Powered by Deep Web Technologies
Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hradec zenith-newton versippi" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


Integrated study of Mississippian Lodgepole Waulsortian Mounds, Williston Basin, USA  

SciTech Connect

Waulsortian-type carbonate buildups in the Mississippian Lodgepole Formation, Williston Basin, constitute prolific oil reservoirs. Since the initial discovery in 1993, five fields have been discovered: Dickinson Field (Lodgepole pool); Eland Field; Duck Creek Field, Versippi Field; and Hiline Field. Cumulative production (October, 1995) is 2.32 million barrels of oil and 1.34 BCF gas, with only 69,000 barrels of water. Oil gravity ranges from 41.4 to 45.3 API. Both subsurface cores from these fields as well as outcrop (Bridget Range, Big Snowy and Little Belt Mountains, Montana) are composed of facies representing deposition in mound, reworked mound, distal reworked mound, proximal flank, distal flank, and intermound settings. Porosity values within the mound and reworked mound facies are up to 15%; permeability values (in places fracture-enhanced) are up to tens of Darcies. Geometries of the mounds are variable. Mound thicknesses in the subsurface range from approximately 130-325 feet (40-100 meters); in outcrop thicknesses range from less than 30 ft (9 m) to over 250 ft (76 m). Subsurface areal dimensions range from approximately 0.5 x 1.0 mi (0.8 x 1.6 km) to 3.5 x 5.5 mi (5.6 x 8.8 km). Integration of seismic data with core and well-log models sheds light on the exploration for Lodgepole mounds. Seismic modeling of productive mounds in the Dickinson and Eland fields identifies characteristics useful for exploration, such as local thickening of the Lodgepole to Three Forks interval. These observations are confirmed in reprocessed seismic data across Eland field and on regional seismic data. Importantly, amplitude versus offset modeling identifies problems with directly detecting and identifying porosity within these features with amplitude analyses. In contrast, multicomponent seismic data has great potential for imaging these features and quantifying porous zones within them.

Kupecz, J.A.; Arestad, J.F.; Blott, J. E. [Kupecz and Associates, Ltd., Denver, CO (United States)