Upload
others
View
40
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Petrophysical, Mechanical, and Recovery Factor Analysis
Saeed Zargari, Piya Dechongkit, Manika Prasad 05/03/2012
Bakken Consortium Meeting Colorado School of Mines
5/3/2012 1
Motivation Methodology
Outline (Petrophysical and Mechanical)
5/3/2012 2
• Building Rock Physics Models – Texture – Elastic Properties – Heterogeneity
• Spatial detection of sweet spots/maximum hydrocarbon generation – Challenges: Laminated texture/Oriented minerals/Induced Fractures (Vernik
and Nur, 1992)
• Study change in petrophysical properties with maturation
Motivations
5/3/2012 3
y = 30.436e-4.94x R² = 0.881
0
10
20
30
40
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
C66
(MPa
)
Porosity + 0.4*Kerogen Content
BAKKEN BAZHENOVNIOBRARA WOODFORD
Good correlation between porosity and elastic modulus by accounting for pore-filling kerogen.
KC_Φ = Φ + 0.4 KC
Data from Vernik and Liu, 1997 , Prasad et. al 2010 Schmoker and Hester (1983) TOC
Form
atio
n D
ensi
ty
Density-Modulus–Porosity–Kerogen Content
5/3/2012 4
8 μm
Pyrolized Bakken Sample 7221ft
5/3/2012 5
Dr. Brian Gorman
Acoustic Scans- Bakken Shale
62 µm
294 319
122 175
Prasad et al., 2005 5/3/2012 6
Nanoindentation Modulus
50
37
107
88
36
45
46
53
59
70
58
55
59
60
55
37
55
TOPO COMPO
5/3/2012 7
Bakken Shale 11246 ft
Modulus of Softer Portion of the OR Rock
5/3/2012 8
TOC
Modulus of Softer Portion
Kerogen+Clays+ Minerals
Kerogen+Clays+ Bitumen+Minerals
Future Work
5/3/2012 9
• Building 3-D model of mechanical properties in
organic rich shales
• Investigating porosity generation in kerogen (Mechanical/Chemical)
We Need SMALL pieces of Samples, preferably from oil-gas transition zone
Objective Methodology Sensitivity Analysis Recovery Factor-EUR Results
Outline (Recover Factor Analysis)
5/3/2012 10
• Calculate RF of Bakken System, Williston Basin by using MBE
• Determine the range (distribution) of RF (from Monte Carlo simulation)
• Identify the most effective parameters on RF
• Determine well-by-well Expected Ultimate Recovery (EUR)
• Calculate Original Oil In Place (OOIP) of Antelope, Parshall, Sanish fields
Total Active Non-activeAntelope Sanish Vertical well December(1953 52 13 39
Sanish Bakken Horizontal well April(2006 135 135 -
Parshall Bakken Horizontal well May(2006 182 179 3
Number of wellsField
Timing of first productionPool
Type of completion
Objective
5/3/2012 11
1. Deterministic RF from MBE
2. Probabilistic RF from MBE
3. Sensitivity analysis for the input parameters
4. EUR with Decline Curve Analysis (DCA)
5. OOIP = EUR / RF
Methodology
5/3/2012 12
4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 75000
500
1000
1500
2000
2500Initial Pressure (psi)
P initial
170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 2500
500
1000
1500
2000
2500Reservoir Temperature (F)
T reservoir
1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 30000
500
1000
1500
2000
2500Bubble-point Pressure (psi)
P bubble-point
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 12000
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000Abandonment Pressure (psi)
P abandonment
100,000 samples
Oil, gas and rock
properties (e.g. Bo, Bt, Rso, etc)
using correlations
RF by MBE
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.120
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500Recovery Factor at Abandonment Pressure
