vonrhee2

Acknowledgements

• Questar E&P, Tulsa, OK• Joe Campbell, Regional Geology• Mike Kuykendall, Petrography• Rod Tillman, Core Interpretation &

Project Supervision• Garner Wilde, Biostratigraphy• Technical Staff, Tide West Oil Company

Part One:How Do You Buy

an Oil Field?

You Figure Out How BigThe Darn Thing Could Be!

This is (literally) theMillion Dollar $$

Question!!

Location of ERT Field

WESTERN CANYON SHELF MARGIN

WESTERN CANYON SHELF MARGIN

BRAVO

DOME

AMARILLO

UPLIFT

AMARILLO

BASIN AXIS AT

TOP PRECAMBRIAN

AXIS - MATADOR ARCH

PALO

DURO

BASIN

ANADARKO

BASIN

OLDHAMNOSE

WHITTENBURG

TROUGHBUSHDOME

D

DALHARTBASIN

MATADOR ARCH

COTTLEMOTLEYFLOYDHALELAMBBAILEY

CHILDRESSHALLBRISCOESWISHERCASTROPARMER

COLLINGSWORTHDONLEYARMSTRONGRANDALLDEAF SMITH

WHEELERGRAYCARSONOLDHAM

HEMPHILLROBERTSHUTCHINSONMOOREHARTLEY

LIPSCOMBOCHILTREEHANSFORDSHERMANDALLAM

POTTER

MATADOR ARCH

ERT FIELD

After Budnik, 1989

Tectonic Framework

Texas Panhandle

Permian Carbonates

Wolfcamp?/Cisco? Shale

Penn Sand (Tonkawa?)

Penn Silt

Penn “Granite Wash”, Shales

?

?

Horizon O&G Bivins Rch No. 1-3 Palo Duro BasinStratigraphy

Type Log

ERT Field As of 1994

A

A'

7780

7516 7500

5657

7600

7600

6600

6600

1-209

1-21-3

2-2

2-3

3-3

4-2

3-2

Penn Sand Completion

Field Size Assessment

• Geologic Research• Analyze field size of existing fields

Field size vs. discovery dateField size distribution

• Map existing data• Synthesize and draw conclusions

Geologic Research

• Personal PD Basin references• Petroleum abstracts (cost effective)• AAPG Library and GeoRef• OK well log library• Miscellaneous (e.g. Colleagues)

WESTERN CANYON SHELF MARGIN

After Budnik, 1989

Location ofERT Field

BRAVO

DOME

AMARILLO

UPLIFT

AMARILLO

BASIN AXIS AT

TOP PRECAMBRIAN

AXIS - MATADOR ARCH

PALO

DURO

BASIN

ANADARKO

BASIN

OLDHAMNOSE

WHITTENBURG

TROUGHBUSHDOME

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

U

UU

U

U

U

UU

U

U U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U U

U

U

U

UD

DALHARTBASIN

MATADOR ARCH

UPPER

CANYONSHELFMARGIN

EASTER

N

CANYON

SHELF

MARGIN

WES

TERN

CA

NYO

NSH

ELF

MARGIN

COTTLEMOTLEYFLOYDHALELAMBBAILEY

CHILDRESSHALLBRISCOESWISHERCASTROPARMER

COLLINGSWORTHDONLEYARMSTRONGRANDALLDEAF SMITH

WHEELERGRAYCARSONOLDHAM

HEMPHILLROBERTSHUTCHINSONMOOREHARTLEY

LIPSCOMBOCHILTREEHANSFORDSHERMANDALLAM

POTTERWESTERN CANYON SHELF MARGIN

MATADOR ARCH

ERT FIELD

U'

M

M’

