01.12.2014 Views

Directive 065: Resources Applications for Oil and Gas Reservoirs ...

Directive 065: Resources Applications for Oil and Gas Reservoirs ...

Directive 065: Resources Applications for Oil and Gas Reservoirs ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Requirements<br />

Comments<br />

7) Where drainage is alleged, a discussion<br />

including<br />

a) evidence showing that the reserves<br />

underlying your l<strong>and</strong>s have been drained<br />

subsequent to the completion of your<br />

well in the pool, <strong>and</strong><br />

b) an estimate of the total amount of<br />

inequitable drainage that has occurred<br />

from your l<strong>and</strong>s since your well was<br />

completed in the pool, together with<br />

details of how the drainage was<br />

calculated.<br />

In cases where a well has remained shut in,<br />

drainage may be confirmed by summarizing<br />

at least two pressure tests taken on the well.<br />

If you are arguing that your currently<br />

producing well is not producing at sufficient<br />

rates to recover an equitable share of<br />

production, a<br />

comparison may be made between the actual<br />

produced volume from the well <strong>and</strong> the<br />

volume the well should have produced to<br />

obtain an equitable share of production. You<br />

should present a detailed calculation showing<br />

how you determined your equitable share of<br />

production.<br />

8) A discussion of your proposal as to how the<br />

ERCB should restrict or distribute<br />

production from the pool that includes<br />

a) a tabulation of the proportion of<br />

production or rate of production that<br />

each well or group of wells should be<br />

allowed to produce, together with the<br />

details of how the proposed<br />

production scheme was obtained, <strong>and</strong><br />

b) if considered appropriate, the total<br />

production rate proposed <strong>for</strong> the pool,<br />

together with the details of how this<br />

rate was determined <strong>and</strong> why such a<br />

rate should be set, <strong>and</strong><br />

c) if specific rates are proposed under item<br />

8(a),<br />

i) an indication of why rates, rather<br />

than a percentage allocation, are<br />

being proposed,<br />

ii) whether the proposed rates are<br />

economic <strong>for</strong> each well or group of<br />

wells, <strong>and</strong><br />

iii) whether each well or group of wells<br />

would be capable of producing at<br />

the proposed rate.<br />

The ERCB usually distributes production<br />

among wells in a pool on a percentage basis,<br />

rather than setting any specific rate or<br />

volume. The proportion of production<br />

allocated to each well is commonly based on<br />

the following <strong>for</strong>mula:<br />

Percentage of pool production <strong>for</strong> specific<br />

well = 100 x (wellbore net pay x porosity x<br />

gas saturation x area of spacing unit or<br />

validated area <strong>for</strong> specific well)/(sum of<br />

wellbore net pay x porosity x gas saturation x<br />

area of spacing units or validated areas <strong>for</strong><br />

all wells)<br />

<strong>Directive</strong> 032 <strong>and</strong> Decision 91-8 discuss the<br />

ERCB’s commonly used allocation <strong>for</strong>mula<br />

<strong>and</strong> the validated area concept.<br />

The ERCB has not commonly used mapping<br />

as a means to determine hydrocarbon pore<br />

volume in a spacing unit because in many<br />

cases such mapping is highly interpretative.<br />

The ERCB has not normally factored the<br />

deliverability of a well into an allocation<br />

<strong>for</strong>mula to avoid disputes on what constitutes<br />

appropriate well testing. You may propose an<br />

allocation <strong>for</strong>mula other than the commonly<br />

used one; however, you should include<br />

detailed justification as to why the ERCB<br />

should deviate from its usual practice in<br />

determining an allocation <strong>for</strong>mula.<br />

1-4 • ERCB <strong>Directive</strong> <strong>065</strong>: <strong>Resources</strong> <strong>Applications</strong> / Rateable Take (October 2011)

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!