DOCSLIB.ORG

WELL LOG and CORE-DERIVED RESERVOIR PROPERTIES of BARNETT SHALE of FORT WORTH BASIN by MELANIE YBARRA Presented to the Faculty

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
WELL LOG and CORE-DERIVED RESERVOIR PROPERTIES of BARNETT SHALE of FORT WORTH BASIN by MELANIE YBARRA Presented to the Faculty WELL LOG AND CORE-DERIVED RESERVOIR PROPERTIES OF BARNETT SHALE OF FORT WORTH BASIN by MELANIE YBARRA Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Arlington in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN GEOLOGY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON December 2014 Copyright © by Melanie Ybarra 2014 All Rights Reserved ii Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Max Hu, for his support of my thesis study and research. His sound judgment, advice, and knowledge has helped guide me through this work. I would also like to thank Daniel Ortuno and Dr. Qilong Fu from BEG for providing me with digital well log data for the study well. Drillinginfo has provided myself and our research team at UTA with access to their site for data gathering. Bill Knights, Gary Paisley, and Jim Davidson with Netherland, Sewell, and Associates have helped guide me for years, pointing me to great research, and answering my numerous questions. Lastly, I would like to thank my family. My husband, Khoji Ybarra, has been my rock through many years of school, work, and family. I am forever grateful. November 30, 2014 iii Abstract WELL LOG AND CORE-DERIVED RESERVOIR PROPERTIES OF BARNETT SHALE OF FORT WORTH BASIN Melanie Ybarra, M.S. The University of Texas at Arlington, 2014 Supervising Professor: Qinhong Hu Wireline tools and log analysis methods were not designed for unconventional reservoirs. As a result, hydrocarbon assessment for shale source rock plays have significant uncertainties. This study focuses on petrophysical interpretation uncertainty from a single historic Barnett Shale well TP Sims #2 of Wise County, TX. The Barnett Shale is one of the major source rock plays in the United States. The large body of research and information from the well-drilled Barnett Shale provides a good opportunity to understand and adjust OGIP modeling approaches from volumetric analysis to well performance data. Several factors unique to shale source rocks such as TOC and pyrite have been incorporated into wireline log interpretation using core-derived correlations. Key petrophysical parameters that are estimated from well logs calibrated to core data include: mineral volumes, porosity, net pay, and water saturation. Volumetric OGIP calculations from a range of well log analysis results that have been calibrated to core for TP Sims #2 are compared with EUR data. The resulting recovery factors are larger than expected which may mean that volumetric OGIP remains deficient for resource assessment of shale plays. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................iii Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iv List of Illustrations ..............................................................................................................vii List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... viii Chapter 1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 1 Resource Assessment Challenges of Unconventional Shale Gas Reservoirs ....................................................................................................................... 1 Study Objective .......................................................................................................... 3 Overview of Thesis Organization ............................................................................... 4 Geologic Setting of Barnett Shale in Fort Worth Basin .................................................. 5 Structural Evolution and Stratigraphy of the Fort Worth Basin ................................... 5 Depositional Environment of Barnett Formation ........................................................ 8 Barnett-Paleozoic Total Petroleum System .................................................................... 9 Newark East Gas Field ............................................................................................... 9 Geologic Characteristics of Shale Gas Systems .......................................................... 10 Kerogen .................................................................................................................... 10 Total Organic Carbon ............................................................................................... 13 Thermal Maturity and Vitrinite Reflectance .............................................................. 14 Laboratory Adsorption .............................................................................................. 17 Natural Fractures and Maximum Stress Direction ................................................... 18 Chapter 2 Methodology ..................................................................................................... 20 Study Question ............................................................................................................. 20 Petrophysical Modeling of Barnett Shale...................................................................... 20 Mineralogy ................................................................................................................ 20 v Porosity ..................................................................................................................... 21 Water Saturation ....................................................................................................... 