october - canadian society of petroleum geologists files/pdfs... · x quick guide to carbonate well...

RESERVOIR ISSUE 9 • OCTOBER 2007 3

OCTOBER 2007 – VOLUME 34, ISSUE 9

ARTICLES

2007 CSPG Honorary Address ........................................................................... 23

Mixed Golf Tournament Report .......................................................................... 28

Reservoir Engineering for Geologists Part 1 – Overview ............................. 30

by Ray Mireault and Lisa Dean

Resource Assessment and GIS ............................................................................. 34

by Ben McKenzie

CSPG Volunteer Profi le: Talking to Lisa Griffi th .............................................. 38

by Heather Tyminski

DEPARTMENTS

Executive Comment .................................................................................................. 5

Technical Luncheons .................................................................................................. 9

Division Talks ........................................................................................................... 16

Jack Porter – Vignettes of Canadian Petroleum Geology ............................. 24

Calendar of Events .................................................................................................. 25

Rock Shop ................................................................................................................. 26

FRONT COVERCanadian Shield, Somerset Island, Nunavut. Broad, open fold in layered paragneisses, cut by a brown-weathering diabase dyke, northwest of Cresswell Bay. Photo by Thomas Frisch.

CSPG OFFICE#600, 640 - 8th Avenue SWCalgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 1G7Tel: 403-264-5610 Fax: 403-264-5898Web: www.cspg.orgOffi ce hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30am to 4:00pm

Business Manager: Tim Howard Email: [email protected] Services: Kristina Keith Email: [email protected] Communications & Public Affairs: Heather Tyminski Email: [email protected] Relations: Kim MacLean Email: [email protected] Relations Assistant: Dayna Rhoads Email: [email protected] Conventions & Conferences: Shauna Carson Email: [email protected] & Conferences Assistant: Tanya Santry Email: [email protected]: Kim Cowell Email: [email protected]

EDITORS/AUTHORSPlease submit RESERVOIR articles to the CSPG offi ce. Submission deadline is the 23rd day of the month, two months prior to issue date. (e.g., January 23 for the March issue).

To publish an article, the CSPG requires digital copies of the document. Text should be in Microsoft Word format and illustrations should be in TIFF format at 300 dpi., at fi nal size For additional information on manuscript preparation, refer to the Guidelines for Authors published in the CSPG Bulletin or contact the editor.

Technical EditorBen McKenzieTarheel ExplorationTel: 403-277-4496, Email: [email protected]

Coordinating EditorHeather TyminskiComunications and Public Affaris, CSPGTel: 403-513-1227, Email: [email protected]

ADVERTISINGKim MacLeanCorporate Relations, CSPGTel: 403-513-1229, Email: [email protected]

Advertising inquiries should be directed to Kim MacLean. The deadline to reserve advertising space is the 23rd day of the month, two months prior to issue date. All advertising artwork should be sent directly to Kim MacLean.

The RESERVOIR is published 11 times per year by the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists. This includes a combined issue for the months of July/August.

Advertisements, as well as inserts, mailed with the publication are paid advertisements. No endorsement or sponsorship by the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists is implied.

The contents of this publication may not be reproduced either in part or in full without the consent of the publisher.

Design & Layout by Sundog Printing. Printed in Canada by Sundog Printing.

Additional copies of the RESERVOIR are available at the CSPG offi ce for $3.00.

Mark your Calendars Now!

5th Annual AAPG

WINTER EDUCATION CONFERENCE

Houston, TX February 11-15, 2008

Courses will include:

Thinking on Your Feet—Making Effective Business Presentations Creativity Petroleum Exploration Secrets of Career Success as a Professional Petroleum Geologist Risk, Uncertainty and Decision-Making in Unconventional Resource Plays Introduction to Coalbed Methane Assessment of Unconventional Shale Resources Using Geochemistry Geologic Interpretation of Seismic Data Seismic Amplitude Interpretation—Lithology and Pore Fluid Estimation Seismic Geomorphology & Seismic Stratigraphy Seismic Stratigraphy & Seismic Geomorphology Basic Openhole Log Interpretation Formation Evaluation of Thinly-Bedded Reservoirs Quick Guide to Carbonate Well Log Analysis

Tuition for the week is only $1395 for AAPG Members, $1495 for non-members*

or $350/day for individual courses

*(price increases to $1495/$1595 after 1/14/08)

REGISTRATION AND INFORMATION: Toll-free (U.S. and Canada) 888-338-3387, or 918-560-2650

Fax: 918-560-2678; e-mail: [email protected] Download a registration form at http://www.aapg.org/education/wec.cfm

HOSTED BY THE NORRIS CONFERENCE CENTER 9999 RICHMOND AVE., SUITE 102

HOUSTON, TX 77042 713-780-9300; FAX: 713-780-9490

SPECIAL AAPG GROUP RATES AT NEARBY HOTELS!


CSPG’s Relationship with APEGGA

EXECUTIVE COMMENTA message from the CSPG President, Colin Yeo, P.Geol.

The fourth strategic initiative that I have undertaken during my presidential year is renewed collaborative relationships with our sister societies and APEGGA. My view is that the boundaries that have historically defined our day-to-day work are becoming blurred and we now need to more fully appreciate the work our fellow practitioners perform and how we might better integrate with them to provide superior results.

I am pleased to report that all three societies (CSPG, CSEG, and CWLS) have agreed to convene joint annual conventions in the future. This collaboration will allow our members access to technical presentations that are not normally offered by the CSPG, thus broadening their awareness and knowledge of exploration and development technologies.

I believe we are rapidly moving from a model of discrete geology, geophysics, and petrophysics disciplines to a holistic geoscience discipline. The three technical societies can best serve their members in facilitating this transition through joint technical initiatives. Aligning with the CSEG and CWLS is straightforward, as we all have the common mission of advancing the science of petroleum exploration and development, as well as professionally developing our members through continuing education.

OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH APEGGAOur relationship with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) is very different but still has important synergies. One area where our society and APEGGA are linked is in the area of continuing education. By definition, one of the attributes of a profession is a commitment by its members to continuing education in its field of endeavour. The public has an expectation that professionals will maintain their knowledge, skills,

and competence on an ongoing basis to better serve the public. APEGGA fully recognizes the value of the CSPG (and CSEG) in providing programs, such as technical publications, short courses, field trips, technical luncheon meetings, annual conventions, etc., that continually enhance and update professional members. APEGGA participates in these programs through its sponsorship and we welcome and greatly appreciate this support. One of our society’s two key mandates is to develop our members technically and since this is a key expectation of a Professional Member, there is a very close alignment on this point with the two organizations.

Many CSPG members are registered with APEGGA. In fact, there are more geologists registered with APEGGA than there are active Alberta CSPG members. However, there is still a belief within APEGGA that too few geologists are APEGGA members. APEGGA is looking to the CSPG to assist in ensuring that all practicing geologists are registered.

The CSPG is a technical society whose mission is to advance the science of petroleum geology and professionally develope its members through continuing education. The licensing and monitoring of geologists and their practices is outside the society’s mandate and scope of authority. The CSPG members’ personal information is protected by Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) which became law on January 1, 2004. Thus the CSPG cannot identify any society members who may be practicing geology without being registered with APEGGA. To be a member of the CSPG, you only need to have a university degree in geology. Also, there is no requirement that you have to be practicing to be a CSPG member. When it comes to licensure, monitoring, enforcement, and discipline, APEGGA stands alone.

CSPG EXECUTIVE

PRESIDENTColin Yeo • EnCana [email protected] Tel: (403) 645-7724

VICE PRESIDENTLisa Griffi th • Griffi th Geoconsultinglgriffi th@griffi thgeoconsulting.com Tel: (403) 669-7494

PAST PRESIDENT Jim Reimer • Result Energy [email protected] Tel: (403) 539-5207

FINANCE DIRECTORPeter Harrington • Northrock Resources [email protected] Tel: (403) 234-7622

ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTORJames Donnelly • ConocoPhillips [email protected] Tel: (403) 260-8000

PROGRAM DIRECTORNadya Sandy • Imperial Oil Resources [email protected] Tel: (403) 237-3925

ASSISTANT PROGRAM DIRECTORRandy Rice • Suncor Energy [email protected] Tel: (403) 205-6723

SERVICE DIRECTORDave Newman • McDaniel & Associates Consultants [email protected] Tel: (403) 218-1392

ASSISTANT SERVICE DIRECTORJen Vezina • Devon Canada Corporation [email protected] Tel: (403) 232-5079

OUTREACH DIRECTORDavid Middleton • Petro-Canada Oil & [email protected] Tel: (403) 296-4604

ASSISTANT OUTREACH DIRECTORGreg Lynch • Shell Canada [email protected] Tel: (403) 691-2052

COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTORAshton Embry • GSC - [email protected] Tel: (403) 292-7125

CORPORATE RELATIONS DIRECTORMonty Ravlich • Sanjel [email protected] Tel: (403) 560-1701 (Continued on page 7...)

For more information visit:energy.ihs.com/petra

©2007 IH

S Inc. A

ll rights reserved.

PETRA® connects tothe industry’s mostpopular data sourcePETRAprovides geoscientists and engineers the analysis tools needed for today’s exploration and exploitation challenges

IHS Enerdeq Desktop and IHS AccuMap directly export welland production data into PETRA projects

For the first time raster logs from IHS AccuLogs are availablein PETRA for use with digital log data

Download a trial version at ihs.com/energy/petra

Spend more timemaking decisionsand less timemanaging data.


CORPORATE MEMBERS

ABU DHABI OIL CO., LTD. (JAPAN)

APACHE CANADA LTD.

BAKER ATLAS

BG CANADA EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC.

BP CANADA ENERGY COMPANY

CANADIAN FOREST OIL LTD.

CANETIC RESOURCES TRUST

CONOCOPHILLIPS CANADA

CORE LABORATORIES CANADA LTD.

DEVON CANADA CORPORATION

DOMINION EXPLORATION CANADA LTD.

DUVERNAY OIL CORP.

ENERPLUS RESOURCES FUND

geoLOGIC systems ltd.

GRIZZLY RESOURCES LTD.

HUNT OIL COMPANY OF CANADA, INC.

HUSKY ENERGY INC.

IHS

IMPERIAL OIL RESOURCES LIMITED

LARIO OIL & GAS COMPANY

MJ SYSTEMS

MURPHY OIL COMPANY LTD.

NEXEN INC.

NORTHROCK RESOURCES LTD.

