Developing The Middle Bakken And The Multiple Benches Of The Three Forks: Idle Rambling On Well Density

A reader sent me the following note:

Hearing 20657 for CLR in Jim Creek actually includes two overlapping spacing units of 14 wells each. 

What really makes this case interesting, in my opinion, is that a year ago CLR got an overlapping spacing unit approved that fully developed the MB and TF with 320-acre spacing on both of these same units.

It now appears that CLR is attempting to add another two benches which would allow 28 wells (+/-) per unit. See Case 18102, Order 20371.

Also: note that the northern unit appears to be in a much sweeter area as it is closer to the Oakdale field. The southern unit is in an area that appears not to have any "good" Three Forks wells tbut maps show the thickness of the TF in that area to be as thick as any area.

These are the two cases the reader is referencing:

July 31, 2013 -- 20657: Application of Continental Resources, Inc. for an order authorizing the drilling, completing and producing of a total not to exceed fourteen wells on an overlapping 2560-acre spacing unit described as Sections 12, 13, 24 and 25, T.146N., R.96W., and Sections 7, 18, 19 and 30, T.145N., R.96W., Jim Creek-Bakken Pool, Dunn County, ND, eliminating ...

Jun 28, 2012 -- 18102:  Application of Continental Resources, Inc. for an order amending the field rules for the Jim Creek-Bakken Pool to create two overlapping 2560-acre spacing units comprised of Sections 12, 13, 24 and 25, T.146N., R.96W.; and Sections 7, 18, 19 and 30, T.145N., R.96W., Dunn County, ND,authorizing the drilling of multiple wells from each well pad within each overlapping 2560-acre spacing unit; eliminating ... 

My reply:

Great observation. I completely missed that typographical error. Last year, in case 18102, CLR mentioned two overlapping spacing units, and this year in case 20657, they describe two overlapping spacing units, but only mention "an" (as in one) overlapping unit. It appears they should have said "two" overlapping spacing units.

That was the first observation which I missed and you picked up on. Thank you.

The second observation which you noted and I missed, is how CLR is probably going to target deeper benches.

Your comments are excellent: that some areas seem better than others. I assume the operators have noticed the same thing and just as they were defining the sweet areas of the middle Bakken when the boom began, they have a  lot of work defining the sweet spots for the various benches.

I really appreciate readers sending in these observations. I hope I interpret their comments correctly.

This "idle rambling" helps me really understand the administrative process of developing the Bakken/Three Forks better.

In this case (actually two cases), mineral owners in this area now see that we are moving toward 28 wells in each 2560-acre spacing unit. And since these are overlapping spacing units, there will actually be additional wells in the original spacing units (which in this  area, are 1280-acre spacing units). One can easily see that if an individual is currently participating in ONE well in one of these sections, he/she may eventually be participating in thirty to forty wells (or more?) before it's all over. Obviously the participation will be greater in a 1280-acre spacing unit than in a 2560-acre spacing unit, but the newer wells seem to be getting better. Who's to say? With better wells and better prices for oil, future wells on 2560-acre spacing unit may return more dollars to mineral owners than old wells on 1280-acre spacing.