longfellow energy’s nemaha project€¦ · the osage reservoir story updip oil leg longfellow...

THE OSAGE RESERVOIR STORYUPDIP OIL LEG

Longfellow Energy’s Nemaha Project

DUG Midcontinent Conference - September 21, 2017 Presented by: Todd Dutton Longfellow Energy

STACK

Next Step in Completion Evolution: Improves Performance

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

DUG Midcontinent Conference - September 21, 2017 2

David Mitchell - VP Engineering, Longfellow Energy

Longfellow Energy Geology Department - Wayne Campbell, Jennifer Eker and Jenny York

Alta Mesa Holdings – Mike Ellis, Hal Chappelle and Kevin Bourque

Malone Mitchell – Longfellow Energy

Marlan Downey – Roxanna Petroleum


“ At least 90% of the recoverable primary oil has beenproduced from the Sooner Trend”

– Sherad A. HarrisSkelly Oil Company,

AAPG Bul. V. 59, No. 4, Pg. 634, August 1973

The Wisdom of the “Experts”

STACK ACTIVITY MAP


Major

Garfield

Kingfisher

Blaine

Dewey

Custer

AlfalfaWoodsChester

Truncation

Nemaha Fault

Updip Oil Leg

GEOLOGY


SW to NE Cross Section Across Kingfisher Co.

Meramec

Osage

Meramec

Osage

SW NE

A A’

Thickest Woodford source rock underlies Nemaha!

Updip Oil Leg

GEOLOGY


Type Logs – STACK Play - SW to NE across Kingfisher Co.

Osage

Osage

SW28/15N/9W

Central26/17N/7W

NE14/19N/5W

Nemaha Project

STACK OSAGE RESERVOIR


Woodford oil source – Osage sits right on top of it

Oil trapped in micro-darcy rock matrix – top seal from Meramec and Chester – ductile rock

Oil saturation over whole Osage section with gas in solution – no free gas in rock matrix

Alternating layers of calcite (lime) and quartz dominated rock.

Quartz dominated layers have higher porosity – Average 4%-8%

Low clay content means brittle rock with extensive vertical natural fractures – and higher leakoff than the Meramec

STACK OSAGE – GOR IS IMPORTANT


You have to “touch” the matrix rock with a fracture to produce oil (i.e. break new rock). Oil won’t move far or fastthrough micro-pore system from matrix to fracture - millimeters or few inches, per year max

Fracture geometry determines oil and gas EUR’s in equivalent maturity matrix (rock with same oil/solution gasratio)

Producing GOR reflects fracture geometry – tells how efficiently your frac treatment broke new matrix rock vs.just connecting the natural fractures. Simple fracture geometry = significant gas breakout = high GOR = low oilEUR. Complex fracture geometry = significant matrix oil near fracture = low GOR

GOR rises in all wells over time and is a function of stimulation, not saturation

Fast increase in GOR = poor fracture geometry (large pressure drop from matrix to wellbore - gas breaks out)

Low GOR means you can stack a lot of wells in a section!

NEMAHA PROJECT – KINGFISHER AND GARFIELD COUNTIES


Longfellow Nemaha Project Stats:

81,000 gross acres (128 contiguous sections)

60,500 net acres (75% average WI)

104 horizontal wells drilled to date 91 Mississippian wells – all Osage 8 Woodford 5 Oswego

60 drilling pads built (approx. 5 acres each)

72 miles of 10” SWD pipeline constructed

4 SWD wells - 3 Arbuckle, 1 Wilcox

NEMAHA PROJECT DRILLING STATS


2012-2015 2017 Total

Osage 71 20 * 91

Woodford 8 0 8

Oswego 2 3 ** 5

SWD 4 0 4

Total 86 23 107

Average rig days Osage wells only 34 17

* 7 Longfellow, 12 Alta Mesa, 1 Chisholm

** 1 Longfellow, 2 Chesapeake

NEMAHA PROJECT - HISTORICAL FRAC EVOLUTION


LF Gen 1.0 LF Gen 2.0 Alta Mesa 2.5* LF Gen 3.0

Dates 2012-2014 2015 2017 2017Wells Completed 64 3 11 6Liner UnCemented UnCemented UnCemented UnCementedStyle Packers&Sleeves Hybrid Plug & Perf Plug & PerfPacker Style Mech. Mech. Swellable SwellableFluid Slickwater Slickwater Slickwater High Vis SlickwaterSand 30/50w 100m;30/50w 100m;30/50w 100m;30/50wAvg Lateral Length 4,078 4,740 4,441 4,475Avg # Stages 17 22 30 31Stage Spacing 237 224 148 141Fluid Loading (Bbls/Ft) 39 51 65 68Prop Loading (Lbs/Ft) 614 891 1,354 1,730

Max Prop Concentration1.25 1.25 2 2.5 – 3.5(#Prop/Gal Fluid)

