North Dakota Drilling Permit Record Lineage Study 2026: Research question and study design
What evidence follows a North Dakota drilling proposal into an issued permit, through any revision, and finally to the well visible in later records? This study uses a stage-gate design. Each gate answers a different proposition. The method prevents an application, approval, amendment, and current map result from collapsing into a misleading master row.
The official routes reviewed establish available record families and research paths. They do not form a statistical sample, measure processing speed, or prove that any individual well complied with its authority. The principal result is procedural: identity must be established before authorization is characterized, and later observations must remain in their own time period.
Gate one — establish the proposal
Intake begins with the proposed asset, not a familiar well name. Capture the operator as displayed, proposed name and number, county, surface description, bottom-hole description when shown, target, submission date, and every regulator identifier. Store literal identifiers as text; a spreadsheet must not strip leading characters or punctuation.
Document the search itself. Name the interface, inputs, filters, access time, result condition, and locator. “Found on the state site” cannot be repeated. A no-result query is also worth recording, but only as a bounded negative. It does not establish that no application exists in another index, historic file, or agency system.
Gate two — characterize issued authority
The next question is whether an official artifact states that permission was issued and what it authorized. Transcribe issue date, applicant, well identity, described locations, pool or formation, depth or construction terms, expiration wording, signature notation, and special conditions. Conditions belong in individual rows with page locators because a binary approved flag erases important qualifications.
The forms directory is useful for learning a document schema; a blank form is never event evidence. The administrative code supplies regulatory context; it does not prove approval of a particular proposal. General statistics can help orient a researcher but cannot replace the well-specific instrument.
Gate three — compare revisions
Look for corrected pages, amended authority, renewal, replacement images, or later records that expressly cite the earlier permit. Compare versions field by field. Preserve both values and their locators. An upload timestamp may reflect republication, so revision order should come from stated dates, cross-references, and document context rather than filenames alone.
A changed target, operator, coordinate, well number, or condition opens an exception. Researchers may state that the artifacts differ. They should not invent the reason or decide which instrument controls. If sequence remains uncertain, report the competing clues and identify what evidence could resolve them.
Gate four — connect subsequent activity
Later completion information, public map attributes, and activity reports can corroborate the permitted bore. The strongest connection is the same jurisdictional identifier or an explicit official cross-reference. Similar names and nearby coordinates create candidates, not conclusions.
Temporal discipline matters. As-drilled coordinates do not belong in an application observation. A current operator should not overwrite the applicant. Completed depth cannot be presented as permitted depth unless an authorization says so. The lineage earns its value by retaining those differences.
A worked exception
Suppose the intake list gives a name, county, and API-like number. The GIS display contains the same number, while an issued image names a different target and a later report adds a bottom-hole location. The method creates three dated observations. The shared identifier supports linkage, but nothing in that match explains the target variance.
The handoff contains both locators, a field-level comparison, and a focused reviewer question: does an amendment, correction, or separate bore account for the difference? That is a useful research product because it narrows the professional decision without pretending to make it.
Quality controls, boundaries, and conclusion
A checker should reproduce material identity joins from the search log, confirm that locators open, verify that dates retain their labels, and regenerate normalized comparison values from saved originals. Stop clerical work when API numbers compete, coordinate reference is unknown, multiple bores share a name, amendment sequence cannot be proven, or permit language demands legal or engineering interpretation.
This public-source method was assessed October 6, 2026. It did not inspect authenticated functions, agency back-office files, field conditions, surveys, or every historic instrument. It determines neither title nor compliance. A defensible permit lineage is a sequence of tested propositions: proposal, authority, revision, and later corroboration, each supported by its own official artifact.
Field protocol
For operator name, capture the literal entry, its document page or interface locator, and the date observed. State any transformation in a separate column. If it conflicts with another artifact, retain both entries and open a focused exception rather than selecting the more convenient value. Record the search route and reviewer response so a later analyst can reconstruct the disposition without relying on memory.
For well name and number, capture the literal entry, its document page or interface locator, and the date observed. State any transformation in a separate column. If it conflicts with another artifact, retain both entries and open a focused exception rather than selecting the more convenient value. Record the search route and reviewer response so a later analyst can reconstruct the disposition without relying on memory.
For API identifier, capture the literal entry, its document page or interface locator, and the date observed. State any transformation in a separate column. If it conflicts with another artifact, retain both entries and open a focused exception rather than selecting the more convenient value. Record the search route and reviewer response so a later analyst can reconstruct the disposition without relying on memory.
For county, capture the literal entry, its document page or interface locator, and the date observed. State any transformation in a separate column. If it conflicts with another artifact, retain both entries and open a focused exception rather than selecting the more convenient value. Record the search route and reviewer response so a later analyst can reconstruct the disposition without relying on memory.
For surface legal description, capture the literal entry, its document page or interface locator, and the date observed. State any transformation in a separate column. If it conflicts with another artifact, retain both entries and open a focused exception rather than selecting the more convenient value. Record the search route and reviewer response so a later analyst can reconstruct the disposition without relying on memory.
For bottom-hole description, capture the literal entry, its document page or interface locator, and the date observed. State any transformation in a separate column. If it conflicts with another artifact, retain both entries and open a focused exception rather than selecting the more convenient value. Record the search route and reviewer response so a later analyst can reconstruct the disposition without relying on memory.
For coordinate datum, capture the literal entry, its document page or interface locator, and the date observed. State any transformation in a separate column. If it conflicts with another artifact, retain both entries and open a focused exception rather than selecting the more convenient value. Record the search route and reviewer response so a later analyst can reconstruct the disposition without relying on memory.
For target pool, capture the literal entry, its document page or interface locator, and the date observed. State any transformation in a separate column. If it conflicts with another artifact, retain both entries and open a focused exception rather than selecting the more convenient value. Record the search route and reviewer response so a later analyst can reconstruct the disposition without relying on memory.
For proposed depth, capture the literal entry, its document page or interface locator, and the date observed. State any transformation in a separate column. If it conflicts with another artifact, retain both entries and open a focused exception rather than selecting the more convenient value. Record the search route and reviewer response so a later analyst can reconstruct the disposition without relying on memory.
For issue date, capture the literal entry, its document page or interface locator, and the date observed. State any transformation in a separate column. If it conflicts with another artifact, retain both entries and open a focused exception rather than selecting the more convenient value. Record the search route and reviewer response so a later analyst can reconstruct the disposition without relying on memory.
For expiration language, capture the literal entry, its document page or interface locator, and the date observed. State any transformation in a separate column. If it conflicts with another artifact, retain both entries and open a focused exception rather than selecting the more convenient value. Record the search route and reviewer response so a later analyst can reconstruct the disposition without relying on memory.
For special condition, capture the literal entry, its document page or interface locator, and the date observed. State any transformation in a separate column. If it conflicts with another artifact, retain both entries and open a focused exception rather than selecting the more convenient value. Record the search route and reviewer response so a later analyst can reconstruct the disposition without relying on memory.
Sources
Frequently asked questions
Is the GIS result the permit of record?
Not necessarily. It is a current public observation; locate the issued instrument and relevant revisions.
What is the strongest join?
A jurisdictional identifier or explicit official cross-reference, supported by coherent location and chronology.
Can support staff do this work?
They can preserve, transcribe, compare, and route evidence while qualified reviewers decide legal or technical effect.
If your team needs a review-ready north dakota drilling permit record lineage study packet, Book a free consultation.