PENN WEST PETROLEUM LTD.

PETRO-CANADA OIL AND GAS

PETROCRAFT PRODUCTS LTD.

PRIMEWEST ENERGY TRUST

PROVIDENT ENERGY LTD.

RPS ENERGY CANADA LTD.

SHELL CANADA LIMITED

SPROULE

SUNCOR ENERGY INC.

TALISMAN ENERGY INC.

TOTAL E&P CANADA LIMITED

WEATHERFORD CANADA PARTNERSHIP

AS OF AUGUST 24, 2007

APPEGA LICENSURE By virtue of the Canadian Constitution, the provinces have been given authority for property and civil rights and have control over professions and occupations. If the provincial legislature feels it is in the public’s best interest, then that control is delegated to the profession in the form of self-governance. Whether or not the group believes it is a profession is not a concern of the legislature. Geologists cannot say they are not a profession and thus do not need to be regulated, because it is the province that decides if they need to be regulated.

When the Province of Alberta is creating a professions act for a group, it carefully examines all associated groups to ensure that there is no fragmentation or duplication of services by separate bodies. When the legislature studied the practical applications of science and technology to resource development, they classed engineers, geologists, and geophysicists together (and now engineering, geological, and geophysical technologists through the One Act, Two Associations Model), as there are collectively well defined boundaries to scope of practice. The Province of Alberta has decreed since 1955 that only members of APEGGA can apply the practice of geology within the province. Alberta requires that APEGGA, through enforcement, ensure that only its members are able to practice. In the province’s view, APEGGA does not exist to serve its members, but rather exists to protect the public interest.

Geologists need to recognize that if they intend to practice geology in Alberta, they must be registered with APEGGA. That is the law in the Province of Alberta and our society upholds that law. The CSPG expects that its practicing members are ethical and law-abiding and will be registered with APEGGA.

THE DEBATEWe understand that some of our members have decided not to be licensed by APEGGA. One of the reasons given is that there is no value for dues paid to the association. As I mentioned earlier, APEGGA does not exist to serve its members; it exists to serve the public interest, which includes public safety and protecting the public from unqualif ied, incompetent, and unscrupulous individuals. Geologists are often involved in prospects that involve large financial investments provided by

those with little or no technical knowledge of the opportunity. APEGGA has the responsibility to review the qualifications of applicants and assess their experience to ensure that practitioners are competent to serve the public interest, which in this case are those investors, either individual or corporate, who are risking their capital in these projects. APEGGA does not have a responsibility to provide services or support to its members, other than helping them serve the public better.

Some of our members are not licensed by APEGGA because they have not met the qualifications required by the association. While engineers have a national accreditation board that ensures they meet APEGGA’s qualification requirements upon graduation, geologists who graduate with a degree, even an advanced degree, may not have the educational background that satisfies those educational requirements to practice geology in Alberta.

In APEGGA’s view, in order to meet its obligation to the public, it is necessary to set high academic standards. These standards are set and reviewed by qualified professional members who sit on the Board of Examiners and participate in matters of policy. Self-governing professions are accountable to the public for appraising candidates’ qualifications and setting the standards for admission to the profession rather than leaving that to other institutions that are not accountable to the Province of Alberta. The Board of Examiners are at liberty to admit individuals who lack certain qualifications but have significant industry experience, but it is done at their discretion and only with the public interest in mind.

I encourage university professors and department heads to make sure their students know the academic requirements APEGGA demands so that their graduates will meet or exceed the licensing requirements. These academic requirements are readily available from APEGGA.

Some of our members would argue that registration with APEGGA does not guarantee that the highest quality work will be performed. They often use anecdotal evidence of poor practice by a Professional Member and conclude that APEGGA membership is not correlative to quality. However, the association, through the Board of Examiners, only admits those individuals that are educationally qualified. Experience and references from professional members

(...Continued from page 5)

(Continued on page 20...)

CSPG TrustGeoscientists for our future


HUGH REID’SFALL

COURSES

PRACTICAL DST CHARTINTERPRETATION(Thorough Basic Course)

Oct. 15-19, 2007

In-house courses available.For course outline visit:

www.hughwreid.com

262-1261

HYDRODYNAMICSSEMINAR

(Oil & Gas Finding Aspects)

Oct. 1-5, 2007

TECHNICAL LUNCHEONS OCTOBER LUNCHEON sponsored by

Late Paleozoic sea-level fluctuations: a critical look at glacioeustasy in an icehouse worldSPEAKERMichael C. RygelState University of New YorkCollege at Potsdam

11:30 amTuesday, October 9, 2007Telus Convention Centre Calgary, Alberta

Please note: The cut-off date for ticket sales is 1:00 pm, Thursday, October 4, 2007.Ticket Price: $34.00 + GST

Due to the recent popularity of talks, we strongly suggest purchasing tickets early, as we cannot guarantee seats will be available on the cut-off date.

A comprehensive literature review shows that the magnitude of glacioeustatic fl uctuations varied systematically throughout the Carboniferous and Permian. Plotting previously published, reliable estimates of eustatic change versus time shows that at least seven distinct subdivisions can be recognized. Changes in the magnitude of eustatic fl uctuations match well with new information about the spatial and temporal distribution of glacial ice in Gondwana.

Although any attempt to quantify the magnitude of eustatic changes during the Paleozoic is necessarily based on proxies and assumptions, this study represents the fi rst comprehensive overview of the literature and is a necessary fi rst step in comparing eustasy and sequence stratigraphy in “icehouse” and “greenhouse” worlds.

Erosional relief and facies juxtapositions in paleoequatorial successions record eustatic fl uctuations of 20-25 m, and possibly up to 60 m, took place throughout the early Mississippian (Tournaisian) – a

widely recognized period of Gondwanan glaciation. The sedimentological record from middle Mississippian (Chadian to mid-Brigantian) shallow marine successions indicates that eustatic fl uctuations never exceeded 30 m, a decrease in maximum value that corresponds to the absence of coeval glacial deposits in Gondwana. Late Mississippian (mid-Brigantian) to earliest Pennsylvanian (Langsettian) strata are commonly cyclic and record eustatic fl uctuations of 50-100 m, an architecture caused by the return of glacial conditions to the polar regions.

Middle Pennsylvanian (Duckmantian to mid-Asturian) glacial deposits are present in eastern Australia, but paleovalley depths in coeval strata suggest that eustatic fl uctuations did not exceed 30 m. Glacioeustatic fl uctuations of 60-120 m have been widely reported from Late Pennsylvanian (mid-Asturian) to earliest Permian (mid-Sakmarian) paleoequatorial regions, an increase that corresponds to the growth of large ice sheets in Gondwana. In eastern Australia, depth of fl uvial incision and facies juxtapositions in early to middle Permian (mid-Sakmarian to Wordian) successions indicates that eustatic fl uctuations decreased to a maximum of 40-70 m as ice volumes decreased. Erosional relief in paleoequatorial carbonates suggests that eustatic changes of 20-30 m occurred during the fi nal collapse of the Late Paleozoic ice age during the middle Permian (Capitanian).

This review confirms that far-field cyclic successions recorded changing glacial conditions in Gondwana, that Carboniferous-Permian glacioeustasy was extremely dynamic, that generalizations from small temporal intervals are probably not representative of the Late Paleozoic ice age as a whole, and that previous sea-level and coastal onlap curves for this interval might not be accurate. Furthermore, this study emphasizes the differences between eustasy in icehouse and greenhouse worlds, an important control on stratigraphic architecture and variable in stratigraphic modeling.

BIOGRAPHYMichael Rygel is an Assistant Professor at the State University of New York, College at Potsdam. He graduated with a Bachelor of Science from the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown in 2000 and with a Ph.D. from Dalhousie University in 2005. His graduate

work focused on the sedimentology and stratigraphy of Carboniferous strata in the Cumberland Basin of Nova Scotia. As a result of his graduate work, Dr. Rygel received the 2006 CSPG Ph.D. Thesis Award, Dalhousie’s Doctoral Thesis Award for the best Ph.D. in the Sciences and Engineering (2006), the A.L. Medlin Award from the Coal Geology Division of GSA (2004), and was a Killam Pre-Doctoral Scholar. Following his graduate work, Dr. Rygel worked as a Post-Doctoral Research Associate at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln on a project examining the sedimentological record of the Late Paleozoic ice age in eastern Australia. Dr. Rygel recently accepted a tenure-track position at SUNY Potsdam where he is continuing his research on Paleozoic depositional systems and teaching Sedimentary Geology, Historical Geology, and numerous introductory courses.


Where ExceptionalData and Images Originate

Rely on CGGVeritas to maximize your exploration accuracy.We deliver leading seismic imaging through a talented team of experts,

advanced technology and immense cluster capacity.When quality and service are top priorities, choose CGGVeritas.

Focus on Performance. Passion for Innovation. Powered by People. Delivered with Integrity.

cggveritas.com

12 RESERVOIR ISSUE 9 • OCTOBER 2007

Also now available:

US Rockies-WillistonGeological Edge SetMontana, North Dakota,

Wyoming, Colorado, Utah

For more information contact:

Joel Harding403-870-8122

or Mike Sherwin 403-263-0594

[email protected]

Western CanadaGeological Edge SetFor import into AccuMap, geoSCOUT

and other applications.

1) Mississippian Subcrops, Devonian Reefs

2) Triassic Halfway, Doig, Charlie Lake

3) Jurassic Rock Creek

4) Cretaceous Glauconitic, Lloyd, Sparky, Colony, Bluesky, Dunlevy, Viking

5) CBM - Horseshoe Canyon, Mannville

All edges are formatted as mapfeatures for AccuMap and ESRI

Shape fi les for other applications.

TECHNICAL LUNCHEONS NOVEMBER LUNCHEON sponsored by

The sky is not falling – debunking the myths of global warmingSPEAKERBruno Wiskel

11:30 amTuesday, November 6, 2007Telus Convention Centre Calgary, Alberta

Please note:The cut-off date for ticket sales is 1:00 pm, Thursday, November 1, 2007. Ticket price is $34.00 + GST.


All the current fuss about climate change that is capturing so much media attention these days started in December 1997 with the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol. The first major condition of ratification was met on May 23, 2002 when Iceland signed on as the 55th country to endorse the measures outlined in the agreement. The last condition was met on November 18, 2004 when Russia endorsed the document

and brought the total emissions of Kyoto participants to 55% of global emissions.

