North Dakota Pooling Order and Spacing Record Lineage Study 2026: Research question and study design
Pooling research is a relationship problem. A case may produce an order; an order may describe a spacing unit; the unit may contain tracts and relate to one or more wells; later instruments may correct or amend earlier text. This study therefore uses a graph model instead of a flat chronology.
Each node keeps its own identifier and source. Each edge states why two nodes are connected. The model is designed for North Dakota public regulatory research, but it does not decide mineral ownership, notice sufficiency, compulsory-pooling consequences, or the controlling interpretation of an order.
Build nodes before drawing connections
Create separate records for case numbers, order numbers, described spacing units, tract descriptions, and well identifiers. Copy captions, dates, legal descriptions, pool names, and citations exactly. Do not use one “unit name” field as a substitute for this structure; similar captions can conceal distinct proceedings or later instruments.
A node requires a locator and access date. If an item is mentioned but not retrieved, label it referenced-not-observed. That category is materially different from a saved order and prevents citations inside one instrument from masquerading as an independently reviewed source.
Require evidence for every edge
Connect case to order only when the official material says so or the official index supplies the relationship. Connect order to spacing description through page-level text. Connect well to order through an express reference or a corroborated official identifier. Geographic proximity alone creates a candidate edge and belongs in an exception queue.
Every edge row should contain source node, target node, relationship type, evidence locator, analyst, and review status. This makes the reasoning inspectable. If a reviewer rejects one relationship, the underlying documents and the rest of the graph remain intact.
Treat geometry as quoted evidence
Legal descriptions should be captured component by component: township, range, section, aliquot or lot text, county when stated, and any exception language. Preserve the source string before creating a standardized comparison. Directional letters and punctuation should never be discarded merely to make records join.
The public GIS interface is valuable for orientation and a visual plausibility check. It is not a substitute for the textual description in an order, nor is a screen measurement a survey conclusion. A map disagreement prompts investigation of datum, layer vintage, bore identity, and document scope.
Version orders with explicit amendment edges
An order number that appears numerically later is not automatically an amendment. Search for phrases and citations that state correction, clarification, supersession, or modification. Record what the later instrument says it changes. Unmentioned provisions should not be declared carried forward unless the instrument or a qualified reviewer supports that reading.
Keep entered, signed, filed, and effective dates under their source labels. If an order was corrected, preserve the original and corrected text side by side. The delta proves a textual difference; it does not alone establish the legal consequence.
Example: one unit, two apparent orders
Suppose two retrieved orders mention the same pool and sections, but only the second cites the first. One description includes an exception that the other lacks, and the GIS layer shows a well near the boundary. The graph links the instruments using the express citation, stores both legal descriptions, and attaches the well only as a candidate until an official cross-reference is found.
The reviewer receives the differing clause, page locations, stated dates, and map observation. The packet does not “clean up” the descriptions or infer that the later order necessarily governs every tract. That restraint preserves the exact question requiring professional judgment.
Reviewer map and unresolved edges
The finished graph should include an unresolved-edge register. Each entry names the two candidate nodes, the relationship being tested, supporting clues, contrary evidence, and the official source most likely to decide the question. This prevents a dotted line on a diagram from being mistaken for an established legal connection.
Generate reviewer views by order, tract, and well without deleting the network underneath. Different professionals need different slices. The canonical graph remains the audit record; filtered views are dated navigation aids whose selection rules are disclosed.
Coverage limits and finding
This method was evaluated against public routes available October 6, 2026. It does not guarantee that every docket image, notice, exhibit, or superseding instrument is online. It did not test service, hearing participation, title, acreage calculations, survey closure, or the legal effect of pooling.
The study finds that graph structure matches the evidence better than a spreadsheet row. Cases, orders, land descriptions, and wells remain distinct, while supported relationships create the lineage. Missing edges stay visible instead of being hidden inside a confident narrative.