22 Net Pay ..................................................................................................................... 23 Permeability .............................................................................................................. 23 Sorbed Gas Content ................................................................................................. 24 Volumetrics ................................................................................................................... 24 Area .......................................................................................................................... 24 Gas Expansion Factor .............................................................................................. 24 Well Performance ......................................................................................................... 25 Chapter 3 Results ............................................................................................................. 27 Well log and Core-Derived Properties .......................................................................... 27 Original Gas-in-Place.................................................................................................... 36 Chapter 4 Discussion ........................................................................................................ 38 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 39 Appendix A Core Analysis Data ........................................................................................ 40 References ........................................................................................................................ 43 Biographical Information ................................................................................................... 47 vi List of Illustrations Figure 1-1 General structural features of Fort Worth Basin (Montgomery et al., 2005) ..... 6 Figure 1-2 Late Mississippian (325 Ma) paleogeography (Loucks and Ruppel, 2007) ...... 7 Figure 1-3 Ordovician to Pennsylvanian stratigraphy across Fort Worth Basin showing TP Sims #2 penetration ............................................................................................................ 8 Figure 1-4 Gas petroleum systems ................................................................................... 10 Figure 1-5 Van Krevelen diagram with corresponding kerogen types and approximate vitrinite reflectance ............................................................................................................ 13 Figure 1-6 Kerogen transformation ratio map of Barnett Shale ........................................ 16 Figure 1-7 Correlation of thermal maturity to gas flow for Barnett Shale wells................. 17 Figure 1-8 Drilling path of TP Sims #2 and nearby wells. ................................................. 19 Figure 2-1 TP Sims production history and EUR .............................................................. 26 Figure 3-1 Techlog shale volume formula......................................................................... 27 Figure 3-2 Shale volume statistics for TP Sims #2 ........................................................... 28 Figure 3-3 Gamma ray correlation to core TOC measurements ...................................... 29 Figure 3-4 Bulk density correlation to core TOC measurements ...................................... 29 Figure 3-5 Statistics of core TOC measurements and log-derived TOC estimates.......... 30 Figure 3-6 Pyrite to TOC correlation from WC Young 2 XRD data .................................. 31 Figure 3-7 Comparison of log-derived grain density to core-derived grain density .......... 32 Figure 3-8 Crossplot of log-derived and whole core porosities........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: a Primer
    U.S. Department of Energy • Office of Fossil Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory April 2009 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe upon privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer Work Performed Under DE-FG26-04NT15455 Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy and National Energy Technology Laboratory Prepared by Ground Water Protection Council Oklahoma City, OK 73142 405-516-4972 www.gwpc.org and ALL Consulting Tulsa, OK 74119 918-382-7581 www.all-llc.com April 2009 MODERN SHALE GAS DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES: A PRIMER ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) under Award Number DE‐FG26‐ 04NT15455. Mr. Robert Vagnetti and Ms. Sandra McSurdy, NETL Project Managers, provided oversight and technical guidance.
    [Show full text]
  • Modeling Non Newtonian Fluid Invasion Into Reservoir Rocks
