Doug Uffen, Lisa Michetti, Linda Dickson, Judith Churchill, Jan Hay, Lyle Geck and Arnold Janzen

Preface

Seismic data may be the least understood commodity within the oil industry. The evolution of seismic technology has seen seismic data take greater prominence in developing prospects to mitigate drilling risk. This has led to widespread use of seismic data and a proliferation of companies with ownership rights. The practiced rules and privileges of entitlement are known to those within the geophysical discipline that possess a seasoned perspective. These lessons were learned as we articled in the industry. Most instances of seismic data misuse are infrequent, but occasional ownership and licensing infractions do occur. These infractions are typically a result of either the lack of understanding of the rules and privileges of data ownership, or a result of poor seismic data records management. Most infractions are devoid of malice or willful intent.

The Chief Geophysicist’s Forum, now a CSEG sub-committee, has discussed numerous issues regarding seismic data ownership in the hope to publish a set of standards of industry common practice. Many data ownership issues were discussed with the CSEG membership in the CSEG Seismic Data Issues Forum, last February. Heightening awareness to these issues is the first step towards compliance. The new CAPL 2000 agreement will describe seismic data and recognize it as confidential information as well as an asset, thereby recognizing that the value of seismic data evolves as properties are recycled through crown sales. Published guidelines for industry standard practice will assist the delegate membership as well as other disciplines within the oil industry to understand the rules governing seismic data ownership.

Awareness and education are a big part of the equation but seismic data records management becomes the other half of the equation. The quality of a corporation’s seismic database may hamper its ability to follow any given policy for industry standard practice, be it internally or externally driven, if the information in it is fraught with discrepancies and inaccuracies. This then leads to the problem regarding the accuracy of those records and the completeness of those databases. Historically, these records were poor to non-existent in some companies. Fortunately today the quality of these records is improving as a result of new software tools and the recognition of seismic data as being an asset with potential monetary benefit through data sales. This trend is positive but are we doing enough? Infractions could lead to litigious situations. It is specified in an Act of Parliament, in the case of federally chartered lands, that a copy of all data must be maintained by the operator within the country at all times. Accurately recording and archiving this data is part of regulatory compliance. Corporate take-overs, mergers, property farm-outs and divestitures can further compound the situation. Accurate records management becomes even more challenged as the supporting documentation may not be provided when the assets are transferred from one company to another. It is imperative to capture metadata information ( ownership status, ownership percentages, AFE costs, acquisition parameters, etc. ) with the seismic data. Failure to do so results in additional warranty work to build a complete database. An accurate database permits the rules and rights of data ownership to be invoked appropriately.

Purpose

In 1997, Canadian Forest Oil Ltd. ( CFOL ) embarked on the task of building a trustworthy wallmap that depicted all of the corporation’s seismic data coverage. Early in this process, it became apparent that the seismic survey database had to be cleaned up to facilitate the creation of this wallmap. To clarify ownership status, certain metadata information had to be collected and populated into this database. The initial purpose of this exercise further expanded as the geologists and land department personnel requested access to this information for their own purposes. The geologists wanted to see if the corporation had seismic data coverage over a newly conceived play. The land department was concerned about ownership statuses and whether the lines shown on the wallmap could be included in a seismic option agreement for farm-out purposes.

A year later, commensurate with a shift in exploration focus from the Plains to the Foothills and Northwest Territories, CFOL recognized Federal regulatory compliance as being another reason to accurately inventory, catalogue and archive its seismic data. The corporation now had the obligation as an operator north of 60 degrees latitude to maintain a copy of the data in perpetuity.

Realizations

What ultimately ensued was the acknowledgement that the corporation could extract value from its seismic data in numerous ways. Not only did it have value to the corporation as confidential information to find oil and gas, but it had value as an asset through data sales as the revenue received was accredited directly to the seismic expenditure budget. Either way, value was to be extracted and realized. Furthermore, storing old archived workstation interpretations on disc permitted interpreters to respond quickly to land postings, property divestitures, land expiry situations and third party well notices, thereby reducing cycle time to give informed opinions to management. This permitted the company to maximize the knowledge derived from its data as well as the value of the data itself.