RF at P abandonment
100,000 values of RF
Probabilistic (by Monte Carlo simulation)
Parameters Min MaxInitial reservoir pressure (psia) 4,060 7,325Reservoir temperature (F) 175 250Bubble-point pressure (psia) 1,730 2,900Abandonment pressure (psia) 500 1,200Oil API gravity (degree API) 39 45Gas specific gravity 0.77 0.88Initial water saturation (decimal) 0.20 0.50Water salinity (ppm) 2,000 471,000Porosity (decimal) 0.01 0.16
*
Distribution of primary parameter (Pi, T, Pb, etc)
Methodology (cont.) – RF calculation
5/3/2012 13
RF = 9.15% (base case result)
10% from base case±
11 – 12 % RF change
6 – 7% RF change Worst case
Best case
14
Results (cont.) – Sensitivity of RF
5/3/2012
Antelope Sanish
Parshall
Probabilistic results of
the RF
0.20
0.20
0.11
5/3/2012 15
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Sep-65 Apr-66 Oct-66 May-67 Nov-67 Jun-68 Dec-68
Rp a
nd R
so (s
cf/b
bl)
Oil
mon
thly
pro
duct
ion
(bbl
s)
Date
Oil monthly productionCumulative GOR, RpMonthly GOR, Rso
Rsoi
Bubble point
Antelope field, vertical well, well# 4018 Rp-Rsoi ~1000 - 2000
Sanish field, well# 17022, Rp-Rsoi ~100 - 200
Parshall field, well# 16346, Rp-Rsoi ~70 - 100
RF results (Rp – Rsoi)
5/3/2012 16
05
10152025303540
EUR Statistics-Antelope Field
05
10152025303540
EUR Statistics-Sanish Field
05
10152025303540
EUR Statistics-Parshal Field
Num
ber o
f Wel
ls
Num
ber o
f Wel
ls
Num
ber o
f Wel
ls
EUR (Mbbl)
EUR (Mbbl) EUR (Mbbl)
Vertical Wells
Horizontal Wells Horizontal Wells
EUR statistic results
5/3/2012 17
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
EUR
(Mbb
l)
Numbers of stages of hydraulic fracturing
Theloy (2011)
EUR and #stages of HF in Sanish field
Results(cont.)–EUR vs. hydraulic fracturing
5/3/2012 18
Sanish
Parshall
Sanish
Parshall
EUR
val
ues
* GIS
map
ser
ver i
n N
DIC
web
site
*
Results(cont.)–EUR of Sanish & Parshall fields
5/3/2012 19
N
)(1 wiHCPV h Sφ= −
* Simenson (2010)
*
Results(cont.)–EUR of Sanish & Parshall fields
5/3/2012 20
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
0 4000 8000 12000 16000
OOIP
from
EUR
and
RF ra
tio (M
bbl)
Volumetric OOIP (Mbbl)
drainage area = 640 acres
The comparison between OOIP from the EUR and the RF ratio and the volumetric OOIP
5/3/2012 21
1. The RF of Parshall (16%) and Sanish (15%) fields are higher than that of the Antelope (9%)
2. Pressure maintenance is key for high EUR and RF
3. The high EUR area is located where high HPV exists
4. Drainage area might be much less than the current well spacing of 640 acres – target for infill drilling
Conclusion
5/3/2012 22
Acknowledgement We would like to acknowledge:
• OCLASSH Consortium for financially supporting this project • Financial support of Chevron Thailand Business Unit (for P. Dechongkit's
education) • OCLASSH and Center for Rock Abuse members for discussions • US DOE (Award# DE-NT0005672) and Norwegian Research Council for initial
support • Dr. Corinne Packard , Mr Grant Klafehn and Mr. Masoud Hashemi for their help in
performing Nanoindentation tests • Thanks to Dr. Brian Gorman and Dr. John Chandler for help with FESEM images • Dr. Quinn Passey for his valuable comments • Craig Van Kirk, Stephen Sonnenberg (CSM), and Chet Ozgen (NITEC LLC Company)
for valuable input, guidance and discussions • Andrea Simenson (Discovery Group), Cosima Theloy, Ryan Vera, Baoqing Xu, and
John Akinboyewa (CSM) for their input, discussions, and comments 5/3/2012 23