Showing posts with label OverlappingSpacing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OverlappingSpacing. Show all posts

Friday, September 2, 2022

MRO "Converts" A Planned Overlapping 2560-Acre Spacing Unit Back To Two Standard Bakken 1280-Acre Spacing Units -- September 2, 2022

A reader and I both noticed this case from the September, 2022, NDIC hearing dockets.

We both thought it interesting.

After looking at the graphics, it makes perfect sense, especially considering these are MRO wells.

  • and this is very, very good news for small mom-and-pop mineral owners in the area

Case, not a permit:

29567, MRO, Killdeer-Bakken, i) terminate an overlapping 2560-acre spacing unit, sections 4/5/8/9-145-94; ii) reduce the setback to 250 feet for the two 1280-acre spacing units, sections 5/8- and sections 4/0-145-94; Dunn County

The graphics:






Monday, December 19, 2016

Request For Assistance From A Reader -- December 19, 2016

Disclaimer: this is a long note. There are likely to be factual and/or typographical errors. This is my opinion only. It's how I "see" things. I may be completely wrong. If this information is important to you, contact professional assistance.

****************************
Updates

December 20, 2016: see first comment. The reader brings up the issue of communitization. For more on that, one might to start here. But again, if we are getting to this level, one needs professional advice. Again, I would assume a good landman could point folks in the right direction. If not, go to the trust department of one's bank and ask for suggestions. 

Later, 9:30 p.m. Central Time: I think we're working too hard at this. Every well stands on its own. Forget about "overlapping." Forget about other wells, no matter how many wells you have.

Simply take the well you are interested in. Take that well, and take out the lease you signed for that well.

Your royalty for that well = (net mineral acres / spacing unit size) * (bbls of oil produced) * (price per bbl of oil) * (royalty rate).

Your lease will tell
  • you how many net mineral acres you have;
  • the spacing unit size; and, 
  • the royalty rate
The NDIC provides monthly production for every well; and that information is available to everyone free of charge at the NDIC site. The monthly Director's Cut will provide a ballpark figure for the price oil is selling for.

"Mailbox money" for an existing well in a 1280-acre drilling unit will not be affected by a new "overlapping" 2560-acre unit, if that makes sense. Likewise, "mailbox money" for an existing well in one 2560-acre unit will not be affected by a new "overlapping" 2560-acre unit that includes sections in the existing 2560-acre unit. Each well stands on its own; each well is defined by the NDIC permit and by the lease.

Original Post
 
Over at the "Discussion Group" someone asks an interesting question: Can someone point me to some resource that describes how mineral interests are to be handled when two overlapping 2560 acre spacing units are established?

This is an important question because from the graphic below, one can see how the Bakken is covered with 2560-acre spacing units and overlapping 2560-acre units.



I will throw out my two-cents worth to get the discussion going and then open it up to those that have actually had experience.

I don't have any minerals so I am not speaking from experience. But I've followed the Bakken long enough to have a pretty good idea how this works. If I'm wrong, I would definitely appreciate if someone would point out  how I'm wrong.

The most important thing to understand is this: each well stands on its own. It is not affected by neighboring wells or other drilling units from a royalty point of view.

In a 2560-acre unit (overlapping other drilling units or not overlapping other drilling units -- does not matter).

A 2560-acre drilling unit is a four section unit. It can be of several different configurations:
  • a square;
  • a stand-up (four sections, all in a line, vertically)
  • a lay-down (four sections, all in a line, horizontal)
  • L-shaped (various orientations)
For simplicity, let's say the 2560-acre unit is comprised of sections 1, 2, 11, and 12.

Four sections = 2560 acres.

If a mineral owner controls any acreage in any of those four sections, that mineral owner will participate in any royalties generated from any well permitted for that 2560-acre drilling unit. It does not matter where the well is sited inside the drilling unit, or even outside the drilling unit.

What counts is the specific acreage permitted in the permit application, generally identified by sections or part of sections.

So, back to the example: sections 1, 2, 11, and 12 in any given township.

