The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCO 093 A Conservation Order Cover Page XHVZE This page is required for administrative purposes in managing the scanning process. It marks the extent of scanning and identifies certain actions that have been taken. Please insure that it retains it's current location in this file. O ?_..~_ AConservation Order Category Identifier Organizing RESCAN [] Color items: [] Grayscale items: [] Poor Quality Originals: [] Other: NOTES: BY: ROBIN ~ Scanning Preparation DIGITAL DATA [] Diskettes, No. [] Other, No/Type OVERSIZED (Scannable with lame plotter/scanner) [] Maps: [] Other items OVERSIZED (Not suitable for pletter/scanner, may work with 'log' scanner) [] Logs of various kinds [] Other DATE: ,.~/A7/O3 · BY: ROBIN~ Production Scanning DATE: ~'7/0~ /s/ Stage I PAGE COUNT FROM SCANNED DOCUMENT: YES NO ROB ~N ~ DATE: Stage 2 IF NO IN STAGE 1, PAGE(S) DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND: YES NO (SCANNING IS COMPLETE AT THIS POINT UNLESS SPECIAL ATTENTION IS REQUIRED ON AN INDIVIDUAL PAGE BASIS DUE TO QUALITY, GRAYSCALE OR COLOR IMAGES) General Notes or Comments about this Document: 5/21/03 ConservOrdCvrPg.wpd Robert T. Anderson Manager, Lands Alaska Region Unocal Oil & Gas DJ(' n Unocal Corporation ~ P.O. Box 190247 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0247 ~-?;;'-'q¥~;"':i-~~~'-~,;~-~ ./ Telephone (907) 276-7600 ~ I~O? !, ,i -~ ,-.~~.'~ ":' ~'"">" ~ ~ I AOGCC 3001 Porcupine Drive Anchorage, AK 99501 TRADING BAY FIELD State of Alaska Application to Commingle Produced Fluids from the West Foreland Pool Well No. A-28 Dear Mr. Crandall: Union Oil Company of California, for itself and its working interest partner Marathon, hereby requests that Rule 3 of Conservation Order No. 93A be amended to also provide commingling of the West Foreland Oil Pool. Approval of the above will increase field recovery rates without sacrificing data quality, operational safety or environmental goals. Advantages of commingled operations are outlined in the attached two pages. If you have questions please contact Duane Grubert, Union's Engineer, at this office. We would appreciate your favorable consideration of this request. Very truly yours, Robert A. Province Landman RAP:rms Attachment RECEIVED MAR 1 6 1990 ,?~iaska 0i~ & Gas Cons, C0mmiss[0~ Anchora~ It is proposed to commingle the West Foreland zone oil production on the Monopod at Trading Bay Field. Given that: 1. Trading Bay Field is in a late stage of development. 2. Ail zones still have development potential. · Flexibility of well completions must be afforded to maximize long-term well utility. · Investment must be minimized to continue development of the Trading Bay Field Monopod platform. · Ownership of produced oil and gas in all pools on all subject acreage will not be affected by commingling production. It appears that commingled oil production would increase ultimate field recovery. i · Commingled production extends expected life and usefulness of producers by: a· eliminating the risk of losing one production string for mechanical reasons in a dual string non- commingled completion. be allowing through-tubing profile modifications and stimulation of all zones completed with a single string. Ce allowing for coiled tubing cleanouts of all intervals completed with a single string. d· gaining these benefits without being forced to drill two single string producers. e· eliminating abandonment of productive sands during well recompletions when shifting emphasis to a new zone. · A single string completion allows for wireline production profiles to be run across all zon~ a. estimates of production volume breakdowns for individual sands in multiple zones is no less accurate in a commingled producer than would be similar estimates for a single string single zone producer. · Gas lifting a single tubing string vs. two strings should increase production rates by allowing optimization of gas lift valve settings. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS With single string commingled zone completions: - No compromise would be made as to data on individual sand production. - Well life and thus ultimate field recovery would be increased by eliminating potential for future mechanical problems. - Existing productive intervals would not have to be permanently abandoned when new zones are added. - Remedial well work is afforded to all subject intervals, thus increasing well life and ultimate recovery. - Lowered investment allows marginal projects to be implemented and the recovery of otherwise excluded reserves. - Increased well life and recovery extends viable life of Monopod, increasing chance of new development to take place. - Ownership interests for the subject property will not be affected in any case by commingling. / ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR 3001 PORCUPINE DRIVE ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-3192 PHON E: (907) 279-1433 TELECOPY NO: (907) 276-7542 January 4, 1989 Dear Subscriber: The Commission inadvertently issued two Conservation Orders under the number 236. The first