The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCO 107 ) ) Image Project Order File Cover Page XHVZE This page identifies those items that were not scanned during the initial production scanning phase. They are available in the original file, may be scanned during a special rescan activity or are viewable by direct inspection of the file. Û) In 7 Order File Identifier Organizing (done) D Two-sided III "11111111111111 o Rescan Needed 1111111111111111111 RESCAN DIGITAL DATA OVERSIZED (Scannable) D Maps: D Other Items Scannable by a Large Scanner o Color Items: o Greyscale Items: D Diskettes, No. D Other, NofType: o Poor Quality Originals: BY: Helen~ ,-. OVERSIZED (Non-Scannable) D Logs of various kinds: 13:- y...., trl B t -r .-:..r øSther:: Mt>..rS, :t..* \l.- Date: to ~ nS Isl ~ , IIIIIIIIIIII~ 111II Date0 Ó CJS Is! W D Other: NOTES: Project Proofing BY: Helen~ Scanning Preparation x 30 = + = TOTAL PAGES 4-7. (Coun!JI0~s noJinclude cover shee '^ L ) Date: (ø a fJS 151 V Vy- , 1111111111111111111 BY: Helen C Maria ~ \ Production Scanning Stage 1 Page Count from Scanned File: Lp ~ (Count does include cover sheet) Page Count Matches Number in Scanning Preparation: VYES NO Helen ~ Date:0,~ 3 ,-OS Isl VV\P If NO in stage 1, page(s) discrepancies were found: YES NO Stage 1 BY: BY: Helen Maria Date: 151 111I11I1I1111111111 Scanning is complete at this point unless rescanning is required. . ReScanned 111111111111111111I BY: Helen Maria Date: 151 Comments about this file: Quality Checked 1I1II1II11111111111 12/1/2004 Orders File Cover Page.doc ) I Conservation Order 107 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ------------------ ----------------- August 13,1971 September 7, 1973 Transcript Application for Spacing Exception Union's Application for Spacing Exception Union Itr re: TBU Well K-10 Conservation Order 107 /--.., ~ STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee 3001 Porcupine Drive Anchorage) Alaska 99504 Re: THE APPLICATION OF UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA for an order allowing the commingling of~produc- tion from the McArthur River Middle Kenai "G" Oil Pool and the McArthur River Hemlock Oil Pool in the well bore of the Trading Bay Unit State Well No. K-lO. IT APPEARING THAT: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Conservation Order No. 107 McArthur River Field Middle Kenai "G" Oil Pool Hemlock Oil Pool September 14, 1971 1. The Oil and Gas Conservation Committee published a notice of public hearing in the Anchorage Daily News on August 14, 1971, pursuant to Title 11) Alaska Administrative Code, Section 2009. 2. A public hearing was held August 25, 1971 at the above address, at which time the applicant and affected parties were heard. FINDINGS: 1. The Hemlock Oil Pool perforated interval in the referenced well will not flow but is capable of producing approximately 200 barrels of oil per day (BOPD) by artificial lift; however) this production cannot be sustained due to paraffin deposition. 2. Commingling the production of the Hemlock Oil Pool and the Middle Kenai "G" Oil Pool will reduce paraffin deposition by minimizing downhole cooling and should result in greater ultimate recovery. 3. Initial allocation of 200 BOPD to the Hemlock Oil Pool appears reasonable when considering the low permeability in the vicinity of the referenced well, the reduction in paraffin deposition and that a pressure maintenance project is now in operation. 4. Due to the high angle deviated hole and mechanical problems, conventional production testing of each zone is not advisable but adequate tests for produc- tion allocation can be obtained by wireline subsurface production logging devices. 5. Periodic testing of the production from the separate pools will indicate possible production problems which may affect commingling and may indicate that changes in production allocation are necessary. ........ Conservation Order t,r' "107 Page 2 September 14, 1971 ~\ CONCLUSION: 1. Commingling of the production from the referenced pools in the referenced well may result in increased recovery of hydrocarbons. 2. Initial allocation of 200 BOPD to the referenced well from the Hemlock Oil Pool appears reasonable. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Union Oil Company of California be permitted to commingle production from the referenced pools in the referenced well. 2. For each day produced, all production from the referenced well up to and including 200 BOPD shall be allocated to the Hemlock Oil Pool and all produc- tion in excess of 200 BOPD shall be allocated to the Middle Kenai "G" Oil Pool. 3. Within six months after initial commingling, the operator shall run a sub- surface production logging device in the referenced well to determine the amount of production from each pool and furnish copies of the results to the Committee within 15 days. 4. Additional tests for production allocation may be required by the Committee at not more than six-month intervals. 5. Allocation provided for in rule 2 may be changed by the Committee if tests required in rules 3 and 4 indicate the allocation is not representative. 6. The Committee may require that a suitable mechanical device be installed to prevent flow between the commingled pools if the well is shut in for an extended period or should the Middle Kenai uG" Pool commence producing appreciable amounts of water. DONE at Anchorage, Alaska and dat;Z~bïl4;~ t Thomas R. Marshall, Jr., Executive Secretary Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee Concurrence: d~r~~~-~O~_ Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee o~(&~!~:?· Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee #5 ~ ~ ') é?J;t'l.d!i?,'¿,<¿/'" .l-7,1le I éJ ,7 Union Oil and Gas r lsion: Western Region . j Union Oil Company of California 909 W. 9th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 279-7681 September 7, 1973 . t D/R/./:¡/ /);) -1_~~?~{~1ii' 1 :.~....ENG... ~.41í..,.....ll =-r-J ENG-" ~ /2hh[NG <'~';' . '.--r-.T~.l:.[E~~-;I'Z.·~·~. ;> .--1_.___ ., ,~, . r~r1 L~..ENG /...... 1......~.(;Wl 1'2: '. 1 2 GFOl······J- :-rTGEOl 'fL!::. , I RËv····~ ~I-··:····I ~_~~~'FT- '~l sOO--- CONFÊR: ,= I ALE: '" -... .\.... ...: unlen Eugene F. Griffin District Operations Manager Anchorage District Mr. Homer L. Burrell State of Ala ska Department of Natural Resources 3001 Porcupine Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Dear Mr. Burrell: TRADING BAY UNIT \NELL K-I0 Your letter of July 19 concerned the allocation method used for TBU Well K-I0. Since amended Production Reports (Form 10-405) were filed soon after receipt of your letter, we assumed the question to be resolved. The apparent discrepancy in the March, April and May reports (as originally submitted) was caused by a premature change in the allocation method used by ARCo. The TBU Participants had originally agreed to a daily allocation of 200 net barrels to the Hemlock WIPA from K-I0 for a period of one year following II recompletionll. II After said one year period I a llocation of pro- duction to the pools shall be determined by test, the type, frequency and duration of which shall be agreed to by the Parties or as ordered by the Conservation Committee II. ARCo, without the approval of the Parties, changed the Hemlock allocation to 20 BOPD effective March I, 1973. The 17 ,180 bbls originally reported as May production was comprised of the following: Adj ustment for March; 31 x 180 Adjustment for April; 30 x 180 May allocation; 31 x 200 Total 5 ,580 bbls 5,400 6,200 17 ,180 bbls As mentioned above I revised reports have already been filed. If you have further questions regarding this matter I please let me know. E FG: nnb cc: Atlantic Richfield Company Ver truly yoocs i í ' " I- ~ZÜ~IN1~'~'~ t \ \ ~ ~ ~ Eu enl F. Griffin/~) \ .. O\~t ~ ~ G I ~ C.\~ r \. ..\\) c,þ..':> ... ,-.\\. þ.,.... ...!:. V ç f')\' \.) \ ~ C., ;., n'\J\'::~<oJ ,C\,,\C)R. V' þ.." ~ ~',>~ ~'¿'>'~'~J"'\~'~ . HI..B:·OkG:Jh cc: Attan"tJc Rfchf'etd Company t-kMr t. Burrs' J o J Ft~C; for- .'/' ,. /.·1/ ''f' ,/.r' -/ I Slncerel..,. We 'WOU"d~::~J)p,rechlt;:;'h~,r'lng, frcm you ':tn 'thIs. matter.,','· . ~i':~:S99'" ,Jv::.cn :7 .. ·'··:.~t··..' hc'.·a: ·,';19 Q':J Mr.~~~I~f:.!~. 1~; Un'''':~~''t.{:~änY:<>.~;·~Jtfom;a 909W.I~..~~..., ^v9f\.è·~.. '.' ::,,;,. }\.n~;~ Ataska .