by Alaska_geo » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 20:03:32
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yportne', 'M')any years ago a single well was drilled in ANWR. Was it a dry hole?
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0 ... text6.html That well was the KIC-1, drilled in the winter of '85-'86 by Chevron with BP as a partner. It remains a tight hole, and remarkably little info has leaked out. That being said, it is almost certain that it was a dry hole. There are several reason I say that.
For starters, there is absolutely no reason why Chevron and BP would not announce it as a discovery. Oil companies don't make money by sitting on secret discoveries. They make money by producing oil. Also, a legitimate discovery, even as small one, would provide powerful political ammunition to press for the opening of the rest of the 1002 area in ANWR.
Secondly, there is no indication that Chevron conducted any kind of flow test of the KIC-1. The fact that the well info has stayed as tight as it has indicates that. It is possible to log a well, and even cut a core with only a handful of people seeing the data. To actually test the well, every person on the rig would be aware that they were rigging up for a test. Also, any produced liquids from a test would have to be disposed of, and any gas would have to be flared. Keep in mind this was one of the most closely watched wells ever drilled in Alaska. Every other oil company active in the state was trying to get a clue what was going on. It would be virtually impossible conduct a DST without word leaking out that a test had been run.
Thirdly, an industry strat test, the Aurora 1, was drilled on trend and a few miles away from the KIC-1. That information is in the public domain at:
https://www.boem.gov/ICAM92-95/ The author of that report (who happens to be a friend of mine) tries to put the best spin on the results from the Aurora 1, but it isn't particularly encouraging with respect to the KIC-1. Basically it found a thin Kuparuk equivalent ("'Breakup Sequence") on Kingak. The big pay zone from Prudhoe is not present. ANWR geology is very complex, so it doesn't preclude Ivishak or thicker Kuparuk equivalent elsewhere in ANWR, but it does suggest that KIC-1 was a duster.
Finally note that some years back, BP dropped their membership in "Arctic Power", an industry group lobbying to open ANWR. Given that the cost of membership would not even be pocket change to a company the size of BP, it suggests that whatever they found in KIC-1 wasn't too outrageously encouraging.
All that being said, as I noted above, ANWR is a very geologically complex place. It is entirely possible that significant oil might be found elsewhere in the 1002 area. And, it should be no surprise that Chevron and BP have held the KIC-1 well tight. Even negative information is valuable, if you are the only one who has it.
EDITED for clarity