Cranfield Phase III Modeling

Transcription

1 Cranfield Phase III Modeling Presented by: Seyyed A. Hosseini Jackson School of Geosciences The University of Texas at Austin 6th Annual Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Stakeholders' Briefing March 9-10, 2011 Atlanta, GA

2 Questions to answer by modeling What is maximum down dip extent of plume? How dissolution of CO2 and exsolution of methane occurs and at what rate? How response of the system changes given changes in: Relative permeability Bed continuity of sand or barriers Injection rate Multiple flow path 2

3 Questions to answer by modeling Big picture What are the key facts that constrain the model for short and long term fate of CO2? What uncertainties make a big difference at large volume injection, and what do not? How different is an EOR setting than a nonproducing setting? How is four-way closure different than open dip reservoir? i? 3

4 Model Description fault HiVIT = High Volume Injection Test; DAS = Detailed Area Study; Fault Gas Cap 4

5 Modeling Approach Generate multiple permeability and porosity realizations based on core and log data Upscaling methods Geostatistical parameters to change Mean of permeability Range of continuity Direction of continuity 5

6 Modeling Approach Hard Data (Core data, Log data, Geological l interpretations, t ti ) Generate eatemultiple utpe(equally likely) realizations Generate/modify realizations Run simulations Compare with actual field observations 6

7 HiVIT Model - Analysis of P&A wells H H CROSBY ETAL 1 ARMSTRONG 4 R G CALCOTE 1 ARMSTRONG 2 V Vernon J Johnson h 1 Cranfield Unit 4 Cranfield Unit 7 Note: only P&A wells are named, others are either injectors or producers. 7

8 Breakthrough in P&A Wells 12/22/2013 Realz. 1 Realz. 2 Realz. 3 Realz. 4 Realz. 5 11/17/ /14/2011 9/9/2010 OSBY ETAL 1 CO 2 Breakthrough 8/5/2009 7/1/ Cran nfield Unit 7 Cran nfield Unit 4 Vernon n Johnson 1 Armstrong 4 Armstrong 2 R G CALCOTE 1 H H CRO

9 DAS Model - Permeability 9

10 DAS Model Compare model results against actual measurements Bottomhole pressure data before and after F1 injection Hydrotest pressure data Breakthrough time of CO2 in observation wells Crosswell saturation distribution 10

11 Hydrotest 11

12 Saturation History Match Different measurements of saturation exist RST VSP Flow modeling will constrain our models based on: Magnitude of saturation Multiple zone evolve over time Arrival time of saturations 12

13 Crosswell saturation after 1 month injection 13

14 Breakthrough in Observation Wells Breakthrough at Obs1 Breakthrough time at Monitor-1 Set #1 at Ly14 (12/16/2009) Set #2 at Ly17(12/20/2009) Set #3 at Ly17(12/8/2009) Set #4 at Ly10(12/15/2009) Set #5 at Ly19(12/29/2009) Gas sa aturation Set #6 at Ly10(12/23/2009) Set #7 at Ly10(12/23/2009) Set #8 at Ly10(12/7/2009) Set #9 at Ly7(12/7/2009) Set #10 at Ly10(12/11/2009) 0 12/1/0 12/3/0 12/5/0 12/7/0 12/9/0 12/11 12/13 3/09 12/15 5/09 12/17 7/09 12/19 9/09 12/21 12/23 3/09 12/25 5/09 12/27 7/09 12/29 9/09 12/31 1/2/10 1/4/10 1/6/ /09 /09 / Date 14

15 SIMSEQ Blind collaboration Blind collaboration between independent modeling groups to compare outputs This work is important because: Investigates the uncertainty imposed by the modelers Regulators will know consistency of the model predictions 15

16 END Thank you 16

17 Net CO2 Stored 17

18 DAS Model - Pressure 18

19 Multiple Realization Generation Hard Data ( Core data, Log data, geological l interpretations, t ti ) Generate eatemultiple utpeequally likely realizations Generate/modify realizations Run simulations Compare with actual field observations 19

20 HiVIT Model - Analysis of P&A wells What is pressure rise and CO2 breakthrough time at P&A wells? Study area fault Multiple Realizations generated to investigate the uncertainty of the results. 20

21 Excess Pressure in P&A Wells Realz. 1 Realz. 2 Realz. 3 Realz. 4 Realz Excess Pressure (psi) Cranfield Unit 7 Cranfield Unit 4 Vern non Johnson 1 Armstrong 4 Armstrong 2 R G CALCOTE 1 H H CR ROSBY ETAL 1

22 Pressure Data - BHP 22

23 Pressure Data - Hydrotest 23

24 Hydrotest 24

25 SIMSEQ Blind collaboration Denbury data Construction details (KB datum, perforated interval, casing volume, packer depth, pressure gage elevation Open hole well logs Permeability, porosity from core plugs with depth and distance from DAS but without providing well locations or names. Relative permeability, with depth and distance from DAS but without providing well locations or names. Bottom hole locations of injectors Monthly injection rates of above injectors Bottom hole locations of producers BEG inter. from Den. data Monthly production rates producers. BEG structure contours on top and bottom of Tuscalloosa D-E in a ~1 mile radius around CFU-31 wells from seismic i and log interpretation t ti BEG mapped fault location BEG mapped oil/water contact 25

26 SIMSEQ Blind collaboration BEG data Bottom hole location (X, Y Z) of the wells As built construction SS 31F2 and SS 31F3 Open hole logs from SS 31F2 and SS 31F3 Formation top picks Core permeability and porosity SS 31F2 and SS 31F3 Petrographic analyses of injection formation (done by BEG) Pre-injection bottom hole pressure and temperature measurements in injection and observation wells USGS - brine geochemical analyses Single phase permeability from DAS pressure recovery and step injection tests Daily injection rate in tones, BHP and BHT at SS 31F1 Any other operational information from DAS relevant to model match (e.g. flow rate during sampling) Model Calibration BEG Sub sampled dated bottom hole pressure data at 31-F2 and 31 F3 BEG Interpreted CO2 breakthrough dates at SS 31F2 and SS 31 F3 BEG/ Schlumberger dated and interpreted CO2 saturation at intervals from RST SS 31F2 and SS 31F3 BEG/LBNL dated interpreted plume extent from seismic program Public information Draft papers from Phase 2 Published modern and historic papers 26