Actually, in this case I hope it does span two sections because we are in the section above where they want to drill--they pooled the two sections. I'm not sure what you mean by "high yield advantage," though.
AD said:
Everything i am seeing have been have been horizontal spanning two sections north south. there are a few which only cover a single section in the area. Hopefully ND will start making them drill individual sections. I am not sure that there is high yield advantage by pulling across such a long span (2 sections).
No, we are in section 1. So maybe I got excited about nothing...
Dean Kinnischtzke said:
The Garcia is a Three Forks Horizontal and the Ellison is a Bakken Horizontal. The well pad is in section 12, but both wells are to be drilled south through section 13 and 24. I haven't looked closely why that is, but perhaps there is a lake in the way so that they could not drill in 13. Is your acreage under this?
I have read that there is a possibility that fracking over a shorter distance will allow for more oil to be produced. Not sure if there is any validity to that.
alex garbacz said:
Actually, in this case I hope it does span two sections because we are in the section above where they want to drill--they pooled the two sections. I'm not sure what you mean by "high yield advantage," though.
AD said:
Everything i am seeing have been have been horizontal spanning two sections north south. there are a few which only cover a single section in the area. Hopefully ND will start making them drill individual sections. I am not sure that there is high yield advantage by pulling across such a long span (2 sections).
I have read that there is a possibility that fracking over a shorter distance will allow for more oil to be produced. Not sure if there is any validity to that.
alex garbacz said:
Actually, in this case I hope it does span two sections because we are in the section above where they want to drill--they pooled the two sections. I'm not sure what you mean by "high yield advantage," though.
AD said:
Everything i am seeing have been have been horizontal spanning two sections north south. there are a few which only cover a single section in the area. Hopefully ND will start making them drill individual sections. I am not sure that there is high yield advantage by pulling across such a long span (2 sections).
I would favor more efficient 1 mile laterals. 2 mile laterals are more efficient only as long as the field pressure holds out, in my opinion. As soon as everything has to be pumped out, the 2 mile doesn't seem to have an advantage over the 1 mile. The 2 mile lateral does 1 thing that a 1 mile lateral can't do though, a 2 mile latteral is 100% better at holding unproductive acreage for future drilling.
Unfortunately, the unproductive acreage is held by paying royalty from acreage that is producing, but it's not coming from the operators cut, it's coming from your pocket, your royalty. You might only be getting 1/8 to 1/4 of the royalty you should be getting.
The people who have unproductive acres are being cheated also, they are losing the chance to lease their acres again for more bonuses, in good areas higher bonuses because good areas appreciate and higher than 20% royalty is not unheard of anymore. In a good area, if you are not tied up and not drilled, in another few years you probably could lease your acres at 25% royalty, that will not happen now.
The other side of the coin is that many people would not have even a tiny part of a well yet and some people wouldn't want to wait. If it were not for the massive land grab, the development in ND would have happened at a slower pace, which I believe would have been good for infrastructure, maybe all that gas that is flared off now and for the past 5 years could have generated electricity. I know, crazy talk.
If you wonder why the state let things happen as they are, it's simple, they wanted the money. The state probably makes as much in taxes off each well as you do in royalty from your oil. It's not your well, it's the states well and the operators well, they just let you have a small cut because it's your oil, for now, hopefully for the forseeable future. Bummer.
AD, having had my share of the early 1 well per 1280 from 2008, I am encouraged by the amount of wells being drilled 2 wells per spacing that is happening now. There is a fair amount of infil drilling happening also, just not on my spacings, yet.
The operators will drill to different benches and formations and their benches in the shale, when they are ready to do so. The state in the form of the NDIC is causing a problem and slowing down exploration because operators do not need to keep drilling to retain the rights to the greater depths because they can simply get the NDIC to declare all of it a common source of supply nullifying the vertical pugh clause/depth severance clause in the lease. The state of ND encouraged the rush to near disasterous proportions at first, and now that mineral owners are held by production, their hands tied by a lease, the state says there is no hurry, you can hold it all without drilling any more wells, take your time. If the NDIC declares everything from the lodgepole to the three forks, including all of the bakken a common source of supply, even if you had a continuous drilling clause to get all of it into production, one bakken well would satisfy that. The operator will drill more when he is ready. Since the lease no longer means anything and can be changed at will by bureaucratic decree, I'm not signing any more leases. I think the only clause that has any affect is a pugh clause to release acreage in a spacing that is not producing and isn't being held by continuing operations. 2560 or larger spacing may make the invocating of the horizontal pugh clause a rarity. I'd really like to be wrong about that.
In short, the operator will drill the different formations, shelfs and benches, when they are ready. Something for the grandkids or their grandkids to look forward to.
