Here is case 19797:
Application of Hess Corp. for an order amending the applicable orders for the Truax-Bakken Pool to establish six overlapping 2560-acre spacing units consisting of Sections 3, 4, 9 and 10; Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8; Sections 17, 18, 19 and 20; and Sections 29, 30, 31 and 32, T.154N., R.98W., Williams County, ND and Sections 14, 15, 22 and 23, T.153N., R.98W., Williams and McKenzie Counties; and Sections 17, 18, 19 and 20, T.153N., R.98W., Williams County for the purpose of drilling one or more horizontal wells between the existing 1280-acre spacing units; and such other relief as is appropriate.I am still looking for a nice site that explains the nuances of "overlapping spacing units" in the Bakken.
This is as good a discussion as I've seen to date, back in 2009. At the link, scroll to Teegue's comment, dated 12/2/09. [As usual, he consistently provides the best (and clearest) explanations. Much appreciated.]
While reading that linked thread, bring up the NDIC GIS map server and do three things after zooming into the Truax oil field. First, check 640-acre spacing in the Truax. I don't see any (but I've been wrong before.) Then, check 1280-acre spacing. It appears the entire field has been zoned for 1280-acre spacing which means (at least to me, the operators can file for a permit to drill a Bakken well with 1280-acre spacing in the Truax without going through a NDIC docket hearing). Finally, check out 2560-acre spacing. There are several proposed units still under consideration by the NDIC (at least that's how I understand the map server; again, I have been wrong in the past, and could be wrong again).
An individual asked where the pads would be placed for these proposed spacing units in case number 19797. There are six (6) proposed units in this case; I will look at one, and from there, one can extrapolate to the others.
The one I will look at: the proposed overlapping 2560-acre spacing unit consisting of sections 3, 4, 9, and 10. That's a nice square. One existing stand-up 1280-acre spacing unit makes up the east (right) half of this square; another existing stand-up 1280-acre spacing unit makes up the west (left) half of this square, the proposed overlapping 2560-acre spacing unit.
Hess proposes this unit for "the purpose of drilling one or more horizontal wells between the existing 1280-acre spacing units."
Based on the two active wells already in the two 1280-acre spacing units (#22946 and #22612) -- which are sited near the south line of the proposed unit and run north, my hunch is that the pad would be sited at the corner where sections 9, 10, 15, and 16 all meet; if so, the horizontal would run north, paralleling #22946 and #22612.
If anyone is interested in continuing the discussion, at least two other questions come to mind:
a) why? what is the purpose of the overlapping unit in the first place; and,Those questions are easy to answer and are covered at the Bakken Shale Discussion Group linked above.
b) who shares in the royalties of the wells drilled in the overlapping unit, and drilled between the existing 1280-acre units
A much more interesting question is the effect these wells will have on existing wells. I think this is a much more nuanced question, still under study, but a question that has been addressed at the Million Dollar Way before. But, I think it's only been discussed once (maybe twice at the blog) and there's no way I will be able to find it among the more than 10,000 posts (to date) that exist.
Another obvious question, of course, takes us back to a poll I did a long, long time ago, but I won't open that up again (at least not at this time).
Disclaimer: this whole discussion is beyond my comfort zone. When I get out of my comfort zone, I make errors. I'm sure folks will let me know where I have erred. [Shoot. Even in my comfort zone, I make errors.]
While I am at it, how are those two wells noted above doing?
- 22612, 481, Hess, SC-Bingeman-154-98-0904H-1, t9/12; cum 30K 1/13;
- 22946, 1,122, Hess, SC-Hoving 154-98-1003H-1, t9/12; cum 92K 1/13;
I think your link to the 2009 discussion is incorrect. It goes to a 2008 discussion that doesn't seem to be relevant.
ReplyDeleteThank you. I re-posted the link. The link might take you to the end of the thread; if so, you will have to scroll up to find Teegue's comment.
ReplyDeleteIf all the wells begin on one end of two 1280 acre spacing units then the bit does not reach the Bakken until the end of the radius of the curve which is approximately 800 feet in from the section line. In order to drain the end of the two sections economically with a long lateral, one well is drilled across the two 1280 units, therefore the need for a 2560 unit for this one well.
ReplyDeleteWhere would the pad be placed in this 2 x 2 2560-acre spacing unit? And which way would the horizontals run (east-west, north-south, other)?
DeleteThere are multiple pads across the top of the two 1280 spacing units, each with several wells drilling say N to S. In order to drain the top of the two sections where the pads are located, a well going say E to W must be drilled across the top of the two 1280 units therefore the need for a 2560 spacing for that one well. If a Three forks well is needed then you need two wells.If a pad with a fan configuration is used the laterals get too long and my observations are that the mud pumps struggle over 21000 feet
DeleteYes, I agree with you: laterals over 21,000 feet are problematic. Having said that, I understand there are some very long laterals being drilled as a trial. These are still confidential and so the jury is still out. But for now, I agree: laterals over 21,000 feet are problematic.
Delete