Date post: | 06-May-2015 |
Category: |
Business |
Upload: | sistema-fieb |
View: | 1,380 times |
Download: | 2 times |
Agenda
1. CMG products
2. Unconventional Reservoir Modelling Physics
3. Using CMG’s Reservoir Simulation products to Determine EUR from Limited Data
4. Using CMG’s Reservoir Simulation products to Optimize Well Completion Design & Well Spacing
5. SPE Unconventional Reservoir papers that feature the use of CMG’s Reservoir Simulation products
CMG Software ProductsSuperior physicsSuperior physics
EOR advanced processes leader (+95%)
IMEX Black Oil/Condensate simulator
GEM Equation of State Compositional Simulator
STARS K value compositional, thermal, chemical, geomechanical simulator
Reservoir Numerical Simulators
Phase behavior, PVT modellingWINPROP
Pre & Post ProcessorsBUILDER
RESULTS 3D
RESULTS GRAPH
RESULTS REPORT
Project Manager
ConverterECL 100 IMPORT ASSISTANT
LAUNCHER
Assisted history match, Optimization, Sensitivity and Uncertainty analysis
CMOST
Unconventional reservoirs physics
Diffusion Desorption Fractured system Non-Darcy effects Low porosity/permeability Typical Shale Adsorption Curve
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Pressure (psi)G
as
Ad
so
rpti
on
(ft
3/t
on
)Shale
CMG Simulator PhysicsPhysics IMEX GEM
PVT BO, VO, GC, WG EOS
Adsorbed Comp Gas Comp Any Comp
Diffusion No Any Comp
Natural Fracs DP or DK DP or DK
Non-Darcy (turbulent) Flow Yes Yes
Klinkenberg (slip) Flow No Yes
Krel/Pc by Rock Type Yes Yes
Propped Fracs Explicit Grids Explicit Grids
Press-dependent Compaction Yes (& w/ time) Yes (& w/ time)
Stress-dependent Compaction No Yes (w/ GEOMECH)
LS-LR-DK gridding Yes (& w/ time) Yes (& w/ time)
CMG Frac’d Well Modelling History
Microseismic Results
Trend visible in red stagePossible trend visible in blue stage
Possible interaction with pre-existing fractures?
In-situ stress will influence dominant hydraulic fracture orientations
Shmax direction?
Williams-Stroud, Microseismic, 2008
Single Plane Geometry
Complex Geometry
BUILDER can create LS-LR-DK (tartan) grids around fractures
automatically
Propped Frac Gridding is EASY
Varying Propped Frac Properties & SRV Size with CMOST is EASY
Propped Frac PropertiesHalf-length, Width, Perm, Spacing,
Height & Perm GradientStimulated Natural Frac Properties:
Width, Perm
SRV Size & Shape# MS events per gridblock
MS Moment MagnitudeMS Confidence Value
Etc.
Geomechanics Independent
geomechanic grid Hydraulic fracture closure New fractures opening Permeability vs Stress
Crack occurs
D
A
Beginning
C
B
kfmax
kf
σ/fn
kfmin
A27I
C16I
A27I
C16I
3 key Questions about Unconventional Reservoirs
1. How can I determine the EUR with limited data?
2. What is the Optimum Well Completion Design?
3. What is the Optimum Well Spacing?
Physics-based EUR Calculation1. Choose CMG simulator
with required physics
2. Build base model
3. Perform SA & AHM4. Forecast EUR using
best HM models
Engineer builds base model, decides which parameters to allow CMOST to vary, and CMOST does
the rest
Physics-based EUR Calculation
• 4000 ft Eagle Ford “Oil Window” well• 41-stage frac job pumped
• 7 months of production (222 days)• Oil, gas & water rates, and flowing BHP
measured daily
• Task: Determine Oil & Gas EURs• Solution: Match 7 months of history &
Forecast 30 years of future production
Physics-based EUR CalculationKnown Reservoir, Well & Fluid Properties
Property Value UnitDepth at top of reservoir 10,800 feet
Reservoir thickness 150 feetInitial Reservoir Pressure 8,100 psi
Initial Reservoir Temperature 270 FOil Bubble Point Pressure 3010 psi
Oil Gravity 43 APIInitial Solution GOR 950 scf/stb
Lateral Length 4000 feetNumber of Frac Stages Pumped 10
Physics-based EUR CalculationRanges for uncertain reservoir & frac properties
PropertyMin Value
Max Value Unit
Matrix Porosity 0.04 0.10 fractionMatrix Permeability 10 1000 nD
Natural Fracture Effective Porosity 0.0006 0.0006 fractionNatural Fracture Effective Permeability 40 40 nD