~~f '·1~· ,.. r, . i~ ,~'......' r ....1 .~,," ,.;,.,¡: '.... ,"I.~.~..'" ..::"" i.:;!.J ':,~ r:~, \~·t''': ~,!, '"'ifi ~ Dear, t¥"; .,;~J ffln : > 7 ,: .-, ..' ::(: ~ ~', ''¡'\''- . '"... '~" .a-. "< ·3 'J.,.. '~:~. ~ ~:~. ~ , (~:' ~':':',""~ " ,:,~,~~;..": ,~'!'~', ' .' ,;,t., " 'I'~.'/'" "~ , ' ' , '~I,'r~ , ~, .·or' Conservåtlon Order'~':~~f07,. penn"ftecf the comm1nt 'n~l, of ffutds tn,'.t"e,:Tradlng Bay 01dfl(-10 well;j"ff also provIded that a means woufd he determIned to at JocateproductfM:betwaen the Kana.' zone and the Hemtock' zone. Ai'tachec[ ts a table whf.ch has beên pr'eøared showing the a1 foeatton that has been "U,slnc:e Janua.,.....ot.972.. You can see, from thts fa,bfe that the method of a II ocatron dœs ~,not ;af'P&ðr to be cons t stent and we wou I d I f ks to determf ne whet, mèihod you are·::uslng and why y~.are usIng tt., , Your partlcuJaratTentton Is calted'to the Maý·t973 aJ'ocat'M whIch appears to be compte-teJyout of I fne...·wlthat' othe~:~product'on reportfng..- ".,. ,- , . ," ,...... - ~." r ,:. ..~ .,.. . ,...., ..- -þ . .. ~""r"·'·. ., '.' ..... ..... '._ ., 10. , . .~... ~"~'II-",.·...,.. ,....,~.. ~ . . , . ~.~~~k"~:'i'::':~\'. , ;:',t:'.:.~::r-1"" "..... ..-1'Ht.~~.:,' ~'...~..~ ., ~~p..._... ..--. ~··1:~i""r'!lJ':·"\~ ". '- &ti,:"':" :". :~~C;~-:~i' #4 ,.., ~) ."" ¡' '~; ~,~'; ~. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee Conservation File No. 107 Re: Application of Union Oil Company of California for an order allowing the· èommingling of production from the McArthur River Middle Kenai "G" Oil Pool with the production from the McArthur River Hemlock Oil Pool in the well bore of the Trading Bay Unit State Well No. K-lO. Notice is hereby given that the Union Oil Company of California has petitioned the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee for an order allow- - . ing commingling of production in the well bore in the referenced well. Pursuant to Title 11, Alaska Administrative Code, Section 2009, parties who may be aggrieved if the requested order is issued are allowed ten days from the date of this publication in which to file a protest and request for hearing. The place for filing is 3001 Porcupine Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99504. If such a protest is timely filed, a hearing on the matter will be held at the above address at 9:30 a.m., August 25, 1971, at which time protestants and others may be heard. If no such protest is timely filed, the Committee will consider the issuance of the order without a hearing. tL r¿ 1ø~~,L. Thomas R. Marshall, Jr. Executive Secretary Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee 3001 Porcupine Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Publish Augus~ 14, 1971 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICA TION STATE OF ALASKA, ) THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, ) 55. '. ..Jja..r:y. ..L.. ..2.ha k.e......... ........ ...... being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says thaL__Qh.e...... is the.....~~ß~}~..~~·.~E~.... of the Anchorage News, a daily news. paper. That said newspaper has been approved as a legal news- paper by the Third Judicial Court, Anchorage, Alaska, and it is now and has been published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Anchorage, Alaska, and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said news- paper. That the annexed is a true copy of a . }:!~ß.~\~..~.'?·~J~~..)~?57 as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplemental form) of said newspaper for. a . One. penod of ................__ Insertions, 1 L+ commencing on the ............day of ..!~~~ß.\-l~t........__., 197.~.__ , and ending on the.____...}~·.__... day of ':I.u¿;ust 71 of .. .......... .~............ __...,' 19..... __., both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers dur- ing all of sa,id period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $ 10. 00 which amount has been paid in full at the rate of 25¢ per line; Mini· mum charge $7.50. ~~//V~ Subscribed ~ sworn to before me this ..1-'1.. day of..~.¡'.lJ..g]J§.t...., 19.æ~.. ...~:::Ç.::~Æ:.~~... .nu-;YL(_¿:.~. Notary Public in and for the State of Alaska, Third Division, Anchorage, Alaska rj.J COMMISSION EXPIRES _ _..~:=~~::..:...m.¿¿ 19..~?L N01IC¡:OF ·PUßÙc HEARING STATE OF AlA~K,¡,\ DEPARTMeNT D'F NATURAL RESOURŒS Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee Conservàtion' File No. 107 , Re: Application of' Union Oil Company of (alifMnil!· forM·'ClrdU111,,'i'¡n,~ ·tl-.l.'/,'.III. ',,,,.,,~Io"'J r,l ~,r"d',,, i(.,·, 'r,)m I h~ 1.\( ~ nl"H ;'.I'tr M;,jdl-. t'"n,j "'..'. 011 P,:,,:, ~,II-, II," ¡:,r.,dl'[ 1 ,(,11 I n,'il 1I"e /I.\( Allhur f,' IVf./ Hdï'lùo:l. ("I p",,1 ,r, 111'1 \/,,;11 b.-'r,~ .., rh,; I T rad I n9... :~·~Y ... U nl.t, .State"0eJ...,~O.:~.1~.1 , 'I~I herebY '1¡l¡e~ 'tha~·' ;heun;~n I Oil COlllpany of California has petitioned the I Alaska Oi,1 and Gas Cons,ervation Committee I for an order aI/owing commingling of pro. duction in the well bore In .the rMerenced ,well. Pursuant to Title 11. Alaska Admini-' stratiÌle Code. Scc~¡on 2009. parties who may be aggrieved if the requested order . is issued are, 'allowcq ten days from the date of this I' ,p.ubHc~t'QIl In, .whiçr ,·to fi,lea. protest and Iroq~eSI"f~r ~eðfln~.,T~e pl¡¡Ce for filing Is' ;30p1· Por~uþ.lnll, :br,ivl/. Anchorage. Alaska i1;195Q4.1 ,Il·· ,uch.iI·· protest .1& ')lm~ly f/ed, II h~ari,,~, olrthø nwter WJ"'~ehqd at. tM' í~bQlle ,:,~fjdr~ssqt 9:30' ~.m,.' A"'IIU&t 25.. ,1,97-1,':at' Which time' prot,$tal1t$ 'and' others l1')~y ,be' heard. .Ifno' such protest lis timely r."e41t~IIComm.l.tteeWlllcon$ldér the 1m· Bn~~ qf. the order Without a hearln?;, 'C, , " Thofl1l;1s' 'R, Marsball, Jr. ' , Executive '~éci\Øtar.y '. AlaskaO¡1 anqGas ., Ct>ri'servatión ·Çomm,lttee 30P), PorcuPine / DrlvB Anc1or~\¡e; 'Alaska 99504' 1971 ' #3 · \, (HI. AND GAS Ion'J 1;;¡\V;~HOIAQI August 13, 1971 ¡;/.I. . /) f) ~~D"' r----.(,. e L,.. t,1." /,1, Union Oil and Gas'-)iSion: Western Region Union Oil Company of California 909W. 9th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 279-7681 I 'DIR I t·C.GIÖ~ It~·· ENG .', ---¡---. - . I 1 ENG I ., I 2 ÉÑG 1·,'''";#....'.· '/ t I 3 ENG10'h"] I 4 ENG lò I 5 ENG I I 1 'GEOCIï7 ·-··--r"2 ... GEbM-Z ':rÖEOL rdJ- I REV I:' I DRAFT I State of Alaska I, sËc J Oil and Gas Conservation Commit :s@NFER: 3001 Porcupine Drive FI~È: Anchorage, Alaska 99501 107 ) un.en RECE\\frD p\ÜG 1<\ ,\~-l \ Re: Application for an Order Allowing the Commingling of Production from the McArthur River Middle Kenai "G" Oil Pool with Production from the McArthur River Hemlock Oil Pool in the Well Bore of Well K-I0; to allow the Allocation of the First 200 BOPD of Production from the Commingled Well to the Hemlock Oil Pool Without Periodic Testing; and to allow Required Separate Interval Testing to be Conducted by the Use of Subsurface Production Logging Devices; Trading Bay Unit, Cook Inlet, Alaska. .. .,' Gentlemen: Pursuant to the Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations and applicable statutes of the State of Alaska, Union Oil Company of California, as Operator of the Trading Bay Unit Agreement, presents its application to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conserva- tion Committee for an order concerning the Trading Bay Unit State Well No. K-IO which will allow the following: 1. ¡Phe commingling of production from the McArthur River Middle Kenai II G" Oil Pool with production from the McArthur River Hemlock Oil Pool in the well bore of Well K-I0. 2 . The allocation of the first 200 BOPD of production from the commingled well to the Hemlock Oil Pool and the remainder of the production to the Middle Kenai "G" Oil Pool without a requirement for periodic testing of separate intervals except as may be requested by the Committee or deemed necessary by the operator. ) State of Alaska -2- Oil and Gas Conservation Committee Application for an Order Allowing Commingling Trading Bay Unit, Cook Inlet, Alaska August 13, 1971 3. The testing of the separate intervals in well K-I0 that may be required or necessary to be conducted by the use of subsurface production logging devices in common usage by the industry for this type of data gathering. At the present time, well K-I0 is completed as an oil producer in the Hemlock Pool. Due to poor re servoir rock quality in the vicinity of the K-I0 well bore, this well is not economic to produce in its present status. The ability to commingle production from the Hemlock Pool with production from the Middle Kenai "G" Pool within the well bore will allow the most efficient recovery of oil from both formations. Therefore, the applicant reque sts that this application for the is suance of an order allowing the items stated above be set for hearing and that notice of the hearing of said application be given as required by Alaska law and the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations. lver."