The emission cuts that form the backbone of the Kyoto Accord originated from the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Composed of governmental and organizational representatives, the IPCC does not carry out any research, but serves to evaluate peer-reviewed published scientific literature and reports its findings. The first was published in 1990 (with a supplementary report in 1992), a second in 1995, a third in 2001, and the fourth in 2006. Each report builds on the previous one, and no later report has ever contradicted a previous one.

On the surface, both the Kyoto Accord and the IPCC seem legitimate and above-board in every aspect of their being. But if the findings of these entities are scrutinized in the same manner that a petroleum geologist would evaluate an oil and gas prospect, even the most naïve person would quickly realize that the so-called “climate experts” are creating a scam that makes the Bre-X fiasco look like a walk in the park.

Even a cursory assessment of the various IPCC reports reveal so many flaws, inconsistencies, and biases, that it becomes very difficult to believe how so many countries could have been duped into entering into such an absurd agreement, until you realize that out of the 160+ countries that joined, only 22 of the signatory countries (13%) have to make any reductions at all. The rest of the countries,

including Russia (that’s why they signed up), can increase emissions ad infinitum without any penalty what-so-ever, which gives them an enormous advantage over those countries not hobbled with having to make reductions.

The CSPG lunchtime presentation “The Sky Is Not Falling” uses simple geological principles and plain common sense to debunk each and every global warming myth from “Carbon dioxide is causing global warming”, to “Canada is losing ground to sea level”.

BIOGRAPHY:Bruno Wiskel graduated from the University of Alberta in 1983 with a B.Sc. (Honours Geology), winning the prestigious Tony Redunzo award for “Academic Achievement and Zest for Life.” After graduation, he worked as a petroleum exploration geologist with Luscar Ltd. focusing on shallow gas plays in central Alberta.

After receiving his professional accreditation with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA), Wiskel spent the next 20 years of his career as a consulting geologist working on a wide variety of projects ranging from oil and gas, base metal, precious metal and gemstone exploration. He now specializes in environmental law.

As well as a syndicated newspaper columnist, Wiskel has written four published books: Pond Raising Rainbow Trout in 1991, Woodlot Management in 1995, Designing and Landscaping the Family Home in 2002 and The Emperor’s New Climate - Debunking the Myths of Global Warming in 2006. He has also written for dozens of newspapers and has published magazine and technical papers on various agricultural and environmental subjects over the last 26 years.

Wiskel has won numerous environmental awards and accreditation for his conservation efforts, and is an acclaimed speaker, giving over twenty seminars on various topics every year. A member of the Canadian Association Profession Speakers (CAPS), Wiskel’s informative and entertaining presentations have earned him the CAPS designation of Canadian Professional Speaker (CPS).


TECHNICAL LUNCHEONS NOVEMBER LUNCHEON sponsored by

The geologic history of the East Coast-Canada Jurassic: A tale of rifting, spreading, shifting, shifting deltas, reefs, and salt tectonics

SPEAKERJ.D. HarperConocoPhillips Canada, Ltd.

11:30 amThursday, November 22, 2007Telus Convention CentreCalgary, Alberta

Please note: The cut-off date for ticket sales is1:00 pm, Monday, November 19, 2007.Ticket Price: $34.00 + GST.


Rifting and salt tectonics often go hand-in-hand. We do not get the opportunity to address issues prompted by the interactions of these two processes. In the case of rifting there is the question of what happens to sediments in the basin once the basin starts to spread apart. What is the nature of deformation of these early sediments? How do the salts respond? What happens as deposition continues before, during, and after the rifting and spreading?

Rift zones are somewhat linear in form and quite narrow. As spreading occurs the linear nature of the basin ultimately changes to that of a one-sided basin, one side having drifted far enough away so as to no longer have impact on its counterpart.

The Jurassic of the East Coast of Canada allows such questions to be investigated. The basin started out as a late Triassic-early Jurassic northeast-southwest rift (the NAMOR rift) with Morocco to the east (210 Ma+). The rift zone was less than fi ve km in some areas and probably not greater than 50 km in others. It was characterized by horsts and grabens both

on the North American and Moroccan sides. This discussion will address that portion of the rift that extended from the Laurentian Channel and the Newfoundland Fracture Zone to the northeast and southwest to the Shelburne Basin and the US border.

The earliest phase of deposition was recorded by Eurydice Fm. alluvial fans, braided streams, and lacustrine deposits (210-190/200 Ma). Contemporaneous with these clastic deposits were the Argo Salts of as yet undetermined original thickness and width. This phase of rift graben fi ll was terminated by marine incursion recorded by the early Jurassic Pleinsbachian Iroquois shallow to deep-water carbonates and associated reef growth.

This marine incursion is interpreted to be the record of the beginning of spreading. By 180 Ma the NAMOR Sea was still linear but somewhat less than 100 km wide. The fi rst spreading centre to be recorded is the East Coast Magnetic Anomaly (175 M yr ~ 120 km wide) and that occurred after Iroquois time. From Iroquois time through to the end of the Jurassic (190-145 Ma) a major Abenaki carbonate reef complex backed on the west by Mohawk and Mic Mac clastics continued to expand and grow in relief, with some progradational character. By 156 Ma (Oxfordian) the NAMOR Sea was ~800 km wide, almost twice the width of the present Red Sea. One has to ask at what point a sea becomes an ocean? It is a function of current circulation relative to global patterns.

South of the Sable Basin along the continental margin this barrier reef, where free of clastic dilution, continued its growth into the lower Cretaceous. Northeast of the Sable Basin, deeper shelf Jurassic carbonates were deposited on the Banquereau Platform separating the Sable Basin from the Laurentian sub-basin to the northeast. Once the Cretaceous Sable delta began to fi ll in the Sable Basin the deeper Jurassic salts were driven in part from the basin, forming two tiers of salt diapirs and tongues in Cretaceous sediments. By the end of the earliest Cretaceous Berriasian, the barrier reef was progressively drowned and buried by clastic deposits south of the Sable Basin (137-146 Ma). A major deformation event along the margin during the earliest Cretaceous resulted in large blocks of reef slumping off of the front (~140 Ma).

In the Laurentian Basin the earliest stage of rift basin fi lling was likewise characterized by the “Eurydice clastic/Argo salt/Iroquois carbonate” package. This basin stretched back into the Orpheus Graben. Similar relationships can be observed in the rift grabens of Morocco.

Most of the clastics were deposited along the northeast-southwest axis of this early rift basin, having been sourced in part from the northeast. Post-Iroquois Mohawk and Mic Mac sands were deposited along this axis but as the spreading began sediments were deposited eastward as well as axis-parallel.

Seismic data illustrate that with continued spreading a time of major slumping and deformation of the early Jurassic sediments occurred. Salts began to fl ow eastward from the areas of major clastic deposition. Sediment/salt wall couplets can be identifi ed which demonstrate the gradual turning of the basin depocentre. The characteristics of the resulting salt structures depend on the degrees of freedom available to the salt for fl ow. In the narrow Orpheus Graben setting, where there is no outlet for the salt to fl ow, diapirs occurred in response to the single upward degree of freedom offered by the seafl oor. In the mouth of the linear Laurentian sub-basin, salt had two to three degrees of freedom for fl ow with resulting salt walls bounding depositional minibasins. Other varieties of salt structures are discussed which refl ect the degrees-of-freedom factor responsible for the structures observed. Salt distributions observed today are dominantly allochthonous.

Ultimately during the earliest Cretaceous Morocco had moved far enough east that it no longer had any infl uence on North American sedimentation. It was by this time that a major clastic continental margin had formed and its growth has persisted to this present day.

This geologic history is an excellent example of the interaction of rifting, spreading, salt deposition and tectonics, reef growth, and delta shifting supported by well data and seismic, much of which today are in the public domain.

BIOGRAPHY:John D. Harper, Ph.D., P. Geol., FGSA, FGAC; presently Senior Geological Advisor, ConocoPhillips Canada Ltd.; Retired Full Professor, Petroleum Geology and Sedimentology (Carbonate and Clastics), and the fi rst Director of the Centre for Earth Resources Research at Memorial University of Newfoundland to Jan 1, 1998, and formerly Adjunct Professor to 2002; formerly with Shell Development, Shell Oil, Shell Canada, and Trend Exploration. He has operational, management, and research credentials over the past 36 years in reservoir characterization and basin analysis for Canadian, US, and International onshore and offshore basins. His most recent activities have been in the Mackenzie Delta - Beaufort, Arctic Islands, Scotian Shelf and Deep Water, East and West Newfoundland, and the Grand Banks.


Stanley Slipper Medal

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS

CSPG’s Highest Honour

Deadline: October 26, 2007

Award details on page 10

DIVISION TALKS EMERGING PETROLEUM RESOURCES DIVISION sponsored by

State-of-the-art of tight gas sands characterization and production technology – the GFREE Research program at the University of CalgarySPEAKERRoberto Aguilera Schulich School of EngineeringUniversity of Calgary

12:00 NoonTuesday, October 9, 2007ConocoPhillips Auditorium (3rd Floor – west side of building)401-9th Ave SW (Gulf Canada Square) Calgary, Alberta

The National Energy Board presented in 1999 resources estimates of natural gas in tight formations ranging from 89 to 1500 Tcf. CAPP’s website (2007) indicates that more recently the National Energy Board estimated that Canada has 300 Tcf of tight gas in place. Other recent studies (PTAC, 2006) show areas in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin that might contain 1,500 Tcf gas in place (including shallow gas). So although the figures vary among different estimators, the pervasive opinion among experts is that there are significant volumes of gas in place in Canadian tight gas sands. But what fraction of these volumes can be recovered economically? The uncertainty stems from several factors including the difficulty in determining reservoir properties, productivity, and reserves for these formations.

In Canada, the industry preferentially developed the better understood conventional gas reservoirs; however, the possibility of declining reserves and the need for additional energy resources has focused interest on unconventional gas exploitation. The interest is highlighted by several thousand papers published over the last few years on tight gas formations characterization, production technology

and the difficulties of applying analogues from one given area to another.

This presentation highlights our understanding of the current status on the study of tight gas sand formations, including geoscience aspects, formation evaluation, reservoir drilling completion and stimulation, and reservoir engineering. In addition, a brief discussion of the GFREE research program created at the Schulich School of Engineering will be presented. The acronym stands for a multi-disciplinary program that involves:

• Geoscience aspects (G);• Formation evaluation by petrophysics

and well testing (F);• Reservoir drilling, completion and

stimulation (R);• Reservoir Engineering (RE);• Economics and long run supply

curves (E).

