Chpt.1 Overview Process'' PDF
Chpt.1 Overview Process'' PDF
Chpt.1 Overview Process'' PDF
Value
1
Integrated Reservoir Analysis
2
Network of Excellence in Training
NExT •
•
150 Short Courses/Programs
University and SLB Instructors
• Computer-Based Training
• Global Presence
Texas A&M University
• Global Presence The University of Oklahoma
Petroleum Engineering Center of Well Engineering, Geoscience /
Excellence Petrophysics Centers of Excellence.
www.next.ie
Heriot-Watt University
Distance Learning in Petroleum Engineering
Center of Excellence
3
Ken Wolgemuth
7 years American Association of Petroleum Geologists
w Publications Manager for AAPG Bulletin and Books - Tulsa
Academics
w Columbia University, New York Geochemistry Degrees
w Dickinson College, Pennsylvania Prof. Of Geology
w Bahia Federal University, Brazil Visiting Prof. Of Geochemistry
4
vFigure 1 gives a summary of technical
topics that go into an
Integrated Reservoir Analysis.
Figure 1A
Reservoir Characterization / Petrophysical Integration Process
Stage 1
Regional Structural Core Description Depositional Depositional
Geology Geology Process Environment Stratigraphy
17 Sd
21 Sd 20 Sd
IMM 9
22 Sd
22
23 Sd Sd
5
Figure 1B
Petrophysical Integration Process
. ..... . B
Sor
Pore
or Height
Pressure
Swi
Core Perm
. .
Sizes
.
.. .. .. ..
. ..... C..
.. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. ..
Facies B A
.. .. .. .. A
.. .. .. ..
Facies A A B C
Core Porosity Non-wetting Saturation Sw
% Cum. KH
* ****** ∗∗
ne
Density
o
Depth
Depth
st
* an
d
*** * * C
S
**
Li
m
es
to
ne
**
B ∗∗ B B
e
it
A
o m
ol
D
A Water ∗∗
∗
A
Neutron Pressure %PhiH %KH K/Phi(1-Sw) % Cum. BVHC
A
B
* * *
* *
*
... ... .. Oil
Pressure
Horizon Slices B A
Rate
B Gas
Attribute Maps C
C
* C
C Water
6
Petrophysical Integration Process
• Summary of the basics of petroleum geoscience to integrate all
data for engineering implementation
• Method is to integrate geological understanding:
– Lithofacies
– Rock and Pore types
– Fluids
– Formation Evaluation
– Reservoir Compartments & Flow Units
– Seismic Models
– Production Data
– Reservoir & Geostatistics Models
• TO: Reservoir Management
7
Cross Discipline Integrated Solutions
FIGURE 1B
Effective Teams Know the Role
Petrophysical Integration Process Model
of All the Players: Lithofacies Rock & Pore Types Fluids
Capillarity, NMR, Relative Permeability
• Management Depositional
Architecture
Petrology, Mineralogy,
Diagenesis, Porosity
Porosity, Permeability,
Pore size distribution
Pore Sizes, Saturations,
Fluid Column Heights
Recovery Factor, PVT
Fractional Flow
Facies C . .. ... A Swi C
..
Sor
Pore
Pressure
..... ..... B
or Height
Swi
B
• Technical Experts
Core Perm
.. .. .. .. Sizes
...... C
.. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. ..
Facies B A
.. .. .. .. A
.. .. .. ..
Facies A A B C
– Reservoir simulation Core Porosity Non-wetting Saturation Sw
C Gr Sw
∗ C
% Cum. KH
– Paleontologists * ******* ne
∗∗
Depth
Depth
Density sto
nd
*** * *
**
Sa
ne
B ∗∗ B C
Lim
es
to
** ite
B
• Business Problem
m
Do
lo
A ∗∗∗ A A
Water ∗
Neutron
Solutions Pressure %PhiH %KH K/Phi(1-Sw) % Cum. BVHC
Rate
B Gas
Attribute Maps C * C Water
• Service Providers
A technical stage-gate process
8
Ask Questions
• I prefer to have a course where there
is regular interaction between the
attendees and me as the instructor.
• If you do not understand something:
• ASK Questions!
