HOME PAGE SUBSCRIPTIONS, Print Editions, Newsletter PRODUCTS READ THE PETROLEUM NEWS ARCHIVE! ADVERTISING INFORMATION EVENTS

Providing coverage of Alaska and northern Canada's oil and gas industry
May 2015

Vol. 20, No. 19 Week of May 10, 2015

Conoco requests Meltwater injection change

AOGCC schedules hearing on proposed modifications to existing order for enhanced recovery operations at Kuparuk River satellite

Kristen Nelson

Petroleum News

ConocoPhillips Alaska has requested modifications to the area injection order for the Meltwater oil pool at the Kuparuk River unit, reflecting knowledge gained from operating Meltwater.

The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission said that in response to that request it will “take this opportunity to update the order and rules to reflect current operating practices and latest regulatory requirements and conditions” and has scheduled a hearing for 9 a.m. July 9 at its Anchorage office to hear evidence on these matters from ConocoPhillips, which operates the field on behalf of itself and the other working interest owners. In addition to ConocoPhillips, which holds a 54.02 percent interest at Kuparuk, working interest owners include BP Exploration (Alaska) with 38.3 percent, Chevron USA with 4.95 percent and ExxonMobil Alaska Production with 2.73 percent.

The Meltwater pool sits south of the Kuparuk River field, separated from the remainder of the unit.

In March, the most recent month for which production volumes are available from AOGCC by pool, Meltwater, one of Kuparuk’s smaller pools, produced 2,337 barrels per day; the Kuparuk River unit averaged 109,055 bpd in that same month.

Reasons for request

In an April 14 request for amendments to the existing area injection order ConocoPhillips said the requested amendments “arise from geologic and production data analyses that indicate there has been no further migration of injection fluids out of the” Meltwater oil pool. The company also said “recent geologic and production data analyses indicate that well conversions and sidetracks utilizing coiled tubing drilling technology may further reduce the risk of potential migration of injected fluids out of the MOP (Meltwater oil pool).”

ConocoPhillips said the requested amendments would improve Meltwater flood efficiency and ultimate hydrocarbon recovery; enable the company to “conduct surveillance initiatives to ensure confinement of injected fluids” within the Meltwater pool; and remove the expiration date associated with the existing area injection order.

Bermuda interval

The Meltwater pool is the Bermuda interval between 6,785 and 6,974 feet measured depth in the Meltwater North No. 2A well, the company said.

“The Bermuda interval itself is a complex shelf-slope turbidite deposit,” with the reservoir “compartmentalized into turbidite lobes, which are individual bodies of reservoir quality sandstone,” often separated within the Meltwater oil pool “by stratigraphic and/or structural discontinuities that can cause significant balling of flow.”

Initial migration of injected fluids out of the interval was likely “a result of a large pressure differential between injectors and producers,” with that pressure differential “exacerbated by stratigraphic and/or structural discontinuities within the Bermuda interval,” the company said.

ConocoPhillips has implemented an injection pressure limit to mitigate the large pressure differential and undertaken a containment project “designed to ensure the containment of injected fluids within the” Meltwater oil pool.

Injector, producer in same lobe

A third initiative, in the planning stage, “would be designed to place injectors and producers within the same reservoir body, or lobe, through the use of coiled tubing drilling (CTD) sidetracks and well conversions.”

ConocoPhillips said it believes “historic migration of injected fluids out of the Bermuda reservoir was likely related to compartmentalization of the reservoir into turbidite lobes and the bottomhole locations of the existing development wells.”

With injectors and producers in the same lobe, “reservoir connectivity is considered excellent. In the case in which injectors and producers are located in different lobes, reservoir connectivity is deemed poor, resulting in lower hydrocarbon production rates and recovery factors.”






Petroleum News - Phone: 1-907 522-9469 - Fax: 1-907 522-9583
[email protected] --- http://www.petroleumnews.com ---
S U B S C R I B E

Copyright Petroleum Newspapers of Alaska, LLC (Petroleum News)(PNA)©2013 All rights reserved. The content of this article and web site may not be copied, replaced, distributed, published, displayed or transferred in any form or by any means except with the prior written permission of Petroleum Newspapers of Alaska, LLC (Petroleum News)(PNA). Copyright infringement is a violation of federal law subject to criminal and civil penalties.