..~1t.r. uly YOU,r..s., . i/7 / )1·" I : /i, .,~' \1.L-- ~:I,(Ô ( l E g~f!{i:. Griffin Manl;e: ~f Operat' 0 Alaska District . . r . ( RECOMPLETION PROGRA1t WELL NO. K-10 KING SAL\10N PLATFORM TRADING BAY UNIT Proposed Worl{: Recomp1ete present Hemlock oil producer as a S,ingle string dual oil producer in the fiG" and Hemlock formations. Present Status: Depth: 13,463' TD 12,930' PBD Casing: 13-3/8" 68# & 61# J-55 set @ 4,998' 9-5/8" 47# N-80 set @ 10,616' Liner: 7" 29# N-80 Special Clearance Buttress Casing Top: 10,407' Bottom: 13,415' Perforations: 12,558' - 12,594', 12,608' - 12,654', 12,677' - 12,792', 12,829' - 12,843', 12,854' - 12,930' Completion Assembly: 3-1/2" N-80 tubing bottomed @ 12,482' 3-1/2" x 7" Otis RH-SP packer @ 12,448' 3-1/2" Otis Q Nipple 0 12,453' Otis CX 3-1/2" gas lift mandrels with valves @ 2,448', 5,082', 7,583', 9,333', 10,677', 11,580', 11,763', and 12,014'. Otis 3-1/2" ball valve @ 410' Completion Fluid: Invermul RKB Elevation; 100' above MLUW Reservoir Pressure: Hemlock Zone: Estimated 3,600 psi (present perforations) "G" Zone: Estimate lowest "G" interval to be perforated·wi1l be at virgin pressure of approximately 3,900 psi (@ 8,750 VD) Procec:iu re : 1. Move rig over K-lO. 2. Kill well with invermul mud (see estimated reservoir pressures above). 3. Pull existing completion assembly. 4. Set retrievable bridge plug above existing perforations (12,558' - 12,930'). \ +I/~ (Ø./ð7 Recomplction Program - W{_l King Salmon Platform - TBU Page 2 No. K-IO ", ! 5. Perforate and block squeeze at the following depths: a . 12 , 296 ' b.12,058' c. 11,686 ' 6. Clean out to bridge plug and retrieve bridge plug. 7 . Perforate w /cas ing guns (4 holes/ft.) the following "G" Zone intervals: 11,710' - 11,768' "11,782' - 11,816'. 11,940' - 11,952' 11,964' - 12,034' 12,346' - 12,366' 12,382' - 12,433' 12,440' - 12,474' 8. . Run complet ion assembly on 3-1/2" tubing as follows: a. Set lower hydraulic packer @ 12,520' ± with a Q-nipple below and a sliding sleeve one joint above. b. Set upper hydraulic packer at 11,650'~ c. Run Cameo side pocket gas lift mandrels with Otis'valves in place. Bottom mandrel one joint above upper hydraulic packer; number and spacing of mandrels to be "sp.ecified by. Engineering Department.· d. Run ball valve at 250' ±. 9. Displace invermul in annulus with diesel through upper slid~ng sleeve. . 10. Put well on production. Gas lift if necessary to clean up. ty Ball Valve 50'+ HD 10,407' HD ;/8" 4711 casing .0,616' HD Gas Lift Valve >er Hydraulic Packer @ 650 !.+ MD 3-1/2" Tubing Sliding Sleeve rer Hydraulic Packer @ 520'+ HD "Q" Nipple 29U Casing Liner .3,415' HD I r+i~ ~ ? 2 u 'j" 171 I, I ,I. I I;, ," I, ~ L - J ¡::;::-:.- '.11I111 I· ~ >-<-:::" , :{ 'AXX>~' d5~ 11 IJ 'I' , I ¡ I '1' ,: !~ E>(~-II BIT ~! WELL' No. 1< - 10 TRADING BAY UNIT McARTI-IUR RIVER FIELD VJELL BORE SC~iEMATIC J Top of Middle Kenai 'G' Formation 11,436' MD (-7999' 55) 12,519' MD (-8673" 55) . ' ~. , . ,. .!><:f'; Plug Bac~\te¡>~~ 12,930' MD(-8924' 55) 4· r' TD 13,4()3' MD~:"'~ ~ s. .~ >D <J ~{ 11,710' MD 11,816' MD 11,940' MD 12,034' MD ,r; ¢ " £J ''C'' ~ 12,346' MD ~ t1' ~ 12 , 474' MD Top of Hemlock Formation ... 41 12,558' HD ::1 oJ( c:I 6 . E:1 . ~ . ð c: ~. #2 ') ) Mr. Thomas R. Marshall, Jr. Executive Secretary Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee 3001 Porcupine Drive AnChorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Marshall: [,/., 0«:.. (Of~ (0 ItJ7 Re: Application for an Order Allowing the Connningling of Production from the McArthur River Middle Kenai "G" Oil Pool with Production from the McArthur River Hemlock Oil Pool in the Well Bore of Well K-lO; To Allow the Allocation of the First 200 BOPD of Production from the Cotmningled Well to the Hemlock Oil Pool Without Periodic Testing; and To Allow Required Separate Interval Testing to be Conducted by the Use of Subsurface Production Logging Devices; Trading Bay Unit, Cook Inlet, Alaska. Pursuant to the Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations and applicable statutes of the State of Alaska, Union Oil Company of California, as Operator of the Trading Bay Unit Agreement, presents its application to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee for an order concerning the !rading Bay Unit State Well No. K-lO which will allow the following: 1. The connningling of prQduction from the McArthur River Middle Kenai "G" Oil Pool with production from the McArthur River Hemlock Oil Pool in the well bore of Well K-lO. 2. The allocation of the first 200 BOPD of production from the connningled well to the Hemlock Oil Pool' and the remainder of the production to the Middle Kenai "G" Oil Pool without a requirement for periodic testing of separate intervals except as may be requested by the Cotmnitt~ or deemed necessary by the operator. 3. The testing of the separate intervals ~ well K-lO that may be required or necessary to be ~onducted by the use of subsurface production logging devices in common usage by the industry for this type of data gathering. ) ') Mr.· Thomas R. Marshall, Jr. -2- At the present time, well K-IO is completed as an oil producer in the Hemlock Pool. Due to poor reservoir rock quality in the vicinity of the K-IO well bore, this well is not economic to produce in its present status. The ability to commingle production from the Hemlock Pool with production from the Middle Kenai "G'· Pool wi thin the well bore will allow the most efficient recovery of oil from both formations. .' Therefore ,the applicant requests that this application for 'the issuance of an' . order allowing the items stated above beset for hearing and that notice of the hearing of said application be given as required by Alaska law and the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations. Very truly yours, Wi", W\..o.l.l L:na l. may be required or necessary to be conducted by the use of subsurface production logging devices in common usage by the industry for this type of data gathering. The location of well K-IO is shown on Exhibit I, which is a structure map of the McArthur River Field drawn on the top of the Hemlock fonnation. The well was completed in May, 1969, as an oil producer in the Hemlock Pool. Reservoir q~ality in the vicinity of this well bore is very poor, the reason being its proximity to the large NE-SW trending thrust fault which provides the trapping mechanism for this portion of the reservoir. The total net vertical pay section in this well is only about 100 feet, and reservoir permeability has been measured at about 1 md, which is only a small fraction of the average permeability in this reservoir. Since initial completion, the production rate from the well has been in the range of 150 to 250 BOPD. A workover attempt in August, 1969, to improve productivity was unsuccessful. Due to the high volume of gas lift gas required to maintain production and to down hole production problems associated with the low fluid rate, it is not economic to produce this well in its present condition. Therefore, the well is not on production at this time. Exhibit II is a structure map drawn on the top of the Middle Kenai "G" sands. Log analysis of the "GH sands encountered in well K-IO indicates that there are ( l ~') / ') three of these "G" intervals which are oil productive. Two of these intervals tested oil down structure in the Atlantic Richfield West Forelands #3 exploratory well. The third interval tested wet in the W.F. #3 but appears to have hydrocarbon saturation in the K-lO. Control from 'the wells down structure from K-lO on this structural feature establishes that the areal extent of the "G" sand reservoirs