geomechanics issue - cspg home files/pdfs/documents/publi… · future” as the cspg previously...

RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESSES TO:

CSPG – 150, 540 – 5th Ave SW Calgary, AB, T2P 0M2

$7.00JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2017VOLUME 44, ISSUE 1Canadian Publication Mail Contract – 40070050

Geomechanics IssueIn This Issue...

Talking with Architects

Some New Techniques for Acquiring Downhole

Geomechanics Data

Next-generation Hydraulic Fracture Modeling

Image Logs

2017 Board of Directors

NEW ISSUE OF THE BULLETIN

Check out the newest issue of the CSPG

Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology

online today at www.cspg.org

Recognition of wave-influenced deltaic and bay-margin sedimentation, Bluesky

Formation, Alberta S.E. Botterill, S.G. Campbell, E.R. Timmer and M.K. Gingras

Sedimentology, ichnology and sequence

stratigraphy of the Upper Devonian–Lower Mississippian Bakken Formation in

eastern Saskatchewan L. Zhang and L.A. Buatois

Evolution of Li-enriched oilfield brines in

Devonian carbonates of the south-central Alberta Basin, Canada

G.F. Huff

Regional T-R sequence stratigraphy and lithostratigraphy of the Bearpaw Formation

(Upper Campanian), west-central and southwestern Alberta plains

B. Hathway

Maximum age of the basal Cretaceous Chinkeh Formation sandstones, Maxhamish

Lake area, Liard Basin, British Columbia M. McMechan, W. Matthews, F. Ferri and B. Guest

Issue Contents:

CSPG OFFICE

#150, 540 - 5th Ave SW Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 0M2 Tel: 403-264-5610 Web: www.cspg.orgPlease visit our website for all tickets sales and event/course registrations Office hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30am to 4:00pm The CSPG Office is Closed the 1st and 3rd Friday of every month.

OFFICE CONTACTSMembership Inquiries Tel: 403-264-5610 Email: [email protected]

Advertising Inquiries: Kristy Casebeer Tel: 403-513-1233 Email: [email protected]

Sponsorship Opportunities: Lis Bjeld Tel: 403-513-1235 Email: [email protected]

Conference Inquiries: Kristy Casebeer Tel: 403-513-1233 Email: [email protected]

Accounting Inquiries: Nancy Mosher Tel: 403-513-1232 Email: [email protected]

Executive Director: Lis Bjeld Tel: 403-513-1235, Email: [email protected]

EDITORS/AUTHORSPlease submit RESERVOIR articles to the CSPG office. Submission deadline is the 23rd day of the month, two months prior to issue date. (e.g. January 23 for the March/April issue)To publish an article, the CSPG requires digital copies of the document. Text should be in Microsoft Word format and illustrations should be in TIFF format at 300 dpi., at final size.

CSPG COORDINATING EDITOREmma MacPherson, Programs Coordinator, Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Tel: 403-513-1230, [email protected] RESERVOIR is published 6 times per year by the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists. The purpose of the RESERVOIR is to publicize the Society’s many activities and to promote the geosciences. We look for both technical and non-technical material to publish.

The contents of this publication may not be reproduced either in part or in full without the consent of the publisher. Additional copies of the RESERVOIR are available at the CSPG office.

No official endorsement or sponsorship by the CSPG is implied for any advertisement, insert, or article that appears in the Reservoir unless otherwise noted. All submitted materials are reviewed by the editor. We reserve the right to edit all submissions, including letters to the Editor. Submissions must include your name, address, and membership number (if applicable).The material contained in this publication is intended for informational use only.

While reasonable care has been taken, authors and the CSPG make no guarantees that any of the equations, schematics, or devices discussed will perform as expected or that they will give the desired results. Some information contained herein may be inaccurate or may vary from standard measurements. The CSPG expressly disclaims any and all liability for the acts, omissions, or conduct of any third-party user of information contained in this publication. Under no circumstances shall the CSPG and its officers, directors, employees, and agents be liable for any injury, loss, damage, or expense arising in any manner whatsoever from the acts, omissions, or conduct of any third-party user.

Printed by CBN Commercial Services, Calgary, Alberta.

RESERVOIR ISSUE 1 • JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2017 3

PRESIDENTMark Cooper

Sherwood Geoconsulting Ltd. [email protected]

PRESIDENT ELECTClint Tippett

[email protected]

PAST PRESIDENTGreg Lynch

Shell Canada Ltd. [email protected]

FINANCE DIRECTORShelley Leggett

NAL Resources Ltd. [email protected]

FINANCE DIRECTOR ELECTJim Barclay

[email protected]

DIRECTORMark Caplan

[email protected]

DIRECTORJohn Cody

Statoil Canada [email protected]

DIRECTORAlex MacNeil

Osum Oil Sands Corp. [email protected]

DIRECTORKevin Parks

Alberta Energy Regulator [email protected]

DIRECTORMichael Webb

Suncor Energy [email protected]

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORLis Bjeld

[email protected]

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2017

Available NOW for 10 dollars! Office: 150-540, 5th Ave SW

Phone: 403.264.5610

Start your year off right with the

2017 Geological Calendar


CANADA’S ENERGY GEOSCIENTISTS?By Mark Cooper

Welcome to 2017 and I am sure you will join me in hoping it will be a better year than 2016 for the

energy industry. The signs are hopeful with an OPEC production cut underpinned by Saudi Arabia providing some stability and hopefully sustainable higher prices for oil. As I write this article the office move is underway to our new location at Suite 150, 540 5th Ave SW. CSPG has retained its street presence while gaining the use of a common classroom (100+capacity). This will save CSPG a significant amount in the current and subsequent financial years although this is in some ways “back to the future” as the CSPG previously occupied the same space until the late nineties.

The Executive, the Board and the office staff have had a busy Q4 with a number of things coming up. We received two major reports on key topics. The first report was a thorough and comprehensive commentary on the Ambassador Programme by the CSPG Ambassadors (Ian McIlreath, Colin Yeo, Brad Hayes, Ian Hutcheon, Ryan Brenner, Astrid Arts, Gerry Reinson, Dale Leckie, Craig Lamb, Jim Reimer, Christian Viaux, and Tony Cadrin) collated by Ian McIlreath. The second report addressed the Awards that the CSPG gives each year; again a thorough and comprehensive report was submitted by a hard working committee (Colin Yeo, David Chunn, Gordon Williams, Denise Yee and Tony Cadrin) chaired by Ian McIlreath. We would like to thank Ian and all the contributors for the time spent in putting together these reports which will form the basis for the evolution of those these programmes to be fit for purpose moving forward. CSPG has also been working on a position

paper regarding the proposed changes coming from the legislative review being conducted by APEGA. CSPG is also working on a revised policy to continue waiving fees for our members who are in transition, I hope that by the time you read this the new policy will already have been announced.

Finally I want to address the tagline of the CSPG that appears on virtually all of our materials, “Canada’s Energy Geoscientists”. This, I am told, has created some confusion since it was added and I want to initiate a discussion on this by describing what it conveys to me. I am going to borrow from a comment made by Kevin Parks the new Publications Director at our strategy session in October. The gist of this was that the CSPG has historically focussed on and continues to focus on the sedimentary basins of Canada and the fluids that are produced out of and injected into the sedimentary strata that they contain. This is a good place to start discussing what “Canada’s Energy Geoscientists” represents. The majority of our members work in the oil industry; however this does not simply require the extraction of hydrocarbons. Large volumes of water are now involved in many oilfield operations, water which needs to be sourced and recycled in an environmentally sensitive fashion. Carbon dioxide is now being captured and stored underground which requires skills that overlap significantly with hydrocarbon production. So rock/fluid interactions in their various forms are key issues for many of our members. This fall CSPG has organised workshops on Geothermal Energy and Carbon Capture and Storage both of which were very

successful and will hopefully be repeated in the future. The message is that we are diversifying the technical content that we offer to our members and intend to continue this process in the future by adding the number of Technical Divisions and supporting the reinvigorated Hydrogeology and Environmental Divisions we already have.

So for me “Canada’s Energy Geoscientists” means that we are the natural home for geoscientists that work on Canadian sedimentary basins and fluid flow within them whether it is Oil and Gas production, Geothermal, Carbon Capture and Storage, Hydrogeology or Environmental remediation as all of these aspects are inextricably linked. Coal is an energy source that many of our members have worked on in their careers but current government policies do not seem to be favouring coal as part of the long term future energy mix but coalbed methane may be resurgent at some point in the future. The other pieces of the energy mix such as Renewables, Nuclear and Hydroelectric only touch geosciences through engineering geology which is not something that CSPG has particular expertise in and so I do not see that fitting the tagline of “Canada’s Energy Geoscientists”. I hope this gets the ball rolling on a discussion of this issue; over to you the membership.

MESSAGE FROM THE BOARD

6 RESERVOIR ISSUE 1 • JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2017

CORPORATE SPONSORS/SUPPORTERS

CORPORATE SUPPORTERS Birchcliff Energy Ltd. RPS Energy Canada Ltd. Bannatyne Wealth Advisory Group Canadian Global Exploration Forum CMC Research Institutes, Inc. Encana EV Cam Canada Inc. Halliburton LXL Consulting Ltd. Mount Royal University

RIGSAT Communications RS Energy Group Schlumberger Canada Limited Cabra Consulting Ltd. Pulse Seismic Inc. McDaniel & Associates Consultants Ltd. CAPL ConocoPhillips Earth Signal Processing Ltd. Valeura Energy

Compass Directional Services Integrated Sustainability Consultants Ltd. TAQA North Ltd. Navigator Resource Consulting Synterra Technologies Baker Hughes Calgary Roke Technologies Ltd. Signature Seismic Processing Inc. Tectonic Energy Consulting Inc.

T. Cadrin Holdings Ltd.

BRONZE SPONSORS

SILVER SPONSORS

PLATINUM SPONSORS TITANIUM SPONSORS

GOLD SPONSOR

DIAMOND SPONSORS SAMARIUM SPONSOR

THANK-YOU TO ALL OF OUR SPONSORS

*As of November 30th


FRONT COVER

Paragon Peak, Alberta. View looking north towards Paragon Peak in the Ramparts, Tonquin Valley, Jasper National Park, Alberta. Paragon Peak and the Ramparts are comprised of west-dipping beds of sandstone and conglomerate of the Lower Cambrian McNaughton Formation. Gord Hurlburt

MESSAGE FROM THE BOARD ............................................................................5

MONTHLY SPONSORS ...........................................................................................6

PHOTO OF THE MONTH ......................................................................................8

MESSAGE FROM THE EDITORS ........................................................................9

GEOMECHANIC THEME ARTICLES

Talking with Architects ...........................................................................................10

Some New Techniques for Acquiring Downhole Geomechanics Data ..............12

Next-generation Hydraulic Fracture Modeling ....................................................14

Image Logs ..............................................................................................................17

UPCOMING EVENTS

Technical Luncheons..............................................................................................19

Division Talks ..........................................................................................................25

SOCIETY NEWS

2017 Board of Directors ..........................................................................................32

2016 Award Winners List ........................................................................................35

Member Updates ....................................................................................................37

FROM THE ARCHIVES .........................................................................................39

TABLE OF CONTENTS

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2017 – VOLUME 44, ISSUE 1


PHOTO OF THE MONTH

Lherzolite, West Kettle River, British Columbia. Sample of the ultramafic igneous rock lherzolite, West Kettle River, British Columbia, from the collection of the University of Alberta. This ultramafic rock is seen in thin section with plane-polarized light (L) and cross-polars (R). It is primarily composed of olivine with minor orthopyroxene, clinopyroxene and spinel. Lherzolite is a major constituent of the Earth’s mantle. By: Zekai Jia


HAPPY NEW YEAR

We hope that the holidays were good to all our readers, giving some much needed time to

appreciate and reflect. We at the Reservoir have also been doing some reflecting, on what we believe are important issues to our readers during these tough economic “times.” We want to take this opportunity to share some of the upcoming changes with you.

We have heard that having a print edition of the Reservoir is important to you. We will continue to bring you technical articles, society news and information on upcoming events, however we will only mail out 6 editions during the 2017 publication year. This change reflects the cost involved in bringing the Reservoir to members. We are viewing this as a positive, as we can make other changes to enhance the Reservoir.

The second change is that we are moving to themed editions, focusing on specific technical aspects of Geology that will act as the common thread throughout the publication. We kick of 2017 with a geomechnics theme. A big thank-you to Amy Fox who has spearheaded the effort, and lends her considerable expertise to our readers.

With the themed editions we will also highlight discussions with prominent contributors, giving you the reader a little more background into who these technical experts are and what has influenced their careers in the Geosciences. We hope the “Talking with Architects” series will be well received and will continue on through the publication.

Additional themes will include: Paradigm shifts – new ways to look at old problems. A collection of articles focused on what we as Geoscientists consider to be “the established,” making us reconsider what we assume to be “facts.” Our academic edition will highlight some of the exciting work happening at our universities. Other themes will focus on such topics as GeoConvention, rock properties and laboratory testing and environmental considerations in our industry.