What began as a desire to have a wallmap of the corporation’s seismic data coverage evolved over two years to a whole new definition of seismic data management, one in which the responsibility and accountability for the corporation’s seismic data was recognized as it took control of its data. Value was always emphasized in this process. By putting in place the hardware and software tools to maximize the efficiency and internal use of the seismic data, from initial data capture through to workstation interpretation archival, and by cleaning up its seismic survey and inventory databases, the corporation is poised, by whatever means, to maximize the value of this asset. Perhaps most importantly, the corporation is now poised to comply with any industry standard practice rules and guidelines regarding seismic data ownership as a result of this effort and due diligence.

Methodology

A logical, incremental, step-by-step procedure was adopted as issues were recognized. The seismic database clean-up was handled in parallel with internal hardware and software upgrades. At the time, issues were tackled on a priority basis with the intent to logically sequence a solution with minimal capital expenditure. The data clean-up process can be classified in hindsight as a three-phase process. The hardware / software upgrades that facilitated the efficient internal use of the seismic data can also be classified the same way as a three-step process.

Phase 1

The Great Seismic Round-Up first started rather innocently enough with an Oracle database upgrade for the seismic inventory software and a hardware upgrade for the PC used to run the program. This was necessary to prevent frequent crashes of the software when multi-tasking occurred. As it was realized that the creation of the wallmap really was the correction and cleanup of a seismic survey database, the collection of survey data ensued in tandem with the clean-up of the seismic inventory database. SEGP1 survey information in the form of 3 1/2 inch and 5 1/4 inch floppies was collected to determine if it was already resident in the seismic survey database at the Excalibur- Gemini Group Limited. Numerous shotpoint mylar maps were also collected and cross-checked to see if these seismic lines were recorded in the seismic survey database.

As day-to-day operations continued, it was realized that searching for a seismic line quite often involved multiple paper listings of lines from different physical storage houses. The information resident within the seismic inventory software database was not complete. As over ninety percent of the corporation’s seismic data was stored at Kestrel Data [ Canada ] Limited, physical storage accounts were consolidated at Kestrel so that multiple paper listings of lines would no longer be required. Items that were stored manually at Kestrel were re-inventoried and stored digitally, the results of which were loaded into Kestrel’s centralized database. This information was then loaded into the corporation’s seismic inventory database.

On the hardware and software side of this initiative, it was also noted at this time that there were no back-ups of current workstation interpretations except the occasional 8mm project back-up tape. Two DLT tape drives were purchased to provide full nightly back-ups for disaster recovery purposes. Problems with the functionality of interpretive software immediately prompted the upgrade of all geophysical software and mapping software to the most current maintained versions, with preferences given to network-distributed licenses for easy user access. Pentium 165 PCs were installed for all members of the department to enhance speed. More RAM was purchased for the HP 650 plotter to permit faster plot rasterization and decrease time waiting for plots.

Phase 2

The seismic data stampede ensued with the digital seismic survey database being enhanced by Excalibur-Gemini with the addition and correction of various Oracle database fields. This additional metadata information was necessary to capture for use of the seismic data in a business context. Geophysicists and land department personnel required ownership knowledge to recognize what permissions could be granted to the corporation’s seismic data. As the corporation evolved under its new ownership, two additional storage accounts of Canadian data were inherited from the parent company and these data were transferred, fully inventoried, and integrated into the seismic inventory system at Kestrel. This information was uploaded into the company’s seismic inventory software. The survey information was loaded into the seismic survey database at Excalibur-Gemini. During the summer of 1998 three small corporate acquisitions occurred in as many months. The physical storage accounts of Saxon Petroleum, Anschutz Canada and the Northwest Territories data from Unocal Canada were also transferred to Kestrel where they were inventoried and uploaded into the corporation’s seismic inventory database. Effort was made to collect as much metadata information as possible. The survey information was loaded into the company’s seismic survey database commensurately.

