Skip to Site Navigation | Skip to Content

News

Little Cedar Creek Well Log Analysis

 PRESS RELEASE

 

Date: November 24, 2008

Information:  Chester F. English
Investor Relations
Tel:  (601) 713-4011

Fax:  (601) 713-4013

E-mail: cenglish@columbiapetroleum.com

Website: www.columbiapetroleum.com

 

 

Columbia Petroleum LLC Provides Well Log Analysis - Nick Ross 24-11 #2

 

Columbia Petroleum LLC announces the well log analysis for its Nick Ross 24-11 #2 well in Little Cedar Creek Field, Conecuh County, Alabama.  This well represents an extension of the Little Cedar Creek Field and is located adjacent to 4 successful drilling units already established in the field unit. The primary target of the well is the Smackover Limestone; this is the primary producing formation of the Little Cedar Creek Field and is known as a prolific oil producer throughout southern Alabama.  Timothy W. Hurst - Chief Geologist for Columbia Petroleum, LLC analyzed the well log and his report is as follows:

 

The top of the Smackover was encountered at a log depth of 11,451 feet (11,273 feet subsea depth). Immediately below the formation top, a large gas show (2004 units) was observed in the mud log, indications that the upper portion of the Smackover is fully pressurized and of virgin character. Crossover of the density and neutron curves, indicating a strong concentration of hydrocarbons, was noted from 11,459’- 11,476’. Slight separations in the shallow and deep resistivity measurements throughout this zone imply that the probable pay is oil. Confirmed 84 oil shows at the mud log.

 

The formation then exhibits a notable tightening from 11,478’- 11,503’. A pullback in the gamma ray curve in the top eight feet of this zone is indicative of an anhydrite lamer. This anhydrite signature is characteristic of all well logs in the field and represents an impermeable barrier separating the Smackover into two independent acting reservoirs. Immediately below the anhydrite, extremely dense limestone is observed. This was also observed in the logs of the neighboring Midroc Tisdale 23-9 well, where it proved to be non-productive following perforation and multiple acidation treatments.

 

Below the tight zone, porosity increases and crossover of the density and neutron curve is observed again from 11,506’-11,508’ and 11,518’-11,532’. High resistivities and near-crossovers are present in the intervent 10’, implying that the entire range 11,506’-11,532’ is productive oil pay. Below the Smackover and extending to the well TD are a series of igneous and metamorphic conglomerates that form the Paleozoic basement, the original foundation strata of the region. Within this zone is a well developed sand formation with the concentrations of conglomerate inclusions. This sand is tentatively identified as the Norphlet Sandstone based on the concentration of orange sands reported in the drilling returns by the mudlogger. The absence of this sand in the Midroc Tisdale 24-3 well implies that it is the extreme updip portion of a sand lens extending and thickening to the south. Crossover of the density and neutrons curves was observed in this sand from 11,706’-11,716’. In combination with high resistivities, gamma ray and RNA indications, it is possible that this represents oil pay.

 

In summary, the following pay zones were identified by various logging techniques and tests:

 

Upper Smackover: 11,459’-11,476’ (27’ total)   200,000 barrels probable

Lower Smackover: 11,506’-11,532’ (26’ total)   400,000 barrels probable

Norphlet Sandstone: 11,706’-11,716’ (10’ total) 150,000 barrels possible

                                                                        750,000 barrels Total Probable/Possible

                                                                           

Further results will be released upon completion of the well, now scheduled for the first week in December, 2008

 

Columbia Petroleum LLC is an independent company engaged in the development and production of, and exploration for, crude oil and natural gas.  The Company’s oil and gas assets and activity are concentrated primarily in Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana.

 

This press release includes statements, which may constitute "forward-looking" statements, usually containing the words "believe", "estimate", "project", "expect", or similar expressions. These statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements inherently involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements. Factors that would cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, future trends in mineral prices, the availability of capital for development of mineral projects and other projects, acceptance of the Companies' products and services in the marketplace, competitive factors, dependence upon third-party vendors, and other risks detailed in the Companies' periodic report filings with the "Securities and Exchange Commission". By making these forward-looking statements, the companies undertake no obligation to update these statements for revision or changes after the date of this release. There can be no assurance that the transactions discussed in this press release will be consummated.

 

 

9 comments (Add your own)

1. OUFFOUE wrote:
i need your help to be the best log interpretor

March 16, 2009 @ 12:41 PM

2. OUFFOUE wrote:

March 16, 2009 @ 12:42 PM

3. OUFFOUE wrote:

March 16, 2009 @ 12:42 PM

4. OUFFOUE wrote:
i need your help

March 16, 2009 @ 12:43 PM

5. Galen Kilburn wrote:
What are the latest findings on Nick Ross #2 well in Little Cedar Creek field and how does it compare with other wells in the area?

April 22, 2009 @ 4:41 PM

6. Andy wrote:
What is the schedule for the other 4 wells? How do the other 4 compare to the #2 well area? Whe most likely will the production typically slow down in that area. I thought most Midroc wells were doing 100-250 BOPD.

August 24, 2009 @ 5:14 PM

7. Nettie Tillman wrote:
What are your findings in Little Cedar Creek for Section 7, Township 4 North, Range 12 East?

January 2, 2010 @ 7:27 PM

8. Phil Salavador wrote:
What formation evaluation techniques are used to calculate Smackover porosity? I have been simply using the average of density and neutron porosity, assuming limestone matrix, regardless of whether density or neutron is higher. Match with core plug porosity is not great, but regression line through X-plot of log vs. core porosity is roughly 1:1 in the area I am working (SW Alabama). I am beginning to think that when neutron porosity exceeds density porosity I should use just the density value, or weight towards the density side.

January 7, 2010 @ 1:51 AM

9. Pat wrote:
Minor..in paragraph 4 I suspect that the word "tow" is meant to be "two". Verdad?

February 26, 2010 @ 10:07 AM

Add a New Comment

Enter the code you see below:
code
 

Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.