found in K-lO is quite small. Therefore, the oilMin-place is very limited. The cost to drill a well to develop these reserves would be pro~ibitive. ~ order permitting the commingling of production from the Hemlock Pool with production from the "G" Sand intervals in this well will allow oil to be recovered from the poor quality rock around this well bore in the Hemlock Pool which cannot ,otherwise be recovered and will allow oil to be recovered from the "G" sands which has not been fOWld in any other well. The K-lO well will be completed as shown on Exhibit III. The Hem[ock Pool is separated from the "G'" behind the casing by cement. A packi~r will be set at the top of the Hemlock POQl, and a second packer will be set above the highest "G" zone interval which will be open to the well bore. A sliding sleeve will be installed immediately above the lower packer to allow for'communication between the "G" Zone productive intervals and the tubing string. This sleeve can be closed to blank off the "G" intervals as necessary. A landing nipple will be set below the lower packer as shown on Exhibit III, so that a tubing plug may be set to blank off the Hemlock Pool. A series of production tests have been run on well K-lO recently which indicate that the well has a productive capacity mder gas lift of approximately 200 BOPD. Reservoir engineering analysis indicates that this rate of production can be expected to continue under the conuningled operation for a period of time far in ') ') excess of the expected productive life of the "G' intervals. This is due to its crestal structural position, the extremely tight rock around the well bore, and the absence of any other drainage points nearby. Subsurface wireline operations in deep high angle deviated wells are both expensive and hazardous. Occasionally problems encountered in the course of running normal wire line operations lead to a well workover in which the well has to be killed in order to pull tubing. This can result in damage to the producing formations. Therefore, since the Hemlock Pool production rate is not expected to vary throughout the life of the connningled operation, the working interest owners in both the Hemlock Pool and the "G" Pool have agreed to set an allocated rate of 200 BOPD for production from the Hemlock Pool in order to elininate the risk and expense of conducting periodic wireline operations associated with selective interval testing. On this basis, selective interval testing would only be required as specifically requested by the State or as deemed necessary by the operator. In the event tllat selective interval testing is required or necessary, approval is requested to use subsurface production logging devices designed to measure fluid flow in the well bore. The tools used for this purpose would be of a type in se.rvice on an industry-wise basis. The proportionate amount of fluid being produced from each zone would be measured during actual commingled production. Readings would be made in the total conmrlngled flow stream above both zones and in the st~eam from the Hemlock Pool. 'The data will be obtained and interpreted by one of several service companies which are specialists in this field. This method of testing has several advantages. The test is conducted tmder actual operating conditions and is therefore a better !epresentation of true distribution of production; there is no interruption of production from either zone while testing operations are being conducted, so deferral of production is ") ) , . minimized; and the wire 1 ine operations required for this type of test are less likely to result in down hole difficulties ultimately requiring a workover in which the well has to be killed in order to pull tubing. In sununary, an order allowing the connningling of production from the "G" and Hemlock Oil Pools in well K-lO will result in additional· oil recovery by the most efficient means. If this order also allows m~nimum selective interval testing, and the use of production logging devices for such testing, the risk and expensé of conducting wireline operations in this high angle deviated hole will be reduced toa minimLun. . . .' ...¡., . ......,.,,-.... .-""_..'.' "--_.._---,,_. ---. '" \ ~ .r-",:- \ ) .. AkjKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION CONhd:TEE STATE OF ALASKA Hearing - August 25, 1971 -~'-" .,~.w__ Name ~J~Wc NA-fèT /cl \ D, 4dA.Yn.s J:-(2 âJ¡/!<; fJI}' ~ S .' 1)1 C-/± ( ) S'</~¡/ K, \I, 2~ý~ . $~ ~.--- ¡1JAþ;f ;(;1 ;vJJ?~Ö-J ~ ,( Conservation File No. 107 Commingling of Production from McArthur River Middle Kenai "G" Oil Pool with McArthur River Hemlock Oil P9Ql.____ A T TEN DAN C E . ",.....".""'..,,~.,..,....-.,.--.,...,_.......__........-"_.,,- -"-......-.---"' Representing Address If\ TL 4/J n c. FtC l"¿ F I ELI) G, 11/ III C /d--o I- A G- e- ¡fA.J,19,J ()J¿ (?A // If If II (I (J {( II Ii //1 [!ß 1/ )4/1~~ (/ ~ ¿,I ~ ¿''( .f,' . -. ...- ..... -.. -~-...~.. ---'- ~'..~ #1 ) ) PRO C E E DIN G S MR. BURRELL: Good morning, gentlemen. This is a hearing of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conserva.tion Committee, Conservation File No. 107. The application of Union Oil Company of California for an order allowing the commingling of production from McArthur River Middle Kenai ilG" Oil Pool with production from the ~1cÂrthur River Hemlock Oil Pool in the well bore of the Trading Bay Unit State Well No. K-10. Notice of the request was published in the Anchorage Daily News on August 14, 1971. I think you. know everybody here, I won't introduce eve,rybody. The last sentence of the notice states that if no such protest is timely filed the Committee will consider the issuance of the order without a hearing -- that is in error. We are required to have a hearing and we are now having one. Does anybody have any testimony to offer? MR. McAl..ISTER: Mr. Chairman, I am Hade McAlister, Landman in the Anchorage Distrj.ct of Union Oil Company of California. On August 13, 1971, Union Oil Company, as operator of the Trading Bay Unit Agreement, filed an application with the State of Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee for an order allowing the commingling of production from the McArthur River Middle Kenai :'C!l Oil Pool wi th production from the NcArthur River Hemlock Oil Pool in the well bore of Hell K-lO. I request that a copy of this application be placed in the record of this hearing. Union proposes that the following rules be incorporated into the McArthur River Field Rules set forth in Conservation Orders #80 and 95~ (1) Commingling in the well bore of production from the McArthur River Middle Kenai liGiI Oil Pool with production from the HcArthur River Hemlock Oil Pool of Well K-IO is allowed. (2) The first 200 barrels of oil per day of production from the commingled well shall be allocated to the Hemlock Oil Pool and the remainder of the production shall be allocated to the Middle Kenai I1G" Oil Pool. (3) If required by the Committee, or deemed necessary by the operator in compliance with good oil field practice, testing of the separate pools may be conduc.ted by the use of subsurface production logging devic.es in con~on industry usage. In support of the application and proposed rules, Mr. J. W. Hart will present testimony. }fr. Hart attended Vanderbilt University for four years, receiving a B. S. degree in Mechanical Engineering in 1954. Since graduation, he has attended industry-sponsored schools relating to petroleum reservoir engineering, reservoir pressure analysis, well logging, artificial lift, and secondary recovery. ~1r. Hart has 15 years petroleum engineering experience with Atlantic Richfield Company. He has worked as a production engineer in Corpus Christi, Texas. Following a transfer to Houston, Texas in 1959, he spent four and one-half years as a reservoir engineer for the CATC Group operating offshore Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. Beginning in 1963, he spent three years in ~.Jest Texas working on unitization and secondary recovery projects. He came to Alaska in 1966 where he is a senior petroleum engineer in Atlantic Richfield Company's South Alaska District Office. Since 1967, he has represented Atlantic Richfield on the Trading Bay Unit Engineering and Planning Group. I request that Mr. Hart be established as an expert witness for this hearing. -2- ) :t-fR. BURRELL: ',vithout objection, Hr. ltart '-Till be accepted as an expert wi tne.ss . HR. HcALISTER: Hr. Hart will n.ot present his testimony in support of the application. HR. BURRELL: Hr. Harsha!1, please swea.r hi.m in. 11R. HARSHAIJL: Please stand, Hr. Hart, and raise your right hand. In the ma.tt.er now a.t hearing, do you s\,year to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? 