Energy, United States
Energy, United States

Time filter

Source Type

News Article | April 25, 2017
Site: www.forbes.com

Fort Worth natural gas producer Range Resources Corp. surprised Wall Street with its first quarter results last night, with Ebitdax (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, depletion, amortization and exploration expenses) coming in 4% higher than analysts expected due to lower costs. By comparison, the company lost money in the same quarter of last year. While its natural gas production was in line with estimates, Range expects its second quarter production to be flat partially due to downtime at one of its processing facilities, which is being upgraded. However, it's keeping its outlook for this year the same with its $1.5 billion capital budget expected to boost its production by around 34%. Analysts at Seaport Global Securities Inc. think the stock is a buy, noting the company's production growth along with its capital efficiency, inventory of properties and upside associated with its Terryville natural gas complex in northern Louisiana (picked up as part of its $4.2 billion acquisition of Memorial Resource Development Corp. this past fall). Seaport has a stock price target of $41, a 50% bump-up from its recent $27.23. Range -- led by CEO Jeff Ventura -- has been beaten up in the market, with its stock down 16% so far this year and 30% over the last 12 months. The reason? Its focus on natural gas, which hasn't exactly been a hot commodity lately. It's been trading at around $3 per thousand cubic feet equivalent, versus around $5 three years ago and almost $14 in 2008. But with smart investors such as billionaire Jeffery Hildebrand of Hilcorp Energy picking up $3 billion worth of natural gas properties from ConocoPhillips recently, could the commodity be coming back into favor? As Ventura himself noted at the CERAWeek conference in March, increasing demand for the fuel could lead to shortages in the future, which would result in higher prices -- maybe in 10 years. "In my opinion, the futures price of natural gas is not capturing this," he said. Range also has been named as a potential takeover or merger candidate, most notably with the larger EQT Corp. but also with like-sized competitor Antero Resources Corp. Combining with either of these two companies could help it lower costs further. Analysts at Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. aren't as bullish on Range with a hold rating on the stock, noting the company's underwhelming production guidance for the second quarter. Raymond James, however, has an outperform rating on the stock, noting that its cash flow per share beat analyst expectations by 10%.


