WELLS RANCH SEC. 25: OBSERVATIONS FROM A UNDERGROUND IN-SITU - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

wells ranch sec 25 observations
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

WELLS RANCH SEC. 25: OBSERVATIONS FROM A UNDERGROUND IN-SITU - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

WELLS RANCH SEC. 25: OBSERVATIONS FROM A UNDERGROUND IN-SITU LABORATORY Dave Koskella Bob Parney David brock January 21, 2015 Slide 2 Forward-looking Statements and Other Matters This presentation contains certain forward - looking


slide-1
SLIDE 1

WELLS RANCH SEC. 25: OBSERVATIONS FROM A UNDERGROUND IN-SITU LABORATORY

January 21, 2015 Dave Koskella Bob Parney David brock

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Forward-looking Statements and Other Matters

Slide 2

This presentation contains certain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the federal securities law. Words such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “expects,” “intends,” “will,” “should,” “may,” and similar expressions may be used to identify forward-looking statements. Forward- looking statements are not statements of historical fact and reflect Noble Energy’s current views about future events. They include estimates of

  • il and natural gas reserves and resources, estimates of future production, assumptions regarding future oil and natural gas pricing, planned

drilling activity, future results of operations, projected cash flow and liquidity, business strategy and other plans and objectives for future

  • perations. No assurances can be given that the forward-looking statements contained in this presentation will occur as projected, and actual

results may differ materially from those projected. Forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, estimates and assumptions that involve a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. These risks include, without limitation, the volatility in commodity prices for crude oil and natural gas, the presence or recoverability of estimated reserves, the ability to replace reserves, environmental risks, drilling and operating risks, exploration and development risks, competition, government regulation or

  • ther actions, the ability of management to execute its plans to meet its goals and other risks inherent in Noble Energy’s business that are

discussed in its most recent Form 10-K and in other reports on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These reports are also available from Noble Energy’s offices or website, http://www.nobleenergyinc.com. Forward-looking statements are based on the estimates and

  • pinions of management at the time the statements are made. Noble Energy does not assume any obligation to update forward-looking

statements should circumstances or management's estimates or opinions change. This presentation also contains certain historical and forward-looking non-GAAP measures of financial performance that management believes are good tools for internal use and the investment community in evaluating Noble Energy’s overall financial performance. These non-GAAP measures are broadly used to value and compare companies in the crude oil and natural gas industry. Please also see Noble Energy’s website at http://www.nobleenergyinc.com under “Investors” for reconciliations of the differences between any historical non-GAAP measures used in this presentation and the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures. The GAAP measures most comparable to the forward-looking non-GAAP financial measures are not accessible on a forward-looking basis and reconciling information is not available without unreasonable effort. The Securities and Exchange Commission requires oil and gas companies, in their filings with the SEC, to disclose proved reserves that a company has demonstrated by actual production or conclusive formation tests to be economically and legally producible under existing economic and operating conditions. The SEC permits the optional disclosure of probable and possible reserves, however, we have not disclosed our probable and possible reserves in our filings with the SEC. We use certain terms in this presentation, such as “discovered unbooked resources”, “resources”, “risked resources”, “recoverable resources”, “unrisked resources”, “unrisked exploration prospectivity” and “estimated ultimate recovery” (EUR). These estimates are by their nature more speculative than estimates of proved, probable and possible reserves and accordingly are subject to substantially greater risk of being actually realized. The SEC guidelines strictly prohibit us from including these estimates in filings with the SEC. Investors are urged to consider closely the disclosures and risk factors in our most recent Form 10-K and in other reports on file with the SEC, available from Noble Energy’s offices or website, http://www.nobleenergyinc.com.

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Life Cycle of a Resource Play

3

Demonstrate Economic Productivity Minimize Cost Structure Optimize Well Spacing Demonstrate Productivity Economically Develop Reserves Current State Confirm Resource/OOIP

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Greater Wattenberg Area

4

WY CO NE

B Chalk

Smokey Hill Member

Niobrara Formation

Ft Hays Ls

Carlile

Pierre Shale

Sharon Springs

A Chalk C Chalk A Marl B Marl C Marl D Chalk Codell Ss

Tur. Coniacian Santonian Cam.