Natural Fracture Areal Spacing 50 50 feetPropped Fracture Spacing 100 400 feet
Propped Fracture Half-Length 50 400 feetPropped Fracture Permeability 1 30 D
Swi in Propped & Natural Fractures 0.15 0.45 fraction
Physics-based EUR CalculationKrel, Pc & PV Compaction Assumptions
Property AssumptionsMatrix Krel Corey Functions are sufficient
Natural Fracture Krel Straight Line behaviorPropped Fracture Krel Straight Line behavior
Matrix Pc Can ignore during primary depletionNatural Fracture Pc ZeroPropped Fracture Pc Zero
Matrix PV Compaction Constant CompressibilityNatural Fracture PV Compaction Constant CompressibilityPropped Fracture PV Compaction Changes with Pressure
Physics-based EUR Calculation2D Areal View of Simulation Grid
Physics-based EUR Calculation3D Perspective View of Simulation Grid
Physics-based EUR Calculation
CMOST Assisted HM Optimization Sensitivity and Uncertainty analysis
Physics-based EUR Calculation
MatrixPerm(md)
MatrixPor
(frac)
Nat FracSwi
(frac)
Rock Comp Table #
Prop’dFracXf(ft)
Prop’dFrac
Perm(md)
Prop’dFrac
Spacing(ft)
Prop’dFracSwi
(frac)
0.00001 0.04 0.15 ctype1.inc 50 1000 100 0.15
0.0001 0.06 0.25 ctype2.inc 150 10000 200 0.25
0.0005 0.08 0.35 ctype3.inc 250 20000 300 0.35
0.001 0.1 0.45 ctype4.inc 400 30000 400 0.55
Discrete Values used in Sensitivity Analysis
Physics-based EUR Calculation
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 90000.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
ctype1
ctype2
ctype3
ctype4
Pressure, psia
Per
mea
bil
ity
Mu
ltip
lier
Propped Frac PV Compaction Curves
Physics-based EUR CalculationCumulative Oil Tornado Plot
Physics-based EUR Calculation
Cumulative Water Tornado Plot
MatrixPerm(md)
MatrixPor
(frac)
Nat FracSwi
(frac)
Rock Comp Table #
Prop’dFrac
Xf(ft)
Prop’dFrac Perm(md)
Prop’dFrac
Spacing(ft)
Prop’dFracSwi
(frac)
0.00001 0.04 0.15 ctype1.inc 50 1000 100 0.150.00005 0.05 0.16 ctype2.inc 100 5000 150 0.200.0001 0.06 0.17 ctype3.inc 150 10000 200 0.250.0002 0.07 0.18 ctype4.inc 200 15000 250 0.300.0003 0.08 0.20 250 20000 300 0.350.0004 0.09 0.25 300 25000 350 0.400.0005 0.10 0.30 400 30000 400 0.450.0007 0.350.001 0.40
Physics-based EUR CalculationDiscrete Values used in History-Match
Total Search Space: 6.22 million combinations
Physics-based EUR CalculationHistory-Match Run Progress Plot
Engineer only has to monitor History-Match progress….. so is free to work on other projects!
Physics-based EUR CalculationOil Phase History-Match
Physics-based EUR CalculationGas Phase History-Match
Physics-based EUR CalculationWater Phase History-Match
Physics-based EUR CalculationFlowing BHP History-Match
Physics-based EUR Calculation30-yr Oil EUR using 15 best HM models
Oil EUR (stb)Maximum 724,059Minimum 571,847Average 654,125Median 649,323Std Dev 45,162
Physics-based EUR Calculation30-yr Gas EUR using 15 best HM models
Gas EUR (MMscf)Maximum 981Minimum 851Average 926Median 922Std Dev 44
Time to do Physics-based EUR
TaskTime (hr)
Time/Run (min)
ENGINEER’s time 8 -
100 CMOST SA runs* 2.8 1.7
446 CMOST AHM runs* 8.5 1.1
15 x 30-year forecast runs** 0.6 2.5
TOTAL COMPUTE Time 11.9 -
* 4 simultaneous 4-way parallel IMEX runs on a Dell Precision T5600** Sequential 16-way parallel IMEX runs on a Dell Precision T5600
Physics-based Well Optimization1. Choose CMG simulator
with required physics
2. Build base model
3. Perform SA4. OPT Completion Design5. OPT Well Spacing
Engineer builds base model, decides which parameters to allow CMOST to vary, and CMOST does
the rest
Physics-based Well OptimizationAssumed Reservoir, Well & Fluid Properties
Property DataNatural Fracture Relative Permeability Straight Line data from EUR calc.
Propped Fracture Relative Permeability Straight Line data from EUR calc.Matrix Capillary Pressure Assumed to be zero
Natural Fracture Capillary Pressure Assumed to be zeroPropped Fracture Capillary Pressure Assumed to be zero
Matrix Pore Volume Compaction ConstantNatural Fracture PV Compaction ConstantPropped Fracture PV Compaction “ctype4.inc” from EUR calc.
