Whiting Petroleum's "Big Island Prospect" includes a large slice of central Golden Valley Co., North Dakota. Here is a little summary / update for those interested in this area.
The Big Island Prospect is outside the Bakken formation play. Also Whiting's program to drill the Three Forks formation appears to be somewhat further east of this area. Initially Whiting was silent about what they were looking at. The company only stated they were looking at several targeted zones in this prospect. For the past couple of years Whiting continued with a single rig drilling program active in the townships to the north and NE of the town of Beach. As a result several of us watching the area have been speculating about what Whiting's intent was with this project.
A well in 2010 targeted the Lodgepole formation (Jones 44-35) but it wasn't viable. Then in 2011 a couple of their wells were completed with production from the Red River formation (Maus 23-22 and Peplinski 34-9). Their latest completion in the area is a horizontal well shown on the NDIC as into the Three Forks formation (Nistler 21-25). Though I wonder if the "Three Forks" designation was a typo. Another 2011 well (Brookhart 11-14) was spudded back in October though it has not been reported yet. The well Whiting is currently drilling (Quale 21-30), and their next permited location (Stecker 23-3) are both designated as tight holes so their targeted formation is not known.
However, Whiting's 2011 Annual Report may have finally settled the question about their intent. On page 8 the company states, "one prospect, Big Island, targets the Red River formation."
As noted above, Whiting's 2011 annual report states their Big Island prospect targets the Red River formation. Now their more recent Investors Presentation returns to referring to the prospect as targeting "multiple" formations. I guess they want to keep us guessing.
Whiting's most recent activity;
The NDIC site shows the rig is gone at their "Quale 21-30" well (sec 30 T141 R104). So drilling appears to be done. However there is no indication that the well was fracked or completed yet. The well is designated as a tight hole.
A rig is now shown on their "Stecker 23-3" well (sec 3 T141 R105). Also shown as a tight hole. The NDIC site shows "Ross 13-2" (sec 2 T141 R105) as the next location for the rig currently drilling "Stecker".
"Ross" and the "Rieckhoff 44-22" location (sec 22 T141 R104) are the only two permits WLL currently has filed in the area. FYI, the Rieckhoff location is on the same section as Whiting's earlier successful Red River formation well, "Maus 23-22".
Three Forks is not a Typo. The Golden Valley County Areas of Beach and Golva are a part of the 3 Forks and Sanish formations. It is thought that Belifield will be the epi center of the boom but ND people in Golden Valley shouldnt get too excited as rig movement is going to Montana because no one has barked that ND went from 50 grand to start a well to fees of over 400k per site so area's like Golden Valley Co Beach that have had dude wells are of less interest. I just returned from the Black hills Bakken Conference. Due to the fact ND has raised its fee on new drilling the companies are trying to complete current leases and holding off on new in ND heading to SD, WY and mt but mostly to hit up MT for drilling.
Elli, thanks for the input. Perhaps it was wishful thinking on my part that "Nistler" wasn't drilled into the Three Forks. Nistler does not appear commercially viable. So I hate to see that the Three Forks may not produce in that area. Whiting has had success on it in Billings County. I'd love to see that formation pay in Golden Valley as well.
Joel, glad you didn't hold your breath for the callback. In my experience they only call back when they need something from you. As for how a section can be spaced before there is a permit the state arbitrarily spaced most of the western half of ND into 1280 and 640 acre spacings but they will respace it to anything the operator asks on request be it 640, 1280, 1920 or 2560 acre spacing. I believe the operator would have to drill 2 wells for the 1920 and 2560 acre spacings.
Joel, I believe what you're seeing is Burlington marking "their" territory much like our hound does when we walk him. In the past few months there were requested spacing for almost all of that township (T142 R103W). As much as anything, the players appear to be advertising their intent to each other.
Burlington Res requested for these:
Sections 6 & 7, 18 & 19, 30 & 31, 29 & 32, and also those where you own an interest 27 & 34, 26 & 35.
Whiting Petroleum just requested spacing for these:
Sec. 3 & 10, 4 & 9, 5 & 8, 14 & 23, 15 & 22, 16 & 21, 25 & 36. Also, WLL had previously pooled & drilled Section 24 into Section 13.
I don't think Continental Res requested spacing yet, but they appear to be in control of Sections 2 & 11. I'm unsure but they (CLR) may also control 1 & 12, 17 & 20, and 28 & 33. As these sections were omitted from the other recent requests.
Since Burlington requested the spacing, presumably they already hold a chunk (possibly majority) of minerals leased under your two sections (26 & 34). Yet as Mr. Kennedy points out, later on it's possible Burlington's spacing requests can be overturned if it's determined somebody else (say WLL) gains a controling interest in those tracts. So as a mineral owner don't worry about it. One or the other will end up in control of those tracts. The fact they requested this spacing is positive. It shows they're all more inclined to develop that TWP prior to others in the townships to the south or west of 142-103 where virtually no spacing has been requested.