Field protocol
Model case number as a node attribute supported by a precise citation. Standardization is allowed only in a derived comparison field. Competing descriptions remain attached to their respective instruments until the relationship has been professionally reviewed. Note whether the connection is express, corroborated, or merely proposed, and preserve contrary clues for whoever evaluates the edge.
Model order number as a node attribute supported by a precise citation. Standardization is allowed only in a derived comparison field. Competing descriptions remain attached to their respective instruments until the relationship has been professionally reviewed. Note whether the connection is express, corroborated, or merely proposed, and preserve contrary clues for whoever evaluates the edge.
Model caption as a node attribute supported by a precise citation. Standardization is allowed only in a derived comparison field. Competing descriptions remain attached to their respective instruments until the relationship has been professionally reviewed. Note whether the connection is express, corroborated, or merely proposed, and preserve contrary clues for whoever evaluates the edge.
Model pool name as a node attribute supported by a precise citation. Standardization is allowed only in a derived comparison field. Competing descriptions remain attached to their respective instruments until the relationship has been professionally reviewed. Note whether the connection is express, corroborated, or merely proposed, and preserve contrary clues for whoever evaluates the edge.
Model entered date as a node attribute supported by a precise citation. Standardization is allowed only in a derived comparison field. Competing descriptions remain attached to their respective instruments until the relationship has been professionally reviewed. Note whether the connection is express, corroborated, or merely proposed, and preserve contrary clues for whoever evaluates the edge.
Model township as a node attribute supported by a precise citation. Standardization is allowed only in a derived comparison field. Competing descriptions remain attached to their respective instruments until the relationship has been professionally reviewed. Note whether the connection is express, corroborated, or merely proposed, and preserve contrary clues for whoever evaluates the edge.
Model range as a node attribute supported by a precise citation. Standardization is allowed only in a derived comparison field. Competing descriptions remain attached to their respective instruments until the relationship has been professionally reviewed. Note whether the connection is express, corroborated, or merely proposed, and preserve contrary clues for whoever evaluates the edge.
Model section as a node attribute supported by a precise citation. Standardization is allowed only in a derived comparison field. Competing descriptions remain attached to their respective instruments until the relationship has been professionally reviewed. Note whether the connection is express, corroborated, or merely proposed, and preserve contrary clues for whoever evaluates the edge.
Model tract qualifier as a node attribute supported by a precise citation. Standardization is allowed only in a derived comparison field. Competing descriptions remain attached to their respective instruments until the relationship has been professionally reviewed. Note whether the connection is express, corroborated, or merely proposed, and preserve contrary clues for whoever evaluates the edge.
Model well API as a node attribute supported by a precise citation. Standardization is allowed only in a derived comparison field. Competing descriptions remain attached to their respective instruments until the relationship has been professionally reviewed. Note whether the connection is express, corroborated, or merely proposed, and preserve contrary clues for whoever evaluates the edge.
Model amendment citation as a node attribute supported by a precise citation. Standardization is allowed only in a derived comparison field. Competing descriptions remain attached to their respective instruments until the relationship has been professionally reviewed. Note whether the connection is express, corroborated, or merely proposed, and preserve contrary clues for whoever evaluates the edge.
Model page locator as a node attribute supported by a precise citation. Standardization is allowed only in a derived comparison field. Competing descriptions remain attached to their respective instruments until the relationship has been professionally reviewed. Note whether the connection is express, corroborated, or merely proposed, and preserve contrary clues for whoever evaluates the edge.
Sources
Frequently asked questions
Can a case number substitute for an order number?
No. Record each identifier in its own node and capture the official connection.
Does map overlap prove inclusion?
No. It is a visual research clue, not a textual or survey determination.
How are corrections handled?
Preserve both versions and create an edge supported by the correcting instrument’s own language.
If your team needs a review-ready north dakota pooling order and spacing record lineage study packet, Book a free consultation.