LONDON, UK / ACCESSWIRE / April 17, 2017 / Active Wall St. blog coverage looks at the headline from Houston, Texas based ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) as the Company reported on April 13, 2017, that it has sold off its assets at the San Juan Basin to an affiliate of Hilcorp Energy Company for approximately $3 billion. The deal is expected to close in Q3 2017 and is subject to closing conditions and getting necessary regulatory approvals. Register with us now for your free membership and blog access at: http://www.activewallst.com/register/. One of ConocoPhillips' competitors within the Independent Oil & Gas space, Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (NYSE: EPD), is expected to report fiscal quarter ending March 2017 earnings results on May 02, 2017 before market open. AWS will be initiating a research report on Enterprise Products Partners following the release of its next earnings results. Today, AWS is promoting its blog coverage on COP; touching on EPD. Get all of our free blog coverage and more by clicking on the link below: http://www.activewallst.com/register/. Commenting on the assets sale, Ryan Lance, Chairman and CEO of ConocoPhillips said: "This transaction significantly accelerates value from our San Juan Basin assets. Including our recently announced Canadian asset sales, we have line of sight to more than $16 billion of total considerations in 2017. These transactions will materially reduce our exposure to North American gas and achieve an immediate step change improvement in our balance sheet and cash margins, while accelerating our return of cash to shareholders." "We are excited to move into the San Juan Basin and proud to work with ConocoPhillips on a deal that will enhance Hilcorp's presence in the southwestern United States." ConocoPhillips' San Juan Basin Assets is being acquired by an affiliate of Hilcorp Energy Company - Hilcorp San Juan, L.P., a partnership between Hilcorp Energy Company and global private equity firm The Carlyle Group. Hilcorp San Juan, L.P. will pay $3 billion for ConocoPhillips's assets, which includes $2.7 billion in cash and balance $300 million as contingent payment. The cash portion of the deal is subject to closing adjustments. The contingent payment is effective from January 01, 2018, and has a tenure of six years. The net book value of ConocoPhillips's assets at this location was approximately $5.9 billion. The Company plans to record the loss of assets in Q2 2017. Once the deal is completed ConocoPhillips will not have any operations at San Juan Basin but will continue to have operations in South-eastern New Mexico. The San Juan Basin is located in North-western New Mexico and South-western Colorado and ConocoPhillips is the largest operator in the area. The production yield from this basin mainly consists of coal-bed methane and approximately 35% natural gas liquids. The production yield from this location for the entire year in 2016 was 124 thousand barrels of oil equivalent per day (MBOED), out of which approximately 80% was natural gas. The production estimated for full year of 2017 from this location is approximately 115 MBOED, consisting of approximately 80% natural gas and 20% natural gas liquids. The proved reserves of the site for year-end 2016 was 0.6 billion barrels of oil equivalent. This is the second assets sale done by ConocoPhillips in last few weeks. On March 29, 2017, ConocoPhillips sold off its 50% non-operated interest in the Foster Creek Christina Lake (FCCL) oil sands partnership, as well as the majority assets in western Canada Deep Basin to Cenovus. The total value of both these transaction is approximately $13.3 billion. ConocoPhillips plans to use the funds raised from these assets sale to reduce its debt and bring it down to $20 billion in 2017. Simultaneously, ConocoPhillips plans to double its share buyback program to $6 billion. ConocoPhillips has also disclosed that the impact of these two assets sale on cash flows would be reflected in the Q1 2017 earnings report which is expected to be released on May 02, 2017. These assets sale will enable ConocoPhillips to deleverage its balance sheet immediately. The Company will be able to focus on increasing shareholder value by way of higher dividend pay-outs and share buybacks. The Company's aim is to deliver annual double-digit returns to its shareholders. On Thursday, April 13, 2017, the stock closed the trading session at $48.62, falling 1.66% from its previous closing price of $49.44. A total volume of 8.80 million shares have exchanged hands, which was higher than the 3-month average volume of 7.75 million shares. ConocoPhillips' stock price advanced 6.06% in the last month, 13.10% in the past six months, and 12.49% in the previous twelve months. The Company's shares have a dividend yield of 2.18%. At Thursday's closing price, the stock's net capitalization stands at $60.15 billion. Active Wall Street (AWS) produces regular sponsored and non-sponsored reports, articles, stock market blogs, and popular investment newsletters covering equities listed on NYSE and NASDAQ and micro-cap stocks. AWS has two distinct and independent departments. One department produces non-sponsored analyst certified content generally in the form of press releases, articles and reports covering equities listed on NYSE and NASDAQ and the other produces sponsored content (in most cases not reviewed by a registered analyst), which typically consists of compensated investment newsletters, articles and reports covering listed stocks and micro-caps. Such sponsored content is outside the scope of procedures detailed below. AWS has not been compensated; directly or indirectly; for producing or publishing