In closing, we would like to thank-you for renewing your memberships and continued support of the Society. We have made it our mandate to fill the Reservoir with timely, relevant and applicable articles, and we will continue to do so. We also encourage our membership to write in with requests or comments for the overall betterment of our society.

Jason Frank Technical Editor for the CSPG Reservoir Sr. Geologist at Athabasca Oil Corporation

Jason Frank is a Professional Geologist who holds a B.Sc. and M.Sc. from the University of Alberta. He has over 16 years of experience in oil and gas including technical and leadership positions in exploration and development both on and offshore. Past experience includes Shell Canada Ltd., Burlington Resources Ltd., ConocoPhillips Canada Ltd., and Talisman Energy Inc. Jason has volunteered for the Society in the past, most recently chairing the Duvernay session at the Society’s annual convention (2014) and the Honourary Address Committee.

Travis Hobbs Technical Editor for the Reservoir Professional Geologist at Encana

Travis Hobbs is an undergraduate from University of Calgary with a graduates degree from Simon Fraser University in Geology. Professionally has worked both domestically and internationally for 19 years in the Oil & Gas industry, and is currently celebrating 15 years with Encana. Industry roles have included development, exploration, management and business development. Prior to the Reservoir, Travis has held previous roles on convention committees and six years as the Chair of Continuing Education. As free time permits Travis enjoys cycling, cross-country skiing and teaching his two daughters violin.

MESSAGE FROM THE EDITORS


GEOMECHANICS ARTICLES

“TALKING WITH ARCHITECTS” CSPG Reservoir Interview with Pat McLellanTravis Hobbs with Amy Fox

Pat McLellan is a geological engineer with a long history applying geomechanics to reservoir

characterization, drilling, completions, reservoir engineering, and of late, induced seismicity. He began his oil and gas career with Petro-Canada, moved to Shell Canada in 1987, and later Shell Research. In 1994 he founded the consulting, software and training firm Advanced Geotechnology Inc. that was sold to Weatherford International in 2006. He graduated with a B.Sc. in Geological Engineering from Queen’s University in 1979, and obtained a M.Sc. in Geotechnical Engineering from the University of Alberta in 1983. He has conducted over 500 technical projects, authored or presented more than 160 technical papers, and instructed some 130 short courses worldwide. Pat was the recipient of two best paper citations and a Distinguished Service Award from the Petroleum Society. He was a Society of Petroleum Engineers Distinguished Lecturer in 2003. He has also served as director of the Petroleum Society and the Petroleum Technology Alliance of Canada, and continues to participate in conference organization committees for the CSPG, AAPG, SPE and ARMA. From late 2010 to 2016 he was a senior technical advisor at Talisman (now Repsol) and was a member of the Independent Technical Panel created by CNRL and the AER to review the Primrose Bitumen Flow to Surface events. Through McLellan Energy Advisors Inc. he currently provides consulting services, project management and training courses for energy industry clients in unconventional resources and oil sands.

Q: Tell us something about the personal side of Pat McLellan. What are your interests outside of work?

A: Well I’m married to my very supportive wife Charlene and our two daughters, Brynn and Kathryn are currently attending UBC. I’ve been a life-long participant in

many outdoor activities so we’ve spent plenty of time with family and friends hiking, backpacking, skiing, canoeing and kayaking. I’ve been a long time member of the Calgary Canoe Club as a coach, director and a competitor. Most recently I raced at the world outrigger championships in Australia, and finally got to make the Molokai to Oahu crossing with a Canadian Master’s team. I’m looking forward to a cold winter (still in the gas business!) and another good ski season.

Q: What attracted you to the Earth Science discipline, and when did you realize you wanted to focus on the field of geomechanics?

A: Well that does go back a ways, but the earliest recollection I have of knowing I wanted to be outdoors working in some field of earth science was a Grade 11 geography course. I was lucky enough to land a field job mapping landslides with the Department of Natural Resources in Eastern Ontario while still in high school and that cinched it for me. I entered the engineering program at Queen’s knowing I wanted to be in the geological discipline. It was probably about my third year at Queen’s when I decided to pursue a career in geotechnical engineering, which led me to apply to graduate school in Alberta. My interest in petroleum geomechanics developed over my first few years working in Calgary on offshore islands and ice scour hazards in the Beaufort Sea.

Q: Who were the influences on your work during your early education/training?

A: There were many I would say from teachers, professors, researchers to employers: Herb Helmstaedt and Doug VanDine at Queen’s; Norbert Morgenstern, Dave Cruden and Peter Kaiser at the University of Alberta; Wayne Savigny of Thurber Consultants; Sebastian Bell at the GSC; and Leo Roodhart at Shell Research.

Clint Tippett, a Queen’s grad student at the time, who hired me as a field assistant for a GSC crew on Northern Baffin Island (ostensibly to carry his rock samples) left a lasting mark.

Q: What is your best field memory (hike/field work/looking at rocks)?

A: As an undergrad I had great field experiences working on landslides, mineral exploration in Northern Ontario, and mapping on a helicopter supported crew along the northern coast of Baffin Island with the GSC. Doesn’t get any better when you did your traverses on skis early in the season. Unlike many of my fellow grad students in the geotechnical group of Civil Engineering at U of A, I sought out a field investigation of large rock avalanches in a remote part of the Mackenzie Mountains in the Yukon and NWT for my thesis research. My professional career in Calgary, working principally in the subsurface, sadly did not lend itself to many field excursions. I did however have a great experience when I was seconded by Petro-Canada in 1985 to the Ocean Drilling Program Leg 110 for 6 weeks in the Atlantic Ocean, drilling through the Barbados Accretionary Prism. I always try to make the CSPG structural geology field



trip run each fall. I saw somewhere that the one who sees the most rocks wins. I won’t win but it’s been fun trying.

Q: How much have you worked in western Canada vs. other geographic areas?

A: A bit by design, I’ve always worked out of Calgary. I turned down a posting to Shell’s Research Lab in The Hague, but soon after founded Advanced Geotechnology. During my consulting career I travelled to or undertook projects for clients operating or exploring in Venezuela, Columbia, Ecuador, Cuba, Mexico, Peru, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Japan, Taiwan, Nigeria, Gabon, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, UAE, India, Norway, Australia, United Kingdom, and all over the USA. Probably about a 65/35 split on Canadian to foreign project work.

Q: How would you say geomechanics has changed over the course of your career?

A: Most certainly there is a much greater awareness of this specialty, in both the engineering and geoscience communities. There are many more conferences, training courses and workshops on the topic, especially with the rise of unconventional oil and gas resources in the last decade. Computing power enhancements have made some types of geomechanical modelling much more practical. At the same time geomechanics has yet to be accepted into the mainstream of many companies, partly because it falls at that interface between classic engineering and geoscience disciplines. We need to become better communicators to demonstrate the value add. I think we’re getting there, as evidenced by the geomechanics staff complement in many operators and a few service companies.

Q: Can you describe some major achievements or favorite projects over your industry career?

A: I’ve been quite fortunate to have had opportunities to work on many varied projects that were often at the interface of geoscience and engineering. Some favorite ones would include: mapping and modelling of ice scouring phenomena in the Canadian Beaufort Sea, 1984; physical

scientist on board ODP Leg 110, 1985; first commercial use of microseismic to map hydraulic fractures in Alberta, 1986; profiling of in-situ stresses with micro-frac testing, Alberta 1986; research on the effects of natural fractures during hydraulic fracturing including simulation, laboratory and field tests, 1990 to present; geomechanical investigations of gas hydrates below permafrost in the Mackenzie Delta, NWT, 1998-2006; wellbore stability and sand production investigations including the development of new models and innovative software, 1988-2009; assessment of caprock integrity risks for thermal EOR and CO2 sequestration (1995 to present); casing integrity and induced seismicity resulting from hydraulic fracturing in unconventional gas reservoirs (2010 to present).

Q: What technical breakthroughs do you see on the geomechanics horizon? Where do you see our roles in applying geomechanics going? How can students/professionals today best prepare for this?

A: Speaking just from subject areas I’m more familiar with I would say we’ll see new technical breakthroughs in such topics as: geomodelling with geomechanics; dynamic risk assessment through the life of the field; large-scale geomechanical simulation linked to monitoring of reservoir and caprock deformation; remote monitoring with differential InSAR; sweet spot identification in fractured reservoirs; and induced seismicity hazard identification and forecasting. Exciting times indeed. I see a role for applied earth scientists and engineers in many aspects of these new technologies; but clearly broad, integrated skill sets are required. Our university and industry training needs to foster these sort of inter-disciplinary skills.

Q: What are your plans/goals for the next 3 to 5 years?

A: I must say that after working more than three decades I still have trouble with the R word. I truly get a kick out of looking at new problems and solving challenges in a wide range of resource management, especially at the technology edge; e.g., steam injection processes, CO2 sequestration, optimizing multi-stage stimulation, microseismic,

induced seismicity and remote sensing. I plan to continue to pursue these passions for selected clients, and to teach my industry courses a few times a year. I contemplate stepping back into the geomechanics software business, and no doubt have a few more technical papers to write. At the same time, I also have a long bucket list of canoe trips and other adventures, so like anything it’s a balance.

Q: What are some key messages you would like to share with the industry professional just starting to collect, analyze and apply geomechanical data?

A: I have a few suggestions for new professionals working in geomechanics. First, just because you have an equation for something, does not mean it is necessarily so. I see this blind adherence to theory in many people early in their careers, and I’ll admit to having been there once myself. Come to expect surprises in real measured data, and don’t be afraid to entertain multiple working hypotheses until all of the facts are in. Sometimes there is not just one acceptable answer. Geoscientists tend to have less trouble with this approach; engineers can be more rigid about accepting the inherent uncertainties of earth materials. Secondly, my suggestion for young staff is to be a technical sponge – absorb as much about the science as you can. Join multiple technical societies to get a broad perspective. Thirdly, be practical when arriving at a solution, be that an exploration, development or operational practice.



Some New Techniques for Acquiring Downhole Geomechanics DataAmy D. Fox, PhD, PGeo, Enlightened Geoscience Ltd.

An enduring problem in the field of geomechanics is the need for logs and/or core data to determine

geomechanical rock properties. Over the past few years, new technologies have been under development to solve this problem, providing in situ geomechanical data more quickly and at lower cost than traditional methods. This innovation seems to be coming from small start-ups rather than the big service companies, most of which have laid off a vast number of their technical experts. In this short article we highlight three such innovation incubators.

FractureID, based in Denver, calculates geomechanical properties from data collected at the bit during drilling, eliminating the need to acquire wireline logs or core in a separate run. The company has trademarked the term “Drillbit Geomechanics.” Fracture ID’s focus is not just on determining commonly used rock properties such as Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio, but also in identifying fractures, faults and bedding planes. They use data recorders placed near the drill bit to record drilling vibrations, which are

related to rock failure caused by the bit itself. Stress-strain relationships are then used to determine the in situ rock properties. With resolution of less than one centimeter, the results can be used to develop detailed plans to stage well completions and target production in specific zones. After only about 18 months in development, the company has already run the tool in more than 70 wells and has a client list that includes 15 operators in the U.S., ranging from supermajors to private equity funded start-up E&Ps. They expect to be running the tool in Canada by early 2017. President and founder Chris Neale says “the industry has become very focused on efficiency” in each and every well, as opposed to efficiency in large, so-called factory drilling campaigns. A presentation is available on their website (www.fractureid.com) by providing your contact information.

Rocsol Technologies, based in Calgary, uses patented technology to interpret standard data recorded during drilling to determine parameters such as weight-on-bit, Young’s modulus, porosity, permeability and Poisson’s ratio for drill bit efficiency and fracture mapping. One important parameter that can be

determined is unconfined compressive strength (UCS), which is critical for geomechanical wellbore stability analyses but usually requires time-consuming and costly core testing to obtain. Much like Fracture ID, the analysis results can be used to plan hydraulic fracture stages, but they can also help reduce drilling inefficiencies and non-productive time. Rocsol’s methodology is the brainchild of Geir Hareland, Chief Technical Advisor, who developed it while he was a professor at the University of Calgary following many years of experience with vertical wells. With industry partners, Geir then “took a lot of those ideas and moved them to the horizontal side,” says Rocsol President Deryl Williams. Deployment doesn’t require any special hardware, just the integration of Rocsol’s software into existing rig systems, which keeps the cost relatively low. Alternatively, the data can be processed using stand-alone software for planning and simulation. The technology has been field tested in more than 30 wells, mostly in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, and the results validated against industry standard tools. Several presentations and papers are available via their website (www.rocsoltech.com).

Figure 1. Screenshot of FractureID’s elastic property software.

Figure 2. Screenshot of Rocsol Technology’s proprietary software.


Another Calgary-based company, Integrity Insitu, incorporates proven technology from the world of civil engineering to determine in situ stress and rock mechanics data. About five years ago, towards the latter part of an 18-year career in the oil and gas industry, Cory Fehr, President and CEO, became particularly frustrated by the need to wait for slow and costly triaxial core test data, and this frustration led him to invent the Integrity Tool. He enlisted the help from both industry and academic associates, funding from private investors and support from both the provincial and federal governments. The tool consists of three parts – a pressuremeter, a minifrac and a shear head device – and the combined data set allows for the determination of a suite of geomechanical data including cohesion and angle of internal friction, from which UCS can be determined. The prototype tool has a 6” diameter, is run on drill string and can be deployed at depths up to 1,000 meters. A second tool with extended capabilities is expected to go into production in 2017. More information is available upon request at their website (www.integrityinsitu.com).

