Foundation Donor Awards — See 2009 SIPES SIPES …s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/ · Diane...

2009 SIPESFoundation DonorAwards — SeePage 33

VOLUME XXXXV NUMBER 3 FEBRUARY 2009

SIPESSIPESQUQUARARTERLTERLYY

www.s ipes .org

Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists

SIPES Foundation2009 Seminar — See Page 31

How I Became anIndependent — See Page 36

SIPES 2009Convention TechnicalProgram — See Page 37

I n th i s i s sue:

Industry Information 2

Chapter News 9

In Memoriam 10

Scholarship Info. 11

Chapter Meeting Info. 11

New Members 15

Technology Corner 32

Donor Awards 33

Cornerstone Group 34

News of Members 35

Foundation Donors 38

Board of Directors 40

Well here we are, still dealing with con-tinued low oil and gas prices, a newadministration, and a still unknown anduncertain national and world economicoutlook. We may be here for a while, butwe have all been here before, and this tooshall pass. The last few years have beenextremely busy for most of us, and we maynow be looking at having a bit more freetime on our hands. With this in mind, Iwould like to encourage you to not let thegrass grow under your feet. Use your timewisely and look forward to whatevercomes down the road. Speaking of this, Iwould like to try to encourage each andevery one of you to devote some of yourtime becoming involved as a volunteer ormentor. Our membership is comprised of a

unique body of individuals that has muchto offer. At any chapter meeting, I can lookat the amount of experience and mentalabilities of the membership group and I amin awe. We should utilize what we have inthis respect. I would like each of you tostrongly consider contributing your time,experience and intellect through volun-teering. Each one of you can add so muchin this capacity. For SIPES or any profes-sional society to be healthy and vibrant, itneeds a continual source of volunteers. Bybecoming involved in your local SIPES

(Continued on Page 31)

PrPresidentesident ’’ s Columns Column

H. Jack Naumann, Jr., #2420Midland, Texas

The Oklahoma Oil OpportunityThe Oklahoma Oil Opportunityby Dan T. Boyd — Oklahoma Geological Survey

H. Jack Naumann, Jr.

ABSTRACT

Both the energy industry and the State ofOklahoma are precariously dependent onnatural gas - the price of which tends toreset each year based on the severity ofwinter weather. A 20-year preoccupationwith natural gas has created a situation inwhich it now accounts for two-thirds ofState drilling and about 80% of BOE pro-duction, leaving a massive oil resource rel-atively overlooked. Despite a one-yearincrease in 2006 production, the first since1984, record prices in the last several yearshave not stemmed the long-term decline,with 2007 oil production the lowest seensince 1912.

This study shows that an under-exploit-ed opportunity exists in Oklahoma that iscentered on improving recovery in existingfields. The State's original oil in-place(OOIP) volume is over 84 BBO, and long-term decline projections show an estimat-ed ultimate recovery (EUR) volume ofabout 16 BBO. This 19% aggregate recov-ery factor, which is the result of complexreservoir geometries and poor reservoirmanagement in the early days, equates to68 BBO being left in the ground at aban-donment. If the studies analyzed here arerepresentative of the State as a whole,

(Continued on 6)

2 _______________________________________________________________________________SIPES QUARTERLY

NN at iona l & Enat iona l & En v i rv i r onmentonment a l In fa l In f o ro r mat ionmat ion

The following reports on national and environmental issueswere presented to the SIPES Board of Directors on January 7,2009. Vice President of National Energy Bill Finley, authored theNatural Resource Report. Houston Director Phil Martin sub-mitted the Environmental Committee Report. The views andopinions expressed are those of the authors. Some of the informa-tion presented is in the public domain and is available from avariety of sources; other references were selected by the authors,and are noted on their reports.

NATIONAL ENERGYWhat a difference a day makes. In this case it literally

changes daily. At the risk of being wrong again, it appearsthe stock market is testing a bottom, and crude oil and nat-ural gas product prices are off a low. But there is still roomfor tremendous volatility as the world economies adjust tothe new world order. This includes downward pressurefrom perceived lack of demand, and upward pressure asconflicts continue to plague the world stage.

On the legislative front, H.R. 6709, the NationalConservation, Environment, and Energy IndependenceAct, introduced in July 2008, was referred to the HouseSubcommittee on Energy and Environment on September17. Specifically, H.R. 6709 was "to greatly enhance theNation's path toward energy independence and environ-mental, energy, economic, and national security, by

amending Federal policy to increase the production ofdomestic energy sources, to dedicate fixed percentages ofthe royalties received for conservation programs, environ-mental restoration projects, renewable energy researchand development, clean energy technology research anddevelopment, increased development of existing energysources, and energy assistance for those in need, and toshare a portion of such royalties with producing States,and for other purposes."; essentially to enhance drilling onfederal lands including the OCS, and a lot of other littlethings.

Conversely, the House passed H.R. 6889, introducedSeptember 15 and passed September 17, 2008 (pretty quickturnaround).

"to advance the national security interests of the UnitedStates by reducing its dependency on oil through renewableand clean, alternative fuel technologies while building abridge to the future through expanded access to Federal oiland natural gas resources, revising the relationship betweenthe oil and gas industry and the consumers who own thoseresources and deserve a fair return from the development ofpublicly owned oil and gas, ending tax subsidies for large oiland gas companies, and facilitating energy efficiencies in thebuilding, housing, and transportation sectors, and for otherpurposes."

This is the one that allows drilling off the East Coast sim-ilar to the H.R. 6709 provisions, but ends some tax deduc-tions for five major integrated companies and caps thedeductions at 6% for the rest. These tax deductions were tohelp fund $18 billion in energy tax incentives. H.R. 6709failed an attempt to recommit, and H.R. 6899 is currentlyon the Senate Legislative Calendar.

As reported by Ryan Ullman of the IPAA,

"Currently there is a considerable amount of uncertaintyregarding what the Senate energy package will entail. Gangof 10, five Republicans and five Democrats who originallybanded together to craft offshore energy policy, has expand-ed to twenty, and they are currently working on a bill. Inaddition to that effort, Senate leadership has been workingon a separate bill and has tapped Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) to lead that effort. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D-NV) has stated he will allow Republicans an opportunityto offer their substitute; however, Senate Republicans havenot agreed to limit their right to offer amendments to any ofthe potential bills."

This of course was during the period when things werejust starting to look bad. And since then, things have got-ten considerably worse. So much so that Californians actu-ally defeated several renewable energy initiatives in theNovember elections; President-Elect Obama has come offadvocating windfall tax proposals; OPEC has lost controlof oil prices; and many projects and investment opportu-nities are drying up. Some of this may be good news forour industry, at least short term, as the pressure is off us to

(Continued)

S I P E S H e a d q u a r t e r sS I P E S H e a d q u a r t e r s4925 Greenville Avenue - Suite 1106

Dallas, Texas 75206-4019Telephone: 214-363-1780 Fax: 214-363-8195

http://www.sipes.org E-mail: [email protected]

Executive Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diane Finstrom

Admin. Assistant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katie Ruvalcaba

Member Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ann Davis

2009 Annual Meet ing Dates2009 Annual Meet ing Dates

April 27-30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hilton Head Island, SC

The SIPES Quarterly is published by the

Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists.

Send your comments, letters, address changes and advertising

inquiries to the SIPES Headquarters in Dallas, Texas.

be the scapegoat for the world's problems. But don't getcomplacent, because the industry will be back (assumingwe can survive the potential worst case future), and theywill be after us again.

Meanwhile, most relevant legislation is on hold as thecurrent administration winds down to transition to thenew "team." Speaking of which, Steven Chu, a NobelLaureate, is nominated to be the new Secretary of Energy.As an experimental physicist, he is an outspoken advocatefor alternative energy and nuclear power as a shift awayfrom fossil fuels to combat global warming. He also helpedfound the Energy Biosciences Institute in a rare collabora-tion between scientists at UC Berkeley, the oil major BP, theLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and theUniversity of Illinois. Some of Berkeley's faculty voicedconcerns that "the university was selling out to the indus-try giant." Old perceptions are difficult to change, but atleast this potential new leader seems to have moved on.

If you have been keeping up with my tirades, then youknow the score with the Department of Energy. To sum-marize, a scraped together patchwork of programs withlofty goals but little coherent or coordinated efforts, subjectto the whims of a knee jerk and short sighted politicalarena that has little or no understanding of the real prob-lem.

Or as reported by Kevin Parker in E&P Magazine onOctober 10, 2008, John Hofmeister, CEO of Citizens forAffordable Energy and former president of Shell OilCompany, said at the Ernst & Young's Energy ExecutiveInsight Session held October 9 in Houston:

"without a strategic, long-term energy policy, the U.S.would continually be hampered by reactive policies thatwere only band aids, and no cure." … "There are threeaspects to such a comprehensive energy policy, inHofmeister's view: 1) addressing the supply and demandequation, primarily through a comprehensive, rather thanreactive, regulatory regime; 2) improved environmentalstewardship; and 3) infrastructure rehabilitation." … "Withenergy being this country's largest industry, other than gov-ernment," he said, "it's incomprehensible that there is nostrategy. Energy bills were passed by Congress in 2005, 2006,and 2007. The best near-term solution, increased off-shoredrilling, was largely ignored. Even now, with some of thoserestrictions having been allowed to lapse, what investor iswilling to bet that they won't be re-imposed in the nearfuture?" … "People say trust the free market, but when hasthere ever been a free market for energy? OPEC sets limits,and the U.S. government denies access. Utilizing wind won'thappen without incentives, and one-year extensions of suchare ridiculous. Who would invest on that basis? What's need-ed is comprehensive legislation to address both supply anddemand issues," said Hofmeister. … "the U.S. is saddled withan aging infrastructure that must be updated, but there is lit-tle political will to do the work that must be done. The infra-structure needed will resemble the way the electricity distri-bution is accomplished and must incorporate distribution ofalternative energy sources." … "Developing and deliveringnew ways to utilize energy takes years, as much as a decade.

Yet politics knows only two-, four-, and six-year electioncycles. What's required is leadership that can rise above that.Either that, or our life styles and economic well-being will besacrificed."

And as reported by Gary Perilloux in the December 3,2008 issue of the Baton Rouge, Louisiana Advocate,

"Oliver ‘Rick’ Richard lectured on the political pitfalls, pop-ular scapegoats and the difficult-to-get-cranking alternativefuel sector Tuesday at LSU. But the bottom line for U.S. ener-gy security comes down to one lacking commodity, he said:Courage." … "Sadly in the U.S.," Richard said, "everybody isfor the environment until they have to pay for it. And it'sbeen proven over and over again." He goes on to say that itwill take courage from the President to push forward policiesthat address all forms of energy, not just the alternative fuelsthat can't meet the nation's entire energy demand; couragefrom legislators to pass legislation that will implement thesepolicies; and courage from the taxpayers to accept the realcost for the energy we use. "What's not courageous, Richardsaid, is to ignore the fact that the real price of conventionalgasoline, when the cost of protecting U.S. interests in theMideast oil reserves is factored in, rises to $8 to $11 a gallonin the judgment of economists." He adds that "there aremany alternative fuels with development costs cheaper thanthat."

But now we seem to be facing the reverse problem. Withoil prices in the toilet (imagine, $40+ is today's toilet) theeconomic incentive is also not there to invest in the alter-native fuels. And it's not just the alternates, conventionalhydrocarbon projects are being canceled or postponed,and exploration budgets slashed. Some companies arewaiting for costs to come down before committing to moveforward. "These delays could curb future global fuel sup-plies by the equivalent of four million barrels a day withinthe next five years, according to Peter Jackson, an energyanalyst at Cambridge Energy Research Associates. That isequal to 5 percent of current oil supplies," as reported byJad Mouawad in the December 15, 2008 New York Times.Mouawad also stated "Oil demand growth has weakenedthroughout the industrial world. The International EnergyAgency projects that worldwide demand will actually fallthis year, for the first time since 1983. So much surplus oilis sloshing around the world right now that some compa-nies, including Shell, are using oil tankers for storage." …"As scores of small wells are shut down, analysts atBernstein Research have calculated that oil production inNorth America could decline by 1.3 million barrels a daythrough 2010, or 17 percent, to 6.14 million barrels a day.This decline, rather than cuts by members of theOrganization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, ‘willbe the catalyst needed for oil prices to rebound,' NeilMcMahon, an analyst at Bernstein Research, said in a con-ference call this month." … "But analysts warn the worldcan ill afford a lengthy drop in investment in energy sup-plies. According to the International Energy Agency, to

(Continued)

FEBRUARY 2009 ________________________________________________________________________________3

National, State & Environmental Information Continued

meet the growth in global population and the rising afflu-ence expected in the future, the world will need to invest$12 trillion in order to increase its oil and natural gas sup-plies." The United States remains the world's largest oilconsumer, and if we start shutting in our domestic pro-duction and curtailing investment, we will end up beingthat much more dependent on foreign sources in thefuture. And when the economy starts to recover, we willsee another steep spike in prices.

On other front, Carol Browner, a past EPA Administratorunder Bill Clinton and Al Gore, is nominated to the posi-tion of Assistant to the President for Energy and ClimateChange. In that role, Browner would be responsible forimplementing the president-elect's promise to create mil-lions of jobs in a green energy economy and reduce green-house gas emissions. As an advocate of global warmingissues, we should expect this new administration to beginimplementing the National Ambient Air QualityStandards passed during her reign at EPA but largelyignored by the Bush administration, which she called "theworst environmental administration ever." She becameunpopular with a number of industry groups and withconservatives in Congress while at EPA. Hopefully she willbe too busy creating all those "green" jobs to implement thewarming issues. Regardless, with the current infatuationwith global warming issues, it is unlikely that any incen-

tives will be doled out to the hydrocarbon industry giventhe current economic situation.

I conclude this installment with selected excerpts fromthe executive summary from the IEA Report, World EnergyOutlook 2008. The world's energy system is at a crossroads. Current

global trends in energy supply and consumption arepatently unsustainable — environmentally, economically,socially. But that can — and must — be altered; there's stilltime to change the road we're on… What is needed isnothing short of an energy revolution. Oil is the world's vital source of energy and will remain

so for many years to come, even under the most optimisticof assumptions about the pace of development anddeployment of alternative technology… The surge inprices … has alerted people to the ultimately finite natureof oil (and natural gas) resources. In fact, the immediaterisk to supply is not one of a lack of global resources, butrather a lack of investment where it is needed … much ofthe (current investment) increase is due to surging costsand the need to combat rising decline rates — especially inhigher-cost provinces outside of OPEC. Today, most capi-tal goes to exploring for and developing high-costreserves, partly because of limitations on international oilcompany access to the cheapest resources. Expanding pro-duction in the lowest-cost countries will be central to meet-ing the world's needs at reasonable cost in the face ofdwindling resources in most parts of the world and accel-erating decline rates everywhere. Securing energy supplies and speeding up the transi-

tion to a low-carbon energy system both call for radicalaction by governments — at national and local levels, andthrough participation in coordinated international mecha-nisms. Households, businesses and motorists will have tochange the way they use energy, while energy supplierswill need to invest in developing and commercializinglow-carbon technologies. To make this happen, govern-ments have to put in place appropriate financial incentivesand regulatory frameworks that support both energy-security and climate-policy goals in an integrated way.Removing subsidies on energy consumption, whichamounted to a staggering $310 billion in the 20 largest non-OECD countries in 2007, could make a major contributionto curbing demand and emissions growth. High interna-tional oil prices, by deterring consumption and encourag-ing more efficient demand-side technologies, push in thesame direction, but only at the expense of economicgrowth and of living standards in consuming countries,both rich and poor. And some of the alternatives to con-ventional oil that high prices encourage are even more car-bon-intensive. Many countries have made progress incrafting national responses, but much more needs to bedone. A new international climate agreement is but a firstessential step on the road toward a sustainable energy sys-tem; effective implementation is just as crucial. Delay in

(Continued)

4 _______________________________________________________________________________SIPES QUARTERLY


FEBRUARY 2009 ________________________________________________________________________________5


doing either would increase the eventual cost of meetingany given global climate target. Globally, oil resources might be plentiful, but there can

be no guarantee that they will be exploited quickly enoughto meet the level of demand projected in our ReferenceScenario. One major uncertainty concern the rate at whichoutput from producing oilfields declines as they mature.This is a critical determinant of the amount of new capaci-ty and investment that will be needed globally to meetprojected demand. The findings of a detailed field-by-fieldanalysis of the historical production trends of 800 fields, …indicates those observed decline rates (the observable fallin production) are likely to accelerate in the long term ineach major world region. This results from a fall in theaverage size of field and, in some regions, an increase inthe share of production that is expected to come from off-shore fields. Faster natural decline rates will mean a need for more

upstream investment, both in existing fields (to combatnatural decline) and in new fields (to offset falling produc-tion from existing fields and to meet rising demand). For all the uncertainties highlighted in this report, we

can be certain that the energy world will look a lot differ-ent in 2030 than it does today. The world energy systemwill be transformed, but not necessarily in the way wewould like to see. We can be confident of some of thetrends highlighted in this report: the growing weight ofChina, India, the Middle East and other non-OECDregions in energy markets and in CO2 emissions; therapidly increasing dominance of national oil companies;and the emergence of low-carbon energy technologies.And while market imbalances could temporarily causeprices to fall back, it is becoming increasingly apparent thatthe era of cheap oil is over. But many of the key policy dri-vers (not to mention other, external factors) remain indoubt. It is within the power of all governments, of pro-ducing and consuming countries alike, acting alone ortogether, to steer the world toward a cleaner, cleverer andmore competitive energy system. Time is running out andthe time to act is now.

ConclusionThe issues discussed in this report emphasize the need

for long range thinking and planning we have alreadyseen to be in short supply. Not mentioned here is thereport discussion about the global warming initiative andits impact on this planning. My primary concern is thepotential for abuse to our industry’s infrastructure overthis issue which could make our contributions unviableeconomically, and continue to frustrate any attempt toestablish meaningful forward thinking solutions to theproblem.

As suggested elsewhere, massive investments in existinginfrastructure as well as exploration and research into newtechnologies is required to stabilize the supply demandissue. It is suggested that incentives could be necessary to

encourage such investments, but we must all be willing topay the real cost of these incentives. This cost appears to beescalating daily as the world economy stagnates under theburdens the financial crisis continue to unfold. Where willthis money come from? My fear is that there will be anoth-er hunt for the guilty rather than an assessment of theproblem to find a solution.

On the research spending front, non defense R&D in thiscountry is most heavily weighted toward Health. Energyresearch is only slightly more than that for theEnvironment, and both are less than 10% of the total.

Conversely, The IEA has published a graph of the invest-ment in worldwide energy research showing that the pri-mary emphasis is on nuclear energy (right in line withChu's emphasis). True renewable energy research is about10% of the total, and fossil fuel research is only slightlymore than that. I suspect that most of the fossil fuelresearch addresses issues with coal, and subsequently verylittle is geared toward oil and gas. At the Group of 8 meet-ing [2007], world leaders spoke of $10 billion a year in R&Dinvestments, which would simply return the effort to whatit was a few decades back. Many experts see the need forat least triple this level of investment.

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTThe whole world sits up and

takes note as the U.S. continuesto lead with its direction on theeconomy, energy, and the envi-ronment. The most importantcurrent environmental news isthe filling of five importantposts in those areas by PresidentObama. Obama stressed theimportance of energy and cli-mate policy to the nation's econ-omy and security as heannounced his appointments tothose key posts, which are amixture of old and new faces.

