Evaluation of Carbonate Reservoirs for Thermal Bitumen ... · Evaluation of Carbonate Reservoirs...

Presented by Jeff Peterson

Heavy Oil DevelopmentInternational SeminarPanjin China, September 15-17

September 16, 2010

Evaluation of Carbonate Reservoirs forThermal Bitumen Recovery

September 16, 2010 Breaking Through

2

Introduction

• Over 500 billion barrels of bitumen are contained withinseveral carbonate reservoirs in Alberta

• With the right properties carbonate bitumen reservoirs areattractive SAGD targets

• Heterogeneities (fractures, caves, etc.) do not impactrecoveries in gravity drainage as much as they do in viscousdisplacement

• Field tests and laboratory studies have confirmed theviability of thermal/solvent process in carbonate reservoirs

• The Grosmont Formation is a compelling SAGD target


3

Grosmont Bitumen Resource

Al-GhawarCarbonate

SaudiArabia

(the world’slargest

conventionaloil field)


4

Alberta's Bitumen Resource - 1.8 Trillion Barrels

835.3

406.5

131.296.9

69.1 65.1 59.3 54.7 49.127.0 15.8 1.8

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

McMurray (C

lastic)

Grosmont (C

arbonate)

McMurray (M

ining)

Grand Rapids (Clastic

)

Bluesky-Gething (C

lastic)

Nisku (Carb

onate)

Clearwater (C

lastic)

Grand Rapids (Clastic

)

Debolt (Carb

onate)

Wabiskaw-McMurra

y (Clastic

)

Shunda (Carb

onate)

Belloy (C

lastic)

Ori

gin

alO

ilin

Pla

ce

(Billio

ns

Bb

ls)

Region:

Athabasca Cold Lake Peace River

Region:Athabasca Cold Lake Peace River

Alberta’s Carbonate Bitumen Resource


5

Karst process

• Changes in sea level alternatelysubmerged and exposed thecarbonate platform

• Flow of surficial water throughrock leaches the dolomite andenhances porosity andpermeability

• Features range from pore scaleto several meters in scale


6

Grosmont porosity and permeability features

• Matrix porosity– < 500 mD perms

• Vuggy porosity– > 250 darcy perms

• Fracture porosity– > 100 darcy perms

• Breccia porosity– >500 mD perms

SinkingStream

SinkHoleShaft

WaterTable

Tunnel

Wet Cave

Dry Cave

UnderwaterCave


7

Grosmont characteristics

Grosmont D

Grosmont C

Grosmont B

Grosmont A

• 2 Stacked dolomite bitumenreservoirs

• 360m TVD

• Grosmont D:

• Karst breccia dominatedporosity

• 30m+ thermal interval

• Separated by thin shale-CDMarl

• Grosmont C:

• 15-19m thermal interval

• Highly fractured moretraditional vuggy dolomitereservoir


8

Grosmont D


9

Grosmont C


10

Engineering and Field Studies

• Core scale studies– Special core analyses

– tomography scans

– Steam and solvent soak tests on core

• Reservoir scale studies– Fracture characterization by borehole image logs

– Cold solvent injection/production test by Laricina

– Radioactive tracer tests on drilling fluid losses

– Unocal Buffalo Creek cyclic steam pilot 1980’s


11

Computed tomography (CT) scans of core

GrosmontD

Breccia

GrosmontC

VuggyDolomite

Dr. A. Kantzas, TIPM Laboratories


12

Vug and Fracture Connectivity• Vugs are connected by varying degrees of micro-fracturing

• Far left sample is connected by extensive fracturingbetween vugs, fracture perm dominates flow

• Far right sample fractures are absent and matrixpermeability controls fluid movement

• Various permutations of these throughout core


13

Core Steam Soak Tests


14

CT scan of steam soak experiment


15Bitumen Mobilization Within theGrosmont Rock Framework

ScanAverage32.9 %Porosity


16

Bitumen Mobilization Distribution

Initial CT Density(kg/m3)

Post Steam Density(kg/m3)


17

Density Variance

Porosity(fraction)

Density Change(kg/m3)


18

Fracture / Vug Permeability

Exceptional permeability indicators:

• Lab core soak tests• Dominant dolomitization & dissolution enhancement• Extensive fracture/vug system over pay intervals – extended karsting• Widespread rubblized core recovery• Direct bitumen flow/bleeding from core• Drilling fluid losses• Buffalo Creek steam injectivity• Buffalo Creek history match (bottom hole temp.)• Laricina cold solvent production testing


19

Unocal Buffalo Creek CSS Pilot

• During 1980-1986, the vertical UnocalBuffalo Creek 1AA/10-5-88-19W4well’s ultimate recovery was 98,500bbl at a CSOR of 6.4 – superior toresults from period McMurray tests.

• Many field indicators point to a highbulk permeability of the formation, asconfirmed by preliminary historymatching presented.

• Overall gravity dominance of thesystem means a predictable path forinjected steam: more or less straightup.

• In the ensuing 20 years since theBuffalo Creek test, the application ofmodern recovery methods areparticularly promising in renderinglarge volumes of recoverablebitumen from the Grosmont.

