Post on 25-Jun-2020
transcript
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
1
Alexandra Amann-Hildenbrand1 & Amin Ghanizadeh2
Bernhard M. Krooss1, Christopher R. Clarkson2
1 Energy and Mineral Resources (EMR) Group, RWTH Aachen University
2 Tight Oil Consortium (TOC), University of Calgary
Generation, Migration, Accumulation and
Recovery of Hydrocarbons in Tight Rocks:
Insights from Laboratory Observations
March 19, 2019
Hyatt Hotel, Imperial Ballroom
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
22
Europe
Aachen
Introduction
Petrophysics Lab (Aachen)
❑ Long history in reservoir &
caprock characterization
❑ Advanced multidisciplinary
research
❑ Experiments/Modeling
TOC Lab (Calgary)
❑ What is the role of fossil fuels
in Germany?
❑ Germany’s energy transition
concept
❑ Implication for research
topics in Aachen?
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
3
Germanys energy consumption (12/2018)
90% imported
94% imported
97% imported
Lignite
11.5%
Nuclear
6.4%
others
0.4%
Hard coal
10.1% Gas
23.5%
Oil
34.1%
Renewables
14%
www.bmwi.de/
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
4
Germanys energy consumption (12/2018)
90% imported
94% imported
97% imported
Lignite
11.5%
Nuclear
6.4%
others
0.4%
Hard coal
10.1% Gas
23.5%
Oil
34.1%
Renewables
14%
www.bmwi.de/
Research topics in Aachen
❑ Hydrocarbon generation & migration & accumulation (80s-90s)
❑ Unconventionals (coalbed methane, gas shales, tight sandstones)
❑ Subsurface storage
o Nuclear waste
o Carbon capture & storage (CCS)
o Hydrogen storage
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
55
Capabilities at TOC (Calgary) and Petrophysics Lab (Aachen)
❑ Advanced core and cuttings analysis
• Reservoir characterization
• Fundamental hydromechanical fluid storage and transport processes
• Fluid-rock interaction
• Enhanced hydrocarbon recovery evaluation
❑ Equipment
→ Triaxial fluid flow & rock mechanical cells, high/low-pressure sorption cells
→ Closed/Open pyrolysis systems, gas chromatographs, etc
❑ Never expect one single technique to be the best and most valid
❑ “Failed” experiments might have hidden value (be smart)
❑ Individual and flexible combination of different tools
→ Different boundary conditions (i.e. different fluids, techniques, etc)
→ Different scales (plugs, cuttings, slabbed cores, etc)Final goals
o Understanding the fundamentals of controlling mechanism
o Integration of lab data into field-scale modeling/simulation
Slide 6
❑ Multiple scales within space and time
millimeters
Matrix with fine-scale
laminations and
fractures
A
0.5 mm
STYLIOLINA
micrometers
Matrix with
interspersed organic
and inorganic matter
nanometers
Nanopore structure
of organic and
inorganic matter
❑ Complex series of physico-chemical processes
Continuum Scale Description Fundamental Mechanisms
meters
Reactivated natural
fractures
Induced
hydraulic
fracture
centimeters
Natural
fracture
Matrix
(Clarkson et al., 2016; JNGSE 31, 612-637)
Advanced characterization methods at all scales are critical for:
• Primary and enhanced hydrocarbon production
• Subsurface storage
Introduction
Montney equivalent outcrop (Hood Creek)
Image Courtesy: Mason MacKay
Slide 7
Reservoir quality, rock mechanical properties, composition and
fluid-rock interaction are variable along the laterals.
Introduction (continued)
❑ Petrophysical properties (e.g. porosity/permeability)
❑ Geomechanical properties (e.g. Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio)
❑ Composition/Fluid-Rock interaction (e.g. wettability, contact angle)
1000 m+
55555 ,,,, hiPEk 44444 ,,,, hiPEk 33333 ,,,, hiPEk 22222 ,,,, hiPEk 11111 ,,,, hiPEk
Property variation along laterals
Example: multi-fractured horizontal wells (MFHWs)
Slide 8
❑ Highly heterogeneous systems (even at mm/cm-scales)
❑ Only samples typically available are drill cuttings
❑ Commercial techniques sometimes fail to properly characterize
Samples
Frac stagesUpper Zone
Lower Zone
Vertical exaggeration: 3x
Frac stage 1
GR Log
Heel
Toe (TD)
NW SE
9 Successful stages
(Clarkson et al., 2016; JNGSE 36, 1031–1049)
Problem Statement
(Deglint et al., 2017; Scientific Report 7, 4347)
❑ Limited datasets for two/three-phase fluid flow and storage
Incorrect!