I am blessed with a spacing that has 4 wells, too bad I only have 1.935 net acres in it. I have another spacing with 7.619 acres that had two wells drilled in the Bakken at the same time, none in the three forks although it's capable of good TF production. I have another 5 spacings with 1 well per spacing, 3 to 5 years or older and while infil wells are being drilled within 2 miles of my spacings, I'm not expecting any to be drilled on my spacings for the forseeable future. The "smaller piece of a bigger pie" is just a lie in my opinion. I think the rig count would have to at least tripple if they wanted to redeem the smaller piece of a bigger pie scam.
too alex we have minerial acres in section l-2- and 12 oft159n range 92 west skalicky is the name , if you have minerials in section1 who did you inheriat then from, because my grandfather homesteaded on that section?? my email is (EDITED by Admin - use the private messaging system for contact info) nov 9 2013/
Jeff, from Drilling Edge's site, it appears they get their information from state and local agencies, who get their information from the operators. I think the basic $50 per year subscription from the NDIC Oil and Gas division (which should really be free to taxpayers) will allow you to look at production information for the entire state would be a better way to go.
I also liked Drilling Edge's statement that you should contact them immediately if you find an error, although they have not stated how much they are to pay me for providing this service for them, I am sure that was just an oversite because why should I work for them if they don't pay me? That was tongue in cheek, but they do seem to be a company that sells public information that is available free or at low cost for a considerable mark-up. There are many in that same kind of business. I sure hope nobody is paying them $348 a year for their gathering of information that would at most cost them $50 a year to get from the state. Or I and a couple of others on these forums look up for people, for the asking.
RW - you are correct it looks like they are getting data from the state. The one thing that I think is interesting is they appear to have done some analysis and summarization of the information. While you could do this yourself if you're so inclined in Excel what it seems you are paying for is convenience.
r w kennedy said:
Jeff, from Drilling Edge's site, it appears they get their information from state and local agencies, who get their information from the operators. I think the basic $50 per year subscription from the NDIC Oil and Gas division (which should really be free to taxpayers) will allow you to look at production information for the entire state would be a better way to go.
I also liked Drilling Edge's statement that you should contact them immediately if you find an error, although they have not stated how much they are to pay me for providing this service for them, I am sure that was just an oversite because why should I work for them if they don't pay me? That was tongue in cheek, but they do seem to be a company that sells public information that is available free or at low cost for a considerable mark-up. There are many in that same kind of business. I sure hope nobody is paying them $348 a year for their gathering of information that would at most cost them $50 a year to get from the state. Or I and a couple of others on these forums look up for people, for the asking.
does anyone know if the Garcia and Ellison will be drilled north and south , we have minerals acres on section 12 and section 1 and section 2 of t159nrandge 93 west. if they only drill south would we still get royalites from section 12, because that's where the rig would be drilling from. thanks bob skalicky
Dean Kinnischtzke said:
On the Garcia, Oasis filed a new start date of June 1. The Ellison still shows up as a Feb. start date.
Oasis is one of those operators that names wells in a way that does not give much away. With B appended to one wells name, I think it likely that it is a Bakken well, T appended to the other wells name leads me to believe that it may be a Three Forks well. If those surmises are correct, I think both wells are going to go in the same direction. That being said, I still don't have a clue whether it will be north or south. The location is far enough from the section line for setback that it might make you think the wells are going to be drilled northerly but it would be the same setback if the future plan is for a multi-well pad with wells going north and south. Flip a coin?
robert skalicky said:
does anyone know if the Garcia and Ellison will be drilled north and south , we have minerals acres on section 12 and section 1 and section 2 of t159nrandge 93 west. if they only drill south would we still get royalites from section 12, because that's where the rig would be drilling from. thanks bob skalicky
Dean Kinnischtzke said:
On the Garcia, Oasis filed a new start date of June 1. The Ellison still shows up as a Feb. start date.
Oasis has a new pad on T159 R92 Sec.21. 2 wells will go north through 21 and 16 and 2 will go south thru 28 and 33. the well file shows 4 additional wells for a later date.
They also have a pad on T159 R92W Sec.30 with 4 wells going north through 19 and 18 and 4 going south thru 30 and 31. Two have been drilled 1 north and 1 south
They also have a sight in Mountrail County T158 R92W Sec. 9 with 4 going north thru 9 and 4 with TD on the Mountrail and Burke County line and 4 going south.
They must think there is something there to have so many incomplete wells drilled. Funny that they did not request confidential status for the last well spud but did for the other three.
I see two approved locations in 21, but no permits. Permits are $100, two guys in a pickup truck with a GPS a mallet and some stakes is what? I hore it happens just the way you say though.
These are well pads with tanks in place, staked wells and4 wells drilled on T159 R92W Sec 30
Duane E Paulson said:
Oasis has a new pad on T159 R92 Sec.21. 2 wells will go north through 21 and 16 and 2 will go south thru 28 and 33. the well file shows 4 additional wells for a later date.
They also have a pad on T159 R92W Sec.30 with 4 wells going north through 19 and 18 and 4 going south thru 30 and 31. Two have been drilled 1 north and 1 south
They also have a sight in Mountrail County T158 R92W Sec. 9 with 4 going north thru 9 and 4 with TD on the Mountrail and Burke County line and 4 going south.
Did you really read the wellfile? They requested permission to start drilling and set casing with a smaller rig and to come back and complete drilling with a larger rig at a later date on those 4 wells, the one off confidential with DRL status gives a start and end point but doesn't have footages for casing strings, why do you think that is?