11R. HART: Yes, I do. 1'iR. MARSHALL: Be seated. }ffi. HART: I'm J. W. Hart~ Senior Petroleum Engineer with Atlantic Richfield Company. The following testimony is presented in support of the request to allow conul1ingling of production from the HcArthur River Hi.ddle Kenai nen Oil Pool with production from the }1cArthur River Hemlock Oil Pool in the well bore of 'Nell K-IO; to allo\y the a.llocation of the firs t 200 barrels of oil per day of product1.on from the commingled well to the Hemlock Oil Pool and the remainder of the prod uc tion to the :Hiddle Kenai !iC" Pool, as agreed to by the interested parties) without a requirement for period testing of the separate intervals except as may be requested by the Committee or deeMed necessary by the operator; and to allow the testing of the separate intervals in the "(.veIl that may be requi.red or necessary, to be conducted by the use of subsurface production logging devices in common usage by the industry for this tyµe of data gathering. The location of Hell K-IO is shmm on Exhibi t 1, ~vhich is a structure map of the HcArthur River Field dræ·m on the top of the Hemlock formation. The well ~vas completed in Hay 1969, as an oil producer in the Hemlock Pool. -3- , Reservoir quality in the vicinity of this well is very poor, the reason being its proximity to the large NE-SW trending thrust fault which provides the trapping mechanism for this portion of the reservoir. The total net vertical pay section in this well is only about 100 feet, and reservoir permeability has been measured at about one m11lidarcy, which is only a I~./·""-- " - small fraction of the average permeability in this reservoir. Since initial completi.on, the production rate from the well has been in the range of 150 to 250 barrels of oil per day. A workover attempt in August 1969 to improve productivity was unsuccessful. Due to the high volume of gas lift gas required to maintain production and to down hole production problems associated with the low fluid rate, it is not economic to produce this well in its present condition. Therefore, the well is not on production at this time. Exhibi t 11 is a structure map dr~1n on the top of the Hiddle Kenai "G" Sands. Log analysis of the 'dGIi sands encountered in Hell K-10 indicates that there are three of these nC" intervals which are oil productive. Two of these intervals tested oil down structure in the Atlantic Richfield West Forelands #3 exploratory well. The third interval tested wet in the West Forelands #3, but appears to have hydrocarbon. saturation in the K-lO. Control from the wells down structure from 1(-10 on this structural feature establishes that the a.real extent of the :IGn sand reservoirs found i.n K-lO is quite small. Therefore, the oil-in-place is very limited. The cost to drill a well to develop these reserves would be prohibitive. An order permitting the commingling of p"roduction from the Hemlock Pool wi th production from the !ìGt! Sand intervals in this ~.¡ell vlill a11m·7 oil to be recovered from the poor quality rock a.round this ~.¡ell bore in the Hemlock ~ool which cannot othe~~ise be recovered and will allow oil to be recovered -4- from the !:GII sands which has not been found in any other well. The K-IO well will be completed as shrnVll on Exhibit III. The Hemlock Pool is separated from the 1iGH behind the casing by cement. A -packer will be set at the top of the Hemlock Pool, and a second packer will be set above the highest net! zone interval which will be open to the well bore. A sliding sleeve will be installed immediately above the lower packer to allow for communication bet\veen the liGt: zone productive intervals and the tubing string. This sleeve can be closed to blank off the /Veil intervals as necessary. A landing nipple will be set below the lower packer as shown on Exhibit III, so that a tubing plu.g may be set to blank off the Hemlock Pool. A series of prod.uction tests have been rUl1 on Hell K-IO recently which indicate that the well has a productive capacity under ga.s lift of approximately 200 barrels of oil per day. Reservoir engineering analysis indicates that this rate of production can be expected to continue under the commingled operation. for a period of time far in excess of the expected productive life of the "G" intervals. This is due to its crestal structural position, the extremely tight rock aroun.d the well bore, and the absence of any other drainage points nearby. Subsurface wireline operations in deep high angle deviated wells are both expensive and hazardous. Occasionally, problems encountered in the course of running normal wire line operations lead to a well workover in which the well has to be killed in order to pull tubing. This can result in damage to the producing formations. Therefore, since the Hemlock Pool production rate is not expected to vary throughout the life of the commingled operation, the working interest o~yners in both the Hemlock Pool and the liCiT Pool have agreed to set an allocated rate of 200 barrels -5- ) of oil per day for production from the Hemlock Pool in order to eliminate the risk and expense of conducting periodic ~~ire line operations associated with selective interval testing. On this basis, selective interval testing would only be required as specifically requested by the State or as deemed necessary by the operator. In the event that selective interval testing is required or necessary, approval is requested to use subsurface production logging devices designed to measure fluid flow in the well bore. The tools used for this purpose would be of a type in service on an industry-wide basis. The proportionate amount of fluid being produced from each zone would be measured during actual commingled production. Readings would be made in the total commingled flow stream above both zones and in the stream from the Hemlock Pool. The data will be obtained and interpreted by one of several service companies which are specialists in this field. This method of testing has several advantages. The test is conducted under actual operating conditions and is therefore a better representation of true distribution of production; there is no interruption of production from either zone while testing operations are being conducted, so deferral of production is minimized; and the wire line operations required for this type of test are less likely to result in. down hole difficulties ultimately requiring a workover in which the well has to be killed in order to pull tubing. In slmrnary, an order allowing the commingling of production from the IIGII and Hemlock Oil Pools in Well K-10 will result in additional oil recovery by the most efficient means. If this order also allows minimum selective interval testing and the use of production logging devices for such testing, the risk and expense of conducting ~.