|
Environmental BioTechnologies, Inc. |
Correlation of MET Survey with Drilling Results
Flinton Area, Saskatchewan Canada
T11, R6-7, W2
IntroductionIn August and September 1995, Environmental BioTechnologies (EBT) conducted Microbial Exploration Technology (MET) surveys over a 21.5 sq. mi. area in T11, R6-7, W2 (see % Probability of Success Contour Map). At the time of the survey, there was a developed field in the north central portion of T11, R6, W2 that extended through sections 27 and 34. Also, in the south western corner, a new field was being developed simultaneously and independently of EBT MET surveys. EBT has followed the drilling results in the survey area and believes that there is a positive correlation between MET survey results and drilling.
Survey Correlation with Drilling Results
Post survey drilling results correlated well with MET survey signal. EBT identified four sections within the newly developed area that showed significant oil producing opportunities and two other sections that had a moderate degree of potential. Two of the four sections with the highest drilling potential have had the most drilling activity in the area and the other two have been the sites for productive horizontal wells (see % Probability of Success Contour Map). In Sec.6 T11, R6, W2 there were two pre-survey wells. After the MET survey, seven more wells were drilled in the area, six of them horizontal and five of those six drilled through an area of high MET signal strength. In section seven, there were five pre-survey wells drilled. Post survey, six more wells were drilled in this section, four of the six were horizontal wells that either ran through areas of high MET signal strength or were directly adjacent to these areas. Sections seventeen and sixteen show similar results with horizontal wells drilled post-survey. There were however some results that did not correlate to drilling results but these wells are very near areas of strong signal strength. Additionally, based on oil production history, some of these oil wells are not good producers (see section on well production). Summarized in Table 1 are the %PS ratings assigned to all wells in the Flinton survey area. The contour map of the %PS data has been blocked out over most of the survey area due to remaining undrilled areas of interest.
Correlation of MET Results with Average Cumulative Production
EBT has evaluated a total of 53 wells in the Flinton area and provided a % Probability of Success for each location (see Table 1). Based on MET survey data only, EBT would have recommended 18 wells. Of these wells, 13 were completed, four were drilled dry, and one is still pending. That is a 76% success rate. Industry was successful 37 of 51 times for a success rate of 72% (see Table 1 for data). It is assumed that the company drilling these vertical and horizontal wells had access to 3D seismic data to support their drilling. A number of these wells completed by industry in areas outside of the high MET signal proved to be poor producers. Wells recommended by EBT's MET survey had an average cumulative production of 18,040 bbl, producing 112% of average production, as compared to 16,146 bbl for all producing wells in this study group, (see Table 2). Non-recommended wells and those wells that fell below 25% PS showed an average production of 15,120 bbl and 10,460 bbl, producing 93% and 65% of average respectively.
Summary
If industry drilled on EBT recommendations, they would have had an average cumulative production that was 12% higher than the field as a whole and when compared to non-recommended wells and those that fell below a %PS of 25, EBT recommended wells average production increased 19% and 72% respectively. It seems that there is a good direct correlation between %PS rating and production levels in the Flinton area. EBT MET surveys had a 76% success rate which was 5% higher than industry for this township and was based on survey costs of $1,000 per section as compared to $20,000-30,000 for 3D seismic. A survey of this size is economical to conduct, costing approximately $US 20,000 and would have saved the industry money by eliminating poor producers and increasing drilling results.