To convert the large Canadian resource base into reserves, technological advancements will be required. The GFREE research primarily targets tools and methodologies that will enable producers to quickly, effectively and efficiently identify if the resource is economic. The ultimate goal of the program is to help finding means of extracting economically as much of this gas as possible.

THE GFREE LOGOThe GFREE logo is a dodecahedron that represents several issues including contractional fractures that can extend in 3 dimensions and can be found sometimes far away from any major tectonic events, clathrate hydrates that form the largest hydrocarbon resource by far on earth, and the possible shape of a 3D universe that is composed mostly by gases and solids.

BIOGRAPHYRoberto Aguilera is Professor and ConocoPhillips-NSERC-AERI Chair in the Schulich School of Engineering at the University of Calgary,

Canada. He is a petroleum engineering graduate from the Universidad de America at Bogota, Colombia and holds Masters and Ph.D. degrees in petroleum engineering from the Colorado School of Mines. He came from industry to the university last year after being presented with the challenge of f inding economic means of producing natural gas from Canadian tight formations. This is a challenge that he gladly and promptly accepted.

INFORMATIONEPRD noon-hour talks are free and do not require registration. Non-CSPG members are also welcome to attend. Please bring your lunch. If you would like to join our email distribution list, suggest a topic, or volunteer to present a talk, please send a message to [email protected]. Division talks are sponsored by IHS (http://www.ihs.com).


DIVISION TALKS GEOFLUIDS DIVISION sponsored by

Storage of carbon dioxide by deep injection

SPEAKERDr. Ian HutcheonApplied Geochemistry Group, Department of Geosciences, University of Calgary

12:00 NoonThursday, October 11, 2007ConocoPhillips Auditorium 3rd Floor (above +15 Level) 401 – 9th Avenue SWCalgary, Alberta

Studies of the distribution of CO 2 in deep reservoirs have defined the mechanisms by which CO 2 is produced and migrates in sedimentary basins and regions of geothermal activity. These studies suggest which reactions are most likely to take place when CO 2 is injected into deep formations for purposes of storage. Three different types of reactions are probable: (1) ionic trapping of CO 2 which dissolves and is stored in aqueous fluids as bicarbonate ion; (2) dissolution of carbonate minerals such as calcite due to the acidity produced by dissolving CO 2 in water; (3) reaction of CO 2 with silicate minerals, such as feldspars, producing clay minerals and bicarbonate. Silicate reactions have the potential to remove large volumes of CO 2 from the aqueous or gas phase and precipitate the CO 2 as carbonate minerals, provided

sources of the requisite metals (Ca, Mg, Fe, etc.) are available. Obviously, storage of CO 2 in mineral form is a desirable outcome since the potential for subsequent leakage to near-surface aquifers, or back into the atmosphere is considerably reduced. However, the unknown – but presumably slow – reaction rates of silicates leave open to question the ultimate effectiveness of geological storage of CO 2 by silicate reactions.

The first two reactions are rapid and can be expected to take place over time scales of CO 2 injection. However, reactions involving silicates are known to be slower, although reaction rates are not well understood. So as to assist in monitoring the movement of CO 2 and the nature of geological reactions that attend CO 2 injection, the Applied Geochemistry group (AGg) at the University of Calgary, in collaboration with the Alberta Research Council, has been monitoring CO 2 injection at the EnCana Weyburn field. Baseline data were collected starting in 2000 and regular monitoring has taken place through 2005, with at least three sample sets per year that have gathered data from 50 or more wells for each sample set and collected more than forty different analyses on each sample. Researchers and students from the AGg have examined the large database of chemical and isotopic data collected from these samples and have conducted detailed studies of the reservoir mineralogy. These data help to define the water-rock-gas reactions that have taken place at Weyburn over more than five years of injection of CO 2.

The data collected show clearly that both ionic trapping of CO 2 and dissolution of carbonate minerals can be observed at Weyburn as a result of CO 2 injection. Considering the widespread observation of these reactions in natural geological settings and various processes (such as oil well scaling or processes in groundwater), it is not surprising that these reactions are evident at Weyburn. Recent evidence collected by Mark Raistrick, a Ph.D. student with AGg, that CO 2 injection has resulted in the probable dissolution of potassium feldspars is more surprising. The observation suggests that interaction between CO 2 and silicate minerals is possible over the relatively short time scales of injection in deep reservoirs. Such reactions mean that CO 2 may react with silicates to form carbonate minerals relatively quickly. This observation considerably improves the potential for storage of CO 2 by deep injection into abandoned oilfields or deep aquifers.

BIOGRAPHYIan Hutcheon is Professor Emeritus of geochemistry at the Department of Geosciences at the University of Calgary and a member of the Applied Geochemistry group (AGg). He started as an Assistant Professor at the University of Calgary in 1978 and retired in 2002, but remains active in research in geochemistry and consulting on oilf ield water problems. The presentation is derived from the hard work of many colleagues and students now or formerly at the AGg or Alberta Research Council, including Bernhard Mayer, Maurice Shevalier, Kyle Durocher, Mark Raistrick, Tim Davison, Steve Emberley, John Bloch, Bill Gunter, and Ernie Perkins.

DIVISION TALKS PALAEONTOLOGY DIVISION sponsored by

Alberta Palaeontological Society Open House and Fossil Clinic7:30 – 9:30 PMFriday, October 19th, 2007Mount Royal College, Room B108

The Alberta Palaeontological Society welcomes CSPG members, families, and the general public to their Open House and Fossil Clinic. APS members and guests will have specimens on display and resident experts will be on hand to help identify fossils that are brought in to the clinic. Fossils found on the summer’s field trips and expeditions will also be presented and discussed.

INFORMATIONThis event is jointly presented by the Alberta Palaeontological Society, Mount Royal College,

and the CSPG Paleontology Division. For details or to present a talk in the future please contact CSPG Paleo Division Chair Philip Benham at 403-691-3343 or [email protected]. Visit the APS website for conf irmation of event times and upcoming speakers: http://www.albertapaleo.org/


are also significant factors in the decision to grant a license. Once the license has been issued, the member is monitored for continuing education through the required annual filing of professional development hours with APEGGA. Poor performance can be reported to APEGGA and the Discipline Committee will investigate and, if necessary, hold a hearing and issue a ruling that may rescind a member’s license until remedial action is taken to improve performance. In this way, APEGGA is actually protecting our profession by dealing with incompetent members or those who are illegally using the name “geologist,” “geophysicist,” or “engineer.” The overriding concern is that the public not be confused by the inappropriate or arbitrary use of these profession names. When the services of a geologist are secured there is a reasonable expectation that the practitioner will have specific knowledge, skills, and competence.

Still others are not members of APEGGA because they report to and are under the supervision of an individual who is

a professional member and therefore are not required to be registered. This places a significant obligation upon the professional member who is now fully responsible for the work of subordinates. Such a relationship removes any sense of ownership and accountability from the subordinates and diminishes any achievements by the subordinates through hard work, innovation, and insight.

As professional geologists, we must continually improve our skills to serve the public as best we can. We rely on APEGGA to maintain standards and ethics for the betterment of the public. The CSPG provides the continuing education component of professional practice. APEGGA’s role is to license, monitor, enforce, and discipline the profession. We each have separate and distinct roles to play in developing the professional geologist.

As indicated throughout this article, the CSPG does not have a role to play in licensing, monitoring, enforcing, and disciplining geologists. However, if you are a practicing geologist in Alberta, you

should consider becoming a member of APEGGA.

If you are interested in registering, go to: www.APEGGA.org to find out how to become a member.

REFERENCESAllred, G.K. (2002). The Professional Association – guardian of the public interest. Paper presented at FIG XXII International Congress, Washington, DC. Retrieved August 12, 2007, from: http://www.fig.net /pub/f ig_2002/TsI-4/TS1_4_allred.pdf.

Government of Alberta. (2005). Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). Retrieved August 12, 2007, from http://www.psp.gov.ab.ca/.

The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA). (March 1990). The Practice of the Professions of Geology and Geophysics (2nd ed.). Retrieved August 12, 2007, from http : //www.apegga.org /pdf /Guidelines /04.pdf.


Central Alberta “Swan Hills” Proposed Non-Exclusive High Resolution Aeromagnetic Survey

» 400 meter traverse line spacing

» 1200/2000 meter tie line spacing

» 120 meter drape survey elevation

» 83,350 line km

» Approximately 260 township area

» Enhanced Final Processing

Aeroquest Limitedcontact: Jim GenereuxSuite 620, 510-5th Street SWCalgary, AB T2P 3S2TEL: 403-398-4702FAX: 403-398-4657email: [email protected]

GEDCOContact: Bob ChartersSuite 1200, 815-8th Avenue SWCalgary, AB T2P 3P2TEL: 403-262-5780FAX: 403-262-8632email: [email protected]

Pre-Acquisition Data SaleIn effect until November 2007

» Comprehensive deliverables package including customized maps

» Optional Comprehensive Interpretation

» Minimum survey purchase of 24 townships

» Volume discounts available

» Pricing subject to change upon completion of data acquisition (scheduled to begin Fall2007)

Secure Your Dataset Today

Scan, print, digitize, interpret and manage data with...NeuraScanner

NeuraLaser

NeuraLog

NeuraMap - NEW!

NeuraSection

NeuraDB - NEW!


Stanley Slipper Medal

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS

CSPG’s Highest Honour

Deadline: October 26, 2007

Award details on page 10

2007 CSPG HONORARY ADDRESS| by Jennifer Dunn, Honorary Address Chair

This year’s event has been scheduled for Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at the Southern Alberta Jubilee Auditorium. In recognition of the International Polar Year, we have engaged speakers on the topic of the Canadian Arctic.

Our keynote speaker will be Jeff MacInnis, son of deep sea diver and explorer Dr. Joe MacInnis. Following in his father’s footsteps, MacInnis is a famous explorer in his own right. At the age of 23, he led a team to sail the Northwest Passage, covering 4,000 kilometers over 100 days in an 18-foot boat. This was the first such expedition since Sir John Franklin’s 129 man expedition in 1845. The journey was featured in a National Geographic article, a television documentary, and in a book written with Wade Rowland. The presentation itself includes both photographic and television footage of his travels.

We are also looking forward to a presentation from the Arctic Institute of North America, based out of the University of Calgary. What a great opportunity to hear about current arctic research with a local perspective.