275’ - 350’ Niobrara Stratigraphy

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Fort Hayes Limestone C Chalk C Marl D Chalk Cemex Limestone Quarry, Lyons, CO

150’

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Niobrara Characteristics

6

OOIP 70 MMBOE/Section TVD 6,700’ H 300’ Phi 9% K 0.81 uD P* 0.49 psi/ft API 40 GOR 5,000 scf/bbl Sh min 0.75 psi/ft Sh max > 0.75 psi/ft

Frac Grad 0.85 psi/ft

Sv 1.06 psi/ft

Permeability (Micro Darcy) P10 1.48 Pmean 0.81 P90 0.32

slide-7
SLIDE 7

In-Situ Underground Laboratory Technologies Employed

7

  • Multi-Array Down Hole Micro

Seismic (Six Wells)

  • Ten Down Hole Pressure Gauges
  • Ten Down Hole Temperature

Gauges

  • Two wells with Fiber Optic:

 DTS Stimulation  DTS Production Logging  DAS

  • RA Proppant Tracers

 Three Wells Traced  Five Wells Logged

  • Liquid Tracers (Nine Wells):

 Water Based  Oil based

  • FMI’s (Nine Wells)
  • Core (Two Wells)
  • Core Laboratory Testing
  • DFITS (Nine Wells)
  • VSP
  • Geochemistry

 Core Extracts  Produced Oil

  • 3-D Seismic
slide-8
SLIDE 8

In-Situ Underground Laboratory

8

One Section (One Square Mile)

Vertical well Vertical well: microseismic monitor Vertical well: downhole pressure Pressure gauge in horizontal DTS well Horizontal well Horizontal DTS well P

P m P P P P P P

P P P P

m m m m

140’ 180’ 480’ 290’ 430’ 270’ 410’ 320’ 290’ 170’ 480’ 510’

1400’ microseismic listening radius

B Chalk B Marl C Chalk

slide-9
SLIDE 9

DTS Well Construction

9

Laser source and detector Fiber-optic cable in wellbore formation packers Fiber-optic cable

  • Approximately 4000’ lateral:

20 stages, ~200’ per stage

  • Open-hole, packer-isolation
  • Ball-drop w/ sliding-sleeves
  • Fiber optic cable fixed to
  • utside of casing
  • Electric Pressure gauges at

toe and heel

Hybrid Design (Single Stage):

  • SLW & XL Pad at 50 bpm
  • 28 lb HPG at 50 bpm ramping to 4 ppg
  • 140,000 gallons
  • 200,000 lbs proppant
slide-10
SLIDE 10

DTS During Completion

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

DTS During Completion: Fluid Movement and Warmback

11

2 3 4

Overall, both wells: Heelward bias: 37% of stages Toeward bias: 13% of stages No bias: 50% of stages

slide-12
SLIDE 12

DTS During Completion: Packer Leak/Bypass

12

7 8 9 6

Both Wells, By Stage: Toe Leak/Bypass: 17 of 38 stages (45%) Heel Leak/Bypass: 4 of 38 stages (11%) By Packer: 19 of 37 packers (51%)

slide-13
SLIDE 13

DTS During Completion: Multiple Packer Leaks/Bypass

13

14 15 16 13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

DTS During Completion: Operations Diagnostic Example

14

Harmonic Debris

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Fracture Statistics from DTS

15

Two wells, 38 stages total Fractures: 135 (avg 3.5 fracs/stage)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 5 10 15 20 25 30 Cumulative Frequency Frequency (count)

Inter-Fracture Spacing (ft)

Fracture Spacing Histogram Feature # stages (of 38) % of stages “Dominant” Frac (one frac >> others) 18 47% “Significant” Frac (long lasting DTS warmback) 12 32% Frac at toe packer 6 16% Frac at heel packer 15 39% Fluid bias: toe 5 13% Fluid bias: heel 14 37% Packer Leak/Bypass: toe 17 45% Packer Leak/Bypass: heel 4 11% Leak/Bypass by Packer: 19 of 37 packers = 51%