¡ire line operations in this high angle -6- ) deviated hole will be reduced to a minimum. This completes my testimony. MR. BURRELL: Thank you, Mr. Hart. Is there any further testimony at this time) or just questions? MR. McALISTER: Tve have no further prepared testimony at this time. HR. BURRELL: I would like the record to reflect that the effect of commingling will be an increased severance tax rate a.s it will be tre,ated as one \17e11 under the seVèrance tax regula,tions. MR. HcALISTER: He are a~l1are of that, Mr. Chai rman . HR. BURRELL: Does an.ybody have any questions of the witness? Mr. Gilbreth? HR. GII.BRETH: Mr. Hart, the method that you proposed here now would essen- tially utilize energy from the upper zone to lift the oil from the lower zone, would it not? To the surface. MR. flART: No, we would anticipate artificial lift. NR. GILBRETH: To lift the combined production from. above the upper packer? MR. HART: Yes. 1m. GILBRETH: Alright. Is it feasible to lift the lower zone produc- tion by i tse.lf? ,^!i thout the ¡¡G" zone. MR. HART: Could this be done the way we have the well completed, is that the question? ~IR . GILBRETH.: No, is from the Hemlock? it feasible to use gas lift to lift the production }ffi. HART: We have attempted to do this and have had considerable difficulties because of paraffin problems that 'toJe have associated 'tvith the high volume of gas that is required to lift the Hemlock and the low volume of fluid that the Hemlock gives up. -7- ) MR. GIJ..BRETH: You don't anticipate these problems with the commingled fluid? MR. HART: No, because of the increase in total fluid rate from the well, the produced fluids will keep the well bore warm enough to prevent these paraffin problems from occurring. MR. GILBRETH: I believe your testimony indicated that during the life of this commingling operat.ion, as you visualize it, that you don't believe there would be any decline in production from the Hemlock zone from the 200 barrels or so a day. Could you give us any idea how long a period of time you anticipate the productive life would be here? MR.. HART: The productive life of the ViGil interval? MR. GIIJBRETH: Of the commingled operation. MR. HART: Probably seven to eight years. MR. GILBRETH: Seven .to eight years. And during that period of time you don't believe that the Hemlock 't\70uld decline from the present 200 barrels a day? MR. HART: No, I don't because of the pressure maintenance proj ect "t..re are conducting in the Hemlock Pool, and the large reserves down structure to this cres tal 't..rell. HR. GILBRETH: Is the Hemlock pay in this well in communication with the remainder of the Hemlock reservoir? MR. HART: Yes, it is, but in extremely tight rock. MR. GILBRETH: Can you tell us somewhere in the ball park of what your economic limit is for a platform well here in the Hemlock, such as this well? You say it will make 200 barrels a day nrn..r; is your economic limit 50 barrels a day or 75? -8- ) MR. HART: Well, I say that the well will produce 200 barrels a day -- we are able to test the well and produce at this rate, but we are not able to maintain this rate of production because within a very short period after we inject solvent into the well to free up the gas lift valves, we have these pari.ffin problems again and the rate will fall from the 200 barrel a day rate that we can test. MR. GILBRETH: Do you think this is due to a decline of productivity of the well or due to the inability to get sufficient gas in? MR. HART: Thj..s is due to the fact that lower gas lift valves will pariffin up and we will, over a period of time, operate at a progressively higher gas lift valve, which has t.he effect of reducing the rate at which we are able to produce the well. HR. GILBRETH: In summary, what you are really proposing is that to combine the produ.ction from the two zones and that you think by this combination you will be able to obtain more oil from both than you would from them indi vidually? }om. HART: That is correct. MR. GILBRETH: I have one other question with regard to the opening state- ment. Did I understand your statement to be that you are requesting the McArthur Field Rules be amended to permit this on the one well? MR. McALISTER: Yes, sir, that the field rules be altered accordingly as necessary to perform the three functions here that I read into the record. HR. GILBRETH: Hell, this is a technicality question, Hr. McAlister, whether or not we are talking about a new order to permit the commingling in this one well or whether we are talkinR about an order to permit it in the field. -9- -10- MR. McALISTER: We are talking about it in this one well, obviously, right now. Hhatever appropriate mechanics is required to do that we, of c.ourse, will support. HR. GILBRETH: Alright. That is all I have, Hr. Burrell. MR. BURRELL: Did I understand you to say seven or eight years before you expect the Hemlock to go to water? MR. HART: No, I made the statement that I expected the life of the commingled operation would be seven or eight years. That would be as the expected 11fe of the :!G" completion. }1R. BlffiRELL: That would be the expected life of the Hel! completion. HR. HART: That is correct. The life of the Hemlock completion would be consiclerab 1y longer than that. HR. BURRELL: But possibly' it would be uneconomic after the "GII quit producing. It might uneconomic to produce -- HH,. HART: Yes 11 just as it is nOV.T, that is correct. MR. BURRELL: Do you have any idea. when, at what approximate, time either zone may go to water? Or both zones, can you give me a date for ea,ch zone -- an approximate date when your cut will substantially increase? MR. HART: That is a difficult question to answer in the HG" zone because 't\Te don't have any indications that the ilG" zone will have an expanding aquifer -- that there Hill be a water drive in the l1G" zone, and if there i8n' t, the completion 'tvould be by gas expa.nsion in which case a decline in reservoir pressure 'tvould influence the production rate in the ¡¡G" interval. I '-lould estimate that it would be something in excess of 20 years before we saw water production in the Hemlock Pool. MR. BURRELL: I see. Would you anticipate, let's just suppose three years from now, say, that one of the pools started to go to water -- would you antici- pate any problems in this commingled operation which might adversely affect the other pool? ~~at would be the effect of the commingled operation if one of the pools went to water, say, three years from now? HR. HART: Hell-- l'm.. BURRELL: Would you want to cease your commingling at that time, perhaps, or do you know? HR. HART: I wouldn't expect tha.t we would "Çolant to because it is unlikely that this water 'tvould he from the Hemlock and if the water did come from the °G!I interval, the production rate we anticipate from the nG" would be far in excess of what we would expect from the Hemlock, so we would most likely want to continue production even though we were making '\Tater. This water would certainly have some adverse effect on the total production rate from the well. HR. BURRELL: You don't think the water from -- let me put it this way -- do you think that an increase water cut in one zone would possibly harm the other in this commingled operation? MR. HART: This is a possibility, yes. }m. BURRELL: ~~at steps would you propose to take in the event it happened? MR. HART: In the event that water production from the jcn interval appeared to have a damaging effect on the Hemlock, we could set a plug in the tubing string and isolate the Hemlock from the T1G" interval, and produce the :'Cll to depletion and then close the sliding sleeve and isolate the I'Cn zone from communication with the well bore and then return the Hemlock to production. }ffi. BURRELL: Do you think something should be in this order that you -11- ) requested to cover this situation or should we deal with the problem as it arises? MR. HART: Well, it would seem appropriate to me to deal with it when it a.rises because at this time we would only be able to speculate what might occuro MR. BURRELL: I have no further questions. Does anybody else? HR. HARSHALL: Did I understand you, }1ro Hart, to say that the estimated production from the Hemlock was 200 barrels of oil per day? ~~. lIART: That is correct. HR. NARSIIALL: And that there was approximately 100 feet of net pay at an average one millida.rcy permeability? MR. HART: That is correct. ~ffi. MARSHALL: Would you tell me the fluid level in the producing string from the Hemlock formation, ~~7here i t ~.