The group has environmentalists cheering for the mostpart, but includes serious scientists and experienced indi-viduals who are obviously sincere about their goals. Thereare conflicting views among his appointees, with somepushing for a carbon tax, but hopefully the more scientificmembers will guard against unrealistic policies that couldendanger the U.S. economy. Obama will clearly be walkinga tight rope between his own environmental views andplans to revive the economy.

First on the list is Nobel Prize winning physicist Dr.Steven Chu, director of the Lawrence Berkeley NationalLaboratory, who was appointed by President Obama toserve as Secretary of Energy. Chu is one of four major

(Continued on Page 7)

President Obama announc-ing two important appoint-ments to environmentalposts. The nominations mustbe confirmed by the Senate.

6 _______________________________________________________________________________SIPES QUARTERLY

FEBRUARY 2009 ________________________________________________________________________________7

energy and environmental appoint-ments who will spearhead the execu-tive branch's efforts on energy and theenvironment. He has argued that shift-ing away from fossil fuels is essentialto fighting global warming, yetstressed the Energy Department's rolein supporting scientists, public andprivate, as well as innovations that hesaid, "can transform the entire land-

scape of energy demand and supply." He is a particularproponent of nuclear and solar power, and biomass, and isdeeply involved in the $500 million Energy BiosciencesInstitute which was partly funded by BP with a focus onbio-fuels. Chu has strongly criticized corn-based ethanol,which was strongly supported by Obama in the Senateand in his campaign.

The second appointee is former EPAChief Carol Browner, who becomesAssistant to the President for Energyand Climate Change. In her role as"Climate Czar" she will coordinateenvironmental, energy, climate andrelated matters. Browner has statedthat global warming is "the greatestchallenge ever faced." She previouslyserved as legislative director forSenator Al Gore, who is said to be hov-ering in the background as unofficialenvironmental advisor to Obama.While working with Gore, Browner was instrumental inthe Clean Air Act and also had the position of administra-tor of the EPA during the Clinton Administration. On amilder note, Browner is head of the Audubon Society, andis married to former New York Representative ThomasDowney who heads a lobbying firm including clientsinvolved in energy policy. No conflict of course.

New Jersey EnvironmentalProtection Commissioner Lisa Jacksonhas been named director of the EPAunder Obama. Jackson formerlyserved as chief of staff to the governorof New Jersey (Jon Corzine), and waspreviously commissioner of the NewJersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection. She is the first African-American woman to serve in any ofthose three positions. She also hasworked previously for the EPA and

brings serious experience to the table. She is a good choicewith a record of supporting strict regulations in environ-mental matters, but tempered with pragmatic compromis-es.

Rounding the list is Los Angeles Deputy Mayor NancySutley who will run the White House Council onEnvironmental Quality. She also brings serious EPA expe-

rience to bear, having served as specialassistant to the EPA Administrator inWashington during the ClintonAdministration. Sutley previouslyserved on the California Environmen-tal Protection Agency and theCalifornia State Water ResourcesControl Board where she establishedstrict water standards and regulations.She is the first prominent gay personto earn a senior role on Obama's newteam.

In selecting Colorado Senator Ken Salazar as Secretary ofthe Interior, Obama took a moderate course in public landsmanagement. This was a far wiserchoice than the favorite of the environ-mentalists, New Mexico Representa-tive Raul Grijalva, who vehementlyopposed virtually any use of publiclands for energy, mineral or forestproduct development. Senator Salazarvoted for the Energy Policy Act of 2005and was a member of the Senate'sGang of 16, a bipartisan group that helped craft a moderateapproach to energy production issues. Regardless, he isstill likely to push for more stringent regulation of oil andgas development.

Global WarmingAside from the important political issues regarding the

environment, there have been other interesting earth andspace related weather trends. The IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change has declared an end to thedebate and predicted a continuous progression of globalwarming caused by man's use of hydrocarbons.

Other experts, such as Professor James Lovelock, thinkthat climate change comes in fits and starts, with spells ofconsistency, even slight declines, between the jumps togreater heat. In his book, "The Vanishing Face of Gaia," hecompares the rise in temperatures to the profile of a moun-tain, much like the sort of investment growth curve thatasset managers probably showed their clients a few yearsago, one that rises smoothly without a break from nowinto the future.

We now know that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac andLehman Brothers can interrupt such plans and turn theminto a chasm of global recession. Could it be that globalwarming trends might also be subject to alternate swingsof direction?

Earth and Space WeatherThere is an interesting correlation between solar activity

and global temperatures. The most cogent explanation hasbeen advanced by Dutch scientist Henrik Svensmark,whose lab demonstrations show that cosmic rays fromspace spawn ions that play an integral role in seeding the

(Continued)


Dr. Steven Chu,Secretary of Energy.

Carol Browner,Assistant to thePresident for Energyand ClimateChange.

Lisa Jackson,Director ofEnvironmentalProtection Agency.

Nancy Sutley, Headof White HouseCouncil onEnvironmentalQuality.

Senator Ken Salazar,Secretary of theInterior.

formation of clouds. Svensmark also demonstrated thatsolar radiation could deflect a significant percentage ofcosmic rays from reaching earth, resulting in a thinnercloud cover and increased solar warming of the earth.Periods of lesser solar activity have the opposite effect andresult in cooling.

Whatever rhyme or reason, the climatic winter of 2007-08was a cold one. In Iowa it was the 19th coldest winter onrecord and in California the 27th. Snowfall was 4 to 6 timesthe normal amount from Iowa to Wisconsin and wasabove normal in New England and much of the Rockies, tothe joy of the ski areas. The average temperature across thecontiguous U.S. was the coolest since 2001, in fact it wasthe 54th coolest winter since national records began in1895.

Now the winter of 2008-09 is shaping up to also be quitecool across much of the world. In Europe, the mediablessed the summer with articles such as one on May 21,titled "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts," only toturn 180 degrees on December 19 with one headed "TheAlps have best snow conditions in a generation." And sofar this has been the coldest winter in the U.S. in elevenyears. All considered, the evidence would almost seem toquestion the huge worldwide panic over man-made glob-al warming. Just when politicians have been enacting themost costly measures ever proposed to fight this menace,the tide has turned in three ways.

First, all over the world temperatures dropped in a man-ner unpredicted by the computer models that were themain scare. Last winter temperatures fell and many partsof the world saw snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades,and this winter is starting out to be worse. After several flatyears global temperatures have dropped enough to wipe

out much of their net rise in the last century. EvenHouston has already seen record lows and it actuallysnowed enough to stick in parts of the city just beforeChristmas.

Secondly, in 2008 there were some hairline cracks in the"scientific consensus" in favor of man-made global warm-ing. At the Manhattan Declaration last March some of theworld's most glorified climate experts ascended a plateauof honesty when they conjectured that some predictionsmay have been based on politically motivated and blatant-ly manipulated data and computer models producing con-venient fictions.

Thirdly, with the global economic meltdown, the realitybegan to emerge that the world can no longer afford allthose quixotic schemes for "combating climate change"with which they were so happy to indulge themselves inmore comfortable times. The sun began to shine throughthe foolishness that we should divert trillions of dollars inan attempt to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 percent. All those grandiose projects for "emissions trading,""carbon capture," thousands of sub-economic wind tur-bines, converting vast areas of farmland from producingfood to "bio-fuels," are being exposed as enormously dam-aging and futile gestures, costing astronomic sums we nolonger possess.

Whatever changes the weather brings in coming years,and however imperfect the computer models prove to be,it is incumbent upon the world to make every effort toconserve our resources. Large new discoveries of shale gasin the U.S. would be even more beneficial if greater por-tions were used for electric generation and as a trans-portation fuel. Maybe Obama and the Congress will wakeup and listen to Boone Pickens on this one.


8 _______________________________________________________________________________SIPES QUARTERLY

FEBRUARY 2009 ________________________________________________________________________________9

HOUSTONThe SIPES Houston Chapter ’s

October luncheon was held at thePetroleum Club, with Dan Steward ofRepublic Energy, as our guest speaker.His discussion was titled “The BarnettShale Play: Phoenix of the Fort WorthBasin, a History.” Mr. Steward beganhis presentation by giving specialrecognition to George Mitchell, #117,who was in attendance at the lun-cheon. Mr. Mitchell’s leadership andcommitment to his technical staff atMitchell Energy lead to the commer-cialization of the Barnett Shale play.

Mitchell Energy entered into theWise, Jack and Parker counties in the1950s in pursuit of the development ofthe Fort Worth Basin BendConglomerate. This formation was asignificant source of income forMitchell Energy, and the infrastruc-ture associated with it made up a largepart of the company’s assets. In 1982,Mitchell Energy’s evaluation of theBend Conglomerate suggested thatthe company’s production base couldnot be sustained beyond the early1990s. George Mitchell then chargedthe company with finding somethingelse to take the place of the Bend, andmaintain the existing assets. Many dif-ferent exploration targets in the basinwere reviewed, the Barnett Shalebeing one of them.

Over the next ten years a databasewas compiled and technology wasdeveloped which lead to a small areaof the Barnett Shale in eastern Wiseand western Denton counties to becommercial with the favorable gasprices that were received under a con-tract with Natural Gas Pipeline(NGPL). In 1995, Mitchell Energyallowed NGPL to buy out this gas con-tract which forced Mitchell Energy toreduce cost and make the wells moreprofitable. When gas prices increased,Mitchell Energy was no longer con-strained by the prior contract volumelimitations and Barnett productionincreased significantly.

The gas prone area of the BarnettShale now extends to over 6,000square miles with over 2,000 horizon-tals per year being drilled. The tech-nologies developed over twenty-five

years in the Barnett Shale play arenow being used to rapidly developnumerous other shale plays across theUnited States. These shale plays areincreasingly becoming a major part ofthe United States’ energy supply.

On November 20, Jeff Requarth andJohn Morris of Savannah Oil and Gaswere our guest speakers. Their discus-sion was titled “Perseverance andTechnology: Significant RecentExploration Success Winchester Northand South Fields, Wayne County,Mississippi.” The North and SouthWinchester fields are located inWayne County, Mississippi near theAlabama state line. The fields aretrend extension discoveries from theWinchester Field, discovered by theLL&E #1 Jordan well in 1968. Theauthors drilled a successful offset tothis field in 1989, followed by fourdevelopment and exploratory dryholes in the Winchester area. It wasnot until 2005, when a 43 square mile3D was shot to image the steep flanksof the Winchester Salt Ridge, that theauthors were able to accurately mapthe Smackover structure and locatethe discovery wells.

Although both North and SouthWinchester Fields are small in size,both less than 300 acres, they areexpected to recover over 11 millionbarrels of oil equivalent. The twofields combined are currently produc-ing over 4,100 barrels of oil per dayand 9 million cubic feet of gas per dayfrom eleven wells. The gas containsapproximately 6 percent hydrogensulfide and the oil is sour.

The two Smackover “salt wall” fieldsare situated along the steeply dipping

(20 – 60 degrees) east flank of theNorth – South trending Winchestersalt ridge. The “salt wall” trap placesthe upper Smackover reservoiragainst the Louann Salt, which servesas an effective lateral seal. The verticalseal is provided by Haynesville evap-orites. The final components of thepetroleum system include a world-class source rock in the lower memberof the Smackover Formation andextensively dolomitized grainstonesof the upper Smackover serving as thereservoir compartment.

At the November Houston SIPESChapter luncheon meeting, the fol-lowing officers were voted by accla-mation to be the Houston ChapterSIPES officers for 2009: ChairmanMark Gregg; Chairman Elect StephenHartzell; Treasurer Glen Pankonien;and Secretary Paul Babcock.

Our 12th chapter luncheon of 2008was a well-attended, joint luncheonmeeting with the Houston Associationof Petroleum Landmen on Thursday,December 18. Paul Strunk, #1869, andPatrick Nye, #3105, long-time TexasGulf Coast oil and gas prospect gener-ators with American Shoreline inCorpus Christi, presented their talktitled “Wind Energy – It’s Up in theAir.” They and their company werethe drivers behind the Penascal WindFarm Project, the first wind farm onthe Gulf Coast, located south ofCorpus Christi. While many folkshave talked and touted wind power,they went out and got it done.

Paul and Pat outlined the numerousobstacles to a wind power project. Asuccessful project starts with thewind-sustained speeds of 16+ mph,blowing at least 35% of the time andpreferably during the peak demand,late afternoon/early evening hours. Afive-year wind study documentingthe favorable wind conditions enablesone to ultimately line up financing. Ifyou have these favorable wind condi-tions, located on a large, long-termlease with good surface-use agree-ments, construction access, and near-by transmission capabilities andcapacity, then you can proceed withthe various required studies.

(Continued)

ChapChap tt e r Ner N ee ww ss

SIPES member George Mitchell (L), Octoberguest speaker Dan Steward of RepublicEnergy (center), and Bill Torguson.

Chapter News Continued

10 ______________________________________________________________________________SIPES QUARTERLY

Studies include environmental, reg-ulatory (including FAA) and wildlife.Much publicity has been directed tobird fatalities, and in the instance ofthis project, the avian study entailedover 4,000 hours in the field.

Scattered throughout these chal-lenges, regulatory and permittingissues, wind-power projects are notentirely endorsed by the local public,where the projects are scheduled dueto “NIMBY” issues. When the projectbecomes a “GO” and substantialfinancing ($ 1 B) is in place (affectedby world market conditions and pric-ing), there is currently a two-year waiton transformers and equipment.

When the challenges are met, andthe project is up and running, one cantake pride in the creation and devel-opment of a clean, “green,” renewableenergy source. Benefits include reduc-tion in emissions, with no water-useissues, as well as creation of domesticsource of energy and jobs. At this time,wind-power projects are supportedby tax credits (and possible future car-bon credits). A unique feature relatedto wind power, unlike oil and gas pro-duction, is that it has no decline – it isflat!

Glen Pankonien2008 Secretary

IN MEMORIAMIN MEMORIAM

We regret to note the passing of the following members:

Joseph H. Ambrister, #2020of Allen, Texas

who died on February 4, 2009

Robert A. Anderson, #336of Lafayette, Louisiana

who died on November 7, 2008

Charles E. Branham, #2699of Oklahoma City, Oklahomawho died on February 4, 2009

Paul H. Carter, #2882of Houston, Texas


Henry L. Cullins, Jr., #of Houston, Texas

who died In October 2008

Charles M. Forney, #857of Corpus Christi, Texas

who died on June 5, 2008

Frank D. Kozak, #1707of Midland, Texas


Lewis L. Shackelford, Jr., #424of Dallas, Texas

who died on December 13, 2008

C. W. Smith, #90of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma


Albert M. Tolbert, #48of Salado, Texas

who died on March 10, 2008

M. H. Vaughn, #2083of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

who died on June 12, 2008

John J. Wanner, #304of Denver, Colorado


OKLAHOMA CITYOur Chapter had our noon lun-

cheons on the first Wednesday inOctober and November in thePetroleum Club in downtownOklahoma City. In October we hadDavid Pursell, Head of MacroResearch at Tudor Pickering, Holt andCompany Securities. Mr. Pursellreceived B.S. and M.S. degrees fromTexas A & M University (1985 and1987), and has a diverse backgroundin the petroleum industry. He was oneof the founding partners of PickeringPartners Incorporated. Mr. Pursell pre-sented us with an updated version ofthe talk he gave to our national con-vention in New Orleans “Oil and GasSupply, Demand, and Pricing.” Sinceit is a timely topic, it was well receivedand generated numerous questions.

Our November speaker was GeorgeJohnson, #2724, a member-at-large,past president and a national directorof SIPES from Amarillo, Texas. Georgereceived his B.S. and M.S. degrees ingeology from West Texas StateUniversity in 1968 and 1977. He has anexcellent background in the petrole-um industry and in 1980 he foundedSunshine Exploration Company andcontinues today as its president.George presented the talk he gave toour national convention in NewOrleans “Turning Water into Oil,Hartley County, Texas.” This was astory concerning a new discoveryseven miles southeast of the Lathemgranite wash field. The discovery well

came in for 320 BOPD from the DesMoine Granite Wash, hence SoutheastLathem field was born.

Our laminated USGS Geologic Mapprogram is progressing. In lateOctober Mike Pollok, #2512, our chap-ter secretary donated a map to the 5thgrade middle school class in Purcell,Oklahoma. Owen Hopkins, #2986,founder of the map program, came infrom Corpus Christi, Texas to makethe presentation. Owen made anexcellent presentation as the studentswere spellbound for over an hour.They were highly interested andasked numerous questions. This is anexcellent program which other chap-ters perhaps should consider.

Kudos to our chapter membersDavid Campbell, #1729, and JonWithrow, #0910, who each receivedthe Distinguished Alumni Award inlate November. These awards werepresented during the inauguralawards banquet of the MewbourneCollege of Earth and Energy,University of Oklahoma. They werecited for their many years of contribu-tion and service to the Department ofGeology and Geophysics and AlumniAdversary Council of the Universityof Oklahoma.

Our Chapter did not have a lun-cheon meeting in December, however,we had our annual Christmas party. Itwas well-attended by members andspouses and again was a huge success.

Tom RowlandChairman

FEBRUARY 2009 _______________________________________________________________________________11

AA USTINUSTINChairman: Doug WatkinsV-Chrmn: Ward DavenportSecretary: TBATreasurer: Dwight CassellMeets: The County Line

(On the Hill)1st Thursday

CORPUS CHRISTICORPUS CHRISTIChairman: Patrick NyeV-Chrmn: Stephen ThomasSecretary: David DesenbergTreasurer: Duncan ChisholmMeets: Town Club

Last Tuesday of month

DD ALLALL AA SSChairman: Terry O’HareV-Chrmn: Doug EsslerSecretary: Mike TaylorTreasurer: Keith BrownleeMeets: Dallas Petroleum Club

3rd Tuesday

DENVERDENVERChairman: Jim ApplegateV-Chrmn: Connie KnightSecretary: Dave ReadTreasurer: Tom StanderMeets: Wynkoop Brewing Co.

4th Thursday

FORT WORTHFORT WORTHChairman: James RobertsonV-Chrmn: James RobertsonSecretary: TBATreasurer: TBAMeets: Variable locations

Variable dates

HOUSTONHOUSTONChairman: Mark GreggV-Chrmn: Steve HartzellSecretary: Paul BabcockTreasurer: Glen PankonienMeets: Petroleum Club

3rd Thursday

LL AFAFAAYETTEYETTEChairman: Ellis GuilbeauV-Chrmn: Johnny WalkerSecretary/Treasurer: David Bieber

Meets: Petroleum Club2nd Wednesday

MIDLMIDL ANDANDChairman: Tom GentryV-Chrmn: Steve RobichaudSecretary: David OvertonTreasurer: Pete SchrenkelMeets: Midland Country Club

3rd Wednesday

NEW ORLEANSNEW ORLEANSChairman: Louis Lemarie’V-Chrmn: Mike FeinSecretary: Al BakerTreasurer: Reese PinneyMeets: Andrea’s Restaurant

3rd Tuesday

OKLOKL AHOMA CITYAHOMA CITYChairman: Tom RowlandV-Chrmn: James JacksonSecretary: Mike PollokTreasurer: Victor CooperMeets: The Petroleum Club

Bank One Bldg., 35th Floor1st Wednesday

SAN ANTONIOSAN ANTONIOChairman: J. L. JonesV-Chrmn: Joe SmithSecretary/Treasurer: Joe Finger

Meets: Petroleum Club3rd Thursday

SIPES Chapter Meeting Information

12 ______________________________________________________________________________SIPES QUARTERLY


CORPUS CHRISTIThe Corpus Christi Chapter had the

privilege of listening to ManntiCummins, manager of wind projectsfor American Shoreline, Inc. at theOctober luncheon. Mr. Cummins pre-sented an overview of South Texaswind farm projects entitled “Thar SheBlows.” The presentation addressedthe Peñascal Wind Farm and includedthe economic impact and green ener-gy possibilities of the project andother wind projects in South Texas.