one was issued to Shell Western E & P Inc. and Amoco Production Company and will remain as issued. The second one was issued to Unocal on July 29, 1988 and shall be redesignated henceforth as C.O. No. 93A. Please make the necessary corrections to your files. We regret any inconvenience. Very truly yours, Lonnie C. Smith Commissioner dlf:RAD/CO93A STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION 3001 Porcupine Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3192 Re: THE APPLICATION OF UNOCAL ) CORPORATION to commingle ) produced fluids from the ) Middle Kenai B, C, D, ) E and Hemlock Oil Pools. ) Conservation Order No. 93A Trading Bay Field Trading Bay Middle Kenai "B" Oil Pool Trading Bay Middle Kenai "C" Oil Pool Trading Bay Middle Kenai "D" Oil Pool Trading Bay Middle Kenai "E" Oil Pool Trading Bay Hemlock Oil Pool July 29, 1988 IT APPEARING THAT: · · · Unocal Corporation submitted an application dated June 10, 1988 requesting the referenced order. Unocal Corporation submitted an addendum dated June 16, 1988 defining the Middle Kenai "A" Oil Pool. Notice of hearing was published June 19, 1988. No protest was filed with the Commission. FINDINGS: · The Trading Bay Middle Kenai B, C, D, E and Trading Bay Hemlock Oil Pools are defined in Conservation Orders 93 and 101. · Hydrocarbon bearing sands above the "B" pool exist in several fault blocks. Well data is too sparse to delineate these hydrocarbon bearing sands as a separate pool. · Wellbore commingling of production will provide a prudent means for additional recovery of hydrocarbons found in sands above the Middle Kenai "B" Oil Pool without causing waste. Conservation Order No. 93A July 29, 1988 Page 2 · · · · · · Wellbore commingling of production will also enhance recovery from the B, C, D, E, and Hemlock Oil Pools without causing waste. Correlative rights will not be adversely affected by commingling produced fluids. Allocation of produced fluids from each separate pool in commingled wellbores may be accomplished using prior well producing history in conjunction with periodic production surveys. Commingled completions will allow through tubing profile modifications, stimulation and coiled tubing workover operations of all pools present. Commingled completions are also expected to benefit artificial lift. Well life expectancy is extended which should result in increased ultimate recovery of hydrocarbons. Pools in the Trading Bay Field are in an advanced state of depletion. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Oil bearing sands overlie the Middle Kenai "B" Oil Pool. · Wellbore commingling of produced fluids from the Trading Bay Middle Kenai and Hemlock Oil Pools will increase ultimate oil recovery. Wellbore commingling of produced fluids from oil bearing sands above the Middle Kenai "B" Oil Pool will increase ultimate oil recovery. · Allocation of produced fluids to their respective pools is no longer of any benefit to reservoir management, ultimate recovery, or the prevention of waste. · Wellbore commingling of produced fluids from the Trading Bay Middle Kenai Oil Pool, Hemlock Oil Pool, and oil bearing sands above the Middle Kenai "B" Oil Pool will prevent waste, enhance field ultimate recovery, and does not jeopardize the correlative rights of all owners within the field. Conservation Order No. 93A July 29, 1988 P age 3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Conservation Order No. 162 is hereby cancelled. 2. Rule 3 of Conservation Order No. 93 is amended to read: Commingling in the wellbore of produced fluids from the Trading Bay Middle Kenai B, C, D, E, and Hemlock Oil Pools, and those oil bearing sands which overlie the Middle Kenai "B" Oil Pool is permitted. Total well production need not be allocated to each pool and productive sand. DONE at Anchorage, Alaska, and dated July 29, 1988. C ~'~atterton, Ch~firnfan Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission L°~nie C 'Smith,~ Commissioner Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission W W Barnwell, Commissioner Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Notice of Public Hearing STATE OF ALASKA Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Re: The application of Unocal Corporation to commingle produced fluids from the Middle Kenai A, B, C, D, E and Hemlock oil pools. Unocal Corporation by letter dated June 10, 1988, has requested an order to allow commingling of produced fluids from the Middle Kenai A, B, C, D, E and Hemlock oil pools in the Trading Bay Field. The Middle Kenai B, C, D, E and Hemlock oil pools are defined in Conservation Order 93. The Middle Kenai A pool definition is part of the application. A person who may be harmed if the requested order is issued may file a written protest prior to July 5, 1988 with the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 3001 Porcupine Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, and request a hearing on the matter. If the protest is timely filed, and raises a substantial and material issue crucial to the Commission's determination, a hearing on the matter will be held at the above address