🛢️ PETERSON 22-15-10-3 3H

Phoenix Operating LLC · Williams County, ND · File #42625 · Generated 2026-02-13 12:33

API: 3310506775
Target Formation: Middle Bakken
Permit Explained: Partially

📋 Permit Cycle Assessment

The APD approval (04/01/2026 dirt work date) is partially explained by permit-cycle materials. The backbuild waiver notification (01/08/2026) and operator commitment letter justify approval of out-of-unit lateral entry geometry under NDIC Order 31848. Setback stipulations are justified by production liner design (wet shoe, frac-out). Core/sample requirements imposed by State Geologist (01/12/2026) directly condition execution. However, the file contains a critical temporal anomaly: a suspension order issued 10 days after approval (01/14/2026) that prohibits all construction activity pending a February 2026 revocation hearing initiated by competing operator Koda Resources Operating, LLC. This suspension is NOT explained by contemporaneous permit-cycle documentation—it reflects a post-approval legal challenge that fundamentally negates the permit's operability. The permit itself lacks internal documentation (engineer certifications, anti-collision analysis, detailed survey justifications) that would typically support approval of five co-located horizontal wells with specified setbacks. The contemporaneous file is incomplete relative to the complexity of the drilling geometry.

🔍 Permit Cycle Signals (4)

Permit suspended by regulator pending revocation hearing; five Peterson permits (42623–42627) suspended under NDAC 43-02-03-16.2

Direct

📄 Holweger letter, January 14, 2026, page 1
📅 2026-01-14 (Exact confidence)

Suspension order issued 10 days after APD approval (04/01/2026 dirt work date), directly blocking execution of permit. Revocation hearing scheduled February 2026. Mobilization, conductor setting, and spudding explicitly prohibited.

Core and sample submission requirement imposed by State Geologist with specific drilling intervals and 30/180-day shipment deadlines

Direct

📄 Edison letter, dated 1/12/2026, pages 1–2
📅 2026-01-12 (Exact confidence)

Geologist-mandated condition tied to Middle Bakken target and well file 42625. Samples required from Base of Last Charles Salt at 30° (vertical/build) and 200' (horizontal) intervals; cores boxed within 180 days. Civil penalty of $12,500/day for non-compliance. This is a permit-tied operational requirement.

Bakken setback stipulation: 150' north/south, 500' east/west from spacing unit boundaries; production liner cemented in lateral with wet shoe and frac-out capability

Supporting

📄 APD Form, page 1, NDIC Field Order Info stipulation section
📅 2026-04-01 (Inferred confidence)

Non-routine setback justification explicitly tied to well geometry: wet shoe with frac-out design. This constrains lateral placement and justifies the spacing-unit-based setback distances, differentiating from standard Bakken approvals.

Backbuild order waiver request submitted; wells planned to enter Bakken outside target spacing unit; operator commitment letter (January 8, 2026) cites NDIC Order 31848 notification requirement

Supporting

📄 Wentz letter, January 8, 2026
📅 2026-01-08 (Exact confidence)

Regulatory waiver/notification filing submitted ~3 weeks before suspension. Establishes that APD approval was contingent on operator satisfying out-of-unit drilling disclosure. No other operators in proposed unit noted. This explains why permit was issued despite backbuild geometry.

📖 Historical Context (3)

Commission Order No. 34633 referenced in setback stipulation; Grenora-Bakken Pool defined as 50 ft above top Bakken to 50 ft below top Three Forks
📄 APD Form, NDIC Field Order Info stipulation section · 📅 Unknown
Pool definition establishes vertical extent of productive interval and casing/cementing targets. Any future regulatory adjustments to Order 34633 or Grenora Pool definition would affect well completion and completion waiver requests. Setback geometry is anchored to this order and remains operative through all future operations.

Closed mud system with no cuttings pit mandated; remote or automatic shutoff devices required on all equipment
📄 APD Form, Permit Review Policy stipulation section · 📅 2026-04-01
Standard environmental condition but operationally persistent: waste management system must remain closed throughout drilling, completion, and flowback. No waiver authority shown in file. Affects equipment selection, logistics, and disposal contracts indefinitely.

Construction commencement notification requirement: operator must contact NDIC Field Inspector Gunther Harms (701-770-2564) prior to location construction
📄 APD Form, Construction Commencement Notification stipulation · 📅 2026-04-01
Pre-construction touchpoint obligation persists and blocks equipment mobilization until compliance. Inspector designation is explicit and remains binding if/when suspension is lifted. Failure to notify forecloses authorization to begin dirt work.

🔧 Operator Pattern

Phoenix Operating LLC demonstrates proactive regulatory engagement: submitted waiver request letter 24 days before APD approval, explicitly invoked out-of-unit drilling rule and notified regulator of competitive landscape. Pad layout shows coordination across five co-located horizontals with staggered surface locations (375' FSL spacing, FEL intervals 1243'–1303'). However, concurrent multi-well approval from single pad triggered competing operator challenge (Koda Resources) that resulted in suspension order.
Backbuild order waiver letter (01/08/2026) demonstrates pre-approval regulatory coordination. APD approval of all five wells simultaneously (file numbers 42623–42627 issued 04/01/2026) indicates operator planned integrated pad development. Suspension notice (01/14/2026) names Koda Resources as petitioner for revocation, suggesting resource conflict or spacing dispute over the five-well configuration.

Confidence: Medium
High confidence in permit issuance date (04/01/2026 dirt work date on APD), suspension date (01/14/2026 Holweger letter), and identification of key stipulations (setbacks, pool definition, core/sample requirements). However, medium overall confidence due to: (1) Critical gap in pre-approval engineering/anticollision documentation (not in provided file); (2) No written approval rationale or engineer's report justifying five-well geometry approval; (3) Backbuild waiver letter lacks response or formal waiver grant from NDIC—approval appears inferred from APD issuance, not explicitly documented; (4) Suspension order cites revocation petition by Koda Resources but the petition itself is not in file, limiting understanding of grounds for suspension; (5) no contemporaneous correspondence between operator and NDIC addressing the competing claim or explaining why permit was issued despite known objection; (6) well file appears to be a post-approval compilation of engineering/surveying deliverables rather than a pre-approval dossier. The temporal sequence (waiver request → approval → suspension within 27 days) suggests incomplete pre-approval review documentation.