Our November guest speaker, JamesR. (Jim) Garrison, Jr., Ph.D. of theGeoscience Department at Texas A&M

Corpus Christi presented “TheNueces Incised Valley Revisited: AReinterpretation of the Sediment-ology and Depositional Sequence

Stratigraphy of Preserved Pleistoceneand Holocene Valley-fill Sediments.”

The December event was ourAnnual SIPES Christmas Party at theCorpus Christi Town Club and wasfestive and well-attended. New offi-cers were announced that included:Chairman Patrick Nye; Vice Chairman& Program Chairman StephenThomas; Treasurer Duncan Chisholm;Secretary David Desenberg; andNational Director Owen Hopkins.

Patrick NyeChairman

October luncheon guestspeaker Mannti Cummins.

LAFAYETTEThe Lafayette Chapter ’s October

meeting continued the tradition ofour annual BBQ at the Girard ParkPavilion. The weather was picture-perfect and we had a very largeturnout to enjoy food from Dwight’sBarbecue. Also in October, JimGamble, #2524, organized our annualdove hunt near Lake Charles that wasenjoyed by members and guests. Itwas a great success with most huntersgetting their limits of birds.

The November meeting was ourlargest member-attended event of theyear as Jim Bollich (retired geologist)entertained us with his heroic accountas a Bataan Death March survivor. Jimhas written ten books and has been

awarded numerous medals and acco-lades for his service to our country. Itisn’t every day that you get to shakethe hand of a real live American hero.Those who are a part of the “GreatestGeneration” are quickly disappearing,and we owe them a huge debt of grat-itude for their service to this countryand our way of life.

The December meeting was a stun-ning success with our members andtheir significant others attending a sitdown meal at the Lafayette PetroleumClub. We also installed new officersfor the coming year with the currentofficers agreeing to accept anotheryear at their current positions.Lafayette Chapter officers for 2008-2009 are: Chairman Ellis Guilbeau;

Vice Chairman Johnny Walker;Secretary/Treasurer David Bieber andDirector Bill Finley.

David BieberSecretary

Chapter Chairman Ellis Guilbeau (L) givingSteve Hennigan his membership certificateand stamp at the December meeting.

MIDLANDDuring the October luncheon, Lee

Sanders presented a program titled“Log analysis of the Wolfberry.” Lee, aretired Halliburton log analyst, sharedhis template for using conventionallog suites to analyze the data from re-entry candidates and new wells. Hisparadigm uses a tested approach ofparameter requirements to identifythe potential pay zones in this newplay. He presented a way to lookthrough the shaly zones for economiccompletions.

In November, the luncheon pro-gram was focused on the economics ofthe wind farms that are proliferating

in West Texas. S. Dale Heiskell andJohn C. Rutledge of the tax appraisalconsulting firm Pritchard & Abbott,Inc. in Fort Worth, Texas were the pre-senters. Pritchard & Abbott providesthe appraisal expertise for many of thetaxing entities in West Texas includingMidland County. Their presentationgave us insight into the economicstructure and profit margins of windturbine electrical generation. This isan alternative energy that is growingtoward providing a greater portion ofour national electrical supply. Themain point: they aren’t economicwithout taxpayer subsidies.

The Midland Chapter takes a breakin December and does not meet.

The results are in. The efforts of sev-eral local professional organizations,including the Midland Chapter ofSIPES, helped the MidlandIndependent School District providethe AAPG “More! Rocks in YourHead” continuing education programto a number of teachers. It was a hugesuccess. Fifty-one primary and juniorhigh science educators participated.Most of the teachers found the pro-gram provided tools they could pre-sent to their students to give a back-ground in earth science and the oiland gas industry.

David OvertonSecretary


FEBRUARY 2009 _______________________________________________________________________________13

DALLASThe Dallas Chapter of SIPES co-

sponsored, with the Ellison MilesGeotechnology Institute, the BarnettShale Symposium VI at BrookhavenCollege in Farmers Branch, Texas onOctober 21. The theme of this year’ssymposium was “The Impact ofNatural Resource Development in theUrban Environment,” featuring pre-sentations on non-technical issuesconcerning development of theBarnett Shale across the Dallas-FortWorth Metroplex. U.S. CongressmanPete Sessions of the 32nd District ofTexas was the featured lunch speaker.Congressman Sessions stressed theneed for our country to develop athoughtful energy plan, and to effec-tively use our own natural resourcesfirst. The symposium and lunch regis-tered 85 attendees.

Our November 18 lunch meetingwas held at Royal Oaks Country Club,our regular venue. A panel comprisedby the management of AdvancedDrilling Technologies presented theevolution and current state-of-the-artof coiled-tubing drilling technology.The panel included Ovidio Alcaro,executive manager; Tom Gipson, co-founder; Tom Jones, rig manager; andTom Roelfs, vice president of opera-tions. Although there are a number ofvariables to consider, coiled-tubingdrilling technology today allows a 6-1/4” hole drilled to an approximatetotal depth of 4,500’; an 8-3/4” holesize is limited to about 3,500.’ The bestapplication for CT drilling is in softformations due to the limited weighton bit which can be supplied by thedrillstring.

The following executive board forthe Dallas Chapter for 2009 was elect-

ed at the November meeting:Chairman Terry O’Hare; ViceChairman Doug Essler; TreasurerKeith Brownlee; Secretary MikeTaylor; Membership Chairman DonMuth; Activities Chairman DavidBissmeyer; Continuing EducationChairman Robert Webster; NationalDirectors Bobby Greenwood and DickCleveland; TEC Representatives EdGonzales and James Henderson.

The annual Christmas Party washeld at the Dallas Petroleum Club onthe evening of Saturday, December 6,2008. Following cocktails and dinner,The Mike Drake Band provided musi-cal entertainment for 130 chaptermembers and guests. A great time washad by all.

Mike TaylorSecretary

U.S. Congressman Pete Sessions (L), features symposium lunch speaker, withContinuing EducationCommittee ChairmanStan Pittman.

Panel of speakers from Advanced DrillingTechnologies (L to R) Tom Roelfs, TomGipson, Ovidio Alcaro, Tom Jones, andTerry O’Hare, SIPES Dallas Chapter ViceChairman.

Christmas Party at the Dallas PetroleumClub.

NEW ORLEANSDuring our October 21st luncheon

at Andrea’s Restaurant in Metairie,Ken Huffman, #2936, with LaBayExploration presented his talk entitled“Rabbit Island, SL 340 Revitalized –Getting New Energy from an OldRabbit.” Ken’s presentation was aninformative update to a similar onethat he made at the national conven-tion in May 2008. (This talk is availableon DVD from the SIPES FoundationVideo Film Library). The luncheonmeeting attendance was somewhatreduced because of its coincidencewith the Louisiana Prospect Expo inLafayette which is a popular venueamong the local independents.

The November meeting was held inconjunction with 11th Annual GNO(Greater New Orleans) Joint IndustryAssociation Luncheon. This event washeld on November 18 at the RoyalSonesta Hotel in New Orleans, andwas hosted by eighteen industry asso-ciations. The keynote speaker wasMark Singletary, who is editor andpublisher of the New OrleansPublishing Group. Mr. Singletary hasbeen in the newspaper business forover thirty years and is presentlyresponsible for the local publication ofCityBusiness and the Daily Journal ofCommerce. Mr. Singletary’s talk wasentitled “The Recovery vs. Normalcyof New Orleans and Its Challenges.”In addition to Mr. Singletary, Ms.

Pamela Senatore, who is vice-presi-dent of Horizon Initiative, was pre-sent to give an update on that organi-zation. The Horizon Initiative, a non-profit organization that was startedover a year ago, comprises a group ofover 400 culturally, racially and social-ly diverse business and civic leaderswho are dedicated to increasing pros-perity and the quality of life for allNew Orleanians through economicdevelopment.

On December 16, the New OrleansChapter returned to Andrea’sRestaurant for its holiday luncheonwhich was its typical “open mike – nospeaker” venue.

Al BakerSecretary


14 ______________________________________________________________________________SIPES QUARTERLY

DENVERThe Denver Chapter continued its

fall program with local SIPES memberJohn Wright, #2497, as our Octoberspeaker. John is one of our formerchapter chairs, and a highly-respectedevaluation engineer. His talk wastitled “Economics of the Barnett GasShale Play as a Potential Model forEmerging Plays.” The presentationwas a statistical evaluation of publicdomain data over randomly selectedareas of the play to determine the eco-nomic sensitivity and nuances ofarguably the hottest exploration anddevelopment play in the lower 48with an eye toward evaluating shaleplays in general. Although muchattention and study has been conduct-ed on the Barnett Shale, John’s analyt-ical approach resulted in some veryinteresting, and somewhat surprisingresults. The economic sensitivity ofdifferent areas of the play and com-parison of horizontal versus verticaldrilling was of particular interest. Formembers involved in shale plays,specifically the acquisition and devel-opment phases, John’s conclusionsgave plenty of food for thought. Forthose not involved in the unconven-tional resources, they were eye open-ing. Perhaps you should not alwaysbelieve what you read or listen to allthe field rumors you hear!

In November, our chapter waspleased to host current national vicepresident and Fort Worth ChapterSIPES member Lee Petersen, #2838.Lee presented his very encouraginggrass roots exploration talk entitled“Finding Oil without Use ofComputers, Remote Sensing, Seismic,and Non-conventional Methods, PartII.” Recognizing budgetary restric-tions for most SIPES members withregard to participation in expensivetechnology-based plays “du jour,” Leepresented several examples of oppor-tunities that were developed andexploited by plain old critical think-ing. The application of observation,deduction, and rational thinking

resulted in significant discoveries inthe Midland Basin and Eastern shelfof West Texas.

Good old-fashioned geology talksare very popular with our chapter asevidenced by the good attendance atLee’s talk. Part I of this of this talk wasa paper presented by SIPES memberCharles E. (Gene) Mear, #2463, (1926-2007) at the Southwest Section AAPGin 1996. Lee presented some of thisinformation at the 2008 SIPESConvention last year; this presenta-tion is available on DVD from theFoundation’s Earth Science FilmLibrary.

The Chapter concluded a very goodyear with its annual Christmas partyin early December. Following up on asuggestion by Chairman Bob Cluff,we changed the venue and format ofthe event in an effort to spruce things

up a bit. The party was held onDecember 11 at the Briarwood Inn,located at the foothills of the Rockiesin Golden, Colorado. Thanks to thegenerous support of several individ-ual members, a terrific party wasenjoyed by the largest turnout wehave had in years.

As is our custom, next year’s officerslate was announced at the Christmasparty. The chapter will be lead in 2009by Chairman Jim Applegate, ViceChair and Program ChairwomanConnie Knight, Secretary Dave Readand graciously returning TreasurerTom Stander. Thanks were given tooutgoing Chairman Bob Cluff, ViceChair Jim Applegate and TreasurerTom Stander for an excellent 2008.During 2008, our membership grewnicely; the talks, picnic/golf tourna-ment and Christmas party were verywell attended; and most important,the strength of the chapter reallyimproved. Thanks for a job well doneby our officers, volunteers and sup-porters of the Chapter.

In closing, the Denver Chapter is thehost for the 2010 Annual Meeting atthe beautiful Cheyenne MountainResort in Colorado Springs, Coloradoin late June. Convention Co-Chair-men Mike Austin and Bill Goff will becontacting the different chapters forinput on the technical sessions.

Bill GoffMembership Chairman

Members and spouses enjoying the Christmas Party at the Briarwood Inn.

Emily and Bill Goff at the annual ChristmasParty in December.

FEBRUARY 2009 _______________________________________________________________________________15


FORT WORTHRather than a monthly luncheon,

the Fort Worth Chapter held a jointsocial with the Dallas Chapter onOctober 9 at Willhoite’s Restaurant inthe historic downtown area ofGrapevine, Texas. Members of bothchapters had a chance to renewacquaintances with old friends, makesome new friends and exchange infor-mation about the projects and oppor-tunities that various members werepursuing. The get-together wasenjoyed by all, and the Fort WorthChapter thanks the Dallas Chapter fororganizing the event. The Fort WorthChapter did not meet in Novemberand December, but will resume itsmonthly schedule with a luncheon onJanuary 19, 2009.

The Fort Worth Chapter officers forthe first half of 2009 will be the sameas in 2008.

For the first time, the Fort WorthChapter is co-hosting the SIPES

Annual Meeting in Hilton Head thisApril. The general meeting chairmanis Phil Carlisle, #2557, and LeePetersen, #2838, is the technical pro-gram chair. Make your plans now toattend this educational and fun-filledevent that gives you the chance tomeet fellow independents from acrossthe country. A list of technical pro-gram speakers is printed on page 37.You can register online atwww.sipes.org; or use the registrationbook and fax or mail your forms to theDallas office. We look forward to see-ing you there!

Also, please note that the Fort WorthChapter is no longer meeting at theFort Worth Petroleum Club on the 3rdThursday, but is meeting at variabletimes and locations to avoid conflictswith other societies, events and holi-days.

Jamie Robertson Chairman

there are many opportunities, usingsimple techniques, to economicallyrecover additional oil in fieldsthroughout the State.

The major technical obstacle to asystematic search for these opportuni-ties is scattered, inaccessible, andincomplete well and production data.This issue is being addressed througha non-profit initiative, called EnergyLibraries Online, of the OklahomaCity Geological Society, the OklahomaWell Log Library, and the OklahomaGeological Survey. This multi-yearproject is now underway, but willrequire additional financial support tosee it through. If operators are provid-ed the tools necessary to identifyopportunities that can tap even asmall part of this untapped oil vol-ume, a resurgence in activity and pro-duction is assured, with all of thefinancial benefits that these will bringto the industry and the State.

This article has been revised andupdated from work that was original-ly published in the May/June 2008 edi-tion (Volume 58, No. 6) of the 'ShaleShaker', which is the bimonthly jour-nal of the Oklahoma City GeologicalSociety.

OKLAHOMA OIL TRENDS

Current StatusOklahoma oil exploration began

over 100 years ago, with early success-es propelling the territory to state-hood in 1907. Rapid development ofmany of the largest oil reservoirs ledto State production peaking in 1927.There have been intermediate highsand lows in oil production since thattime, with the last peak occurring dur-ing the price-driven 'oil boom' in thelate 1970s and early 1980s. Excepting aslight increase in 2006, oil productionhas declined steadily, regardless ofprice, since 1984. The disconnectbetween price and production isdemonstrated by the intermediateprice peaks in 1990, 1996, and 2000that did little to slow the long-termdrop in production, and the fact that ittook four years of record prices toachieve even a modest bump in 2006(Figure 1).

The price of oil in Oklahoma, andthe rest of the world, has been on anupward trend since 2002, with the2007 average price setting a record at$69.01/Bbl, and the 2008 price likely toset yet another all-time record.Despite this, Oklahoma's averagedaily oil production in 2007 dropped 5% (or 8,767 BOPD); which is the low-

est seen since 1912. The productionfigures shown in Figure 1 include con-densate, but this represents less than3% of the total liquid hydrocarbonsproduced (Soltani, 2008).

The easiest way to boost a region'soil production is to find large, long-lived fields. Unfortunately, inOklahoma these days are long past, asour last 100 MMB field (Postle) wasdiscovered in 1958 and the last 10MMB field (Wheatland) in 1981 (Boyd,2002a). Over 500,000 wells have beendrilled in the last 100+ years, withtens of thousands of separate oil accu-mulations and over 3,000 named oilfields discovered. As a result, althoughdeeper potential may exist in someolder fields, the prospective oil-pro-ducing regions of the State have beenextensively explored.

Because discoveries are no longer asignificant component of new oil pro-duction, future reserve additions mustlargely come from improvements tothe recovery in existing fields. MostOklahoma oil production comes fromfields that have been producing fordecades in which the average wellmakes about 2 BOPD. Although small,undrained accumulations continue tobe found, usually in or adjacent toexisting fields, the possibility of find-ing one or more new oil fields largeenough to significantly affect theState's long-term production declinehas become vanishingly small.

In 2007 4,066 wells were completedin Oklahoma, with 25% of these(1,010) as oil completions. Most ofthese were in existing fields, withmore than one quarter of the totalbeing workovers (IHS Energy, 2008).Oil-targeted drilling grew modestlybetween the price run-up beginningin 2002 and 2006, but 2007 has seen an8% decrease and this is likely to con-tinue in 2008 (Figure 2). In fact,although the rate of oil well abandon-ment has dropped in the last twoyears, the number of active oil wells inOklahoma remains in long-termdecline (Soltani, 2008).

(Continued)

Oklahoma Oil Opportunity Continued

16 ______________________________________________________________________________SIPES QUARTERLY

Figure 1. Oil production and average crude-oil price (unadjusted) in Oklahoma from1950 through 2007. From Soltani (2008).

There are plausible explanations forwhy oil drilling and production con-tinue to fall in what is still a high priceenvironment: 1) Operators are con-cerned that prices will be insufficientto recoup large initial investments, 2)The economics for natural gas are bet-ter, giving gas-targeted drilling anadvantage, or 3) There is not enoughproducible oil left to justify a large-scale evaluation of improved recoveryprojects.

1) As is being demonstrated yetagain in late 2008, long-term priceforecasts can be driven by many fac-tors that are impossible to predict, andoperators in Oklahoma have beenaffected by all of them. Although it iseasy to understand a hesitancy toinvest in oil, it is believed that over thelong term demand will continue torise and oil prices will remain strong(Boyd, 2005). Notwithstanding thecurrent global economic recession,long-term demand growth will con-tinue until deliverability can no longerkeep pace. Regardless of one's view ofwhen 'peak oil' will occur, in today'sworld there are certainly many morefactors that could bring about priceincreases than those that could pushprices lower.

2) Despite its recent decline, the 2008average gas price in Oklahoma willlikely exceed that of 2007. At$6.48/MCF it is the second highestannual average price in history, butunknowns associated with winterweather severity give gas prices adown-side that oil lacks. The averagegas well in Oklahoma still producesabout 135 MCFPD, which on a BOEbasis is more than 10 times what theaverage oil well produces. So even ifnatural gas prices fall relative to oil,their ability to generate cash flow isstill far greater. This income discrep-ancy, combined with Oklahoma'slarge, unconventional, gas plays,makes industry's preoccupation withnatural gas easy to understand.

3) Is there enough producible oil leftfor it to make a comeback ? This can-not be easily answered, because eacharea, field and reservoir must be eval-uated on its own merits. This reviewwill show that there are many fieldspublished in the geologic literaturethat have significantly underper-formed when compared to closelyanalogous fields. However, the objec-tive here is not to evaluate the eco-nomics of individual oil projects, butsimply to prove that sufficient poten-tial exists to justify evaluating the pos-sibilities.

