we are in two producing units - one is 320 acre unit and the other is in a 333 acre unit; both with COP. Both have one producing well. Question what would be a guess as to more wells being drilled. One is producing about 20k barrels and the other about 15 k barrels per month. How many wells can legally be drilled on each unit? Thanks
thanks for your insight, that has to be what it is they are doing since they are combining units, possibly they will be longer horizontals. Blake
Wow! Thanks for the info! I really appreciate it. I assume there is no way to determine if the area is riddled with faults? There is one odd thing about the unit: the well was actually drilled "off lease" according to the initial drilling permit. Not sure what that means exactly, but could that have been because of faulting?
Mark I have learned much from your posts. The APIs for the wells are: 255-33256 and 255-32956-- thanks for your help.
Interesting unit shapes for these two wells - looks like operator was trying to squeeze these into less than ideal positions.
Just my opinion on all this, but 42-255-33256 looks to have the ability to drill at least two more wells of lateral length similar to the #1 well.
They may be able to fit in a 4th well on the SW part of the unit but it would be much shorter than the first wells.
And shorter laterals will be less economic / have lower EUR's and operator may end up not drilling shorter laterals.
It should also be noted that the wells in this unit appear to be set up at a more ideal NW to SE orientation).
42-255-32956 is another story as I see it. First, the laterals are being laid out in a more E to W orientation based on the shape of the unit.
First well was has about 5500' of lateral in the target zone - I don't see how operator can put similar length laterals in this unit. There is no room to the south and only a shorter lateral can be drilled to the north of the first well.
I would think that the #1 may be the only well drilled in this unit based on this present configuration.
Thanks we have the property to the north that is in both units yet no pads or laterals on r under us. Still have questions why we r in both units with more sites not optimal. We leased late (after 255-32956) was already approved-added us and amended unit but did not enlarge unit; took acreage from original owners.
255-33256 is more E/W and is the better well. I am told by COP that they are very conservative when pushing production but would rather have a longer, stronger production life.
Mark, it looks like you looked at 255-33256 and posted the same unit under 33256. Since 32956 was amended after we leased the actual unit is not what you see on the tx rr site.Very confusing. Thanks for your input.
In light of this particular discussion I would like to add the following:
I have a basic question that needs confirmation. Comstock drilled three wells on our property in 2012 and two wells on a neighboring property, which extended under our acreage in late 2013. We have been receiving oil royalties ever since. Now my humble question to the forum members concerns a Continuous Drilling Pugh Clause violation. Comstock publically declared our properties area as Tier II in their drilling program and indicated that they would now focus on their Tier I Acreage since Tier II was now all HBP. According to our lease, Comstock had 120 days after drilling Well #5 to begin on #6. As you could probably guess Comstock has not drilled another well since #5 was drilled. Looking over the RRC files I came across P-15 Form’s for each well which might explain how Comstock has disregarded the Continuous Drilling Clause. Comstock assigned the following acreage for each well:
Well 1 (013-34445) = 98.915ac
Well 2 (013-34474) = 440ac
Well 3 (013-34473) = 400ac
Well 4 (013-34468) = 400ac
Well 5 (013-34471) = 400ac
The lease in question covered a little over 1600 acres. Can we assume that Comstock has effectively assigned all of our acreage to pooled units and the total acreage is now HBP and we are at the whim of Comstock’s decision to come back and drill on their time frame? Or is this a possible violation of the Continuous Drilling Clause? Has any other forum members had issues similar to ours? Thanks for any insight.
Hi Mark, I sent you a message pertaining to your question. Hope that is OK.