Innovative solutions to geomechanical problems are a breath of fresh air in a

field that one could argue hasn’t changed much in a few decades. Despite an increased awareness of geomechanics and a proliferation of geomechanical modeling software, few big strides have been made in providing inputs to those models. The three companies introduced in this article are great examples of small players in the oilfield service industry pushing the envelope and leading us into the geomechanical future.


Figure 3. Screenshot of Integrity Insitu’s pressuremeter analysis software.

SAVE THE DATE

October 10-12, 2017 | Banff, AB

SUBSURFACE HYDROCARBON MOVEMENT: FROM CONVENTIONAL

TO UNCONVENTIONAL



Next-generation Hydraulic Fracture ModelingAmy D. Fox, PhD, PGeo

Attempts to model hydraulic fractures started in the late 1970s and early 1980’s. At that time large hydraulic

fracture projects were being conducted in vertical wells in tight gas reservoirs, but the fractures didn’t seem to be draining the reservoir volume expected. The early models were mainly 2-dimensional and assumed a single hydraulic fracture initiated in an open hole, aligned axially along a vertical well and symmetrical on either side of the well. As horizontal drilling and multi-stage hydraulic fracture completions ramped up in the 2000’s and into the 2010’s, software providers and researchers scrambled to update their models. For many years complex solutions were still not widely available commercially, so completions engineers were continuing to use tools that they knew were not necessarily appropriate but were all they had.

The good news is that solutions seem to have finally arrived. A quick web search results in more than 15 different software programs for modeling hydraulic fractures. Most product web sites contain a substantial amount of information including white papers and case studies, and in many cases one can request a trial software license. Many of the programs available now meet some, if not all, of the following criteria:• 3-dimensional• can model multiple stages• allows for asymmetrical fractures• accounts for stage-to-stage stress

interference• handles structural controls on fracture

propagation and interaction with natural fracture sets

• easily integrates LAS log data• can analyze DFIT/minifrac data• provides production forecasts• is real-time enabled

The degree to which various programs adhere to the fundamental physics and incorporate geology and geologic processes can vary quite widely, so it is important to do some research when choosing which tool to use.

Bob Barree of Barree & Associates out of Lakewood, Colorado created one of the first hydraulic fracture models as part of his PhD research several decades ago. Barree’s software, GOHFER Figure 1, continued to evolve over the years and has been widely adopted across the oil and gas industry. Bob, who was kind enough to be interviewed for this article, points out that one of the perceived drawbacks to the new, more complex models is that they have potentially large data requirements. There simply isn’t an easy answer; the more you physically try to describe the system, the more difficult it becomes. He routinely gets complaints that the software needs too much data. Bob sees that at this point the industry can choose to go down two very different paths – either acknowledge this need for data and collect what is necessary to build better models, or follow the current trend of not designing a fracture job, instead pumping huge volumes of fluid, potentially risking the value of the asset. Technological advances in data collection might help. That’s what happened as in vertical wells. Bob says many people at first saw little point in a 3-D simulator, citing that nobody would bother getting the data needed, but

the story changed as tools like dipole sonic and geomechanics workflows developed.

So why did it take so long to transform the vertical well models into more accurate models for horizontal multi-stage fractures? The physics of fracture propagation are no different. One of the biggest problems was creating the user interface to get necessary information such as azimuth, fracture spacing and interference from other stages/other wells into the model correctly. “It’s been an evolutionary process,” Bob says. Another problem in unconventional reservoirs is time. We tend to use just the first few months of production to try to predict long-term, but we might need years to understand any real change in production due to the fracture job, or fracture and well spacing.

The next challenges for hydraulic fracture models include full integration with 3-D geomechanical earth models, and coupling multi-well models with reservoir simulation to develop a production profile that actually means something and can predict 2 or 3 years down the road. To do this, Bob says, “you have to get everything

Figure 1. Example of a 3-D GOHFER model showing interacting hydraulic fractures in neighbouring horizontal wells.



right,” including cleanup, SRV, etc., which is no easy feat. Many reservoir simulators focus on fracture dimensions, not fracture conductivity. To address this problem, GOHFER incorporates 30 years of data from Stim-lab, a division of CoreLab, that runs a joint industry research consortium on fracture conductivity. The Stim-lab data provides a tremendous knowledge base to understand how proppant works and how fractures behave. When Stim-lab was an independent company they also had a research consortium on proppant transport to understand how sand moves through the fracture, and that’s when they first partnered with Barree & Associates. Many of the consortium members are proppant makers and big service companies. Bob points out that few fracture simulators incorporate laboratory work of, e.g., rheology and clean-up models, and instead simply use a set of equations based on how

fractures are expected to act. The result is that rarely does reality match the modeling results.

The current industry downturn has Barree & Associates’ work down significantly, but they are continuing with software development knowing that the value of simulation will still be there as things recover so long as industry overcomes its brute force mentality. Bob estimates that currently less than 10%, probably even less than 5%, of fracture jobs are actually simulated. “Not understanding the system is massively costly, far more costly than if you did the work up front to understand the system, but that’s a hard lesson for people to learn it seems,” says Barree. The oil and gas industry has become successful at placing stimulations as designed, but the way the wells are operated after the completion doesn’t allow them to reach

their potential. Some issues that still need to be addressed are the low energy of the overall system, how difficult it is to clean up the fractures post-stimulation, better lift for unloading the horizontal section, and water production.

GeoConvention 2017 is a must-attend event for access to latest innovations in Geoscience with marketand business insights, personal development and advances in health, safety and environment.

Early Bird Registration Opens Soon

geoconvention.com


The 2017 Mountjoy Conference sponsored by SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) and CSPG (Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists) will be held the week of June 26-30, 2017 in Austin, Texas, at the University of Texas Commons Learning Center and the Bureau of Economic Geology Core facility. The Technical Program Committee (David Budd, Gregor Eberli, Cathy Hollis, Don McNeill, Gene Rankey, Rachel Wood) on behalf of the SEPM and CSPG, is very pleased to announce that the ABSTRACT SUBMISSION IS NOW OPEN for the 2nd Mountjoy Carbonate Research Conference! The theme of the meeting is "Carbonate Pore Systems”. The meeting will be a mix of oral and poster presentations (Monday and Thursday), an in-meeting fieldtrip (Tuesday), and a full-day core workshop (Wednesday). The meeting will provide abundant time for discussion and interaction with the technical presenters and attendees. Those attending the Conference will gain an improved understanding of porosity at variable scales in carbonate rocks. Registration for the meeting opens in February, 2017 and is capped at 150 people maximum. Details of the meeting, and the trips, are located at http://www.sepm.org/MountjoyII

In a glance, the technical sessions and session Chairs include: Sedimentological, Stratigraphic, and Diagenetic Controls on Development of Carbonate Pore Systems Mike Grammer | Oklahoma State University James Bishop | Chevron David Budd | University of Colorado Microporosity in Conventional and Unconventional Carbonate Reservoirs Steve Kaczmerak | Western Michigan University Gregor Baechle | Consultant, Houston, TX Bob Loucks | BEG University of Texas Multiscale Prediction and Upscaling of Carbonate Porosity and Permeability Neil Hurley | Chevron Ralf Weger | University of Miami Beth Vandenberg | British Petroleum (BP) Interactions in Multi-Modal Pore Systems Bob Goldstein | University of Kansas Charlie Kerans | BEG University of Texas Alex MacNeil | Osum Oil Sands Co. Visualization, Quantification, and Modeling of Carbonate Pore Systems and Their Fluid Flow Behavior Paul M. (Mitch) Harris | University of Miami / Rice University Gregor Eberli | University of Miami Gareth Jones | ExxonMobil

The technical committee would also like to invite submission of abstracts for the all-day core. Cores representing a spectrum of geologic time and depositional settings, as well as unique diagenetic environments from some of the most significant producing reservoirs will be on display. The cores will be highlighted in a core preview display during the technical sessions on Monday. Wednesday will be the full core display and discussion with presenters at the Austin Core Research Center (CRC), located adjacent to the University of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology headquarters. The core workshop represents a great way to see examples of all sorts of different reservoirs, and to get your hands on the rock. The core displays will demonstrate important aspects of reservoir quality of both conventional and unconventional carbonate reservoirs. For any questions, feel free to contact the conference General Chair or any of the Technical Program chairs: General Chair: Paul (Mitch) Harris | [email protected] Technical Program Chairs: Don McNeill | [email protected] Gene Rankey | [email protected] Core Conf. Chair: Laura Zahm | [email protected] Field Trip Chair: Astrid Arts | [email protected]

(Continued on page 18...)



When Public Data Isn’t Necessarily Public – An Appeal to AB and BC Regulators, Software Vendors and OperatorsAmy Fox

Two very important data types for geomechanics are image logs and mechanical tests on core. Both are

well data and are therefore required to be submitted to the regulators by operators or their representatives. Naturally, as with any other well data such as density logs and completion reports, one would expect to be able to access image logs and mechanical core tests through the regulator or a software package such as geoSCOUT, AccuMap, or GeoCarta fairly easily. Unfortunately, not so, for reasons detailed below. For the sake of brevity, this article will focus only on image logs.

Invented in the late 70’s, image logs started being used with some frequency throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s. The earliest images were simple cameras lowered into a well on a cable (the borehole televiewer, or BHTV). Modern optical image logs use much fancier cameras but require a clear fluid in the well, so they don’t generally get used in the oil and gas industry. Instead, the petroleum industry commonly uses electrical (e.g., Schlumberger’s Formation MicroImager, or FMI) or acoustic (e.g., Baker Hughes’ Circumferential Borehole Image Log, or CBIL) image logs. While they cost more than a standard wireline log, image logs provide tremendous value by allowing interpreters to measure and characterize geologic features such as lithology, sedimentary structures, fractures and faults as well as drilling induced features such as breakouts1.

In the early days of image logs, there was no easy way to store, transfer or reproduce the large files associated with the data. Paper logs were submitted to the regulators, who then scanned them. Quality problems were widespread for several reasons. One was that in many cases operators submitted (by accident or on purpose) unoriented, uncorrected field plots instead of the final plots from the service companies.

In addition, the scans were black and white, which simply blacked or whited out much of the data. Later grayscale scans were a slight improvement. Around 2008, British Columbia began accepting PDF or equivalent digital image files and original data in the form of DLIS files, and no longer required paper submissions. If the CD/DVD is stored in the well file and the well file accessed in person, a digital copy of the data or PDF can be obtained by the public. In an experiment around 2014 I had the BC Oil and Gas Commission (OGC) scan, in colour, a paper log for me and send it to me digitally, but the resulting file size was too large to be opened by any software program. Alberta started accepting PDF files soon after BC, in 2009. To my knowledge, there is no way to obtain digital copies of image logs from the AER. In 2013 the AER indicated that they had a plan to distribute digital image logs through a third party, but so far nothing seems to have come of it.

Using any of the three common software packages mentioned above, it is difficult even to figure out in which wells image logs were run. The raster logs are unclassified, inconsistently labeled, and/or not depth-registered. If you know how to look for them, you can find about 10,000 wells across Alberta and BC with some indication that an image log was run, but that doesn’t mean the log is available. The only way to find out if the log is available is to go look through the raster logs for each and every well individually. In my experience, less than half of the wells identified actually have available rasters, and maybe 20% of those are of sufficient quality to analyze.

In 2013 I submitted a request under the Alberta Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIP) Act for a small list of image logs run in the Duvernay. The request was immediately rejected on the basis that the images were already available. I made an appeal to the commissioner

with examples showing the quality of what was available versus an original quality image. More than a year later the appeal was finally denied because the regulator simply had no way to meet the request, the original files being either lost, inaccessible or not reproducible. At around the same time I made a direct appeal to twenty or so operators to release the data to me themselves or authorize the sale of a copy to me by the service companies that ran the logs. In all but two cases I got no response at all. In one case the operator sent me a log that was not an image log, and in anther the operator called me and said, “Why should we give it to you? If you can’t get it, then we have a competitive advantage by not releasing it.”

Figure 1: Portion of an Alberta FMI log run in 1992, as available to the public today.


Over the past several years I have spoken with geoLOGIC systems ltd., makers of geoSCOUT, and IHS, makers of AccuMap, about the difficulty in accessing image logs through their software. I was hoping to find some support both in figuring out how to improve how their software finds image logs and in pressuring the regulators to provide better quality images. I’ve also spoken with members of the OGC and AER, but without results. I was hoping that even if the regulators can’t provide the logs themselves, if they declared that the original-quality, processed images are public data, then that would require operators to provide them either directly to the public or through the service companies.

One service company that maintains an archive of thousands of dipmeter and image logs in both Alberta and BC is HEF Petrophysical. Since 1992 HEF has processed and analyzed more than 6600 such logs in the two provinces, and their database contains nearly every single one.