HISTORY (HOW WE GOT HERE)Oil exploration in Oklahoma began

before there was any real any under-standing of why and where it mightoccur. It had been known to exist inthe subsurface long before Statehoodthrough the drilling of water wellsthat became contaminated by crudeoil. Early wells intentionally lookingfor oil were usually drilled near seeps,with the first commercial success com-ing adjacent to a seep near Bartlesvillein 1897. The Nellie Johnstone usheredin the oil age to Oklahoma and begana meteoric rise in territorial and thenState fortunes in which annual crudeproduction went from 1,000 barrels in1897 to 43.5 million barrels in 1907 -the year of Statehood (Franks, 1980)(Figure 3).

The oil produced in 1907 was onlythe beginning, as the oil-rush contin-ued with a steady stream of enormousdiscoveries. These included Cushing(1912), Burbank (1920), SeminoleDistrict (1923), and Oklahoma City(1928), each of which would producemore than 500 MMBO (Figure 4). Oilproduction peaked in 1927, and roseand fell many times thereafter.Increases in production came throughdiscoveries, increased allowables,large secondary recovery projects, orprice-driven surges in drilling activity.Falls in production were caused byforced curtailment (due to low price),reduced drilling activity, or, as is thecase now, a natural, long-term declinein field production.

All geologic provinces eventuallyreach a point at which the potentialreward no longer justifies the risk andexpense of large-scale exploration.When this happens activity moveselsewhere, and for Oklahoma thisoccurred in the late 1960s. The price ofcrude oil had remained nearly flat fordecades, and discovery sizes nolonger justified widespread explo-ration. In 1967 oil production began along downhill slide that was onlybriefly interrupted by the drillingboom in the late 1970s and early 1980s(Fig. 1).

Most of the oil discovered inOklahoma was found during a time

(Continued)

FEBRUARY 2009 _______________________________________________________________________________17


Figure 2. Oklahoma well-completions from 1980 through 2007, showing the trend awayfrom exploration, based on dry hole percentage, and towards gas development. From IHSEnergy, 2008.


when natural gas, especially that seenin association with oil, was viewedmainly as a drilling hazard. Earlywells were drilled with cable tool rigsthat, unlike modern rotary rigs, oper-ate without drilling mud and there-fore any mechanism to control fluidflows. A discovery meant a blowout,with gas in the air and oil on theground. The gas was vented or flaredand earthen dams were used to collectthe oil. If a well encountered a largegas flow, it would be vented, some-times for days, to determine if therewas an oil rim beneath. If oil did even-tually cone into the well, it was pro-duced and the gas flared. If not, thewell would be plugged. An example isthe discovery well for Wewoka Field,the R. H. Smith - #1 Betty Foster,which was drilled in March 1923. Afterpenetrating a few inches into a sand-stone, this well blew out flowing 20MMCFPD and 'spraying oil'. The 'oil',which clearly was initially gas con-densate, increased to 200 BOPD in afew days as underlying oil coned intothe well, causing the gas flow todecrease. This permitted a deepeningof the well, making it capable of a rateof 3,500 BOPD (Franks, 1980).

The frontier mentality in the State'searly history made it reluctant tointervene in what were viewed as 'pri-vate business practices'. Although theOklahoma Corporation Commissionwas formed in 1907 to regulate the oilindustry, the organization was chroni-cally understaffed. The lack of inspec-tors forced it to rely on an honor sys-tem in which the industry becamelargely self-regulating. As a result,independent oil producers them-selves were the first to address whatwere termed 'intolerable conditions inthe oil fields'. In addition to numerouslarge oil spills and fires, these condi-tions included a waste of natural gasthat by 1913 had assumed 'scandalousproportions'. In this year the federalgovernment estimated that $20,000 ofgas was wasted each day at CushingField alone and that the daily waste ofgas Statewide was equal to 10,000 tonsof coal. (Using the standard of 14 cfper pound of bituminous coal, thisequates to 280 MMCFPD, or 102 BCFin that year.) This attention wasviewed by many as a pretext for thefederal government to extend itsauthority over Oklahoma. This neverhappened, but it did prompt preven-tative action to be taken. In 1914 theOIPA advocated regulation of theindustry, with the focus on prora-tioning. (Franks, 1980).

The practice of flaring huge quanti-ties of gas in Oklahoma's early oilfields, with the resulting loss of reser-voir energy, had a devastating impacton recoveries and caused rates toplummet after peak production wasreached. Healdton Field, which wasdiscovered in 1913, peaked in 1916 at95,000 BOPD. (It was noted in Franks,1980 that individual wells in this fieldwere flaring up to 13.5 MMCFPD.) By1918 the field was capable of only40,000 BOPD, and by 1924 only 16,000BOPD. Another example is BurbankField, where July 1923 peak produc-tion of 122,000 BOPD fell to an aver-age in 1924 of 60,000 BOPD, whichfurther fell to 37,000 BOPD by 1926.Although the presence of abundantgas in the oil had the benefit of mak-ing pumping equipment unnecessary,flaring was recognized, even at thistime, as reducing oil recovery.However, the atmosphere was suchthat large-scale gas flaring remainedthe accepted practice (Franks, 1980).

The volume of gas flared in the earlydays in Oklahoma is impossible toquantify directly because flow rateswere guesstimates and there was norequirement to report gas productionthat was not sold. In the studiesreviewed for this report it was foundthat most oil accumulations werefound at or just below gas saturation.

(Continued)

18 ______________________________________________________________________________SIPES QUARTERLY

Figure 3. The Nellie Johnstone #1,drilled in 1897 just south of Bartlesville,established the first economic productionin Oklahoma. Photograph taken fromFranks, 1980.

Figure 4. Map of major geologic provinces of Oklahoma showing oil and gas fields distin-guished by GOR and oil fields with more than 500 MMB recovery. Modified from Boyd(2002b).


This is confirmed by the number offields that were discovered with smallgas caps or formed secondary gas capsimmediately after production began.The average (weighted by field size)initial gas to oil ratio (iGOR) for thefields studied was 665 standard cubicfeet per stock tank barrel (scf/STB).This is in substantial agreement withthe average (unweighted) iGOR fromthe government compiled in theTORIS database, which is 724 scf/STB(U. S. Dept. of Energy, 1984).

If the average produced GORthrough abandonment pressure isroughly three times the initial value(Knapp, 2006), the Statewide associat-ed gas volume should be about 1995scf/STB. By linking gas with oil pro-duction in this way it becomes possi-ble to estimate how much associatedgas was liberated as oil was produced.By subtracting from the associated gasvolume the gas that was actually sold,it is possible to estimate how muchwas vented or flared. This estimateignores non-associated gas that mayhave been flared from gas caps. It alsoassumes that all gas sold was associat-ed gas which, given high GORs andhuge oil sales, seems a safe assump-tion (Figure 5).

The first year in which more than 1BCF of gas was officially sold in

Oklahoma was 1906. From this time,peaking in 1927 and continuingthrough 1942, the calculated volumeof associated gas is much greater thanthat on which taxes were paid. From1900 through 1942, 6.9 trillion cubicfeet (TCF) of gas and 5.13 BBO weresold. The oil produced should havegenerated 10.2 TCF of associated gas,so if the produced GOR estimate isaccurate, the volume of gas ventedand flared in Oklahoma during thistime was about 3.3 TCF. This formulagenerates a 1913 flared volume of only53 BCF, which is roughly half the pre-viously quoted federal estimate of 102BCF for that year. Although 3 to 6 TCFis a relatively small amount in a Statethat through 2008 has sold more than100 TCF, its real impact was in thereduction of oil recoveries.

There were other early practices thatreduced oil recovery, including 1) theconing of water into oil reservoirsthrough over-production, 2) uncoor-dinated, patch-work waterfloods inwhich a poorly understood reservoirgeometry left large areas unswept,and 3) subsurface cross-flow in whichcommingled zones exchanged fluidsor where uncased wells allowed oilreservoirs to charge permeable water-bearing zones. However, the practicethat had the most profound impact on

oil recovery in the State was that ofgas flaring. This reduced recovery byrapidly reducing reservoir pressureand gas saturation in the oil, and byleaving behind unproducible oil satu-rations through the smearing of oilinto gas caps. Ultimately however, thisis only water under the bridge. Whatis important is that a great deal of oilremains in the ground.THE FUTURE (WHERE WE'RE GOING)

One of the objectives of this analysiswas to determine how much oil willbe left in the ground, given a continu-ation of the current productiondecline. The first step in this process isto establish ultimate recovery. Thistask is never easy, but it is made sim-pler by the fact that most of the State'sproduction comes from wells thathave produced for decades, andbecause discoveries large enough toaffect State production will no longeroccur.

In their latest reserve estimate in2005, which is based on a poll of theState's operators, the EnergyInformation Administration of theU.S. Department of Energy projectedOklahoma's proved oil reserves at 588MMBO (E.I.A., 2005). The same polltaken in 2000 placed reserves at 621MMBO, meaning that provedreserves dropped only 33 MMBO in afive-year period in which 332 MMBOwere produced. Obviously, the neardoubling of crude oil prices in thatperiod did much to improve the aver-age operator's outlook, but through itall the decline in production since1995 has averaged just over 3.0% peryear.

If State production remains in long-term decline it is possible to calculate arange of remaining oil reserves.Although this estimate carries manyassumptions, it does show the effectthat changes in the long-term declinehave on EUR volumes. Using the 3.0%decline experienced since 1995, andcarrying it through the year 2050,remaining reserves as of January 2008are 1,434 MMB. If the decline isincreased to 4.0%, still less than the

(Continued)

FEBRUARY 2009 _______________________________________________________________________________19

Figure 5. Estimate of associated gas production in Oklahoma from 1900 through 1942.Production based on an average produced GOR of 1995 scf/Bbl. Flared/vented gas is thedifference between the total calculated and that sold.


20 ______________________________________________________________________________SIPES QUARTERLY

5.0% decline seen in 2007, remainingreserves through the year 2050 are1,206 MMB (Figure 6). The cutoff in2050 and the final per well productionrates (1/2 BOPD and 1/3 BOPD) werearbitrary, as the actual economicthreshold is impossible to predict.One of the most significant results ofthis projection is that a 1% reductionin the rate of decline increases ulti-mate oil recovery in Oklahoma bynearly ¼ billion barrels.

Given these assumptions, the rangeof remaining oil reserves is surprising-ly narrow. In both the 3.0% and 4.0%decline cases, remaining reserves aresignificantly greater than the 588MMB reported by the E.I.A. So, givena continuation of current trends indrilling and plugging, and an averageabandonment rate for an oil well inOklahoma of less than ½ barrel perday, there is good reason to believethat more than a billion barrels are leftto produce. This means that in a statusquo situation, ultimate recovery forthe State will be slightly more than 16BBO. The good news is that, short of aprice collapse, the chances are excel-lent Oklahoma will produce at leasttwice the oil now carried as reserves.The bad news is, if correct, we areabout 92% produced and the end is insight. DEFINING OKLAHOMA'S OIL RESOURCE

ProcedureThe task of determining the volume

of oil that was originally in-place isdaunting. The State contains tens ofthousands of separate oil accumula-tions, at depths from a few hundred tomore than 11,000 feet, located in thou-sands of fields scattered across almostevery county. This oil resides in hun-dreds of named reservoir-intervals ofevery description, trapped in everyconceivable trap type, and producedthrough a variety of natural and artifi-cial drive mechanisms. Given suchcomplexity, the key is simplification.This begins with the placement of alloil reservoirs into three major classes:Blanket Sandstones (BS), CarbonateShelves (CS), and Fluvial-DominatedDeltaic Sandstones (FDD). These cor-

respond to what the Department ofEnergy calls Strandplain\Barrier,Shallow Shelf\Open, and Delta\-Fluvial Dominated reservoirs (U. S.D.O.E., 1993).

To draw statistically meaningfulconclusions, reservoir, fluid, and relat-ed data were gathered on as many oilaccumulations as possible. Because ofthe time necessary to produce thesedata from scratch, and because somuch excellent work has already beendone, information was acquired pri-marily through studies available inthe literature. Although those withvolumetrics were the most useful,valuable data were gleaned fromwork from even in the earliest days ofthe industry, where oil/gas analyses,initial rate and GOR, cumulative pro-duction by reservoir, and productiontechniques were noted. The bestreservoir descriptions, including core-derived porosity/permeability, beginin studies from the late 1940s, withvolumetric analyses becoming routineby the mid-1950s. The quality of thework in these studies was generallyquite good, and even those with miss-ing data or ambiguous results con-tributed valuable information.

The data recorded include generallocation information, reservoir prop-erty and trap information, fluid prop-erties, production and volumetric cal-culations, and information concerningthe study type and issues affecting itsapplicability. The studies originatedfrom a variety of sources, including 1)the Oklahoma Geological Survey, 2)publications from the AAPG, theJournal of Petroleum Technology, andthe Oil and Gas Journal, 3) profession-al groups, including the OklahomaCity, Tulsa, Ardmore, and PanhandleGeological Societies, 4) governmentalstudies from the US Bureau of Mines,the USGS, the Department of Energy,and the Oklahoma Academy ofScience, and finally 4) theses and dis-sertations from OU. Where possible,these data were compared to thosepublished in the TORIS database (U.S.Dept. of Energy, 1984).

Each of the 225 studies examinedhad useful information, but the volu-metrics and recovery factors in manywere unusable. For these the mostcommon disqualifier was the inabilityto confirm production, either becauseof missing data, or because the pro-ductive area had increased to the

(Continued)

Figure 6. Projected Oklahoma oil production using 3.0 and 4.0% annual declines through2050. Both cases end with the average well producing less than ½ BOPD. This suggeststhe ultimate oil recovery for the State will be slightly more than 16 BBO.


point that the study's volumetrics hadbecome meaningless. Many excellentfield studies had to be excluded fromrecovery factor statistics becausecumulative production quoted fromoriginal operator records, often fromthe 1950s or ‘60s, was much more thanthat shown in the latest IHS data. Forfields in which production was shownas commingled, production was onlyassigned to leases in which the reser-voir under study was listed first. Ofthe studies with volumetrics that werereviewed, roughly half (123) had veri-fiable production (BS-24, CS-25, FDD-74) (Figure 7). (Appendix). The recov-ery factors quoted are based on thesestudies.

The three reservoir types, althoughvery broad, are useful in definingsome of the most fundamental factorsaffecting oil recovery. These includesubsurface geometry, reservoir het-erogeneity, pore volume, porositytype(s) and permeability. The impactthese factors have on fluid movementthrough the reservoir helps determinedrive mechanism, and ultimatelyrecovery factor. By comparing oilfields with similar trap types andreservoirs it becomes possible toassign an 'ideal' recovery factor to sim-ilar fields based on the results of thosethat performed the best. In a review ofthis nature, it is impossible take intoaccount all of the variables that canaffect recovery factor. However, gen-

eral rules of thumb can be drawn forcommon reservoir/trap types that canhelp identify under-performing fieldsthroughout the State.

Blanket Sandstones (BS) refer pri-marily to the Ordovician-age Simpsonreservoirs, which are clean, well-sort-ed, high quality sandstones. Theseinclude the Bromide, McLish, OilCreek, Tulip Creek and WilcoxSandstones (Fig. 8). A single Misenerstudy was included in this groupbecause, although aerially restricted, itis composed of eroded Simpson-agesandstones with similar porosity andpermeability (Appendix). Blanketsandstone reservoirs generally havehigh porosity and excellent perme-ability. They are laterally continuous,and as a result, trap only on structuralhighs. Their drive mechanism is dom-inantly solution gas drive, with vary-ing degrees of water support. Watermovement is dependent on howmuch reservoir below the oil/watercontact is in communication with theoil trap, which in these laterally con-tinuous reservoirs is usually con-trolled by faulting off-structure.

Carbonate Shelf (CS) reservoirsstudied are limestones and dolomitesranging in age from the Cambro-Ordovician Arbuckle dolomite to theMid-Pennsylvanian OswegoLimestone. The most important pro-ducers in this category are theArbuckle, Hunton and various

Mississippian limestones. Carbonatereservoirs are often stratigraphicallytrapped along the regional truncationof a porous facies, but where porosityis pervasive they can also be foundstructurally trapped. Carbonates areoften dual-porosity reservoirs inwhich a low porosity/permeabilitymatrix is enhanced by dissolution fea-tures (molds, vugs, and caverns) andfractures. The dissolution features andfractures greatly increase wellboreaccess to the lower permeabilitymatrix that would otherwise not be ofreservoir quality. A single ArkansasNovaculite study was included in thisgroup because of its similar dual-porosity system and production char-acteristics (Appendix).

Fluvial-Dominated Deltaic (FDD)reservoirs are by far the most impor-tant group in Oklahoma. They arePennsylvanian and Permian in age,with the most productive being theBartlesville, Deese, Morrow, and RedFork. They are a diverse group ofsandstones which, although mostlydeposited as channel-fills (distributarychannels and incised valley-fills), alsoinclude overbank splays and varioustypes of marine-reworked deltaicsandstones, including distributarymouth bars and tidal channels.Reservoir quality is highly variable,with the various channel-fill sand-stones being by far the best. The defin-ing characteristic of FDD reservoirs istheir limited aerial extent and a com-plex subsurface plumbing system. Forthis reason, although structure cansometimes influence the trap, evenFDD reservoirs occurring on structur-al highs have a strong stratigraphiccomponent. Like the BS reservoirs,the drive mechanism tends to be solu-tion gas drive, but with little or nowater support (Figure 8).

The published findings were gener-ally taken at face value, under theassumption that in a large samplethere should be an equal tendency tooverestimate as underestimate anyparticular parameter affecting volu-metric calculations. There were sever-al cases in which all of the key vari-

(Continued)

FEBRUARY 2009 _______________________________________________________________________________21

Figure 7. Map showing major geologic provinces and the location and reservoir class ofthe reservoir studies that were analyzed in this report.

22 ______________________________________________________________________________SIPES QUARTERLY

ables necessary to estimate OOIPwere provided, but the calculatedrecovery factor turned out inordinate-ly high. For some the calculated recov-ery factor was multiples of the reser-voir class average, such as an FDDreservoir with more than a 70% recov-ery factor. Anomalies could usually betraced to the addition of zones withinthe reservoir interval, or an expansionof the productive area since the studydate. Reservoir and other data fromthese studies were still valid, but thesefields were omitted from recovery fac-tor statistics. Although disqualifyingstudies in which the recovery factorwas deemed too high may introduce asystematic error that would tend tounderestimate recovery factors, small-er scale commingling in those studiesthat were used should tend to cancelthis potential bias.

This analysis is predicated on anumber of key assumptions. The firstis that the fields and reservoir studiesthat were reviewed represent a statis-tically representative cross-section ofthose that exist throughout the State.Also, because the work of dozens ofgeologists has been used, one mustassume that the studies are of equalquality and that there is no systematicbias that would tend to over- orunderestimate recovery factors. Aswill now be discussed, the largestsource of uncertainty in this analysis isnot in the pore volumes calculated,but in the oil produced.

ChallengesThere were many challenges associ-

ated with a project of this scope, butby far the most serious involves dataavailability, especially early produc-

tion data. The best publicly availabledatabase in Oklahoma is that com-piled and maintained by IHS Energy.Their monthly oil production databegins in 1970 and their well databasehas records for about 490,000 wells.The State database (NRIS), which isoffered online by Oil Law Records,begins monthly oil production in 1979and has records for about 455,000wells. The total number of wellsdrilled in Oklahoma is believed to bewell over 500,000. Because of its earli-er start date for monthly productionand larger number of well records, theIHS Energy database was used to con-firm and update production for thestudies that were reviewed.