The talks will be both fascinating and breathtaking, for the afternoon audience of high school students and our evening talk. As in the past, the talks will begin at 7:00 pm, with doors open to our renown lobby displays at 5:30 pm. The free afternoon talk for junior high students is oversubscribed every year, and is made possible through generous sponsors and dedicated volunteers. What a great opportunity for the Outreach

Committee to excite 2,400+ students on the science of geology. Of course, the evening presentation is always a lot of fun, and a great introduction to science and geology for friends and family. For the early-to-bed crowd among us, we promise to wrap up by 9:30 pm.

If you are interested in learning more about the Honorary Address, you can view past

years’ webcasts on the CSPG website (www.cspg.org). Also, you may contact Kim Maclean, CSPG Corporate Relations Manager, at [email protected] for sponsorship opportunities, and Jennifer Dunn at [email protected] for volunteer opportunities or more information about the event.

We look forward to seeing you there.

The Executive Map Suite is an elite suite of over 130 maps

for Alberta. These maps are presented in boardroom style

with a regional perspective for all major formations in

either metric or imperial units. Several maps contain full-

coloured isopachs.

For more information please call Jennifer Davies at

403.537.9904 or email [email protected].

EarthTools | GeoVista | GeoCArta Tools | EarthVision | The Rat

SOFTWARE

SERVICES

DATA

CONSULTING

www.divestco.com

TSX: DVT

Integration is having comprehensive solutions

for the oil and gas industry, including an elite suite

of over 130 newly updated boardroom style maps

for Alberta.

Mike Gilders, Sr. Geologist. Just one of our

everyday heroes and part of the “i team”.

Stay tuned for our next ad in this series to meet other

heroes from our team of integration experts.


JACK PORTER VIGNETTES OF CANADIAN PETROLEUM GEOLOGY

J.B. Tyrrell’s introduction to the interior of Canada’s Precambrian Shield(...Continued from the July/August, 2007 issue of the Reservoir)

Joseph Tyrrell’s descent of the Foster (Whitefi sh) River from its emanation at Lower Foster (Whitefi sh) Lake began on September 10th, 1892. He was accompanied by three assistants: metis Pierre Girard and Chipewyan natives, Heddery and Ithingo. A single canoe was utilized in the undertaking.

The length of this river’s route to its confl uence with the east-fl owing Churchill (Missinipi) River approximates 90 miles. For the fi rst 40 miles of its southerly passage, the Foster (Whitefi sh) River is bounded by a deep gneiss-fl oored valley paralleling the strike of the gneissic terrain. This waterway, averaging 150 feet in width, expresses itself as a torrential stream, being devoid of interconnected lakes.

The river’s uppermost 25 miles is beset with a series of almost continuous rapids, created by myriads of well rounded boulders strewn over the river’s shallow bed. Its descent required, for the most part, poling by Heddery and Ithingo to affect its passage. This uppermost section of the Foster (Whitefi sh) River terminated with an extremely heavy and sinuous rapid, with a fall of 10 feet, which necessitated Tyrrell’s party to make its fi rst portage along the river’s west bank, involving a carrying distance of 280 yards.

The river, during the next 15 miles of its southerly course, proceeds through a broad valley of low relief, whose terrain consists of red biotite-granite gneiss. Although the river’s width is maintained, its current was less intense. However, ledges of granite gneiss, transecting the river’s course, are the sites of heavy rapids. Consequently, fi ve portages were required to circumvent these obstructions. The last and longest portage necessitated the skirting of two close-spaced falls, whose joint carrying distance measured 750 yards.

One-half mile below the last mentioned

portage, an east-fl owing stream of substantial size, known as Little Whitefi sh River, joins the Foster (Whitefi sh) River. At this juncture, the latter deviates abruptly to the northeast and maintains this bearing for a distance of 14 miles. Four stretches of rapids were encountered by Tyrrell’s party while traversing this segment of the Foster (Whitefi sh) River, each being located where obstructions of red granite gneiss occurred. Lengths of carrying places, in order of their occurrence, were 250, 275, 300, and 500 yards. Prior to the crossing of the second portage, the contents of their canoe were emptied, following which the two native Chipewyans successfully ran it through the rapid. A fi fth carrying place, having a length of 80 yards, which the party had used to avoid three short rapids, occurs three-quarters of a mile below the south-fl owing Sandy Creek. This streamlet, some 25 feet in width, discharges into Foster (Whitefi sh) River on

its north bank. Tyrrell and his party camped at the downstream end of this portage on the evening of September 12th.

The Foster (Whitefi sh) River continues its northeast course for a distance of one-and-one-half mile and from which place it abruptly reverses its bearing to renew a more southwesterly route. It is continuous in this direction for a distance of 36 miles to its confl uence with the east-fl owing Churchill (Missinipi) River. The former rocky terrain, through which the river had passed, has been replaced by a broad sandy plain, containing areas of muskeg, across which the moderately fl owing river meanders.

The moose which Tyrrell had shot, following which he dried its edible portions, had since been consumed by his party. Their sustenance was now dependent on wild berries and the occasional duck. Joseph Tyrrell notes that on


PETREL* SEISMIC-TO-SIMULATION SOLUTION unites the subsurfacedomains of geophysics, geology, and reservoir engineering.

With Petrel software, asset team members can easily integrate their work—throughout the life of the field. No more over-the-wall data transfers, with the associated inaccuracies and errors. Traditional workflow and softwarebarriers between technical disciplines are eliminated, opening the way for optimal reservoir understanding.

“In new assets and in older fields, leveraging technology is a key element of prof-itability and adding value for our shareholders. New insights and efficiencies fromtechnologies within the Petrel suite of workflow tools pro-vide significant potential benefits to companies like ours.”—Steve Farris, CEO, Apache Corporation

With Petrel software, all work processes lead to one shared earth model, resulting in faster, better decisions.

www.slb.com/petrel

*Mark of Schlumberger © 2007 Schlumberger. 07-IS-057

Greater confidence.Better results. Faster.

Petrel


September 12th: “One of the men (Heddery or Ithingo) was observed writing in syllabic characters on one of the trees, and being asked what he had written he answered, “Namukakwe mechim” (no food at all). For the remainder of our journey to Ile a la Crosse we depended on ducks shot by the way.” (Ibid.: 1896, Tyrrell, J. Burr: Athabasca Lake and Churchill River, p. 114D).

The syllabic system applied to the writing of the Cree Algonkian language was invented in 1841 by Reverend James Evans, a Methodist missionary and linguist. He was stationed at Norway House, a Hudson’s Bay Company’s supply depot and trading post, established in 1817. It is located on the south bank of Little Playgreen Lake, a distance of 18 miles northeast of Lake Winnipeg. Here, he served from 1840-45 as superintendent of the British Wesleyan mission to the Hudson’s Bay Company’s Rupert’s Land.

Basically, Evans’ syllabic system was predicated on the phonetics of the Cree language, which was readily adaptable to his system, since Cree words and sentences are composed of repetitive consonant-vowel sequences. He translated the Bible, hymnals, religious tracts, and other texts from English to Cree syllabics. Cree children were taught their syllabic form of writing in the era of church-run residential schools. Notwithstanding, the Cree syallabic writing has yet to be abandoned.

The Athapaskan language (Chipewyan dialect) subsequently adapted a form of syllabic writing. However, because of the construction of its complex phonetics, it is considered less functional than the Cree syllabic writing. (1985, The Canadian Encyclopedia: Hurtig Publishers, Edmonton, vol. 1, pp. 438, 439, 600, 601).

Of all the linguistic families with their respective dialects spoken by the aborigines of North America, the Cree language is the most highly developed. To quote from Robert A. Logan’s article entitled: The Precise Speakers, which was published by the Hudson’s Bay Company in their June, 1951 issue of The Beaver in which he states: “The Cree language is not a mere hodge-podge of sounds, or something that developed by evolution from the primitive attempts of some stone-age people to convey ideas by voice. If clarity, regularity, preciseness, and ease of enunciation can be deemed to be attributes of civilization, it is one of the most highly civilized languages of all the many languages known to the world today.

There are many indications that the language could not have been designed or developed by any primitive people. It could not have been

www.rpsgroup.com/energyT (403) 263-0449

1529

7

Conventional Wellsite• Foothills/Deep Basin/Peace River Arch• Horizontal/Directional • Coal Bed Methane

Heavy Oil/Oilsands• SAGD/Horizontal • Core Logging

International/Operations Geology• Onshore • Offshore

Leaders in Wellsite GeologyServing the petroleum industry for over 25 years

Strip LogStrip Log

Horizontal LogHorizontal Log

Mud LogMud Log

Log ViewerLog Viewer

Log ManagerLog Manager

200, 900200, 900——6th Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta T2P 3K2 6th Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta T2P 3K2 [email protected] [email protected] 1--800800--447447--1534 (403) 2371534 (403) 237--91899189

Log AnalysisLog Analysis

Milk RiverMedicine Hat

Second White SpecksThis is a one-day workshop on the geology and reservoircharacteristics of these shallow, low-permeability, gas-bearingformations in southern Alberta and Saskatchewan. This popularand well-reviewed course has been updated to include manyrecent developments in shallow gas exploration.

Topics include:Stratigraphy, facies, structure, lithological properties and logcharacteristics of each formation.Shallow gas production issues, including reserve estimation.The geology of all current play trends.

32 cores from Alberta and Saskatchewan will be shown.There is a newly updated 250 page book of course notescontaining many unpublished maps and sections

Course dates: October 11th and October 25th, 2007Location: the EUB core facility, Calgary. Course Fee: $700

Contact: Shaun O'Connell, Belfield Resources Inc.ph: 403 246 5069; email: [email protected]

Associate or Full Professor,Petroleum Geology

As part of a large expansion of its petroleum geoscience teaching and research activities, the Department ofGeoscience at the University of Calgary is seeking a petroleum geologist with significant industry experience.At this time, the department invites applications for a full-time tenure track position at the associate or full professor level to begin July 1, 2008.

Candidates require a PhD in a petroleum-related discipline of Geology. Appointments at the Associate Professoror Full Professor level will be considered for qualified candidates. Industry experience is essential for this position.The department requires industry experience and expertise for the successful delivery of the Bachelor of Science with a concentration in Petroleum Geology. Inclusion of material on the evaluation of hydrocarbon reservoirs is looked atas critical to in the success of this program and will help vault the program above others nationally and internationally.The successful applicantis expected to develop new curriculum in this area, undertake graduate student supervision, and develop a strong research program.

