Testing the Lower Benches of the Three Forks North Of Williston, Divide County, The Tangsrud Wells

Updates

February 8, 2013: I received this comment from a reader earlier. In case some folks don't read comments, I am re-posting part of it here:

I just talked our land man in ND and he told me that the 14 wells or "more" that is happening especially with CLR will become the norm. It seems that the Hamlet field along with others are all being talked about for multiple wells everywhere. The Milton wells have three, plus the Rosenquist will have three starting shortly. They may become 14 or more wells in the future. All the oil companies are talking about it. I think the Milton wells come off conf next week. And that might determine how many more.

February 8, 2013: Mike Filloon on EURs for the Three Benches; this is a "cut and paste" from an earlier post:

From Filloon on KOG, May 20, 2012:

Kodiak Bakken EURs in this area are 800 to 900 MBoe. Upper Three Forks EURs are 700 to 800 MBoe, plus there is possible upside to additional benches. Continental and Burlington Resources have both tested the second bench successfully in areas very close to the Koala Prospect. Whiting is also testing the second bench of the Three Forks. There are also two benches below, for a total of four Three Forks benches. Continental has stated the second has been consistent throughout its acreage, but the third and fourth benches have hot spots throughout the Williston Basin.

February 8, 2013: the Tangsrud wells have been re-arranged on this post based on formation that is being targeted, so that one can easily compare the Tangsrud wells with the Wahpeton wells.

February 7, 2013: on the daily activity report, four CLR Tangsrud wells, which will be added to those in the original posting. CLR now had 12 new permits for wells in section 1-160-96, Hayland oil field.

Original Post (updated with the new permits)

[Note: this is one of the very few "original posts" that is being updated to reflect significant changes.]
On May 13, 2013: there is a 6-well pad, two 2-well pads (both very close together, almost a 4-well pad), four single wells.

It looks like CLR is testing the lower benches of the Three Forks north of Williston in Divide County; four were added on the February 7, 2013 daily activity report:

• 17649, 922, CLR, Tangsrud 1-1H, t7/09; Dolphin, cum 123K 3/13; lateral runs south in Hayland, but NDIC says they are in Dolphin field (cannot be correct)
• 19107, 488, CLR, Tangsrud 2-1H, t11/10; Dolphin, cum 87K 3/13; lateral runs south in Hayland, but NDIC says they are in Dolphin field (cannot be correct)
• 24924, conf, Tangsrud 14-1H, Hayland, rig-on-site, May, 2013;
• 24965, conf, Tangsrud 5-1H, Hayland,
• 24967, conf, Tangsrud 9-1H, Hayland,
• 24928, conf, Tangsrud 11-1H1, Hayland, rig-on-site, May, 2013;
• 24936, conf, Tangsrud 8-1H1, Hayland,
• 24924, conf, Tangsrud 3-1H2, Hayland,
• 24930, conf, Tangsrud 13-1H2, Hayland,
• 24964, conf, Tangsrud 6-1H2, Hayland, 
• 24966, conf, Tangsrud 10-1H2, Hayland,
• 24929, conf, Tangsrud 12-1H3, Hayland,
• 24934, conf, Tangsrud 4-1H3, Hayland, rig-on-site, May, 2013;
• 24935, conf, Tangsrud 7-1H3, Hayland, rig-on-site, May, 2013;

I assume the "H" designation: middle Bakken; "H1" the TF1; the "H2" the TF2; and, the "H3" designation, the TF3. With the four additional wells added February 7, 2013, there are five wells with the "H" designation; there are two wells with the H1 designation; four wells with the H2 designation; and, three wells with the H3 designation.

So,

• 5 wells: middle Bakken
• 2 wells: TF1
• 4 wells: TF2
• 3 wells: TF3

Hayland oil field is a two-section oil field in the far southeast corner of Divide County. It looks like the field is about 20 miles due north of Tioga, the oil capital of North Dakota. There are already two long lateral Bakken wells in this oil field, and one older Madison well.

The other producing well in this field is an old Madison well that was re-entered in 2003 targeting the Bakken (as a vertical well), at which time the Madison was taken off-line. Only the Bakken in this well is currently producing, maybe a 100 bbls/month. 