With the seismic survey database as complete as possible and the seismic inventory database populated with as much information as possible, the stage was set for the great “shakedown” or ratification of the two databases. The seismic survey database was ratified to the seismic inventory database as the latter was believed to be more correct, having directly benefited over the years from AFE knowledge and personnel expertise. Alias line names and duplicate names were eliminated from the resultant centralized database. Orphan lines, lines with survey but no data or lines with no survey information at all, were researched against AFE information and Land Department documentation to check for validation of ownership. Corrections were made to both databases to eliminate as many orphan lines as possible. The result was a seismic inventory database that mirrored the seismic survey database. The resultant product was believed to be 96% correct and accurate to the corporation’s historical activities and past events.

Commensurate with this activity, numerous geophysical hardware upgrades were initiated to streamline communications and increase the speed of data transfer for interpretive purposes. A 100 megabyte network line with the appropriate switches was installed to enhance data transfer speed between the two cross-mounted Sun Sparc workstations. The workstations were “turbo charged” with RAM, 100 megabyte network cards, and additional disc space storage capacity. The workstations further received new IP addresses, security firewalls, High Density 8 mm tape drives, and additional RAM for their plotter. An inherited Sun Sparc 10 from one of the acquisitions was configured as an X-terminal to one of the Sparc 20s. All of this brought stability, enhanced speed, better security, and ease-of-use for the interpreters to perform their daily work at minimal expense.

Phase 3

With the ratification of the seismic inventory database to the seismic survey database, the company was poised to purchase seismic data management software to inventory and track its seismic data. Software from Seisland Survey Ltd. ( Seisland ) was purchased as the central registry for seismic data archival and for the storage of old historic interpretive paper files. The data, previously stored in three separate databases ( CFOL’s, Excalibur’s, and Kestrel’s ) was consolidated into Seisland’s PPDM-compliant data management system to give CFOL full control of its data repository. Third party mapping software such as Labrador and DSL, that accessed seismic shotpoint information, was routed to Seisland’s Oracle database, eliminating static dumps for duplicate databases for these software packages. A Quality Inspection (QI) module was written by Seisland to assist with the management of the data as an asset for promoting sales revenue. The roll-out of the new corporate seismic survey digital database to the broker community was effectively done at an open house meeting during June of 1999.

While inhouse control of the data was crucial, CFOL realized that this created the potential for the multiple databases to quickly get out of synch, effectively deteriorating data integrity. As a result, Seisland ROME was also installed to provide quick connectivity between CFOL and its data storage providers, using EDI transactions to communicate information electronically between databases. In a sense, CFOL is at the center of the wagon wheel, with each spoke a line of communication with a storage or service provider. Each provider can now enter data “directly” into CFOL’s Seisland database, enabling a greater amount of data to be entered, minimizing dual entry, and improving the timeliness of information.

ROME was implemented on a static basis between CFOL and Kestrel to further manage the historical seismic data. ROME was also implemented dynamically between CFOL and Veritas GeoServices Ltd. ( Veritas ), who was selected as the online storage provider, on a go-forward basis, for new data acquired after January 1st, 2000. Warranty work has commenced on core exploratory regions to ensure that all components of the data are archived properly. Kestrel’s services are used for the physical storage of data acquired prior to January 1st, 2000 and for the temporary dead storage of online archived data.

In parallel to these initiatives, a new Unix server with 108 Gigabytes of RAID Disc was purchased along with 3 new Ultra 10s ( 360 Megahertz ) machines. The faster machines minimize the time required to refresh screens and transfer projects from the server. The DLT tape drives were re-mounted onto the Unix server negating the need to back up the system across the network. An additional 108 Gigabyte disc was purchased to store internally, hot online, archived historical workstation interpretations. This facilitated rapid recall of old workstation interpretations to respond to third party well notices, land sales and development drilling location requirements. It also maximized personnel effectiveness by eliminating the need to restore and back-off interpretive projects as part of a disc management exercise.