In the absence of support from the software vendors or the regulators, HEF Petrophysical and Enlighten Geoscience are looking to form an industry data consortium for image log access. We are very early in the process and are currently seeking expressions of interest. Please contact us for more information:

Enlighten Geoscience Amy Fox [email protected] +1 (587) 436-8376

HEF Petrophysical Consulting Kris Vickerman [email protected] +1 (403) 269-3158

1For more information about image logs and their applications, please see the Geomechanics for Everyone article series starting in the September 2013 issue of Reservoir and The Value of Borehole Image Logs article series starting in the January 2015 issue of Reservoir.

(Continued from page 17...)

Figure 2: Left: Section of an FMI image in the Duvernay as submitted to the AER (Courtesy of HEF Petrophysical). The image shows stress induced wellbore breakouts and tensile cracks as well as significant pre-existing natural fractures. Right: Sample of the same image log in the raster format available to the public.

PETROGRAPHY AND THIN-SECTION ANALYSIS / X-RAY

FLUORESCENCE - IN LAB AND PORTABLE / X-RAY DIFFRACTION /

CORE & SAMPLE STUDIES / RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION

LAB & ANALYTICS

[email protected] ProGeoConsultants.com 403-262-9229

J. Douglas Uffen, P.Geoph (APEGA), P.Geo (APEGBC) Over 30 years of experience in Seismic Interpretation Coordinate Geoscience Project Management / Business Development Initiatives Domestic (Plains & Foothills) / International Conventional / Unconventional Exploratory / Exploitation / Development Modes

With Software Licenses to: Seisware Kingdom Suite GeoSyn WINPICS



TECHNICAL LUNCHEON

Rum Smugglers and Runoff: How Salinity Stress Affects Neo-Ichnology in a Microtidal Estuary SPEAKERAnton Wroblewski, ConocoPhillips

11:45 amThursday, January 12th, 2017Marriott Hotel, Kensington BallroomCalgary, Alberta

Please note: The cut-off date for ticket sales is 1:00 pm, five business days before event. [Thursday January 05, 2017]. CSPG Member Ticket Price: $45.00 including GST. Non-Member Ticket Price: $55.00 including GST.

Each CSPG Technical Luncheon is 1 APEGA PDH credit. Tickets may be purchased online at www.cspg.org

ABSTRACTThe combined Trinity-San Jacinto-Galveston Bay (TSGB) complex is a microtidal, wave-dominated estuary along the Texas coast that provides an excellent opportunity to examine the relative influences of freshwater runoff, tidal circulation, storm events, and sedimentation on incipient traces. The TSGB conforms to proposed ichnological models of microtidal estuaries in some aspects, but includes some novel and unexpected features. While the average size of burrow diameters decreases with proximity to areas of freshwater fluvial input, ichnotaxonomic diversity does not. This is because during periods of drought and minimal freshwater discharge, salinity can reach 12-15 ppt on the Trinity bay head delta, allowing colonization by Lepidophthalmus (mud shrimp), Taegelus

(razor clams), and a variety of crabs, bivalves, and polychaetes which construct incipient Siphonichnus, Ophiomorpha, Thalassinoides, Skolithos, Polykladichnus, Psilonichnus, Cylindrichnus, Paleophycus, Arenicolites, and Planolites. When freshwater runoff increases, as it did dramatically during the spring of 2016, catastrophic stress extirpates most of the benthic organisms that are not tolerant to such hostile physicochemical conditions. Sampling in March, 2016 resulted in the recovery of only dead bivalves (Taegelus) and empty shrimp and crab burrows, although polychaetes (especially Glycinde and Glycera) were still present in the 0 ppt waters of the delta front. Populations of crustaceans and bivalves will rebound as salinity levels rise again, but the next episode of extreme freshwater runoff will result in another mass death. Sediment accumulation rates are slow enough that these repeated colonization/extirpation events result in moderate to high bioturbation indices and a moderate to high diversity of traces in the delta front deposits. If viewed in the rock record, the Trinity bay head delta might be interpreted as a more open-coast delta, and the full magnitude of its annual and semi-annual salinity fluctuations could easily be lost in the ichnological signal. The opening of

Rollover Pass (a manmade tidal inlet where smugglers used to roll barrels of whisky and rum across the narrowest portion of the barrier spit) on Bolivar Peninsula in 1955 has resulted in an increase in average salinity in the southeast corner of East Galveston Bay, but its influence does not reach the main body of Trinity Bay, or the delta. These observations suggest that bay head deltas in microtidal estuaries can be more complex and difficult to recognize than previous studies have indicated.

BIOGRAPHYAnton Wroblewski got his PhD in clastic stratigraphy and sedimentology from the University of Wyoming (2002) and moved to Chicago, where his wife attended grad school at U of C, and he worked first as a barista, then as an undergrad lecturer at Northeastern Illinois University. In 2006, he joined ConocoPhillips in Houston as a stratigrapher in Upstream Technology and has since worked in exploration, and currently Applied Geosciences. His specialty is shallow marine and fluvial clastic systems, with a helping of ichnology on the side and he is currently working on Canadian Oil Sands, Rocky Mountain tight reservoirs, Alaskan deltaic reservoirs, and anything else that comes down the pike.


Did you know there is over $20,000 available in CSPG awards and scholarships?!

STUDENTS!

Please visit www.cspg.org/students for more information

Scholarship/Award Amount Available

Application Deadline

Regional Graduate Student Scholarships

($2,500 x 4)

January 20, 2017

Undergraduate Student Awards

($1,000 x 4)

January 20, 2017

Student Event Grants

($1,000 x 5)

March 17, 2017

Andrew Baillie Award

($1,000 x 2)

GeoConvention 2017



TECHNICAL LUNCHEON

Variations in Sequence Stratigraphy, Accommodation Space, Paleodrainage and Depositional Style between the Underfilled and Overfilled Foreland Basin Portion of the Western Canada Sedimentary BasinSPEAKERBrian A. Zaitlin, Zaitlin Geoconsulting Ltd.

Thomas F. Moslow, Moslow Geoscience Consulting Ltd.

11:30 amTuesday, February 7, 2017Marriot Hotel, Kensington Ballroom Calgary, Alberta

Please note: The cut-off date for ticket sales is 1:00 pm, five business days before event. [Tuesday, January 31, 2017]. CSPG Member Ticket Price: $45.00 including GST. Non-Member Ticket Price: $55.00 including GST.


ABSTRACTThe Jurassic-Cretaceous foreland basin of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (FB-WCSB) is considered one of the premier hydrocarbon provinces of North America. The FB-WCSB is characterized by multiple conventional and unconventional stacked reservoirs within in a deep basin system (DBS), and can be organized into:

• A lower Underfilled foreland basin, with the main reservoir units associated with the Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous Nordegg, Poker Chip, Rock Creek, Fernie-Nikinassin, Mannville (and stratigraphic equivalents); and

• An upper Overfilled foreland basin consisting of the Joli Fou, Viking, SWS, Cardium and Belly River (and equivalents).

An analysis of both the top 20 oil/condensate rates and top 20 natural gas rate wells (grouped on a boe/d basis from Alberta in 2015) were organized into pre-foreland basin, underfilled foreland basin and overfilled foreland settings. Fifteen of those wells were from pre-foreland

deposits. Of the 25 top wells from the foreland basin:

• 4/20 of the top 20 oil/condensate wells (20%) in the Deep Basin are characterized as occurring in the Overfilled Foreland Basin setting (Dunvegan, Belly River);

• 1/20 of the top 20 oil/condensate wells (5%) are in the Deep Basin Underfilled Foreland Basin (Gething);

• 20/20 of the Top 20 gas wells (100%) are Deep Basin Underfilled foreland Basin (Spirit River Group – Wilrich, Falher and Notikewin).

The Underfilled Foreland Basin is characterized by restricted marine and marginal marine mixed carbonate and clastic deposits (Nordegg-Rock Creek) sourced from the south and east; overlain by clastic dominated fluvial to marginal marine (shoreline, deltaic and estuarine) deposits of the Fernie (Nikinassin), Lower Mannville (Basal Quartz – Ellerslie, Ostrocod, Glauconitic, Spirit River (Wilrich, Falher and Notikewan) and Upper Mannville. Accommodation space increases to the north and northwest. Paleodrainage associated with the Underfilled Foreland Basin is characterized by fluvial and fluvial deltaic systems oriented dominantly from south and southeast towards north and northwest, splitting around paleotopographic highs associated with erosional remnants preserved from the migration of peripheral forebulge events. Shorelines are dominantly oriented east-west and are organized into falling stage, lowstand, transgressive, and highstand parasequences and parasequence sets. The shorelines are segmented along strike into compartments due to multiple point sources of sediment from the multiple S-N oriented fluvial and fluvial deltaic systems occurring along the length of the shorelines.

The transition between Underfilled and Overfilled Foreland Basin deposits is marked by a reorganization of

paleodrainage and associated shoreline orientation. The Overfilled Foreland Basin is characterized by clastic dominated fluvial to marginal marine fluvial, deltaic, estuarine, shoreface and shelf deposits sourced from the west. Paleodrainage associated with the overfilled foreland basin is characterized by fluvial and fluvial deltaic systems oriented from west to east. Shorelines are oriented north-south, parallel to the length of the foreland basin. Key reservoir targets are associated with the Dunvegan fluvial, distributary and deltaic), Belly River (channels, shorefaces) and Cardium/Second White Specks).

The organzation of the WCSB-FB reservoirs into Underfilled vs Overfilled FB settings, and a detailed understanding of both the depositional environment and sequence stratigraphic framework are the first hierarchical steps in the better understanding of Deep Basin conventional and unconventional targets. According to Bhattacharya (2016), the source-to-sink (S2S) concept is focused on quantification of the various components of clastic sedimentary systems, from initial source sediment production areas, through the dispersal system, to deposition within a number of potential ultimate sedimentary sinks. During the Jurassic-Early Cretaceous (WCSB - Underfilled Foreland Basin), fluvial systems consisting of continental-scale low slope, axially drained rivers, formed the 40-m-deep channels in the Mannville Group in Canada. During times of maximum transgression (WCSB – Overfilled Foreland Basin) of the Cretaceous Seaway, such as the Turonian and Campanian, the western North American foreland basin was characterized by smaller-scale (typically 10-m deep), steeper gradient sand and gravel bedload rivers, dominated by transverse drainages in the rising Cordillera. This created a number of smaller river-delta S2S systems along the coast, such as the Dunvegan, Ferron, Frontier, Lance and Cardium formations.

TECHNICAL LUNCHEON


Conventional (conglomerate shoreface) reservoirs were major exploration targets from their first discovery in the late 1970s until the advent of horizontal drilling in the Deep Basin in 2005. Primary porosity (3 to 8%) and permeability (1 to 50md Kmax) of the conglomeratic reservoirs are well within the conventional range of reservoir quality. Highest Kmax values are associated with bimodal to unimodal clast-supported, chert-pebble conglomerate facies.

In contrast, unconventional reservoirs are associated with lowstand to falling stage, low accommodation, pebbly chert sublitharenite and quartzose sandstone comprised of shoreface- to- wave dominated delta facies associations. Matrix permeability values are below the resolution of routine core analysis in these characteristically “tight” unconventional reservoirs, which are exploited almost exclusively through horizontal drilling and multi- stage frac completions. The Spirit River Group (Wilrich, Falher and Notikewin), commonly referred to as the “Wilrich” resource play are an excellent example. Reservoir attributes are interpreted to be the product of deposition on low profile, dissipative shoreface/delta fronts developed in a low accommodation setting. The reduced accommodation space results in commonly occurring incisions of shorefaces and delta front facies by fluvial and estuarine channels. Conglomeratic and coarse grained shoreface parasequences are products of deposition on steep profile, highly reflective shorefaces in high accommodation settings. In contrast, finer grained shoreface and delta front parasequences are products of deposition on low profile, dissipative shoreface/delta fronts in low accommodation settings.

BIOGRAPHYBrian A. Zaitlin, Ph.D., P.Geol., C.P.G., Zaitlin Geoconsulting Ltd. Brian A. Zaitlin is currently President and Owner of Zaitlin Geoconsulting Ltd, providing consulting services and applied training seminars to the oil and gas industry. Brian has >35 years of front-line exploration/exploitation, R&D and A&D experience, and has progressively worked as a Geologist, Explorationist, Technical Specialist, Technical and Exploration Advisor and Chief Geologist with a variety of E&P companies (e.g. Gulf,

Esso, PanCanadian, Encana, Suncor and Enerplus Resources Fund, EOG Resources) and in Corporate Banking/Private Equity with the BMO A&D Advisory Group and Native American Resource Partners.

Brian’s focus is on both conventional and unconventional new play development throughout the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, Rocky Mountain Basins, Appalachia and various international basins. His research interests lie in the understanding of siliciclastic fluvial, coastal and shallow-marine depositional systems and their preserved stratigraphy, and in applying this knowledge to reservoir characterization and modeling. He is the author of more than 100 peer-reviewed technical papers and oral presentations, and is the recipient of numerous awards including the CSUR Sproule Innovation and Achievement Award, CSPG Medal of Merit for best published paper, CSPG Tracks Award for Education, CSPG Ph.D. Thesis award, co-authored AAPG, SEPM and CSPG Best Paper/Oral Paper Awards, and was an AAPG Distinguished Lecturer.