Unfortunately, even the IHS Energydatabase has serious shortcomings,most of these due to circumstancesbeyond their control. Because theState has not consistently distin-guished condensate from oil, all vol-umes quoted as oilrefer to total hydrocarbon liquids. Ifthe average condensate yield for allOklahoma gas reservoirs is 5 barrelsper MMCF, this would amount toroughly 500 MMBC lumped into thegross oil production volumes. Whilethis is a large volume, it still representsonly about 3% of the total liquidhydrocarbon production for the State.

There are other, more serious pro-duction data issues. Using TaxCommission data, the OklahomaCorporation Commission has com-piled annual, Statewide 'oil' produc-tion volumes since 1900 and annualvolumes by county since 1975. Theseofficial numbers show a cumulativerecovery of 14.871 billion barrels(Soltani, 2008). Total liquid hydrocar-bon production in the IHS Energydatabase, including the 'beginningcums', which refer to production priorto 1970, is 12.935 BBO (IHS Energy,2008). The missing 1,936 MMBO, rep-resenting 13% of State production, isnot accounted for in any digital data-base. Fortunately, a random compari-son of IHS to Vance Rowe (hard copy)production in fields that appeared tobe underreported confirms that much

(Continued)


Figure 8. Generalized Oklahoma stratigraphic column highlighting the oil reservoir classesand the names of those reviewed in this report.

FEBRUARY 2009 _______________________________________________________________________________23

of the 'missing' oil is carried by VanceRowe.

An additional 2,995 MMBO, or 20%of State production, was producedfrom wells in which the cell identify-ing the productive reservoir is eitherblank or marked 'Unknown'. IHSEnergy does record multiple reser-voirs for wells in which more than onereservoir was listed by the operator.This has helped identify the source ofsome commingled production.However, for 383 MMB of production,or 3% of State production, the officialreservoir name is 'Commingled'.

Another production data problemrelates to oil produced from sec-ondary/enhanced recovery units, usu-ally waterflood units. Here the Statehas no requirements regarding waterinjection or production, only requir-ing operators to report the totalmonthly (oil-gas) volume for theentire unit, regardless of its size. Withoperator records now largely lost, thishas made it all but impossible to iden-tify areas in larger waterflood unitswhere producible volumes ofunswept oil may still reside. This poli-cy has resulted in a single quarter-quarter section in Cushing Fieldassigned a cumulative production of425 MMBO, and one at Burbank with315 MMBO (IHS Energy, 2008).

Thus, in the most complete produc-tion database in the State, a total of5,314 MMB, or 36% of total produc-tion, is either missing or has no reser-

voir identified. This has made it near-ly impossible to determine cumulativerecoveries or calculate recovery fac-tors for fields that were the subject ofmany excellent studies. Often cumula-tive production shown through thedate of the study, usually in the 1950sor 1960s, and provided by the opera-tor, is many times that shown by IHSas the cumulative production through2008. Such studies could not be usedin recovery factor statistics.

ResultsWith a 16 BBO estimate of ultimate

oil recovery, the next step is to deter-mine the OOIP volume from whichthis production has or will come.Because recovery factors vary withreservoir type, this involves appor-tioning cumulative production intoone of the three reservoir classesdescribed previously. This fixes therelative contribution of each class,which combined with an averagerecovery factor based on field studystatistics, makes it possible to calculatean overall OOIP.

Classifying each Oklahoma oil reser-voir into one of three reservoir classesat first seems overwhelming. TheN.R.I.S. listing of productive reser-voirs includes about 7,500 names,exactly as reported (and spelled) byoperators. Even IHS Energy, whichhas streamlined this list, still has over3,000 named reservoirs. Luckily, thevast majority of oil reservoirs have

fewer than a handful of completions,and with this in mind, only thosereservoirs with at least 10 completionswere counted. Commingled comple-tions, where the individual reservoirswere identified, had their productionassigned to the first reservoir listed.

There are only 167 reservoirs with atleast 10 oil completions, and althoughthey represent a small percentage ofthe total named, they account for over98% of the 9,280 MMBO assigned tospecific reservoirs (IHS Energy, 2008).There are 6 BS, 36 CS, and 125 FDDreservoirs with at least 10 oil comple-tions. By summing their production itwas found that BS reservoirs account-ed for 17.5%, CS reservoirs 18.5%, andFDD sandstones 64.0% of the State'scumulative production that isassigned to a specific reservoir (Figure9).

If it is assumed that unassigned andmissing production is of a roughlyequal proportion, the actual cumula-tive production for the three reservoirclasses to date is: 2,592 MMBO for BSreservoirs, 2,740 MMBO for CS reser-voirs, and 9,478 MMBO for FDD reser-voirs. If the wells producing fromthese reservoirs decline at roughly thesame rate, they should also make upthe same proportion of the ultimateoil recovery. Thus, given currenttrends, roughly one sixth ofOklahoma's ultimate oil recovery willcome from BS reservoirs, one sixthfrom CS reservoirs, and two thirdsfrom FDD reservoirs. This may actual-ly understate the relative importanceof FDD reservoirs to Oklahoma, asmuch of the unassigned production,which was produced mostly in theearly years, was from the shallowerFDD reservoirs.

In addition to collecting data on allof the variables affecting volumetriccalculations, a great deal of otherinformation was also gathered. In thisway, studies that had incomplete orunverifiable information concerningvolumetrics could make valuable con-tributions in other areas. The follow-ing is a brief summary of some of thegeological/engineering findings that

(Continued)


Figure 9. Oklahoma oil production by reservoir class.

were gathered from the 225 oil fieldstudies that contributed in some wayto this report.

In the studies reviewed reservoirdepths ranged from 720' to 11,400',with the vast majority between 3,000and 9,000'. For those giving an initialreservoir pressure, it was found thattwo thirds began at or near hydrostat-ic (0.43 psi/ft.), or 'normal' pressure.The remaining third were mostlyunderpressured, with most of theselocated on the Anadarko Shelf. Thefew that began overpressured weremostly in the Anadarko Basin. It wasrarely indicated whether the initialreservoir pressure was measureddirectly or calculated from the shut-intubing pressure. Those that were cal-culated will tend to underestimate thetrue bottom-hole pressure, and thismay account for some reservoirs thatappear to have started underpres-sured.

Regarding fluid properties, as statedearlier, the weighted average for theiGOR was 665 scf/Bbl. The distributionof oil gravity ranges from a low of 20oAPI to a high of 50o API, with mostvalues between 37o and 42o API(Figure 10). Taking the publishednumbers at face value, the averagegravity for the oil in the studiesreviewed was 39.6o API. However,any values in the mid-40s and higherare likely in part condensate, which ifdiscounted, would reduce the overallaverage. Regardless of any possibleinconsistencies, the bulk of the crude

oil found in Oklahoma is high-quality,very light, and began with ample dis-solved gas.

Reservoir statistics, which were onlycore-derived, quantitatively highlightsome of the differences between thethree reservoir classes. Although theywere deposited in different environ-ments, BS sandstones and FDD sand-stones have similar porosity distribu-tions. The FDD reservoirs are morenumerous, but the average porosity intheir oil pay, at 16.2%, is very close tothe blanket sandstone's 15.2%. Theporosity distribution (matrix) for CSreservoirs, as well as their averageporosity of 7.9%, is much lower thanthat of the other two reservoir classes.In fact, without the dissolution/frac-ture component, many of these wouldnot be of reservoir quality (Figure 11).

Core permeability values wererecorded in many of the studies thatwere reviewed, and here the twosandstone reservoir classes differ. TheFDD reservoirs were deposited mostlyas channel-fills and therefore containmore fine-grained material than thewell-winnowed blanket sandstones.Although the FDD sandstones can beas permeable as the BS, their averagepermeability is 68 md, compared to121 md for BS sandstones. The CSreservoir's distribution is somewhatbimodal, with all but three reservoirshaving very low permeability. The 21md average is misleading because itapplies to only what can be effectivelymeasured from core i.e.: matrix per-meability. In the subsurface this lowermatrix permeability can be greatlyimproved by dissolution features andespecially fractures; both natural andartificial (Figure 12).

Oil in the GroundRecovery factor ranges were calcu-

lated for each of the three reservoirclasses. These are based on the studiesin which the OOIP was given orwhere enough critical informationwas given to calculate the OOIP. Inthose cases where the initial oil satura-tion or formation volume factor wasnot given, these values were estimat-ed based on comparisons to analogfields. (OOIP = Area in acres xThickness in feet x Average Porosity %x Average Initial Oil Saturation % x

(Continued)


24 ______________________________________________________________________________SIPES QUARTERLY

Figure 10. API gravity range for the studies analyzed in this report. The higher values probably have a component of gas condensate.

Figure 11. Average porosity by reservoir class. Values are core-derived averages ofthe productive part of the reservoir for the studies analyzed in this report.

7,758 Barrels per Acre-Foot /Formation Volume Factor in ReservoirBarrels per Stock Tank Barrel).

For each of the studies reviewed theEUR was calculated by maintainingthe last month's production flat for 8years and adding this to cumulativeproduction (Figure 13). This simplisticapproach, because of almost univer-sally low production rates, seldom leftmore than a few percent of the EURleft to produce. However, if oil pricescan keep wells economic and produc-ing significantly below 1/2 BOPD, thisestimate will be somewhat conserva-tive. Because EUR is a fraction ofOOIP, an error of a few percent in theEUR will have a minimal impact onthe overall recovery factor.

The recovery factors that were cal-culated for fields in each of the threereservoir classes varied considerably,in some cases due to the nature of thereservoir, in others because of how itwas produced. Carbonate shelf reser-voirs tend to concentrate on the lowerend of the recovery scale, while theblanket sandstones stand out in thehigher ranges. Average recovery fac-tor values for each reservoir class wereweighted by dividing the summedEURs by the summed OOIPs. Thisgives larger fields, which account forthe bulk of production, more weightthan the more numerous small fields.This weighting should give a morerepresentative picture of the average

recovery factor for the three reservoirclasses. The higher level of attentionfocused on larger fields could alsogive them better recovery factors thansimilar reservoirs in smaller fields. Thefollowing are the average ultimaterecovery factors calculated forOklahoma's major reservoir classes:Blanket Sandstone - 44.1%, CarbonateShelf - 10.0%, and Fluvial-DominatedDeltaic Sandstone - 21.2% (Figure 14).

Assuming that recovery factors fromthe oil reservoirs in this study are rep-resentative of those throughout theState, it becomes possible to calculatean OOIP for all of Oklahoma. Basedon the proportionate share of totalproduction of the three reservoirclasses stated above, the aggregate

recovery factor for all oil reservoirs inthe State is about 19.0%. This yields anOOIP for the State of 84.2 BBO, with68.2 BBO projected to still be in theground at abandonment. Thisassumes a continuation of the currentproduction decline until an ultimaterecovery of 16.0 BBO (an additional1.1 BBO) is reached. Clearly, any pro-gram that can yield even a small per-centage of the oil left behind has thepotential to dramatically increase theState's EUR (Figure 15).

Because every oil accumulation isdifferent, even in the same reservoirclass, a wide range of recovery factorsare possible. In BS reservoirs withhigh permeability, if the structure isunbroken and water support strong,recovery factors well over 50% arepossible. Despite this, about half of thestudies reviewed calculated recoveryfactors of less than 30%, often sub-stantially less. In some cases thisreflected poorer reservoir quality, butmore often occurred in structurallycomplex fields. Unlike unbrokenstructures that are essentially self-flooding, these tended to have weakerwater support and a higher probabili-ty of undrained fault-blocks or missedattic oil.

In the CS reservoirs, where matrixporosity and permeability are relative-ly high and secondary porosity in the

(Continued)


FEBRUARY 2009 _______________________________________________________________________________25

Figure 12. Average permeability by reservoir class. Values are core-derived aver-ages of the productive part of the reservoir for the studies analyzed in this report.

Figure 13. Size range, in MMBO of cumulative recovery, for fields in which recovery factor was calculated.

form of vugs and fractures are abun-dant, recovery factors of over 35%were recorded after waterflooding.However, about half of the studiesreviewed had recovery factors of lessthan 15%. For many of these the oilproduced appeared to have comemostly from the secondary porositysystem, with little input from thepoorer quality matrix. For those frac-tured carbonate shelf reservoirs withpoor quality matrix, production usual-ly started very strong, but declineddramatically within a few months. Ade-watering program designed toreduce reservoir pressure and forcematrix oil into the fracture system maybe able to substantially improve recov-ery in some of these.

The largest reservoir class inOklahoma is the FDD sandstones.They account for about two thirds ofthe OOIP, and have recovery factors

that range from 52% to less than 5%.Stratigraphically they are by far themost diverse class of reservoirs, rang-ing from multi-story channels fillsmore than 200' thick with 25% porosi-ty and darcies of permeability, to over-bank splay or mouth bar sandstones afew feet thick that can barely flow oil.The majority of those studied in theliterature were the higher quality FDDreservoirs, i.e.: channel-fill sand-stones, where the better recoveriesafter waterflooding range from 32% to44%. For most of the FDD channel-filloil reservoirs a typical scenarioinvolves primary production of 10 to15% of the OOIP, followed by sec-ondary (waterflood) recovery of anadditional 10 to 15%. In cases whereflow barriers are minimal and sweepefficiency is good, even higher recov-eries are possible. For the roughly halfof FDD channel-fill reservoirs in

which the estimated recovery factor isless than 20%, a more detailed reviewis certainly warranted.

In spite of the rather arbitrary cut-offs quoted, a review of oil reservoirsfor improved recovery should not berestricted to those below a particularrecovery factor. Rather, on a first passscreening, BS reservoirs with less than30%, CS reservoirs with less than 15%,and FDD reservoirs with less than20% are obvious candidates for a clos-er look. Few of the studies reviewedquoted irreducible oil saturations ormovable oil volumes. However, withthe three reservoir classes leavingbehind 56% to 90% of the OOIP, inmost cases the critical issue should notbe the volume of movable oil.

There are many ways in which theresults cited here could be somewhatinaccurate. However, because of theoverall quality of the studies on whichthe statistics in this report is based,there is little doubt that if trends con-tinue, a very large volume of pro-ducible oil will be left in the ground atabandonment. A number of thesestudies were able to accurately predictultimate recovery (primary + sec-ondary) only a few years after the dis-covery of a field. Some, often with thehelp of a reservoir simulation, maderecommendations concerning how toimprove recovery, including changesin the injection pattern, re-comple-tions, or new wells that, despite largeincremental recovery estimates, werenever implemented. Some fields werewaterflooded, while others thatappeared analogous, were not. In oth-ers the flood response was weak ordelayed, indicating poor sweep. For

(Continued)


26 ______________________________________________________________________________SIPES QUARTERLY

Figure 14. Recovery factor by reservoir class for fields in which recovery factor wascalculated.

Figure 15. Table showing Oklahoma original and remaining oil in-place volumes (MMBO) by reservoir class. Share of cumulative production based on proportions of IHS Energy production assigned to specific reservoirs. OOIP volumes assume same recovery factor for all production from that reservoir class and are based on an EUR of 16 BBO.

many, the field that was studied sig-nificantly under-performed relative toanalogous reservoirs under similarconditions.

If the studies evaluated here areeven remotely representative of theState as a whole, the possibilities forimproving oil recovery seem nearlyendless. Although economics werenot considered, a large percentage ofthe fields reviewed, in all three reser-voir classes, appeared to have signifi-cant improvement potential. Highquality seismic is an important com-ponent in evaluating most BS or struc-turally trapped CS reservoirs. Overall,the best possibilities are in the FDDreservoirs, which represent the largestvolume of remaining oil, and wherecomplex stratigraphy has created asubsurface plumbing system that canbe difficult to unravel.

What can ultimately be produced isimpossible to predict, but if the aver-age recovery factor for each reservoirclass can be improved, it is possible tocalculate a range of possibilities. Ifaverage recovery factors in each reser-voir class are increased to 'ideal' levels(BS- 50%, CS- 20%, FDD- 30%), whichare based on the results in some of thebetter performing fields, the incre-mental increase over current projec-tions are BS-5.9%, CS-10%, and FDD-8.8%. This case yields an incrementalrecovery of over 7.5 BBO, or abouthalf the current State EUR. Althoughtechnically possible, this is shownonly for comparison and is not consid-ered realistic. Though, when startingwith a remaining OIP of 68 BBO, evenvery modest improvements to aver-age recovery factors generate largevolumes of incremental oil. This isillustrated in the minimum case sce-

nario in which the average netimprovements in recovery factor overcurrent projections are: BS-0.9%, CS-2.5%, and FDD-1.3%. In this example,where all recovery factors are signifi-cantly below levels that are routinelyachieved in the better managed fields,the incremental volume of producibleoil is still a staggering 1.4 BBO (Fig.16).

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is fitting, as the State begins its sec-ond century, that a concerted effort beinitiated to revitalize production ofthe resource that led to Statehood. Toaccomplish this, steps must be takento enable operators to identify whereit is possible to economically recoveroil that will otherwise be left in theground.

DataOklahoma's historically hands-off

attitude towards oil and gas data hascreated a situation in which servicecompanies and geologic societies havebecome the main repositories forthese data. A program called EnergyLibraries Online Inc. (ELO), foundedby the Oklahoma City GeologicalSociety and The Oklahoma Well LogLibrary, is now underway. This onlinereference library will eventually con-tain scanned images of virtually all ofthe hard-copy data now housed inthese two libraries, as well as thosehoused in Ardmore Geological SocietyLibrary and the State oil and gas datathat are maintained by the OklahomaGeological Survey at the OklahomaPetroleum Information Center.

Even the best organized and main-tained hard-copy collections cannotcompare to digital databases. In addi-tion to their ability to archive irre-

placeable documents, they bringtogether the many, disparate data ele-ments that earth scientists need toevaluate oil and gas in the subsurface.The ELO database will put in oneplace scout cards, completion data,well logs (including strip, electrical,and mud logs), and production data.In addition to organizing and archiv-ing all subsurface data in one place,one of the most important benefits theELO system will bring to operators isaccess to early production data, scoutinformation and strip logs, whichtoday is difficult to impossible.

Energy Libraries Online requiresfinancial support for this importantwork to be carried out, so this reportwould not be complete without a rec-ommendation, directed at anyonethat can see the value of this effort, tomake a contribution. With such per-suasive evidence that significant vol-umes of producible oil are going to beleft in the State's oil fields, little moreneeds to be done than to give theindustry the tools necessary to find it.If access to these data increases oil-tar-geted drilling and production, everyfacet of the State economy will receivea boost. Beyond energy, the ELOeffort will also assist Oklahoma scien-tists in other areas of vital research,including the study of groundwaterresources and environmental issues.

ProductionThe lack of early production data is

a major roadblock to operators seek-ing to revive old fields. IHS Energydata are severely handicapped by thenearly two billion barrels of missingproduction mentioned previously,and monthly data that begins in 1970.

(Continued)


Figure 16. Table showing incremental oil recoveries given three possible increases in average recovery factor for three reservoir classes.

FEBRUARY 2009 _______________________________________________________________________________27

The inability to obtain monthly pro-duction data from inception, andthereby reliably assign cumulativeproduction on a lease basis, is one ofthe largest impediments to findingsubstandard recoveries and therebyproducing additional oil. Drilling andsecondary/enhanced recovery activityis easy to identify with completemonthly production data. However,because 70% of Oklahoma's oil wasproduced before 1970, in most of thefields that were examined the 'begin-ning cum' number dwarfs the volumeon which monthly production isshown. Thus, the production curveusually shows little more than the tailof a decline that began long before1970.

