You are on page 1of 15

TGL

Group

TGL Group

Reservoir
Engineering

EPT
delivering
May
2010 breakt hrough solut ions

TGL Reservoir Engineering Workflow


Group
Formation Pressure Vs Depth

W-E Facies X-Section

1000

1010

July-97
Nov-96

1020

Sep-90
Rja-1:Jan-88
Rja-4:Nov-90

1030

8400

8000

8400

8800

9200

8800

9200

9600

10000

9600

10000

10400

10800

10400

10800

11200

11600

11200

11600

12000

12400

12000

12400

-1200

RJA-12
TVDSS (m)

8000
RJA-10
RJA-1

1040

-1200

One mapable
seismic horizon
Faults
x-trap analysis

RJA-2
RJA-3

1050

OWC = 1051.9 m

RJA-5
RJA-7

1060

RJA-4
RJA-6

-1400

-1400

1070

OWC from logs


1080
Points legend:
The points lined with red : UG-1
The points lined with red and shadowed: UG-2
The points lined with blue: UG-3

1090

Original w ater line

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000

Formation Pressure (KPaa)

Pressure Data

-1600

4000

-1600

1100

-1800

-1800

Figure. 6

Tidal Channel Sand


Shale
Diamectite
GL Sand

Production Data

QCed raw logs


calculated logs
facies analysis
OWCs

-2000

Data
Integration

Core

Input

-2000

Structure (PS)

Completions

SWS
Dip meter data
Analogues
External studies

Available Data

Fluvial Sand
GF Sand
Sheet Flood Sand
GD Sand

Sandy Diamectite
Muddy Diamectite
GL Mud
ALS-10H1

ALS-9H1
ALS-8H1
ALS-7H1
ALS-6H1

ALS-5H1
ALS-4H1
ALS-3H1
ALS-2H1

ALS-1H1

Structural modelling
Stratigraphic framework
Facies modelling
Property modelling
Uncertainty management
Volumetrics

Static Model

Petrophsical
evaluation (PP)

Depth (Top)(m) - 1: Geologic 1 [1]


Time: 0 Year

341.7
340.6
339.5
338.4
337.3
336.2
335.1
334.0
332.9
331.8
330.7
329.6
328.4
327.3
326.2
325.1
324.0
322.9
321.8
320.7
319.6
318.5
317.4
316.3
315.2
314.1
313.0
311.8
310.7
309.6
309.5

Output

Surface engineering

WE

PT: Well design

RE Dynamic model

TGL
Group

Reservoir characterization

well data

seismic

logs

cores

reservoir simulator

structure tops
volumes
Faults
maps
porosity
oil saturation
reservoir delineation

depositional units
reservoir quality distribution
geological trends

computer mapping &


modelling

sedimentology
petrography
RCAL
SCAL

Software

geological modelling

Data Base,
Paradigm

TGL
Group

Modelling
core analysis
log interpretation
property modelling

Geological model
(static)

reserves
production history

Reservoir Simulation
model (dynamic)

production
forecast

recompletions
structural modelling

3D seismic
log correlation
reservoir subdivision

flow modelling
SCAL
Fluid properties
Pressure data
Well test analysis

new wells

optimised
water flood

Petrel modules

Eclipse

$/bbl

TGL
Group

Production optimization
PPT Tools
decline
analysis

production history

production
forecast

Production Analyst
Block analysis

material
balance

flow modelling
Production
history,
Fluid properties
Pressure history
Well test analysis

OFM, Topaze

reporting

optimised
water flood

MBal

$/bbl

TGL Candidate selection process


Group

TGL Group

Capture and
characterize
opportunities

Identify promising areas


Pool of candidates
Data gathering
Initial block/well review
Initial candidate list
Mechanical assessment

TGL Group

Study, screen
and filter out
unfeasible
opportunities
Macro screening
from the candidates
pool (ranking tools)
Surveillance plan
(Pr & inclination)
Micro screening
(BA, MBAL,
FrontSim, Geol. &
dynamic modeling))
Final candidate list
proposal

Client reps.

Client reps. & TGL

Approve
Capture
and
opportunities
characterize
for realization
opportunities

Approve final
candidate list

Agreed program
signed off
Performance
review

Plan and work


out executable
options

Execution planning
Drilling
Completion
Optimization
Stimulation

Client

Execute ST,
completion

Surveillance execution
(feed micro screening)

Well approval
Execution program
Execution
Training

Lessons learned

End of well report

Needed:
Tools
Standards
Planning
Work process

TGL Field life performance


Group
Initial
fill-up

Production
incline period

Production decline
period

Injection start

Oil production rate

Depletion

Total fluid

Water
Secondary oil

Primary oil

Waterflood life
0-10%

5%

5-10%

15-30%

% Recovery

Field performance analysis no water injection (depletion decline)

Water fill-up period (catching up on reservoir pressure and compensation)

Waterflood analysis in mature fields (after water break through) BuckleyLeverett, Welge

TGL Field life phases/Ranking


Group
Field life phases
1.