Brian holds a BSc. (Geology) from Concordia (Loyola) University (1979), a MSc. (Geology) from University of Ottawa (1981), and a Ph.D. (Geology) from Queen’s (Kingston) University (1987). Brian is a registered Professional Geologist (APEGA), Certified Petroleum Geologist (AAPG-DPA) and a member of the AAPG, CSPG, CSUR, RMAG and SEPM.

Thomas F. Moslow, Ph.D., P.Geol. Dr. Tom Moslow is an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Calgary and a former

Professor (1985–1994) at the University of Alberta and Louisiana State University (1983-87). In 1995 Tom was employed by Canadian Hunter Exploration as a Sr. Geological Advisor. He subsequently joined Ulster Petroleums as Chief Geologist in 1997 and was appointed Vice President, New Ventures and Technology. In 2000, Tom became a co-founder and principal of Midnight Oil & Gas Ltd. as Vice-President of Exploration which led to the creation of Daylight Energy Trust where he served as Vice President of Geology and Geophysics. He held executive positions in subsequent affiliated companies including Midnight Oil Exploration and Pace Oil and Gas Ltd. He retired from Pace at the end of 2011and in early 2012 formed Moslow Geoscience Consulting. Tom has won numerous awards and honours for his work and research on topics pertaining to the Triassic and Lower Cretaceous of the Deep Basin of Western Canada and tight gas/resource play geology in general. He has taught a variety of professional development courses focused on applied petroleum geology subjects in Canada, USA and South America. He has authored or co-authored over 75 publications in a variety of journals on topics mostly pertaining to clastic sedimentology, subsurface geology and reservoir architecture in unconventional clastic resource plays.


Brian A. Zaitlin, Ph.D., P.Geol., C.P.G., Zaitlin Geoconsulting Ltd.

Thomas F. Moslow, Ph.D., P.Geol.



TECHNICAL LUNCHEON

Applied Political (geo)Science: The History, Context and Technical Basis Behind Central European Petroleum's Guhlen Discovery, Brandenburg State, Eastern GermanySPEAKERPeter Putnam, Central European Petroleum Ltd. Alula Damte, Central European Petroleum Ltd.

11:45 amTuesday, March 14th, 2017Marriott Hotel, Kensington BallroomCalgary, Alberta

Please note: The cut-off date for ticket sales is 1:00 pm, five business days before event. Tuesday March 07, 2017]. CSPG Member Ticket Price: $45.00 including GST. Non-Member Ticket Price: $55.00 including GST.


ABSTRACTGermany sits astride the North European Plain, one of the world's great geopolitical corridors that also rests upon much of a large sedimentary basin known as the 'Southern Permian Basin' that stretches from the southern North Sea into western Ukraine. As well as being a well-trod invasion route, this region is also the location of many pipelines that carry exported petroleum from Russia to central and western Europe which makes this area one embodying much actual and potential geopolitical conflict.

Commercial hydrocarbon accumulations found within Permian Rotliegend sandstone and Zechstein carbonate reservoirs form a near-continuous chain extending from the British sector of the North Sea eastwards through the Netherlands, Germany, and into western Poland. Giant gas fields in this trend include the Rotliegend-hosted Groningen (100 Tcf; Netherlands and western Germany) and Altmark-Salzwedel (7 Tcf; westernmost portion of the former communist German Democratic Republic ('GDR')) accumulations whereas

substantial oil and liquid-rich gas deposits are known from the Zechstein-hosted LMG (70 mmbo) and BMB (135 mmboe) fields of western Poland. A prominent gap between significant accumulations is found within the easternmost German state of Brandenburg. Central European Petroleum ('CEP') posted and acquired the Lubben exploration license in the gap and the Guhlen discovery resides within this acreage.

Beyond being on the regional trend, CEP targeted Brandenburg acreage because:

I. The state is one of the poorest in Germany but has a resource economy based mainly on lignite mining.

II. Historic petroleum exploration and development activity was carried out by the former national communist petroleum company 'EEG' (i.e., only one competitor has ever worked in the area).

III. The availability of, and ease of access to, much open acreage at favorable terms.

IV. The limited availability of subsurface data which historically limited competition for acreage,

V. The proximity to large markets reliant to a significant degree on Russian imported petroleum.

VI. Stable regulatory and legal regime based on German mining law.

Since German re-unification in 1990, exploration in this region has been hindered by the following challenges, all of which have been overcome by CEP:

I. German mining law stipulates that, under certain conditions, subsurface data can be held confidential in perpetuity. As there has historically been only one operator that created virtually all subsurface data prior

to CEP, the former communist national petroleum company, it and its successor own all historic well and seismic information. CEP has overcome the challenge of data access by acquiring its own seismic and well data, acquiring legacy data from the owner under a range of commercial conditions, and forensic investigations of museums and government agencies. As an example, after the ownership of the communist national petroleum company passed to Gaz de France-Suez (now 'Engie') in 1994, several thousand employees lost their jobs. Several of these former employees subsequently created a museum dedicated to the petroleum industry of the former GDR. Within this museum CEP staff found a significant amount of data otherwise unavailable to the public and also uncovered those approaches and techniques used during GDR operations. The museum also provided insight into the limitations of EEG's activities (see next point).

II. An absence of modern subsurface information and approaches. As an example, most wells were drilled by EEG before seismic was acquired. Prior to CEP operating activities there was only one small 3D seismic data set in the state. CEP acquired the largest (275 km2) 3D seismic data set found to date east of the Elbe River in Germany; acquisition of this data set included a significant area covering a large recreational lake.

III. The exploration trend upon which CEP's Guhlen discovery sits extends through a very large former military area that is plagued by contamination by unexploded ordnance dating back to World War II and the Cold War. To provide surface access CEP has conducted unexploded ordnance surveys, one of which resulted in the controlled explosion of 4.5 tons of munitions.

TECHNICAL LUNCHEON


The Guhlen-1a well provided one of the largest test results harvested from any well onshore northwestern Europe over the past several years. The evolution of the Guhlen prospect included the following steps:

I. Acquisition of gravity data along hiking trails and roads surrounding the Guhlen-1a location. Interpretation of this data suggested the presence of an untested structural high.

II. Acquisition of a regional 2D seismic grid confirmed the presence of the structural high.

III. A vertical well, Guhlen-1, was drilled with a sub-commercial hydrocarbon gas flow obtained on test from a porous but tight Zechstein grainstone pervasively cemented by anhydrite, halite and carbonate. The reservoir was 40 meters thick with 20 net meters deemed hydrocarbon-bearing. No bottom water was measured on well logs and no aquifer water was recovered on test.

IV. Acquisition of 275 km2 of 3D seismic data surrounding the Guhlen well which represented the largest data set of its kind ever acquired in the state. The data was subsequently inverted in a way similar to that employed by the Polish national petroleum company in its discovery of large Zechstein-hosted accumulations in western Poland.

V. A sidetrack well, Guhlen-1a, was subsequently drilled from the original Guhlen-1 well into a seismic anomaly located about 700 meters to the southwest of the original bottom hole location. The sidetrack location was drilled low on the structural flank in order to avoid gas as the initial play concept was focused on oil. The sidetrack discovered 46 meters of highly fractured oolitic grainstone with variable matrix porosity and virtually no anhydrite or halite cement. The reservoir displays an 8 meter gas cap resting upon a 38 meter oil leg with no bottom water, based on log analysis.

The test of Guhlen-1a resulted in a recovery of 1,692 boepd formed of the following constituents:

I. 17 mmcf/d of raw gas, with rate limited by tubular size, formed of 5.2 mmcf/d of hydrocarbon gas and the rest was mostly nitrogen with minor amounts of carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide.

II. 509 b/d of natural gas liquids formed mostly of butane and pentane.

III. 293 b/d of condensate and 23 b/d of oil.

The following was also measured during the test:

I. Flowing well head tubing pressure of 3,035 psi/207 bar.

II. Maximum drawdown was 7%.

III. No reservoir depletion was measured.

IV. No formation water was recovered.

The runway created by a combination of the Guhlen-1a test result with the well location low on a large regional structure, that extends at least through a previously 'no-go' region covered by one of the largest former military bases in Europe, results in a prospective fairway up to 50 km long and covering an area of several hundred km2. It may turn out that, with successful appraisal and additional exploration, the Guhlen discovery will be the largest German find in a generation and may open up a large conventional play type within the eastern German borderlands. The immense geopolitical upsets of 20th century Europe echo today within the realms of energy supply, competing national interests and, at least for CEP's purposes, the creation of substantial commercial opportunities.

BiographyPeter Putnam is a geologist with 37 years of varied global experience at both technical and executive levels. His endeavors have covered the areas of exploration, development (inclusive of primary, secondary and thermal recovery),

operations, reserves assessments, research and training. Over his career he has been, at various times, an employee, an advisor to technical and management teams as well as boards of directors, a board member, and a founder of new companies. Early stage companies started by Peter have raised over $1 billion in equity from investors inclusive of large private equity firms, sovereign wealth funds, pension funds and family offices. With experience on six continents, he is currently the Chair and Chief Executive Officer of Central European Petroleum Ltd., a private petroleum company focused on eastern Germany. Peter holds a Ph.D. from the University of Calgary and is a past-President of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, a former adjunct professor at the University of Calgary, and a former councilor of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA). He has published widely as an author of scientific articles dealing with various facets of petroleum geology and is a regular guest lecturer at Canadian universities.

Alula Damte is a structural geologist with over 24 years of petroleum industry and teaching experience. He has worked in evaluating petroleum systems in varied structural styles including intracratonic rift basins, convergent plate margins and offshore coupled shelf extensional and basinward toe thrust systems. He has provided exploration and business development advice and led exploration ventures in geographically diverse areas that include onshore and offshore frontier basins of Canada, North and East Africa, the Middle East, the Gulf of Mexico, South America, Australia and onshore Europe. He is currently the President and COO of Central European Petroleum Ltd (CEP), the Geschäftsführer of CEP's German subsidiary, and he also serves as Chairman of Petrel Robertson Consulting Ltd. Alula is a Fulbright Scholar and holds a PhD from University of California, Santa Barbara.



DIVISION TALKS

BASS TALK

The Spoiler of the Decade: Middle and Lower Montney Formations are former Carbonate DepositsSPEAKERRaphael Wust, PHD, PGeo, Trican Geological Solutions

Time: 12:00 Noon Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2017Location: geoLOGIC Classroom (2nd Floor), Aquitaine Tower, 540-5th Avenue S.W., Calgary ABSTRACTIn sedimentary research, whether it is a carbonate or a siliciclastic unit, the ultimate goal is to identify paleodepositional environments, sediment composition and levels of sediment compaction and diagenetic history. The Lower Triassic Montney Formation of the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin is generally interpreted as a sequence of interbedded siliciclastic sandstones, siltstones and shales deposited in a shallow, clastic ramp setting that deepens to the West and fed by turbiditic feeder channels. Although modifications of this “general” depositional setting have been proposed, they all infer a siliciclastic source and depositional environment. Sediment transport and deposition occurred along the northwestern margin of the Supercontinent Pangea and only towards the eastern margins, geographically localized coquina units recognized within the middle member are interpreted as inner shelf restricted deposits or parts of turbidite tributaries.

Over the last two years, evidence from BC and AB cores analyzed by Trican Geological Solutions shows that the “classic” Montney depositional model needs to be revised. New research of the Middle and Lower Montney shows that the lithology represents former carbonate deposits (bioclastic carbonates to carbonate muds, i.e. packed biomicrite to micrite) that were strongly altered during burial and multiple diagenetic phases. The shallow shelf bottom waters were well-oxygenated and benthic and planktonic shells were abundant (although of low species diversity) which were transported and deposited by occasional

strong bottom water currents. The shallow carbonate shelf (20-100 m) extended tens of km away from the eastern shoreline and active fault systems resulted in complex sediment accommodation space across the basin.

During burial, hydrothermal fluid flow and pore fluid migration resulted in large scale mineral dissolution and alterations of hydrated calcite, low-Mg-calcite, aragonite, biogenic hydrated silica and small amounts of clay (combining to >80% of original sediment composition). Thin section examination shows that minerals were trans- and neoformed into dolomite, quartz, feldspar and clay minerals. The current mineral assemblage and texture (laminated to pseudo-laminated quartz, feldspars, dolomite and limited calcite, mica and clays) appear under macroscopic conditions as dolomitic “sandy silt- and mudstones” and hence have led to an incorrect classification of these rocks as siliciclastic deposits. Rather than accumulation through depositional processes, high levels of compaction/dissolution and mineral trans- and neoformation during burial led to laminar concentration of organics, detrital minerals, and authigenic silicates and dolomite observed in the Lower and Middle Montney. The diagenetic alterations and textural transformations are the result of burial diagenesis under the influence of hydrothermal fluids. We estimate that the Middle Montney Formation has lost ~50->65% of its near-original sediment thickness, primarily due to compaction and dissolution of original carbonate (low-Mg-calcite/aragonite) and siliceous mud material.

