Post on 02-Dec-2021
Salt Creek FieldSalt Creek Field C02 Flood PerformanceC02 Flood Performance
EORI –
Wyoming CO2 ConferenceJune 2009
James PageReservoir Engineer
EORI –
Wyoming CO2 ConferenceJune 2009
James PageReservoir Engineer
This presentation contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Anadarko believes that its expectations are based on reasonable assumptions. No assurance, however, can be given that its goals will be achieved. A number of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from the projections, anticipated results or other expectations expressed in this release. While Anadarko makes these forward-looking statements in good faith, neither Anadarko nor its management can guarantee that the anticipated future results will be achieved. Anadarko discloses proved reserves that comply with the SEC's definitions. Additionally, Anadarko may disclose estimated recoverable reserves, which the SEC guidelines do not allow us to include in filings with the SEC. See Additional Factors Affecting Business in the Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) included in the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K.
OutlineOutline
History Brief Overview of Salt Creek FieldCurrent CO2 DevelopmentQuestions
History Brief Overview of Salt Creek FieldCurrent CO2 DevelopmentQuestions
Anadarko’s Wyoming EOR Assets
Salt Creek
Monell
Sussex
16”
8”
Land GrantGas FieldsOil FieldsThird Party CO2
PipelineAPC CO2
Pipeline
FieldsMonell
Salt Creek
Pipelines33 mile, 8”
125 mile, 16”
CO2
SupplyXOM Shute Creek
Salt Creek HistorySalt Creek History
1908 – Dutch Company Strikes Oil at Salt Creek (WC1)
1917
– WC2 Discovered
1925 – Salt Creek Field Electrified
1939
– Salt Creek Light Oil Unit Formed
1962 –
1st
full Scale Waterflood
Development
2003
– CO2 Pilot Success
2004 –
1st CO2 Injection & Oil sales
(Phase 1)
SALT CREEKSOUTH UNIT
SALT CREEKLIGHT OIL UNIT
Phase 1 & 2
Phase3 & 4
Phase 5
Phase 6
Phase 7
FEET
0 5,013
OverviewOverview
Salt Creek FieldAsymmetrical Anticline1680 MMBO OOIPCum Production 683 MMBO 11 productive intervals & over 4000 wells
Anadarko acquired 2002
Wall Creek 2 (Primary Horizon)1099 MMBO OOIPCum Production 465 MMBOCompleted 6 of 16 development phases
Currently developing Phase 7
Salt Creek FieldAsymmetrical Anticline1680 MMBO OOIPCum Production 683 MMBO 11 productive intervals & over 4000 wellsAnadarko acquired 2002
Wall Creek 2 (Primary Horizon)1099 MMBO OOIPCum Production 465 MMBOCompleted 6 of 16 development phasesCurrently developing Phase 7
Future Development
Geologic OverviewGeologic Overview
WC2 Depth: 1500-3000’Thickness: 85’
Net
Average Φ: 19%Average K: 52 mdMarine Shoreface
WC2 Depth: 1500-3000’Thickness: 85’
Net
Average Φ: 19%Average K: 52 mdMarine Shoreface
OOIP: 328 MMBOCUML 121 MMBO
OOIP: 1099 MMBOCUML 465 MMBO
OutlineOutline
History Brief Overview of Salt Creek FieldCurrent CO2 DevelopmentQuestions
History History Brief Overview of Salt Creek FieldBrief Overview of Salt Creek FieldCurrent CO2 DevelopmentQuestions
WC2 COWC2 CO22
FloodFloodOil: 39o API MMP: 1,275 psi @ 105o
Miscible areas on flanksFlood Type: (WAG) Water Alternating Gas Producers: Flowing wells (against surface backpressure of 200 – 400 psi)
Oil: 39o API MMP: 1,275 psi @ 105o
Miscible areas on flanksFlood Type: (WAG) Water Alternating GasProducers: Flowing wells (against surface backpressure of 200 – 400 psi)
1718
19 20
2930
31 32
7 810 11 12
131415
22 23 24
252627
34 35 36
SALT CREEKLIGHT OIL UNIT
Phase 1 & 2
Phase3 & 4
Phase 5
Phase 6
Midwest
FEET
0 5,634
254 Patterns660 Active Wells
~8,000 BOPD from CO2
Salt Creek CO2 Flood Performance
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Jan-0
4Apr
-04Ju
l-04
Oct-04
Jan-05
Apr-05
Jul-0
5Oct-
05Ja
n-06Apr-
06Ju
l-06
Oct-06
Jan-0
7Apr-0
7Ju
l-07
Oct-07
Jan-08
Apr-08
Jul-0
8Oct-
08Jan
-09Apr
-09
Gro
ss O
il Pr
oduc
tion
(BO
PD)
-
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
360
Tota
l CO
2 In
ject
ion
(MM
CFD
)
Oil Production BOPDCO2 Injection MMCFD
+ 8 MMBOE from Salt Creek CO2 flood+ 8 MMBOE from Salt Creek CO2 flood
Ph1-2 Commissioned
Ph3-4 Commissioned
Ph5 Commissioned
Ph6 Commissioned
Phase 1-2 Performing as ExpectedPhase 1-2 Performing as Expected
Phase 1-2 Response vs 20 and 40 Acre Model
Pore Volume Solvent Injected as % of Pore Volume
% O
OIP
Phase 1-2 Actual Performance
20 Acre Model
40 Acre Model
Reservoir Challenges
Density of CO2 in “Typical” CO2 Operating Environment is Much Closer to Oil and Water Density than in the Shallow Environment Low CO2 Density and Reduced Flood Front Velocity Promotes Gravity Override
