Hi STeve, Ok, let me see if I'm understanding you correctly here: EACH ONE OF THOSE ORIGINAL UNITS is STILL just 1280. It still remains in existence, and continues on as a single unit with the regular roy formulas apply.
But then, the new units either side that include the sections in the middle are now part of a distinct and separate spacing unit of 2560 which has approval for it's own spacing rules? And in each distinct 2560, the mineral owner formula is still unchanged: 2560 divided by net acres owned x leased roy percentage. ? So, is this just a new way to set out a business case for, essentially, side by side wells.? And the only 'indicator' is just a sweet spot? Can it be that simple? Just density, allowing new wells to slide 'in between' the old spacing's wells with no other factors setting this into play? On Nov 6, 9:24 am, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rufus With respect to Elm Coulee 2560 acre spacings, the 3 > existing wells on the 1280 spacing continue with the original 1280 > spacing. But the new well along the east lease line is now on a new > distinct 2560 spacing which will include the 2 sections to the east. > Similarly, the new well along the west lease line is now on a new > distinct 2560 spacing which will include the 2 sections to the west. > Those "new" sections to the east and to the west have their own say > 1280 spacings for their existing 2-3 wells. Those spacings won't > change with respect to those existing wells. I have looked at the > production data for several of those new 2560 spacings and I do not > see any correlation to great production or to average or below > production from the existing wells surrounding these new 2560 > spacings. That tells me that Continental is looking to drill in every > available space in the areas of decent Bakken production. To my > knowledge, they haven't permitted any of these yet, but now have > received clearance to go ahead with this program. Others are following > suit, so I think that Elm Coulee is going to see very high density > drilling with long laterals every 1,200-1,400 feet in many areas in > the field.........Steve..............elwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > rufus, i have no knowledge of what they are doing in mt with their > > super units and maybe steve or someone else could address the question > > of how ownership is shared when lands are drilled across spacing > > units. i was merely stating that it is possible that the sharing of > > revenues was on a basis other than acerage. > > > a "tract" of land such as in a secondary recovery unit is just an area > > with common ownership within that tract. and a tract can be any size, > > as long as the ownership is exactly the same (mineral, overriding > > royalty ond working interest) throughout. so a tract could be a 40, > > 80, 160, etc. > > > i will take a look at the 2560 acre unit in the sanish field refered > > to above by kcpdmp and see what i can find out. > > > On Nov 5, 9:32 pm, "Rufus O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Elwood, > > > 'tract weighting within a unit' --- what are you calling a 'tract'? A > > > well? a measure of land within a section? > > > Tell me about some of the other types of 'units' not a drilling unit/ > > > spacing unit...? is the Fed Exploratory Unit the same animal, > > > vegetable or mineral as an 'assessment unit'? > > > > On Nov 5, 6:10 am, elwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > rufus, there are other types of units than drilling units (where every > > > > mineral acre is equal to every other mineral acre). iow, other > > > > parameters can be brought into play, like cumulative production, net > > > > hydrocarbon pore volume, current production rate, acres, number of > > > > usable wells and each tract is given a participation in the unit > > > > according to the weighting of each of these parameters. this is done > > > > typically for a secondary recovery unit although i have seen a case > > > > where a unit was formed just to manage primary production. and if this > > > > type unit is created, every mineral (and working interest owner) would > > > > participate in the entire unit according to their unit participation. > > > > > a federal exploratory unit is another animal and i will let someone > > > > who knows more about the subject comment on that. > > > > > On Nov 4, 9:18 pm, "Rufus O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Anybody home out there? What, no opinions? No theories? > > > > > Ruf > > > > > > On Nov 3, 12:33 pm, "Rufus O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > I recently read that in Montana there has been some activity with > > > > > > merging 2, and even 3 1280-acre spacing units to create mega-spacing > > > > > > units with entirely new well density allowances.... I can't seem to > > > > > > backtrack to the article to post it, but the gist of it was that > > > > > > once > > > > > > a 1280 had hit it's max density, that it merges with an adjacent > > > > > > 1280 > > > > > > to create a 2560 or merges 3 separate 1280's to create a 3840-acre > > > > > > unit where addt wells with different orientations are being allowed. > > > > > > Anybody hear anything else about this? If this IS being done, it > > > > > > brings me to the following question: > > > > > > How many spacing units can an individual section,or portion thereof, > > > > > > be part of? > > > > > > For example: let's take a section 4 over 9 standup - can section 4 > > > > > > concommitantly be in a section 5 and 4 laydown unit? And then again, > > > > > > into a 4-3 laydown unit at the same time... ?? > > > > > > Rufus- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bakken Shale Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bakken-shale-discussion?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