    Proceedings of COBEM 2005 20th International Congress of Mechanical Engineering Copyright © 2009 by ABCM November 15-20, 2009, Gramado, RS, Brazil MODELING NON NEWTONIAN FLUID INVASION INTO RESERVOIR ROCKS Alex Tadeu de Almeida Waldmann PETROBRAS- Cidade Universitária, Q7 – Ilha do Fundão – Prédio 20 – Sala 1017 – RJ - CEP: 21941-598 [email protected] Cristiano Dannenhauer ESSS – Rua Lauro Müller, 116 – Torre do Rio Sul – 14º Andar, sala 1404 - Botafogo [email protected] Alex Rodrigues de Andrade BAKER HUGHES - Rua Maria Francisca Borges Rêgo Rei, 363, Macaé - RJ, CEP: 27933-260 [email protected] Idvard Pires Jr. BAKER HUGHES - Rua Maria Francisca Borges Rêgo Rei, 363, Macaé - RJ, CEP: 27933-260 [email protected] Andre Leibsohn Martins PETROBRAS- Cidade Universitária, Q7 – Ilha do Fundão – Prédio 20 – Sala 1017 – RJ - CEP: 21941-598 [email protected] Abstract. Minimizing fluid invasion is a major issue while drilling reservoir rocks. Large invasion may create several problems in sampling reservoir fluids in exploratory wells. Unreliable sampling may lead to wrong reservoir evaluation and, in critical cases, to wrong decisions concerning reservoir exploitability. Besides, drilling fluid invasion may also provoke irreversible reservoir damage, reducing its initial and /or its long term productivity (Ladva et al., 2000). Such problem can be critical in heavy oil reservoirs, where oil and filtrate interaction can generate stable emulsions. Invasion in light oil reservoir is less critical due to its good mobility properties. Other critical scenario is the low permeability gas reservoirs where imbibition effects may result in deep invasion. A common practice in the industry is the addition of bridging agents, such as calcium carbonates in the drilling fluid composition.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydraulic Fracturing in the Barnett Shale
    Hydraulic Fracturing in the Barnett Shale Samantha Fuchs GIS in Water Resources Dr. David Maidment University of Texas at Austin Fall 2015 Table of Contents I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................3 II. Barnett Shale i. Geologic and Geographic Information ..............................................................6 ii. Shale Gas Production.........................................................................................7 III. Water Resources i. Major Texas Aquifers ......................................................................................11 ii. Groundwater Wells ..........................................................................................13 IV. Population and Land Cover .........................................................................................14 V. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................16 VI. References....................................................................................................................17 2 I. Introduction Hydraulic Fracturing, or fracking, is a process by which natural gas is extracted from shale rock. It is a well-stimulation technique where fluid is injected into deep rock formations to fracture it. The fracking fluid contains a mixture of chemical components with different purposes. Proppants like sand are used in the fluid to hold fractures in the rock open once the hydraulic
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Undiscovered Resources of the Barnett-Paleozoic Total Petroleum System, Bend Arch–Fort Worth Basin Province, Texas* by Richard M
    Assessing Undiscovered Resources of the Barnett-Paleozoic Total Petroleum System, Bend Arch–Fort Worth Basin Province, Texas* By Richard M. Pollastro1, Ronald J. Hill1, Daniel M. Jarvie2, and Mitchell E. Henry1 Search and Discovery Article #10034 (2003) *Online adaptation of presentation at AAPG Southwest Section Meeting, Fort Worth, TX, March, 2003 (www.southwestsection.org) 1U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO 2Humble Geochemical Services, Humble, TX ABSTRACT Organic-rich Barnett Shale (Mississippian-Pennsylvanian) is the primary source rock for oil and gas that is produced from Paleozoic reservoir rocks in the Bend Arch–Fort Worth Basin Province. Areal distribution and geochemical typing of hydrocarbons in this mature petroleum province indicates generation and expulsion from the Barnett at a depocenter coincident with a paleoaxis of the Fort Worth Basin. Barnett-sourced hydrocarbons migrated westward into reservoir rocks of the Bend Arch and Eastern shelf; however, some oil and gas was possibly sourced by a composite Woodford-Barnett total petroleum system of the Midland Basin from the west. Current U.S. Geological assessments of undiscovered oil and gas are performed using the total petroleum system (TPS) concept. The TPS is composed of mature source rock, known accumulations, and area(s) of undiscovered hydrocarbon potential. The TPS is subdivided into assessment units based on similar geologic characteristics, accumulation type (conventional or continuous), and hydrocarbon type (oil and (or) gas). Assessment of the Barnett-Paleozoic TPS focuses on the continuous (unconventional) Barnett accumulation where gas and some oil are produced from organic-rich siliceous shale in the northeast portion of the Fort Worth Basin. Assessment units are also identified for mature conventional plays in Paleozoic carbonate and clastic reservoir rocks, such as the Chappel Limestone pinnacle reefs and Bend Group conglomerate, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, and Devonian Marcellus Shale, Appalachian Basin
    DOE/NETL-2011/1478 A Comparative Study of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, and Devonian Marcellus Shale, Appalachian Basin U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe upon privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors greatly thank Daniel J. Soeder (U.S. Department of Energy) who kindly reviewed the manuscript. His criticisms, suggestions, and support significantly improved the content, and we are deeply grateful. Cover. Top left: The Barnett Shale exposed on the Llano uplift near San Saba, Texas. Top right: The Marcellus Shale exposed in the Valley and Ridge Province near Keyser, West Virginia. Photographs by Kathy R. Bruner, U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Bottom: Horizontal Marcellus Shale well in Greene County, Pennsylvania producing gas at 10 million cubic feet per day at about 3,000 pounds per square inch.
