October 31, 1975 - Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 25--RESERVES FROM FIELDS ADAPTIVE TO DECLINE CURVE ANALYSIS OF FIELD PRODUCTION HISTORIES - 1973 Hyperbolic Reserves Exponential Reserves State (MMBbls) (MMBbl s) . Alabama 3.3 3.0 Alaska 266.5 262.2 Arizona 4.0 1.9 Arkansas 60.7 55.9 Cal Hornia 1,692.4 1,553.0 Colorado 28.7 22.0 Florida 5.0 5.0 III inois 185.6 150.2 Indiana 21.4 20.0 Kansas* 226.4 208.0 Kentucky 13.4 11.9 Louisiana 1,568.8 1,492.5 Michigan 55.4 50.6 Mississippi 143.8 131.4 Montana 124.6 110.7 Nebraska 18.8 16.4 New Mexico 283.9 271.5 North Dakota 85.5 75.0 Oklahoma* 498.7 476.6 Tennessee ** ** Texas* *** 1,534.2 Utah 98.1 94.9 Wyoming 652.7 628.5 * Based on 1974 production. ** Less than 0.05. *** Texas production affected by Statewide allowable regulations, thus there were insufficient significant points available to project a hyperbolic decline. 63 ./
expanded the details of their joint 1966 report. Federal observers have attended all annual API/AGA meetings since 1966. Neither the ranQe nor the detail of reserve estimates included in the API and AGA reports is available from any other source. These consistent historical records were essential to recent U.S. energy studies such as Project Independence Blueprint and the National Petroleum Council's Energy Outlook. For more information about the API and AGA procedures, refer to their joint publication entitled "Reserves of Crude Oil, Natural Gas Liquids and Natural Gas in the United States and Canada and United States Productive Capacity as of December 31,1974," Volume 29, May 1975. Critigue of State Agencies The initial report contained a review and evaluation of the capabilities to perform reserve and productive capacity estimates. Since no new information has been received from the States since the initial report, the complete discussion will not be repeated for this report, but major points will be highlighted. In order to determine the States' capabilities to develop reserve and productive capacity estimates, all member and associate member States of the Interstate Oil Compact Commission and other States with histories of oil and gas production were surveyed. The survey had two major objectives. The first objective was to determine the States' capabilities to perform the above tasks within their present Governmental structures. The second objective was to obtain any information that would be of aid in a National reserve study. The cooperation and effort of the States in response to the survey was excellent. The States not only submitted valuable information about reserves, production, and other data but also provided an insight into their present capabilities to perform reserve evaluations. Most States surveyed did not have agencies which prepared reserve or productive capacity estimates. For those estimates provided by the States which did prepare estimates, the methodologies and definitions varied and prevented consistent aggregation and valid comparisons. To develop complete estimates prepared by the States, three major obstacles would have to be overcome. First, a common set of criteria or definitions would need to be provided to the States and applied consistently by the States. Second, considerable time would be needed to expand staffing, data, and analytical capabilities to permit valid calculations to be made. And, third, the State agencies responsible for making the necessary calculations would need large increases in funding. 64
Page 1:
The original documents are located
Page 4:
Final Report on Oil and Gas Resourc
Page 15:
4. The relationship between proved
Page 20:
Table 3--ESTmATE OF tll\TURAL GAS R
Page 27: State Alabama Alaska Arkansas Calif
Page 31: Question: Were natural gas properti
Page 36: Two of these fields are quite compl
Page 49: eserve est"imates. Such a detailed
Page 52: Table 22--COMPARISON OF PROVED CRUD
Page 60 and 61: Chapter 5 CRITIQUE OF METHODOLOGIES
Page 63: incorporated in computerized auditi
Page 69: elating residuals versus shift fact
Page 75: Recommendation. Further efforts to
Page 78 and 79: .. Projected Producing Capacity Und
Page 86: • usually not been called upon to
Page 95: The Bastian Bay gas field is locate
Page 103: The Brown-Bassett gas field is loca
Page 132:
an area of relatively heavy oil wit
Page 144:
.. • The FEA report on the Eugene
Page 159:
The Gomez gas field is located in P
Page 170:
is debatable. The gas injection act
Page 179 and 180:
The Huntington Beach oil field is l
Page 186:
• estimate of reserves by decline
Page 215 and 216:
The San Ardo oil field is located i
Page 219:
The Basin Dakota gas field is locat
Page 233:
The South Pass Block 65 oil field i
Page 236:
A normal calculation of oil origina
Page 241:
The Timba1ier Bay oil field is loca
Page 251:
The West Cote Blanche Bay oil and g
Page 255:
The West Ranch field is located "in
Page 262:
future reservoir production operati
show all

October 31, 1975 - Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?