← Back to Daily Permits
SUNDRY
Sundry: The permit approval is explicitly conditioned on and explained by Commission Order No. 35290, which imposes specific non-standard setback requirements (500' N/S, 150' E/W) justified by the 'wet shoe' completion design. A pre-approval regulatory email required federal coordination, and a detailed ant
🛢️ MHA GRAIN 4892 21-19 6B
ENERPLUS RESOURCES USA CORPORATION · Dunn County, ND · File #43054 · Generated 2026-08-28 04:09
- API
- 3302505213
- Target Formation
- Middle Bakken (Bakken Formation)
- Permit Explained
- Yes
📋 Permit Cycle Assessment
The permit approval is explicitly conditioned on and explained by Commission Order No. 35290, which imposes specific non-standard setback requirements (500' N/S, 150' E/W) justified by the 'wet shoe' completion design. A pre-approval regulatory email required federal coordination, and a detailed anti-collision report supports the technical feasibility of the well path.
🔍 Permit Cycle Signals (5)
📄 STIPULATIONS section, page 1
📅 2026-06-19 (Exact confidence)
This is the primary regulatory condition attached to the permit approval, specifying non-standard setback requirements for the wellbore geometry.
📄 STIPULATIONS section, page 1
📅 2026-06-19 (Exact confidence)
This directly explains and justifies the specific 150' east setback condition by linking it to the 'wet shoe' completion design, which is a non-routine operational feature.
📄 STIPULATIONS section, page 1
📅 Unknown (Missing confidence)
This is the explicit regulatory order that authorizes the permit. The order itself is referenced but not included in the file.
📄 Email from Nathaniel Erbele dated 2026-03-03
📅 2026-03-03 (Exact confidence)
This is a pre-approval regulatory action that conditions the state permit on coordination with federal authorities, creating a prerequisite for final approval.
📄 Anticollision Report, dated 2025-10-16
📅 2025-10-16 (Exact confidence)
This technical submission supports permit approval by demonstrating that anti-collision risks have been analyzed and managed, justifying the complex well path within a dense drilling area.
📖 Historical Context (3)
The well pad is located within 33 feet of a section line, requiring Dunn County Commission written permission for encroachment pursuant to NDCC 24-06-28. The county's 2016 approval letter for the multi-well pad remains valid.
📄 OPERATOR ASSERTIONS (page 8) and Dunn County Commission letter dated 2016-08-18 · 📅 2016-08-18
The county's encroachment approval is a persistent land-use condition that remains in effect for the pad and constrains any future pad expansion, as noted in the permit stipulations.
The surface location is on Bureau of Indian Affairs land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, requiring an approved Right-of-Way (FBOG101061). An amendment adding this well was approved on June 16, 2026.
📄 BIA Approval Memorandum dated 2026-06-16 · 📅 2026-06-16
Federal/tribal surface use authorization is a binding, long-term obligation that governs all operations on the pad and requires compliance with the terms of the ROW grant.
Operator asserts the well is drilled from a surface location outside the target spacing unit (entering the Bakken outside the unit), invoking Order No. 31973. A waiver from adjacent operator notification was requested because Enerplus is the operator of the adjacent unit.
📄 Letter from Enerplus to NDIC dated 2025-11-04 · 📅 2025-11-04
The authorization to drill from outside the spacing unit establishes a lasting operational pattern for the pad and sets a precedent for future wells, requiring continued adherence to the order's conditions.
🔧 Operator Pattern
Dense multi-well pad development with complex subsurface planning to navigate around existing wellbores.
The anticollision report shows analysis against numerous existing wells. The pad layout and historical revision notes detail a long-term, multi-phase pad expansion project adding wells over several years.
Confidence: High
The permit stipulations section contains explicit, contemporaneous conditions that directly explain the approval. Supporting documents (regulator email, anti-collision report, BIA approval) are dated close to the permit approval date and clearly relate to the permit's constraints. Historical documents are well-separated in time and purpose.