Straight Talk On Revising Definition of the Stratigraphic Limits of the Bakken

Teegue weighs in and as usual, he is correct.

For those who don't know what we are talking about, check out NDIC docket cases 18853 - 18910 (October 2012)  in which CLR is requesting the stratigraphic limits of the Bakken Pool be redefined over much (most?) of the "Bakken."

This issue has gotten a few enquiring minds rattled, but Teegue cuts through the chatter (link above) and explains it.  When you go to the link, Teegue's comment was posted October 4 (it looks like Google Groups no longer put the time when a comment was posted; if it does, I missed it).

Teegue raises at least two other issues in that very well written comment: a) communication between the Three Forks and the Bakken; and, b) overlapping spacing units.

I'm in full agreement with his comments on overlapping spacing units. With regard to his comments on communication between Three Forks and the Bakken, I think folks on both sides of the debate are correct; they are talking past each other. The interesting thing is that this issue of "communication" is a red herring, just as the issue of flaring is a red herring.

Disclaimer

Disclaimer: I am a layperson with no experience or background in the oil and gas industry. See my "welcome" and the disclaimer at the "welcome" post. Much of what I post about the Bakken is personal opinion based on my understanding of the oil and gas industry in North Dakota based on what I have read over the last few years. Even my "factual" data points can have typographical errors; if something doesn't seem right, it probably isn't.

The three issues discussed in this particular post are very contentious and "everyone" has an opinion. The above stand-alone post is my opinion. Do not use this opinion in your decision-making process when it comes to oil and gas contracts; do not use this opinion in your decision-making process when making investment decisions.

Because of the contentiousness of the issues above, for this particular post I won't publish "anonymous" comments nor comments without legitimate sources to back up the comment. And even then, it might not be posted. There are entire blogs for mineral rights owners where this issue can be discussed.

Update

Some folks have asked why I would post something and then not "allow" comments. I direct them to the purpose of the blog which is stated in the "welcome." But again, I did not say I would "not allow" comments. At a minimum, I would not accept "anonymous" comments.

Update to the update

Someone pointed out that it's pretty much impossible to post non-anonymous comments on this site. That is accurate. What was I thinking? Let's just call the whole thing off. I'm moving on.

Moon River, Jerry Butler