2.

Depletion decline phase (no water injection)

Arps

Fetkovich

Material balance

Recoverable reserves

Current oil rate per block/well

Recoverable oil per well

Recovery dynamic percentage - Current

Fill-up phase (no water break through)

3.

Ranking criteria

Production/ Remaining Reserves

WF design (Craig, Buckley-Leverett-Welge,

Compensation

Dykstra-Parson)

Reservoir pressure

Composite performance plots

Well count (P/I ratio)

Compensation

Water cut

French decline

Mechanical/Well Integrity

Monitor reservoir pressure

Waterflood phase (water break through, production


history)

Composite performance plots

Compensation

WF decline curve (log(WOR) vs. cum. oil)

Conformance plots

TGL
Group

Goals of toolkit & process

Goal

Process

Tool

Reservoir energy assessment

Material balance

MBAL
Excel Mat. balance
OFM Mat. balance

OOIP and recoverable


reserves assessment

Decline curve analysis

OFM
Excel

Production & injection history

Composite plots

OFM
Excel

Volumetric and displacement


sweep efficency

Conformance plots

OFM
Excel

Theoretical and actual


reservoir behavior comparison

Welge and kro/krw based on WOR

OFM
Excel

Forecast of WF optimization
effects

Log WOR vs. cumulative oil, decline


analysis

OFM
Excel

10

TGL Waterflood management process


Group
Completion data

Database

Geological
data, reserves
Collect/Assess
input data

Production ,
Injection data

Criteria:
Recoverable Reserves
by Field
Recoverable Reserves
by Reservoir

Recoverable
reserves
evaluation

PVT data, Cap


press, rel. perms
Well testing,
pressure survey

Rank reservoirs/
Fields
Recoverable reserves
Current oil rate per block/well
Compensation
Reservoir pressure
Well count (P/I ratio)

Plots of Liquid/oil rate


vs. time
Semilog plot GOR,
WOR vs. time
Plot of Cumulative oil/
water vs. time
Plot of injection water
vs. time

Applicable Composite
performance plots,
petrophysics, geology

NO

Criteria:
WC >50%
HCPVI>25%
Stable well count
Stable production/
injection

Water break
through

YES

Compensation

1. Craig
2. Buckley-LeverettWelge
3. Dykstra-Parson
4. Composite
performance plots
4. Compensation

Cum copmens. By
block

<100%

I/P ratio

>100%
>50-70% IP

Curr. reservoir
pressure

WF decline curve
analysis

Conformance
plots

Oil rate vs. cum


oil

Areal sweep
efficiency

WOR vs Np

Displacement
sweep efficiency
(Net water
injected/MOPV

<50-70% IP
WOR vs MOPV
Water in the
ground

Deliverables:
- Candidate blocks/wells
- Incremental Production

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Mature WF phase

Fix injection

Deliverables:
- Candidate blocks/wells
- Incremental Production

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Deliverables:
- Candidate blocks/
wells
- Incremental
Production

Fractional flow
analysis

>100%

Not first priority

Deliverables:
- Conversions
- Fix P/I
- New drilling

Deliverables:
- Candidate blocks/wells
- Infill/New drilling areas
- Incremental Production

Deliverables:
- Candidate blocks/wells
- Changing WF patterns
- Improve sweep (gel
bright water)

Acceleration/
Improve
compensation

Effect calculation

Water fill-up

Reservoir Block Pattern Well

Composite reservoir perfromance plots


(current and cumulative
production/injection, GOR, WC, WOR,
pressure vs. time)
ABC plot
Production heterogeneity index
Cumulative compensation vs. time
Oil rate vs. cumulative oil
WC vs. cum oil
Liquid rate vs. cumulative liquid
Log WOR vs. cum oil
RF vs. MOPV
RF vs. HCPVI
RF vs. PVI
PVI vs. time
WC vs. PVI
Cum. Water injected vs. cum. Total fluid
Volumetric sweep efficiency
Hall plot

Criteria:

Block division/
analysis/ranking

1. Arps
2. Fetkovich curve
match
3. Material balance

Recommended practices for different levels for WF


Chart/plot

Petrophysical
data

Depletion decline

Process after water break through

Log WOR vs.


cum oil

RF
improvement/
more producers
Change sweep
efficiency

Deliverables:
- Oil incremental
- Economical effect
- Financial
memorandum

11

TGL Uncertainty analysis


Group
Identify parameters with uncertainties

Analysis of reservoir data


Type

Horizontal perm multiplier


Vertical / hzl perm ratio
Geological
Pore compressibility (kPa 10-6)
OWC (m)
oil viscosity (c P)
Dynamic
Residual oil saturation
skin
Well
effective producting length (m)
effective productive time

