Directive 065: Resources Applications for Oil and Gas Reservoirs ...

Requirements
ii) interpretation of the fluid interfaces
present,
Comments
iii) completions and treatments to the
wellbore(s), with dates,
iv) cumulative production,
v) finished drilling date and kelly
bushing (KB) elevation, and
vi) the scale of the log readings, and
d) a tabulation of the interpreted net pay,
porosity, and water saturation for each
well in the pool, along with the cutoffs,
methodology, formulas, and constants
used.
12) A statement indicating whether you are
proposing that the requested order provide
for the equalization of the actual cost of
drilling the well to and completing it in the
formation(s) named in the pooling order, in
accordance with Section 80(4)(d) of the
OGCA.
This is a standard provision of a typical
pooling order. It applies to a situation where
an applicant has itself drilled a well for the
purpose of producing the zone to be subject
to the pooling order or is proposing to drill
such a well. If the case is not the standard
one—for example, if a well was drilled and
produced from a zone other than the one to
be subject to the pooling order—it would
normally be appropriate to modify the
standard provision such that not all original
drilling and completion costs would be
shared.
13) A statement as to whether you are proposing
that the requested order provide for a
penalty to be imposed against actual drilling
and completion costs in accordance with
Section 80(5) of the OGCA and, if so,
a) what penalty should be imposed,
b) the justification for the proposed
penalty,
and
c) confirmation that in accordance with
normal ERCB practice, you would agree
that the proposed penalty would be
applied if the tract owner did not pay its
share of actual drilling and completion
A penalty under Section 80(5) of the OGCA
is a standard provision of pooling orders
involving disputes between industry players.
In these cases, the ERCB has normally
provided for the maximum penalty allowed
by Section 80(5). That is, if the maximum
penalty applies and a tract owner has chosen
to incur the penalty rather than pay costs “up
front,” the tract owner would owe the well
operator its share costs plus the penalty of
two times the cost. If the tract owner’s share
of costs were $10 000 and it chose to incur
the penalty, it would pay costs of $10 000
plus two times the costs, equalling $20 000,
for a total of $30 000.
ERCB Directive 065: Resources Applications / Compulsory Pooling (October 2011) • 1-33