But I am curious. Maybe a reader can explain this.
In the September, 2019, hearing dockets:
- Case 27937, CLR, Elm Tree-Bakken, establish an overlapping 2560-acre spacing unit, section 2, 3, 10, and 11-153-94; 26 wells, McKenzie, Mountrail counties
- Case 28055, CLR, Elm Tree-Bakken, on an existing 2560-acre unit, sections 2/3/10/11-153-94, 27 wells; McKenzie and Mountrail counties
It's possible I'm misreading something again, but I've looked at it several time. I would imagine the October case will supersede the September case, but perhaps a reader can explain the difference.
On another note, other recent "large" CLR cases:
- 28056, CLR, Cedar Coulee-Bakken, on an existing 2560-acre unit, section 20/29/32-147-96; and, section 5-146-96; 22 wells; Dunn County
- 27961, CLR, Big Gulch-Bakken, 14 wells on an existing 1280-acre unit, section 19/30-147-96; Dunn County
- the Long Creek Unit: upwards of 60 wells on ten sections drilled with two rigs starting in 2H19 and being completed by 2021 or thereabouts
By the way, my definition of an ideal well: an ideal well is one that pays for itself in the first six to twelve months, and then provides steady free cash flow for the next 34 years. The better that free cash flow the "more ideal" that well.
********************************
The Graphic
From above, case 27937:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.