Updates
May 6, 2018: see comments and updates at this post regarding exactly what is meant by "... not to exceed 16 wells..." Without doubt, I am 99.999999% sure that this means that the operator is asking to drill another 16 wells in this drilling unit. I have not gotten a definitive answer from a reliable source, but based on three "data points" it is clear to me that the operator is asking for permission to drill up to 16 additional wells on this drilling unit regardless of what is already there when the operator begins drilling (if the operator, in fact, continues to drill). My three "data points" are subject to debate and/or interpretation so I won't get into them now.
May 5, 2018: see comments regarding this issue. Still no definitive answer to question being raised.
Later, 8:35 pm. CDT: after posting the original note, a reader replied, with a comment and a question.
The reader raises a question for which I have no answer. It's a very basic question regarding the NDIC hearings/cases but even after blogging all these years, I'm not sure of the answer.
It has been my impression that readers who have skin in the game -- that is, readers who have mineral rights
watch their wells very closely and have a better understanding of what is going on in "their" area than I do.
For that reason I defer to readers if I have any doubt regarding my understanding of the issue.
With that in mind, I will leave the original post "as is," but post the comment and the question sent to me by a reader.
First the comment:
In the section to the south of section 20, there are four wells, still on
confidential list but their names, Lillibridge, and their siting location, suggest that they will be running north into sections 20/17, also. With the eight Lillibridge wells already in sections 20/17, that means there are already 12 horizontals in this standup drilling unit (one assumes that these four wells are also in the 1280-acre drilling unit, but that is not a given). That's pretty much all factual; we will know for sure when these four wells come off the confidential list.
Now the question: does case #26681 below, in the May, 2018, hearing dockets mean there will be a total of sixteen wells in this 17/20 (1280-acre) drilling unit? If so, that means
only four more wells might be drilled in this drilling unit.
This is such a basic question, I know there are readers out there who know the answer.
For now, that's where we stand.
Original Post
From the May, 2018, NDIC hearing dockets:
- 26681 (case number, not permit number), Abraxas, Pershing-Bakken; 16 wells on an existing 1280-acre unit; McKenzie; section 17/20-150-96;
The map as it stands today. Only section 20-150-96 is shown; section 17 is not show, but all horizontals run north into section 17, and there are no other wells sited or running through section 17. There is an old vertical well in section 17 (#8816) that is now permanently abandoned. I do not know whether Abraxas will put the wells in section 17 (which would be interesting) or in section 20. There are already nine (9) wells in this drilling unit, if one includes the ULW, and now Abraxas wants to add another 16 wells (1280/24 = 50-acre spacing). The map:
- 6849, 135, Abraxas, Lillibridge 3, Pershing, Madison, t3/79; cum 299K 3/18; this well will celebrate it's 40th birthday next year;
- 25609, 1,018, Abraxas, Lillibridge 20-17-8H, Pershing, t12/13; cum 254K 3/18;
- 25608, 1,048, Abraxas, Lillibridge 20-17-7H, Pershing, t12/13; cum 248K 3/18;
- 25607, 1,086, Abraxas, Lillibridge 20-17-6H, Pershing, t11/13; cum 228K 3/18;
- 25606, 1,298, Abraxas, Lillibridge 20-17-5H, Pershing, t11/13; cum 281K 3/18;
- 23625, 1,275, Abraxas, Lillibridge 20-17-4H, Pershing, t8/13; cum 153K 3/18;
- 23624, 1,235, Abraxas, Lillibridge 20-17-3H, Pershing, t7/13; cum 276K 3/18;
- 23623, 1,040, Abraxas, Lillibridge 20-17-2H, Pershing, t7/13; cum 225K 3/18;
- 23622, 1,225, Abraxas, Lillibridge 20-17-1H, Pershing, t7/13; cum 409K 3/18
- 29805, 802, BR, Morgan 14-21TFH ULW, Pershing, t11/15; cum 82K 3/18;
*******************************
************************************
Docket Search
Doing a search on the blog: Abraxas dockets Pershing resulted in the following hits:
May, 2018
26681, Abraxas, Pershing-Bakken; 16 wells on an existing 1280-acre unit; McKenzie;
see this post;
March, 2017
25695, Abraxas, Pershing-Bakken, sixteen wells on an existing 1280-acre unit; McKenzie County
June, 2015
24168, Abraxas, North Fork-Bakken, 15 wells on an existing 1280-acre unit; McKenzie
November, 2014
23265, Abraxas, Dimmick Lake, Fancy Buttes, and/or Pershing-Bakken,
establish 2 overlapping 2560-acre units, 2 wells in each; McKenzie
23264, Abraxas, Siverston and/or North Fork-Bakken, establish 2 2560-acre units; 2 wells each; McKenzie
July, 2014
22683, Abraxas, revoke a permit issued to XTO Energy
June, 2013
20512, Abraxas, extend Siverston, Pershing, and/or North Fork-Bakken;
establish 6 overlapping 2560-acre units; 1 well each, McKenzie
July, 2012
18369, Abraxas, Pershing-Bakken, complete 8 wells on an existing 1280-acre unit, McKenzie
April, 2011
14694: Abraxas, 7 wells on each 1280-acre unit, 3 units, 21 wells total, North Forks-Bakken, McKenzie