This presentation discusses new evidence of the Middle and Lower Montney Members of BC and AB and how the wavy or laminated deposits formed and what processes may have influenced the lithological texture. A new depositional and diagenetic model of a Montney carbonate-dominated shelf margin is also presented. This new model may have significant exploration implications as industry continues to search for new targets within the Montney Formation. Moreover,

depositional “siliciclastic” sequence stratigraphy interpretations should be abandoned in light of this new information.

BIOGRAPHYRaphael Wust received his MSc in Geology in 1995 from the University of Bern, Switzerland and his PhD in Geology in 2001 from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. From 2002 to 2009 he was a Lecturer and Senior Lecturer in Marine Geology/Sedimentology at the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. End of 2009, Raphael Wust joined Trican Geological Solutions as a Technical Advisor in Calgary. He remains an Adjunct Senior Lecturer at James Cook University.

He is author and co-author of over 45 scientific papers and numerous field-guides and technical reports. He was involved and led several geological (including CBM) field trips/studies in Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia and Panama. He has organized and run unconventional coal and shale gas/oil geological short courses in Panama, Canada and Australia since 2000. His professional interests include modern and past sedimentary environments, organic geochemistry, and marine geology. Raphael Wust currently leads Trican Geological’s Study Group which is finalizing a new regional Montney Study (AB) focusing on chemostratigraphy, rock properties and mechanical well profiling using new high-resolution data from 23 wells.

INFORMATIONBASS technical division talks are free. Please bring your lunch. For further information about our division, to join our mailing list, receive a list of upcoming talks, or if you wish to present a talk or lead a field trip, please contact either Steve Donaldson (BASS) at 403-808-8641, or Mark Caplan (BASS) at 403-975-7701, or visit our web page on the CSPG website at http://www.cspg.org. The new venue is the GeoLogic Room (2nd Floor), Aquitaine Tower, 540-5th Avenue S.W., Calgary. Aquitaine Tower is also the new home of the CSPG offices.


DIVISION TALKS

BASS TALK

Integrated approach to understand which reservoir characteristics lead to better Montney productivitySPEAKERJean-Yves Chatellier

Time: 12:00 Noon Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2017Location: geoLOGIC Classrooom (2nd Floor), Aquitaine Tower, 540-5th Avenue S.W., Calgary ABSTRACTThe unconventional Montney play is extensive in area as well as in thickness and offers a large range of facies and associated properties. Identification of the best targets and the optimal frac design will rest on understanding the variability in rock properties such as brittleness and pore throat size, the nature of the hydrocarbon in place and the maturity level of the various Montney intervals. Combining inorganic and organic geochemistry with geomechanics and other rock properties can be simple and economically very rewarding.

Published XRD based brittleness formulas have so far fail to address the problem of type and distribution of calcite which can make the rock more brittle (higher Young’s Modulus with increased carbonate cement) or ductile (higher Poisson’s ratio when carbonate pelecypod rich); XRF can directly distinguish between these two types in the Montney using Ca-Mn ratios. Similarly while quartz content may increase brittleness, quartz cement impairs fraccability and can be easily estimated using Si-Zr ratios. Additionally, petrophysics based brittleness has been successfully cross-correlated to single or multi XRF elements, giving tools to better design frac stages in Montney horizontal wells.

Small pore throat size may leave hydrocarbon left behind within the reservoir. A new integrated approach will be discussed that invokes comparing gas composition from chromatography with blended cutting gas. The derived pore throat sizes have been calibrated against the ones based on capillary pressure curves using a new 30% Hg based formula.

Last but not least, is the importance of the maturity level and the distinction between in-situ gas and migrated gas within various part of the Montney sequence. Text book examples of shale dehydration within the Montney will be shown in the in-situ dry gas domain using a very large data set of flow back water geochemistry; all this with the associated potential for soaking/marinating these reservoirs and dramatically improving productivity.

BIOGRAPHYJean-Yves Chatellier has been working for large oil companies for thirty years and has been focusing on North American shale and tight sand reservoirs for the past nine years. He has published extensively on structural geology, sedimentology, geochemistry and reservoir engineering. He is presently co-chair of the AAPG Research Committee and very active in other societies (CSPG, SPE). He is presently initiating and managing two separate consortia dealing with Montney and Duvernay organic and inorganic geochemistry to optimize frac design.


DIVISION TALKS

Geology and Geopolitics: partners in the international exploration risk assessment process.SPEAKERTim Marchant | University of Calgary

Date: February 8th, 2017Location: CNOOC Nexen Annex Theatre 801-7th Ave SW, Calgary AB ABSTRACTConventional portfolio management separates geopolitics from technical risk in the exploration risking process.

But political and cultural nativity may be as serious a risk factor for exploration investment decisions as the quality of the source, reservoir, trap and seal.

Geopolitics, also referred to as above-ground risk, is assumed to be beyond the

responsibility of the exploration team. Strange, as the exploration professional is often the first company representative on the ground in a new basin or a new country entry.

Geopolitical savvy in the exploration team can be a significant advantage for entrepreneurial international upstream companies. It goes well beyond local “license to operate” considerations. A more complete geopolitical and geotechnical assessment can better quantify both the upside and downside risk for companies and potential investors.

I will use examples from the Middle East, North Africa and Eastern Europe to explore the link between earth history, recent history and current politics in the exploration process.

BIOGRAPHYTim Marchant has over 35 years experience in Canadian and international energy exploration, development, production and new business development. Tim joined Amoco Canada in 1980 and moved to Cairo in 1997 as Nile Delta Exploration Manager Amoco Egypt. Following the BP-Amoco merger, he held a series of roles in North Africa and the Middle East including VP Exploration BP Egypt Oil, Exploration Manager ExxonMobil Saudi Arabia, General Manager BP Abu Dhabi, President BP Kuwait Ltd. and VP Middle East E&P BP International.

Dr. Marchant has been an Adjunct Professor of Strategy and Energy Geopolitics, Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary since September 2009. He also currently serves as a non-executive director of Vermilion Energy, Cub Energy and Valeura Energy Inc.

INTERNATIONAL DIVISION TALK


DIVISION TALKS

PALAEONTOLOGY DIVSION TALK

Mammals and climate change in the Eocene of North AmericaSPEAKERDr. Alexander Dutchak, University of Calgary

Time: 7:30 pmDate: January 20, 2017 Location: Mount Royal University, Room B108 ABSTRACTThe Eocene Epoch (~55.5 – 35 million years ago) encompasses a number of significant climatic events in addition to well-documented immigration and extinction events that played an integral part in determining the current distribution of mammals across North America. In particular, the warming events of the Early and Middle Eocene, and the cooling event at the end of the Eocene are associated with significant fluctuations in mammalian faunal composition. The sedimentary basins of the American Rocky Mountain region,

together with notable fossil deposits on the American plains and the Canadian Cypress Hills Formation, provide an excellent geologic record of this interval.

This presentation aims to discuss some of the methods used to identify climatic and mammalian faunal variability in the rock record, and how these geologic signatures relate to one another across central North America during the Eocene Epoch.

BIOGRAPHYDr. Dutchak received a BSc (Honors Palaeontology) from the University of Alberta in 2002. It was during his undergraduate degree while taking classes from Dr. Richard Fox that he developed his passion for mammalian fossils. Dr. Dutchak completed his M.Sc. from the University of Alberta in 2005. He completed his PhD from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2010. His dissertation was titled ‘Mammalian faunal

change throughout the late Wasatchian and early Bridgerian Early Eocene Climatic Optimum, Raven Ridge, Colorado/Utah.’ During this time, he was mentored and nurtured by Dr. Jaelyn Eberle at the University of Colorado and Dr. Richard Stucky of the Denver Museum.

Dr. Dutchak has lectured in the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Alberta (2011) and in the Department of Earth Sciences at, Mount Royal University (2011-2014). He is presently an instructor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Calgary (2014-present).

Dr. Dutchak’s research interests include patterns of mammalian faunal variation associated with intervals of climate change, immigration and emigration corridors between sedimentary basins, and latitudinal diversity gradients throughout the Paleogene.

Fossil characterisation through destructive morphological modellingSPEAKERDr. Christopher Boyd, Geoscientist at Shell

Time: 7:30 pmDate: February 24, 2017 Location: Mount Royal University, Room B108 ABSTRACTDestructive analysis of fossils is not for the faint of heart. However, in some circumstances, destructive analysis is the best or potentially the only way to collect the necessary data. A methodology has been developed which uses precision serial grinding and high-resolution digital photography to produce high-resolution full colour morphological models of both fossils and surrounding sediment. This technique is a highly accurate and reliable method for modelling and describing specimen when traditional non-destructive methods fall short. Traditional non-destructive methods of in-situ fossil modelling involve the use of X-radiographs or CT scanning, both of which rely on sufficient

density contrast between the fossil and the surrounding sediment. Often these techniques are not successful due to low density contrasts, or cannot produce sufficiently high resolution models of large fossils. Fossil description using serial grinding and photography does not depend on a density contrast and does not have the same size limitations. This method has been used on a growing database of fossil specimen, including for taxonomic purposes and the introduction of new species.

BIOGRAPHYChris Boyd has had a passion for geology, palaeontology, and the deep past ever since his childhood searching for trilobites on the riverbanks of Newfoundland. Chris completed his Studies at Memorial University of Newfoundland. During his time at MUN he worked in both the palynology lab and the neo-ichnology research lab. Chris also ran a photography business on the side during his studies. His experience with photography combined with his passion for palaeontology led him to take on a Ph.D in morphologic modelling of fossils, where he

was involved in the development of a novel high-resolution modelling technic for in-situ, low-density contrast specimen. He has subsequently had several papers published on the topic and has introduced a new species using these methods. He currently works as a Geoscientist at Shell and spends his evenings and weekends working on proto-conodonts from the lower Cambrian of Newfoundland.

Information:This event is presented jointly by the Alberta Palaeontological Society, the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Mount Royal University, and the Palaeontology Division of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists. For details or to present a talk in the future, please contact CSPG Palaeontology Division Chair Jon Noad at [email protected] or APS Coordinator Harold Whittaker at 403-286-0349 or contact [email protected]. Visit the APS website for confirmation of event times and upcoming speakers: http://www.albertapaleo.org/


DIVISION TALKS

STRUCTURAL DIVISION

Structural Geology Mountain Scrambling in the Alberta Rockies Front Ranges, Banff and Kananaskis areas.SPEAKERDr. Normand Bégin, Repsol Oil & Gas Canada

Time: 12:00 noon Date: January 12th, 2017 Location: Schlumberger, Second Floor of the Palliser One Building, 125 9th Ave. Calgary T2G 0P6 ABSTRACTMost examples of leading edge deformation in the Front Ranges of the Canadian Cordillera west of Calgary, shown in classic structural field trip transects in the Bow and Kananaskis valleys, are photos taken from the main highways running through the provincial and mountain parks. They represent stunning views of the structural geometry and the role of mechanical stratigraphy of rock formations involved, helping to generate great and lively exchanges by the road but often away from the outcrops. Whether it is the McConnell Thrust at Mount Yamnuska, the Exshaw Thrust at Heart Mountain, the Rundle Thrust at Three Sisters and Sulphur Mountain Thrust at Banff Springs, the views from the road only show a snapshot of the variability in the structural style and its evolution along strike of those prominent thrust faults, both in their adjacent footwall and hangingwall compartments.

Over more than 25 years since living in Calgary, I was fortunate enough to capture some rarely seen (and never shown to me before) examples of complex structural geometry along the leading edge of some of the major Front Ranges thrusts rooted from the McConnell slab, such as in the Rundle, Sulphur Mountain and Bourgeau ranges. A unique set of photos will be shown, taken from the summits of several peaks scrambled along strike of those Front Ranges, as well as from mountain passes and some bushwhacked unnamed routes. Together, it will bring along an unrevealed perspective of the tremendous changes in the internal structural architecture at the vicinity of those major frontal thrusts, otherwise not accessible from only roadside views. Such views are important to integrate to exploration efforts in a thrust-fold belt regime, with a set of scattered 2D seismic lines to start with for targeting a prospective reservoir along-strike in a “6-inch-only” diameter hole. Several examples will be shown to hopefully trigger some discussion about the relative timing and interaction between folding and thrusting, both in a dip and strike sense of those Front Ranges. In the end, this talk is not to reinvent the wheel of knowledge transferred to geoscientists by the pioneers of Rocky Mountain Geology, but rather displays an array of structural features rarely seen, from those shown repeatedly in common roadside field trips.

Tie your boots, adjust your poles and fill up your water bottles, we are going for some scrambles and geo-hikes in our Rockies backyard!

BIOGRAPHYNormand Bégin graduated with a B.Sc. in Geological Engineering from Laval University and followed up with a Ph.D. in Geology at Queen’s University in 1989. After 4 years of mining exploration and structural field mapping in the Precambrian Shield of the NWT, with some postdoctoral research at the University of Calgary, he joined the Foothills Research Project there in 1994 for 2 years. For the last 21 years, he has been working with Talisman Energy, now Repsol Canada, almost exclusively as an exploration geologist in several thrust-fold belts: Canadian Rockies, Llanos Belt in Columbia, Zagros in Kurdistan and onshore and offshore Papua New Guinea. Throughout his career at Talisman Energy, he has been involved with hands-on geosteering operations of 50 wells in those deformed belts, from spud to completion. Along with current and past co-workers (Byron Veilleux, Geoff Rait, Matt Pachell, Lans Taylor and Bob Quartero), collectively named the “Big Boyz” he has been co-teaching a week-long Structural Geology Field School in the Alberta Foothills and Rockies Belts for Fold and Thrust Systems.