9
Reservoir Visualization
10
Reservoir Life Cycle and
Business Value
Exploration Appraisal Development Maturity
Maximize Production
Economically
Maximize
+
Accelerate Recovery
Production Economically
Cash Flow
Time
Minimize Defer
Minimize Operating Abandonment
Capital Expense
− Expense
Optimized Development Traditional Development
11
Recovery Efficiency by Depositional System
Depositional System
Wave-dominated Deltaic
Barrier Strandplain
Fluvial Deltaic
Wave-Modified Deltaic
Fluvial
Fluvial Deltaic Clastic
Back-Barrier Strandplain
Deltaic
Mud-Rich Submarine Fan
Atoll-Pinnacle Reef
Platform Margin
Open Shelf-Ramp
Cretaceous Restricted Platform
Carbonate
Karst-Modified Open Shelf-Ramp
Platform Margin
Paleozoic Restricted Platform
Unconformity Related
0 20 40 60 80 100
(modifed from Tyler, 1984) Average Recovery Efficiency (Percent)
12
Prudhoe Bay, 2001
13
© NExT all rights reserved
Prudhoe Bay Field
1969 Map
14
© NExT all rights reserved
BT012300.ppt page 2 HAB Image: BT0123 B.jpg
15
Prudhoe Bay Field
Discovery 1968 Arco Sohio
First Production 1977
Initial Recovery Estimate 9.6 BSTB
Maximum Production Rate 1.6 MMSTB/Day
Estimated Start of Decline 1989
1997 Recovery Estimate 13 BSTB
Gas Cap 30TCF
Reservoir High quality sandstone with
discontinuous shales
Drive Mechanism Gravity, Gas Gap
expansion, solution gas
16
© NExT all rights reserved
Prudhoe Bay
Enhanced value and field production due to technology
and improved reservoir understanding.
18
© NExT all rights reserved
Prudhoe Bay Field, Alaska
19
Reservoir Life Cycle and
Business Value
Exploration Appraisal Development Maturity
Maximize Production
Economically
Maximize
+
Accelerate Recovery
Production Economically
Cash Flow
Time
Minimize Defer
Minimize Operating Abandonment
Capital Expense
− Expense
Optimized Development Traditional Development
20
Prudhoe Bay 2001
• Largest owners BP, Phillips
• Market Gas
• Gas Liquification
• Pipeline
• Increase Production
Depositional System
Wave-dominated Deltaic
Barrier Strandplain
Fluvial Deltaic
Wave-Modified Deltaic
Fluvial
Fluvial Deltaic Clastic
Back-Barrier Strandplain
Deltaic
Mud-Rich Submarine Fan
Atoll-Pinnacle Reef
Platform Margin
Open Shelf-Ramp
Cretaceous Restricted Platform
Carbonate
Karst-Modified Open Shelf-Ramp
Platform Margin
Paleozoic Restricted Platform
Unconformity Related
0 20 40 60 80 100
(modifed from Tyler, 1984) Average Recovery Efficiency (Percent)
22
Director: NExT Subsurface
Integration Program
Gary W. Gunter – Experience 24 Years
Amoco Production Company
Reservoir Engineer – Waterflood Developments
- Low Perm. Gas Reservoirs
- Enhanced Oil Recovery
Amoco Production Research – Gas Reservoir Research
- Participant Intense Petrophysics
- Director Petrophysics Operations
BP – Consulting Petrophysicist
NExT – Schlumberger (Director of NSIP/Petrophysics)
Coached/Mentored/Completed – Over 100 Field Studies
23
Objective Number 1
24
Group Discussion One
Participant Introductions:
Name:
Experience:
Background:
Position:
What are your expectations for the week?
What will make this week a success?
What one new skill do you want to learn?
25
Team Exercise
Exercise Objectives:
– Develop an evaluation plan
– Discuss your initial observations
– List your risks and uncertainties
26
Team Exercise 1
(Your situation: You are part of a peer
review team and you are expected to deliver
a plan….)
• Mature gas field that the lower main pay zone is nearing
depletion.