U

TectonicFramework

Texas Panhandle

WESTERN CANYON SHELF MARGIN

After Budnik, 1989

Location ofERT Field

BRAVO

DOME

AMARILLO

UPLIFT

AMARILLO

BASIN AXIS AT

TOP PRECAMBRIAN

AXIS - MATADOR ARCH

PALO

DURO

BASIN

ANADARKO

BASIN

OLDHAMNOSE

WHITTENBURG

TROUGHBUSHDOME

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

U

UU

U

U

U

UU

U

U U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U U

U

U

U

UD

DALHARTBASIN

MATADOR ARCH

UPPER

CANYONSHELFMARGIN

EASTER

N

CANYON

SHELF

MARGIN

WES

TERN

CA

NYO

NSH

ELF

MARGIN

COTTLEMOTLEYFLOYDHALELAMBBAILEY

CHILDRESSHALLBRISCOESWISHERCASTROPARMER

COLLINGSWORTHDONLEYARMSTRONGRANDALLDEAF SMITH

WHEELERGRAYCARSONOLDHAM

HEMPHILLROBERTSHUTCHINSONMOOREHARTLEY

LIPSCOMBOCHILTREEHANSFORDSHERMANDALLAM

POTTERWESTERN CANYON SHELF MARGIN

MATADOR ARCH

ERT FIELD

U'

M

M’

U

TectonicFramework

Texas Panhandle

BRAVO

DOME

AMARILLOAMARILLO UPLIFTWHITTENBURG TROUGH

BUSH DOME

PALO

OLDHAMNOSE

WHITTENBURG

TROUGH

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

DD

D

D

D

U

U

UU

U

U

U

UPLIFT

BRISCOESWISHERCASTROPARMER

DARMSTRONGRANDALLDEAF SMITH

GCARSONOLDHAMPOTTER

50

05

0

0

300

004005

001

100

100

100

05

5005

05

200

002

05

Fan Delta Systems

BIVINS RANCH FIELD

Regional Geologic Setting: ERT Field

J.W. PRITCHETT

AMARILLO

D

D

D

U

U

AMARILLOUPLIFT

WHITTENBURG TROUGH

BUSHDOME

POTTER COUNTY, TX

NORTHERN EDGE

PALO DURO BASIN

ERT FIELDLocation

ofERT Field

PotterCounty, TX

Field Size Assessment

• Geologic Research• Analyze field size of existing fields

Field size vs. discovery dateField size distribution

• Map existing data• Synthesize and draw conclusions

Analyze Field Size ofExisting Fields

• Calculate Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR) of each field/reservoir

• Identify reservoir lithology• Identify reservoir age• Plot field size vs. discovery date• Plot field size distribution curve

Northern Palo Duro BasinPre-Permian Oil Fields

REGULATORY FIELD (RESERVOIR) RESERVOIR TYPE DOFP EUR MBO

ALAMOSA (VIRGIL) GRANITE WASH 1957 52ALAMOSA EAST (GRANITE WASH) GRANITE WASH 1957 117ALAMOSA SE (MISSOURIAN) GRANITE WASH 1959 5MANARTE (GRANITE WASH) G/W & U PENN CO3 1969 4300PITCHER CREEK (PENNSYLVANIAN) GRANITE WASH 1969 8LAMBERT (GRANITE WASH) GRANITE WASH 1979 2710LAMBERT 2 (CISCO) U PENN CO3 1979 735LAMBERT 3 (GRANITE WASH) GRANITE WASH 1980 12LAMBERT 4 (PENNSYLVANIAN) U PENN SAND 1981 7SUNDANCE (GRANITE WASH) GRANITE WASH 1981 1515CEDAR CREEK (CANYON) U PENN CO3 1982 0HRYHOR (GRANITE WASH) GRANITE WASH 1982 2475BIVENS RANCH (GRANITE WASH) GRANITE WASH 1983 54BRANDI (GRANITE WASH) GRANITE WASH 1983 950LAMBERT TWELL (MISSOURIAN) GRANITE WASH 1983 55POND (GRANITE WASH) GRANITE WASH 1983 35SCHAEFFER (MISSOURIAN) G/W & U PENN CO3 1983 21P D WALKER (GRANITE WASH) G/W & U PENN CO3 1985 400E R T (GRANITE WASH) GRANITE WASH 1991 131E R T (PENNSYLVANIAN) U PENN SAND 1991 923

Pre-Permian Development History

Discovery Year

EURMBO

1

10

100

1000

10000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

ALAMOSA

ALAMOSA, E.