this document. The non-sponsored content contained herein has been prepared by a writer (the "Author") and is fact checked and reviewed by a third party research service company (the "Reviewer") represented by a credentialed financial analyst [for further information on analyst credentials, please email info@activewallst.com. Rohit Tuli, a CFA® charterholder (the "Sponsor"), provides necessary guidance in preparing the document templates. The Reviewer has reviewed and revised the content, as necessary, based on publicly available information which is believed to be reliable. Content is researched, written and reviewed on a reasonable-effort basis. The Reviewer has not performed any independent investigations or forensic audits to validate the information herein. The Reviewer has only independently reviewed the information provided by the Author according to the procedures outlined by AWS. AWS is not entitled to veto or interfere in the application of such procedures by the third-party research service company to the articles, documents or reports, as the case may be. Unless otherwise noted, any content outside of this document has no association with the Author or the Reviewer in any way. AWS, the Author, and the Reviewer are not responsible for any error which may be occasioned at the time of printing of this document or any error, mistake or shortcoming. No liability is accepted whatsoever for any direct, indirect or consequential loss arising from the use of this document. AWS, the Author, and the Reviewer expressly disclaim any fiduciary responsibility or liability for any consequences, financial or otherwise arising from any reliance placed on the information in this document. Additionally, AWS, the Author, and the Reviewer do not (1) guarantee the accuracy, timeliness, completeness or correct sequencing of the information, or (2) warrant any results from use of the information. The included information is subject to change without notice. This document is not intended as an offering, recommendation, or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell the securities mentioned or discussed, and is to be used for informational purposes only. Please read all associated disclosures and disclaimers in full before investing. Neither AWS nor any party affiliated with us is a registered investment adviser or broker-dealer with any agency or in any jurisdiction whatsoever. To download our report(s), read our disclosures, or for more information, visit http://www.activewallst.com/disclaimer/. For any questions, inquiries, or comments reach out to us directly. If you're a company we are covering and wish to no longer feature on our coverage list contact us via email and/or phone between 09:30 EDT to 16:00 EDT from Monday to Friday at: CFA® and Chartered Financial Analyst® are registered trademarks owned by CFA Institute. LONDON, UK / ACCESSWIRE / April 17, 2017 / Active Wall St. blog coverage looks at the headline from Houston, Texas based ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) as the Company reported on April 13, 2017, that it has sold off its assets at the San Juan Basin to an affiliate of Hilcorp Energy Company for approximately $3 billion. The deal is expected to close in Q3 2017 and is subject to closing conditions and getting necessary regulatory approvals. Register with us now for your free membership and blog access at: http://www.activewallst.com/register/. One of ConocoPhillips' competitors within the Independent Oil & Gas space, Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (NYSE: EPD), is expected to report fiscal quarter ending March 2017 earnings results on May 02, 2017 before market open. AWS will be initiating a research report on Enterprise Products Partners following the release of its next earnings results. Today, AWS is promoting its blog coverage on COP; touching on EPD. Get all of our free blog coverage and more by clicking on the link below: http://www.activewallst.com/register/. Commenting on the assets sale, Ryan Lance, Chairman and CEO of ConocoPhillips said: "This transaction significantly accelerates value from our San Juan Basin assets. Including our recently announced Canadian asset sales, we have line of sight to more than $16 billion of total considerations in 2017. These transactions will materially reduce our exposure to North American gas and achieve an immediate step change improvement in our balance sheet and cash margins, while accelerating our return of cash to shareholders." "We are excited to move into the San Juan Basin and proud to work with ConocoPhillips on a deal that will enhance Hilcorp's presence in the southwestern United States." ConocoPhillips' San Juan Basin Assets is being acquired by an affiliate of Hilcorp Energy Company - Hilcorp San Juan, L.P., a partnership between Hilcorp Energy Company and global private equity firm The Carlyle Group. Hilcorp San Juan, L.P. will pay $3 billion for ConocoPhillips's assets, which includes $2.7 billion in cash and balance $300 million as contingent payment. The cash portion of the deal is subject to closing adjustments. The contingent payment is effective from January 01, 2018, and has a tenure of six years. The net book value of ConocoPhillips's assets at this location was approximately $5.9 billion. The Company plans to record the loss of assets in Q2 2017. Once the deal is completed ConocoPhillips will not have any operations at San Juan Basin but will continue to have operations in South-eastern New Mexico. The San Juan Basin is located in North-western New Mexico and South-western Colorado and ConocoPhillips is the largest operator in the area. The production yield from this basin mainly consists of coal-bed methane and