Oil leasing and drilling activity aro...

Since: Jan 10

Bend, OR

#722 Dec 4, 2010
After the spacing unit comes the drilling permit.
Then if nothing is appealed, the company holding the permit can move forward if they determine that it meets their objectives and equipment is available etc.

Applying for a spacing unit or drilling permit does not require one to take action.

If the permit expires they can re-apply, of course.


So the answer could be from as short as two months,(realistically), to never.


Regarding the unleased 240. That is an odd acreage - 3/8 of a section.
Are the wells in that area for pools rather than horizontal plays like the Bakken?
Without those acres being leased AND if they are in the spacing unit.....
It would be foolish for them to not sign you.
Regardless of exactly where the well is located, all within the spacing unit are to receive royalties.

Leonardtown, MD

#723 Dec 4, 2010
The area is for horizontal plays. I can't explain why they didn't lease the entire acreage. like i stated it may be due to a majority of the property i have mineral rights to is covered by hills and not usable for drilling. I have the deed and the deed states that Me and my sister own 320 acres free and clear of the mineral rights. Based on my study i was convinced that the 1240 acre spacing unit being created meant i would get the credit for 320 acres vice the 80 under lease. Do i need to contact them to lease the remaining acres?

Thanks for the informative information.


Since: Jan 10

Bend, OR

#724 Dec 4, 2010
I would.

Show them your deed.

With a horizontal play the hills are not an issue.
Unless they can't get anywhere to start a well.

T152N/R103W sec 24 shows it to be part of a spacing unit with sec 13.
A 1280 acre like you stated.

I simply don't understand why you haven't been fully leased.
I see the river and the hills, on googleearth, but if they leased part they should have leased all.

Don't rush into this.
It is a very competitive market and you should professionally shop around.

All the best.

Longview, TX

#725 Dec 4, 2010
Does anyone know about G-3 Operating? This company has applied for a spacing unit on our mineral area located in T157N;R103W;Sections 29 and 31. Has the area around this Township had any good production?

Since: Jan 10

Bend, OR

#726 Dec 5, 2010
G3 has applied for a total of 34 spacing units in T157/R103W and T158/R103W.
All of T158/R103W and most of T157/R103W missing only the two spacing units just east of you by Oasis.

There is nothing recent in T158/R103W and no successful activity excepting possibly the Oasis well(s) just completed on the southern end of section 34 in your township - T157/R103W.

There has been a competitive rush to do things in the area to the East and SE by Oasis and Brigham.

I don't know anything about G3 and what ability they might have to develop the area.

I'm in a section just a couple miles south of you and have been wondering the same question.

Our lease is with Marathon.

Since: Jan 10

Bend, OR

#727 Dec 5, 2010
G3 has only one rig actively drilling of the 164 listed on the ND page.

It's just over 6 miles to your east.

The ENSIGN 71 rig is drilling for G3 OPERATING LLC.
The SIIRTOLA 1-28-33H well in NWNW 28-157N-102W
Permit # 19306

Longview, TX

#728 Dec 5, 2010
Thanks for the info regarding G3. I expect that if a well is planned for this area, it will be drilled in 2011 since the lease runs out the first part of 2012. If it runs out, the renewal figures as far as $/acre, lease term and %royalty will be much higher than in 2008. I made sure my lease agreement left me open in these areas. I am more interested in Roosevelt Co. (Montana) just across the border to the West. EOG has spacing on our minerals in that area which consists of 620 acres.

Since: Jan 10

Bend, OR

#729 Dec 5, 2010
We have Roosevelt acreage also.
Things are going much slower over there compared to the Brigham, Oasis and Continental development on the ND side.
Part of this may be the problems Slawson had with their Mayhem well. It had to be reworked extensively but is now doing just over 100 barrels a day.
Mayhem is just over 3 miles to your SW.
Slawson seems to be letting their drilling permits expire for Lancer Federal and Puma Federal,(which were in-between Mayhem and your ND T157N/R103W acres).
However, Slawson has just applied for a drilling permit, Moore 41-11H, 4 miles directly to the west of your ND.
There are a lot of spacing units going in over in Montana but Slawson appears to be doing the only further action and that isn't much.

Longview, TX

#730 Dec 5, 2010
Billoutwest: G-3 appears to have about 4 active drills which are listed under "confidential wells". One of these wells is approximately 3.5 miles from our section in T157. You might want to see how close some of these wells are to you sections.

Longview, TX

#731 Dec 5, 2010
Billoutwest: In regards to the Slawson drilling permit for the Moore 41-11H, this well is permitted in Section 11 (NENE) and our minerals are located in Section 12 (SE4NW4NE4) which is getting very close. Hoping activity picks up in 58E and 59E and if the wells are good producers, we should see alot of action in 2011 as investors are flocking to the Montana/North Dakota areas.

Since: Jan 10

Bend, OR

#732 Dec 5, 2010


On the https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/riglist.asp site there is only one active drilling well listed that I cited above. They started on October 30th.

The well you refer to I believe is the one in the NW/NW of sec 11 and shows on my GIS MAP as the drilling apparatus is no longer there. My recollection is that the map indicated this move about a week ago. The fraccing is still probably going on there and at the other wells you mention.

So G3 could be a much bigger operation than I thought and I just caught them on moving day.

What is interesting from the OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION REPORT is the number of Spearfish/Madison oil wells run by G3. Normally, Spearfish oil is more Canadian in development.

The reason they're moving into T157/103 and 158/103 may well be another layer of oil then what most everyone else focuses on. Bakken or 3-Forks.

