🛢️ HBU Baptiste Federal 34X-11G

XTO Energy Inc · Williams County, ND · File #41552 · Generated 2026-02-13 12:33

API: 33-105-06428
Target Formation: Three Forks 1st Bench
Permit Explained: Partially

📋 Permit Cycle Assessment

The well file documents three waivers and two field order stipulations that condition the permit approval. The Tubing/Packer Waiver (11/19/2025) directly justifies deferral of casing requirements during completion and is explicitly tied to fracture stimulation cycle constraints—this is a key permit-cycle control. The Suspension of Drilling Waiver (04/02/2025) explains the two-phase drilling plan executed from June 29, 2025, but predates the permit issuance and is a supporting justification rather than an explanation of why the permit was issued. The Open Hole Log Waiver (02/13/2025) is similarly pre-permit and reflects operational efficiency via offset well data. The Bakken Setback Stipulation explicitly conditions wellbore placement (50/150/500 feet from boundaries) and ties setbacks to completion design (fully cemented shoe). However, the file contains NO explicit permit approval letter, decision document, or regulator stipulation letter dated at or near the new permit issuance. The permit appears to be the 'Application for Permit for New Well – Horizontal' (dated 01/01/2025 as 'Dirt Work Date') but no formal approval letter or regulatory sign-off is provided in the file. The well was drilled (spud 06/29/2025, TD 11/04/2025) and operations appear to conform to pre-permit conditions; the Tubing/Packer Waiver (approved 11/19/2025, three weeks before TD) is the only permit-cycle signal that contemporaneously justifies post-drilling operations. The absence of a permit approval decision letter with explicit reasoning is a significant gap.

🔍 Permit Cycle Signals (5)

Tubing/Packer Waiver (NDAC 43-02-03-21) – Approved 11/19/2025. Operator permitted to defer tubing/packer installation until after frac stimulation and flowback, contingent on: casing API burst rating (9500–14160 psi), safety factor 0.80× API burst, immediate damage detection, low corrosion/erosion fluids, 300# surface gauge during flowback, and production equipment installation ASAP post-flowback.

Direct

📄 WELL SUNDRY FORM FILE NUMBER 41552, FORM ID 283536, Page 1–2
📅 2025-11-19 (Exact confidence)

This waiver directly conditions completion operations and defers a standard casing/cementing requirement tied to fracture stimulation cycle. It is non-routine and must be complied with during flowback and early production.

Open Hole Log Waiver (NDIC Rule 43-02-03-31) – Approved 02/13/2025. Operator waived requirement for open hole logs on 34X-11G; offsetting well HBU Baptiste 34X-11H within 1 mile to have open logs sufficient to establish formation tops. GR-CBL log to run from TD to ground level on offset well.

Supporting

📄 WELL SUNDRY FORM FILE NUMBER 41552, FORM ID 231709, Page 1–2
📅 2025-02-13 (Exact confidence)

Waiver allows use of offset well's wireline data instead of running logs on this well. This is a non-routine substitution tied to pad density and operational efficiency but does not explain the permit issuance itself—it was approved pre-permit.

Suspension of Drilling Waiver (NDAC 43-02-03-55) – Approved 04/02/2025. Operator permitted 90-day suspension to drill vertical/curve with small rig, set surface casing, then demobilize. Full-depth rig to move on within 90 days. No saltwater in surface operations. Plug/mechanical seal placed after surface casing cement.

Supporting

📄 WELL SUNDRY FORM FILE NUMBER 41552, FORM ID 239548, Page 1–3
📅 2025-04-02 (Exact confidence)

This waiver enabled a two-phase drilling approach (surface via small rig, then main drilling) that was executed June 29, 2025 onward. It is directly tied to the operational plan but is not the permit itself.

Bakken Setback Stipulation (Commission Order Nos. 29315 & 29316) – 150' north, 50' south, 500' east/west from spacing unit boundaries within Hofflund-Bakken Unit. South setback based on production liner cemented in lateral with fully cemented shoe, no frac-out capability.

Direct

📄 APPLICATION FOR PERMIT FOR NEW WELL – HORIZONTAL, STIPULATIONS section
📅 Unknown (Missing confidence)

This is a standard field order stipulation but is non-routine in its explicit justification (fully cemented shoe, no frac-out) and asymmetric setbacks (50' vs 150'). This explains why the well geometry and completion design were constrained.

Closed Mud System and Remote Shutoff Requirements (Permit Review Policy) – Well required to operate closed mud system with no cuttings pit; remote or automatic shutoff devices mandatory on all equipment.

Unclear

📄 APPLICATION FOR PERMIT FOR NEW WELL – HORIZONTAL, STIPULATIONS section, Page 1
📅 Unknown (Missing confidence)

Standard environmental protection stipulation, present in permit but not differentiating or explaining this specific permit issuance. Routine for horizontal wells in North Dakota.