approximately 35% natural gas liquids. The production yield from this location for the entire year in 2016 was 124 thousand barrels of oil equivalent per day (MBOED), out of which approximately 80% was natural gas. The production estimated for full year of 2017 from this location is approximately 115 MBOED, consisting of approximately 80% natural gas and 20% natural gas liquids. The proved reserves of the site for year-end 2016 was 0.6 billion barrels of oil equivalent. This is the second assets sale done by ConocoPhillips in last few weeks. On March 29, 2017, ConocoPhillips sold off its 50% non-operated interest in the Foster Creek Christina Lake (FCCL) oil sands partnership, as well as the majority assets in western Canada Deep Basin to Cenovus. The total value of both these transaction is approximately $13.3 billion. ConocoPhillips plans to use the funds raised from these assets sale to reduce its debt and bring it down to $20 billion in 2017. Simultaneously, ConocoPhillips plans to double its share buyback program to $6 billion. ConocoPhillips has also disclosed that the impact of these two assets sale on cash flows would be reflected in the Q1 2017 earnings report which is expected to be released on May 02, 2017. These assets sale will enable ConocoPhillips to deleverage its balance sheet immediately. The Company will be able to focus on increasing shareholder value by way of higher dividend pay-outs and share buybacks. The Company's aim is to deliver annual double-digit returns to its shareholders. On Thursday, April 13, 2017, the stock closed the trading session at $48.62, falling 1.66% from its previous closing price of $49.44. A total volume of 8.80 million shares have exchanged hands, which was higher than the 3-month average volume of 7.75 million shares. ConocoPhillips' stock price advanced 6.06% in the last month, 13.10% in the past six months, and 12.49% in the previous twelve months. The Company's shares have a dividend yield of 2.18%. At Thursday's closing price, the stock's net capitalization stands at $60.15 billion. Active Wall Street (AWS) produces regular sponsored and non-sponsored reports, articles, stock market blogs, and popular investment newsletters covering equities listed on NYSE and NASDAQ and micro-cap stocks. AWS has two distinct and independent departments. One department produces non-sponsored analyst certified content generally in the form of press releases, articles and reports covering equities listed on NYSE and NASDAQ and the other produces sponsored content (in most cases not reviewed by a registered analyst), which typically consists of compensated investment newsletters, articles and reports covering listed stocks and micro-caps. Such sponsored content is outside the scope of procedures detailed below. AWS has not been compensated; directly or indirectly; for producing or publishing this document. The non-sponsored content contained herein has been prepared by a writer (the "Author") and is fact checked and reviewed by a third party research service company (the "Reviewer") represented by a credentialed financial analyst [for further information on analyst credentials, please email info@activewallst.com. Rohit Tuli, a CFA® charterholder (the "Sponsor"), provides necessary guidance in preparing the document templates. The Reviewer has reviewed and revised the content, as necessary, based on publicly available information which is believed to be reliable. Content is researched, written and reviewed on a reasonable-effort basis. The Reviewer has not performed any independent investigations or forensic audits to validate the information herein. The Reviewer has only independently reviewed the information provided by the Author according to the procedures outlined by AWS. AWS is not entitled to veto or interfere in the application of such procedures by the third-party research service company to the articles, documents or reports, as the case may be. Unless otherwise noted, any content outside of this document has no association with the Author or the Reviewer in any way. AWS, the Author, and the Reviewer are not responsible for any error which may be occasioned at the time of printing of this document or any error, mistake or shortcoming. No liability is accepted whatsoever for any direct, indirect or consequential loss arising from the use of this document. AWS, the Author, and the Reviewer expressly disclaim any fiduciary responsibility or liability for any consequences, financial or otherwise arising from any reliance placed on the information in this document. Additionally, AWS, the Author, and the Reviewer do not (1) guarantee the accuracy, timeliness, completeness or correct sequencing of the information, or (2) warrant any results from use of the information. The included information is subject to change without notice. This document is not intended as an offering, recommendation, or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell the securities mentioned or discussed, and is to be used for informational purposes only. Please read all associated disclosures and disclaimers in full before investing. Neither AWS nor any party affiliated with us is a registered investment adviser or broker-dealer with any agency or in any jurisdiction whatsoever. To download our report(s), read our disclosures, or for more information, visit http://www.activewallst.com/disclaimer/. For any questions, inquiries, or comments reach out to us directly. If you're a company we are covering and wish to no longer feature on our coverage list contact us via email and/or phone between 09:30 EDT to 16:00 EDT from Monday to Friday at: CFA® and Chartered Financial Analyst® are registered trademarks owned by CFA Institute.