Long term I think you're a happy guy.
I think you have Bakken, Three Forks and something else in your future.

Longview, TX

#733 Dec 5, 2010
Billoutwest: I'm wondering if our Section 12 will included in the well being drilled in Section 11 by Slawson Expl.(Moore 41-11 H)in Roosesvelt County. I'm hoping for great results on both sides of the border!

Since: Jan 10

Bend, OR

#734 Dec 5, 2010
You should have been contacted regarding the spacing unit.
I think.

Most 1280 acre spacing units are standing up, which would be section 11 where the well is and section 2 to the north.

That's not hard and fast.

The Montana web site;
shows the Moore well as being in the NE/NE,(in 750 ft from the North and 675 ft from the East ).

That would make for a southerly drilling overall. They're near the north and east lines.

Also, they would have to had been on the west side of the section to be drilling toward you in sec 12.

I think its a 640 spacing unit.

Also, the TD - which I think is total depth, is listed as 13,284.

Going down to the Bakken strata then horizontal that would make for a one section spacing unit.

This well was initially drilled in 2005 and has gone through some paperwork and abandonments and now Slawson is attempting something here.
The formations tab shows the original well going down to 3Forks at 10,148 after going through the Bakken at 10,091.
On Google Earth it looks like the pad had been returned to plow status.

Wait a minute, I think that is the original well.

There are two proposed laterals originating in the SW/SW. Starting in 700 feet from the W and 700 from the south.

I don't know enough so you need to go to the Montana site.

Longview, TX

#735 Dec 6, 2010
Billoutwest: I agree with you on the Slawson well. I can't see Section 12 being included in that drill. We only have 10 acres in Section 12 which is located to the SW. As I stated earlier, T30;R59E;Sections 6 & 7 is my main concern as we have 600 plus acres in that area. Hoping for a good drill in the future and thus far EOG has spaced that area. Maybe we will be lucky!! Thanks for sharing your info and I'm sure I will have questions as 2011 drilling progresses.

Portsmouth, VA

#736 Dec 8, 2010

Got to the bottom of things. But still a little confused.

They leased all 320 acres. I had a copy of what was paid as bonus to my mom before she passed away. What i am unclear about is they only paid the bonus on 80 Acres (called out as NET acres) but leased 320 Acres (240 acres called out as Gross Acres). I'm not understanding why the bonus was only paid on 80 acres vice the 320 acres actually owned. Is this normal, or did my mom get used by a crooked company? The company was not ENCORE it was a small broker company as i'm finding out.

Please advise your thoughts, and thank you in advance for your time.


Longview, TX

#737 Dec 8, 2010
Brent: I would firtst contact the broker company that originally leased the minerals. The cover letter should indicated the name of the person that made the deal. If you want final evidence as to the net acres, you could either go to the county courthouse in that county and research the records or employ a local landman to do it for you.

Virginia Beach, VA

#738 Dec 8, 2010
Thank for the info, charles

I just don't understand why the bonus was paid on the "net acres" vice the "Gross acres". I would think that if your leasing mineral rights the bonus would be paid on the 320 acres listed on my filed Deed. I know my mom didn't have a clue to the information that is available now. She just kept signing with the same guy over and over again. I just want to confirm that she didn't get used due to lack of knowledge.

I may be simplifing a complicated process..


Longview, TX

#739 Dec 8, 2010
Brent: Sounds like to me that the 80 acres was your share of the overall 320 acres as far as mineral ownership. Again, this could be verified by examining county courthouse records. Good luck in your quest for correct information as I live in Texas and have minerals in both North Dakota and Montana.

Moyock, NC

#740 Dec 8, 2010
thanks charles

I have my deed, and my deed states i own 320 acres so that lead to my confusion. The deed states the following

hereinafter called Grantee (whether one or more) an undivided ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST in and to all of the oil, gas, casinghead gas, casinghead gasoline, all liquid hydrocarbons, and other minerals, including, but not limited to, sulfur, coal, gravel, clay, scoria, salt, potash, gems, uranium and other ores containing fissionable materials, in and under and that my be produced from the following described lands situated in MCKENZIE County, State of NORTH DAKOTA, to wit:

Township 152 North, Range 103 West of the 5th P.M.
Section 24: SWNE, NW, N2SW, NWSE

Containing 320.00 acres, more or less, together with the right of ingress and egress at all times for the purpose of mining, drilling, exploring, operating and developing said lands for oil, gas, casinghead gas, casinghead gasoline, all liquid hydrocarbons, and other minerals, including, but not limited to, sulfur, coal, gravel, clay, scoria, salt, potash, gems, uranium and other ores containing fissionable materials, and the storing, handling, transporting and marketing the same therefrom with the right to remove from said land all of Grantee’s property and improvements.

So, looks like i have my work cut out for me and my sister figuring this out

Longview, TX

#741 Dec 8, 2010
Brent: Sounds like you need to take the actions that I previously mentioned in regards to doing a self imposed courthouse record search or hiring a landman in that county. You might contact the ND Industrial Commission to locate a list of landmen you could contact. I would persue this matter since the drilling activity is progressing into this area.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

North Dakota Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
jump Mar 25 jump 1
News Oil pipeline: Trump's stock in company raises c... Mar 22 Well Well 10
News Back on Track? Army Corps told to clear way for... Mar 21 Native ... 24
north dakota pulling genicide on ametican indi... Mar 21 Native ... 6
call in live talk radio Dec '16 Edward 1
News North Dakota officials pledge 'humane' help for... Dec '16 Bed Flea Bugs 2
Chunky Wooden Bedroom Furniture UK Nov '16 pyonari 1
More from around the web