Complete production data do existon microfilm and microfiche at theOklahoma Tax Commission, but theserecords also include confidential taxdata, and therefore are unavailable forlarge-scale, public use. (Limited leaseproduction requests can be filled on acase by case basis by OTC personnel.)Hard-copy monthly lease productiondata from 1935 have been available atthe Oklahoma City and TulsaGeological Society libraries in theircollections of Vance Rowe productionbooks. These monthly production val-ues will be hand-entered into a digitaldatabase and be available onlinethrough the ELO system.

Because Vance Rowe productionbegins nearly 40 years after produc-tion began in Oklahoma, these datamay not completely solve the State'soil production issues, but they willvastly improve the situation. They willhelp put most of the State's oil pro-duction into a monthly framework,and hopefully find a home for muchof the missing 2 BBO of production.This will make it possible to reviewdetailed production histories and ver-ify cumulative production for manymore fields than is possible now. Itwill also make it possible to calculatereliable recovery factors and more eas-ily identify and high-grade improvedoil recovery candidates. Without reli-able production data an operator runsthe risk, especially in an older field,

that the incremental oil being soughthas already been produced.

Strip LogsThe Oklahoma Geological Survey is

the final stop for most of the hard-copy data used by the State's oil andgas industry. In addition to the hard-copy 1002A forms, it is also the repos-itory for the electric logs submitted byoperators to the State. It is estimatedthe Survey has paper electric logs forabout 365,000 wells. Most of these areavailable through service companiesin digital format. However, a keydataset that has been unavailable tothe industry is the State's collection ofapproximately 100,000 hand-drawnstrip logs. These are one of the firstdatasets scheduled to be scanned andshould be available online in the nearfuture.

In the days before rotary drillingand the requirement for drilling mud,wells were drilled using cable toolrigs. Cable tool wells have only air inthe hole, creating an essentially con-tinuous DST in which anything lessthan oil-to-surface was considered adry hole. This made it impossible torun electrical logs, so operatorsrecorded the subsurface formationspenetrated on what is called a 'striplog'. These logs vary in what they con-tain and the detail in which it isrecorded, but most record depth,lithology, fluid type, shows and initialpotential. For some of these, there isno API number or well spot, making asingle, narrow strip of yellowingpaper virtually the only record of thatparticular well.

Rotary drilling was invented in thelate 1920s and became the dominantdrilling technique by the mid-1930s.Although the evolution to rotarydrilling was gradual, if one assumesthat every well drilled prior toJanuary 1, 1935 was drilled with acable tool rig, then about 104,000Oklahoma wells, of which 62,000 wereoil wells, were drilled using cable toolrigs (IHS Energy, 2008). Based on this,strip logs represent the only subsur-face data for over one quarter of theState's oil wells and one fifth of all of

the wells ever drilled. While these donot have the utility or resolution ofelectrical logs, when used with moremodern logs they can dramaticallyimprove subsurface control. This isespecially true in areas where earlydrilling predominates, which includesevery major area where oil is pro-duced. It is not known how many ofthe early cable tool wells are repre-sented in the combined strip log col-lections of the OCGS, TGS, AGS andthe OGS. This is because duplicateswere created when more than onegeologist or driller looked at the cut-tings. However, without doubt thevast majority should be represented.

OperatorsThe recommendation to operators is

simply 'Don't give up on oil'. Poor fieldmanagement in the early days, com-plex reservoirs, diverse ownership,and a lack of basic well and produc-tion data have combined to leave,even at this late stage in the industry,large quantities of moveable oil in theground. If the studies evaluated inthis article are indicative of thosethroughout the State, the economical-ly remaining producible oil volume isvery large. The primary hurdle, and itwill remain a large one, is in identify-ing it. After that, the techniques rec-ommended here for its productiontend to be decidedly low-tech: newwells, water in the ground in new ormodified waterfloods, or water out ofthe ground in dewatering operations.

A great deal of the secondary recov-ery work done thus far has beenpiecemeal. Except in the largest fields,there has been little coordinationbetween operators and undoubtedlylittle detailed, field-wide reservoirsimulation work. A map of the water-flood unit boundaries in the NRISdatabase (those active since 1979)shows an irregular patchwork of sec-ondary recovery projects that overlayless than half of currently producingoil leases in Oklahoma. Based on thefield studies carried out by the OGS,many of these waterflood units havebeen subdivided into smaller areasthat are operated in isolation and at

(Continued)


28 ______________________________________________________________________________SIPES QUARTERLY

cross-purposes with the managementof adjacent units. In the survey of fieldstudies in this review it was foundthat many had muted and/or delayedresponses to injection that clearlyshow that sweep efficiency was poor.

A technique that has shown promisein some clastic, and especially carbon-ate dual-porosity reservoirs is called'de-watering'. It works best in frac-tured rocks with low matrix perme-ability where there is significantdown-dip water, but it can also beeffective in clastic reservoirs withthick transition zones or where highand low permeability zones are juxta-posed. Such reservoirs often havevery low recovery factors becauseonly the oil stored in the high perme-ability part of the dual porosity system(usually secondary porosity) isdrained. After this the oil rate dropsdramatically, with little loss in reser-voir pressure, as water rises throughthe reservoir. Although the lower per-meability (matrix) component of thereservoir is still largely undrained,most operators will give up at thispoint. However, with sufficient waterpumping and disposal capability onecan reduce the reservoir pressureuntil the associated gas in the unpro-duced oil expands. This oil can thenbe pushed into the fracture systemand ultimately the wellbore. In WestCarney Field the dewatering tech-nique took a Hunton (CS) reservoirwith cumulative production of just 38MBO and 0.5 BCF to one withreserves of 2.2 MMBO and 16 BCF(Chernicky, 2002a). A number of thelow recovery CS reservoir field stud-ies showed production curves strong-ly suggestive of a dual porosity systemthat might lend themselves to thisrecovery technique.

New Dominion L. L. C., a leader inthe de-watering technique, has alsohad success in a Red Fork (FDD) reser-voir in Mount Vernon Field. Hereaggressive water production and theresulting drop in reservoir pressurehas allowed associated gas in intervalsof low permeability and high watersaturation to push oil into larger poresystems and fractures. In this fieldincremental recovery was increased

1.26 MMBO + 18.5 BCF + 1.77 MMBC(Chernicky, 2002b).

There are a variety of more exoticimproved recovery options that maybe viable in selected areas. The injec-tion of gas, microbes, detergents, sur-factants, as well as in-situ combustiontechniques have all been applied withvarying degrees of success. CO2 injec-tion has received much press recently,often in the dual role of both oilenhancement and sequestration.However, while there are a handful offields in which CO2 is being used suc-cessfully to enhance oil recovery, itswidespread use should be viewedwith caution. Because of the many oldand undocumented wells in most ofthe oil producing areas of the State,issues of cross-flow into other reser-voirs, including aquifers, as well assurface leakage will likely be persis-tent problems.

Any systematic effort to identifyunderachieving oil reservoirs inOklahoma will be manpower inten-sive and require collaborationbetween engineers, geologists, andlandmen. Areas where original opera-tor records are available (especiallythose showing pressures and waterproduction) are ideal, but certainly inmost areas an incomplete data set willadd an element of risk to anyimproved recovery project. Drilling,log, completion, and production datafor Oklahoma are scattered, withsome existing only in hard-copy.Access to these data will be greatlyfacilitated with the completion of theELO system, which will bring almostall hard-copy data to one place, in adigital format. Even more importantwill be the addition of two majordatasets that are not yet accessible, butcritical to the effort described in thisreport. These are the Vance Rowe pro-duction data, which will push month-ly production records back to 1935,and the State's major strip log collec-tions. ELO will help to fill critical gapsin our knowledge and greatly facili-tate the search for underachieving oilreservoirs.

CONCLUSIONSOil production in Oklahoma has

fallen almost continuously since 1984,with record prices in the last severalyears having a minimal affect on thelong-term decline. Although large oildiscoveries are no longer possible,huge volumes of producible oil arewaiting in thousands of existing fields.Early production practices (whichallowed for the flaring of 3-6 TCF ofassociated gas), fragmented owner-ship, and a variety of complex reser-voirs will combine to leave 81% (68BBO) of the State's OOIP in theground at abandonment. A review ofthe geologic literature shows exam-ples of low recovery that can beaddressed relatively simply, throughwaterfloods, modified waterfloods,de-watering, new wells and/or re-completions.

Historically haphazard productionreporting and data dissemination hasgreatly complicated efforts to system-atically evaluate oil possibilities inOklahoma. However, while this hasdiscouraged operators from evaluat-ing oil possibilities in the past, it hasalso helped to create the currentopportunity. As data issues areaddressed and the long-term price ofoil rises, as it surely must, a large-scalere-evaluation of Oklahoma's oil reser-voirs is inevitable. The results of suchan effort have the potential to reducethe long-term production decline,extend the life of meaningful oil pro-duction for decades beyond currentestimates, and directly and indirectlybenefit virtually every area of theState.

There is no shortage of challengesassociated with such an undertaking,but if the studies reviewed here are inany way representative of the State asa whole, the oil volumes and potentialrewards for the State and the industryare enormous. The volume that maybe recoverable through a wide-scaleeffort is impossible to predict, butevery 1% of the remaining oil in-placerepresents a staggering 680 MMBO ofincremental recovery. At $50 per bar-rel (excluding associated gas produc-tion) every 100 MMBO produced rep-resents $5.0 billion in total income and

(Continued)


FEBRUARY 2009 _______________________________________________________________________________29

$350 MM net to the State in gross production tax revenues.What are we waiting for?

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe author would like to thank the IHS Energy Group,

who provides the Oklahoma Geological Survey the freeuse of their database, which greatly facilitated the comple-tion of this study. A debt of gratitude is also owed RoyKnapp, professor of petroleum and geological engineeringat the University of Oklahoma College of Earth andEnergy, and Tim Brown, executive director of EnergyLibraries Online, who had useful ideas that were incorpo-rated into this study.

References CitedBoyd, D. T., 2002a,

Oklahoma oil: past, present, and future: Oklahoma Geology Notes, v. 62, no. 3, p. 97-106.

____, 2002b, Map of Oklahoma oil and gas fields (distinguished by GOR and conventional gas vs. coalbed methane: Oklahoma Geological Survey Map GM-36, 1 sheet, scale 1:500,000.

____, 2005Oklahoma Oil and Gas Production: Its Components and Long-term Outlook: Oklahoma Geology Notes, v. 65, no. 1, p. 4-23.

Chernicky, D. and Schad, S. T., 2002aHunton Transition Zone in Oklahoma: A Case Study in West Carney Field, Lincoln County, Oklahoma GeologicalSurvey Circular 107, pp. 179.

Chernicky, D. and Schad, S. T., 2002bDevelopment of Transition Zone Reserves Around Abandoned Production: Case Study of Mount Vernon Field, Lincoln County, Oklahoma, Oklahoma Geological Survey Circular 108, pp. 61-72.

E.I.A., 2005U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves Annual Report, Web site: http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/petroleumreserves.htm

Franks, K. A., 1980, The Oklahoma petroleum industry: University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, 284 p.

IHS Energy, 2008, Data supplied by Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC dba IHS Energy Group, August 1, 2006, all rights reserved.

Knapp, Roy, 2006Professor, Petroleum and Geological Engineering, University of Oklahoma, personal communication.

Soltani, Cameron (ed.), 2008, Oil and gas information: Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Web site: http://www.occ.state.ok.us/Divisions/OG/annualreports.htm

U.S. Department of Energy, 1984TORIS (Total Oil Recovery Information System), NationalEnergy Technology Office, Tulsa, Oklahoma

U.S. Department of Energy, 1993Oil and Gas Technology Transfer Activities and Potential in Eight Major Producing States, Vol. 1, performed under contract No. FG22-91BC14818 for the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 13p.


30 ______________________________________________________________________________SIPES QUARTERLY

Original Field Name Reservoir Name Date Author

Blanket SandstoneAylesworth Dist SE Oil Creek 1994 Roger SpringCentrahoma McLish 1975 W. P. AndersonCentrahoma Oil Creek 1994 Roger SpringCoyle SE Wilcox 1994 Robert TehanCriner -Payne Bromide 1963 Lloyd GatewoodDavis SW Oil Creek 1981 Thomas CurrentEola-Robberson McLish 1981 Bill Harrison compilerEola-Robberson Oil Creek 1981 Bill Harrison compilerEola-Robberson Bromide 1981 Bill Harrison compilerHunter S Misener 1979 Mike KernanMadill N Bromide 1965 Joseph KornfeldMadill N McLish 1994 W. E. JacksonNoble NW Tulip Creek 1994 Harry BuckNoble NW Oil Creek 1994 Harry BuckNoble NW McLish 1994 Harry BuckNoble Townsite Tulip Creek 1994 Paul SmithNoble Townsite Bromide 1994 Paul Smith

Appendix : Listing of Volumetric Studies

Oconee E Oil Creek 1973 Don MorrisOklahoma City Wilcox 1968 Lloyd GatewoodOklahoma City Oil Creek 1968 Lloyd GatewoodPrague W Wilcox 1994 Lee LamarRich Valley Wilcox 1963 D. W. BellWashington N Bromide 1994 Paul SmithWashington N Tulip Creek 1994 Paul Smith

Carbonate ShelfBuffalo N Lansing 1963 B.D. PriceBuffalo N Arbuckle 1963 B.D. PriceCentrahoma Viola 1975 W. P. AndersonCheyenne Valley Hunton (Henryhouse) 1994 Kathy LippertCottonwood Creek Arbuckle (Brown Zone) 1994 David ReadCriner -Payne Hunton 1963 Lloyd GatewoodDibble SE Hunton 1963 Harold MeullerDover-Hennessey Manning 1963 John WareDover-Hennessey Meramec 1963 John WareEdmond W Hunton 1981 Bill Harrison compilerFitts Viola 1981 Bill Harrison compilerIsom Springs Arkansas Novaculite 1981 L.S. MorrissonLincoln Oswego 1962 Charles DurhamMustang (partial) Hunton (Bois d'Arc) 1973 William LondonMustang (all) Hunton (Bois d'Arc) 1995 Robert HoNoble NW Viola 1994 Harry BuckNoble Townsite Viola 1994 Paul SmithOklahoma City Arbuckle 1968 Lloyd GatewoodPrague W Hunton 1994 Lee LamarPutnam Oswego 1963 Donald BrownRich Valley Miss Chat 1963 D. W. BellRosenwald Union Valley 1957 M. R. SmithShalom Alechem Sycamore 1974 Lee R. RileySooner Trend Meremec-Osage 1975 S. A. HarrisW hi t N Vi l 1994 P l S ithWashington N Viola 1994 Paul Smith

FDDAlamo SW Osborn 1994 Marion HutchinsonAllen Gilcrease 1981 Bill Harrison compilerAllen (partial) Booch 1981 Bill Harrison compilerAllen (partial) Booch 1981 Bill Harrison compilerAntioch SW-Elmore City N Gibson 1948 Marshall DaytonBalko S Morrow (A) 1995 Rick AndrewsBinger E Marchand 1980 Louis FordBlackwell Tonkawa 1997 Kurt RottmanBlackwell Lake E Osage-Layton A 1996 X. YangBlackwell Lake E Osage-Layton B 1996 X. YangBlackwell Lake E Osage-Layton C 1996 X. Yang

Blackwell Lake E Osage-Layton D 1996 X. YangBoyd Morrow (Upper) 1961 Panhandle Strat committeeBurbank S Burbank 1963 T. A. MatthewsButner NW Senora 1958 James DuckCanton Lw Morrow B & C 1995 Rick AndrewsCarmen N Red Fork 1997 Rick AndrewsCement Noble Olsen 1981 Bill Harrison compilerCement Fortuna 1981 Bill Harrison compilerCement Wade 1981 Bill Harrison compilerCement Medrano 1981 Bill Harrison compilerCherokee NE Red Fork 1963 Eugene F. CulpCoyle SE Skinner 1994 Robert TehanCushing Prue 1981 Bill Harrison compilerDibble N Osborn 1974 Gene JearyDora Dora Sd 1941 W. I. InghamElmwood W Morrow 1963 John DowdsEola-Robberson Skaggs Sand 1981 Bill Harrison compilerEva NW Kelly Sand 1961 W. W. WilliamsFitts W Cromwell 1981 Bill Harrison compilerFlat Rock Bartlesville 1954 C H RiggsFlat Rock Bartlesville 1954 C. H. RiggsGlencoe SE Red Fork 1994 Chris FowlerGlenn Pool Glenn Sand 1994 Kuykendall, MatsonGolden Trend Hart 1981 Bill Harrison compilerGreasy Creek Booch 1995 Bob NorthcuttGriggs S Wichita Sand 1961 Lloyd Pippin - Leland PolingGriggs S Wolfcamp (Winfield Sd) 1961 Lloyd Pippin - Leland PolingGuthrie SW Skinner 1996 Kurt RottmanHealdton (partial) Healdton Sand 1981 Bill Harrison compilerHealdton (all) Healdton Sands 1953 C. H. Riggs et alHiggins S Morrow 1994 Robert TehanKatie Gibson 1949 Chandler, William ALake Blackwell E Osage-Layton 1996 Jock CampbellLayton Sand Unit Layton 1972 James PateLong Branch Prue 1996 Rick AndrewsLong Branch Red Fork (ch-fill) 1997 Rick AndrewsLong Branch Red Fork (other) 1997 Rick AndrewsMcQueen SW Swastika 1994 W. E. JacksonMount Vernon (B) Red Fork 2002 David ChernickyMount Vernon (comb) Red Fork 2002 David ChernickyMuskogee Muskogee 1959 C. H. RiggsNorge NW-Verden Marchand 1974 T. B. CurleeOakdale Red Fork 1968 Gustavo Gonzalez-P.Ohio-Osage Bartlesville 1997 Andrews-NorthcuttOklahoma City Prue 1981 Bill Harrison compilerOtoe City S Red Fork 1997 Kurt RottmanParadise Bartlesville 1997 Rick AndrewsPauls Velley E Burns-Brundidge 1949 Frank FolgerPerry SE Skinner 1996 Kurt RottmanPerry Townsite Skinner 1993 S. B. ClinePleasant Mound Cleveland 1997 Kurt RottmanQuapaw Bartlesville 1952 James WestReck Deese Basal 1994 J. T. BoyceRice NE Purdy "C" 1995 Rick AndrewsRice NE Purdy C 1995 Rick AndrewsRice NE Purdy "B" 1995 Rick AndrewsRosenwald Cromwell 1957 M. R. SmithRussell NW Bartlesville 1997 Rick AndrewsSalt Fork N Skinner 1996 Rick AndrewsSalt Fork SE Skinner 1963 W.R. SumterSivells Bend Beasley 1958 Bracken, Barth W.Sturgis E Purdy Sd 1961 W. W. WilliamsTecumseh NW Red Fork 1994 Fletcher LewisUnity N Keyes Sd 1961 W. P. BuckthalWewoka NW Booch 1995 Kurt Rottman

Appendix: Listing of studies in which the confidence in volumetric calculations and production are high.