    [Show full text]
  • TXOGA Versus Denton
    FILED: 11/5/2014 9:08:57 AM SHERRI ADELSTEIN Denton County District Clerk By: Amanda Gonzalez, Deputy CAUSE NO. __________14-08933-431 TEXAS OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § Plaintiff, § vs. § § DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON, § § Defendant. § § § _____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT § ORIGINAL PETITION The Texas Oil and Gas Association (“TXOGA”) files this declaratory action and request for injunctive relief against the City of Denton, on the ground that a recently-passed City of Denton ordinance, which bans hydraulic fracturing and is soon to take effect, is preempted by Texas state law and is therefore unconstitutional. I. INTRODUCTION This case concerns a significant question of Texas law: whether a City of Denton ordinance that bans hydraulic fracturing is preempted by the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas. The ordinance, approved by voters at the general election of November 4, 2014, exceeds the limited authority of home-rule cities and represents an impermissible intrusion on the exclusive powers granted by the Legislature to state agencies, the Texas Railroad Commission (the “Railroad Commission”) and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the “TCEQ”). TXOGA, therefore, seeks a declaration that the ordinance is invalid and unenforceable. To achieve its overriding policy objective of the safe, efficient, even-handed, and non-wasteful development of this State’s oil and gas resources, the Texas Legislature vested regulatory power over that development in the Railroad Commission and the TCEQ. Both agencies are staffed with experts in the field who apply uniform regulatory controls across Texas and thereby avoid the inconsistencies that necessarily result from short-term political interests, funding, and turnover in local government.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil R&D Program
    Driving Innovation ♦ Delivering Results The National Energy Technology Laboratory & The Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil R&D Program Tribal leader forum: U.S. Department of Energy Albert Yost oil and gas technical assistance capabilities SMTA Strategic Center for Natural Gas & Oil Denver, Colorado August 18, 2015 National Energy Technology Laboratory Outline • Review of Case History Technology Successes • Review of Current Oil and Natural Gas Program • Getting More of the Abundant Shale Gas Resource • Understanding What is Going On Underground • Reducing Overall Environmental Impacts National Energy Technology Laboratory 2 Four Case Histories • Electromagnetic Telemetry • Wired Pipe • Fracture Mapping • Horizontal Air Drilling National Energy Technology Laboratory 3 Development of Electromagnetic Telemetry Problem • In early 1980s, need for non-wireline, non-mud based communication system in air-filled, horizontal or high-angle wellbores grows. • Problems with drillpipe-conveyed and hybrid-wireline alternatives sparked interest in developing a “drill-string/earth,” electromagnetic telemetry (EMT) system for communicating data while drilling. • Attempts to develop a viable EM-MWD tool by U.S.-based companies were unsuccessful. DOE Solution • Partner with Geoscience Electronics Corp. (GEC) to develop a prototype based on smaller diameter systems designed for non-oilfield applications • Test the prototype in air-drilled, horizontal wellbores. • Catalyze development of a U.S.-based, commercial EM-MWD capability to successfully compete with foreign service companies. National Energy Technology Laboratory 4 EMT System Schematic Source: Sperry-Sun, March 1997, Interim Report, DOE FETC Contract: DE-AC21-95MC31103 National Energy Technology Laboratory 5 EMT Path to Commercialization • 1986 – Initial test of GEC prototype tool at a DOE/NETL Devonian Shale horizontal drilling demonstration well in Wayne county, WV (10 hours on- bottom operating time).