¡ould stand statically if it wa.s allowed to se.ek its level? Can you give. us a rough idea of what that would be? HR. HART: I could speculate that it would be at approximately four thousand fee t, but this would be primarily a function of the rese rvoi r pressure in. the Hemlock. }ffi. MARSHÞ~L: Well, let's say after it sat for a few days. HR. HART: Yes, that is what I mean. If you let it stand static for an extended period of time, then the fluid level ~vould be primarily a function of the reservoir pressure rather than the permeability. MR. t1ARSHALL: The thing that seems a little bit baffling is that w'ith 100 foot of net pay of one millidarcy avera~e; that would be equivalent to one foot of 100 millidarcy pay. I just question the -- on the face of its commerciality of the Hemlock Zone, if those averages proved out over the entire pay. Do you feel there is any fracture 'Permeability in the Hemlock that could contribute to productivity, or do you feel -- -12- -13- }ffi. HART: Natural fractures? ~ffi. MARSHALL: Yes. Do you feel that there is -- MR.. HART: No. HR.. MARSHALl..: There is not. You feel fairly confident that one millidarcy average applies over the entire 100 feet of net pay? ~tffi.. HART: Yes, that's the permeabil:1 ty we would measure from a build-up survey with 100 feet of pay built into the calculations to estimate the perlne- ability. MR. HARSHALL: HO"7 recently have you run this daily average of 200 barrels of oil per day figure? This is a recent figure? }ffi. HART: We ran production tests in Dec8uIDer of 1970 to assist us in studies that we we.re making at that time concerning the possibili.ty of commingling this well. At that point in time the average rate was approximately 200 barrels per day. MR. MARSHALL: That answered my question. Thank you. MR. BURRELL: Mr. Gilbreth? MR. GIl.BRETH: Mr. Hart, in the vicinity of the field that this ~.yel1 is located, do you have any effects from an acti ve ~..rater drive? In the Hemlock? MR. HART: Yes. We feel that our reservoir studies indicate to us that there is a partial water drive in the N-NE portion of the Hemlock reservoir. }ffi. GILBRETH: I believe in response to the question of Mr. Burrell you indicated there might possibly be damage in the event of water influx. I think it's the Committee's feeling, generally, that ~~hen commingling is permitted in cases of two specifically identified, separated pools as we have here, that vÆ require some form of testing on some periodic basis just for allocation purposes to determine which data is coming from each reservoir. I am wonderinp; what your best ideas would be for some sort of a frequency as the Committee saw fit or required some type of survey for allocation of production. Do you ) -14- HR. HART: No, I don't believe so. think once every six months, or once a year would be satisfactory? MR. HART: Our feeling would be that an annual test would be sufficient. MR. GILBRETH: You think this would be representative enough to give you a reasonable idea of -- MR. HART: Yes, based on the expected performance on the Hemlock, I feel that an annual test 'Would. be sufficient. MR. GILBRETH: If a provision were placed in the order to require some method of surveying this to determine, would there be a preference from the operator standpoint on what type of surveyor what type of measurement should be required? I think in your application you just say by generally accepted wire line survey methods. '.Jould it be preferable to leave this blank or call it a flow-meter surveyor a permeability surveyor radi.oactive survey? }m. t~RT: Well, the reason that the request is worded the way i.t is, is, I guess, twofold -- one would be to leave it to the option of the operator or the service company to determine whether a spinner survey would be better for this application tha.n a radioactive survey, or vice versa, and it would also leave us the option of using some new tool that might be developed without the requirement to come back and get some sort of change in the order. HR. GILBRETH: I see. I take :i.t from the testimony, then, that there although the operator would not wish so, that wouldn't be an objection to the requirement for a.n annual survey, if this were approved. HR. HART: No. W~. GILBRETH: Would there be objection from your part to inclusion of a requirement for a separate testing in the event that water production shows up? ) -15- HR. KUGLER~ Do you feel like there is no water in the sands you have perforated? MR. HART: That is correct. HR. KUGLER = That is all I have. MR. HART: No. MR. GILBRETH: That is all I have. Wl. BURRELL: Mr. Hart, would you object if we modified that generally accepted methods of testing, say, by saying certain methods that are acceptable to the Commi.ttee so that we have an opportunity to consider the proposed test procedure done between yourself and the service company? MR. HART: No, that would be fine. :HR. BURRELL: I don't have any further questions. H.r. Kugler? I1R. KUGLER : Yes, I would like to ask a ques tion . The q nes tion is, has the lIen Zone been tested at all? Or ha.s it just been log analysis? MR. HART: The 'ireii' Zone "(>las tested in a \.Jest Forelands #3 exploratory "(.¡e11 down. structure to the K-lO, but it has not been tested in the K-IO. 1·1R.. KUGLER: I see. Are the sands you have on top of your I'IGIi between at 11436 and your top perfsft 11710, there is a couple, three sands in there. -- do you think those are wet? MR. HART: There are several sands in the !1GII interval tha.t are wet from log analysis, that is correct. HR. KUGLER: And the one your perforations at the bottom here at 12034 and the next one at 12346 -- about 310 feet -- is that you figure wet in there? MR. HART: Yes, and we plan to block squeeze "t-lÍ th cement above and below' these ~.¡et sands. HR. GILBRETH: Some sort ofa test to determine where it comes from? -16- HR. BURRELL: I ,,~rot11d like the record to reflect tha.t we accept Union 1 s Exhibi ts I, II, and III, as vTell as your applicat:i..on, your letter of Augus t 13, 1971. MR. GILBRETH: Hr. Burrell, I have one more que,stion. Did I understand your testimony to say that the intervals you antici.pate producing in the ~GH zone have not been produced from any other well in the vicinity? Did I understand that right? MIL HART: I didn 1 t make that statement, but that is a true statement. MR. GILBRETH: I see. MR. BURRELL: Are there any further questions? Hr. Smith? MR. SMITH: Mr. Hart, if this order is approved as requested, would you do any testing individually on the zones prior to commencing commingling production -- any further testing? HR. HART: No. HR. SHITH: Of the Hemlock or of the ïiG"? HR. HART: No I'íR. Btm.RELL: Are there any further questions from anybody? Are there any other statements by the applicant? MR. McALISTER: \~e have no further statements, Hr. Chairman. MR. BURRELL: If there 1;.;rill be nothing else, H·e 1;.;rill adj ourn. ) ) oq I C ~f 1 J¿ C .0. 107' Introduction of Testimony to Support the Application for Commingling in the Well Bore of the Trading Bay Unit State K-IO. Good Morning Gentlemen. an Wade McAlister, Landman in the Anchorage District of Union Oil Company of California. On August 13, 1971, Union Oil Company of California, as Operator of the Trading Bay Unit Agreement, filed an appl ication with the State of Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee for an order allowing the Commingl ing of production from' the McArthur River MLddle Ken¿d "G" Oil Pool with production from the McArthur River Hemlock Oil Pool in the well bore of well K-IO. I request that a copy of this appJication be placed in the record of this hear~ng. Union proposes that the following rules be incorporated into the McArthur River Field Rules set forth in Conservation Orders #80 and 95: 1) Commingling in th~ well bore of production from the McArthur River Middle Kenai "G" Oil Pool with production from the McArthur River Hemlock Oil Pool of well K-IO is allowed. 2) The first 200 barrels of oil per day of production from the commingled well shall be allocated to the Hemlock Oil Pool and the re- mainder of the production shall be allccated to the Middle Kenai IIG" Oil Poo 1 . 3) If requi red by the Commi ttee or deemed necessary by the operator in compliance with good oil field practice, testing of the separate pools may be conducted by the use of subsurface production logging devices in common industry usage. ~ Ó:(ÇI t € f,/-L. è? 0 . I (j 7 ) -) In support of the a~pl ication and proposed rules, Mr. J. W. Hart, wi 11 present testimony. Mr. Hart attended Vanderbl1t University for four years, receivi~g a B. S. degree i~ Mechanical E~gineering in 1954. Since graduation, he has attended industry sponsored schools relating to petroleum reservoir engineering, reservoir pressure analysis, well logging, artificial 1 ift, and secondary recovery. Mr. Hart has 15 years petroleum engineering experience with Atlantic . Richfield Company. He has \vorked as a production engineer in Corpus Christi, Texas. Follov-/ing a transfer to Houston, Texas, in 1959, he spent four and one-half years as a reservoir engineer for the CATC Group operating offshore Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. Beginning in 1963, he spent three years ·in West Te~as working on ~nitization and secondary recovery projects. He came to Alaska ·in 1966 where he is a senior petroleum engineer in Atlantic Richfield Company's South Alaska District office. Since 1967, he has represented Atlantic Richfield on the Trading Bay Unit Enginee~ing and Planning Group. I request that Mr. Hart be establ ished as an expert witness. ) -) .".