Physics-based Well Optimization
Assumed Economic Parameters
Economic Parameter Value UnitOil Price 100 $US/bblGas Price 3 $US/Mscf
Well Drilling Cost 3,000,000 $US/wellFrac Cost 250,000 $US/Stage
Forecast Period 30 years
Physics-based Well OptimizationProposed Well Completion/Spacing Options
PropertyMin
ValueMax Value Unit
Proposed Well Spacing128
(5 wells)640
(1 well) acresProposed Well Lateral Length 4000 4000 feet
Proposed Propped Fracture Spacing 200 800 feet
Proposed Propped Fracture Half-Length 50 400 feet
Proposed Propped Fracture Permeability 1 20 D
Physics-based Well OptimizationDiscrete Values used for Completion Optimization
Propped Frac Spacing
(feet)
Propped Frac Permeability
(Darcies)
Propped Frac Half-Length
(feet)
200 1 50300 3 100400 6 200500 9 300600 12 400800 15
18 20
Total Search Space: 240 combinations
Physics-based Well OptimizationOptimization Run Progress Plot
Engineer only has to monitor Optimization progress….. so is free to work on other projects!
Physics-based Well OptimizationOptimum Parameter Histograms
Physics-based Well Optimization
Default-Field-PRO base model_km_0.0005md.irf
Time (Date)
Cu
mu
lativ
e O
il SC
(bb
l)
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 20450.00e+0
1.00e+6
2.00e+6
3.00e+6
4.00e+6
5.00e+6
Cumulative Oil SC base model_km_0.0005md.irfCumulative Oil SC Base Model_Km_0.0005mD_2wells.irfCumulative Oil SC Base Model_Km_0.0005mD_3wells.irfCumulative Oil SC Base Model_Km_0.0005mD_4wells.irfCumulative Oil SC Base Model_Km_0.0005mD_5wells.irf
Cum Oil after 30 years vs # of Wells
# of WellsNPV
(MMUSD)1 492 973 1454 1915 230
Physics-based Well OptimizationMatrix Pressure @ 30 years with 4 & 5 wells
Time to do Physics-based Well Completion & Spacing
Optimization
Task Time (hr)Time/Run
(min)
ENGINEER’s time 8.0 -
55 CMOST OPT runs* 2.2 1.9
5 IMEX 30-year Forecast runs** 0.85 10.2
TOTAL COMPUTE Time 3.05 -
* 4 simultaneous 4-way parallel IMEX runs on a Dell Precision T5600** 5 Sequential 16-way parallel IMEX runs on a Dell Precision T5600
SPE References
Used GEM to model DFITs and concluded:• Greatly enhances our ability to efficiently design DFIT's for tight shale reservoirs• Shows the validity of the Nolte analysis technique for tight rocks and provides guidelines for the shut-in
time duration required to generate a reasonable estimate of reservoir properties from DFIT pressure response
• Shows that geomechanics-coupled reservoir flow simulation of DFITs can provide estimates of fracture dimensions that compare reasonably with those from more traditional fracture design tools
• Demonstrate that geomechanics-coupled reservoir flow simulation provides an additiona advantage over traditional fracture design tools in that is can numerically model the system response even after fracture closure
• Shows significant fracture tip extension, both vertically and horizontally, for a significant period after the end of the shut-in period
SPE ReferencesSPE 166279
Estimation of Effective Fracture Volume Using Water Flowback and Production Data for Shale Gas WellsAhmad Alhkough (TAMU), Steve McKetta (Southwestern Energy) and Robert Wattenbarger (TAMU)
Used IMEX to model water flowback and long-term production, and concluded:• Used to simulate production of gas and water from a shale gas well• Water production analysis can provide effective fracture volume
estimates, which were confirmed by cumulative water produced, which in turn can evaluate fracture-stimulation treatments.
• Water production analysis can show the pitfalls of ignoring flowback data (i.e. in some cases the time-shift on diagnostic plots changes the apparent flow regime indentification of the early gas production data, as well as water production data, which leads to different (incorrect) interpretation of the fracture/matrix system.
SPE ReferencesURTeC 1575448
Marcellus Well Spacing Optimization – Pilot Data Integration and Dynamic Modeling StudyDeniz Cakici, Chris Dick, Abhijit Mookerjee, Shell Exploration & Production; Ben Stephenson, Shell Canada
Used GEM & CMOST to Match production history
36 E&P Companies are using CMG for Unconventional Reservoir Modelling
• Anadarko• Apache• BG Group• BHP Billiton• Birchcliff• Bonterra• BP• Chesapeake• Chevron• Devon• Encana• Enerplus
• EOG• ExxonMobil• Harvest• Marathon• Matador• Nexen• Noble Energy• PennWest• Perpetual• Petrobakken• Reliance• Rosetta
Resources
• Samson• Sasol• Seven Generations• Shell• Sinopec Daylight• Southwestern Energy• Statoil• Talisman• Taqa North• Total• Vitruvian• XTO
“Physics-based” EUR & Well Optimization
in hoursusing CMG software
VISION: To be the Leading Developer and Supplier of Dynamic Reservoir Technologies in the World
[email protected] www.cmgl.ca