ALAMOSA, SE

MANARTE

PITCHER CK

LAMBERT

LAMBERT

LAMBERT 4

LAMBERT 3

HRYHOR

SUNDANCE

SCHAEFFERPOND

BIVINS RCH

BRANDI

PD WALKER

ERT (U PENN)

ERT (G/W)LAMBERT TWELL

Pre-CDP Seismic 2-D CDP Seismic 3-DSeismic

G/W

SandLime

Field EUR MBO

Num

ber o

f Fie

lds

Cum

ulat

ive%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500.%

50.%

100.%

ERT

Pre-PermianField Size Distribution

Most LikelyPenn Sand Field Size

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Field EUR MBO

Num

ber o

f Fie

lds

.%

50.%

100.%

Cum

ulat

ive%

Most LikelyOne-of-a-kind

Upside

ERT

Field Size Assessment

• Geologic Research• Analyze field size of existing fields

Field size vs. discovery dateField size distribution

• Map existing data• Synthesize and draw conclusions

Analyze Existing Geologic Data

• Build cross-sections• Map the producing reservoir• Look for penetrations, shows in the area• Identify geologic limits to field size• Candidate for Secondary Recovery?• Reconstruct development history

ERT Field As of 1994

A

A'

7780

7516 7500

5657

7600

7600

6600

6600

1-209

1-21-3

2-2

2-3

3-3

4-2

3-2

Penn Sand Completion

Penn Sand Porosity LogsDensity-Neutron (Lime Matrix)

Bivins Ranch 1-2 Bivins Ranch 1-3

Penn Sand Porosity LogsDensity-Neutron (Lime Matrix)

Bivins Ranch 2-2 Bivins Ranch 3-2

Penn Sand Porosity LogsDensity-Neutron (Lime Matrix)

Bivins Ranch 3-3

Field Size Assessment

• Geologic Research• Analyze field size of existing fields

Field size vs. discovery dateField size distribution

• Map existing data• Synthesize and draw conclusions

Conclusions

• Not likely to be 10 MMBBL field• At least 1 MMBBL field• Probably 1.5 to 2.5 MMBBL field• Exposure to 4 to 5 MMBBL due to basin

setting• Not good waterflood candidate• Offer Bid based on 2 PUD’s, 4 Prob’s• Result: $1.5MM premium > PDP

purchased the field

Part Two:

Now that we own it,

What IS This Thing??

And what do those logs tell us?

Break

Look at Logs&

Interpret Reservoir Architecture.

Would a waterfloodbe successful in this reservoir?

Penn Sand Porosity LogsAs Envisioned by Technical Staff

Bivins Ranch 1-2 Bivins Ranch 1-3

Penn Sand Porosity LogsAs Envisioned by Technical Staff

Bivins Ranch 2-2 Bivins Ranch 3-2

Penn Sand Porosity LogsAs Envisioned by Technical Staff

Bivins Ranch 3-3

Reservoir ModelCross-section A-A’

5-Layer 4-Layer 4-Layer 9-Layer 7-Layer

A A’

ERT Field After1995 Development Drilling

A

A'

1-209

1-21-3

2-2

2-3

3-3

4-2

9-2 3-2 5-3

5-26-27-2

4-3

8-3

10-3

Penn Sand Completion1995 Penn Sand CompletionPenn Sand Core

Bivins Ranch#4-3

Penn SandCO

RE

Bivins Ranch#4-3

Penn Sand

CORESandy Shale

Ripple-Laminated Turbidite

Shaly SandRipple-Laminated

Turbidite

Crinoidal Clay Shale

Core Photo

#4-3ShalySandstoneTurbidite

Gray Cemented Sd

Brown Oil-stained Sd

#4-3ShalySandstoneTurbidite

Gray Cemented Sd

Brown Oil-stained Sd

Bivins Ranch4-3

Penn Sand

CORESandy Shale

Ripple-Laminated Turbidite

Shaly SandRipple-Laminated

Turbidite

Crinoidal Clay Shale

Detail Core Photo

#4-3ShalySandstoneTurbidite Detail 5212.2’

1 in.