LONDON, UK / ACCESSWIRE / April 17, 2017 / Active Wall St. blog coverage looks at the headline from Houston, Texas based ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) as the Company reported on April 13, 2017, that it has sold off its assets at the San Juan Basin to an affiliate of Hilcorp Energy Company for approximately $3 billion. The deal is expected to close in Q3 2017 and is subject to closing conditions and getting necessary regulatory approvals. Register with us now for your free membership and blog access at: http://www.activewallst.com/register/. One of ConocoPhillips' competitors within the Independent Oil & Gas space, Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (NYSE: EPD), is expected to report fiscal quarter ending March 2017 earnings results on May 02, 2017 before market open. AWS will be initiating a research report on Enterprise Products Partners following the release of its next earnings results. Today, AWS is promoting its blog coverage on COP; touching on EPD. Get all of our free blog coverage and more by clicking on the link below: http://www.activewallst.com/register/. Commenting on the assets sale, Ryan Lance, Chairman and CEO of ConocoPhillips said: "This transaction significantly accelerates value from our San Juan Basin assets. Including our recently announced Canadian asset sales, we have line of sight to more than $16 billion of total considerations in 2017. These transactions will materially reduce our exposure to North American gas and achieve an immediate step change improvement in our balance sheet and cash margins, while accelerating our return of cash to shareholders." "We are excited to move into the San Juan Basin and proud to work with ConocoPhillips on a deal that will enhance Hilcorp's presence in the southwestern United States." ConocoPhillips' San Juan Basin Assets is being acquired by an affiliate of Hilcorp Energy Company - Hilcorp San Juan, L.P., a partnership between Hilcorp Energy Company and global private equity firm The Carlyle Group. Hilcorp San Juan, L.P. will pay $3 billion for ConocoPhillips's assets, which includes $2.7 billion in cash and balance $300 million as contingent payment. The cash portion of the deal is subject to closing adjustments. The contingent payment is effective from January 01, 2018, and has a tenure of six years. The net book value of ConocoPhillips's assets at this location was approximately $5.9 billion. The Company plans to record the loss of assets in Q2 2017. Once the deal is completed ConocoPhillips will not have any operations at San Juan Basin but will continue to have operations in South-eastern New Mexico. The San Juan Basin is located in North-western New Mexico and South-western Colorado and ConocoPhillips is the largest operator in the area. The production yield from this basin mainly consists of coal-bed methane and approximately 35% natural gas liquids. The production yield from this location for the entire year in 2016 was 124 thousand barrels of oil equivalent per day (MBOED), out of which approximately 80% was natural gas. The production estimated for full year of 2017 from this location is approximately 115 MBOED, consisting of approximately 80% natural gas and 20% natural gas liquids. The proved reserves of the site for year-end 2016 was 0.6 billion barrels of oil equivalent. This is the second assets sale done by ConocoPhillips in last few weeks. On March 29, 2017, ConocoPhillips sold off its 50% non-operated interest in the Foster Creek Christina Lake (FCCL) oil sands partnership, as well as the majority assets in western Canada Deep Basin to Cenovus. The total value of both these transaction is approximately $13.3 billion. ConocoPhillips plans to use the funds raised from these assets sale to reduce its debt and bring it down to $20 billion in 2017. Simultaneously, ConocoPhillips plans to double its share buyback program to $6 billion. ConocoPhillips has also disclosed that the impact of these two assets sale on cash flows would be reflected in the Q1 2017 earnings report which is expected to be released on May 02, 2017. These assets sale will enable ConocoPhillips to deleverage its balance sheet immediately. The Company will be able to focus on increasing shareholder value by way of higher dividend pay-outs and share buybacks. The Company's aim is to deliver annual double-digit returns to its shareholders. On Thursday, April 13, 2017, the stock closed the trading session at $48.62, falling 1.66% from its previous closing price of $49.44. A total volume of 8.80 million shares have exchanged hands, which was higher than the 3-month average volume of 7.75 million shares. ConocoPhillips' stock price advanced 6.06% in the last month, 13.10% in the past six months, and 12.49% in the previous twelve months. The Company's shares have a dividend yield of 2.18%. At Thursday's closing price, the stock's net capitalization stands at $60.15 billion. Active Wall Street (AWS) produces regular sponsored and non-sponsored reports, articles, stock market blogs, and popular investment newsletters covering equities listed on NYSE and NASDAQ and micro-cap stocks. AWS has two distinct and independent departments. One department produces non-sponsored analyst certified content generally in the form of press releases, articles and reports covering equities listed on NYSE and NASDAQ and the other produces sponsored content (in most cases not reviewed by a registered analyst), which typically consists of compensated investment newsletters, articles and reports covering listed stocks and micro-caps. Such sponsored content is outside the scope of procedures detailed below. AWS has not been compensated; directly or indirectly; for producing or publishing this document. The non-sponsored content contained herein has been prepared by a writer (the "Author") and is fact checked and reviewed by a third party research service company (the "Reviewer") represented by a credentialed financial analyst [for further information on analyst credentials, please email [email protected]. Rohit Tuli, a CFA® charterholder (the "Sponsor"), provides necessary guidance in preparing the document templates. The Reviewer has reviewed and revised the content, as necessary, based on publicly available information which is believed to be reliable. Content is researched, written and reviewed on a reasonable-effort basis. The Reviewer has not performed any independent investigations or forensic audits to validate the information herein. The Reviewer has only independently reviewed the information provided by the Author according to the procedures outlined by AWS. AWS is not entitled to veto or interfere in the application of such procedures by the third-party research service company to the articles, documents or reports, as the case may be. Unless otherwise noted, any content outside of this document has no association with the Author or the Reviewer in any way. AWS, the Author, and the Reviewer are not responsible for any error which may be occasioned at the time of printing of this document or any error, mistake or shortcoming. No liability is accepted whatsoever for any direct, indirect or consequential loss arising from the use of this document. AWS, the Author, and the Reviewer expressly disclaim any fiduciary responsibility or liability for any consequences, financial or otherwise arising from any reliance placed on the information in this document. Additionally, AWS, the Author, and the Reviewer do not (1) guarantee the accuracy, timeliness, completeness or correct sequencing of the information, or (2) warrant any results from use of the information. The included information is subject to change without notice. This document is not intended as an offering, recommendation, or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell the securities mentioned or discussed, and is to be used for informational purposes only. Please read all associated disclosures and disclaimers in full before investing. Neither AWS nor any party affiliated with us is a registered investment adviser or broker-dealer with any agency or in any jurisdiction whatsoever. To download our report(s), read our disclosures, or for more information, visit http://www.activewallst.com/disclaimer/. For any questions, inquiries, or comments reach out to us directly. If you're a company we are covering and wish to no longer feature on our coverage list contact us via email and/or phone between 09:30 EDT to 16:00 EDT from Monday to Friday at: CFA® and Chartered Financial Analyst® are registered trademarks owned by CFA Institute.