Density of CO2 in “Typical” CO2 Operating Environment is Much Closer to Oil and Water Density than in the Shallow EnvironmentLow CO2 Density and Reduced Flood Front Velocity Promotes Gravity Override
Operating Pressure
Temperature CO2 Viscosity CO2 Density
1300 psia 105 deg F 0.031 cp 29.3 lb/cu ft
3200 psia 140 deg F 0.065 cp 46.8 lb/cu ft
High Gas Saturation
High Liquid Saturation
Reservoir Challenges
Volumetric Sweep Reduction is Magnified with Lower Viscosity/Higher Mobility Ratio WAG’s, Pattern Size
Volumetric Sweep Reduction is Magnified with Lower Viscosity/Higher Mobility RatioWAG’s, Pattern Size
Breakthrough
Schematic Depiction Stream Tubes1/4 5-Spot Symmetry Element
P
IInjector Producer
Operating Pressure
Temperature CO2 Viscosity CO2 Density
1300 psia 105 deg F 0.031 cp 29.3 lb/cu ft3200 psia 140 deg F 0.065 cp 46.8 lb/cu ft
Reservoir Management ToolsReservoir Management Tools
• Diligent Surveillance Necessary for Optimal Recovery• BHP Surveys• Injection Withdrawal Ratio (IWR) • Injection Processing Rate (PVI)• CO2
Utilization • Step Rate Tests• Injection Profiles• Tracer Surveys• Produced Fluid Temperature Monitoring• Automated well tests, and human QC (for proper
allocation where necessary to known data points)
• WAG Management
• Diligent Surveillance Necessary for Optimal Recovery• BHP Surveys• Injection Withdrawal Ratio (IWR) • Injection Processing Rate (PVI)• CO2
Utilization • Step Rate Tests• Injection Profiles• Tracer Surveys• Produced Fluid Temperature Monitoring• Automated well tests, and human QC (for proper
allocation where necessary to known data points)• WAG Management
Reservoir Management ToolsReservoir Management Tools
BHP~ Stay above miscibilityQuarterly BHP surveys
BHP~ Stay above miscibilityQuarterly BHP surveys
Datum BHP- Jan07
Datum BHP- Mar07
Datum BHP- Jun07
Datum BHP- Sep07
Datum BHP- Jan08
Datum BHP- Mar08
Datum BHP- Jun08
Datum BHP- Sept08
Datum BHP- Jan09
Reservoir Management ToolsReservoir Management Tools
BHP SurveysInjection Withdrawal Ratio (IWR) BHP SurveysInjection Withdrawal Ratio (IWR)
IWR by Phase
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Jan-04
Apr-04
Jul-0
4Oct-
04Ja
n-05Apr-0
5Ju
l-05
Oct-05
Jan-06
Apr-06
Jul-0
6Oct-
06Ja
n-07
Apr-07
Jul-07
Oct-07
Jan-0
8Apr-0
8Jul-0
8Oct-0
8Jan
-09Apr-0
9Jul-
09Oct-0
9
IWR
(Res
bbl
/ R
es b
bl)
Ph 1_2Ph 3_4
Ph 5
Data is calculated from monthly volumes through March 2009 and daily volu mes used to ca lculate April 2009's vo lume.
Reservoir Management ToolsReservoir Management Tools
BHP SurveysInjection Withdrawal Ratio (IWR) Injection Processing Rate (PVI)
BHP SurveysInjection Withdrawal Ratio (IWR) Injection Processing Rate (PVI)
Monthly Fluid Processing Rate by Phase
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
Jan-04
Apr-04
Jul-0
4Oct-
04Ja
n-05Apr-0
5Ju
l-05
Oct-05
Jan-06
Apr-06
Jul-0
6Oct-
06Jan
-07Apr-0
7Ju
l-07
Oct-07
Jan-08
Apr-08
Jul-08
Oct-08
Jan-09
Apr-09
Jul-09
Oct-09
PVI (
CO
2 +
Wat
er In
ject
ion
as %
of P
V)
Ph 1_2
Ph 3_4
Ph 5
Data is calculated from monthly volumes through March 2009 and daily volu mes used to ca lculate April 2009's vo lume.
Reservoir Management ToolsReservoir Management Tools
BHP SurveysInjection Withdrawal Ratio (IWR) Injection Processing Rate (PVI)CO2
Utilization
BHP SurveysInjection Withdrawal Ratio (IWR) Injection Processing Rate (PVI)CO2
Utilization
Gross CO2 Utilization by Phase
-
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time
Gro
ss C
O2
Utili
zatio
n (m
cf/b
bl)
P 1_2
P 3_4
P 5
Data is calculated from monthly volumes through March 2009 and daily volumes used to calculate April 2009's vo lume.
8 to W
8 to CO28 to W
Temperature Temperature response at producer response at producer
showing preferred showing preferred fluid pathsfluid paths
Further UnderstandingFurther Understanding
3D seismic acquired in 20054D seismic monitoring in Phase 5, baseline and 4 incremental time sequence snapshots collected WC2 core in Phase 5
Standard P&P
XRD/SEM: mineralogy & clay content
Thin sections: grain type/size. Cement, pore space, sorting…
Advanced SCAL: relative perms, saturations, capillary pressure, pore size distribution
Refining Geologic Model (Petrel)Reservoir Simulation (Nexus)
3D seismic acquired in 20054D seismic monitoring in Phase 5, baseline and 4 incremental time sequence snapshots collected WC2 core in Phase 5
Standard P&P
XRD/SEM: mineralogy & clay content
Thin sections: grain type/size. Cement, pore space, sorting…
Advanced SCAL: relative perms, saturations, capillary pressure, pore size distribution
Refining Geologic Model (Petrel)Reservoir Simulation (Nexus)