Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by George Christopher Henson on November 14, 2013 at 2:15

Steve, even if the laterials are 6000', and it cuts costs by 10% on the 10 wells proposed in this 1946 acre unit, that cuts costs, and makes the unit closer to being profitable for the operator. If you want any drilling at all to take place, there has to be lower costs/higher profits. There is a legal system in place, that if these bigger units end up hurting the mineral owner, action can be taken through the courts. We'd never had made it to the moon if we hadn't tryed, against all odds. Try it, if it doesn't work make them stop. I've saiid it before,"do something, even if it's wrong". Notice I didn't say, keep on doing it if it doesn't work.

Permalink Reply by Steve on November 14, 2013 at 4:36

I am not against large units per se, but it is not necessary if they just allow well laterals to cross over into adjoining units. Why not 2 units of 1100 acres each? The Encana petition calls for approval of single units with sides up to 16,500 ft. (6000 ft.x 16500 ft.). A short lateral of 6000 ft. will leave 2000 ft. of the unit undeveloped and several short lateral wells will compound that loss of  oil resources, because they will not ever go back in to drill those last 2k ft. I would just like to see them prove they can successfully execute on 8k ft. laterals before they experiment on 2200 acres. They can prove they can execute 8k ft. laterals on just 1000 acre units. No sense in holding the landowners hostage by  what will probably continue to be a series of short lateral wells(6000ft. or less). The large acre units also greatly dilutes the royalty for the mineral owner whose minerals are actually being taken if the unit is 2200 acres but the average laterals are only 6000 ft. I do not see any benefit to the landowners with a 2200 acre unit over a 1000 acre unit. The only benefit at this point seems to be for the operator in that it allows the operator to cover more HBP acreage and eliminate competition. I don't see any cost savings that couldn't be achieved just as easily by allowing cross- unit laterals. Maybe I am missing something. I sure wish someone would explain it to the landowners. The operators haven't taken the time or made an effort so far to explain how these huge abnormally large units are a benefit to the landowners too, as far as I know.

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on November 14, 2013 at 8:49

Once they do it, it will become standard practice. It needs to be stopped before it gets started. They tried to do it in the Haynesville Shale but the folks cryed out with such a loud voice that it was stopped.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 15, 2013 at 13:00

Halcon asks NDIC to establish 103 overlapping 2,560-acre units Halcon Resources, filing as HRC Operating LLC, has submitted applications which the North Dakota Industrial Commission will consider in hearings on Nov. 20 and 21 asking for the creation of a total of 103 separate 2,560-acre spacing units spanning 13 fields in Dunn, McKenzie, Mountrail and Williams counties. In all cases, Halcon wants authorization from the commission to drill one or more wells on or near the section lines of the existing 1,280-acre spacing units comprising the proposed 2,560s.

Link to full article follows:  http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/951122385.shtml

Permalink Reply by Steve on November 15, 2013 at 17:33

 Shouldn't be a hard sell to the NDIC - all 103 seperate 2,560 acre units probably belong to one grain farmer. I've been to North Dakota?    LOL

Permalink Reply by Bernell McGehee on November 18, 2013 at 13:42

Word is the rig began the process of moving to the CMR 8-5H today.

I'll attempt to verify tomorrow.

Permalink Reply by Bernell McGehee on November 18, 2013 at 14:35

Never mind...was verified tonight...on site and should be spudded by Wednesday of Thursday.

Permalink Reply by Bernell McGehee on November 20, 2013 at 13:55

Won't be spudded Wednesday, maybe Thursday, more likely Friday or Saturday.

Should begin the production/fracking process on Huff on Friday.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 22, 2013 at 14:49

Ensign US Drilling SW Rig #751 reports Moving On the CMR 8-5H #1 11/22/13.

Permalink Reply by Bernell McGehee on November 22, 2013 at 19:15

I suppose they "move on" to a site when the rig is up...I also suppose that's when they can start being paid and use that as their "move on" date.

However, the facts are they've been "moving on" since Tuesday late and were fully off of the Huff with all significant pieces/parts on the CMR 8-5 by the end of day Wednesday.

The rig was not up this morning, though it appeared ready to be raised soon.  It wouldn't surprise me if it spudded today...11/22/2013, but I don't know that for sure, yet.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 23, 2013 at 3:11

Bernell, the weekly rig report gives the status of the rig as reported by the drilling contractor, not the well operator, as of the Friday of each week.  Common reporting statuses are "Assigned", "Moving On", "Drilling Ahead" and "As Directed".  The rig report is primarily used by those companies who make deliveries to the rig, often in isolated areas, and people in the business like me that know that if you wait for the operator to report drilling status to the state, the rig is likely TD'ed and gone before it's ever reported as spud.

Permalink Reply by Bernell McGehee on November 23, 2013 at 5:32

Can you give me a link to the "Weekly Rig Report?"

I agree the state info is WAAAYYY behind what's going on.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• …
• 10
• Next ›
• Page