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
9
Generation, Migration & ExpulsionChanges in mass/volume ratios and composition under stress
Selected Examples/Innovations
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
1010
Petroleum generation and expulsion
• Temperature ➔ reaction kinetics
• Burial and loading ➔ rock mechanics
• Fluid transport ➔ petrophysics
• Hydrocarbon composition ➔ organic geochemistry
melting ice “compaction” experiment
Transformation of “load-bearing solid” kerogen to a fluid phase
ice
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
1111
Lias Basin (Posidonia Shale): Volume balance
(Rullkötter et al. 1988; Mann et al. 1991)
TOC, Rock-Eval
and solvent
extraction data
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
1212
Primary migration and expulsion (shale oil & gas)
• What is the driving force?
• compaction?
• solid/fluid transformation of
OM?
• pressure build-up due to
“volume expansion” of OM (in
a static pore system)?
• What are the transport avenues?
• inorganic/organic pore
system?
• What are the changes in OM
volume and pore volume during
petroleum migration & expulsion?
Confined thermal
compaction
experiment
(Hanebeck,
1995)
Unconfined thermal
compaction
experiment
(Eseme, 2006)
Thermo-mechanical deformation test
❑ Changes of geochemical characteristics
❑ Mass & volume balance
❑ Compressive strength, modulus of elasticity (Young’s modulus),
maximum axial strain
Ongoing research study
❑ Poro/Perm change upon heating up to 150°C (under stress)
Slide 13
Thermal Stage Temperature Hydrocarbon/OM Type Evolved
As-Received Room Temperature None
S1 150°C Lighter free Hydrocarbon
S2a 380°C Fluid-like Hydrocarbon Residue (FHR)
S2b 650°C Solid Bitumen, Kerogen
Controlled-Atmosphere Furnace (Across International®)
(TOC Laboratory)
Programmable
ESH Rock-Eval: “Artificial” Cuttings
(Ghanizadeh et al., 2018; SPE189787)
Slide 14
1.E-08
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
0 2 4 6 8 10
Cru
sh
ed
-Ro
ck
G
as
(H
e)
Pe
rme
ab
ilit
y (
mD
)
Helium porosity (%)
Crushed-Rock Perm (as-received)
Crushed-Rock Perm (after S1 removal)
Crushed-Rock Perm (after S2a removal)
Crushed-Rock Perm (after S2b removal)
rp35 = 10 nm
rp35 = 5 nm
rp35 = 1.5 nm
rp35: estimated from a modified Winland-style correlation (Di and Jensen, 2015)
rp35 = 3 nm
ESH Rock-Eval: “Artificial” Cuttings
(Ghanizadeh et al., 2018; SPE189787)
Practical Use:
➢ Understanding reservoir quality in presence of lighter & heavier free hydrocarbons
Duvernay Example
Slide 15
❑ Heating Stage: Seeing is believing!
Video Courtesy: K.M. Clarke & C. DeBuhr
❑ ESH cycle was reproduced using SEM heating stage
❑ “Live” imaging of organic/inorganic matter evolution
Image Courtesy: H.J. Deglint
Live Imaging Pyrolysis: Duvernay
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
16
Storage propertiesExcess sorption isotherm
& Porosity
- Dry or moist
- Pushing the detection limits
- Stressed
Selected Examples/Innovations
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
1717
Adsorption isotherms (coals & shales)
CH4 sorption capacity (mmol/g or mol/kg):
• activated carbon (technical sorbent)
• coal
• shaleShales have
comparatively low
sorption capacities
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
18
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Excesssorp
on[mmol/g]
Pressure[MPa]
45°C(0%moisture) 45°C(2.69%moisture)
65°C(0%moisture) 65°C(2.69%moisture)
75°C(0%moisture) 75°C(2.69%moisture)
Mature Shale (TOC = 5.8%, Ro = 2.4%)
dry
moisture-eq.
