Surface & Sub-Surface Persona Summary
Exxon has permitted a Midland Basin manufacturing-style horizontal development program for block 36T2N Section 30 focused on repeatable Spraberry shale exploitation using centralized multi-well pads, standardized drilling geometries, uniform depth targeting, and batch operational execution to maximize drilling efficiency and long-term capital productivity.
Drilling Rig Prediction Using Section 38
Section 38 utilized multiple high-spec drilling rigs, led primarily by H&P 463 and H&P 601, indicating a manufacturing-style multi-rig development strategy rather than a single rig per pad. The strong similarity in field targeting and projected depths between Sections 38 and 30 suggests these same rigs are highly likely to be operationally compatible for Section 30 development.
1. Surface Pad Definition Results
Pad Definition Rule Applied
Wells were classified as a single pad when:
- Surface locations fell within a 50-meter radius
- Wells shared the same Block + Section
Result
The dataset consolidated permits into distinct multi-well pad developments.
Observed pad structures included:
Pad Approx. Well Count PAD-1 9 wells PAD-2 6 wells PAD-3 6 wells
The development pattern reflects modern Permian-style manufacturing drilling programs using centralized surface locations.
2. License Timing Analysis
First License Date per Pad
Each pad was analyzed to determine the earliest license issuance date.
Key Finding
Average first license date across all pads:
2024-10-24
This indicates the permits were largely licensed within the same development cycle.
Average Days Between First & Last License Dates
Key Finding
Average elapsed time between first and last license date per pad:
49.64 days
Insight
This suggests:
- Batch permitting strategies
- Simultaneous development planning
- Coordinated rig scheduling
- Centralized infrastructure planning
The licensing cadence is consistent with large-scale pad manufacturing programs.
3. Surface Location Persona
County Concentration
Primary activity was concentrated in:
County Basin MARTIN County Permian – Midland Basin
Basin / Play Identification
Using county analysis, the permits were identified as:
Permian Basin – Midland Basin Development
Specifically aligned with:
- Spraberry trend development
- Horizontal shale exploitation
- Multi-well pad optimization
4. Block / Section Development Pattern
Key Observation
Pads were heavily concentrated around:
Block Section 36T2N Section 30
Insight
This indicates:
- Section-scale manufacturing development
- Shared surface infrastructure
- Repeatable drilling geometries
- High-density horizontal development
5. Lease-Level Analysis
Findings
Most pads contained multiple leases but were operationally consolidated into:
- Single drilling campaigns
- Shared infrastructure corridors
- Centralized rig mobilization strategies
Operational Interpretation
The operator is optimizing:
- Surface disturbance reduction
- Completion efficiency
- Pad drilling economics
- Simultaneous operations execution
6. Contractor & Rig Observations
Contractor and rig fields were sparse in the source dataset.
However, the pad structures indicate:
- Repeat rig utilization
- Manufacturing-style rig sequencing
- Multi-well batch drilling
7. Surface Persona Summary
Overall Surface Persona
This development program reflects:
- Multi-well horizontal pad drilling
- Centralized Midland Basin manufacturing development
- Section-scale infrastructure optimization
- High-efficiency repeat drilling operations
- Shared surface locations designed for long lateral development
The operational style resembles:
“Factory drilling” common among major Permian operators.
8. Sub-Surface Persona
Primary Field Target
Dominant field:
SPRABERRY (TREND AREA) Primary Field
Substance Type
Primary classification:
Oil or Gas Well
Drilling Operation
Dominant drilling style:
Horizontal drilling
9. Depth Analysis
Typical Depth Profile
| Metric | Typical Value |
| Minimum Depth | ~10,750 ft |
| Maximum Depth | ~10,753 ft |
| Average Depth | ~10,751 ft |
Total Planned Footage
Example:
Pad Total Feet Drilled PAD-1 96,777 ft PAD-2 64,500 ft PAD-3 64,500 ft
10. Co-Development Analysis
Methodology
Pads were evaluated using:
- Section overlap
- Projected depth ranges
- Multiple field targets
Key Finding
Most Pads:
Low probability of co-development
Reason:
- Uniform depth targeting
- Single dominant field
- Consistent landing zones
Interpretation
The operator appears focused on:
- Single-zone manufacturing development
- Highly repeatable geologic targeting
- Standardized landing intervals
This reflects disciplined shale development rather than stacked-zone co-development.
11. Overall Sub-Surface Persona
The subsurface development program reflects:
- Standardized horizontal shale drilling
- Spraberry-focused manufacturing development
- Repeatable landing zone targeting
- Consistent depth control
- Multi-well pad optimization
The program appears engineered for:
- Capital efficiency
- Reduced drilling cycle times
- Repeatable completion design
- Infrastructure scaling
- Long-term manufacturing economics
12. Strategic Interpretation
Operational Model Identified
The dataset strongly resembles a:
Large-scale Permian manufacturing drilling campaign
Characteristics include:
Surface Strategy
- Dense multi-well pad development
- Shared infrastructure
- Section-scale optimization
Subsurface Strategy
- Uniform landing zones
- Standardized depth targeting
- Horizontal shale development
Commercial Strategy
- Batch licensing
- Multi-rig planning
- Simultaneous operations readiness
Author: phinds
