Unitization -- What It Means For Mineral Owners

Earlier it was posted that QEP is looking to "unitize" the Grail-Bakken field in the Williston Basin, North Dakota.

I was hoping someone would ask the question: what does this mean for mineral owners? And someone has asked the question. I am not a mineral owner, so I prefer to let others answer.

You can join in the discussion over at the discussion group (open to all, no registration required, but all comments are moderated, meaning there could be a delay before comments are posted, among other things).

Websites:

• legal definition/discussion

Not knowing a thing about unitization other than the little bit from other websites, two things come to mind:

• the rules for the entire field would now be uniform, making permitting process more streamlined
• unitization would allow operators to be more effective/efficient in developing the field (maximizing production from each mineral acre)

Assuming that every last acre in the Grail is now held by production, I can't imagine unitization would adversely affect mineral rights owners all that much, but I don't know. Hopefully folks will provide some insight.

I have blogged about unitization in the past; some of these posts are very old, and I'm almost embarrassed to bring them to your attention again. I am learning as I go along, and some of these posts are, well, quite embarrassing:

• FAQ #35
• unitization and EOR
• unitization of Lost Bridge-Bakken; another post on unitization of Lost Bridge-Bakken
• unitization, waterflooding in Canada
• unitization and EOR, in passing
• unitization of Corral Creek-Bakken by BR