• Continuous core taken in 15 wells in a secondary pay zone
• Evaluate that a well can deliver a given hurdle rate and remain
on production plateau for a specific period of time:
– Target production rate per well: 10 MMCFD
– Target sections of secondary zone with permeabilities less
than 1 mD
– Production Duration: 7 years
– You have 48 hrs to make an initial assessment and prepare
a recommendation
– Please break into teams and present a plan
27
Well Data
28
Target Zone Data
1000
100
Permeabilility (mD)
10
0.1
0.01
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Porosity (dec)
29
Target Zone Team Exercise 1
Porosity Permeability Facies
flow
3860 3860 3860
30
Exercise 1
Our Suggested Solution
Using Petrophysics
“QuickScan” A Method you
Will learn this week
31
Team Exercise 1
(What will you be able to do
at the end of the week….)
• Mature gas field that the lower main pay zone is nearing
depletion.
• Continuous core taken in 15 wells in a secondary pay zone
• Evaluate that a well can deliver a given hurdle rate and remain
on production plateau for a specific period of time:
– Target production rate per well: 5 to 10 MMCFD
– Target sections of secondary zone with permeabilities less
than 1 mD
– Production Duration: 7 years
– You have 48 hrs to make an initial assessment and prepare
a recommendation
– Please break into teams and present a plan
32
Key Well
Dataset
.01 Microns
Winland Model PER-POR
.1 Microns
Rock Type 1
1000 .5 Microns
2. Microns
10. Microns
30. Microns
100
FACIES 1, Fan
LSF
FACIES 4, USF
USF
FACIES 5, LSF
GF
Rock Type 2
10 Rock Type 3
PERM
Rock Type 4
0.1
0.01
0 2 4 6 8 POR 10 12 14 16 18 20
33
Strip Charts – Quick Scan Evaluation
34
Flow Units SMLP
Quick Scan Evaluation
Stratigraphic Modified Lorenz Plots
Stratigraphic Modified Lorenz Plot
Cumulative Flow Capacity
1
0.9
0.8
0.7 •Stratigraphic Modified
0.6 Lorenz Plot:
0.5
0.4
- Inter-relationship between
0.3 Flow & Storage Capacities
0.2 - Indicates 11 flow units
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Cumulative Storage Capacity
1 1
% Storage Capacity
0.9 0.9
% Flow Capacity
% Storage Capacity • Storage Capacity:
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7 - Evenly distributed
0.6
% Flow Capacity 0.6
0.5 0.5
• Flow Capacity:
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 - High degree of
0.2 0.2 heterogeneity
0.1 0.1
0 0
3740 3760 3780 3800 3820 3840 3860 3880
Depth
35
Intrinsic Property Summary
Rock φ K H Sw
Type (%) (mD) (m) (%)
1 18 380 5 35 RT Distribution
2 15 62 2 35 4% 2% 9%
3 9 1 1 35
RT 1
RT 2
4 9 0.2 93 35 85%
RT 3
RT 4
36
Confirmed Rock Types
with new high quality core measurements
.01 Microns
.1 Microns Winland Model PER-POR
.5 Microns Rock Type 1
1000
2. Microns
10. Microns
30. Microns
FACIES 1, Fan
100 FACIES 4, USF
FACIES 5, LSF
Coherent Plugs
Rock Type 4
0.1
0.01
0 2 4 6 8 POR 10 12 14 16 18 20
37
Intrinsic Property Comparison
Initial Plug Analysis Coherent Plug Analysis
Rock φ K Rock φ K
Type (%) (mD) Type (%) (mD)
1 18 380 1 15 272
2 15 62 2 NA NA
3 9 1 3 13 7
4 9 0.2 4 9 0.2
38
GAS Model Scoping Simulations
10 MM
RT 4
MMSCFD
85% S=0
φ=9% 320 acres S=-3
Q
320 acres
K=0.2 mD S=0
620 acres S=-3
H=93 m 620 acres
Sw=35%
2y 3y 4y 7y
TIME
RT 1 10 MM
MMSCFD
4% S=0
φ=18% 320 acres
Q
K=380 mD
H=5 m
Sw=35%
1.5y TIME
39
Stress Dependence
40
Recommendation
41
The WHY: Pore Geometries, Rock Types
and Flow Units….The rocks truth or not????
Pressure
or Height
Swi
.
Core Perm
.. .. ..
.. .. .. .. Sizes
. B
...... C
.. ..