Gasparik et al. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 84, 085116 (2013)
Effects of temperature and moisture content on CH4 sorption
Standard procedure: 25 MPa,150 °C, particle size: 500-1000 µm, moisture vs. dry
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
1919
Gaus et al., in preparationStress dependence
❑ Storage capacity (free and sorbed gas phase)
❑ Uptake kinetics (permeability, diffusivity)
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
20
Transport propertiesGas permeability
- Dry
- Moist
- Stressed
Selected Examples/Innovations
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
2121
Poro-elastic & fluid dynamic effects Fink et al. (2017)
→ New set-up
equipped with
strain gauges
Verification of theory
→ Tests on synthetic porous rocks
→ Completely rigid
Slide 22
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pro
pp
ed
Fra
ctu
re G
as
(N
2)
Co
nd
uc
tivit
y (
md
-ft)
Effective Stress (psi)
Mean Pore Pressure = 14.9 psi
Mean Pore Pressure = 15.3 psi
Mean Pore Pressure = 15.5 psi
Mean Pore Pressure = 15.8 psi
Mean Pore Pressure = 16.9 psi
Mean Pore Pressure = 17.5 psi
Mean Pore Pressure = 18.0 psi
❑ Stress & hysteresis-dependent propped frac conductivity
Duvernay Example
Selected Examples/Innovations
Detailed application of these data was presented today at:
SPE Duvernay Workshop (March 19-20, 2019; Calgary)
Practical Use:
• Greater constraint on rate-transient analysis (RTA) e.g. flowback modeling
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
2323
Gasbreakthrough and residual trapping
➢ Estimating relative permeability of intact and fractured rock
Time
Pre
ssu
re
I
II
III
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150
Pre
ssu
re (
psi)
Time (h)
Downstream Pressure
Upstream PressureI
II
III
Theory Experiment (TOC Lab)
Mechanism I: Single-phase liquid flow
Mechanism II: Two-phase gas/liquid flow; controlled by ΔP
Mechanism III: Diffusion
❑ Core/Cuttings: Liquid/Relative Permeability
Selected Examples
(Hildenbrand et al., 2002; Geofluids 2, 3-23)
Montney Example
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
25
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) flow cell
Additional use of centrifuge data
❑ Pore size distribution
❑ Relative permeability curves
in collaboration with Applied Geophysics and Geothermal Energy Department (Aachen)
Slide 26
➢ Same platform can be used for performing core-based huff-n-puff tests
Injection Soaking Production
Practical Use:
• Evaluation of incremental oil recovery using experimental huff-n-puff
❑ Core/Cuttings: Huff-n-Puff Experiments
Selected Examples/Innovations
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
2727
Sample preparation and representativeness
How to obtain “representative” sorption/transport data for organic-rich shales/coals?
Photograph: Imperial College, London (S. Durucan)
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
2828
Epoxy-embedding;
4 injection “wells” with pressure
transducers
CH1
CH5
CH4
CH2
Heterogeneous samples with irregular shapes
Objectives:
assessment of connectivity, permeability
anisotropy and storage capacity
Slide 29
Vacuum pump
Valve 3
Valve 2
Pressure transducer
Valve 1
Back pressure regulator
(BPR)
Gas flow meter
Ga
s c
ylin
de
r
(CH
4,
N2)
Core holder
Injection
Core holderCore holder
Shut-inProduction
Selected Examples/Innovations
Rate-Transient Analysis (RTA) Permeameter
➢ Novel technique for measuring stress-dependent permeability
(Clarkson et al., 2019; Fuel 235, 1530-1543)
RTAPK
Slide courtesy of Atena Vahedian, TOC’s Lab Technician
Slide 30
RTAPK: Examples
❑ Comparison with Pulse-decay Permeability Technique
Advantages:
• Similar boundary conditions as those present in field-scale well-tests
• Two independent estimates of stress-dependent permeability + porosity
• Significantly shorter turnaround than routine tests (e.g. pulse-decay method)
Slide courtesy of Atena Vahedian, TOC’s Lab Technician
Montney Example
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
31
Wettability & Surface Properties
Selected Examples/Innovations
Slide 32
❑ Core/Cuttings: Micro-wettability
➢ Novel technique for estimating micro-droplet contact angles and imbibition