Chapter or the SIPES National Organization, you not onlyhelp the association and its membership, but also yourself.Volunteering for these positions does not take any moretime than reading the daily news, but the rewards for youand others are well worth the effort. I am a firm believerthat you get out what you put in. I can attest that the indi-viduals that I have been able to meet and associate withthrough SIPES have been a major influence to me person-ally. Don't be bashful; ask your local chapter chairman toput your name in as a volunteer, and you will not regret it.Don't just limit this involvement to SIPES; your other pro-fessional societies, local community programs and schoolswill benefit from your involvement. What better thingthan helping others in your work and the community inwhich you live!

The other part of volunteering I would like you to con-sider is mentoring. The one thing that our students andyoung professionals can grow and benefit from is havingsomeone with the knowledge and experience (such as ourmembership), step up and offer personal guidance. In mycareer as a geologist, I have had several individuals thattook the time and patience to teach or encourage me whenI was just starting out. I still live by these lessons and exam-ples that were passed to me, and they have made pro-found and positive changes in my life. I gained and haveenjoyed my career more fully in earth sciences from thesefolks taking a little time and making an effort. By volun-teering time at your local elementary school, you’ll see that

the interest these youngsters have in earth science is amaz-ing. Earth science is a subject that is lightly taught in ourpublic schools and we have the information and knowl-edge that we can easily pass on and encourage at theseinfluential ages. Take the time and effort to becomeinvolved in your local state or community colleges andencourage students. Especially make the time for that newgeologist or engineer that you may meet that may beworking in your community. These are things that are easyto do, and it just takes the mental commitment and a littletime and you will be the beneficiary of your own efforts.

One thing we have started in SIPES is encouragingmembers to write a small bio on "How I Became anIndependent." Many of our members have stepped up andwritten a brief story on how they got to where they are,and I have thoroughly enjoyed each and every one ofthese articles in the SIPES Quarterly (see page 36). It is aunique piece of history that we can pass on, as each of ushas a similar, but usually a totally different, path that led usto become independents. So, please take an afternoon,write your story and send it to Diane Finstrom in Dallas. Itwill be published in the SIPES Quarterly and we eventual-ly will be putting these together and printing them in bookform.

In closing, remember, take some time and effort and putyour best foot forward and get involved…. You will notregret it!

H. Jack Naumann, Jr.

President’s Column Continued

FEBRUARY 2009 _______________________________________________________________________________31

TTecec hno logy Corhno logy Cor nerner

Independents have always gravitated toward cost-effi-cient alternatives to the powerful and expensive toolsavailable to big company scientists. Most of us have beenexposed to data management programs like Geoquest andPetra. For me it has not been possible to justify the cost ofpurchasing and maintaining one of these products. Itseems that the cost effectiveness of owning Petra orGeoquest software, paying the maintenance fees, and sub-scribing to the data, can best be realized if working withthe data every day nearly all day long, and then mosteffectively if working huge datasets, as in field studies.Some independents consulting on a full-time basis canpass through the associated costs to clients and can alsomake full use of these mainstream data management sys-tems.

This article is written to suggest an alternative that I haveused for many years, and that has proven cost effective.That alternative is a sophisticated graphics program calledCanvas. This is a product put out by ACD Systems ofAmerica. Utilizing Canvas has transformed my work stylein many ways. First and foremost, work maps are just thatup until show time, and then with a simple print com-mand they become the final presentation. To best commu-nicate how Canvas can serve as a poor-boy data manage-ment system I will try to describe a simple project fromstart to finish. First is a summary of the features of the pro-gram I like best: The program allows me to draw my own contours. It is

not a mapping program. Canvas allows you to work in layers: think a base map

with mylar overlays. Even at my tender age I can relate tothat analogy! Virtually any image can be imported into canvas to

enhance the presentation. Images can be scanned in, made transparent, and then

laid "over" color layers to highlight acreage, a section on alog, or anything that needs attention drawn to it. The final presentation has the appearance of a profes-

sionally drafted and airbrushed product. The program is easy and intuitive to use: I taught

myself to use it without attending any classes, just byworking through the examples in the product manual. There are enough Canvas users that it is always possi-

ble to find someone to call with a question. Sales and support is fantastic. The salesman I have

dealt with is extremely helpful, accessible and knowledge-able.

General description of project workflow

Step one: Find a base map. Canvas has GIS capabilityand can import digital map data from state or commercialsources. Most states now offer this data at unbelievablylow prices. These maps have wells spotted plus all sorts ofcultural data like pipelines. Many times I will just use a

copy of an existing paper map, scan the image in andimport it into Canvas, and either work directly on thescanned image or re-draw the map on an overlying layerusing the image as a guide to spot wells and draw in sur-vey lines.

Step two: Using the text tool, put anything on the mapthat is needed. Separate layers can be created for eachdatum to be mapped. These layers can be turned on andoff as desired. I title each layer with a descriptive term(Structure: Strawn for example). On each layer the topsand other information pertinent to that horizon can beinput with the text tool, and then using the polygon toolthe contours can be added. The system is totally flexible.Options include line thickness and color. Polygons can befilled in (to show oil contact) or left without fill. Layers canbe displayed simultaneously: show the Strawn structureand isopach on the same print if you want. The power tovisually display your concept is limited only to the user'screativity.

It is easy to add new layers, delete old layers, update themap as wells are drilled or new information is collected.Total freedom!

For cross sections the work progression is somewhat dif-ferent. Here is where the program can function as an alter-native to more expensive data management systems. FirstI create a "library" of log images. These can be downloadedfree from many states now. Other options are to purchasedigital images or scan in paper logs you have in your file orborrow from the log library. I began purchasing imagesfrom A2D a couple of years ago when it became apparentthat I was spending $200 worth of time to scan in a log thatcould be purchased for $15. The nice thing about buyinglogs from commercial services or downloading them fromthe state is that they are available 24 hours a day sevendays a week – perfect for the independent! Log images areorganized into folders labeled by state and county. As var-ious areas are worked through, my library expands with-out taking up any floor space.

Workflow for creating a cross-section

Step one: Acquire logs as described above. Log imagesare imported into Canvas using the "place" command. Iprefer to place all log images on a single layer, and habitu-ally label this layer "images." Log images can be cropped,stretched in one or two dimensions, rescaled to matchother log images of different scales (for example if youhave only a one-inch scale of one log you would like tocompare to a five-inch log). It's unbelievable what can bedone and very liberating – there are no limitations! I willgenerally put perforations and tests on the logs and"group" these notations to the image so that this data willstay with the log.

(Continued)

by Marc Maddox, #2777 — Midland, Texas

32 ______________________________________________________________________________SIPES QUARTERLY

Step two: Make the log images transparent, then create alayer under the images and draw polygons with color fill-ing to highlight correlations, shows, oil-water contacts, etc.

Step three: Create a layer over the images to draw in cor-relations and add text notations of significant data.

Step four: Create a title layer. A title block can be placedanywhere in the file you like, but I will generally make aseparate layer for the title block.

Step five: Place an index map. For this it is easy to takethe map created for the structural presentation and pasteit into the cross section file. When placing a map, its scalecan be changed to fit the space available on the cross sec-tion.

With Canvas it is possible to create a map or cross sec-tion, then print only selected parts. These can also easily beconverted to PDF files and attached to emails.

Some pertinent information about Canvas

Electronically delivered licenses of Canvas 11 Pro (with-out GIS) are $349.99 each. Canvas 11 with GIS is $649.99.

Educational discounts are available to faculty, staff andstudents of accredited learning institutes. Please contactACD's sales department for additional information andpricing at [email protected].

A Canvas 11 Media Kit including a printed user guide, aninstaller CD, and a clipart/fonts DVD is available for anadditional $50.00 plus shipping. The Canvas 11 Media Kitincludes a printed user guide (approximately 500 pages,however, neither GIS nor CGM Seismic information isincluded).

System requirements

Windows Pentium® 4 or better Microsoft® Windows® Vista™ or XP Home or

Professional (with Service Pack 2 installed) 512 MB RAM installed (1 GB RAM recommended) 250 MB free hard disk space 16-bit color or higher (True color recommended) 1024x768 or higher screen resolution recommended Mouse and keyboard. Scanner optional for importing

graphics Host of industry standard devices supported CD-ROM drive. DVD drive to use Clipart library DVD Canvas 11 is Windows only (XP, Vista) however many of

our Mac customers have moved forward with Canvas 11by installing a Windows operating system on their newIntel Macs and running in that environment.

Canvas tutorials can be found here:http://www.acdamerica.com/support-canvas/tutor-

ials/tutorials.htmlThe complete User's Guide including GIS and CGM

Seismic is available electronically at:http://files.acdsystems.com/english/support/canvas/11/ca

nvas%2011%20user%20guide.pdfFully functional Canvas 11 with GIS trial licenses may be

downloaded here:http://store.acdsee.com/store/acd/en_US/DisplayProduct

DetailsPage/productID.80759800If you are interested in learning more about Canvas

please contact Rick Zink at [email protected].

Technology Corner Continued

FEBRUARY 2009 _______________________________________________________________________________33

EMERALD - $2,500EMERALD - $2,500

Thornton E. Anderson

GOLD - $1,000GOLD - $1,000

Craig W. AdamsMichael P. Arden

Raymond N. BlackhallLouis C. Bortz

Bill D. BroughtonMarshall C. Crouch III

Lawrence H. DavisRobert T. Halpin

Dean C. HamiltonRichard R. Lindsly

David M. PullingMarion E. Spitler

Paul M. StrunkGeorge R. White

SILSILVER - $500VER - $500

Jack C. CartwrightStewart Chuber

Michael G. CrusonThomas E. EwingBruce W. FieldsLouis M. Ford

Roger A. FreidlineDennis M. Gleason

Jack S. Griggs

Owen R. HopkinsCharlie J. KosarekMarcus D. Maddox

Henry C. MageeElwin M. PeacockLee M. PetersenWes B. Perry, Jr.

Richard D. RinehartJames D. Robertson

Roy G. SharrockJohn D. Sistrunk, Jr.

Thomas A. SmithRichard W. Thompson, Jr.H. Vaughan Watkins, Jr.

Charles Weiner

The SIPES Foundation is pleased to honor donors who, in 2008, reached the following cumulative gift levels:

SIPES FFFFoundation DDDDonor AAAAwards

2008-2009 SIPES CORNERSTONE GROUP2008-2009 SIPES CORNERSTONE GROUPMany thanks to the members listed below for their continuing support of our society

2009-2010 members will be printed in the May 2009 Quarterly

Oil F inder – $1000Oi l F inder – $1000

Michael N. Austin — Broomfield, COWilliam C. Burkett — Midland, TXArlen L. Edgar — Midland, TXScott G. Heape — Addison, TXKenneth J. Huffman — Mandeville, LAGeorge S. Johnson — Amarillo, TXMichael A. Pollok — Purcell, OKJohn E. Scherer — Midland, TX

Dri l ler – $600Dr i l le r – $600

Avinash C. Ahuja — Corpus Christi, TXWilbur C. Bradley — Wichita, KSJanis E. Calmes — Rockport, TXDonald C. Gifford — Dallas, TXEarl E. Gaertner — Fredericksburg, TXPatrick J.F. Gratton — Dallas, TXFrank W. Harrison, Jr. — Lafayette, LAOwen R. Hopkins — Corpus Christi, TXRalph O. Kehle — Durango, COMarcus D. Maddox — Midland, TXDouglas H. McGinness II — Wichita, KSLee M. Petersen — Weatherford, TXStephen D. Reynolds — Denver, COA. Scott Ritchie — Wichita, KSEugene R. Sidwell — Amarillo, TXWilliam D. Trumbly — Norman, OKGene Van Dyke — Houston, TXJohn V. Walter — Dallas, TXCharles Weiner — Houston, TXLarry R. Wollschlager — Midland, TX

PProspector – $300rospector – $300

Randolph Acock — Corpus Christi, TXArden A. Anderson — Lafayette, LACraig F. Anderson — Houston, TXRobert A. Anderson — Lafayette, LARobert W. Anderson — Houston, TXThornton E. Anderson — Wichita, KSJames B. Bennett — Houston, TXArthur E. Berman — Sugar Land, TXRaymond N. Blackhall — Spring, TXPaul W. Britt — Sugar Land, TXGilbert D. Brown — Amarillo, TXJohnnie B. Brown — Midland, TXLeonard E. Bryans — Dallas, TXT. Lynn Bryant — Tyler, TXLanny O. Butner — Wichita, KSBrian S. Calhoun — Corpus Christi, TXAlfred T. Carleton, Jr. — Midland, TX

James S. Classen — Boise, IDRex D. Coppedge — Fairview, TXDouglas J. Cristina — Covington, LAMarshall C. Crouch III — Denver, COMichael G. Cruson — Golden, CORalph J. Daigle — Houston, TXEdward K. David — Roswell, NMDouglas A. Draves — San Antonio, TXDuncan D. Dubroff — Houston, TXRalph C. Duchin — Tucson, AZ James P. Evans III — Franklin, LADavid A. Eyler — Midland, TXRobert B. Ferguson — Lake Forest, CAWilliam R. Finley — Lafayette, LAThomas E. Gentry — Midland, TXDennis M. Gleason — Arlington, TXWilliam T. Goff III — Littleton, COA. T. Green, Jr. — Metairie, LABobby M. Greenwood — Dallas, TXRobert D. Gunn — Wichita Falls, TXRobert T. Halpin — Dallas, TXPaul E. Haskins — Addison, TXEdward W. Heath — Durango, CODonald R. Hembre — Littleton, COJames H. Henderson — Dallas, TXAlbert R. Hensley — Rockwall, TXTerry L. Hollrah — Oklahoma City, OKDudley J. Hughes — Flowood, MSCharles M. Jacobs — Mandeville, LALarry L. Jones — Houston, TXJohn E. Kimberly — Midland, TXRobert C. Leibrock — Midland, TXPeter MacKenzie — Worthington, OHRoger L. Martin — Wichita, KSJ. Phil Martin, Jr. — Houston, TXChristophe G. Mazzini — Dallas, TXPatrick H. McKinney — Houston, TXGerard J. Medina — Norman, OKRobert J. Moffatt, Jr. — Shreveport, LADaniel S. Morris — Houston, TXMarvin A. Munchrath — Lafayette, LARobert G. Murphy — Santa Rosa Beach, FLH. Jack Naumann, Jr. — Midland, TXPatrick A. Nye — Corpus Christi, TXGary W. Palmer — San Antonio, TXArthur J. Pansze, Jr. — Arvada, COH. Rudy Parkison — Dallas, TXLloyd K. Parrish, Jr. — Wichita, KSHugh C. Pendery — Dallas, TXJeanne S.F. Phelps — Houston, TXRobert E. Pledger — Houston, TXDavid M. Pulling — Norman, OK

Harry Ptasynski — Casper, WYLarry J. Rairden — Bellaire, TXJohn M. Rakowski — Florissant, COBradley S. Ray — Dallas, TXJulius M. Ridgway — Jackson, MSJames D. Robertson — Fort Worth, TXDeborah K. Sacrey — Houston, TXC. Randall Schott — Houston, TXJonathan B. Selby — Austin, TXGeorge D. Severson — New Orleans, LAD. Craig Smith — Midland, TXDaniel L. Smith — Houston, TXWilliam M. Smith — Oklahoma City, OKWilliam M. Smith — Houston, TXJohn F. Sulik — Corpus Christi, TXEarl R. Swett, Jr. — Galveston, TXC. Al Taylor, Jr. — Reston, VAC.G. Tyner — Houston, TXM. Robin Vasicek — Midland, TXG. Clint Wainwright — Houston, TXScott A. Wainwright — Metairie, LAClifford A. Walker — Dallas, TXJerry W. Watkins — Dallas, TXH. Vaughan Watkins, Jr. — Madison, MSW. David Willig — Houston, TXJames M. Zotkiewicz — Metairie, LA

Investor – $100Investor – $100

John T. Abney — Tulsa, OKJoseph T. Ambrister — Allen, TXH. Sherman Anderson — Dallas, TXWilliam C. Balhburg — Plano, TXNorman K. Barker — Midland, TXTeresa H. Becker — Houston, TXLouis C. Bortz — Denver, COFoy W. Boyd, Jr. — Midland, TXGarnet W. Brock — Midland, TXRobert A. Cooksey — Richardson, TXWilliam R. Dixon — Midland, TXC. Walter Dobie — Lafayette, LAM. R. Douglass — Destrehan, LAPaul R. Fenemore — Irving, TXBruce W. Fields — Corpus Christi, TXCliff J. Fontenot — Brenham, TXWilliam J. Furlong — New Orleans, LAJohn C. Goss — Houston, TXPeter G. Gray — Lafayette, LADavid R. Grogan — Woodbine, MDRichard S. Guenther, Jr.— Midland, TXPaul E. Habermas — Houston, TX

(Continued)

34 ______________________________________________________________________________SIPES QUARTERLY

Verlan W. Harrell — Oklahoma City, OKW. Ralph Holloway — Dallas, TXDick S. Horton — Edmond, OKJ. D. Hughes — Austin, TXWilliam M. Kazmann — Richardson, TXRobert W. Luker — Corpus Christi, TXFrank C. Mabry III — Cedar Park, TXWilliam J. Malin — New Orleans, LADonald J. Malone — Wichita, KSJack P. Martin — Lafayette, LARobert W. Maxwell, Jr. — Corpus Christi, TXMichael F. McKenzie — Lafayette, LAEric L. Michaelson — Midland, TXMichael S. Morris — Azle, TXJames F. O’Connell — Amarillo, TXLewis M. O’Neal — Midland, TXM. Davis Payne — Midland, TXElwin M. Peacock — Houston, TXSam H. Peppiatt — Houston, TXEdward B. Picou, Jr. — New Orleans, LAJohn W. Raine III — Lafayette, LAE. Gordon Reigle — Midland, TXChristopher P. Renaud — Midland, TXPeter R. Rose — Austin, TXSteven R. Russell — Amarillo, TXWayland C. Savre — Houston, TX

John T. Schulz, Jr. — Portland, TXRudolf B. Siegert — Slidell, LADelmer L. Sloan — Midland, TXStephen A. Sonnenberg — Golden, COMarion E. Spitler — Carrollton, TXRaymond W. Stephens, Jr. — Covington, LACharles J. Swize — Pattison, TXJames P. Walker — Oklahoma City, OKWilliam A. Walker, Jr. — Austin, TXRoy C. Walther — New Orleans, LAWilliam G. Watson — Midland, TXJon R. Withrow — Oklahoma City, OKJohn C. Worley — Rockport, TX

Scout – $50Scout – $50

Orville R. Berg — Shreveport, LARichard C. Blackwell — Midland, TXE. Bernard Brauer — Corpus Christi, TXG. Pat Bolden — Midland, TXHerbert L. Brewer — Dallas, TXJames R. Cleveland — Dallas, TXCurtis E. Covey — Derby, KSM. G. Peter Crain — Midland, TXRebecca L. Dodge — Carrollton, GAMichael N. Fein — Metairie, LAMonty J. Gist — Midland, TX

Eduardo Gonzales — Carrollton, TXDavid N. Grimes — Midland, TXJohn C. Grunau — Shreveport, LAWilliam R. Guffey — Dallas, TXFloyd E. Heard — Midland, TXLee Higgins — Dallas, TXNolan Hirsch — Midland, TXJ. Richard Hunt — Carbondale, COCharles R. Jones — Midland, TXJohn D. Kullman — Midland, TXSteven R. Lockwood — Austin, TXJeannie F. Mallick — Spring, TXSally J. Meader-Roberts — Midland, TXWayne D. Miller — Midland, TXCraig E. Moore — Houston, TXGeorge E. Moore — Midland, TXW. George Nancarrow — Dallas, TXMatthew J. Parsley — Midland, TXMatthew J. Riddiford — Spring, TXW. Mark Rush — Houston, TXJeffry A. Smith — Midland, TXJoseph D. Stewart — Golden, COColles C. Stowell — Manchester, MAMichael W. Taylor — Highland Village, TXGary M. Weir — Houston, TX

Cornerstone Group Continued

FEBRUARY 2009 _______________________________________________________________________________35

Marlan W. Downey, #2711, of Dallas, Texas will receiveAAPG’s Sidney Powers Memorial Award at the 2009 AAPGConvention in Denver on June 7.

