectively drain and protect the correlative rights of the mineral owner is just silly and ridiculous. Just imagine how many lease bonuses, lease renogotions, and potential additional wells some owners are neglected to receive. Rarely are cases against state angencies find success. Yet the totals in lost potential revenues for mineral owners has to be in the multi-millions in value. Is there anyone out there who would take this case to the supreme courts. Or anyone with a conscience to bring the spacing sizes in conjunction to what is really happening in the field.
ReplyDelete......congrates Bruce 2 million views........
Thank you for your kind words, and thank you for taking time to comment.
DeleteI just wrote about a page of comments in reply, but then realized there are just too many variables and too much to discuss in the comment section.
So, instead of posting the page of what I've just typed, I deleted it, and instead will leave it with two short paragraphs:
1) There is a reason that cases against state agencies seldom find success. One can argue the entire concept of mineral rights ownership was an unintended consequence of policies long before oil was even known to be present. But it is what it is.
2) I am not a mineral rights owner, and the original focus of the blog was never on mineral rights, and I won't spend much time on mineral rights. The focus of my blog has always been on the potential of the Bakken.
We can enjoy the discussion that evolves over at the Bakken Shale Discussion Group; I hope it continues.
Looks like there could be a few that could be banished from the group. This type of ever present threat kind of feels like Chinese Government monitoring. Or maybe it more resembles being on the Gong show and your just waiting to get gonged.
ReplyDeleteYes, I get a kick out of it.
DeleteThe discussion is getting pretty hot. See Teegue's very long entry dated March 5, 2012; 5:15 p.m. Time for Dufus to suggest moving the conversation over to the water cooler, but my hunch is no one would dare to do that.
Delete