Discussion

Subsequent to the roll-out of the new seismic survey database to the broker community, the number of requests for data quality inspections has increased. Seismic data sales revenue has increased by 50 percent on a monthly basis since the roll-out. In the first five months of the current fiscal year, the corporation has surpassed last year’s total for data sales revenue. It is important to keep in mind that a shift in exploration focus for the company rendered much of the historical seismic data to be of minimal value as confidential information and thereby available as an asset to generate sales revenue. Thought was given to the possibility of selling the trading rights to the proprietary data, but this was discounted as the database was small and lines were geographically scattered across the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin. This negatively impacted the value of the data to a potential buyer and lead to the corporation acting as its own data manager for data sales.

At this time, the organization realized that a whole new definition of seismic data management had been carved out. The company was managing its data fully from initial data capture to workstation interpretation archival so as to maximize value from the data as confidential information and as an asset. The data itself as well as the knowledge derived from it represents the total value of the data. The saleable asset value is only a part of the total asset value.

Conclusion

What started as a round-up of seismic survey data to produce a master wallmap of the corporate database became a series of steps toward assuming the responsibility and accountability for managing and controlling the corporation’s seismic data in all aspects. Seismic data and the resultant interpretations have value in numerous ways to a company throughout its life as land is purchased and later expires. Seismic data evolves from being confidential information to an asset in this evolutionary process. Maximizing the value of the corporation’s seismic data or the knowledge derived from it through interpretation is the key element to the new definition of seismic data management. Being able to manage the data and the knowledge derived from it efficiently, expediently and exactly enables a company to maximize its value if for no other reason than being able to find it when needed. Importantly also, the corporation is now poised to comply more fully with industry standard practices and regulations regarding seismic data ownership.

The post The Great Seismic Round-Up appeared first on Reflection Peak.

In May of 2010, APEGA published a guideline entitled, “The Ethical Use of Geophysical Data” in an effort to assist professional members in dealing with the use of licensed geophysical data within the oil and gas industry (APEGA, 2010). The document was general in nature, but it did provide a few scenarios as examples in an effort to give context regarding what constituted ethical behaviour. However, of particular interest to APEGA members are what activities can or cannot be done in a dataroom. In turn, how does one go about setting up a dataroom in compliance with the APEGA guideline? The purpose of this article is to focus on the specific subject of datarooms.

Background on data ownership, competition, and applicable law

The original stakeholders who acquire the geophysical data are said to possess the “trading rights” to the data, much akin to an author holding the copyright or ownership to a book. Multiple parties could be involved in the original field operation, often tied together only with an AFE (Authority For Expenditure) document. This document may become the sole record denoting who the original participants in the geophysical data acquisition were. Hence, adequate management of data records is vital to prevent the potential loss of this historical record and to identify what data sets possess what ownership classification. Data of varying data ownership classes possess different privileges. The greatest freedoms are associated with 100% ownership of proprietary data because it involves only one entity. In this scenario, any harm created by offering the geophysical data to another third party is solely related to the entity making the decision. With partnered data, there is another entity to consider. Licensed data, speculative survey data and participation survey data all have license agreements, subject to varying terms, obligations and conditions. Keeping track of data ownership classes and the ensuing agreements that govern them, such as Joint Venture (JV) agreements, and AMI (Area of Mutual Interest) agreements, is a vital precursor to identifying what geophysical data could be used to stage a dataroom.