at 9:00 AM on July 18, 1988 in conformance with 20 AAC 25.240. If a hearing is to be held, interested parties may confirm this by calling the Commission's office, (907) 279-1433, after July 5, 1988. If no proper protest is filed, the Commission will consider the issuance of the order without a hearing. Lonnie C.V/Smith Commissioner Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission Published June 19, 1988 Robert T. Anderson District Land Manager Alaska District Unocal Oil & Gas Di~'~ t Unocal Corporation '~ RO. Box 190247 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0247 Telephone (907) 276-7600 UNOCAL June 6, 1988 Hr. C. V. Chatterton AOGCC 3001 Porcupine Drive Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Hr. Chatterton, Unocal wishes to complete future oil producers and water injectors at Trading Bay Field (Honopod Platform) for itself and its working interest partner, Harathon, featuring commingled zone production (A, B, C, D, E and Hemlock sands). As discussed in our meeting with you Harch 24, 1988, commingled operation has not been previously pursued but is now a preferred mode of operation in an increasing number of cases. Commingled operations will require AOGCC approval. Unocal intends to monitor any commingled wellbores by running production or injection profiles on at least an annual basis. Data will be no less accurate for estimating individual sand productivity (or injectivity) than if two separate production (or injection) strings were used. Advantages of commingled operation are outlined in the attaci~ed two pages. Approval of this concept would increase field recovery rates without sacrificing data quality, operational safety, or environmental goals. If you have any questions, please contact Steve Lambert, Unocal's District Engineer in this office. trj/O235r Respectfully, RECEIVED JUN 9 1988 Alaska 011 & Ga; Cons, Commission Anchorage It is proposed to commingle Hemlock and Tyonek (A, B, C, D, and E sands) zone oil production on the Monopod at Trading Bay Field. Given that: 1. Trading Bay Field is in a late stage of development. 2. Ail zones still have development potential. Flexibility of well completions must be afforded to maximize long-term well utility. 4. Investment must be minimized to continue development of the Trading Bay Field Monopod platform. Ownership of produced oil and gas in all pools on all subject acreage will not be affected by commingling production. It appears that commingled oil production would increase ultimate field recovery. 1. Commingled production extends expected life and usefulness of producers by: a. eliminating the risk of losing one production string for mechanical reasons in a dual string non-commingled completion. b. allowing through-tubing profile modifications and stimulation of all zones completed with a single string. c. allowing for coiled tubing cleanouts of all intervals completed with a single string. d. gaining these benefits without being forced to Orill two single string producers. e. eliminating abandonment of productive sands during well recompletions when shifting emphasis to a new zone. 2. A single string completion allows for wireline production profiles to be run across all zones. a. estimates of production volume breakdowns for individual sands in multiple zones is no less accurate in a commingled producer than would be similar estimates for a single string single zone producer. A commingled strategy would first be applied to the "C" and "D" sands. Curtailment of water injection into the "C" and "D" zones during 1984 with ultimate shutdown of injection during 1986 has to a large degree allowed individual sand pressures to equalize. This is true even across the "C" and "D" zones due to mechanical conditions of some wellbores completed with dual strings. Adopting a single string commingled strategy for the "C" and "D" zones on both the injection and withdrawal ends will facilitate continuation of a relatively even pressure distribution amongst the "C" and "D" sands, yielding a longer project life and enhanced ultimate recovery. 4. Gas lifting a single tubing string vs two strings should increase production rates by allowing optimization of gas lift valve settings. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS With single string commingled zone completions: - No compromise would be made as to data on individual sand production. - Well life and thus ultimate field recovery would be increased by eliminating potential for future mechanical problems. - Existing productive intervals would not have to be permanently abandoned when new zones are added. - Remedial well work is afforded to all subject intervals, thus increasing well life and ultimate recovery. - Lowered investment allows marginal projects to be implemented and the recovery of otherwise excluded reserves. - Increased well life and recovery extends viable life of Monopod, increasing chance of new development to take place. - Ownership interests for the subject property will not be affected in any case by commingling. 0235r RI ¢£1VED JUN 9 1988 Alaska 011 & Gaa Cons. Commission Anchorage