If a mineral owner controls ten acres in section 11, the mineral owner will get royalties based on 12 acres of the 2560 acres.

If a mineral owner controls 60 acres in section 12, the mineral owner will get royalties based on 60 acres of the 2560 acres.

Most horizontals in the Bakken are still about two miles long. Therefore, for illustrative purposes, let's say Whiting has a well sited in section 13 (to the south of section 12) and plans to run the horizontal from section 13 (not part of the 1, 2, 11, 12 - overlapping 2560-acre drilling unit) through sections 12 and and 1 to the north. If the royalty owner has 10 acres in section 2, that royalty owner will participate in the Whiting well.

If the well produces 25,600 barrels in the first month, the royalty owner will get royalties on a ratio based on 10/2560 (ten acres controlled by the mineral owner; the well is on a 2560-driling unit).

(10/2560) * 25,600 = 100 bbls.

Let's say the company clears $35 / bbl. Then those 100 bbls netted $3,500.

Go back to the lease one signed with Whiting. If the royalties were 3/8th, then 3/8ths of $3,500 = $1,312. 50.

Bottom line: one can sort this out without worrying about any other wells, any other drilling units, etc.

To repeat:
  • identify the 2560-acre drilling unit 
  • a mineral owner controlling any acreage -- no matter how small -- any where in that drilling unit, will participate in a well that is spaced in that drilling unit on a proportional basis, based on the number of acres controlled by the mineral owner
If there is another horizontal running through sections 1 and 12 but on the 1280-acre drilling unit comprised of sections 1 and 12, then to participate in that well, one must control / own acreage in section 1 or 12 or both.

It took me a long time to figure this out but once it's figured out, it's really quite straightforward.

Finally, back to the original question by the reader. What about two overlapping 2560-acre units? Doesn't matter. Same thing applies. Simply forget about other wells and other drilling units. Just identify the 2560-acre unit; determine if you have any acres in that 2560-acre unit; if you do, you will participate in the production of any well placed in that spacing unit.

I think this is where the problem lies: if a mineral owner already "has" a well in a 1280-acre unit, let's say, sections 12 and 1; and, then a 2560-acre well is drilled which includes the existing well in section 12 and 1, does the mineral owner collect royalties from that 2560-acre unit from both wells? My hunch is "No." But someone else will have to answer that. I still think that each well "stands on its own merits, on its own permit. If the mineral owner has ten acres in section 12, the mineral owner will collect royalties from the existing well on a 10/1280-ratio; and will collect royalties from the new well on a 10/2560-ratio. 

If I'm correct, it's easy to visualize; hard to articulate. 

If I'm wrong, someone will have to explain to me the way it works. 

My explanation is in line with what an experienced landman has provided in his book Royalties Within Reach.

Forget about other wells.  Pay attention to one well at a time. It does not matter if you have one well "straddling" two overlapping 2560-acre units. Look at the permit and lease.

Royalty = (net mineral acres / spacing unit size) * (bbls of oil produced) * (price per bbl of oil) * (royalty rate).

The usual disclaimer holds: I don't own any mineral acres. I don't have any experience with minerals. It is very likely I am wrong. I am hoping that folks with experience can tell me if I'm wrong, and I'm wrong, how I'm wrong. 

Serious piece of advice I've heard from many, many folks: if you have questions like this, it suggests that you are participating in more than four wells. If one is participating in more than four wells in the Bakken, one is now an "oilman." One needs professional advice by this time. Any good landman can refer you to lawyers in this field.

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Overlapping 2560-Acre Spacing Units In The Bakken; ULW -- March 31, 2013

November 10, 2013: Note: the information on this page may be inaccurate; it has not been updated, and I have not read it recently to see if there are any obvious changes/errors.

**********************

From an earlier post: how to identify "overlapping 2560-acre spacing units on the NDIC GIS map server:
Elsewhere, a reader asked this question: how can one tell where the overlapping spacing units are by using the GIS map server?