Birkedal K.A.,University of Bergen | Birkedal K.A.,ConocoPhillips | Freeman C.M.,Hilcorp Energy Company | Moridis G.J.,Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory | Graue A.,University of Bergen
Energy and Fuels | Year: 2014

Numerical tools are essential for the prediction and evaluation of conventional hydrocarbon reservoir performance. Gas hydrates represent a vast natural resource with a significant energy potential. The numerical codes/tools describing processes involved during the dissociation (induced by several methods) for gas production from hydrates are powerful, but they need validation by comparison to empirical data to instill confidence in their predictions. In this study, we successfully reproduce experimental data of hydrate dissociation using the TOUGH+HYDRATE (T+H) code. Methane (CH4) hydrate growth and dissociation in partially water- and gas-saturated Bentheim sandstone were spatially resolved using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), which allows the in situ monitoring of saturation and phase transitions. All the CH4 that had been initially converted to gas hydrate was recovered during depressurization. The physical system was reproduced numerically, using both a simplified 2D model and a 3D grid involving complex Voronoi elements. We modeled dissociation using both the equilibrium and the kinetic reaction options in T+H, and we used a range of kinetic parameters for sensitivity analysis and curve fitting. We successfully reproduced the experimental results, which confirmed the empirical data that demonstrated that heat transport was the limiting factor during dissociation. Dissociation was more sensitive to kinetic parameters than anticipated, which indicates that kinetic limitations may be important in short-term core studies and a necessity in such simulations. This is the first time T+H has been used to predict empirical nonmonotonic dissociation behavior, where hydrate dissociation and reformation occurred as parallel events. © 2014 American Chemical Society.