Within industry, seismic data is an asset which can be bought and sold. The data can be sold by one of two methods. Most commonly, a license to the data can be granted by the original acquirers of the data by means of a license agreement. The license may disclose terms or conditions with respect to the ongoing protection of the confidential nature of the data and its use by the licensee. Hence, once again, suitable records management practices are required to keep track of this important documentation. It is industry standard practice for any geophysical data to be released for potential sale that unanimous stakeholder approval be granted. Any one party possessing the trading rights, regardless of their working interest, can prevent the data from being released for sale. This is related to the fact that geophysical data is often thought to be confidential information that offers a competitive advantage regarding the potential acreage involved to the party that possesses the data. When dealing with seismic data one needs to understand the common law (including how it applies to contracts), applicable legislated law such as copyright law, and the laws governing confidential information (Hunt et al, 2012). These aspects of law are in place to protect the competitive interests of all parties involved, including the data owners. Some third party seismic data licensing agreements can be quite liberal regarding the use of the data by the licensee while other agreements can be quite restrictive. These difference in licenses, and the uses they allow, often become relevant when dealing with a geophysical dataroom scenario. Knowing what privileges a license permits is essential for setting up a dataroom as license agreements are not standardized across industry between vendors and have often changed over the years by the same vendor.

The second method to convey ownership of the data is to sell the trading rights possessed by the original acquirer(s) of the data. Working interest entitlements cannot be subdivided in order to accomplish this. For instance, if two parties owned a dataset equally with a fifty (50%) working interest, one party could not “cut-in” an additional third party by reducing their interest to 25% and granting 25% ownership to the third party without the consent of the other 50% partial owner because this creates a third entity who would be entitled to the data. Due to the confidential nature of geophysical data, the first partner possesses the right and ability to have a say in the creation of a third license. Within industry, trading rights can be sold without the consent by a partner in the dataset, but this can only be accomplished by “stripping” the previous partnered owner of all instances of the data so as to ensure that a new license is not created. “Stripping” an entity of all instances of the data does not stop at just simply removing it from a storage house, but removing it from the interpretive workstations, map racks and all other instances of occurrence. For datasets that have permeated an organization for years, this becomes an almost impossible task hence these deals occur much less frequently due to the nature of this obligation. They are often restricted to 100% proprietary data transactions only.

Setting Up a Dataroom
One of the first aspects to consider is to determine what classes of data would be involved in a dataroom.. If 100% proprietary data is involved, the host company may choose to permit a review of the data along with their accompanying interpretation or they may wish to permit the act of interpretation. Interpretation is the “process of deriving a geological model or concept from geophysical data”. It includes the creation of derived products by measurements made on processed data and the maps and other displays made from the data. It also includes conclusions or inferences made by the interpreter, such as geologic edges or fluid contacts (APEGA, 2010). A review of an existing interpretation is a general assessment of the information as presented, without active manipulation of geophysical data.

If third party licensed data is placed in a dataroom, the act most likely to be permitted is that of a review rather than an interpretation. This is also true for partnered data, but sometimes the partner will permit the act of interpretation if so asked. Regardless of whether the act of interpretation or a review is permitted, maintaining Direct Control of a dataroom environment is paramount. Direct Control is the ability to prevent copying or other unauthorized use of a licensor’s data (APEGA, 2010). Direct Control can be exercised in numerous ways, sometimes employing multiple methods simultaneously. Read only workstation access can be granted that restricts the visiting party from conducting an interpretation, even if they tried. The USB ports can be disconnected, thereby preventing any copying or loss of the data and the ensuing interpretation. A “babysitter” who monitors the visiting party activities or who actively drives the workstation for the attendee is another way to maintain Direct Control. It is the obligation of the hosting party of a dataroom to make sure that third party licensors or partners are not harmed in any way. This obligation does not extend just to the professionals licensed by APEGA, but the companies that possess a permit to practice from APEGA. When acting on behalf of a company disclosing geophysical data, a professional member is obligated to advise any visitors about their requirement to comply with applicable licenses.

Based upon ownership classifications and any license agreements, one of the first decisions to make is whether the dataroom will have an interpretive approach or a review only approach. License agreements need to be checked to make sure that the data being placed in the dataroom environment is permitted to be there. One should also check to see if there are any Area of Mutual Interest (AMI) documents, Joint Venture (JV) documents or other partner agreements that prevent the data from being viewed by other third parties. Many properties being sold in a divestiture process have not been worked on for years. It is prudent to access the most recent workstation project(s) and clean up the interpretations to tell a uniform story. Nothing is more frustrating for the dataroom attendee than to try to sift through years of history on a project to discern what horizons have been uniformly interpreted over the project area. An interpretive “clean-up” is often a good investment of time and money. After all, don’t you wash and wax your car before you try to sell it? Companies with limited resources may find this an onerous task. Options exist for companies experienced in dataroom set up, to “clean-up” existing interpretations prior to staging a dataroom.

