Reservoir Modeling & Simulation at EORI

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Reservoir Modeling & Simulation at EORI"

Olivia Stewart
7 years ago
Views:

1 The 3 rd Wyoming IOR/EOR Conference Reservoir Modeling & Simulation at EORI Shaochang Wo Jackson, Wyoming September 12-13, 2011

2 Outline EOR potential in Wyoming Typical questions from Wyoming producers How we evaluate IOR/EOR options Reservoir modeling & simulation team at EORI Computer hardware and software capability Case study examples

3 Wyoming Oil & Gas Fields Jackson Hole Bighorn Basin Powder River Basin Overthrust Belt Greater Green River Basin Wind River Basin Hanna Basin Shirley Basin Laramie Basin Denver Basin

4 Wyoming Oil Producing Fields By the end of 2010, 7232 million barrels of oil (MMBO) have been produced from 1237 oil producing fields Top 400 fields with cumulative production of one MMBO or more Top 400 fields account for ~98% of the total produced oil In 2010, the average water cut from Wyoming oil producing fields is 97.6%

5 2010 Cumulative Oil Production, bbl 2010 Water Cut, % 2010 Average Water Cut from Wyoming Oil Producing Reservoirs is 97.6% 2010 Oil Production and Water Cut by Formation 10,000,000 Oil Production Water Cut 100 9,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000,

6 Oil API Gravity Oil API Gravity vs. Reservoir Depth (from 853 Wyoming Oil Samples) Likely Candidates for Miscible CO2 Flooding Reservoir Depth, ft

7 CO2-EOR Candidate Reservoirs by Basins

8 CO 2 EOR Potential in Bighorn Basin 63 reservoirs pass the screening criteria for miscible CO 2 flood 42 reservoirs are identified as potential candidates for immiscible CO 2 flood CO 2 EOR could recover 500 to 800 million barrels of additional oil from historically produced oil reservoirs It is estimated that between 800 and 1,200 million barrels of oil in the thick transitionresidual oil zones of the Tensleep reservoirs in the basin could also be recovered by using CO 2 EOR

9 Oil Gravity vs. EOR Methods Oil Gravity o API Mining N 2 & Flue Gas Hydrocarbon CO 2 - Miscible Immiscible Gas (CO 2 ) Alkaline/Surfactant/Polymer Polymer Flooding Gel Treatments In situ Combustion Steam Flooding (Modified from J.J. Taber, F.D. Martin & R.S. Seright, 1997)

10 Typical Questions from Wyoming Producers What is the best IOR/EOR option for our field? What is the CO 2 EOR potential of the reservoir? What is the ASP flooding (or chemical flooding in general) potential of the reservoir? Where will be the best locations for infill drilling? How do we rework the production/injection patterns to offset the fracture effect? Can you estimate the aquifer influx, from where and how much, in the reservoir? Where is the remaining oil?

11 Evaluation of IOR/EOR Options Screening A first-pass assessment based on given screening criteria and reservoir parameters from EORI database Scoping (e.g. Kinder Morgan Model of CO 2 flood) Based on dimensionless curves to estimate incremental oil Including profitability estimation Simulation Full field or sector models simulated by using Eclipse or CMG simulators Usually requires a time frame of 6~18 months

Typical Workflow in Reservoir Modeling & Simulation Description of Reservoir Structure & Faults Rock Facies & Flow Units Fracture Network & Connection Laboratory Data Fluid & Rock Properties: PVT,

12 Typical Workflow in Reservoir Modeling & Simulation Description of Reservoir Structure & Faults Rock Facies & Flow Units Fracture Network & Connection Laboratory Data Fluid & Rock Properties: PVT, Kro, Krw, Krg, Geologic Model (Petrel) 3D Grid System ɸ & K of Grids Initial So, Sg, Sw Simulation Model (Eclipse, CMG) Production & Injection History Well Logs Well Completions Core ɸ, K, Sw, So Seismic Survey History Matching Remaining oil Distribution in Reservoir Operator Requests Evaluation of EOR/IOR Floods Reports & Recommendations

13 Reservoir Characterization & Modeling Team Peigui Yin Nick Jones Matthew Johnson Scott Cooper (consultant) John Lorenz (consultant) Gene George (consultant)

14 Reservoir Modeling & Simulation Team Shaochang Wo Reza Barati Shuiquan Li Mao Velasquez IT Support Team Allen Tanner Jeffrey Lang

15 Computer Hardware and Software Computers 4 high-performance PC work stations One 15-node HP cluster A new cluster will be purchased in 2011 (funded by the School of Energy Resources) Petrel package (Schlumberger) for building static reservoir models Eclipse simulation package with parallel option (Schlumberger donation) CMG simulation package (donation of the Computer Modelling Group Ltd)

17 Simulation Models for EOR Black-Oil Model Pressure Depletion, Water flooding, Solution-Gas injection, Polymer Flooding Compositional Model Miscible/Immiscible Gas (CO 2 ) Injection Thermal Model Steam Flooding, In-situ Combustion Chemical-Flooding Model Alkaline, Surfactant, Polymer Flooding Mostly Research Models