Initial water saturation

Intial water saturation trend


100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

Parameters

38

Principal
Impact
Rates
Recovery
Recovery
OIIP
Rates
Recovery
Rate
Rate
Rate

Comment
poro-perm trends
analogue marine reservoirs
analogue
well test data
oil samples
SCAL
horizontal PTA's
horizontal PTA's
Estimates from analogue

Low

Median

High

0.80
0.030
3.2
855
140
0.24
0
300
0.70

1.00
0.065
4.0
861
217
0.28
0
600
0.90

1.20
0.150
4.8
865
280
0.32
3
1000
0.95

40

porosity %

Uncertainty analysis of prognoses


Model prognoses
5

Hydrodynamic model

Geological model

Select best plan from


probabilistic prognoses

Compare parameter impacts

4
20

15

Probability

Yearly oil production (million m3)

Vertical lines represent P10 & P90 forecasts

10

0
0.00

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Oil production (k tonne)

0.40

0.45

0.50

12

TGL Value of water injected


Group
Field oil and liquid rates
35000
Oil rate (T/d)
Liquids rate (m3/d)

30000

Forward oil rate (T/d)


Forward liquids rate (m3/d)

25000

Increased Tot liq (m3/d)

Oil and liquids rates

Increase oil rate (T/d)

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
18-Feb-82

11-Aug-87

31-Jan-93

24-Jul-98

14-Jan-04

6-Jul-09

27-Dec-14

18-Jun-20

9-Dec-25

Log WOR vs. cum oil can be used to forecast value of oil recovery acceleration

Increased volume of water will increase volume of oil based on mass balance principle

13

TGL Benefits calculation


Group
WF Analyses
finished

Injectors

Injectors /
producer

Producers

Improve
production
efficiency

Injection
Efectivness
Fill-up
phase

Fetkovich
Darcy

Yes

Water break
through

No

Non mature
flooding

Mature
flooding

Neighborhood
characteristics

Log WOR
vs. cum oil

Depletion

Fill-up

Waterflooding

Fetkovich
Hyperbolic
decline

Fetkovich
Hyperbolic
decline

WOR vs.
cum oil

14

TGL WF optimization process


Group
Material balance

Compensation

Decline analysis

Recommended practices for different levels for WF


optimization

Welge technique

breakthrough

Value of injection

Chart/plot
Composite reservoir perfromance
plots (current and cumulative
production/injection, GOR, WC, WOR,
pressure vs. time)
ABC plot
Production heterogeneity index
Cumulative compensation vs. time
Oil rate vs. cumulative oil
WC vs. cum oil
Liquid rate vs. cumulative liquid
Log WOR vs. cum oil
RF vs. MOPV
RF vs. HCPVI
RF vs. PVI
PVI vs. time
WC vs. PVI
Cum. Water injected vs. cum. Total
fluid
Volumetric sweep efficiency
Hall plot

Reservoir Block Pattern Well

Conformance plots
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X

RF

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

144

(2388) ; 60
3/ (10 3 10 )

149

152

155

Forward oil rate (T/d)

165

Forward liquids rate (m3/d)

171

176

, ,

145

153

10

170

11

167

.
2413 .
. ( 2396)

12

178

. ( 2396)

13

180

( 2374,5-2381,5 )

14

15

(13,14 )
(1, 6, 11 )

16

(.
144, 171, 176, 149, 187, 155)

Field oil and liquid rates

35000
Oil rate (T/d)
Liquids rate (m3/d)

30000

25000

Increased Tot liq (m3/d)

Oil and liquids rates

Increase oil rate (T/d)

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
18-Feb-82

11-Aug-87

31-Jan-93

24-Jul-98

14-Jan-04

6-Jul-09

27-Dec-14

18-Jun-20

9-Dec-25

Recommendations

182, 155 - (- 182, 155 )

15

TGL Recommendations
Group
Water injection redistribution

Blocks ranking

02

1269

08

09

496

07

10

182

-40

01

03

165

725

1300

06

18
424

344

16

-22

717

04

254

506

27

15

341

536

721

19

17

296

14

05

28

25
30

155

26

580

23

13

11

-49

301

12

463

24

486

365

21

34

33

660

310

22

-107

185

30

32

-9

849

20

2535

29

35

504

906

31

-37

37

01

1300

470

-
-.

36

369

Specific recommendation on well by well basis


144

(2388) ; 60
3/ (10 3 10 )

149

152

155

165

Perspective areas identification


234
363

171

176

, ,

145

153

10

170

167

.
2413 .
. ( 2396)

11

12

178

. ( 2396)

13

180

( 2374,5-2381,5 )

14

15

(13,14 )
(1, 6, 11 )

16

(.
144, 171, 176, 149, 187, 155)

182, 155 - (- 182, 155 )

444

447

528

446
325
445

331
341

321

511
317

448
1494

1491

453
1490

1497
1496 530

318

1492
452

327

497
332

322

495

529
454

329

1489
233

527

450

232

330
451
364

531
443

319

433

You might also like