Ramping Constant Constant Constant Variable

Treating Rate (BPM) 92 97 100 110

Average ISIP 605 564 ? 1,651

* Alta Mesa August 2017 Presentation, pg. 18

NEW FRAC DESIGN DIFFERENCES


Increased pumping rate to 110 bpm vs. 100 bpm

Increased proppant concentration 3.5#/gal vs. 2.0#/gal

Increased and variable viscosity of fluid

“Pumping based on pressure profile rather than total volume”

Longfellow Gen 3.0 vs. Alta Mesa Gen 2.5

NEMAHA PROJECT – 2017 RESULTS


NEMAHA PROJECT - 2017 TYPE CURVE (STANDARDIZED TO 4,800’ LATERAL)


LongfellowGen 3.0b=0.9

Longfellow Gen 3.0b=1.2

Alta Mesa Gen 2.5b=1.2*

Peak Rate-BOEPD 725 725 767Peak Rate-Oil % 60% 60% 52%2-Stream

EUR - MBO 311 445 303EUR - BCF 1.8 3.0 1.9EUR - MBOE 616 940 622

3-StreamEUR - MBO 311 445 303EUR - MBNGL 173 282 144EUR – BCF (Residual) 1.0 1.6 1.6EUR - MBOE 653 1,000 714

Cum GOR - SCF/BBL 5,878 6,668 6,320

* Alta Mesa August 2017 Presentation, pg. 51

NEMAHA PROJECT - 2017 WELL ECONOMICS*


* Based on actual average lateral length of 4,475’** $50/bbl WTI and $3.00/mmbtu flat

LongfellowGen 3.0b=0.9

Longfellow Gen 3.0b=1.2

Per Well Cost (MM) $4.20 $4.20 IRR 74% 89%Payout (months) 17 16PV10 (MM) ** $3.94 $6.15

NEMAHA PROJECT - 2017 RESULTS


IP 24 Peak Rate IP 30Well Flow

BO MCF BOPD MCFD# Day

1 160 83 44 75 362* 11 798 0 475 7563* 11 715 0 481 7944 25 270 339 227 3435 105 413 237 234 1066 73 591 682 403 6527 96 492 234 330 2178 120 566 615 486 5359 50 576 362 368 34310 79 416 137 384 10311 59 390 471 261 17712** 59 325 202 224 19313*** 5 204 252 78 12315** 14 330 1,270 - -

14, 16-23 Flowback < 30 days

Average GOR (Osage only) 1,031 904% Oil 85% 87%

* Oswego well** New wells which have not reached peak rate*** Liner failure - only 5 stages producing – not included in averages on pg. 13 & 14

NEMAHA PROJECT - 2018 DRILLING PLANNED


* Subject to change

Osage Parent Wells (18) Oswego Infill Wells (4) Osage Infill Pilot (4)

Miss Wells Drilled in 2017 (20)

Oswego Wells Drilled in 2017 (3)

2018 Planned Wells*

2017 Drilled Wells

STACK PLAY THOUGHTS


The Osage reservoir rock volume exceeds the Meramec

Updip Osage oil leg should produce 50+% oil EUR’s if effectivity stimulated.

What we know now about optimizing oil recovery is evolving – What is next? More stages, higher loading and simultaneous fracing Chemistry – surfactants and other additives Open hole diversion technology Landing zone optimization

STACK OSAGE THOUGHTS


The updip Osage oil leg is highly economic and improving rapidly

Longfellow Energy Contact Information:

Todd Dutton – Presidentemail: [email protected]: 972-590-9923

David Mitchell – VP Engineeringemail: [email protected]: 214-265-4722

APPENDIX

NEW FRAC DESIGN – LINER PIPE FAILURE SOLUTION


Problem Pumping at high rates and pressure through an uncemented liner anchored by swellable packers causes

extreme vibration frequencies – causing pipe failure at or near collars in the lateral

Solution Upgrade liner pipe from 4.5” 11.6# HCP110 BTC to 4.5” 13.5# HCP110 Hydrill 563 (modified buttress casing

drilling connections)

NEW FRAC DESIGN


Objectives:1. Overcome the pressure leakoff into the

extensive natural fracture system - build netpressure and break new rock

2. Create complex new fracture geometry nearwellbore to prevent excess pressure dropduring flowback - recover more oil fromreservoir rock matrix

Key Features:1. Use swellable packers for better stage isolation2. Reduce stage spacing to break more rock3. Build net pressure by ramping proppant

concentrations quickly to plug off dominatefractures that “steal” your net pressure

4. Pump more fluid and more proppant per foot

Old

New

NEMAHA PROJECT – PRODUCING GOR PROFILES


Production Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017(8 months)

2012 Wells 2,745 4,934 5,697 8,523 8,028 7,584

2013 Wells --- 4,314 6,043 8,506 10,101 10,653

2014 Wells --- --- 5,546 9,615 9,026 9,234

2015 Wells --- --- --- 4,660 5,033 6,753

2017 Wells --- --- --- --- --- 1,080

Longfellow Gen 3.0 frac geometry

longfellow energy’s nemaha project€¦ · the osage reservoir story updip oil leg longfellow...

Documents