Nobakht M.,EnCana Corporation | Ambrose R.,Hilcorp Energy Company | Clarkson C.R.,University of Calgary | Youngblood J.,Devon Energy | Adams R.,Devon Energy
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology | Year: 2013

Shale gas reservoirs have become a significant source of gas supply in North America because of the advancement of drilling and stimulation techniques enabling commercial development. The most popular method for exploiting shale gas reservoirs today is the use of long horizontal wells completed with multiple-fracturing stages [multifractured horizontal wells (MFHW)]. The stimulation process may result in biwing fractures or a complex hydraulic-fracture network. However, there is no method to differentiate between these two scenarios with production data analysis alone, making accurate forecasting difficult. For simplicity, hydraulic fractures are often considered biwing when analyzing production data. A conceptual model that is often used for analyzing MFHWs is that of a homogeneous completion in which all fractures have the same length. However, fractures of equal length are rarely if ever observed (Ambrose et al. 2011). In this paper, production data from heterogeneous MFHWs (i.e., where all fracture lengths are not the same) is studied for reservoirs with extremely low permeability. First, the simplified forecasting method of Nobakht et al. (2012), developed for homogeneous completions, is extended to heterogeneous completions. For one specific case, the Arps' decline exponent is correlated to the heterogeneity of the completion. It is found that, as expected, Arps' decline exponent (used after the end of linear flow) increases with the heterogeneity of the completion. Finally, it is shown that ignoring the heterogeneity of the completion can have a material effect on the long-term forecast. We have assumed planar hydraulic-fracture geometries for our modelling in this work and discuss the implications of this when more-complex fracture geometries are created. This seems to be more common in shale gas reservoirs. We provide an example of low-complexity, planar fracture geometries created near an MFHW and observed on an image log at an offset well. Copyright © 2013 Society of Petroleum Engineers.


Odunowo T.O.,Texas A&M University | Moridis G.J.,Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory | Blasingame T.A.,Texas A&M University | Olorode O.M.,Texas A&M University | And 2 more authors.
SPE Journal | Year: 2014

Low- to ultralow-permeability formations require "special" treatments/stimulation to make them produce economical quantities of hydrocarbon, and at the moment, multistage hydraulic fracturing (MSHF) is the most commonly used stimulation method for enhancing the exploitation of these reservoirs. Recently, the slot-drill (SD) completion technique was proposed as an alternative treatment method in such formations (Carter 2009). This paper documents the results of a comprehensive numerical-simulation study conducted to evaluate the production performance of the SD technique and compare its performance to that of the standard MSHF approach. We investigated three low-permeability formations of interest-namely, a shale-gas formation, a tight-gas formation, and a tight/shale-oil formation. The simulation domains were discretized with Voronoi-gridding schemes to create representative meshes of the different reservoir and completion systems modeled in this study. The results from this study indicated that the SD method does not, in general, appear to be competitive in terms of reservoir performance and recovery compared with the more traditional MSHF method. Our findings indicate that the larger surface area to flow that results from the application of MSHF is much more significant than the higher conductivity achieved by use of the SD technique. However, there may exist cases, for example, a lack of adequate water volumes for hydraulic fracturing, or very high irreducible water saturation that leads to adverse relative permeability conditions and production performance, in which the low-cost SD method may make production feasible from an otherwise challenging (if not inaccessible) resource. Copyright © 2014 Society of Petroleum Engineers.


Kumar V.K.,Hilcorp Energy Company | Gutierrez D.,Computer Modelling Group Ltd. | Thies B.P.,Continental Resources Inc. | Cantrell C.,Continental Resources Inc.
Proceedings - SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition | Year: 2010

The Buffalo Field enhanced oil recovery project is the oldest, still active, air injection project in the United States. The combination of depth (8,500 ft), high pressure (4,200 psi), light oil (32 °API), high reservoir temperature (215 °F) and low permeability (1 to 20 md) carbonate formation makes this a unique air injection project, covering a large area (33,160 acres). The project's longevity attests to both its technical & economic success. Laboratory studies (combustion tube, miscibility pressure and swelling tests for various CO 2-N 2 mixtures) and feasibility studies including air injectivity testing were completed in mid-1977. The result of the pilot test was promising and the 2,240-acre Buffalo Red River Unit (BRRU) was formed in November 1978. As production response continued to be encouraging, the BRRU was expanded to 7,680 acres in May 1981. Two other EOR units, South Buffalo Red River Unit (20,800 acres) and West Buffalo Red River Unit (4,680 acres) were formed adjacent to BRRU, in 1983 and 1987 respectively. The three units currently have a total of 59 producers and 20 injectors. Oil production in all units has shown significant increase over its historical decline under continued primary. Peak production reached 3,030 BOPD in June 1991. Current production is 1,500 BOPD and injection is 30,500 Mcfd. Cumulative air injection through December 2009 is 262 Bcf and the incremental production due to air injection is about 18.1 Million barrels resulting in cumulative air utility of 14.5 Mcf/incremental barrel. This paper focuses on the technical aspects of the Buffalo EOR project, reviewing laboratory studies, production performance (1978 to 2009) and the impact of short radius horizontal drilling. It also includes estimates of the EOR barrels produced, how air utility and air retention have changed over time, and estimates of the burned volume in each of the units. Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers.