Attending a Dataroom
Visitors to a dataroom are obligated to inquire about the ownership status of the data in order to guide their own conduct. “When geophysical data, information and knowledge derived from the data is being disclosed, all professional members must be aware of their professional responsibilities. Professionals must be aware of and honor any restrictions associated with the disclosure of the data” (APEGA 2010). Before knowingly interpreting any third party trade data, the visitor must have the data owner’s consent or have acted with diligence in determining that such activity is specifically provided for in the license agreement.

What Is Appropriate Conduct
In a dataroom environment, none of the data may be removed or copied. Sketches, notes and diagrams may be made but nothing can constitute a tracing of an image on the screen. The hand drawn diagrams cannot make reference to any measurable numbers derived from the data itself. The taking of a camera image via a cell phone camera or any recording device is strictly forbidden. Some datarooms may even request that cell phones or any electronic device that contains a camera be surrendered in advance of entering a dataroom. If the dataroom is set up as a review only option, the attending party and professional are obligated to conduct themselves accordingly.

Summary
Companies are allowed to make use of their geophysical data to facilitate their business. They are not allowed to harm a third party in the process. The creation of a geophysical dataroom can be a worthwhile exercise to showcase the upside potential of the assets being sold or divested. Care must be taken that the dataroom be set up in compliance to the APEGA guidelines and any third party license agreements of partner agreements. The type or style of dataroom must be considered along with what action (interpretation or a review) will be allowed in a dataroom setting. Taking a bit of time and effort to clean-up the project can add considerable value to the sale or divestiture process.

Acknowledgements
I wish to recognize and thank Doug Pruden P. Geoph. (APEGA) and Lee Hunt P. Geoph. (APEGA) for their contributions associated with editing this article.

Author Biography
Doug Uffen P.Geoph (APEGA), P. Geo (APEGBC) is the President and Managing Partner of a consultancy called, Geo-Reservoir Solutions Ltd. He is a seismic interpreter with over 30 years of experience. Doug has extensive experience and knowledge with respect to seismic licensing issues and dataroom conduct. Doug teaches a course to industry which focuses upon the rules associated with various classifications of seismic data ownership in different business situations. He was also a member of the APEGA committee that created the guideline document regarding the ethical use of geophysical data. He is a Past President of the Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists (CSEG) and is a member of APEGGA, APEGBC, CSEG, SEG, EAGE and the Calgary Petroleum Club.

References
Guideline for Ethical Use of Geophysical Data, V1.0, May 2010, APEGGA. http://www.apegga.org/pdf/Guidelines/EthicalUseOfGeophysicalData.pdf

Hunt, L., B. Palmiere, H. den Boer, J. Boyd, M. Sykes, D. Uffen, C. Welsh, 2012, A Practical perspective on APEGGA’s Guideline for Ethical Use of Geophysical Data: CSEG Convention Abstracts, 1-4.

The post Clarifying Dataroom Confusion appeared first on Reflection Peak.

Swan Hills

Aspenleaf’s Swan Hills asset produces hydrocarbons from the Swan Hills platform. Prior familiarity with the asset focused on mapping the platform margin edge and providing insight as to what to try next with the seismic data interpretation. Before any Aspenleaf drilling, the top platform seismic horizon pick was converted to depth and revealed a monocline in the middle of the producing field that was previously unrecognized. With this structure unaccounted for, earlier well paths drilled across stratigraphy with the resultant reservoir variability along the wellbore being attributed to lateral, rather than vertical facies changes. Once detailed structural elements were incorporated into drilling plans, it became clear the lateral facies variability was markedly less than the original interpretations. This was a critical input into Aspenleaf’s waterflood development planning. Subsequent dynamic data provided further confidence to the lateral extent of the reservoir facies and has resulted in ongoing expansion of the waterflood area.

