1-20 OF 47 RESULTS FOR

Mamm Creek Field

Results shown limited to content with bounding coordinates.
Sort by
Journal Article
Published: 01 August 2013
Petroleum Geoscience (2013) 19 (3): 203-222.
...Sait Baytok; Matthew J. Pranter AbstractThe distribution and orientation of faults, fracture intensity and seismic-reflection characteristics of the Mesaverde Group (Williams Fork and Iles formations) at Mamm Creek Field vary stratigraphically, and with lithology and depositional setting...
FIGURES | View All (17)
Journal Article
Journal: AAPG Bulletin
Published: 01 October 2011
AAPG Bulletin (2011) 95 (10): 1699-1723.
... than the log-derived porosity representative of the Williams Fork in the Mamm Creek field, which is about 9%. The observed range in reservoir quality in the Williams Fork reflects the variable diagenetic histories across primary variations in provenance (grain composition), depositional environments...
FIGURES | View All (18)
Journal Article
Journal: The Leading Edge
Published: 01 January 2011
The Leading Edge (2011) 30 (1): 62-69.
... facies and quantifies the probability of their occurrence. We apply this method to help the characterization of a typical tight gas reservoir, the Mesaverde Group at Mamm Creek Field, in Colorado's Piceance Basin in the United States. In addition to comparing directly the sand probabilities from seismic...
FIGURES | View All (6)
Image
Two wells drilled 400 ft (122 m) apart in <b>Mamm</b> <b>Creek</b> <b>field</b>. The well on the...
Published: 01 January 2017
Figure 13. Two wells drilled 400 ft (122 m) apart in Mamm Creek field. The well on the left was drilled in 1994, and the undepleted sand has minor self-potential (SP) deflection and high neutron density crossover (shown in red). The well on the right was drilled in 2005. The depleted sand has
Image
Type log for the Mesaverde Group at the <b>Mamm</b> <b>Creek</b> <b>Field</b> (see  Fig. 2  for ...
Published: 01 August 2013
Fig. 4. Type log for the Mesaverde Group at the Mamm Creek Field (see Fig. 2 for the location). The interval comprises the Rollins Sandstone Member to the top of the Mesaverde Group. Measured depth units are in feet.
Series: Geological Society, London, Special Publications
Published: 01 January 2014
DOI: 10.1144/SP387.1
EISBN: 9781862396616
... with 3D intra-body porosity trend; (8) object-based model of architectural elements; and (9) object-based model of architectural elements with 3D intra-body porosity trend. Fig. 1. Piceance Basin location map. The study area (black box) is located in Mamm Creek Field, south of the town of Rifle...
FIGURES | View All (16)
Journal Article
Journal: The Leading Edge
Published: 01 November 2009
The Leading Edge (2009) 28 (11): 1362-1367.
... significant PCs) that can be used in a more rigorous diagnosis. Mamm Creek Field produces from sandstones of the Mesaverde Group that are part of a pervasive gas accumulation in the deeper part of the Piceance Basin. Most production is from discontinuous fluvial sands in the Williams Fork Formation...
FIGURES | View All (8)
Series: GCSSEPM
Published: 01 December 2011
DOI: 10.5724/gcs.11.31.0776
EISBN: 978-0-9836097-7-3
... the probability of their occurrence. Finally, we show examples of the application of this method to two different reservoirs: the Lance Formation at Jonah Field, located in the Green River Basin, Wyoming, and Mesaverde Group at Mamm Creek field, located in the Piceance Basin, Colorado. The study of the Lance...
Image
Map showing important gas <b>fields</b> in the Piceance Basin. The study well (sho...
Published: 01 October 2011
Figure 1 Map showing important gas fields in the Piceance Basin. The study well (shown with a star) is located in the Mamm Creek field, Garfield County, Colorado (modified from Johnson and Roberts, 2003 ).
Image
Well locations within the study area of 2.5 square miles in sections 20, 21...
Published: 01 January 2011
Figure 2. Well locations within the study area of 2.5 square miles in sections 20, 21, and 28 of Mamm Creek Field. Bottom-hole locations are indicated by yellow circles and well trajectories are shown in blue.