1602 – 5th St N.E.

Calgary, AB. T2E 7W3 Phone: 403-233-7729

www.tihconsulting.com e-mail: [email protected]

T.I.H. Consulting Ltd. Geologic Well-Site

Supervision

Registration Open!

When: February 2-4th, 2017 Where: Bow Valley Club | 250 6 Ave SW Calgary

For more information and to register online go to

www.CSPG.org

2017 CSPG Squash 2017 CSPG Squash Tournament Tournament

Registration deadline is Wednesday January 25th @4:00pm


DIVISION TALKS

STRUCTURAL DIVISION

Density and Size of Rectangular Fractures in Boreholes SPEAKERCharles Berg

Time: 12:00 Noon Date: February 2, 2017Location: Schlumberger, Second Floor of the Palliser One Building, 125 9th Ave. Calgary T2G 0P6

ABSTRACTAn important part in determining the effect of fractures on reservoir properties is the determination of 3D fracture density (P32). Arguably as important, but less well understood, is fracture size. This presentation describes a new way to simultaneously calculate P32 and fracture size from image log data. There are two basic parts to this presentation. The first part is the conversion of fracture frequency data (F) to P32 using a new equation. The second part involves direct determination of P32 as well as the calculation of average fracture height and length based on borehole-enclosed fracture area, height, and length.

The new equation for the conversion of F into fracture density is derived from a Monte Carlo-type model similar to discrete fracture networks. The basic inputs for the equation are fracture dip and azimuth, bedding dip and azimuth, and average fracture height and length. The derivation involves the extension of Narr’s (1996) general equation to include fracture length as well as the angle of the fracture-length axis relative to the borehole axis. There were 1620 modeled points with a wide variation in input parameters and with thousands of randomly placed fractures generated for each point. The model calculates enclosed areas and lengths by breaking the fracture area and side lengths into small, discrete parcels of area and length and then adding up those parcels inside the borehole. The equation fit the model to within the standard deviation of the model itself, which was 0.1%. This method for calculating fracture density has the advantage of being calculated directly from azimuth and dip of beds and

fractures. The disadvantage of the method is that average fracture height and length have to be supplied. Although height and length can be determined by comparing this and the following P32 method, the aspect ratio of length to width still needs to be provided.

The second P32 method involves the direct calculation of the total, borehole-enclosed fracture area, height, and length to determine not only P32 but also average fracture height and length. The figure shows the relationship of the borehole to enclosed fracture area, length, and height. (The figure depicts only two of the eighteen possible configurations.) Calculation of P32 is based on a method introduced by Narr, et al., (2004). In this method, P32 is calculated by dividing total borehole-enclosed fracture area by the borehole volume. A basic assumption of the method is that borehole-enclosed P32 is representative to the P32 in the surrounding rock volume. This assumption was proved accurate by the Monte Carlo model to within the model standard deviation.

It is reasonable to assume that borehole-enclosed fracture height and length are also representative of the average height and length of the surrounding rock volume. This assumption was also proved accurate by the Monte Carlo model. The calculation of enclosed fracture area, height and length is accomplished by simple geometric means, for example, if just the edge of a fracture intersects the borehole, the enclosed edge length is the distance between the two points on the borehole wall. Enclosed area can then be determined by first calculating the cross-sectional enclosed area and then dividing that by the sine of the angle that the fracture plane makes with the borehole axis. Once the enclosed area, length, and height have been determined, the average height and length can be determined from a simple equation. The different methods of area calculation for the different borehole/fracture configurations have also been tested against the model.

The two methods for calculating P32 are complementary. In a given field, average

fracture height and length might only need to be determined occasionally, and on the rest of the wells the equation could be used. Additionally, in older wells, the equation would allow determination of P32 from pre-existing dip data or cores once average fracture size has been determined. (Oriented cores are not necessary as long as the relative dips and azimuths of bedding to fractures are known.)

REFERENCESNarr, W., 1996, Estimating average fracture spacing in subsurface rock, AAPG Bulletin, v. 80 no.10, p. 1565-1586.Narr, W., D. Shechter, and L. Thompson, 2006, Naturally Fractured Reservoir Characterization, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 97 p.

BIOGRAPHYCharles spent the early part of his career as an exploration geophysicist and development geologist, mostly in the Southern Rocky Mountains, Midcontinent, and the U.S. Gulf Coast regions. He holds an MS in Geology from Colorado School of Mines and a BS in Geology from the University of Texas at Austin. In 1993 he started ResDip Systems as Owner and Developer, where he currently works. He has published articles in subjects as diverse as dip interpretation and the application of effective medium theory to the calculation of water saturation.


2017 BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Education: B.Sc. Geology, Imperial College London (1974); PhD. Geology, University of Bristol (1978)

Experience: Honorary Professor – University of Aberdeen (2009-present), Owner, Sherwood Geoconsulting Inc (2008-present), VP Middle East & Global New Ventures - EnCana Corporation (2002-2008); Structural Specialist - PanCanadian Petroleum (1994-2002); Structural Specialist - BP (1985- 1994); Lecturer in Geology - University College Cork (1980-1985)

Professional Memberships:

CSPG, APEGA, GSL

Volunteer Work:

GeoCanada 2010 - CSPG Co-chair (2009-2010), Joint Annual Convention 2006 –CSPG Co-chair (2005-2006), GeoCanada 2000 - CSPG Technical Co-chair (1999-2000), Publications Committee (1995-1999), Link Award Lecture Tour (1998)

Awards: 2010 President’s Award, 2006 President’s Award, 2003 Tracks Award, 2000 Tracks Award, 1998 Link Award, Service/Volunteer Awards

Education: B.Sc. Geology, University of Ottawa (1983); M.Sc. Geology, Washington State University (1985); Ph.D. Geology, University of Alberta (1989).

Experience:

Shell Canada Ltd (1998-present); Geological Survey of Canada (1989-1998).


CSPG, APEGA

Volunteer Work:

CSPG/CSEG/CWLS GeoConvention General Co-Chair: Integration (2013); Geoconvention Partnership Agreement Committee (2012-2013); GeoCanada 2010 Convention Organizing Committee; CSPG Finance Director (2010-2011); Earth Science for Society Committee (2009-2010); CSPG Trust Fund Committee (2007-2009); CSPG Outreach Director (2007-2009); CSPG Bulletin Associate Editor (2001-2007); SIFT Fieldtrip Leader (1999-2005); CSPG speaker and chair at several conventions and luncheons; 20 refereed publications within and outside CSPG.

Awards:

CSPG Volunteer/Service Awards; CSPG Tracks Award.

Education: B.Sc. Geology, Carleton University (1974); M.Sc. Geology, Carleton University (1976); Ph.D. Geology, Queen's University (1980)

Experience: Shell Canada (1980-2014) - Project Coordinator - Central MacKenzie (2011-2014) - New Ventures (1998 - 2011) - Various - Exploration, Development and Corporate Strategies (1980-1997)


CSPG, AAPG, APEGA, GSA, AGU, PHS

Volunteer Work:

Chair of Stanley Slipper Gold Medal committee (2010-Present); Trustee on the CSPG Educational Trust Fund (2007-2010); Committee member/trip leader - Student Industry Field Trip Committee (1982-Present); Chair - History and Archives (1998-Present); Committee member - Medal of Merit Award (2008-Present); Chair - 75th Anniversary Committee (2001-2002)

Awards: CSPG Service Award (2010-2015); CSPG Volunteer Award (2009); H.M. Hunter Award (2004); CSPG Tracks/Service Award (1989, 1991, 1992, 2002)


Education: B.Sc. (Honours) Geology, Carleton University (1976); Ph.D. Geology, University of Calgary (2000)

Experience: Semi-Retired (2015-Present); Geology Advisor - ConocoPhillips Canada/Burlington Resources (2004-2015); Exploration Mgr, VP Exploration - Ice Energy, Java Energy, Southpoint Resources (2001-2004); Regional Geologist - Poco Petroleums Ltd. (1996-2001); President - Springtide Ener-gy Ltd. (1995-1996)


CSPG, AAPG, APEGA, CWLS

CSPG Volunteer Work:

Co-Chair - CSPG Core Conference (2015-2016); Communications Director - CSPG Board of Directors (2010-2012); Co-Chair - Horn River Basin Shale Gas Sessions, CSPG Convention (2010-2011); Associate Editor - CSPG Bulletin (2005-2007); Co-Chair - Core Conference, CSPG/CSEG/CWLS Convention (2005-2006); Chair & member - Medal of Merit Committee (1997-2006); Director - CSPG Board of Directors (1996-1997)

Awards: CSPG Service Award (2015, 2014, 2013, 2006, 2004, 2002); CSPG Volunteer Award (2010); Graduate Thesis Award (2001)

Education: B.A. (Honours, Geology/Geography), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario (1985). Masters Geology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario (1987)

Experience: Manager Development Geology NAL Resources (2015-present), Exploration Manager EOG Re-sources Canada (2011-2015), Exploration Manager Horn River Division EOG Resources Canada (2010-2011), Geological Advisor Horn River Division EOG Resources Canada (2009-2010), Team Lead Peace River Arch/BC North Enerplus (2006-2009), Clastic Specialist EOG Resources Canada (2004-2006), Exploration Lead Geologist, PanCanadian Petroleum/Encana (2002-2004), Senior Oil Development Geologist PanCanadian Petroleum (1997-2002), Geologist, Petroleum Recovery Institute (1988 – 1997).


CSPG, AAPG, APEGA

CSPG Volunteer: Session Chair Devonian Mississippian Unconventional (2013), Thesis Awards Committee (1989-1992)

AAPG/SPE Volunteer:

Field trip Logistics AAPG conference 1992 Organizing Committee SPE/CIM/Canmet Horizontal Well Conference 1994, 1996 Board of Directors Canadian SPE 1998-2003

Awards: CSPG Service Award (1992)

Education: B.Sc. (Honours) Geology, University of Wales (1989); M.Sc. Geology, University of Alberta (1992); Ph.D.Geology, University of British Columbia (1997).

Experience: Geological Prospect Generator - Partners Energy Development Corp (2016); Senior Geological Advisor, Athabasca Oil Corporation (2014-2015); Geoscience Manager, Athabasca Oil Corporation/Brion Energy (2007-2014); Staff Geologist, Shell Canada Ltd. (2002-2007); Geologist, Total S.A. (1997-2002).


CSPG, AAPG, APEGA, CHOA, CWLS, SEPM.

Volunteer Work:

GeoConvention 2016 & 2017 session co-chair; Associate Editor of CSPG Bulletin (2016-2019); CSPG Graduate Thesis Committee (2015-onwards); Technical lecture tour for CSPG University Outreach (2016); AAPG/CSPG ACE 2016 Planning Committee for Oil Sands Theme; CSPG Conferences Directors (2015 & 2016); Various volunteer positions for CSPG since 2004; Current technical reviewer for several scientific journals (CSPG, CJES, CJPT).

Awards: CSPG Volunteer Award (2007); CSPG Service Award (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013).


Education: B.Sc. Honours, University of Saskatchewan (1998); M.Sc. & Ph.D. Geology, University of Alberta (2001, 2006)

Experience: Geologist - Osum Oil Sands Corp. (2012-Present); Geologist - Imperial Oil (2007-2012); Geologist - Anadarko/CNRL (2006-2007)


CSPG, AAPG, APEGA, IAS, SEPM

Volunteer Work:

Chair - Mountjoy Carbonates Conference (2015); Committee member - Technical Luncheon Committee (2014 - Present); Associate Editor - Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology (2007 - Present); Outreach Speaker (2009); Field Trip Leader (2006, 2007)

Awards: Best Core Presentation, CSPG Core Conference (2016); Service Award (2013-2015); Volunteer Award (2012); PhD Thesis Award (2007)

Education: B.Sc. (Honors) Geology, University of Alberta (1985); M.Sc. Geology, University of Alberta (1989); Ph.D. Geology, University of Calgary (1998).

Experience: Vice President, Chief Geologist - Alberta Energy Regulator (2009-Present); Manager, Provincial Geologist - Alberta Geological Survey (1999-2009); Exploration Geologist - Petro-Canada (1996-1999


CSPG, AGU, APEGA, IAH, SPE

Volunteer Work: Committee member & Co-Chair - Hydrogeology Division (1980s-1990s); Committee member - Geotreasures Exposition committee (2000)

Awards: Volunteer Award (2000, 2014).

