Montney Part 3: Players, Type Curves & Maps

September 13, 2011 by

Editor’s Note: While VISAGE rebranded to VERDAZO in April 2016, we haven’t changed the VISAGE name in our previous blog posts. We’re proud of our decade of work as VISAGE and that lives on within these blogs. Enjoy.

(Part of a joint series combining the power of VISAGE visual analytics software with geoLOGIC’s value-added data live from the gDC)

Today’s blog will cover quite a spectrum of information including The Montney Players, the top wells, type curves and maps generated by taking VISAGE percentile information and plotting it in geoScout. So let’s jump right in….

The Montney Players

The top 12 companies (18% of the companies in the Montney) accounted for 90% of May’s production. Those same 12 companies have 79% of the producing wells. The chart below shows a breakdown of all of the producers with the following information being shown:  COMPANY (producing well count): (mmcf/day) % of Total production

Top 10 Wells (based on May 2011 production rate)

Well UWICD Avg Gas (mcf/day)FieldOn Production DateWell Name
100/12-03-082-19W6/008,991HERITAGE01-Apr-11CREW HZ SEPTIMUS C09-03-082-19
100/08-06-078-17W6/007,990HERITAGE01-Apr-11MURPHY HZ SUNDOWN 15-32-077-17
100/01-18-056-05W6/007,482FINDLEY01-Jul-07TALISMAN ET AL MINNOW 1-18-56-5
102/12-02-060-20W5/006,962KAYBOB SOUTH01-Mar-11TRILOGY HZ 102 KAYBOBS 12-2-60-20
100/13-12-060-20W5/006,322KAYBOB SOUTH01-Mar-11TRILOGY HZ KAYBOBS 13-12-60-20
200/A-056-J-094-B-09/006,243KOBES01-Dec-10PROGRESS HZ W GUNDY D-B067-J/094-B-09
100/14-22-080-16W6/005,972HERITAGE01-Nov-10TOURMALINE ET AL HZ SUNRISE A05-23-080-16
100/04-24-079-17W6/005,798HERITAGE01-Oct-10ECA HZ SUNRISE A04-26-079-17
100/02-28-077-17W6/005,703HERITAGE01-Mar-11MURPHY HZ SUNDOWN A16-29-077-17
200/D-080-A-093-P-09/005,518HERITAGE01-Jan-11ECA HZ SWAN B- 092-B/093-P-09

See this VISAGE Well Ticket (top 10 montney wells in may 2011) for more details about these wells.

Top 10 Wells (based on cumulative production)

Well UWImmcf ProducedOperatorOn Prod YearWell NameWell Profile
100/11-15-061-21W5/0042,128APACHE CDA LTD1980ACL KAYBOBS 11-15-61-21Vertical
100/10-29-058-21W5/0034,242TALISMAN ENRG INC1977TALISMAN FIR 10-29-58-21Vertical
100/06-01-058-21W5/0032,744SHELL CDA LMTD1977DUVERNAY FIR 6-1-58-21Vertical
100/11-14-057-20W5/0027,359APACHE CDA LTD1991ACL PINE CK 11-14-57-20Vertical
100/11-16-059-21W5/0021,285APACHE CDA LTD1977ACL FIR 11-16-59-21Vertical
100/08-27-052-01W6/0520,931CONOCOPHILLIPS CDA C2002CONOCO SOLOMON 8-27-52-1Deviated
100/01-18-056-05W6/0020,527TALISMAN ENRG INC2007TALISMAN ET AL MINNOW 1-18-56-5Horizontal
100/16-34-074-11W6/0016,404CDN NAT RSRCS LMTD1997CNRL KNOPCIK 16-34-74-11Vertical
100/14-24-056-21W5/0015,256APACHE CDA LTD1991ACL OLDMAN 14-24-56-21Vertical
100/06-22-057-20W5/0014,634HUSKY OIL OPRTNS LTD1993MOBIL PINE CREEK 6-22-57-20Vertical

See this VISAGE well ticket (top 10 montney wells in may 2011) for more details about these wells.

Type Curves Part 1: Comparison of Well Profile Types

Normalized Comparison of Well Profile Types

Type Curves Part 2: Normalized Distribution of Initial Production Rates

Before we show any additional type curves of Horizontal Montney Wells it is important that we provide a context for what we will be looking at. The remaining horizontal well analyses will be for all producing horizontal wells that came on production in 2007 or later. This collection of wells has some massive producers that have the potential to significantly skew data results. therefore it is important when doing any of this analysis to support decisions that the collection of wells has been scrutinized by professional engineers and geologists familiar with the play. The follow chart identifies six anomalously large wells that fall outside the main distribution of initial rates (i.e. average of months 2 and 3).


 Type Curves Part 3: Comparison of Normalized Production Profiles by On Production Year

The best year for the Montney (in terms of average production profiles was 2007). Subsequent to that production profiles have tried to catch up to these rates, with 2011 looking to be the most promising. Something anyone analysing data needs to be aware for future analyses is that there was a temporary shut-in of production in May of this year. This will profoundly impact type curves as can be seen in the 2011 values in this chart.

Normalized Production by On Production Year


Type Curves Part 4: Percentile Trendlines

Another method for understanding the variability in production rates that make up a type curve are Percentile Trendlines (read about this VISAGE feature in our blog So What Is The Problem With Production Type Curves?). Here we can see that the average initial rate is about 2600 mcf/day, 80% of the values that make up this number fall between 331 mcf/day and 5295 mcf/day.


 Type Curves Part 5: How azimuth affects horizontal well production

How azimuth affects horizontal well production


Type Curves Part 6: How azimuth affects horizontal well rates vs cumulative production

How azimuth affect rate vs cumulative production


Maps: Taking VISAGE data and plotting it in geoSCOUT A picture is worth a thousand words … and two pictures are worth two thousand words or more? That’s why VISAGE and geoSCOUT compliment one another so nicely. VISAGE allows you to visually explore data with slice and dice capabilities using charts … while geoSCOUT lets you take the same data and view it in a geospatial context. The combination of the two can garner tremendous insights (I’ll be doing a future blog with someone who uses VISAGE to calculate remaining reserves and geoSCOUT to plot them on a map). So for this example we took 342 wells that we could get horizontal length and frac count from (derived in VISAGE) and plotted them on a series of charts. The one chart that seemed to present a (more) meaningful picture was a normalized type curve by Frac Spacing. The chart is shown below … click here to go to the gDC blog to see some map illustrations.


Disclaimer of Analysis Results
It is important to note when doing any of this kind of analysis that the selection of wells be scrutinized for meaningful results. The results presented are intended to fuel your understanding of VISAGE capabilities with gDC data. We would be happy to run analyses for specific well lists that you may have. Please feel free to contact us.

Data Disclaimer: gDC is the data source for the information presented in this blog post. If you see issues with the data or have concerns about the well list used for this posting please contact us.
Thanks for reading. I welcome your questions and suggestions for future blogs.

Some other blogs you may find of interest:

About VISAGE – visual analytics for the petroleum industry
VISAGE analytics software equips operators and analysts in the petroleum industry to make the most valuable and timely decisions possible. VISAGE brings together public and proprietary oil and gas data from multiple sources for easy to use interactive analysis.