Table 1. Individual Well Review and Recommendations
Lsd Sect T R M Date %PS Recommendation Result Company Cum Prod. 1 15 13 11 7 2 Oct-95 85 Recommended Dry Tri Link 2 13 28 11 6 2 Sep-97 64 Recommended Dry Tri Link 3 7 7 11 6 2 Aug-95 63 Recommended Oil Tri Link 29,764 4 8 7 11 6 2 Sept-97 62 Recommended Oil Tri Link 1,363 5 10 19 11 6 2 Sep-97 55 Recommended Dry Tri Link 6 3 13 11 7 2 Oct-95 55 Recommended Suspended Tri Link 7 4 6 11 6 2 Feb-99 51 Recommended Standing Tri Link 8 14 6 11 6 2 Aug-97 48 Recommended Oil Tri Link 24,837 9 14 6 11 6 2 Aug-97 48 Recommended Oil Tri Link 6,733 10 16 29 11 6 2 Sep-97 48 Recommended Dry Tri Link 11 5 6 11 6 2 Sept-97 47 Recommended Oil Tri Link 5,727 12 14 8 11 6 2 Feb-98 44 Recommended Suspended
@1610 boTri Link 1,610 13 5 21 11 6 2 Sep-95 43 Potential Dry Tri Link 14 16 7 11 6 2 Aug-96 43 Recommended Oil Tri Link 8,489 15 1 7 11 6 2 Jun-95 40 Recommended Oil Tri Link 10,756 16 9 7 11 6 2 Sep-95 40 Potential Oil Tri Link 2,807 17 11 6 11 6 2 Aug-97 40 Recommended Oil Tri Link 20,946 18 9 6 11 6 2 Sept-95 39 Potential Suspended
@3,104 boTri Link 3,104 19 16 17 11 6 2 Jan-98 38 Recommended Oil Tri Link 17,533 20 1 19 11 6 2 Sept-95 37 Low Potential Dry Tri Link 21 2 13 11 7 2 Oct-95 37 Low Potential Oil Tri Link 915 22 16 7 11 6 2 Jun-96 36 HZ Recommended Oil Tri Link 40,693 23 6 6 11 6 2 Oct-97 35 Recommended Oil Tri Link 66,072 24 7 17 11 6 2 Sep-95 25 Low Potential Oil Tri Link 2,594 25 9 17 11 6 2 Sep-95 35 Low Potential Oil Tri Link 5,207 26 15 16 11 6 2 Sep-95 34 Low Potential Oil Tri Link 15,328 27 7 9 11 6 2 Sept-95 30 Low Potential Dry Tri Link 28 3 16 11 6 2 Sep-95 29 Low Potential Dry Tri Link 29 8 18 11 6 2 Jun-96 29 Low Potential Oil Tri Link 27,137 30 15 5 11 6 2 Jul-96 29 Low Potential Oil Tri Link 10,834 31 5 7 11 6 2 Aug-96 28 Low Potential Oil Tri Link 3,659 32 1 16 11 6 2 Sep-95 27 Low Potential Oil Tri Link 10,592 33 3 7 11 6 2 Aug-96 27 Low Potential Oil Tri Link 80,803 34 9 18 11 6 2 Sep-96 26 Low Potential Oil Tri Link 73,195 35 10 22 11 6 2 Oct-95 26 Low Potential Dry Tri Link 36 1 18 11 6 2 Sep-95 25 Low Potential Oil Tri Link 18,279 37 8 6 11 6 2 Oct-97 25 Low Potential Oil Tri Link 755 38 13 16 11 6 2 Oct-95 25 Low Potential Oil Tri Link 25,562 39 10 25 11 7 1 Oct-95 25 Low Potential Dry Tri Link 40 3 17 11 6 2 Sep-95 24 Low Potential Oil Tri Link 19,469 41 9 9 11 6 2 Oct-95 24 Low Potential Suspended
@1819 boTri Link 1,819 42 16 16 11 6 2 Feb-98 23 Low Potential Oil Tri Link 3,626 43 12 17 11 6 2 Oct-97 21 Low Potential Oil Tri Link 6,985 44 6 7 11 6 2 Sep-97 20 Low Potential Oil Tri Link 28,667 45 7 6 11 6 2 Sep-95 18 Low Potential Oil Tri Link 7,556 46 6 4 11 6 2 Nov-97 17 Low Potential Oil Tri Link 2,118 47 12 4 11 6 2 Sep-95 16 Low Potential Dry Tri Link 48 6 5 11 6 2 Sep-95 15 Low Potential Dry Tri Link 49 10 5 11 6 2 Sep-95 15 Low Potential Oil Tri Link 10,834 50 3 5 11 6 2 Sep-95 13 Low Potential Dry Tri Link 51 7 5 11 6 2 Nov-97 12 Low Potential Oil Tri Link 1,052 52 2 5 11 6 2 Feb-99 10 Low Potential Standing Tri Link 53 5 4 11 6 2 May-97 6 Low Potential Dry Tri Link Table 2. Average Cumulative Production Data
Average Cum. Prod. % of Average Production Average Production Bottom 25 % PS 10,560 bo 65 Average Production Non-Recommended Wells 15,120 bo 93 Average Production 16,146 bo 100 Average Production Recommended Wells 1 8,040 112 Chart 1. Average Cumulative Production Flinton Area
Main Menu - Petroleum services - Environmental services-Webmaster
Where in the world? - Client list - Map Sales - EBT Book Room
Environmental BioTechnologies, Inc.
255C S. Guild Ave.
Lodi, CA 95240
Contact us