.. .. ..
.. ..
.. ..
Facies B A
.. .. .. .. A
.. .. .. ..
Facies A A B C
Core Porosity Non-wetting Saturation Sw
% Cum. KH
* ******* ne ∗
∗
o Depth
Depth
st
Density
n d
** * Sa
C
*** * **
Li
m
es
to
ne
B ∗∗ B B
ite
m
Do
lo
A Water ∗∗ A A
∗
Neutron %PhiH %KH K/Phi(1 -Sw) % Cum. BVHC
Pressure
Horizon Slices
A
A
B
* * *
* *
*
... ... .. Oil
Pressure
A
Rate
B Gas
Attribute Maps C
C
* C
C Water
42
Why and Where:
Success with Reservoir Types
Fractured
Reservoirs
Gas Systems
Low Resistivity & Condensates
43
Success starts with project
management & planning
Communicating Arts
Group Discussion – Chapter 1:
How Do You Define Integration
Define: Integration
• Engineers – Drilling/Logistics/Contractors/Time & cost management
• Geophysicist – Acquisition/processing/interpretation
• Reservoir Engineers – Economics/Auditors/Fluid Properties
• Carbonate Sedimentologist – Paleo/Structural/Sequence strat/Geophy
• Software – Geoframe/Landmark/Dynamic Graphics/
• Integrated Asset Teams – Production manager/Senior VP/Field Opers
46
Network of Experts – Subsurface Integration
An example short list includes…….
47
Network of Experts – Subsurface Integration
Some answers for more expertise…….
48
From an Integration Standpoint…..
What are the key issues that must be
Considered in an integrated exploration program
Examples:
Lithofacies - based on lithology (sandstones, siltstones etc)
Microfacies - based on micro fabric
Ichnofacies - based on burrow forms
Electrofacies - based on electric log responses
Seismicfacies - based on velocity response
51
Definition of Petrophysical Rock Type
A unit of rock deposited under similar conditions and
experienced similar diagenetic processes which results in a
unique : (a tight cluster of capillary pressure responses)
• porosity-permeability relationship
• related pore geometry from capillary pressure profile
and pore size distribution
• water saturation for a given height above free water in
a reservoir
• rock types should be a product of core analysis and
formation evaluation
52
Other Key Terms
53
Definition of Flow Units
Flow units - the inter-relationship of flow capacity to
storage capacity of the unit that relates
directly to reservoir flow
Key features:
Each flow unit may contain several rock types
Each flow unit must be in stratigraphic continuous
at the wellbore
Flow units are not “layer cakes”
Flow units can have a strong relationship to pore
geometries and rock types
Flow units require integration of pressure data and
production information
Flow predictions require relative permeability information
54
Exercise: Please list what parameters are
Needed to describe a grid-cell for a typical
“black oil reservoir simulator”?
55
Exercise: Please list what parameters are
Needed to describe a grid-cell for a typical
“black oil reservoir simulator”?
Answers:
•Porosity as a function of stress
•Permeability (X,Y,Z) as a function of stress
•Rock Compressibility
•Hydrocarbon and brine fluid properties
•Initial Fluid Saturations Distributions
•Initial Reservoir Pressure & Well Press.
•Drainage/Imbibition relative permeability
•Residual saturations
•Implied wettability
•Capillary pressure curves
•Physical dimensions
KEY: ISSUE what is the •Depth
Quality of the production •Thickness
Data….? •Dip
•Well Control Volumes and Rates
•Value for Maximum Material Balance Error
56
Key references for Chapter 1 through 4
57
Caspian Sea “H” Field Case
Study
58
Network of Experts – Subsurface Integration
Some answers for more expertise…….
59
From an Integration Standpoint…..
What are the key issues that must be
Considered in an integrated exploration program
Answers:
•Trap/Seal
•Hydrocarbon Source
•Lithology
•Depositional environment
•Areal extend
•Internal geometry
•Volumetrics
•Additional potential and targets
•Reservoir Drive
•Compartmentalization
•Reservoir fluid type
A key question that you should ask
•Economics/Regulatory Issues
Is how will one of these parameters
•Rates/Recovery estimates
Effect the risk of the prospect?
•Formation damage
61
Define NMS after slide 28
62