18 Tensleep and Minnelusa Sandstones (Figure from Peigui Yin of EORI)

19 Aquifer Influx and Fracture Effects on Tensleep Reservoirs

20 Dual Porosity/Permeability Models Are Needed for Most Tensleep Reservoirs Single porosity model (SPM) is unable to accommodate the difference of multi-phase flow in matrix and fracture Difficult for SPM to match the early breakthrough of injected water or aquifer water influx via fracture networks Difficult for SPM to model wellbore connections with open fracture conduits SPM is unable to simulate Imbibition-dominated matrix-fracture fluid transfer

21 Fracture Permeability, Darcy Fracture Permeability as a Function of Fracture Porosity and Width K f = ɸ f e 2/ 12 1 mm 700 micron 500 micron 300 micron 200 micron 100 micron 50 micron 0.1 e = 10 micron Fracture Porosity, fraction

22 Evaluation of IOR/EOR Options for Minnelusa Reservoirs

25 Correlations between Core Permeability and Porosity by Sand Units

30 Initial Oil Saturation Current Oil Saturation after History Matching

31 Simulation Evaluation of Nine Development Scenarios Case 1 (base case): 40-year production under current production-injection scheme Case 2: drill a vertical production well Case 3: drill a horizontal production well Case 4: increase injection volume Case 5: reactivate WX #3 Case 6A: convert CX #1, CX #4 and WX #1 to injectors Case 6B: Case 6A + converting CX #3R Case 7A: drill a new injector Case 7B: Case 7A + converting CX #3R, CX #4 and WX #1

32 Simulation Forecasting: Field Daily Oil Prod. Rates under Different Development Scenarios

33 Simulation Forecasting: Field Cum. Oil Productions under Different Development Scenarios

34 Summary of simulation forecasting. The best case in each category is highlighted in green.

35 Simulation Evaluation of Gravity-Stable CO2 Flooding in the Muddy Reservoir at Grieve Field, Wyoming

37 Field Cum. Oil Production, STBO Grieve Field: Simulated Gravity-Stable CO 2 Injection Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 Scenario 3 High-volume CO2 injection Scenario 2 Medium-volume CO2 injection Scenario 1 Low-volume CO2 injection 10,000,000 5,000, Time, month

38 Ternary View before CO2 injection Scenario 3 Ternary View after 4- year CO2 injection

39 Ternary View before CO2 injection Scenario 3 Ternary View after 30- year CO2 injection

40 Scenario 3: End of 30- year CO2 flooding Gas Saturation CO2 Fraction

41 Grieve Field: Summary of simulated scenarios under 14-year CO2 injection Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Targeted Oil in Place, MMSTBO Repressurization Phase CO2 injection wells Per-well CO2 injection rate, mscf/day 5,000 11,000 11,000 Total CO2 injection rate, mscf/day 50, , ,000 CO2 volume factor, rb/mscf Total CO2 injected, bscf Injected CO2 slug size, PORV CO2 injection duration, years Production Phase CO2 injection wells Per-well CO2 injection rate, mscf/day 5,000 11,000 11,000 Total CO2 injection rate, mscf/day 15,000 44,000 77,000 CO2 volume factor, rb/mscf Total CO2 injected, bscf Injected CO2 slug size, PORV Production wells Total oil produced, mmbo Maximum daily oil rate, stbo/day 8,300 12,380 13,600 Total gas produced (including CO2), bscf Maximum daily gas rate, mscf/day 40, , ,000 Total water produced, mmbw Maximum daily water rate, bw/day 11,600 14,500 16,800 Injection/production duration, years Overall CO2 Usage of Both Phases CO2 injected, bscf CO2 produced & reinjected, bscf CO2 purchased, bscf Net CO2 utility, mscf/bo Overall Operation Duration, years

42 Grieve Field: Summary of simulated scenarios under 30-year CO2 injection Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Targeted Oil in Place, MMSTBO Repressurization Phase CO2 injection wells Per-well CO2 injection rate, mscf/day 5,000 11,000 11,000 Total CO2 injection rate, mscf/day 50, , ,000 CO2 volume factor, rb/mscf Total CO2 injected, bscf Injected CO2 slug size, PORV CO2 injection duration, years Production Phase CO2 injection wells Per-well CO2 injection rate, mscf/day 5,000 11,000 11,000 Total CO2 injection rate, mscf/day 15,000 44,000 77,000 CO2 volume factor, rb/mscf Total CO2 injected, bscf Injected CO2 slug size, PORV Production wells Total oil produced, mmbo Maximum daily oil rate, stbo/day 8,300 12,380 13,600 Total gas produced (including CO2), bscf Maximum daily gas rate, mscf/day 40, , ,000 Total water produced, mmbw Maximum daily water rate, bw/day 11,600 14,500 16,800 Injection/production duration, years Overall CO2 Usage of Both Phases CO2 injected, bscf CO2 produced & reinjected, bscf CO2 purchased, bscf Net CO2 utility, mscf/bo Overall Operation Duration, years

43 Thank You!

Reservoir Characterization and Initialization at Little Mitchell Creek

Reservoir Characterization and Initialization at Little Mitchell Creek Shuiquan Li L A R A M I E, W Y, J U LY 2 4 T H, 2 0 1 3 Outline Objectives of the project Geological and geophysical results Progress