rates using environmental SEM
Video courtesy of Hanford Deglint, former PhD student, TOC
Selected Examples/Innovations
150 µmMontney Example
Slide 33
Images courtesy of Hanford Deglint, former PhD student, TOC. (Deglint et al., 2017; Scientific Report 7, 4347)
❑ Core/Cuttings: Micro-scale contact angle
Selected Examples/Innovations
Montney Example
Slide 34
R² = 0.982
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Vo
lum
e o
f D
rop
let
/ (S
urf
ac
e A
rea
x C
on
tac
t R
ad
ius
)
Elapsed Time (s)
Imbibition Rate of Distilled Water Montney Sample (4B Site #2)
Original
Corrected
Linear (Corrected)
Deglint, 2018 (PhD thesis)
❑ Core/Cuttings: Micro-scale imbibition rate
Selected Examples/Innovations
Practical Use:
• Create “wettability maps” for input into pore-scale models for predicting capillary
pressure/relative permeability
• Evaluate fluid imbibition rates and fluid sensitivity for various rock components
Montney Example
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
3535
Water vapour isotherms: DVS methodology
35
▪ Dynamic Vapour sorption (DVS)
• gravimetric measurement
• typical sample mass: 50-100 mg
• analytical resolution: 0.0001 mg
• relative pressure: 0-0.99, < ±0.005
• temperature: 10 - 90 °C
SMS DVS ET @ CIM
Sw = 26%
❑ Differences in rate of sorption as function of RH
❑ Rate of sorption is related to diffusivity
❑ Changes in diffusivity = pore (throat) blocking?
❑ Controlling gas transport properties (Pc-driven mobilization of water phase)
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
3636
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
TOC Lab (Calgary) Petrophysics Lab (Aachen)
Acknowledgement
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
37
Backup Slides
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
3838
Solvent flow-through extraction under stress
Key questions• Potential fluid pathways
• Distribution of bitumen in the pore system • Accessibility and composition of bitumen • Porosity and permeability evolution
Mohnhoff et al. (2016), Xie et al., (2019)
→ Limited petrophysical information
→ Extraction efficiencies
→ Geochemical changes
Analytical approach
Slide 39
Samples
Frac stagesUpper Zone
Lower Zone
Vertical exaggeration: 3x
Frac stage 1
GR Log
Heel
Toe (TD)
NW SE
9 Successful stages
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Pre
ssu
re (
psia
)
Temperature ( F)
(Pc, Tc) of Fluid 1
(Pc, Tc) of Fluid 2
Reservoir Initial P, T
Fluid-in-Place
Permeability/Diffusivity
Nanoindentation/Mechanical Properties
Modified after Mason et al. (2014)
Selected Examples/Innovations
❑ Core/Cuttings: Along-Well Characterization
(Clarkson et al., 2016; JNGSE 31, 612-637)
Slide 40
➢ New experimental setup for estimating liquid permeability and relative
permeability of intact and fractured rock
Designed/Assembled In-House (URTeC 2902898)
Single/Multicomponent gases
▪ He, Ar, N2, CH4, CO2
▪ Lean/Rich gas
❑ Single-Phase Liquid Flow
▪ liquid permeability
→ kabs (oil, brine, fracturing fluid, etc)
❑ Two-Phase Liquid/Gas Flow
▪ gas breakthrough
→ Pc (entry, breakthrough)
→ Pc (snap-off)
→ keff (gas) as function of ΔP
→ krel (gas) as function of ΔP
→ Deff
❑ Core/Cuttings: Liquid/Relative Permeability
Selected Examples/Innovations
Slide 41
RTAPK: Data Evaluation
(Clarkson et al., 2019; Fuel 235, 1530-1543)
Slide 42
❑ Core Plugs
▪ Length: 0.1 - 3”
▪ Diameter: 1, 1.5”
❑ Paxial & radial
▪ ˂ 10,000 psi
❑ Pfluid
▪ ˂ 5,000 psi
▪ Any liquid
• brine
• oil
• etc
❑ Multi-purpose high-pressure triaxial system
▪ Matrix/Fracture fluid (gas/liquid) flow
▪ Ultrasonic analysis (Vp, Vs)
0
N2
Selected Examples/Innovations
Slide 43
150°C 400°C >650°C
S1 S2a S2b
Free HC FHR (Fluid-Like HC Residue) Solid Bitumen
Extended Slow Heating Rock Eval
Standard Rock-Eval
25 °C/min
300 °C – 650 °C
Extended Slow Heating (ESH) Rock-Eval
10 °C/min
150 °C – 650 °C
300°C
S1 S2
650°CAdvantage of ESH Rock-Eval
Capable of distinguishing various hydrocarbon/OM components
• free hydrocarbons (up to 150 °C) – S1
• fluid-like hydrocarbon residue (FHR, 150-380 °C) – S2a
• solid bitumen (380-650 °C) – S2b
Sanei et al., 2015 – IJCG 150-151; 296-305.