Successful research candidates will join other members of the department in collaborative research and in pursuing the development of strongties with the petroleum industry through the initiatives of the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy (ISEEE) and theGeoscience Professional Development Centre (GPDC). Further information about the Department, ISEEE, and GPDC is available at www.ucalgary.ca/geoscience.

Applications will be reviewed as received. Selection of candidates is targeted for December 2007, however the position will remain open untila successful candidate is found. Applicants should submit a curriculum vitae, list of publications, statement of research interests and teachingphilosophy, and arrange to have three reference letters forwarded to:

Dr. D. Eaton, HeadDepartment of GeoscienceUniversity of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NWCalgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4 CanadaEmail: [email protected]: (403) 284-0074

All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply; however, Canadians and permanent residents will be given priority.The University of Calgary respects, appreciates and encourages diversity.

To see all University of Calgary academic positions, please visit: www.ucalgary.ca/hr/careers.


MIXED GOLF TOURNAMENT Golfers on par for a great day

The 18th Annual CSPG Mixed Golf Tournament was held at D’Arcy Ranch Golf Course on August 24, 2007. The 144 golfer tournament started with a brisk Alberta morning (7 degrees Celsius is a little cool!) but quickly warmed up with sunny skies and warm temperatures, and the course was in good shape. Once again, we had a full tournament, with several disappointed golfers on the wait listing.

The tournament committee consisted of David Middleton and David Caldwell as co-chairs, Penny Christensen, Carter Clarkson, Norm Hopkins, Brenda Pearson, Kim MacLean, Hugh Wishart, and Dick Willott.

FMA Insurance was our platinum sponsor, and also sponsored a $10,000 hole-in-one prize, which sadly, no one was able to claim. We also appreciate our gold sponsors, Weatherford Canada Partnership and Tucker Wireline Services, and our silver sponsors, AGAT Laboratories Ltd., Baker Atlas, Bodycote Testing Group, IHS, LogTech (Canada) Ltd., RECON Petrotechnologies Ltd., and Rockhound Technologies Inc. Agat Laboratories also ran a second hole-in-one contest, which also went unclaimed, and a 50/50 draw with proceeds to the CSPG Trust.

Golfers began the day with breakfast, and draw prizes from BodyCote Testing Group/Norwest Labs. Golfers also enjoyed the various hospitality tents, and opportunity to participate in many skill challenges, including closest to the pin competitions, long drives for male and female golfers, and careful placement of the ball into water and sand traps. Our sponsors were recognized by abundant signage on the course, in the dining and breakfast areas, and on the road into the course, and our premier sponsors had the opportunity to put up a banner on the clubhouse.

The trophy for Low Gross was won by the team of Colin Thiessen, Dan Allan, Leanne Ewashen, and George Strother-Stewart with a score of 65. The Low Net trophy was captured by the team of Gerry Reinson, Jay Williams, David Cheesman, and James Lee with a score of 54.4. The High Gross was won with a score of 85 by the team of Rex Brigan, Mark Parakh, and Patricia Williams.

The on-course hospitality venues were hosted by RECON PetroTechnologies Ltd., IHS, and Baker Atlas, and the halfway house sponsor RockHound Technologies, were well appreciated by tournament attendees, and everyone had fun participating in

the Tucker Wireline sponsored putting contest. The putting contest ran smoothly this year, with the hospitality tent enjoyed by all while cheering on the competitors, and ended with the three winners taking home a new putter each.

Baker Atlas once again was very generous in donating a “Golf with Lanny” package, and tickets on the draw were sold to the crowds. Gord Cook was the lucky winner of golf and dinner for three with Lanny McDonald, and transportation by limo. Additional Trust draws were for golf and accommodation. The proceeds from the mulligan tickets were also directed to the CSPG Trust. The Mixed Golf tournament was pleased to be able to donate over $2800 to the CSPG Trust at the end of the tournament.

We look forward to seeing everyone next year at the 19th Annual tournament. Thanks to all the committee members for their hard work and support of the tournament. I know the members and guests who attended had a great time and appreciated the fellowship on the course and the various hospitality venues.

David Middleton & David Caldwell Mixed Golf Tournament co-chairs

Bob Robson at the putting contest. Happy Gilmore was out in good form. Justin Vandenbrink playing a hole other game.

Thank you geoLOGIC systems ltd. for supplying photos.


AJM Petroleum ConsultantsBelloy Petroleum Consulting Ltd.

Boyd PetroSearchCL Consultants Limited

Core Laboratories Canada Ltd.DeGolyer and MacNaughton Canada Limited

Divestco Inc.FirstEnergy Capital Corp.

Fugro Airborne SurveysGEDCO

geoLOGIC systems ltd.GeoTir Inc.

GLJ Petroleum Consultants Ltd.Ireland’s Field Scouting Services (1981) Ltd.

Keitech Geological ConsultantsMJ Systems

Pro Geo ConsultantsRigSkills Canada

RPS Energy Canada Ltd.Schlumberger

Scope Wellsite Security Ltd.Sproule

Wildcat Scouting Services (1991) Ltd.

Hycal Energy Research Laboratories Ltd.Patterson Resource Consultants

Reinson Consultants Ltd.TOTAL Gas Detection Ltd.

Low Net Winners of Gerry Reinson, Jay Williams, David Cheesman, and James Lee. High Gross Team of Rez Brigan, Mark Parakh, and Patricia Williams.

Low Gross Winning Team of Colin Thiessen, Dan Allan, Leanne Ewashen, and George Strother-Stewart.

Shelley Campbell showing correct driving form to spouse, James Campbell.

The CSPG and tournament participants would like to thank: PLATINUM SPONSOR

GOLD SPONSOR SILVER SPONSORS

HOLE SPONSORS

BREAKFAST SPONSOR PRIZE DONORS

GOLD SPONSORS


Reservoir Engineering for GeologistsPart I – Overview| by Ray Mireault and Lisa Dean

Welcome to the first article in a series intended to introduce geologists to reservoir engineering concepts and their application in the areas of Corporate Reserve Evaluation, Production, Development, and Exploration.

Topics covered in the series are:Article 1: OverviewArticle 2: COGEH Reserve ClassificationsArticle 3: Volumetric EstimationArticle 4: Decline AnalysisArticle 5: Material Balance EstimatesArticle 6: Well Test Interp./Pressure

Transient AnalysisArticle 7: Rate Transient AnalysisArticle 8: Monte Carlo SimulationArticle 9: Reservoir SimulationArticle 10: Coalbed Methane

FundamentalsArticle 11: Tight Gas and Shale GasArticle 12: Oil Recovery

The format for each article will generally be to introduce the concept(s), discuss the theory, and illustrate its application with an example.

ARTICLE DEFINITIONS AND USESCOGEH, the Canadian Oil and Gas Evaluation Handbook, Reserve Classifications provide a Canadian standard reference methodology for estimating reserve volumes according to reserve and resource category. There have been many recent changes in an attempt to achieve a “global standard” in order to ensure the public release of accurate, understandable reserve and resource estimations and classifications.

Volumetric Techniques are used to indirectly estimate Hydrocarbons in Place (OOIP and OGIP) from estimates of area, thickness, porosity, water saturation, and hydrocarbon fluid properties. Analogue or theoretical estimates for hydrocarbon recovery are then applied to estimate recoverable hydrocarbons. These techniques are utilized prior to the acquisition of sufficient production data to allow a more rigorous determination

of reserves and resource estimates. These methods are therefore primarily used for evaluating new, non-producing pools and the evaluation of new petroleum basins.

Decline analysis techniques extrapolate the historical performance trend to an economic production limit or cutoff to forecast the expected ultimate recovery

Figure 1. Traditional decline analysis – Rate vs. Cum. Prod.

Figure 2. Traditional decline analysis – Rate vs. Time.


(EUR). The method plots the production rate through the production history (time) and records the production rate decline as cumulative production increases (Figures 1 and 2). In theory it is only applicable to individual wells, but in practice extrapolations of group production trends often provide acceptable approximations for EUR. Two key assumptions are that past trends represent the full capability of the producing entity and that the trends and operating practices continue into the future. Deviations from theoretical performance can help identify wells and areas that are underperforming. Well workovers to resolve mechanical problems or changes in operating practices can enhance performance and increase recovery. The presence of pressure maintenance by an aquifer may make this method inappropriate to use. This technique is also more reliable than volumetric methods when sufficient data is available to establish a reliable trend line.

Material balance techniques are used to estimate hydrocarbons in place (OOIP and OGIP) from measurements of fluid production and the resultant change in reservoir pressure caused by that production. The technique requires accurate

estimates of fluid properties, production volumes, and reservoir pressure. Estimates for hydrocarbon recovery, based on fluid

properties and analogue producing pools/formations, are then applied to estimate

Figure 4 – Flowing material balance.

Figure 3. Horizontal well model.



recoverable hydrocarbons. These methods are more reliable than volumetric methods as long as there is sufficient data to establish the relationship.

Well tests and the subsequent pressure transient analyses are used to determine fluids present in the reservoir, estimate well productivity, current reservoir pressure, permeability, and wellbore conditions from mathematical flow equations and dynamic pressure buildup measurements. The

technique requires that a well be produced for a period of time and then shut-in for an appropriate length of time. Analysis inputs include fluid viscosity, rock properties, net pay thickness of the producing interval, and the mechanical configuration of the wellbore. An adequate buildup provides information on the reservoir flow pattern near the wellbore, identifies restricted reservoirs, and can sometimes infer the geometric shape of the well’s drainage area (see Figure 3).

Rate transient analysis (RTA), also know as advanced decline analysis is a relatively recent development that uses well flowing pressures to characterize well and reservoir properties and estimate in-place volumes. This technique has been made available by the introduction of SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) data capture systems that generally provide the frequency of flow and pressure information required for real-life application (flowing material balance and type curve analysis – see Figures 4 and 5). Since pressure information can be captured without shutting the well in and without the loss of cash flow, the frequency of “testing” can be significantly increased and changes in operating performance identified more quickly than is practical with conventional testing.

Monte Carlo simulation is used to deal with the uncertainty in every input parameter value in the volumetric equation. Instead of a single number, it allows the geologist to provide a value range for areal extent, pay thickness, porosity, water saturation, reservoir pressure, temperature, fluid properties, and recovery factor. Multiple (typically 10,000) iterations are run to generate a probable range of values for in-place and recoverable hydrocarbons (Figure 6). The simulation is especially applicable to play and resource assessments.

