vonrhee2
DESCRIPTION
Core studyTRANSCRIPT
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