Update On Case #27556 To Decrease Number Of Wells From 22 To 2 In Various Spacing Units -- June 1, 2019

This takes us back to a comment from a reader and my reply to that comment over at the post on the June, 2019, hearing dockets. Original note archived.

A reader noted that Slawson was requesting to drop the number of wells from 22 wells to 2 wells in several spacing units. The reader was concerned that this had to do with changes in what geologists thought the Bakken could do -- whether 22 wells in one spacing unit made economic sense -- at least that was my take on the reader's comment.

The case regarding dropping from 22 to 2 wells: case #27556, a continuation case (first scheduled, May 23, 2019, page 3). on Hearing Dockets For June, 2019. Here is a screenshot of that case:

The reader wrote:

In response to case #27556, a continuation case, on the NDIC docket for Thursday, June 27, 2019, request to amend previous submission from 22 wells to 2: hopefully this was just someone's twitchy fingers and not a serious miscalculation.

So, here we go: The hearing docket case was not a typographical error. I am being told that the case as published is correct, and that the original request for 22 wells on various spacing units was also correct.

So, before we go further.

It's my observation that the NDIC makes very few typographical errors in their daily activity reports. When they do make an error, it is generally of little "material" value, and it is corrected very, very quickly, usually within one business day.

It's also my observation that the NDIC has "never" made a typographical error in their monthly hearing docket agendas. I put the "never" in quotes: I'm sure readers can find a typographical error in the dockets, but I don't recall any in the ten years I've been posting summaries of these agendas.

So, I was greatly remiss suggesting there might have been a typographic error in Case #27556.

The case is accurate.

The bottom line: I am being told that this has nothing to do with the geology or the prospects of the Bakken. In that regard, nothing has changed. Slawson is making the change for other reasons, to include but not limited to: minimize the chance of leaving stranded oil by less-than-optimal drilling / completion strategies. This drilling unit is under the water and Slawson is looking for an innovative method to reach the farthest edges of the unit.

Slawson filed for new, extended spacing units but EOG would be the operator. Slawson is asking the NDIC to extend the EOG original 2.5-mile spacing units to three miles to include acreage that would otherwise be stranded.

Slawson had previously extended its 2- and 2.5-mile spacing units to 3 and 3.5 miles to capture some of the acreage from the west and is just asking that EOG extend their laterals from the east shore to do their part to capture the rest.

Slawson has already drilled 24 three- and 3.5-mile laterals to capture most of the middle of the lake acreage. So now if the NDIC agrees with Slawson, EOG will capture the acreage that was too far for Slawson to reach.

The Bakken never ceases to amaze me.