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Proppant Tracer Inter-Well Transport

16

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 RA Tracer Lateral Coverage (%) Angle from Horizontal (°)

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Down Hole Pressure Monitoring in Vertical Wells During Stimulation (178 Frac Stages)

17

Vertical well monitoring distances: 140-510’

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Pressure Response During Completion of One Well

18

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 6:00 12:00 BHP (psi) 3000 6000 9000 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 6:00 12:00 Treating P Time 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 6:00 12:00 BHP (psi)

Prock face ~6200 Pfrac ext ~5400 Shmin ~5000 Pres ~3300

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Drainage Network Geometry

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Lognormal Elliptical Analysis of Micro-Seismic Events

20

End on view of well bore

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Lognormal Elliptical Analysis

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Microseismic Overview

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Microseismic & Pressure Correlation?

23

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 1/29/2012 9:36:00 1/29/2012 14:24:00 Treating Pressure (psi) BHP (psi) Time 67-01HN HEEL 25-06DH 25-08DH 66-01HN Treating Pressure

  • Microseismic events along path from frac stage #2 toward and around

vertical monitoring well

  • Pressure responses observed in nearby observation wells not correlated

with microseismic events

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Inter Well Behavior: Intergrating Pressure & Microseismic?

24

  • Micro seismic events along path from frac well toward

and around vertical monitoring well

  • No pressure response observed in nearby vertical well
slide-25
SLIDE 25

DTS Analysis for Production Logging: A History-Match Process

25

Measured Depth Temperature

Formation Temperature DTS (Well) Temperature

inflow

inflow inflow

  • DTS: Early-Time

(Formation)

  • DTS: Analysis

Timepoint

  • Surface Flow Rates

PLATO

  • Energy, momentum, mass

balances

  • Iterates on flow profile,

reservoir pressure

  • Seeks best fit on

temperature

  • Reservoir Properties
  • Fluid Properties

Production Log

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Oil Production (4 months into production)

26

  • By stage oil production
  • (Average stage would have 5% flow)
  • Best stage: 6.9%
  • Poorest stage: 1.4%
  • Production profiles do not correlate

to FMI artifacts

  • Pmean oil rate 32% better in Toe Stages

Heel Stages

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Oil Production through Producing Life

27

  • By-stage oil production results

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Percent of Well Total Stage Oil, Prod+11mo Oil, Prod+8mo Oil, Prod+4mo

(toe) (heel)

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Summary

28

Stage Perspective:

  • Fracture Initiation: Average 3.5 fractures per 200 foot stage
  • “Stress Shadowing”? Heelward fluid bias vs. toeward bias (37% vs.

13%) Well Perspective:

  • More instances of packer leaks/bypass in the heelward half of wells

(78% heel stages vs. 30% toe stages)

  • DTS production logging shows all stages producing with no large

redistributions over time. Toeward stages 32% more productive than heelward stages.

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Summary (cont.)

29

Inter-Well Perspective:

  • RA Proppant Tracer:

– Horizontally not observed, 0-15 degrees, 0% coverage – Diagonally observed, 15-50 degrees, 8% coverage – Vertically observed, 90 degrees, 20% coverage

  • Pressure responses << Shmin observed up to 1,520’
  • Pressure responses > Shmin rarely seen at distances of 140-510 feet,

7 events out of 178 frac stages

  • Dynamic inter-well hydraulic connectivity, shrinking drainage radius
  • Microseismic responses seen 1,400’ away
  • Inferred drainage ellipse orientation:

– Microsiesmic (horizontal) vs. other data sets (vertical)?

  • Pressure and microseismic event correlation is not obvious
  • No consistent temperature response seen in offset DTS wells
  • Much still to learn….
slide-30
SLIDE 30

Acknowledgements

30

Noble Energy, Inc. Pinnacle Interpretive Software Products Barree & Associates Silixia