Efforts then shifted back to defining the platform edge, incorporating a novel geologic interpretation of a low angle wedge rather than a traditional reef margin. Forward modeling efforts identified seismic tuning resolution issues. Despite these concerns, attempts to define the reef edge were conducted using isochronal methods. Further refinement suggested that not only the platform edge might be predictable but ancillary edges for the Middle platform, Upper platform and Upper+ platform edges might be possible. Isochronal cut-off rules were developed but were found to be too inconsistent across the area to be trustworthy. In the end, an isopach from the Watt Mountain depth map to the Top Swan Hills platform depth map, accounting for the 7m of the Slave Point and Fort Vermillion section, was integrated into the geologically defined isopach’s of the main Swan Hills Platform cycles to determine the thickness and extent of each of these units. Using this resultant platform isopach map, twelve (12) wells have been drilled along the edge, adding 2714 bbls/d IP 90 production and 6 million bbls of Total Proved and Probable reserves as of the end of 2023.

Leduc-Woodbend

Aspenleaf acquired the Leduc-Woodbend asset in 2018. As the Nisku Formation is the primary target, a depth map was created at the top of this interval and has been updated with ensuing drilling operations to aid in well placement. In doing this, deep seated faulting related to the Snowbird Tectonic Zone was recognised, mapped and incorporated with the geologic and reservoir engineering data to derive an integrated interpretation of the field which includes better understanding of tectonism, sedimentation and diagenesis. This helped define barriers and baffles which compartmentalize the field, explain the position and shape of the underlying Leduc Reef, the edge of the Cooking Lake Formation and identify the Leduc Formation spill point to Acheson. Nisku amplitude mapping, although not definitive, insinuated areas of reduced porosity. Since acquisition, Aspenleaf has grown production from ~10,600boe/d to roughly ~15,000boe/d as of year end 2023 and has added ~25 million BOE of Total Proved and Probable reserves.

Twining

Aspenleaf acquired the Twining asset in 2020. This is an unusual accumulation given that it is comprised of over-pressured sweet oil, up-dip of under-pressured very sour gas all trapped within the dolomites of the Crossfield Member of the Wabamun Group. Well placement was going to be critical to success as wellbore stability was a known issue. From the onset, interpreting the Crossfield horizon proved to be a difficult task as the acoustic impedance contrast between it and the Upper Stettler was so slight. VSP transfer functions were investigated to enhance frequency content. Ultimately the data was reprocessed and near offset stacks were used to interpret the zone of interest. Although improved from the initial processed dataset, the resultant time horizon was too “jittery” given the thin target zone and the importance of wellbore placement, so the Wabamun horizon was converted to depth with a geological isopach map added to it. The resultant depth map was still too “jittery” so the more stable Upper Zero Crossing time horizon of the Wabamun was used to convert to geological Crossfield depth values subsea. While breaking the technical rules associated with depth conversion, the map proved effective in placing numerous horizontal wells. Later, the addition of wells with Viking penetrations, extrapolated to the Crossfield based upon regional isopach values, permitted the integration of shallower well control to add further depth control points. Interpretation of the deeper section has identified strike and oblique-slip faults within the project area. Current geologic interpretation is that these deep-seated faults, episodically active through the Wabamun time, acted as conduits for the hot fluids that altered the diagenesis of the reservoir in some locales. Aspenleaf has increased production from ~1,000boe/d to over ~6,000boe/d as of year end 2023 and has added 17.2 million BOE of Total Proved and Probable reserves.

Conclusion

Geophysics has been an integral part of Aspenleaf’s success throughout its history. Seismic data and innovative interpretive techniques have directly and indirectly added significant value to Aspenleaf’s success story by improving the subsurface model, thus enhancing predictability.

The post Adding Value with Seismic, The Aspenleaf Energy Story appeared first on Reflection Peak.