Numerical reservoir simulation uses material balance and fluid flow theory to predict fluid movement through three-dimensional space. The inputs of geometric shape of the deposit, the rock, and fluid properties must be determined from other methods to deal with the non-uniqueness of the forecasts. However, it has the ability to visually integrate the geological and geophysical interpretation with the analytical approach to reservoir analysis (Figure 7).

Although different techniques are used in different situations, a major purpose of reservoir engineering is to estimate recoverable oil or gas volumes and forecast production rates through time. Forecasts of production rate and cumulative volumes are a key input for the following:

• Exploration play assessment,• Development drilling locations,


Figure 5. Blasingame typecurve analysis.

Figure 6. Visualization of results.


types that are presently of interest to the industry. Included in this group of plays are coalbed methane concepts and interpretation (Figures 8 and 9), tight gas, shale gas, and an overview of secondary and tertiary oil recovery methods.

Look for our next article on the COGEH Reserve Classif ications in next month’s Reservoir.

This article was contributed by Fekete Associates, Inc. For more information, contact Lisa Dean at Fekete Associates, Inc.

Figure 7. Pressure profile from numerical model.

Figure 8. Historical rates vs. time.

Figure 9. Drainage area and permeability.

• Accelerated production from a producing pool,

• Rank and budgeting of potential exploration and development expenditures,

• Corporate reserve evaluations.

The different techniques also have different applications at different times in the life of a field or prospect. For example, the initial stages of exploration may require volumetric estimates based upon analogue data due to the lack of existing well information and estimating volumes with Monte Carlo simulation. Volumetric estimates based upon actual well data may be the next step after exploration drilling and testing has proven successful. As development and production commence, SCADA frequency production and pressure measurements can be obtained for RTA analysis. Monthly production volumes provide the data for material balance and decline analysis techniques.

As production continues, the accuracy and reliability of the estimates obtained from RTA, material balance, and decline analysis increases. Integrating all the techniques provides more reliable answers than relying solely on any one method. In addition, integrating the techniques can lead to additional hydrocarbon discoveries and/or increased recovery from known accumulations.

Articles two through nine address the main topics of reservoir engineering. The remaining articles will focus on play


RESOURCE ASSESSMENT and GIS| by Ben McKenzie

This is the seventh (and final!) of a series of articles discussing oil and gas resource assessment and the use of GIS.

RECENT EXAMPLES OF RESOURCE ASSESSMENT INVOLVING GISAs a coincidence of timing, three major studies involving GIS and resource assessment in Western Canada were released within a year of each other. While these reports had some overlap in their areal coverage and source data, there were major differences in what their goals were, how they approached them, and their final output. The one common factor is that all three used GIS extensively in reaching their conclusions and final products. A review of their methodologies and use of GIS in determining their resource estimates is given below.

CANADIAN GAS POTENTIAL COMMITTEE (CGPC)The CGPC has produced three reports to date – the latest one being the 2005 report (released in June of 2006). The objectives for the 2005 report included:

• Assess the size and number of undiscovered gas pools on the basis of geologically defined exploration plays,

• Prepare Original Gas in Place (OGIP) estimates of undiscovered gas potential,

• Comment on the probable recovery of the estimated gas potential.

The CGPC have used a number of assessment methodologies in their reports (e.g., PETRIMES, Delphi, etc.). Currently, they are mainly using the Truncated Discovery Process Model (TDPM) to evaluate the undiscovered potential. They state that, “Although statistical methods provide some guidance in the process (of assessment), the level of uncertainty (inherent in the input data) requires the imposition of informed technical judgments to constrain the assessment output to an acceptable degree of rationality.” (Vol 1, Chapter S.2, p. 25). They identify technical judgment as being obtained from first-hand experience and by the careful and objective analysis of all available geological, geophysical, and engineering information. A main concept here is that a statistical analysis requires human intervention. While explicitly stated by the CGPC, this concept is implicit to statistical analyses in general in that there is always some judgment by the analyst as to

what data to include and what parameters to use in defining that data.

Resource analysis done by the CGPC was performed at the play level and consisted of a geological assessment, analysis of the play’s exploration history, and statistical analysis of discovered and undiscovered pools. The initial results were confirmed or further refined by peer reviews. All established plays (i.e., those that have had gas discoveries) were analyzed with the Truncated Discovery Process Model, an assessment method that runs as an Excel application (Logan 2005).

Geological assessment of a play included identifying the geological setting of the play, estimating the maturity of the play (i.e., how far along the discovery curve it is), comparison of plays within the Play Group, and understanding the most favorable areas of a play for future discoveries based on geological maps, penetration history, and trends.

Analysis of exploration history for the play included developing maps of historical drilling activity and discovered pools, as well as cross-plots of each discovered pool’s size class (ranking intervals based on amount of gas in billion cubic feet) by the year that the pool was discovered.

Statistical analysis was performed using TDPM to evaluate the undiscovered resources within a play. TDPM is a statistical model based on the assumption that the exploration process strives to find the largest remaining undiscovered pools first and that this goal is achievable (albeit with varying success) through geophysical and geological knowledge. It is based on the following two major principles, which were originally formulated by Gordon Kaufman of the MIT Sloan School of Management:

• The discovery of pools is a random process with a bias (known as a discoverability coefficient) for finding the largest remaining undiscovered pool first, and

• The statistical sampling process for discovering pools is a sampling without replacement process from a lognormal pool size probability distribution.

TDPM is also designed to include geological and peer review constraints in the process of developing estimates for the undiscovered

remaining resource. In addition to the geologic review by the CGPC analysts, peer reviews with external (primarily petroleum industry) experts were conducted as required. Key parameters determined from these reviews were:

• An analysis giving estimates of the sizes of the largest undiscovered pools in a given play and

• Estimating the total number of pools in a play in a pool size range known as the model range. This is the range from the size class of the most likely historical discoveries (the mode) up to and including the size class of the largest discovery.

These are the most critical parameters in estimating the portion of undiscovered resource in the play that would most likely be developed given typical (historical) economic conditions. The number of pools and their associated resource volumes in the size classes below the mode gives an estimate of the resource that might be available under increasingly favorable economic conditions. This undiscovered remaining resource is then described in terms of the number of undiscovered pools, as well as the average undiscovered resource per size class.

A significant problem with resource assessments is known as the economic truncation problem. This is the problem of statistically underestimating the ultimate number of pools in a play because of economic conditions. This underestimation occurs because only a portion of small pools that are discovered are booked as reserves. This introduces a statistical sampling bias in which the sample of discovered small pools is underestimated due to economic reasons. This in turn leads to an underestimation of the number of undiscovered pools in all but possibly a few top pool sizes, as well as the number of discovered small pools.

TDPM addresses the economic truncation problem by assuming the pool distribution fits a truncated lognormal distribution with outliers model. It first removes the outliers as necessary, then it restricts the range of the lognormal distribution to be the data range (i.e., model range) so that there is no undersampling of the data, It uses this data in a discovery process analysis to determine the parameters for the truncated lognormal distribution which


it then applies to the whole range of size classes.

Of the three components comprising the CGPC’s resource assessment methodology, two – the geological assessment and the analysis of the play’s exploration history – benefited directly from application of GIS to the process. The previous two CGPC reports had no GIS support and included only manually drafted maps to show the relative position of the play areas to generalized geological boundaries. The 2005 report incorporated GIS (using ArcGIS v9.1) into the methodology, although only at a rudimentary level and only for the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin portion (Volume 2) of the report.

In addition to using ArcGIS to produce the final illustrations for the WCSB volume, it was also used for data verification (i.e., confirming that the pools were assigned to the correct play as defined by the geological boundaries) and to visualize the distribution and relationship of wells, pools, and restricted access areas during the analysis process (Figure 1). Although these were very basic applications of GIS, it was a significant improvement over the previous report which had used an Excel spreadsheet for similar tasks.

ALBERTA ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD / NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD (EUB/NEB)The EUB/NEB assessment (EUB/NEB 2005) was similar in that it also performed a geological assessment of a variety of plays, an analysis of each play’s exploration history, and a statistical analysis which used an Excel spreadsheet to calculate various parameters defining the different plays. It differed in that it only covered Alberta, as opposed to all of Canada as in the CGPC report, and in the details of how these assessments were done. The main difference between the CGPC and the EUB/NEB assessments was that the EUB/NEB assessment aggregated the pool / well data on a tract basis. A tract was defined as equivalent to a square mile (i.e., one section), which is the basis for the Dominion Land Survey (DLS) system. Because the DLS system is based on a grid of square mile units, the various

attributes for each square mile could be mathematically manipulated. These tracts were further aggregated into Townships (areas of six miles by six miles) for final map display. Figure 2 is an example of this. In essence, maps using the DLS system in this way can be manipulated as if they were raster images.

The EUB/NEB project team created a spatially enabled database / mapping system of all tracts in Alberta. This database included a variety of attributes for each tract, such as GIP, drilled date, status, etc. The tract status was considered key to the estimation of ultimate gas potential for a play and was classed – in decreasing value – as either booked, unbooked, unconfirmed, bypassed, drilled, no potential, or future. The status of the tract was assigned based on the confidence that it contained gas as determined by production, tests, or geological mapping.

Another important attribute of the tracts was the median GIP. The authors’ assumption was that the GIP per section for future discoveries in each play area is generally equal to the median GIP per section of the discoveries to date for that play. This was based on the methodology of a previous study by the EUB (Energy Resources Conservation Board 1992) which concluded that, “As the play area matures and pool size continues to decrease, the rate of change becomes minimal such that, even if a large number of additional pools is anticipated, the change in median GIP/section will be insignificant.”

For the tracts that had a status of unbooked, unconfirmed, or bypassed, the median GIP for the play area was used. This, combined with the area of the play, allowed a calculation of the ultimate potential to be estimated. While this assumption is reasonable for plays that have had a larger number of pools discovered, it may be less valid where only a few pools define the play (this comment would be applicable to any statistical analysis). For the plays used in the EUB/NEB study, about a third of them had less than 30 pools discovered to date – a number frequently used as a base level for statistical

analysis. Use of the median GIP may not accurately characterize these plays.

Although the importance of GIS in producing the EUB/NEB report is acknowledged by their following comment: “The GIS was one of the most important tools in the project team’s analysis of the data and estimation of ultimate potential.” (ibid, p. 34), the full potential of GIS was not utilized. ArcGIS was used, as in the CGPC report, to create maps of the various stratigraphic intervals and play areas to allow visualization of the data by the analysts. Beyond that, the interpretations relied heavily on the expertise and experience of the team members, supplemented by peer reviews. Additional tasks in which GIS could have assisted include estimating how many pools of any particular size could be fit within existing well control, estimating distance to production facilities and pipelines,


Figure 1. An example of the GIS mapping used in the CGPC assessment (stars are top ten pools, red dots are pool locations, orange dots are well penetrations into play).


highlighting areas of difficult access (i.e., rugged terrain), etc.