Freeman C.M.,Hilcorp Energy Company | Boyle K.L.,Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory | Reagan M.,Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory | Johnson J.,Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory | And 2 more authors.
Computers and Geosciences | Year: 2014

Few tools exist for creating and visualizing complex three-dimensional simulation meshes, and these have limitations that restrict their application to particular geometries and circumstances. Mesh generation needs to trend toward ever more general applications. To that end, we have developed MeshVoro, a tool that is based on the Voro++ (Chris H. Rycroft, 2009. Chaos 19, 041111) library and is capable of generating complex three-dimensional Voronoi tessellation-based (unstructured) meshes for the solution of problems of flow and transport in subsurface geologic media that are addressed by the TOUGH (Pruess, K., Oldenburg C., Moridis G., 1999. Report LBNL-43134, 582. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA) family of codes. MeshVoro, which includes built-in data visualization routines, is a particularly useful tool because it extends the applicability of the TOUGH family of codes by enabling the scientifically robust and relatively easy discretization of systems with challenging 3D geometries.We describe several applications of MeshVoro. We illustrate the ability of the tool to straightforwardly transform a complex geological grid into a simulation mesh that conforms to the specifications of the TOUGH family of codes. We demonstrate how MeshVoro can describe complex system geometries with a relatively small number of grid blocks, and we construct meshes for geometries that would have been practically intractable with a standard Cartesian grid approach. We also discuss the limitations and appropriate applications of this new technology. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.


Cabarcas C.,Hilcorp Energy Company | Slatt R.,University of Oklahoma
Interpretation | Year: 2014

Based on a sequence stratigraphic framework developed using gamma ray stacking patterns, we have identified brittle-ductile couplets, which allow us to better interpret the microseismic response recorded during a single-stage hydraulic fracture stimulation treatment monitored from three strategically located observation wells. We have analyzed and compared hydraulic fracturing results inferred by individual processing of microseismic data acquired from horizontal and vertical sensor arrays, as well as the results from simultaneously processing the signals recorded by all three sensors. Ultimately, we have decided in favor of the triple array simultaneous solution as the most useful data set to interpret the stimulation treatment due to the location of the microseismic events coupled with the theoretical expectation from our sequence stratigraphic framework. The final data set has not only allowed us to better interpret the hydraulic fracturing results, but also helped us improve recommendations in support of the field development campaign. © 2014 Society of Exploration Geophysicists and American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.


Borehole microseismic monitoring of hydraulic fracturing is among the best tools for reservoir stimulation evaluation. After decades of research and execution, the technique has gained a well-deserved place within the engineering toolbox. Moreover, in recent years, its popularity has increased exponentially, together with the development of unconventional resources. However, while involved with a significant number of borehole microseismic monitoring campaigns, I noticed that it is a common practice to overlook fundamental principles during the location of microseismic events. This may lead to potentially erroneous hydraulic fracturing assessments. Examples of microseismic results qualitatively illustrate this assertion showing poor recording, velocity models, processing constraints, and display. They also underscore the interpreters role in ensuring the most reasonable outcome from a microseismic hydraulic fracture evaluation. In this respect, any conclusion derived from a microseismic experiment should be fully supported by a thorough understanding of the impact that multiple acquisition and processing assumptions have on the interpretation, as is the case for all other geophysical techniques. Ultimately, my intent is to raise awareness of some common pitfalls while also providing recommendations to increase the value of a microseismic monitoring exercise. © 2013 Society of Exploration Geophysicists and American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.

Loading Hilcorp Energy Company collaborators
Loading Hilcorp Energy Company collaborators