Education: B.Sc University of Alberta (1993); M.Sc. Geology, University of Alberta (1996); Ph.D Geology, University of Wyoming (2001)

Experience: Principal Geoscience Advisor, In Situ, Suncor Energy, (2012-present); Manager of Geology and Geophysics, Mackay River, Suncor Energy (2009-2012); Senior Geologist, Petro-Canada (2005-2009); Geologist, Imperial Oil (2001-2005)


CSPG, AAPG, APEGA, SPE

Volunteer Work:

Co-chair - Technical Luncheon Committee (2010-present); Thesis Award Committee (2005-present); Lecturer - University Outreach (2016); Committee Member - CSPG Sedimentology Divi-sion (2004-2007); Committee member - Alberta Paleontological Advisory Committee (2004-2010); CSPG speaker and technical session chair at several conferences

Awards: CSPG Volunteer Award; CSPG Services Award

Education:

M.Sc Geochemistry, University of Calgary

Experience: Rakhit Petroleum Consulting, Petrel Robertson, PanCanadian/EnCana, EOG, MGM Energy, Statoil Canada - Currently Exploration Advisor, East Coast Exploration


CSPG, AAPG, APEGA

Volunteer Work: General Co-Chair 2012 GeoConvention-Vision, Technical Program Chair 2007 CSPG/CSEG/CWLS annual Joint Convention, Conference Chair: 2004 Gussow Geoscience Conference, GeoCanada 2000, CSPG Committee on Conventions

Awards: CSPG Tracks Award 2012, CSPG Best Student Poster 1995, CSPG Volunteer/Service Awards


TECHNICAL AWARDS Stanley Slipper Gold Medal

for outstanding Career Contributions to Oil and Gas Exploration in Canada

Edward (Ted) Bogle

R.J.W Douglas Medal for Outstanding Contributions to

the Understanding of Sedimentary Geology in Canada

Dale Leckie

Honorary Membership for Distinguished Service to the Society

Tony Cadrin

Link Award for Best Presentation–

Technical Luncheon Series Dallin Laycock

“Muddy Clinoforms and the influence of Aggregated Mud

Clasts” November 17, 2015

Medal of Merit for Best Paper Related to

Canadian Petroleum Geology Denis Lavoie Nicolas Pinet Jim Dietrich

Zhuoheng Chen

“The Paleozoic Hudson Bay Basin in northern Canada: New insights

into hydrocarbon potential of a frontier intracratonic basin” AAPG Bulletin, V. 99 No. 5 (May 2015)

Medal of Merit Honorable Mention

for Best Paper Related to Canadian Petroleum Geology

Gary Prost Guy Peasley

“The Umiak Field discovery North-west Territories Canada”

AAPG Bulletin, V. 99 No. 2 (February 2015)

Service Awards for Members who have Served the

Society for over Five Years

James Ablett Norbert Alwast George Ardies

Astrid Arts Peter Aukes Ryan Axani Bill Ayrton

Olena Babak Wes Bader Jim Barclay Ali Beken

Philip Benham Barry Bennett

Khaled Benzaoui Tim Bird

Mary Luz Borrero Darin Brazel

Carson Brown Chuck Buckley

Jean-Yves Chatellier Burns Cheadle Guoxiang Chi Andre Chow Nancy Chow

Penny Christensen Shawna Christensen

2016 CSPG Awards

VOLUNTEER AWARDS President’s Award for Outstanding Service

by a CSPG Member Brad Hayes

H.M. Hunter Award for Distinguished Service

to the Society Dawn Hodgins Gordon Stabb

Tracks Award for Members Who have Set New

Standards of Excellence

Alexis Anastas David Clyde Alex MacNeil Ian McIlreath

Andrew Cook Thomas Cox Barrie Dargie

Tim De Freitas Foon Der

Noel Devere-Bennett Ian DeWolfe

Steve Donaldson Tina Donkers

Eva Drivet Dave Drover

Kyle Durocher Markus Ebner

Marc Enter Richard Evoy Peter Fermor

Patrick Fothergill Andrew Fox

Jocelyn Frankow Lloyd Freeman Riona Freeman Milovan Fustic David Garner

Sasan Ghanbari Chad Glemser

Stephen Grasby Darcie Greggs Tony Hamblin

Tim Hartel Peter Hay

Simon Haynes Norman Hopkins

Amir Hosseini Kristy Howe

Stephen Hubbard Ian Hutcheon

Dale Issler Wim Jalink

Samantha Jones Ian Kirkland

Melanie Klucker Shawn Lafleur

Larry Lane Craig Lamb Dale Leckie Sid Leggett

Jaime Lo Paul MacKay

Robert MacNaughton Leena Markatchev

Jane Marzetti Darin McCollum Heidi McDonald Ben McKenzie

Margot McMechan

Les McMillan David Middleton Stephen Minions

Ryan Mohr David Morrow Bob Mummery Jacey Neumann

Eric Niven Jon Noad

Brett Norris Rob North

Kirk Osadetz Brenda Pearson

John Peirce Guy Plint

Kyla Poelzer Frank Pogubila

Brian Pratt Jim Reimer

Gerry Reinson Weishan Ren

Claude Ribordy Kristin Rohr Kevin Root

Jen Russel-Houston Terry Sami

Megan Simons Randy Smith

Tom Sneddon Geoffrey Speers

Vern Stasiuk Glen Stockmal Martin Teitz Scott Thain

Damien Thenin Clint Tippett

Elizabeth Turner Christian Viau John Waldron Michael Webb

Gerald Wendland Gordon Williams

Jay Williams Andrew Willis

Colin Yeo


Lindsey Abbott Leye Adeboye Nawras Akkad

Ryan Baker Nadine Beaudoin

Laurie Bellman Jennifer Benyon

Jeff Boissonneault Sonia Brar

Ryan Brenner Harrison Brown Robin Buckley Gary Bugden

Whitney Bysterveld Lisa Cartier

Maria Castillo Toro David Chunn

Michelle Clements Robin Dixon

Ruben Dominguez

James Duggan Paul Durkin

Hayley Edwards Nanna Eliuk

Mona Enachescu Alison Essery Colin Etienne

Duncan Findlay Martin Fowler

Jason Frank Adam Fraser

Jean-Francois Gagnon David Gardner

Dan Gee Ray Geuder

Murray Gingras Meriem Grifi Dennis

Dale Hardcastle Bill Haskett

Caterina Heikkinen Brian Hester Travis Hobbs Nicole Hunter

Art Irwin Bryce Jablonski Brad Johnston Brittan Jones

Jassie Kang David Keighley Jürgen Kraus

Melissa Kuechler Ross Kukulski Brent Kuntz Kelty Latos

Stan Lavender Jason Lavigne Carmen Lee

Stacia Leonard Rochelle Longval

Adam MacDonald James MacEachern

Sabita Makoon-Singh Heather Makowecki

Deepreet Mand Vanessa Marcheggiani-

Croden Ryan Martin

Adrienne McDougall Ryan McKay

Ben Montgomery Jason Moore

Kevin Morrison Andy Mort

Rachel Newrick

Jennifer Noade Natalia Noskova

Darcy Novak Ada Opene

Lauren Ostridge Sharleen Overland Kelsea Pedersen

Russ Phillips George Pinckney Sharlene Pollock Andrei Popescu Mary-Ellen Price

Hairuo Qing Garrett Quinn

Mark Radomski Kamal Rae

Mike Ranger Aaron Reimchen Cindy Robinson Katie Romansky

Cynthia Sawatzky Armin Schafer Tyler Schmidt

Jesse Schoengut Jennifer Scott

Nicole Sendziak Kathleen Shannon

Anne Sherman Jason Shtand

Darren Singleton Brant Skibsted

Kelly Skuce Amber Sprague Tony Stadnyk Larry Strong

Brodie Sutherland Natalie Sweet Amy Switzer

Ryan Szol Balazs Toro

Torrie Turner Stuart Tye

Michael Wamsteeker Pei-Ling Wang

Neil Watson Melissa Williams

Jamie Wills Richard Wong Keith Yaxley Denise Yee

Tanya Yeomans

Volunteer Awards for Members who have Served the

Society for up to Five Years



MEMBERSHIP UPDATES

IN MEMORIUMValerie Ethier (nee Girling), 1931-2016Val died on November 17, 2016 at age 85. Val graduated with Honours in geology and geography from UBC in 1954 and was offered a job, at the rate of pay set for men, by three large companies. She was one of only two female geologists exploring in Canada's oil and gas industry, long before the word feminism came into use and decades before the industry fully opened to women. She completed her Master’s Degree in Geology at University of Calgary in 1970, and remained affiliated with the University

for many years, publishing extensively on the Aldridge Formation, and on Sullivan orebodies. In the 1980s and 1990’s she again worked as an exploration geologist in industry, and as a consultant to industry. In the early 1990’s, she developed a workshop on estimating porosity and permeability in drill cuttings, which continues to be taught to this day. She is remembered for being kind and generous to all her colleagues, and for taking great pleasure in helping, and then watching, them be successful. Her professional friends and colleagues recall her as “truly a renaissance woman” for her time.

Dr. Robert George McCROSSAN, March 27, 1924 – November 20, 2016Bob died peacefully in his home following a brief battle with cancer. He leaves his son, John (Janice); two grandsons Riley and Michael; nieces Sandra Heywood and Barb Espiritu; nephew Peter McCrossan; and many close friends. He was born and raised in Vancouver. He attended the University of British Columbia where he earned his B.Sc. Geology. While working in Calgary, he met Janette (1925 – 2009), his wife and dearest companion of 58 years. He furthered his education with a M. Sc. and Ph.D in Geology at the University of Chicago, prior to embarking on a successful career as a Petroleum Geologist with Esso Resources, the Geological Survey of Canada, and with Sirte Oil in Libya. Bob's contributions to Canadian geology have been outstanding. One of his many career accomplishments was the publication of the atlas, Geological History of Western Canada (with Dr. R.P. Glaister, a colleague and lifelong friend). The Atlas was used extensively by industry and became an indispensable teaching aid in university geological departments all over the world. Bob was Past-President of the Alberta Society of Petroleum Geologists; his generous service to his profession has been recognized by the award of Honorary Life membership in the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists. Bob will be fondly remembered by family and friends for his love of gardening, photography, politics, and a passion for a healthy discussion/argument. He was most content with a glass of good scotch, a comfortable pair of blue jeans, a solid pair of rubber boots, and a big cigar.

2017 Membership Renewal

Make sure your membership is paid and up to date to ensure discounts at upcoming

CSPG events and Conferences!







Robert McCrossan during his time as ASPG President


CORRECTIONIn the December 2016 issue Figure 10 in the Ontario Oil & Gas Series, Part 4 Article (pg. 22) was incorrectly displayed. Below is the correct image and caption. We apologize for this error.

MUNDIREGINA RESOURCES CANADA INC.

56 Roehampton, Unit 62, St. Catharines, ON, L2M 7S8 Tel: (905) 688-8083 Cell: (905) 978-1364

[email protected]

KEY points on our Gaspe Conventional LIGHT OIL (Shallow) stacked play

Three World Class High Impact Exploration Plays, the ABBA, Mundiregina and the Largest the Champlain (some of these are the largest un-drilled structures (as defined by Seismic) in North America.

Conventional Light Oil 500,000 acres Very Thick Oil Column in Forillion Very Large Structures (GIANTS) Stacked Layers/plays A 30 Mile wide Anticline Structure (Champlain) A 10 Mile wide Anticline in (ABBA) There are four (4) deep water Ports, Gaspe Conventional Light Oil and Conventional Natural Gas 3,000

miles closer to market Gaspe with it Thrust faults is in many respects similar to the

WSB “ Deep Basin “ SEEKING joint ventures/farm-in

Figure 10. Kettle Point type well (Phillips, 2014), showing Kettle Point Formation from 82.5 metres to 156.2 metres. Driller terminology has been used to describe the formations of the underlying Hamilton Group.”

SAVE THE DATE Keep an eye on the CSPG website for

information on upcoming Short Courses & Field Seminars taking place during the first

two weeks of May!


If you have any CSPG photos that you’d like to share with the archive, please contact Morgan at [email protected].

The first Reservoir was published in 1974 and was a small slim volume:

6” by 9” and only 8 pages long.

CSPG RESERVOIR THROUGH THE YEARS!

The Reservoir was published 11 times a year, with the occasional photo year-

book supplement, virtually unchanged for 20 years. In 1994, a big change was made: colour was added to the cover!

1996 heralded in a big visual change for the reservoir: full colour covers as well as a few colour pages inside. The magazine was still the same size, but

three times as long as the first volume.

In September 1997,the Reservoir switched to the 8” by 10.5” magazine

format you hold today.

The newer style was a hit, and graced the cover for almost 10 years, when, in

2008, the distinctive red frame was added to the cover.

This new cover didn’t last long, and a year later it was changed.

Call for Abstracts Information on abstract

specifications and how to submit can be found online at

www.cspg.org/CoreConference

DEADLINE: JANUARY 17th, 2017

Registration General Delegate Registration: $175.00 CAN Core Presenter Registration: $150.00 CAN Core Meltdown Ticket*: $ 25.00 CAN

*One Core Meltdown Ticket is included with general and presenter registrations.

REGISTRATION OPEN: FEBRUARY 6th, 2017

geomechanics issue - cspg home files/pdfs/documents/publi… · future” as the cspg previously...

Documents