CANADIAN DISCOVERY LTD. (CDL)The EUB/NEB report was released in March 2005 and that of the CGPC in June 2006. As a coincidence in timing, a third report, which also analyzed reserve data, was issued in the same time period. The Strategy 2005 report by Canadian Discovery Ltd. (CDL) was released in December 2005. The purpose of the EUB/NEB and the CGPC reports was to estimate ultimate gas potential for Alberta and Canada, respectively, which could be used for a variety of supply and demand forecasting. The CDL report, coming from more of an industry background than the others, focused on identifying trends for exploration and development of additional hydrocarbon reserves and on estimating the relative value of land along these trends.

Canadian Discovery’s report was the most geologically detailed of the three studies and covered both oil and gas drilling results for all of western Canada. Although it concentrated on exploration trends over the 2000-2005 period, it did consider all historical drilling, production, and reserve data in its analysis. In addition to the geological assessment of a variety of plays, analysis of each play’s exploration history, and a statistical analysis of the wells and pools in each play, the CDL report made more extensive use of GIS in arriving at their final conclusions.

The methodology used by CDL required assigning a main producing zone code (about 20% of producing wells are completed in more than one zone) and play area to each well that had been identified as either productive or potentially productive. An estimated ultimate recoverable (EUR) reserve value was generated through CDL’s proprietary engineering analysis of each well’s production. This was used to generate a histogram of values for all the wells in each play through ArcGIS. These were then used to assign a – somewhat arbitrary, but consistent – “good, better, best” designation to each well. For simplicity and repeatability, the EUR values in each play were divided into three categories

based on the following formula:

• zero to ½ the mean – good,

• ½ the mean to 1½ the mean – better,

• 1½ the mean to the maximum value – best.

Using ArcGIS, the wells were color-coded by EUR category for mapping purposes and a hierarchical system was developed to show the EUR categories along with production, test results, and penetrations in each play. This information was plotted for further interpretation by CDL’s project geologists. Contour maps manually generated by them were digitized and a total area for each of the three EUR categories for the entire play area was calculated. Reserves for the pools assigned to that play were totaled and then attributed by CDL (again, in a simplistic but understandable and repeatable way) to “good, better, best” categories as follows:

• good receives 15% of the total reserves,

• better receives 30% of the total reserves,

• best receives 55% of the total reserves.

CDL then took the reserve value for each category and divided it by the total area of that category to obtain a value of reserves

in barrels of oil equivalent per hectare (BOE/ha). The contoured trends were then rasterized using a one-kilometer grid size. This was done for each play. Where rasterized trends from stratigraphically stacked zones overlapped, the BOE/ha for the plays were summed mathematically. The end result was to identify a relative value based on reserves for every square kilometer in western Canada. This information can be used for valuing a company’s land holdings or identifying where a company can optimize the rate of return on its exploration expenditures.

CONCLUSIONSResource assessment of hydrocarbons is a valuable tool in strategic and long-term planning for both the public and private sectors. To date, the process has been concentrated on the

statistical aspect with little explicit emphasis on the inherent spatial nature of oil and gas resources. By incorporating a spatial database for use in the assessment process, the speed and accuracy of the analysis process improves. Also, being able to display graphically the assessment results makes the information much more useful to the end user of the report. As stated in the recently released joint report by the AEUB and the NEB which reviewed the ultimate gas potential in Alberta, “The GIS was one of the most important tools in the project team’s analysis of the data and estimation of ultimate potential.” (EUB/NEB 2005).

Previous assessments did not have the GIS capability available with current hardware, software, and data sets. The quality of work done for these previous assessments is not questioned – rather, the point is that resource assessments can be improved significantly by incorporating GIS analysis into the process.

Two concerns were identified during this review. The first was how well a play was actually defined, both conceptually and geographically. Traditionally, resource assessors tend to be either ‘lumpers’ or ‘splitters’. This describes the approach they use in determining how many categories they feel are needed to define the data. Lumpers generalize while splitters strive for detail. The amount of data (and


Figure 2. A portion of southern Alberta (EUB/NEB 2005, Thematic Map 07, p. 1370) showing the Ultimate Remaining Marketable Gas (each square is one township, i.e., 36 square miles).


time) available affects how well the play is defined. Some graphs generated from data of these resorts displayed obvious outliers. While the pools in those plays might appear associated, their departure from the expected log normal distribution suggests they may be mismatched. Prior to the use of GIS to handle large datasets, identifying such situations was extremely difficult and time-consuming.

Second, because the well control was more current than the reserve data, a number of wells were identified as productive from particular zones but which did not fit into any of the defined play areas. Most likely, these wells were new discoveries that had not yet made it into the reserves databases. Assuming that the productive zones are correct, this means that existing play areas need to be extended or additional play areas need to be defined. Again, without the use of GIS, these orphan wells would most likely have been overlooked.

By being able to identify untested areas through area size calculations and visualizing the drilling density, a feel for the remaining potential for new discoveries can be developed. As well, by creating a “yield-per-effort” value, the various plays can be economically ranked which can help focus future exploration efforts. The datasets include a number of other attributes such as discovery sequence, initial production, BOE reserves, and restricted access areas, each of which could have used GIS to more fully examine their spatial relationships. For each of these items, GIS allows the investigator to visualize the data through time and space. The discovery sequence can be used to track the ‘boom-and-bust’ cycles. Initial production and BOE reserves data can be used to identify trends that might be better exploration targets. Reviewing restricted areas with respect to prospective trends can highlight areas that require longer term planning in order to develop the resources.

The goal of any resource assessment is to determine as accurately as possible the amount of resource that is expected to be available. As equally important, but seldom explicitly considered, is where that resource may exist. Only through spatial analysis with GIS can that question be answered.

REFERENCESCanadian Discovery Ltd. (2005). Strategy 2005. Calgary, AB.

Canadian Gas Potential Committee (2006). Natural Gas Potential in Canada 2005. Calgary, AB.

EUB/NEB (2005). Alberta’s Ultimate Potential for Conventional Natural Gas. Calgary, Alberta, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and National Energy Board: 1385 p.

Logan, K. G. (2005). “The Truncated Discovery Process Model.” Natural Resources Research Vol. 14(No. 3): p. 265-281.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONAdditional information on these reports and related studies can be found on the following websites:

http://www.canadiandiscovery.com/http://www.canadiangaspotential.com/http://www.eub.ca/portal/server.pt?http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/nrgyrprt-eng.html

Also, the Canadian Gas Potential Committee (a volunteer organization) is beginning its next report cycle and is looking for volunteers interested in assisting. Contact information is given on their website.


CSPG Volunteer Profi le:Talking to Lisa Griffi th| by Heather Tyminski

LISA GRIFFITH,CSPG VICE PRESIDENTEmployer: Griff ith Geoconsulting Inc.Position: President and jack-of-all-trades

How many years have you volunteered for the CSPG?I think I joined the CSPG around 1980, but I volunteered for the society even before I joined when I was a grad student running a slide projector for a small convention at the Banff Centre.

What are your current responsibilities as a CSPG volunteer?Part of my responsibilities include heading up the Safety Committee and acting as the CSPG representative for CFES (Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences). I’m President in Waiting, so a lot of this is a learning year

for me, so I can get a sense of where we need to focus our energy.

What other volunteer positions have you held at the CSPG?I participated in the Thesis Awards committee off and on in the 1980s and 1990s, organized and co-chaired sessions for three CSPG conventions, and also chaired Awards and Core Conference committees for recent conventions. I have acted as the Finance Director and Assistant Finance Director, and I have participated in the visiting university lecture series (the first time was because I won Best Presentation and the next two times because I enjoyed doing it). I was also one of the guest editors of a special edition of the Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology.

Why did you initially decide to volunteer for the CSPG?I like to feel needed and feel like I’m contributing. I like to give back, to try new things, and I like meeting new people.

Why have you continued to volunteer for the CSPG?Because of the opportunities for personal growth. Part of the reason I took on this current position is because I wanted to exercise leadership skills and see what I could accomplish. I also wanted to have a global view of what the CSPG does, like what it is involved in nationally. Sometimes as a volunteer you only see a little portion, and I wanted an umbrella view of the CSPG.

What are some memorable moments you have had as a volunteer?I have had a lot of good moments. One thing I really enjoyed was when I got to meet the representatives of CFES from across Canada. It was interesting hearing from geologists from different industries and from different parts of Canada, and finding out their initiatives.

Could you offer some words of wisdom to our CSPG members?The Industry is a lot about networking, so volunteering for the CSPG can help you with that.

What is your opinion of the current volunteerism at the CSPG?I’m impressed with the quality of volunteers we have and the amount of young volunteers we have. The demographics are against us, as many geologists are retiring or have a lot of family commitments. I’m always impressed with how our volunteers are willing and enthusiastic. Often, you just need to ask someone directly to get them to volunteer.

Volunteering is a great thing to do wherever you choose to do it. You should consider contributing your time, not just your money. I also think you can bring a lot to the table if you volunteer elsewhere. It is important to donate your time to more than one part of your life. I have volunteered in other spheres: schools, the United Way, choir, etc.

“ I’m impressed with the quality of volunteers we have and the amount of young volunteers we have.”

Now there is a better method for identifying gas and measuring gas saturation in cased holes.

Baker Atlas is proud to introduce the GasViewSM service, a high-resolution measurement and

analysis service that produces an exceptionally clear picture of reservoir gas.

Using Baker Atlas’ RPMSM pulsed neutron system, the GasView service can be used to measure

reservoir gas in virtually any well. Applications range from identifying by-passed pay in wells

nearing abandonment to openhole log replacement for new wells.

Contact your Baker Atlas representative today to learn how the GasView service can help you

produce more gas with greater efficiency.

T h e B E S T C h o i c e

Focusing on Gas?Fo

r m

ore

info

rmat

ion,

vis

it ou

r w

ebsi

te w

ww

.bak

erhu

ghes

.com

© 2

006

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed.

R P M P E R F O R M A N C E P R O D U C T S

Gas

october - canadian society of petroleum geologists files/pdfs... · x quick guide to carbonate well...

Documents