1 / 28

IMPROVING DUAL POROSITY SIMULATION OF WATERFLOOD PERFORMANCE IN THE NATURALLY FRACTURED SPRABERRY TREND AREA

Pioneer Natural Resources. IMPROVING DUAL POROSITY SIMULATION OF WATERFLOOD PERFORMANCE IN THE NATURALLY FRACTURED SPRABERRY TREND AREA. By Tanvir Chowdhury Texas A&M University. Martin Co. Borden Co. Midland Co. Glasscock Co.

ethelda
Download Presentation

IMPROVING DUAL POROSITY SIMULATION OF WATERFLOOD PERFORMANCE IN THE NATURALLY FRACTURED SPRABERRY TREND AREA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pioneer Natural Resources IMPROVING DUAL POROSITY SIMULATION OF WATERFLOOD PERFORMANCE IN THE NATURALLY FRACTURED SPRABERRY TREND AREA By Tanvir Chowdhury Texas A&M University

  2. Martin Co Borden Co Midland Co Glasscock Co • Investigated the waterflood performance of an old (Humble Pilot) and a new (O’Daniel Pilot) Waterflood. • Find methods to extend and apply the results found from the Humble and O’Daniel Pilot simulations to all over the Spraberry Trend area Upton Co Reagan Co Spraberry Trend Area Pioneer Natural Resources’ Spraberry Unit Position Spraberry Trend Area • It is a very large field in areal extent (400,000 acres) • A NFR with extensive • vertical fractures • Poor ultimate recovery

  3. Presentation Outline Step 2 Simulation of tracer response from the present waterflood pilot Obtained Applied Previous Studies PVT Study Log Analysis Imbibition Study(Pc & Kr) Pressure Transient Analysis Production Data Analysis Core Analysis Outcrop Study Permeability anisotropy and fracture orientation Confirmed Step 3 Field Simulation involving multiple wells Step 1 Simulation of an old waterflood pilot (Humble Pilot)

  4. Step 1 Simulation of The Humble Pilot

  5. Assumptions For Simulation Only two wells were included in the basic model, one is injector (SHB-10) and the other is producer (SHB-8) as shown in Humble Pilot map. The production well was located in the same line with injection well (in the on-trend direction, along the primary fracture orientation). The response of oil production rate in the SHB-8 well was only affected by water injection from the SHB-10 well. 1 MAGNOLIA “A” 3 HUMBLE “B” 10 3 2 4 HUMBLE “B” 9 SHACKELFORD 5 UNION 8 13 11 15 2 15 4 16 SHACKELFORD HUTT 9 12 HUMBLE “B” 8 16 4 3 4 10 2 6 1 7 17 2 8 3 1 3 SHACKELFORD 1 HUMBLE “B” 1 2 4 22 SHACKELFORD 1 2 3 4 HUMBLE 21 1 TIPPET 2 2 TIPPET 20 6 TIPPET 3 TIPPET

  6. Reservoir Properties

  7. Grid System Fracture Matrix Matrix Vugs Fracture

  8. Comparison Between Observed and Simulated Results Water cut vs. time BHP vs. time

  9. Step 2 Simulation of The Tracer Test Conducted in The O’Daniel Pilot

  10. Production Well Production Well Monitored During Tracer Test Water Injector CO2 Injector Logging Observation Well C-1 1 G-1 D-1 C-2 C-1 E-1 2 30 3 Boone A-1 24 13 D-1 F-1 Boone A-1 19 32 D-1 6 Brunson 1 26 31 N 12 34 36 B-1 O'Daniel 8W A-5 47 C-1 1 O'Daniel 46 40 33 42 Boone E-1 28 50 A-6 25 44 49 39 45 41 O‘Brian 29 38 43 A-7 37 A-3 14 48 35 O'Daniel A-1 13 10 63 9 5 O'Daniel 9 7 12 8 B-1 O‘Brian 7 D-1 12 Powell Floyd C-1

  11. Production Well Production Well Monitored During Tracer Test Water Injector CO2 Injector Logging Observation Well N C-1 1 G-1 D-1 C-2 C-1 2 E-1 3 30 Boone A-1 13 24 D-1 F-1 Boone A-1 19 32 D-1 6 Brunson 1 26 31 12 34 36 B-1 O'Daniel 8W A-5 C-1 47 1 O'Daniel 46 40 33 42 Boone E-1 28 A-6 50 25 44 49 39 45 41 O‘Brian 29 38 43 A-7 37 A-3 14 48 35 O'Daniel A-1 13 10 63 9 5 O'Daniel 9 7 12 8 B-1 O‘Brian 7 D-1 12 Powell Floyd C-1