This is the best I can do. Go to the GIS map server. Zoom in so that you are looking at these fields: Twin Valley in the far northwest; Antelope in the far east/northeast; Reunion Bay in the far east/southeast; and, Elidah in the far southwest. At the legend on the right side, put a check mark in the square box opposite "2560 Acre"; a dot in the circle opposite "2560 Acre"; and, a check in the square box opposite "1280 Acre."   You will see a portion of the GIS map server with lots of teal (greenish-blue) and a bit of purple. The teal is 1280-acre spacing; the purple is 2560-acre spacing.

The spacing units are lined with a white border (generally - almost always -- along section lines). The teal and the purple spacing units are "standard" spacing units. Now, lean back in your chair a bit, and look for "**1280** and/or **2560** on the GIS map server. Those represent "overlapping spacing units. The number (either a **1280** or a **2560** is placed at the "bottom" of the overlapping spacing unit.

So as an example: in Blue Buttes, 151N-95W, just along the south section line of sections 9 and 10, you will see **2560**. That means that sections 4,3, 9, and 10, is an overlapping spacing unit.

Disregard the numbers preceded by a "c" in this discussion. Numbers with a preceding "c" means that these spacing units are still being considered by an active case (hearing docket case).   
Updates

September 25, 2014: wells sited in 2560-acre spacing units in such a way as to capture "orphaned" oil along section lines or 640- or 1280-acre spacing unit lines are often designated ULW: unit line wells.

April 1, 2013:  An excellent, excellent explanation over at The Bakken Shale Discussion Group. A must-read. There is one nuance that I had not thought of. It is true that each well has its own spacing unit defined by the permit. However, a producing well in any particular spacing unit holds that lease/that entire spacing unit by production, if that makes sense. That raises another question which is too hard to articulate and it really beyond what this blog is all about anyway, so I will defer for now, hoping that it is answered elsewhere. I have to agree with Teegue, that if each well has its own spacing unit defined by the permit, then a permit should pertain to one well and only one well, and should not be used to effectively unitize a spacing unit, again, if that makes sense. It has taken awhile, but I finally understand what Teegue has been saying on this issue all these years, and I agree with him in principle from a mineral owner's point of view. Right, wrong, or indifferent, I can also see the operator's side of the story. But Teegue is correct: it seems a decision was made on how to develop the Bakken on the fly without really understanding all the nuances. This is entirely an opinion. Don't take it for more than that. Simply an opinion. 

Original Post

A reminder: wells coming off the confidential list this long weekend will be posted here as soon as they become available, assuming I have found a wi-fi spot by then.

***********************

I had planned on waiting to write about overlapping 2560-acre spacing unit the Bakken when I had more time, but I see a lot of folks don't understand the reason behind these units.

Much will be written about overlapping 2560-acre spacing units, but for a quick explanation:
1. Vertical wells, the vertical segments of horizontal wells, and horizontal laterals are required to be "set back" from spacing unit lines (generally section lines in the North Dakota Bakken) by about 500 feet.

2. If all wells and horizontal laterals are "set back" from spacing lines / section lines, a lot of Bakken oil is being missed, left behind, "orphaned." (More on that later. That in itself is very, very interesting; something that MDW has blogged about several times, and something few other sites talk about.)

3. The purpose of overlapping 2560-acre spacing units is to allow an operator to site a well/a horizontal lateral in such a location to access the Bakken Pool along spacing unit lines/section lines that would otherwise be missed.

4. Imagine a horizontal lateral running parallel to a section line five hundred feet away on the east side. Now imagine another horizontal lateral running parallel to that same section line five hundred feet away on the west side. One can immediately see one-thousand feet of Bakken without a horizontal lateral. An operator who is approved an overlapping 2560-acre spacing unit, can now run a horizontal lateral right down the middle of that section line. If one looks at the GIS server map at the NDIC web site, one will see why overlapping 2560-acre spacing units are needed, rather than overlapping 1280-acre spacing units.
**********************