Image
Thick sand probability from seismic data extracted along a cross section of...
Published: 01 January 2011
Figure 7. Thick sand probability from seismic data extracted along a cross section of 102 wells from a 3D probability cube for the marine interval of Mamm Creek Field. These probabilities were estimated by using five inverted seismic attributes and thick-sand flags shown in Figure 8 . (Red
Image
Map of the difference in self-potential (SP) of the two intervals indicated...
Published: 01 January 2017
Figure 7. Map of the difference in self-potential (SP) of the two intervals indicated by the double arrows on the well log shown in Figure 6 . The legend in the top right shows the values of the SP contours. The mapped area is in T6S-R92W of Mamm Creek field. In general, more recent wells have
Image
(A) Timing and duration of fracture opening in the Piceance <b>Creek</b> and Love ...
Published: 01 January 2015
is highlighted with thick continuous (quartz), long-dashed (calcite), and short-dashed (barite) lines. Vertical dashed lines indicate the overall onset and end of fracture opening for the entire Mesaverde Group. (B) Timing and duration of fracture opening in the Grand Valley, Rulison, and Mamm Creek fields
Image
Schematic cross section illustrating a gas migration model for the Mesaverd...
Published: 01 January 2017
) is a seismically defined structure in the east part of Mamm Creek field, described by Cumella and Scheevel (2008) . The thickness from the top of the Rollins to the top of the Mesaverde is approximately 3000–4000 ft (914–1219 m). From Cumella and Scheevel (2008) and used with permission of AAPG.
Image
Cross section datumed on top Rollins of closely spaced wells in T6S-R92W-20...
Published: 01 January 2017
Figure 8. Cross section datumed on top Rollins of closely spaced wells in T6S-R92W-20 in Mamm Creek field. The line of cross section is shown in Figure 7 . Gamma-ray (GR) log is in track 1, and self-potential (SP) log is in track 2. Spud date is posted above each well, and the distance between
Journal Article
Journal: AAPG Bulletin
Published: 01 January 2017
AAPG Bulletin (2017) 101 (1): 19-37.
...Figure 13. Two wells drilled 400 ft (122 m) apart in Mamm Creek field. The well on the left was drilled in 1994, and the undepleted sand has minor self-potential (SP) deflection and high neutron density crossover (shown in red). The well on the right was drilled in 2005. The depleted sand has...
FIGURES | View All (13)
Journal Article
Journal: The Leading Edge
Published: 01 January 2011
The Leading Edge (2011) 30 (1): 35-37.
... of reservoirs and their internal architecture. The following paper, “Facies probabilities from multidimensional crossplots of seismic attributes: application to tight gas Mamm Creek field, Piceance Basin, Colorado” by Michelena et al., proposes a method to estimate facies probabilities from multidimensional...
Series: GCSSEPM
Published: 01 December 2009
DOI: 10.5724/gcs.09.29.0459
EISBN: 978-0-9836096-1-2
... on conventional gamma-ray logs. Figure 4a shows a comparison of a conventional and a smoothed gamma-ray log for the entire Williams Fork interval from a well in Mamm Creek Field. There is a low frequency component to the gamma-ray log that is more obvious on the smoothed gamma-ray curve. Figure 4b is a cross...
Series: AAPG Hedberg Series
Published: 01 January 2008
DOI: 10.1306/13131054H33104
EISBN: 9781629810324
..., Parachute, Rulison, and Mamm Creek (Figure 1 ), which produce primarily from the Williams Fork Formation of the Mesaverde Group. Figure 2 shows the increase in average daily gas production from these fields, which is currently more than 1 BCFD. This gas is produced from a large basin-centered gas...
FIGURES | View All (14)
Journal Article
Published: 01 January 2009
Rocky Mountain Geology (2009) 44 (2): 121-145.
..., Parachute, Rulison, and Mamm Creek fields. Again, these fields are located in heavily fractured and folded areas related to the Garmesa fault zone and produce mainly from tight sandstones of the Mesaverde Group ( Fig. 16 ) ( Johnson and Roberts, 2003 ). Because of the lack of subsurface data and focus...
FIGURES | View All (16)