ESH Rock-Eval: Concept
(Ghanizadeh et al., 2018; SPE189787)
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
4444
Storage & Transport
Slide 45
Rel Perm: Modified Dacy’s Method
krg
krl
Centrifuge Centrifuge
krg
oil
gas
gas
❑ Modified Dacy’s Method
krg: gas phase relative permeability
krl: liquid phase relative permeability
Repeat
Model: Clinical 200
Manufacturer: VWRTM
krl krl
krg
Slide 46
➢ Estimating liquid permeability and relative permeability of intact and
fractured rock
Slide Courtesy of Amin Ghanizadeh
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
140
190
240
290
340
390
440
490
540
590
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
CH
4/O
ilR
ela
tive
Pe
rme
ab
ilit
y
CH
4P
res
su
re (
ps
i)
Time (h)
Downstream Pressure
Upstream Pressure
Relative Permeability
Effective stress: 2670 psi
Mean pore pressure: 370 psi
ΔPresidual = 88 psi
Selected Examples
❑ Core/Cuttings: Liquid/Relative Permeability
Montney Example
© Energy & Mineral Resources Group
School of Applied Geosciences
www.emr.rwth-aachen.de
4747
Thermal Compaction Test (Posidonia Shale)
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Re
lati
ve C
han
ge
of
Sam
ple
Th
ick
ne
ss
in
%
Time / [h]
thermal expansion during initial heating phase
original sample: TOC: 10.4 %
Tmax: 428 °C
HI: 745 mg/g TOC
after compaction test: TOC: 7.94%
Tmax: 443 °C
HI: 284 mg/g TOC
• unconfined load test
• 350°C
• 14 kN (22 MPa)
(Hanebeck, PhD thesis 1995)
Slide 48
Rel Perm: Modified Dacy’s Method
❑ Better match with LET Model; higher degrees of freedom (compared to Corey)
❑ Dead oil (experimental) vs. Live oil (modeling) – Mobility (perm/viscosity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Re
lati
ve
Pe
rme
ab
ilit
y
Gas Saturation (%)
krg-Laboratory
kro-Laboratory
krg-LET Model
kro-LET Model
Montney Example
Helium Porosity: 8.8%
Slip-corrected N2 Perm: 0.0046 md
Practical Use:
• Greater constraint on primary and improved oil recovery modeling/simulation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 500 1000 1500
Te
mp
era
ture
, C
Oil R
ec
ove
ry R
ati
o(%
OO
IP)
Time (h)
2-1 (Surfactant A+Tap Water)
1-2 (Surfactant B+Tap Water)
1-1 (Surfactant B+Brine)
4-3 (Surfactant C+Brine)
2-2 (Surfactant A+Brine)
3-2 (Surfactant C+Tap Water)
3-1 (Brine)
4-1 (Field Brine)
4-2 (Tap Water)
Temperature
Temperature: 26.4±0.2 C
Surfactants for EOR: Montney Example
Slide 50Slide 50
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 Pr C18 Ph C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25 C26 C27 C28 C29 C30 C31 C32
con
cen
trat
ion
[p
pm
]
n-Alkanes
original 1-2 2-1 2-2 3-1 3-2 4-1 4-2 4-3
C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 Pr C18 Ph C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25 C26 C27 C28 C29 C30 C31 C32
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Co
nc
en
tra
tio
n(p
pm
)
n-Alkanes distribution in different produced oil samples
➢ Corresponds very well with recovery data (inversely)
➢ The higher the recovery; the less the portion of C9-C13
➢ Also good correspondence with (not shown):
o Adamantanes
o Naphthalenes
Surfactants for EOR: Montney Example
Practical Use:
• Understanding fundamental mechanisms of surfactant-based EOR in tight rocks