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources, EPA/600/001/February 2011
    EPA/600/D-11/001/February 2011/www.epa.gov/research Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development EPA/600/D-11/001 February 2011 &EPA United States Environmental Protection Ag""" Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. February 7, 2011 DRAFT Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan February 7, 2011 -- Science Advisory Board Review -- This document is distributed solely for peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. It has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency determination or policy. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. DRAFT Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan February 7, 2011 -- Science Advisory Board Review -- TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. v List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ vi Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Perryman Denton Fracking Ban Impact
    June 2014 The Adverse Impact of Banning Hydraulic Fracturing in the City of Denton on Business Activity and Tax Receipts in the City and State THE PERRYMAN GROUP 510 N. Valley Mills Dr., Suite 300 Waco, TX 76710 ph. 254.751.9595, fax 254.751.7855 [email protected] www.perrymangroup.com The Adverse Impact of Banning Hydraulic Fracturing in the City of Denton on Business Activity and Tax Receipts in the City and State Contents Introduction and Overview .............................................................................. 1 The Barnett Shale ............................................................................................... 3 Study Parameters and Methods Used ............................................................. 4 Summary of Methods Used .......................................................................................... 4 Input Assumptions and Losses Measured ................................................................... 5 Projected Economic and Fiscal Harms Stemming from a Ban on Hydraulic Fracturing in the City of Denton .................................................... 8 Economic Harms Over 10 Years .................................................................................. 8 Lost Tax Revenue Over 10 Years .............................................................................. 11 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 12 APPENDICES .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Companies Involved in Oilfield Services from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Companies Involved in Oilfield Services From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Diversified Oilfield Services Companies These companies deal in a wide range of oilfield services, allowing them access to markets ranging from seismic imaging to deep water oil exploration. Schlumberger Halliburton Baker Weatherford International Oilfield Equipment Companies These companies build rigs and supply hardware for rig upgrades and oilfield operations. Yantai Jereh Petroleum Equipment&Technologies Co., Ltd. National-Oilwell Varco FMC Technologies Cameron Corporation Weir SPM Oil & Gas Zhongman Petroleum & Natural Gas Corpration LappinTech LLC Dresser-Rand Group Inc. Oilfield Services Disposal Companies These companies provide saltwater disposal and transportation services for Oil & Gas.. Frontier Oilfield Services Inc. (FOSI) Oil Exploration and Production Services Contractors These companies deal in seismic imaging technology for oil and gas exploration. ION Geophysical Corporation CGG Veritas Brigham Exploration Company OYO Geospace These firms contract drilling rigs to oil and gas companies for both exploration and production. Transocean Diamond Offshore Drilling Noble Hercules Offshore Parker Drilling Company Pride International ENSCO International Atwood Oceanics Union Drilling Nabors Industries Grey Wolf Pioneer Drilling Co Patterson-UTI Energy Helmerich & Payne Rowan Companies Oil and Gas Pipeline Companies These companies build onshore pipelines to transport oil and gas between cities, states, and countries.
    [Show full text]
  • The Exxonmobil-Xto Merger: Impact on U.S
    THE EXXONMOBIL-XTO MERGER: IMPACT ON U.S. ENERGY MARKETS HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JANUARY 20, 2010 Serial No. 111–91 ( Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce energycommerce.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 76–003 WASHINGTON : 2012 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Mar 15 2010 00:51 Nov 06, 2012 Jkt 076003 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\HR\OC\A003.XXX A003 pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan JOE BARTON, Texas Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts RALPH M. HALL, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia FRED UPTON, Michigan FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BART GORDON, Tennessee NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ANNA G. ESHOO, California JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois BART STUPAK, Michigan JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York ROY BLUNT, Missouri GENE GREEN, Texas STEVE BUYER, Indiana DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado GEORGE RADANOVICH, California Vice Chairman JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania LOIS CAPPS, California MARY BONO MACK, California MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANE HARMAN, California LEE TERRY, Nebraska TOM ALLEN, Maine MIKE ROGERS, Michigan JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina CHARLES A.
    [Show full text]
  • Encana 2011 Third Quarter Interim Report
    4 Encana generates third quarter cash flow of US$1.2 billion, or $1.57 per share Daily natural gas and liquids production grows 6 percent per share Liquids production targets 80,000 bbls/d by 2015 from NGLs extraction Financial and operating performance on track to achieve 2011 guidance Calgary, Alberta (October 20, 2011) – Encana Corporation (TSX, NYSE: ECA) continued to deliver strong operational performance and solid financial results in the third quarter of 2011, growing natural gas and liquids production by 6 percent per share from the third quarter of 2010. Encana generated third quarter cash flow of US$1.2 billion, or $1.57 per share, and operating earnings were $171 million, or 23 cents per share. Encana’s commodity price hedges contributed $146 million in realized after-tax gains, or 20 cents per share, to cash flow. Total production in the third quarter was approximately 3.51 billion cubic feet of gas equivalent per day (Bcfe/d), an increase of 190 million cubic feet equivalent per day (MMcfe/d) from the same quarter of 2010. “Encana delivered another excellent quarter in every aspect of its operations, achieving solid cash flow and operating earnings. Our third-quarter production growth of 6 percent per share puts us in line to achieve our 2011 targeted growth range of 5 to 7 percent per share. We are highly focused on core initiatives that will strengthen our financial capacity and position us for future growth. Through the expanded application of our resource play hub model – highly integrated and optimized production facilities that continually improve efficiencies – we continue to lower our capital and operating cost structures.
    [Show full text]