📖 Historical Context (5)

Waiver to Offset Operator Wellbore Information Disclosure (NDIC Orders 31848 & 31973) – XTO Energy Inc. requested and received waiver from providing wellbore information to offset operators because XTO is the primary offset operator in Section 11, T154N, R95W.
📄 Waiver Request NDIC Order 31848 & 31973, dated June 14, 2024 · 📅 Unknown
This waiver establishes that wellbore data sharing obligations are suspended for this well during and after drilling. It affects future offset operator access to geological and pressure data and may constrain third-party drilling decisions on the pad.

Anti-Collision Protocol and Survey Program – Ryan Carlson (Wells Drilling Engineer) issued Statement of Well Protection (11/11/2024) committing to anti-collision tool deployment and survey reviews prior to drilling 34X-11A, E, and 34X-11B, C, D, G, H to manage lateral separation risk.
📄 STATEMENT OF WELL PROTECTION, dated November 11, 2024 · 📅 Unknown
This commitment documents the operator's obligation to run real-time survey tools and anti-collision analysis to prevent lateral collision with offset laterals on the same pad. Non-compliance could trigger regulatory intervention and well suspension during drilling.

Diesel Fuel Prohibition in Hydraulic Fracturing (Affidavit for Hydraulic Fracture, signed by Kevin Gant, Bakken Operations Manager, dated March 31, 2025). XTO attests no diesel fuel (per CAS 68334-30-5, 68476-34-6, 68476-30-2, 68476-31-3, 8008-20-6) will be used in frac operations and an Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class II permit must be obtained prior to any frac stimulation.
📄 AFFIDAVIT FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURE, dated March 31, 2025 · 📅 Unknown
This is a standing obligation tied to North Dakota hydraulic fracturing regulations. The operator must obtain a separate UIC Class II permit before commencing frac stimulation; failure to comply is a violation of state injection control law. This constraint persists through the completion and flowback phase.

Core and Sample Submission Requirements (Letter from Ross Edison, Geologist, NDIC, dated 02/03/2025). All cores, core chips, and samples must be submitted to ND Geological Survey within 30 days of drilling completion per NDAC 43-02-03-38.1. Samples to be collected at 30-foot max intervals (vertical/build) and 200-foot max intervals (horizontal).
📄 Letter from Ross Edison, dated 2/3/2025; WELL SUNDRY FORM FILE 41552, FORM ID 231709, Page 1 · 📅 Unknown
This is a continuing regulatory obligation. The operator must forward sample boxes to the ND Core & Sample Library (Grand Forks) by 30 days post-TD (by ~12/04/2025). Failure is subject to civil penalty up to $12,500 per offense per ND Century Code 38-08-16. Cores must be shipped within 180 days.

Off-Unit Location Affidavit (Affidavit for Off Unit Location, Nicole Bement, Surface Landman, dated 07/11/2024). Surface location in SE¼ Section 11, T154N, R95W is off-unit but covered by Surface Damage Agreement with Hahn Family Trust. Spacing unit encompasses Sections 12–28, 35, 36(N½) in T154N, R95W.
📄 AFFIDAVIT FOR OFF UNIT LOCATION, dated July 11, 2024; Notarized, July 11, 2024 · 📅 Unknown
This documents the basis for off-unit surface location and the surface owner's consent. It establishes the operator's legal right to use the location for the eight-well pad (34X-11D, B, G, C, H, and 34X-11E, A) and is relevant to any future disputes over surface rights or reclamation obligations.

🔧 Operator Pattern

XTO Energy Inc. (ExxonMobil subsidiary) operates a multi-well development strategy on the Hofflund-Bakken Unit pad, prioritizing operational efficiency through coordinated drilling, waiver-based completion designs, and centralized pad infrastructure. The operator proactively negotiates waivers, manages offset operator coordination via data sharing restrictions, and commits to regulatory compliance via affidavits.
Multi-well permit applications (34X-11D, B, C, E, G, H) submitted simultaneously (01/2025); single surface damage agreement for eight wells; suspension of drilling waiver enabling phased rig mobilization; tubing/packer waiver deferring completion equipment; open hole log waiver leveraging offset well data; diesel fuel prohibition affidavit; anti-collision protocol statement; offset operator data waiver. All evidence indicates centralized, coordinated pad development with emphasis on cost and schedule optimization through regulatory waivers.

Confidence: Medium
The permit file is complete in terms of waivers, stipulations, and operational documentation but lacks an explicit, dated permit approval decision letter from the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources Oil and Gas Division. The Application for Permit for New Well – Horizontal is present but no formal 'Notice of Permit Issuance' or regulatory approval stamp with decision rationale is visible. The well was successfully drilled and geological outcomes confirm placement within the Three Forks 1st Bench target and compliance with stipulated setbacks. However, without a contemporaneous permit approval letter or decision document dated at or near permit issuance, the specific regulatory reasoning for approval cannot be independently verified. The waivers and stipulations are well-documented and sufficient to explain operational constraints and completion deferrals, but they do not directly answer why the permit was issued on a specific date. High confidence exists in the operational context and constraints; medium confidence in the permit decision rationale due to missing explicit approval documentation.