Wells Coming Off Confidential List Tuesday; MDU Reports Earnings Tuesday

RBN Energy:  update on Marcellus gas flowing into Canada; reversing flow of pipelines;

MDU earnings call today: for 2012, lost a penny, versus earning $1.12 for 2011. Adjusted earnings were $1.15 vs $1.19. Total-after-tax-write-downs for the year were $246.8 million. The write-downs were largely driven by the lower natural gas price environment in 2012.

Wells coming off the confidential list, Tuesday:

• 22965, drl, BR, CCU Golden Creek 34-23MBH, Corral Creek, BR wells usually go to DRL status;
• 23041, 932, XTO, Gilbertson 41-16SEH, Siverston, t11/12; cum 15K 12/12;
• 23042, 499, XTO, Gilbertson 41-16SH, Siverston, t11/12; cum 11K 12/12;
• 23162, 1,339, MRO, Bear Den 42-5TFH, Lost Bridge; t11/12; cum 37K 12/12;
• 23170, 322, Hunt Oil, Bear Butte 1-11-2H, Bear Butte, t12/12; cum 13K 12/12;
• 23180, drl, CLR, Buddy 1-27H, East Fork, no production data;
• 23342, drl, Samson Resources, Los Gatos 11-2-161-92H, Black Slough; no production data yet;

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

23162, 1,339, MRO, Bear Den 42-5TFH, Lost Bridge; not hooked up to a natural gas pipeline:

Date	Oil Runs	MCF Sold
12-2012	21453	0
11-2012	14908	0

Eighteen (18) New Permits -- The Williston Basin, North Dakota, USA

Active rigs: 184 (steady)

Eighteen (18) new permits --

• Operators: Continental (8), OXY USA (3), XTO (2), Emerald Oil (2), Oasis (2), Whiting
• Fields: Boxcar Butte (McKenzie), Cottonwood (Mountrail), Robinson Lake (Mountrail), Murphy Creek (Dunn), Willow (Williams), Hayland (Divide), Siverston (McKenzie), Saxon (Dunn)
• Comments: This brings Emerald's total number of permits to three

Wells coming off the confidential list over the weekend and today were posted earlier; see sidebar at the right.

Producing wells completed:

• 15167, 106, Petro Uno Resources Ltd, Beta Race Federal 22-6, t4/02; cum 71K from the Red River which is now PNA; re-entered the Duperow in early 2010; now flowing, producing about 50 - 100 bbls/month;
• 21519, 726, CLR, Omar 5-12H, North Tioga, t1/13; cum --

Transfer of operator:

Remember the XOM - Denbury Onshore deal of a few months ago? In today's daily activity report, the names of the wells that were transferred from DNR to XTO were named. There were about 104 wells transferred; almost all of them were in McKenzie County.

Some Important Posts In the Past 24 Hours

I will be off the net for a short period.

Some important posts today or yesterday:

• Tremendous amounts of capital to flow into the Bakken and the Permian

• Reversing pipeline flows

• Wells coming off the confidential list this weekend and today

How Coincidental: Several Pipeline Stories Today -- Now This

I have posted several notes on pipelines this morning.

Now, Don alerts me to this Bloomberg story: Land Battles Rise as U.S. Eyes 450,000 Miles of New Pipe.

Typically, pipeline companies negotiate 95 percent of right-of-way agreements, Santa said. About 5 percent require some type of court proceeding, in which the company invokes its eminent domain power and asks a court to set a fair price for the land it needs.

Because eminent domain laws vary from state to state, no central clearing house tracks the number of eminent domain cases.

Private companies have had eminent domain power since at least the 1800s. Most state and federal law allows private property to be taken for “common carriers,” meaning projects that serve the public by carrying power or providing transportation for all customers.

The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission holds hearings to determine the routes for interstate gas pipelines. Most other eminent domain disputes, including disputed interstate oil and liquids pipelines, are handled in local courts under state law.

The headline says "450,00 miles of new pipe."

In fact, much of the story has to to with above-ground transmission lines for wind farms. 

A bit of irony: the "political correctness of renewable energy" requiring new transmission corridors will make it easier (legally) for necessary pipeline easements. The federal government and, often, state governments, were going to rule in favor of the energy companies building wind farms that needed new transmission corridors, overriding interests of private landowners.