History Match Producing BH Temperature

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

30-Jan-80

09-May-80

17-Aug-80

25-Nov-80

05-Mar-81

13-Jun-81

21-Sep-81

30-Dec-81

Time

Te

mp

era

ture

(de

gC

)

Field

Simulated

Simulator and Field Production Rates for 37m zone

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Jan-80-30

May-80-09

Aug-80-17

Nov-80-25

Mar-81-05

Jun-81-13

Sep-81-21

Dec-81-30

Time

Oil

Ra

te(m

^3/d

)

Field Data

Simulator Data


20

Effect of Porosity on Steam Oil Ratio• CSOR is a function of porosity assuming good permeability.

It can be seen that, regardless of reservoir thickness,porosity exceeding a threshold of about 15% is essential forsuccess


21

Conclusions

• The most prospective carbonate reservoirs are karstedregions

• For SAGD, formation heterogeneity is not a limitation– As long as adequate vertical permeability for gravity drainage is

maintained

• With average fracture spacing less than a few meters,reservoir is modeled as an iso-porous system


22

Conclusions - continued

• The Alberta Grosmont Formation exhibits regionally well-developed secondary porosity within the rock pore structure,well suited to bitumen recovery

• CT scanning within the Grosmont has revealed significantnew information on the rock texture and secondary porositydevelopment

• Permeability within the karsted fairway of the Grosmont canbe orders of magnitude above common clastic ranges


23

Questions?


24

This Laricina Energy Ltd. (the “Company”) Presentation is confidential and should not be distributed to any person other than attendees to whom thisPresentation was initially presented to by the Company. Some of the statements contained in this Presentation may be forward-looking statements.Forward-looking statements may include, but are not limited to, statements concerning estimates of exploitable original-bitumen-in-place, predictedrecovery factors, steam-to-oil ratios and well production rates, estimated recoverable resources as defined below, expected regulatory filing, review andapproval dates, construction and start-up timelines and schedules, company project potential production volumes as well as comparisons to otherprojects, statements relating to the continued overall advancement of the Company’s projects, comparisons of recoverable resources to other oil sandsprojects, estimated relative supply costs, potential cost reductions, recovery and production increases resulting from the application of new technologyand recovery schemes, estimates of carbon sequestration capacity, costs for carbon capture and sequestration and possible implementation schedulefor carbon capture and sequestration processes or related emissions mitigation or reduction scheme and other statements which are not historical facts.You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements as there can be no assurance that the plans, intentions or expectationsupon which they are based will occur. By their nature forward-looking statements involve numerous assumptions, known and unknown risks anduncertainties, both generally and specific, that contribute to the possibility that the predictions, forecasts, projections and other forward-lookingstatements will not occur. Although the Company believes that the expectations represented by such forward-looking statements are reasonable, therecan be no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct and, accordingly that actual results will be consistent with the forward-lookingstatements. Some of the risks and other factors that could cause results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statementscontained in this Presentation include, but are not limited to geological conditions relating to the Company’s properties, the impact of regulatory changesespecially as such relate to royalties, taxation and environmental changes, the impact of technology on operations and processes and the performanceof new technology expected to be applied or utilized by the Company; labour shortages; supply and demand metrics for oil and natural gas; the impact ofpipeline capacity, upgrading capacity and refinery demand; general economic business and market conditions and such other risks and uncertaintiesdescribed from time to time in the reports and filings made with security regulatory authorities, contained in other disclosure documents or otherwiseprovided by the Company. Furthermore the forward-looking statements contained in this Presentation are made as of the date hereof. Unless requiredby law the Company does not undertake any obligation to update publicly or to revise any of the included forward-looking statements, whether as a resultof new information, future events or otherwise. The forward-looking statements contained in this Presentation are expressly qualified by this advisory anddisclaimer.

“Recoverable resources” includes the unrisked arithmetic sum of best estimate contingent resources and prospective resources and proved plusprobable reserves as defined in the report of GLJ Petroleum Consultants Ltd. (“GLJ”) regarding certain of Laricina’s properties effective March 1st, 2010,referred to herein (the “GLJ Report”). “Exploitable OBIP” refers to original-bitumen-in-place that is recoverable using established thermal recoverytechnologies. The best and high estimate includes contingent and prospective resources. Contingent resource values have not been risked for chance ofdevelopment while prospective resource values have been risked for chance of discovery but not for chance of development. There is no certainty that itwill be commercially viable to produce any portion of the contingent resources. There is no certainty that any portion of the prospective resources will bediscovered or, if discovered, if it will be commercially viable to produce any portion of the prospective resources. 2P means proved plus probablereserves and 3P means proved plus probable plus possible reserves. SC-SAGD means solvent-cyclic steam-assisted gravity drainage. The SC-SAGDbest estimate technology sensitivity was based on Laricina’s risked view of resources.

Forward-looking statements advisory


25

Contact us

Laricina Energy Ltd.

4100, 150 6th Ave SW

Calgary, Alberta T2P 3Y7

403-750-0810

www.laricinaenergy.com

[email protected]

Date post:	25-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vantram
View:	222 times
Download:	9 times

Evaluation of Carbonate Reservoirs for Thermal Bitumen ... · Evaluation of Carbonate Reservoirs...

Documents