Friday, March 30, 2012

Random Discussion on Spacing Units in the Bakken -- The Brooklyn Oil Field, North Dakota, USA

Much has been discussed elsewhere regarding size of spacing units in the Bakken. If you go to that link, you can search for other discussions regarding size of spacing units.

So this is of interest:
March 28, 2012, NDIC hearing dockets; Case No. 17195:  
Application of Continental Resources, Inc. for an order amending the field rules for the Brooklyn-Bakken Pool to create two 2560-acre spacing units comprised of Sections 14, 23, 26 and 35; and Sections 18, 19, 30 and 31, T.155N., R.98W., Williams County, ND, authorizing the drilling of multiple horizontal wells from said well pad within each 2560-acre spacing unit; eliminating any tool error requirements and such other relief as is appropriate.
All spacing units in the Bakken-Brooklyn are currently 1280-acre, according to the NDIC GIS map server; and all units are currently held by production (Continental Resources), including the eight sections noted above in case no 17195.

Unless I am missing something CLR is not asking for larger spacing units as "a land grab" to hold leases by production. The horizontals will continue to be long horizontals (two sections) but mineral owners in any of the four sections will benefit from a successful well.  Obviously CLR can put 8 - 16 wells on one pad with 4 - 8 wells going south and 4 - 8 wells going north.

If nothing else, the oil from all four sections, from the entire 2560-acre unit, can be commingled into one set of tank batteries. It seems this would make the entire operation much more efficient. If trucks are still picking up the oil, one truck can pick up oil from multiple wells; once pipelines are in place, the same thing; one does not have to worry about what oil is coming from which well. Extrapolate this to a unitizing the entire field and one can see the efficiencies. My 2 cents worth. Hopefully someone can provide "professional" insight.

Of course, it goes without saying, all the efficiencies with multiple wells on one pad, but CLR could have done that with the current 1280-acre spacing so that is not an explanation for the request of 2560-acre spacing units.

[August 18, 2012: I missed a big reason why 2560-acre spacing is of value. Heels and toes of horizontal wells must be set back a minimum number of feet from the spacing unit line. If the requirement is 500 feet and the spacing unit is one section (one mile, or 5,280 feet on a side), 500 feet at the heel and 500 feet at the toe = 1,000 feet, or almost 20% of the length of the spacing unit is lost. With 2560-acre spacing, at most the operator loses 500 feet at the toe. Since they are still drilling long laterals, that is 500 feet over two miles (10,560 feet), or less than 5%. This is the reason the operators want larger spacing units with horizontal wells in the Bakken. In one of the polls at the blog I asked whether it was better to have 1280-acre or 2560-acre spacing; the majority said 1280-acre spacing. The majority was wrong.]