- TI1e following testimony is presented in support of the request to allo~ conmingling of production from the McArthur River Middle Kenai ,"G" Oil Pool with production from the McArthur River Hemlock Oil Pool in the well bore, of well K-I~; to allow the allocation of the first 200 BOPD of production from the commingled well to the . \ Hemlock Oil Pool and the remainder of the production to the Middle Kenai "G" Pool, as agreed to by the interested parties, without a requirement for periodic testing of the separate intervals except as may be requested by the Committee or deemed necessary by the operator; and to allow the testing of the separate intervals in the well that may be required or necessary ,to be conducted by the U?e of subsurface production logging devices in common usage by the industry for this type of data gathering. The location of well K-IO is shown on Exhibit I, which is a structure map of the McArthur River Field drawn on the top of the Hemlock fonnation. The well was completed in May, 1969, as an oil producer in the Hemlock Pool. Reservoir q~ality in the vicinity of this well bore is very poor, the reason being its proximity to the large NE-SW trending thrust fault which provides the trapping mechanism for this portion of the reservoir.· The total net vertical pay section in this well is only about 100 feet, and reservoir permeability has been measured at,about 1 md, Which is only a small fraction of the average permeability in this reservoir. Since initial completion, the production rate from the well has been in the range 0f_}50 to _25Q-.BOPD. A workover attempt in August, 1969, to improve producti vi ty was unsuccessful. Due to the hi~1 volwne of gas lift gas required to maintain production and to down hole production problems associated with the low fluid rate, it is not economic to produce this well in its present condition. TI1erefore, the 'veIl is not on production at this time. Exhibit II is a structure map drawn on the top of the Hiddle Kenai "G" sands. Log analysis of the fiG" sands encolll1tered in 'veIl K-IO indicates that there are E)I t" t, 1-.lil.' «1/., el,) o ff/(~ ¡,I.Ii. c.. D. 10 Î ) ) I three of these "G" intervals which are oil productive. '!Wo of these intervals tested oil down structure in the Atlantic Richfield West Forelands #3 exploratory well. The third interval tested wet in ,the W.F. #3 but appears to have hydrocarbon saturation in the K-lO. Control from the wells down structure from K~lO on this structural feature establishes. that the areal extent. of the "G" sand.reservolrs found in K-lO is ,quite small. Therefore, the o~l-in-place is very limited. The cost to drill a well to develop these reserves wouid be pro~ibitive. An order permitting the commingling of production from the Hemlock Pool with production from the "G" Sand intervals in this well will allow·oíl to be recovered from the poo~ quality rock around this well bore in the Hemlock Pool which cannot otherwise be recovered and will allow oil to be recovered from the "G" sands which has not been fm..md in any other well. The K-lO well will be completed as shoWn on Exhibit III. The Hemlock Pool is separated from the "G" behind the casing by cement. A packer will be set at the top of the Hemlock Pool, and a second packer will be set above the highest "G" zone interval which will be open to the well bore. A sliding sleeve will be installed'immediately above the lower packer to allow for communication between the "G' Zone productive intervals and the tubing string. This sleeve can be closed to blank off the "G" intervals as necessary. A landing nipple will be set below the lower packer as shown on Exhibit III, so that a tubing plug may be set to blank off the Hemlock Pool. A series of production tests have been run on well K-lO recently '~1ich indicate thàt the well has a productive capacity under gas lift of approximately 200 BOPD. Reservoir engineering analysis indicates that this rate of production can be eÀ11ected to continue under the commingled operation for a period of time far ln ) ) excess of the expected productive life of the "G" intervals. This is due to its crestal structural position, the extremely tight rock around the well bore, and the absence of any other drainage points nearby. Subsurface wireline operations in deep high angle deviated wells are both expensive and hazardous. Occasionally problems encountered in ~1e course of running normal wire line operations lead I to a well workover in which the well has to be killed in order to pull tubing. This can result in damage to the producing formations. Therefore, since the Hemlock Pool production rate is not expected to vary throughout the life of the corrnningled 01?eration, the working interest owners in both the HeDÙock Pool and the "G" Pool have agreed to set an allocated rate of 200 BOPD for production from the Hemlock Pool in order to elininate the risk and expense of conducting periodic wireline operations associated with selective interval te'sting. On this basis, selective interval testing would only be required as specifically requested by the State or as deemed necessary by the operator. In the event that selective interval testing is required or necessary, approval is requested to use subsurface production logging devices designed to measure fluid flow in the well bore. The tools used for this purpose would be of a type In service on an industry-wise basis. The proportionate amount of fluid being produced from each zone would be- measured during actual cornrnrrngled production. Readings would be made in the total commingled flow stream above both zones and in the st~eam from the Hemlock Pool. The data will be obtained and interpreted I by one of several service companies which are specialists in this field. This method of testing has several advantages. The test is conducted under actual operating conditions and is therefore a better representation of true distribution of production; there is no interruption of production from either zone while testing operations are being conducted, so deferral of production is ) ) minimized; and the wireline operations required for this· type of test are less likely to result in down hole difficulties ultimately requiring a workover in which the Hell has to be killed' in order to pull tubing. ' In summary, an order allowing the çorrrrningling of production from the "G" and Hemlock Oil Pools in well K-lO will res~lt in additional oil recovery'by the most efficient means. If this order al$o allows min·imum selective' interval testing and the use of production logging devices for such testing, the risk and expense of conducting wireline operations in this high angle deviated hole will be reduced to a minimum. . ~.. Plug Back Depth ~ --- ~ TD 13,463' MD 12,930' MD (-8924' 55) " t . c ð o t o . 12,346' MD ~ c ! 12 , 474' MD Top of Hemlock Formation = 12,558' MD 12,519' MD (-8673' 55) :11111 If. ~ ~ . )(.xxX)( . 11 940' MD c ' III rJ ~ 12,034' MD ( 11 710' MD .. ' D CI ~ 11,816' MD ~ :a:: Top of Middle Kenai 'G' Formation 11,436' MD (-7999' SS) - - oft"", (CI~ 1 · 107 J -_..._\ . v· ..~~ ~_....,' ,..",.~.,.,.,t..IotIft.·A·~I.WJ4t!'~ - ... -.......,...rr--....-:~--......--...__, _~., C.O.. FILE .. ~ r' ;.·~CCE::~~D~Ç~~~ :~_.. . '. ALASKA OIL and GAS ~. CONSERVATION COMMITTEE . u ~, 0 ~ 0; ( ;u¡:.. EXHIBIT- WELL No. K - 10 TRADI NG (BAY UN IT McARTHUR RIVER FIELD WELL BORE SCHEMATIC EXHIBIT III - ') ~''''' ',' I I , ,, , I,' 7" 29/1 Casing Liner @ 13,415' MD Sliding Sleeve Lower Hydraulic Packer @ 12,520'+ MD - "Q" Nipple I 3-1/2" Tubing . Gas Lift Valve Upper Hydraulic Packer @ 11,650'+ MD I . II, II ~ 10,407' MD 9-5/8" 47/1 casing @10,616'MD 2 2 €.~ I . 11'" Safety Ball Valve @ 250'± MD ')