This is from the March NDIC dockets:
  • 19796, Hess, amend Manitou-Bakken and Big Butte-Bakken; establish two overlapping 2560-acre units; 1 or more wells on each; Mountrail 
  • 19797, Hess, amend Truax-Bakken, establish 6 overlapping 2560-acre units; one or more wells; Willliams, McKenzie
  • 19798, Hess, amend Westberg-Bakken, establish an overlapping 2560-acre unit, one or more wells; McKenzie
  • 19799, Hess, amend Hawkeye-Bakken, establish an overlapping 2560-acre unit, one or more wells; McKenzie
  • 19800, Hess, amend Hawkeye-Bakken, establish two overlapping 2560-acre units, one or more wells; McKenzie
  • 19801, Hess, amend Blue Buttes-Bakken, establish an overlapping 2560-acre unit, one or more wells; McKenzie
  • 19802, Hess, amend Timber Creek-Bakken and South Tobacco Garden-Bakken to establish an overlapping 2560-acre unit, one or more wells; McKenzie
  • 19803, Hess, amend Cherry Creek-Bakken to establish two overlapping 2560-acre units; one or more wells; McKenzie
Apparently this was posted in Petroleum News Bakken, according to a contributor at another site:
Hess also submitted applications asking NDIC to establish overlapping 2,560-acre spacing units, and is seeking 16 such units in McKenzie, Mountrail and Williams counties. Hess wants to drill one or more horizontal wells between existing 1,280-acre units. The new overlapping 2,560-acre units are in the Manitou, Big Butte, Truax, Westberg, Hawkeye, Blue Buttes, Timber Creek, South Tobacco Garden and Cherry Creek-Bakken pools.
The specifics, i.e., which fields or where the overlapping 2560-acre spacing units will be, really do not matter: the bottom line is that we will be seeing overlapping 2560-acre spacing units throughout the Bakken for the purpose of capturing otherwise "orphaned" oil along spacing unit lines, generally section lines in Bakken spacing.

By the way, these overlapping 2560-acre spacing units are nothing new. They have been on the NDIC dockets since at least March, 2012, and the MDW has posted them all. Prior to overlapping 2560-acre spacing units, there were 1280-acre spacing units.

It's kind of surprising that Petroleum News thinks these are a big deal. It would be much more helpful to explain "theory" behind these overlapping units.

Astute readers will also notice something else occurring in the Bakken but I will leave that to a future post. Actually two things. One has to do with the location (the fields) where these overlapping units are; one has to do with Whiting and its Pronghorn prospect.

By the way, "overlapping 2560-acre spacing units" should not be confused with "2560-acre spacing units." Their purposes and locations are different.

**************************

At this site (also linked above, I believe), a contributor says the overlapping 2560-acre spacing units are being sought by operators to increase the number of wells on a multi-well pad. If maximum length of horizontals remains at 10,000 feet (two sections), I don't see how overlapping 2560-acre spacing makes any difference for laydown or standup spacing units, vs 1280-acre spacing units (but I may be missing something. I need an example). I can maybe see a case where a 2x2 2560-acre spacing unit would be preferred in some cases to increase the density of wells on a single pad, but those cases seem few and far between. I can possibly see them along and under the river. But again, I may be missing something. 

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Overlapping Spacing Units

This seems to be the hot topic for enquiring minds.

I am probably missing something but this seems pretty straight forward: "each well is its own well." Each well is its own industry.

An existing well on 1280-acre spacing will remain a well on 1280-acre spacing regardless of future wells, future spacing.

That's all one needs to know, assuming it is accurate. I don't own minerals and haven't read the rules and the definitions, but that seems to be the gist of what I am hearing, reading elsewhere.

Having said that (that's all one needs to know), it begs the question: can there be multiple spacing units affecting the same acre. For example, we have seen 1280-acre spacing on top of 640-acre spacing. A year from now, could we see 2560-acre spacing on top of the 1280-acre spacing? I don't know why not. I would assume there needs to be a way to identify which spacing unit a proposed well will be defined. For example, assume there is an overlapping 1280-acre unit on a 640-acre unit, and a new operator wants to drill a new well in that section. Will there be a way to identify a well based on its name / legal description whether it's a 640-, 1280-, or a 2560-acre well, or something else?