Improved Recovery Demonstration Improved Recovery Demonstration for Williston Basin Carbonatesfor Williston Basin Carbonates

DE-FC22-93BC14984DE-FC22-93BC14984

Luff Exploration CompanyLuff Exploration Company

Mark Sippel, Consulting EngineerMark Sippel, Consulting Engineer

Location of Project Demonstration SitesLocation of Project Demonstration Sitesin the Williston Basinin the Williston Basin

Project ObjectivesProject Objectives

• Better Reservoir Characterization– Regional Studies– 3D Seismic

• Better Completion Efficiency– Jetting Lance Perforating– Amoco Sidewinder Short Radius Drilling– Horizontal Mudmotor Drilling

Statement of ProblemsStatement of ProblemsReservoir CharacterizationReservoir Characterization

• High Drilling Cost• 2D Seismic Used for Structure Delineation• Small Structures, Less Than 1 sq. mile• Optimal Reservoir Quality Frequently not

Found at Crestal Position• Reservoir Characterization from Seismic

Attributes in Infancy• 3D Seismic Had not Been Used Locally

Statement of ProblemsStatement of ProblemsCompletion EfficiencyCompletion Efficiency

• Perforation and Acid - Standard Completion• Hydraulic Fracturing Communicates with

Water Zones• Low Primary Recovery• Low Water Injectivity for Waterflooding

Type Log forRed River Formation

0 100 200

Gam ma

-800

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

Rel

ativ

e D

epth

(fe

et)

-100102030

Porosity %

Stony Mountain Shale

Winnipeg Shale

Winnipeg Sandstone

A Zone Porosity Member

B Zone Porosity Member

C Zone Porosity Member

D Zone Porosity Member

Upper Red River

Lower Red River

Red River Formation

Paleozoic Ordovician

The Upper Red RiverConsists of Four Episodesin Shallow Shelf CarbonateSetting

Main Reservoirs are:Red River B ZoneRed River D Zone

Original Drilling Strategy (1970’s)One Well for Each Small-Structure Feature

Seismic TimeSeconds

0.5 mile

0.8 km

ForwardSeismic Modeling

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

Normal ReversePolarityTimeSeconds

P1P2

T1

T2

Duperow

Interlake

Red RiverBaseD zoneWinnipeg

MissionCanyon

Upper Red RiverReservoirs Are“Seismic Thin Beds”

Reservoir InformationContained in TwoPeak-Trough Pairs

Each EventConsistently Labeledin Every Seismic Survey

Synthetic Seismogram

0.0

1.0

Tim

e -

Se

con

ds

Interlake

Red River

Winnipeg

P1

T1

P2

Low Porosity High Porosity

T2

Weak AmplitudeResponse

Strong AmplitudeReponse

Reservoir Variationin Red River D Zone

0 30 60 90GAMMA

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

-15-55152535POROSITY % 0 30 60 90

GAMM A

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

-15-55152535POROSITY %0 30 60 90

GAM M A

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

-15-55152535POROSITY %

Rel

ativ

e D

epth

(F

eet)

0 30 60 90GAMM A

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

-15-55152535POROSITY %

0 30 60 90GAM M A

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

-15-55152535POROSITY %

Weak AmplitudeResponse

Low Porosity

Strong AmplitudeReponse

High Porosity

Red RiverD Zone

C Anhydrite

Example of Red RiverExample of Red RiverSmall-Structure FeatureSmall-Structure Feature

20 21

2829

1278000 1279000 1280000 1281000 1282000 1283000 1284000 1285000

122000

123000

124000

125000

126000

127000

128000

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

AmplitudeResponse

HighPorosity

LowPorosity

Red River TimeStructure

1 msec = 5 ft

Demonstration Site 1Demonstration Site 1Small-Structure Red River Feature Small-Structure Red River Feature

21 22

2728

1253000 1254000 1255000 1256000 1257000 1258000 1259000 1260000154000

155000

156000

157000

158000

159000

160000

161000

162000

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

AmplitudeResponse

OriginalWell

HighPorosity

LowPorosity

Red River TimeStructure

1 msec = 5 ft

Production Rate - Time GraphProduction Rate - Time GraphDemonstration Site 1Demonstration Site 1

1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005C alendar Y ears

100

1000

10000

200

300

400

500

600700800900

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000700080009000

Bar

rels

Oil

Per

Mon

th

Depletion of Crestal Well

NewDrilling

Cumulative Production - Time GraphCumulative Production - Time GraphDemonstration Site 1Demonstration Site 1

1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005C alendar Y ears

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Bum

ulat

ive

Oil

(Mbb

l)

Demonstration Site 2Demonstration Site 2Small-Structure Red River FeatureSmall-Structure Red River Feature

56

7 81269000 1270000 1271000 1272000 1273000 1274000 1275000 1276000 1277000 1278000 1279000 1280000

138000

139000

140000

141000

142000

143000

144000

145000

146000

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

AmplitudeResponse

OriginalWell

HighPorosity

LowPorosity

Production Rate - Time GraphProduction Rate - Time GraphDemonstration Site 2Demonstration Site 2