Bivins Ranch#4-3

Penn Sand

CORESandy Shale

Ripple-Laminated Turbidite

Shaly SandRipple-Laminated

Turbidite

Crinoidal Clay Shale

Detail Core Photo

#4-3Crinoidal Shale 5315’

Bivins Ranch#6-2

Penn SandCO

RE

Bivins Ranch#6-2

Penn Sand

CORE

Shaly SandRipple-Laminated

Turbidite

Sandy ShaleRipple-Laminated Turbidite

Core Photo

#6-2ShalySandstoneTurbidite

Note sharpcolor contrastcuts across

rock boundariesand in and out

of core

#6-2ShalySandstoneTurbidite

Yellow oil-stained&

Dark cemented sand

Bivins Ranch#6-2

Penn Sand

CORE

Shaly SandRipple-Laminated

Turbidite

Sandy ShaleRipple-Laminated Turbidite

Core Photo

#6-2Sandy ShaleTurbidite

Noteyellow oil-stained,

but tight, sand ripples

#4-3Cemented vs. Porous Sandstone

Note sharp gray-tancolor contrastcuts across

rock boundaries1 in.

#4-3Cemented vs. PorousSandstone

1 in.

12.4% Porosity

4.1% PorosityPorosity transition

occurs across3 sand grains

< 1mm

#4-3Porous Sandstone

0.125 mm

14.1% Porosity

#6-2Porous Sandstone

0.125 mm

14.1% Porosity

#4-3Cemented Sandstone

0.125 mm

2.8% Porosity

#6-2Core-FMI correlation

Green bar represents FMI

interval on next slide

#6-2Core - FMI Correlation

Cemented sand = Bright spot (high resistivity)

5587

5586

5588

Core Data Analysis

• Porosity-Permeability• Porosity Distribution• Porosity vs. Grain Density• Log Porosity vs. Core Porosity

Porosity vs Permeability

0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

100.00

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Core Porosity

Cor

e P

lug

Per

mea

bilit

y

Porosity Distribution

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 More

Porosity Range

Freq

uenc

y

.0%

25.0%

50.0%

75.0%

100.0%

Grain Density vs Core Porosity

2.67

2.68

2.69

2.70

2.71

2.72

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

Core Porosity

Gra

in D

ensi

ty g

/cc

Por <10%Por >10%

Cementation

Core-Log PorosityIntervals > 1.5 feet

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0

Core Porosity

Log

Den

sity

Por

osity

1:1

Core-Log Porosity Intervals <1.5 feet

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

Core Porosity

Log

Den

sity

Por

osity Log Overstates

Porosity

Log UnderstatesPorosity

Core-Log Porosity Plot

5545

5555

5565

5575

5585

5595

5605

0246810121416Porosity %

Dep

th (F

t)

Log DensityPorosity

Core Porosity

Core-Log Porosity Plot

5545

5555

5565

5575

5585

5595

5605

0246810121416Porosity %

Dep

th (F

t)

Log DensityPorosity

Core Porosity

ERT FieldPost 1995 Development

A

A'

1-209

1-21-3

2-2

2-3

3-3

4-2

9-2 3-2 5-3

5-26-27-2

4-3

8-3

10-3

11-3

12-3

13-3

2-211Pre-95 Penn Sand Completion1995 Penn Sand Completion

Penn Sand CorePost ‘95 Penn Sand Completion

Reservoir Model before CoresCross-section A-A’

5-Layer 4-Layer 4-Layer 9-Layer 7-Layer

A A’

Reservoir Model after CoresCross-section A-A’

A A’

Conclusions

• Tight streaks on logs do not necessarily represent laterally continuous shale or impermeable beds

• Narrow range of Porosity 12% to 16%• Very fine, yet homogeneous, pore system• Small pore throats of 5-10 microns• Reservoir is highly heterogeneous on

small scale, but is likely to be laterally and vertically continuous on inter-well scale

Conclusions

• Waterflood is feasible• Secondary recovery potential of 3 MMBO• Waterflood valued at $19MM pv10