  12. Concentration Concentration Time Time a) Typical Response b) Shape of The Actual Response From WIW#47 to O’Daniel D-1

  13. Model Brunson D-1 Dual porosity with tracer option using Eclipse Grid block is 100 x 100 Number of wells 2, one injector (E.T. O’Daniel #47) and one producer (Brunson “D” 1). Rock and fluid properties from Humble Simulation model. Tracer injection concentration is 158.9 ppm for 11.67 hrs. 24 30 D-1 Brunson 32 13 D-1 12 34 31 8W 47 46 36 O'Daniel O'Daniel 47 40 25 45 33 C-1 39 28 38 29 48 37 14 A-1 O'Daniel O'Daniel 35 29 14 Production Well Water Injector

  14. History Match Result (W#47-Br.D-1): Kx/Ky= 84/15000 Orientation 43 Deg.

  15. G-1 C-1 24 30 1 C-2 E-1 6 D-1 13 32 D-1 C-1 12 Boone A-1 31 34 19 2 3 8W F-1 1 26 D-1 36 A-1 Brunson O'Daniel Boone O'Daniel 33 C-1 1 B-1 28 46 47 42 40 50 49 A-5 25 Boone E-1 45 44 41 39 35 38 A-6 43 29 48 37 14 A-1 O‘Brian O'Daniel O'Daniel A-7 A-3 5 9 13 B-1 10 63 7 D-1 9 7 C-1 8 12 Powell O‘Brian Floyd 12 Fracture Orientation Obtained From The Tracer Test

  16. Step 3 Simulation of O’Daniel Unit and Surrounding Wells

  17. Dual porosity with tracer option using CMG simulator Grid block is 130 x 130 with 3 x 2 layers The 8,383-acre area of the model contains 15 injectors and 44 producers Rock and fluid properties were obtained from The Humble Simulation model. O’Daniel Unit Simulation Model

  18. The Structural map was scanned and digitized. The digitized map is then uploaded to the CMG Gridbuilder to build the geological model Building The Model Structural Map For The O’Daniel Unit Simulation Model

  19. There are 3 layers in the model. Only the first and the third layers contribute to the production and the middle layer is a non-producing shale layer. The Simulation Model Results Obtained From Previous Studies

  20. E-42 E-32 E-1 8 McClintic Brown McClintic McClintic G-1 E.T. O’Daniel Unit 24 10W 30 C-2 E-1 C-1 32 D-1 13 Boone A-1 12 34 31 19 8W F-1 26 D-1 36 20W 5W O'Daniel O'Daniel Brunson Boone 33 23 C-1 21 9W 47W 28 46W 4W 27 40 7W 22 25W 45W Boone E-1 39 35 38 2 A-6 29 48W 37W 11W 14W A-1 3 16 1 O'Daniel O'Daniel O‘Brian A-3 A-7 Production Well O‘Brian Powell Floyd B-1 Water Injector

  21. E-42 E-32 E-1 8 McClintic Brown McClintic McClintic G-1 E.T. O’Daniel Unit 24 10W 30 E-1 C-2 D-1 32 C-1 12 Boone A-1 13 31 34 19 8W F-1 26 36 D-1 20W 5W O'Daniel O'Daniel Brunson Boone 33 23 C-1 21 9W 47W 46W 4W 28 27 7W 22 40 25W 45W Boone E-1 39 35 38 2 A-6 29 48W 11W 37W 14W A-1 3 16 1 O'Daniel O'Daniel O‘Brian A-3 A-7 Production Well O‘Brian Powell Floyd B-1 Water Injector

  22. The Reservoir Model With Fractures

  23. Fracture Water Saturation

  24. Summary (Humble Pilot) The fracture permeability values in the on-trend and off-trend directions of 15000 and 100 md, respectively, indicate that reservoir permeability is highly anisotropic.

  25. Summary (Tracer Test) The results obtained from this study support the previous analyses as follows: The on-trend and off-trend permeability in the O’Daniel Unit are close to the value obtained from the Humble Pilot simulation. The orientation of the fracture trend as determined by the tracer test agrees with the orientation obtained from historical production data, interference testing and horizontal core analysis.

  26. Summary (O’Daniel Field Simulation) For field simulation history matching, it is necessary to introduce existing fractures where there is not enough water production from off-set injectors. It is possible to match most of the wells by using the permeability anisotropy (Kx/Ky) and fracture orientation obtained from the tracer simulation in the O’Daniel field model

  27. Conclusions The methods described here can be used to investigate areas of Spraberry where little or no water injection has occurred . The results of this work will provide a method to assess the economic feasibility of large-scale water injection in the remainder of the field.

More Related