Dual Permeability Model, Teapot Dome Field PETE 4735 5/2/15 Matt Filla Evan Egenolf Kero Samy Matt Covalt
Introduction
Introduction Context 1 Teapot Dome Powder River basin 9,481 acres Stripper field Tensleep N = 5 10 6 STB N p = 1.88 10 6 STB W p = 170 10 6 bbl Strong water drive Infill drilling & ESP
Background
Background Teapot Dome Geology 2 Asymmetric, doubly-plunging anticline Shales sealing sands Producing formations Shannon sand (Cretaceous) Steele shale (Cretaceous) Niobrara shale (Cretaceous) Frontier sand (Cretaceous) Tensleep sand (Pennsylvanian)
Background Tensleep Geology 3 Tensleep highly fractured Enhanced k
Background Tensleep Geology 4 Dolomite interbedding Barrier to vertical flow
Problem
Problem Objective 5 Understanding fracture network Isotropic Difficult to measure Major factor in fluid flow Simulation Single porosity Dual permeability Can we quantify their differences?
Problem Stakeholders and Environment 6 Local communities Our client CO 2 sequestration
Problem Economics of Reservoir Simulation 7 Economics depends on operational stage Development Mature
Problem Economics of Reservoir Simulation 8 Mature Maintain current production strategy Adopt new production strategy
Problem Economics of Reservoir Simulation 9 Our client has requested work that focuses simply on assessing which modeling technique best represents the current reality No forecasting No economic decision making
Problem Economics of Reservoir Simulation 10 Even in a large company like Chevron, computer and manpower resources are limited. -Nansen Saleri, Chevron Exploration and Production Services Company, 1989
Fracture Modeling
Fracture Modeling Petrel Geologic Model 11
Fracture Modeling Fracture Network 12 Sand A 4 fracture sets Dol B 3 fracture sets Sand B 4 fracture sets
Fracture Modeling Fracture Network 13 Create fracture network 2-D planes
Fracture Modeling Fracture Network 14 Discrete fracture network (DFN) Implicit fracture network (IFN)
Fracture Modeling Fracture Network 15 Sand A
Fracture Modeling Fracture Network 16
Fracture Modeling Upscaling and Exporting 17 Scale up fracture network Φ frac k frac_i, k frac_j, k frac_k σ frac Export rescue model
Simulation
Fracture Fracture Simulation Dual Porosity vs. Dual Permeability 18 Fractured Rock Matrix Dual Porosity Dual Permeability Diffusion Advection
Simulation Process 19 Reservoir gridding, array properties Components material, PVT, correlations Rock Fluid capillarity, rel. perm Initial Conditions equilibrium, WOC Numerical Controls I/E, Newton s Wells & Recurrent well control, dates
Simulation Results 20 Oil: 2.25 MMSTB Water: 1.1 MMSTB
Simulation Solutions 21 Oil: 1.98 MMSTB Water: 3.10 MMSTB
Simulation Results 22 Realization Oil (MMSTB) Water (MMSTB) Actual 1.88 170.04 Single Porosity 2.25 H:\Final_Sims\Dual_Perm\dual_perm Grid 1.09 Bottom.pngDual Permeability 1.98 3.10 Yikes!
Simulation Newton-Raphson Method for a Single Eqn. 23 f x = 0 x n+1 = x n f(x n) f (x n )
Simulation Newton-Raphson Method for k Eqns. 24 F = F x 1... x k J = df dx = = F x = f 1... x. 1..... f 1... x k f 1 (x 1,, x k )... f k (x 1,, x k ) f 1 x. k.. f k x k x n+1 = x n J 1 x n F(x n ) = 0
Conclusion
Conclusion Success of Work 25 Task was to compare single porosity and dual permeability Chose to make no procedural sacrifices Single porosity oil: 19.7 % error Dual permeability oil: 5.3 % error
Conclusion Topics Needing Consideration 26 Water production non existent aquifer, WOC Uncertainty analysis needs to be performed Numerical solution and equilibration History matching Petrophysical parameters
Conclusion Project Economics 27 I view the economics of reservoir characterization as the purchase of uncertain information, the value of which should be estimated. EOR projects are so hopelessly difficult to optimize that their information value is hard to quantify. -Nathan Meehan, Union Pacific Resources Company, 1989
Conclusion Project Value 28 $360 (Check payable to )
Thank You Questions?
References Buchanan, Rex, and Timothy Carr. Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide in Kansas. Vol. 27. Kansas Geological Survey, 2008. Cooper, Scott P., Laurel B. Goodwin, and John C. Lorenz. "Fracture and Fault Patterns Associated with Basement-Cored Anticlines: The Example of Teapot Dome, Wyoming." AAPG bulletin 90.12 (2006): 1903-1920. Fanchi, John R. Principles of Applied Reservoir Simulation. Boston; Amsterdam: Gulf Professional Pub, 2006. Friedmann, S. Julio, and Vicki W. Stamp. Teapot Dome: Characterization of a CO2-enhanced oil recovery and storage site in Eastern Wyoming. Environmental Geosciences 13.3 (2006): 181-199. Garcia, Ricardo Gaviria. Reservoir Simulation of CO2 Sequestration and Enhanced Oil Recovery in the Tensleep Formation, Teapot Dome Field. Diss. Texas A&M University, 2005. Gringarten, Emmanuel. Uncertainty Assessment in 3D Reservoir Modeling. CSPG Reservoir 33.11 (2006): 38-42. Klusman, Ronald W. "Baseline Studies of Surface Gas Exchange and Soil-Gas Composition in Preparation for CO2 Sequestration Research: Teapot Dome, Wyoming." AAPG Bulletin 89.8 (2005): 981-1003. La Pointe, P. R., et al. Compartmentalization Analysis Using Discrete Fracture Network m=models. No. CONF-970317--1. BDM Oklahoma, Inc., Bartlesville, OK (United States), 1997. McKay, Michael D., John D. Morrison, and Stephen C. Upton. Evaluating Prediction Uncertainty in Simulation Models. Computer Physics Communications117.1 (1999): 44-51. Schwartz, Bryan C. Fracture Pattern Characterization of the Tensleep Formation, Teapot Dome, Wyoming. Diss. West Virginia University, 2006. Suslick, Saul. B., Denis Schiozer, and Monica Rebelo Rodriguez. Uncertainty and Risk Analysis in Petroleum Exploration and Production. Terræ 3 (2008): 36-47.