I'd hate to disagree with an "expert" , but I've plotted thirteen units in Bradford. The average looks to be 7700' x 4000'.The trend would probably be toward longer units, but I haven't seen any declarations like that yet.
Good question, Garvin, sorry I was not clear.If laterals could be 1/2 mile apart in the collingwood without interfering with each other, then I would like to see a spacing plan calling for units of 1/2 mile wide by 2 mile long units..... that would still come out to 640 acres, but standing up or laying down. In other words, if you took Section 1 and Section 12, you could have two standup units, and two nice l-o-n-g laterals efficiently draining them. After all, every inch of dirt would be within 0.25 miles of the lateral drain except a whee bit would be a few feet further away in the corners of the units due to setback.If instead you put a diagonal lateral drain across a square 640, some of the dirt will be 0.71 miles from the drain. I have a hard time thinking that dirt really "deserves" to share in royalties because it gave up its hydrocarbons. Is there some reason to think that these laterals can drain hydrocarbons efficiently from over half a mile away? Oh sure, maybe you get lucky with a pocket of porosity or natural fault. But if its all just impermeable stuff needing stimulation.... a square unit is bad for landowners, and reduces the bang for investment buck for the operator too, since they are forced to use shorter laterals than they might otherwise.The downside with my idea, of course, is that if units are formed haphazardly, then one will start over here laying down, and one will start over there standing up, and as the map gets filled in we'll end up skipping entire sections as one-mile donut holes. I'm not sure what the solution there is.Which is why I mentioned voluntary pooling to accomplish the .5x2 mile unit size. If Paxton owns all the leases in both sections, and if those leases have the boilerplate pooling clauses, then there's no problem getting unanimous consent. If Paxton has only some and the other acres are unleased, it should be no problem getting Paxton and landowners to agree. After all, if they can be that close, there's more bang for buck having a longer lateral so that should make the company happy. And the area is "fully developed" thus avoiding royalty dilution which should make the landowners happy. Only fly I see in ointment is: (A) maybe the geology of these things is more complicated than my measly comprehension suggests and (B) maybe there are topographic or landowner desires that makes two well pads problematic.Thoughts anyone?MichGuy
Please point me in the direction where you are getting your "drainage" numbers to justify .25 miles between laterals?
Funny how Humpity gets a "responding" audience.....Hump....do you misspell on purpose....cause you got more responses than the poster before you did....By the way, why not help us all here with some points that we might share with our legislators??Thanks,Donegal
Quote from: heisoktoday on June 02, 2010, 09:02:44 AMPlease point me in the direction where you are getting your "drainage" numbers to justify .25 miles between laterals?Heisko, others on this site have commented on much closer spacing in other shales in other places. http://www.pagaslease.com/natural_gas_forum/index.php?topic=6237.0 So far Michigan's play consists of just a single lateral drain in the collingwood shale, so there are no play-specific numbers.... yet. I'm just saying this layman, who hopefully has an ordinary amount of common sense, does not believe that the frack network will radiate out in full force 0.5 miles from the bore. Yeah, I'll admit it's possible. But I hypothesize "no". In that case, all acres in the corners of the section furthest from the bore will contribute no HCs to the production, yet those same acres will take a bite out of royalties owed to those that do. Yes, maybe years later they can come back to do infill wells. But what a mess, running infills diagonally through the common corner of 4 sections! MichGuy