Justin, it might be several different things going on, but here is what I suspect you may be looking at...
1. Hess drilled a producing well in the Madison (or other) formation.
2. XTO filed in 2006 for a 1,280 acre pool for the Bakken (or other) formation.
If that is correct, then your share of production in the existing well should not be diluted by the pooling order since they involve different formations. However, that is not the case if the pooling involved the same producing formation. Then your 160 would be divided into the 1,280 pool.
So if you don't already know, find out what formation Hess has been producing, then find out exactly what formation (or formations) was including in the pooling order. The pooling may also impact you regarding your minerals being held by production (which is another question altogether).
A mineral owner can object to being pooled. However, that needs to be done when the NDIC is considering the request. In your case that was back in 2006. At this point I don't think there is anything which can be done. I hope this is helpful and it all works out for you.