Robert G. Font, #2163, of Plano, Texas was the recipientof the 2008 AIPG Martin Van Couvering Memorial Award.It was presented at the AIPG-AHS 2008 Symposium inFlagstaff, Arizona on September 23, 2008.

SIPES Director Owen R. Hopkins, #2986, of CorpusChristi, Texas will receive AAPG’s Public Service Award atthe 2009 AAPG Convention in Denver.

Michael S. Johnson, #228, of Denver, Colorado willreceive AAPG’s Outstanding Explorer Award at the 2009

AAPG Convention. Larry L. Jones, #2486, of Houston,Texas will receive AAPG’s Distinguished Service Award.

Peter MacKenzie, #2991, of Worthington, Ohio is a can-didate for secretary of AAPG.

Joseph B. Schindler, #2983, of Benbrook, Texas is serving as president of the Fort Worth Geological Society.

M. Ray Thomasson, #2636, of Denver, Colorado willreceive the Michel T. Halbouty Outstanding LeadershipAward in June at the AAPG Convention.

Robert Font Owen Hopkins Michael Johnson

Peter MacKenzie Ray Thomasson

NN ee ww s o f Members o f Member ss

36 ______________________________________________________________________________SIPES QUARTERLY

I suppose I have always been some-what independent by nature, a person-ality trait that partly explains whygeology seemed like an interestingmajor in college; there are fewabsolutes and always room for newideas in this science. It may also explainwhy geology is my second or thirdcareer.

Like many people my age, I beganthis career with a staff position at a major oil company. Iloved it, and could hardly believe that I was getting paid tohave that much fun, but realized, in time, that I couldnever retire from there – the stultifying bureaucracy andoffice politics were just too much for me. I migrated tosmaller companies. The founder of one of them, a man Igreatly respected, told me that it was the end of fun at anygood oil company when they got big enough to have a"Human Resources" department or a company airplane,and I have pretty much found that to be true. I learnedmore and had success at each company, but finally figuredout that I was frustrated working for a paycheck, when infact what I really wanted to do was work for profit, a pieceof the action.

So with the help and advice of several friends who wereconsulting, I applied a time-tested method: I procured apart-time consulting contract, which I figured I could bare-ly live on while I prospected with the rest of my time, andquit my job. The first kink in my plan came right away; mylate employer wanted me to consult for them too. I didn'tparticularly want to, so I quoted a rate that (I thought) wasso absurdly high that they would balk. They didn't, and infact wanted all the time I would give them. So then I wasmaking good money, but didn't have enough time toprospect the way I wanted. I learned some valuablelessons though: not to be afraid to price yourself high inthe market, and to learn to just say "no" sometimes.

I worked longer hours than I ever had before to keep myconsulting clients happy, but also to make time forprospecting. I inventoried every basin and shelf I had everhad any success in for potential plays to work. I remem-bered prospects and plays I had proposed to formeremployers that they had never acted upon in many years.I rented some shared office space with another geologistand a landman, in the same building as the log library, andlease-purchased some GIS software so I could produce myown professional-looking maps and cross sections. It wasvery expensive at the time, but worth it. I joined thePetroleum Club and SIPES so that I could be exposed tosuccessful independents.

There were many setbacks along the way. I made my firstprospect sale to a small family-owned drilling company. Ididn't have enough money to buy leases, but knew thecompany from previous dealings and trusted them. Theybought the leases but the two brothers running the com-pany both died within six months of each other and thecompany fell apart. Since the leases were not recorded inmy name, I never did get them out of the remains.

I spent six months putting together an old oil field acqui-sition with a 3D survey and lots of upside when oil wasonly $18/bbl, and sold the idea to a financier. They agreedto put up the money for my bid, but kept wanting to seejust one more month of production data before theywould sign the check and someone else beat me to it andbought the field.

I sold another prospect idea, but the key lease was tiedup in a lawsuit and unobtainable. I gave myself a stomachulcer, worrying about feeding my family and paying mybills (I was the only income, and we were raising a largefamily). I let myself get talked into going back to work formy oldest (first) consulting client; a mistake that I rectified.

Finally, after years of success as a consultant but little toshow for prospecting, I was approached by a small drillingcompany through a consultant friend and previous co-worker. They were hungry for relatively shallow PermianBasin prospects, and I negotiated an exploration retainerunder which the drilling company would supply logs andother data, a geotech, put up the money for leases, anddrill the wells, and I would get paid a reduced fee forprospects and retain an override and/or a carried workinginterest in every well. They were as good as their word; wesigned the contract in March and by September of thatsame year they were drilling my first Canyon Sandprospect in Schleicher County, Texas. It was successful, andby the first of the next year I started getting run checks.The producing income from that field grew to be enoughto live off of, and I was able to quit consulting altogether

(Continued)

HoHo w I Became an Independentw I Became an Independent

by Lee M. Petersen, #2838, Oro Quay Corporation — Fort Worth, Texas

Lee Petersen

FEBRUARY 2009 _______________________________________________________________________________37

and only work on prospecting and projects that I had adirect interest in. Since that time, I have had another suc-cessful west Texas prospect drilled, and have worked for apiece of a start-up company.

It took me six years to make the transition from employ-ee to consultant to independent. The most difficult partwas balancing cash flow from consulting that I needed tosupport my family with the time and dollars needed forprospecting. But it was all worth it, and I wish I had start-ed sooner! In retrospect, several factors were key to myeventual success: 1) Mentors who taught me to think criti-cally and creatively, and how to find oil. 2) Long-termgoals and perseverance. "I'm a great believer in luck, and Ifind the harder I work, the more I have of it." – ThomasJefferson 3) A network of friends and contacts in the indus-try (including many in SIPES) who gave me advice,encouraged me, and ultimately put me in contact with myfirst successful prospect sale. The importance of a good

network cannot be overemphasized. 4) The support of myfamily. 5) Investing in myself and my business.

There is nothing else in the world quite like hearing adrilling break or watching a log come up on a well that youproposed and own a piece of.

"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream bynight in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the dayto find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day aredangerous men, for they may act their dream with openeyes, to make it possible." - T. E. Lawrence, The Seven Pillarsof Wisdom

How did you become an independent? Send your 1-2 pageaccount to the SIPES Office in Dallas, or by email [email protected]. All stories will be included on a CD that will bepublished by the SIPES Foundation.

How I Became an Independent Continued

Robert Cluff, #1832 — The Discovery Group, Inc., Denver, CO"Shale Gas: Opportunities and Challenges for Independents"

Dennis Gleason, #2995 — Gleason Engineering, Fort Worth, TX"Geostatistics and Reserve Estimates"

Andree Griffin — XTO Energy, Inc., Fort Worth, TX"Urban Drilling in the Barnett Shale"

Stephen Henderson — Oxford College of Emory University, Oxford, GA“Chattanooga to Atlanta: The Significance of Geologyon the Atlanta Campaign During the Civil War"

Russell Hensley, #2870 — Xplore Energy, Fort Worth, TX"Wind Turbines on Our Land? A West Texas Family’s Experience"

Wayne Hoskins, #2661 — The MapSnapper Group, Euless, TX"Challenges of Urban Seismic"

David Koger — Koger Remote Sensing, Fort Worth, TX"Low-Cost Prospecting and Logistical Planning withRemote Sensing Photogeology"

Bruce Langhus — ALL Consulting, Tulsa, OK"Produced Water Management and UnconventionalNatural Gas Development"

Phil Martin, #2390 — New Century Exploration, Inc., Houston, TX"Haynesville Shale Reveals its Secrets"

Dave Pursell — Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co.Securities, Inc., Houston, TX"Oil and Gas Supply and Demand"

Jackie Reed — Consultant, Hilton Head, SC"Devonian and Ordovician Shale Gas Potential in the Appalachian Basin"

Dan Smith, #1647 — Sandalwood Oil & Gas, Inc., Houston, TX"Send in the Clowns...Wait, They're Already Here!"

Jimmy Thomas, #2710 — Nagual Exploration, LLC, Fort Worth, TX"The Maturing of the Barnett Shale"

Rick Turner — Barrow-Shaver ResourcesCompany, Tyler, TX"The Uncertainty of Carbon Dioxide — Climate Driveror Climate Rider?"

Tony Weber — Natural Gas Partners, Irving, TX"Equity Funding, Oil & Gas Business Trends"

Jeffrey Wendt — The Eagle Wing Group, Inc.,Fort Worth, TX"Delivering a Message to Garcia — Ethics at its Best"

SIPES 2009 CCCConvention TTTTechnical PPPProgramSpeakers Listed Alphabetically

Speakers are subject to change — Please see SIPES website for speaker abstracts.

38 ______________________________________________________________________________SIPES QUARTERLY

$2000 - $2999SIPES Dallas Chapter

Stephen E. Collins Memorial Scholarship Fund

SIPES Houston ChapterIn memory of Joseph G. Putman,Robert H. Forde, Paul H. Carter, & Scholarship Endowment Fund

$1000 - $1999Craig W. Adams

Scholarship Endowment Fund

James K. AndersonIn memory of Charles E. Trowbridge,

Joe H. Warren, Jr. & E. Lee Mills

Thornton E. AndersonMarshall C. Crouch III

Donald R. HembreJ. Phil Martin, Jr.In honor of Jack P. Martin

A. Scott Ritchie

$600 - $699Earl E. Gaertner

In memory of Barney C. McCasland, Jr.In honor of John E. Scherer

& Robert D. Cowdery

Edgar B. KriderIn memory of Warren E. Tomlinson

$500 - $599Michael N. Austin

Wilbur & Nancy BradleyWilliam C. Burkett

Scholarship Endowment FundIn memory of Jerry A. Cooper

Stewart ChuberIn memory of Earl E. Fry

& Jack G. Elam

Michael G. CrusonThomas E. Ewing

In memory of Linda A. Ewing

David A. EylerIn memory of Donald G. Becker

Louis M. FordScholarship Endowment Fund

James A. GibbsDennis M. Gleason


Owen R. Hopkins

Lee M. PetersenIn memory of Charles E. Mear

David M. PullingJohn E. Scherer

In memory of E. Lee Mills & David H. Rathjen

In honor of Robert D. Cowdery,Earl E. Gaertner & Diane M. Finstrom

John D. Sistrunk, Jr.In memory of Ronald Ray Sistrunk


Thomas A. SmithHelen St. Martin

In memory of Bevian C. St. MartinScholarship Endowment Fund

Charles Weiner

$400 - $499Julius M. Ridgway

In honor of Dudley J. Hughes

George R. White

$300 - $399Michael P. Arden


Raymond N. BlackhallLouis C. Bortz

James M. GrubbIn memory of Joseph G. Putman III,Harry L. Cullins, Jr. & Paul H. Carter

Stephen R. RobichaudWayland C. Savre


Paul M. Strunk

$200 - $299Avinash C. AhujaJames B. Bennett

Marvolene Speed Bennett & Carleton D. Speed, Jr. FundIn honor of Robert D. Cowdery

& Lloyd K. Parrish

Bill D. BroughtonIn memory of Edwin P. Kerr

Lanny O. ButnerLawrence H. DavisMarlan W. Downey

In memory of Thomas Mairs

Robert B. FergusonRoger A. Freidline

Edward A. McCullough Endowed Fund

Peter G. GrayIn memory of E. Lee Mills

& Robert A. Anderson

Robert C. LeibrockEdward A. McCullough Endowed Fund

Marcus D. MaddoxIn memory of Dick Grice

Lloyd K. Parrish, Jr.Matthew J. Parsley

In memory of Clay Pool &Scholarship Endowment Fund

Edward B. Picou, Jr.Robert E. Pledger

Stephen A. SonnenbergIn honor of Frank Sonnenberg

Marion E. SpitlerIn memory of Bernold M. Hanson,

James A. Savage, George L. Scott, Jr.,Grover Smith, Robert G. Terrell,

and George F. Willis

M. R. StippJames P. Talbot

Richard W. Thompson, Jr.Stephen E. Collins

Memorial Scholarship Fund

William F. Von DrehleJames P. Walker

In memory of M. H. Vaughn

$100 - $199John T. Abney

Joseph H. Ambrister*In memory of John W. Calder

Arden A. AndersonTeresa H. BeckerOrville R. BergFoy W. Boyd, Jr.Glenn S. Brant

E. Bernard BrauerRaul F. Brito

In memory of J. Theodore Sandberg

Alfred T. Carleton, Jr.James W. Caylor

Robert A. CookseyRex D. Coppedge


C. Walter DobieM. R. Douglass

In memory of All Deceased Members

Duncan D. DubroffRalph C. Duchin

In memory of Robert A. Anderson

Michael N. FeinIn memory of Dr. Kees de Jong

William R. FinleyCliff J. Fontenot

Clement E. GeorgeEduardo Gonzales

Patrick J.F. GrattonStephen E. Collins MemorialScholarship Fund in honor of

Peter R. Rose

Mark E. GreggJack S. Griggs


David N. GrimesRobert T. HalpinC. Clyde HamblinDean C. Hamilton

In memory of Paul C. Raymond, Jr.

Harold W. HankeFloyd E. Heard

In memory of Betty Heard

Edward W. HeathIn memory of Thomas Mairs

Marc H. HelsingerG. Warfield Hobbs IV

Dick S. HortonKenneth J. Huffman

J. D. HughesAlfred James IIIGeorge R. JonesPete J. Klentos

Charles J. KosarekIn memory of Linda A. Ewing

In honor of Robert B. Robinson

William E. LarocheRichard R. Lindsly

In memory of Robert G. Terrell

Jack P. MartinH. E. Mathy


Robert W. Maxwell, Jr.Sally J. Meader-Roberts

John R. MeltonCraig E. Moore

Michael S. MorrisRobert G. Murphy

In memory of Robert W. Sabate’

James F. O’ConnellLewis M. O’Neal

Edward A. McCullough Endowed Fund

Charles A. O’Niell IIIRobert B. Owen

In memory of Ralf E. Andrews

J. Durwood PateIn memory of Harry G. Hadler

M. Davis PayneH. W. Peace II

Elwin M. PeacockIn memory of Lucius C. Geer

(Continued)

SIPES FSIPES Foundation Donoroundation Donors — Januars — January 1y 1 , 2008 t, 2008 to December 3o December 3 11 , 2008, 2008

FEBRUARY 2009 _______________________________________________________________________________39

Foundation Donors Continued

The SIPES Foundation gratefully accepts all donations and acknowledges these contributions with a letter. Due to limited space in the newsletter, we are unable to list gifts under $26.

Michael A. PollokRonald W. Pritchett

In memory of Phillip J. McKenna

Larry J. RairdenScholarship Endowment Fund

John M. RakowskiWilliam M. Raymond

Dwight S. RamsayIn memory of Robert A. Anderson

Christopher P. RenaudIn memory of Charles B. Renaud

James D. RobertsonSteven R. Russell

In memory of Dr. Franklin W. Daugherty

C. Randall SchottC. Ray Scurlock

Jonathan B. SelbyRoy G. SharrockVinton H. ShollRobert C. ShoupD. Craig SmithDaniel L. Smith

Joe H. SmithWilliam M. Smith


George W. Todd

Steven R. TrudeauScholarship Endowment Fund

George B. VockrothJohn R. von NetzerRodger L. Walker

H. Vaughan Watkins, Jr.William G. Watson

In memory of Robert N. Watson

W. David WilligScholarship Endowment Fund

John C. WorleyScholarship Endowment FundIn honor of Robert B. Owen

Robert M. WynneGeorge D. ZimmermanScholarship Endowment Fund

$50 - $99Richard C. Blackwell


Wallace E. BrunsonJack C. Cartwright

Bruce W. FieldsWilliam J. FurlongDavid R. GroganPaul E. Habermas

Henry R. HammanVan Howbert

In memory of David H. Rathjen

Jim Bob JacksonC. M. Jacobs

John C. KinardEugene J. LipstateRobert W. LukerHenry C. MageeDonald J. Malone

Patrick H. McKinneyEric L. Michaelson

Wayne D. MillerW. George NancarrowFrederick A. OverlyJames A. RagsdaleE. Gordon Reigle

Richard D. RinehartScholarship Endowment Fund

W. Mark RushValary L. SchulzJeffry A. SmithIn honor of Joe Neal

June N. SmithIn honor of C. W. Smith

Robert L. Smith

Thomas J. SmithJ. Keith SomervilleLawrence W. Staub

In memory of Charles Staub

Joseph D. StewartTony R. Stuart


Raymond M. TimpanelliRoy C. Walther

Robert W. WaringGary M. Weir

William P. WilbertIn memory of Wayne E. Gordon

and George F. Willis

C. Lynn WilliamsI. Wayne Woolsey

$26 - $49Don W. BeauchampDavid G. CampbellHardtner L. Coon

Steve H. HillClifford H. Sherrod, Jr.

* Deceased

Seespeaker

liston

page 37

2008-092008-09SIPESSIPES

OfOfficersficers

SIPESSIPESDirDirectorsectors

President .........................................H. Jack Naumann, Jr. ...............................................MidlandVice-President..................................Lee M. Petersen .....................................................Fort WorthVice-President of

National Energy ...........................William R. Finley ......................................................LafayetteSecretary.........................................Marc D. Maddox ......................................................MidlandTreasurer.........................................Kenneth J. Huffman ...........................................New Orleans

J. R. Cleveland ................................Prof. Enterprise Management/Quarterly.........................Dallas

Michael G. Cruson ..........................Public Relations/2010 Annual Mtg...............................Denver

Bobby M. Greenwood......................Headquarters/Membership Committee ..........................Dallas

Owen R. Hopkins ............................Prof. Society Liaison/Chapter Participation..........Corpus Christi

George S. Johnson..........................Conventions/Nominating Committee .........................Amarillo

Peter MacKenzie ..............................State Legislative Affairs ........................................Worthington

J. Phil Martin, Jr. ..............................Environmental ..........................................................Houston

Jon B. Selby ....................................Membership Committee/Advertising ..............................Austin

Thomas J. Smith ..............................Directory/Quarterly.........................................Oklahoma City

SIPES Vision StatementSIPES Vision Statement

To be the pre-eminent organization for furtheringthe professional and business interests

of independent practitioners of the earth sciences.In achieving this vision, emphasis will be placed on

(1) professional competence,(2) professional business ethics, and(3) presenting a favorable, credibleand effective image of the Society.

Adopted by the SIPES Board of DirectorsSeptember 21, 1996

Return to:SIPES4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 1106Dallas, Texas 75206-4019

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

PRESORTED STANDARDUS POSTAGE

PAIDDALLAS, TX

PERMIT NO. 1300

Foundation Donor Awards — See 2009 SIPES SIPES …s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/ · Diane...

Documents

Transcript of Foundation Donor Awards — See 2009 SIPES SIPES …s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/ · Diane...