1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005C alendar Y ears

100

1000

10000

100000

Bar

rels

Oil

Per

Mon

th

Depletion of Crestal Well

NewDrilling

Cumulative Production - Time GraphCumulative Production - Time GraphDemonstration Site 2Demonstration Site 2

1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005C alendar Y ears

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800C

umul

ativ

e O

il (M

bbl)

Completion EfficiencyCompletion EfficiencyHorizontal Wells for WaterfloodingHorizontal Wells for Waterflooding

• Low Water Injectivity in Vertical Low Water Injectivity in Vertical Completions at 100 - 150 bwpdCompletions at 100 - 150 bwpd

• Local Industry Prejudice of Early Water Local Industry Prejudice of Early Water BreakthroughBreakthrough

• Successful Waterflooding Would Require Successful Waterflooding Would Require Downspacing to 80 acre/wellDownspacing to 80 acre/well

• Vertical Well Project - Not EconomicalVertical Well Project - Not Economical

Red River B Zone Type LogRed River B Zone Type Log

TopRed River

B Zone

Gamma Ray Neutron-Density Porosity

0 100 30% 0%

Jetting Lance Jetting Lance Completion Completion TechnologyTechnology

UnsuccessfulUnsuccessful

Amoco Amoco Sidewinder Sidewinder Completion Completion TechnologyTechnology

UnsuccessfulUnsuccessful

North BuffaloNorth BuffaloRed River UnitRed River UnitDemonstration Demonstration

Site 3Site 3

161718

19 20 21

282930

1188000 1189000 1190000 1191000 1192000 1193000 1194000 1195000 1196000 1197000 1198000 1199000 1200000 1201000 1202000

77000

78000

79000

80000

81000

82000

83000

84000

85000

86000

87000

88000

89000

90000

91000

92000

93000

8750

8760

8770

8780

8790

8800

8810

8820

8830

8840

8850

8860

8870

8880

8890

8900

8910

DepthFeet

PilotHorizontal

WaterInjection

Well

PilotHorizontal

WaterInjection

Well

Production Rate - Time GraphProduction Rate - Time GraphDemonstration Site 3Demonstration Site 3

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004C alendar Years

100

1000

10000

100000

Bar

rels

Oil

per

Mon

th

Cumulative Production - Time GraphCumulative Production - Time GraphDemonstration Site 3Demonstration Site 3

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004C alendar Years

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200C

umul

ativ

e O

il (M

bbl)

Horizontal Wells for WaterfloodingHorizontal Wells for Waterflooding

• High Water Injectivity at 500 - 1000 bwpdHigh Water Injectivity at 500 - 1000 bwpd

• Early Water Breakthrough Has Not Early Water Breakthrough Has Not OccurredOccurred

• Re-entry Laterals Were Drilled from Re-entry Laterals Were Drilled from Vertical WellsVertical Wells

• Waterflood Reserves Will Equal or Exceed Waterflood Reserves Will Equal or Exceed Primary RecoveryPrimary Recovery

Production from Three Demonstration SitesProduction from Three Demonstration Sites

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000C um ulative O Il (M bbl)

1000

10000

100000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

700080009000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

700008000090000

Ba

rre

ls p

er

mo

nth

Project Start

Project ConclusionCurrent Trend

Prior Trend

Conclusions - Reservoir CharacterizationConclusions - Reservoir Characterization

• Reservoir Characterization from 3D Seismic is Very Rewarding

• Forward Seismic Modeling is a Must• Amplitude Attributes Were Identified for

Prediction of Porosity Development in Red River D Zone

• Development of Depositional Models• Understanding Importance of Depositional

Setting and Relation to Reservoir Quality (porosity and permeability)

Conclusions - Horizontal CompletionsConclusions - Horizontal Completions

• Horizontal Completions Yield High Water Injection Rate and Efficient Waterflood Sweep

• Horizontal Injection Rate Five Times that of Vertical Completion (750 vs 150 bwpd at maximum pressure)

Post-Project ContuationPost-Project ContuationReservoir CharacterizationReservoir Characterization

• Additional Forward Seismic Modeling and Seismic Attribute Study

• Better Prediction of Depositional Setting for Each of Upper Red River Zones

• Further Integration of Geologic and Production Attributes with Seismic Attributes

Post-Project ContinuationPost-Project ContinuationWaterflooding the Red River Fm.Waterflooding the Red River Fm.

• Project Demonstration Waterflood Site was Unitized

• Re-entry Laterals Drilled from Four Wells• Peak Waterflood Rate and Reserves Equal to

Primary• Two Additional Red River Waterflood Units

Formed Since Project Conclusion• Plan Five Additional Units in 2003 and 2004

Post-Project ContinuationPost-Project ContinuationCompletion EfficiencyCompletion Efficiency

• Typical Horizontal Re-entry Completion Yields Three-Fold Increase in Productivity

• Horizontal Drilling from Plugged and Uneconomic Vertical Wells Yielded Rates Over 150 bopd

• Operator is Agressively Re-Developing Fields That Were Initially Developed in the 1970’s