Geophysical Challenges at North Sea

Geophysical Challenges at the HP/HT Erskine Field, North Sea
Joerg Zaske, Caroline Pickles Chevron Upstream Europe Stefano Bagala Chevron Energy Technology Company
Chevron 2010
HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen
Outline
Field Background Subsurface Challenges Geophysics
Seismic
Geomechanics
1D Model Full Field Model
Reservoir Monitoring 4D Seismic Microseismics Conclusions

Chevron 2010 HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen 2
Erskine Field: Location

50% Chevron; 32% BG and 18% BP
Located Western side of the East Central Graben, CNS. 150 miles East of Aberdeen. 300 ft Water Depth.
Chevron 2005 DOC ID 3
Erskine Field Structure

Erskine FieldP.057
2 km
2STRE
- 5150
- 5050
- 520
Salt Dome
Several fault blocks, formed by late Jurassic rifting.

Main Field : Erskine & Pentland
0 - 495
- 5100
0 - 500
-4850
- 4800
19Y
- 4900
Machar Field boundary (above 12000)
-- 4750
3RE W5 7
Block 23/26b
95
- 4650
0 90 -4
- 4600
Main Field
14
-4
W2
Beta Terrace
Erskine Field P.264
GW C
70
- 4600
- 5300
-4
- 5350
Beta Terrace:
A
- 500 0
A
-5 25 0
-4
65
W3
Erskine & Pentland

- 53 - 55 00 00
-5
15
Alpha Terrace
-4
0 95
4
0 55 -4
W1
50 - 50 50 - 49
- 4900
15 - 48
- 53
50
W4 - 485 0
00
Alpha Terrace:
- 5600
Heather Turbidites
50
-4
- 47
Chevron 2005
DOC ID Top Erskine E70 Reservoir Structure Map
- 54
00
-4
95
- 55
85
00
- 500
2008 Interpretation, 2007 PSDM Re-processed Seismic
Erskine Field: Wells

Erskine FieldP.057
2 km
Exploration Wells 2STRE Northern Area 3RE Main Field
0 - 495
- 4800
2STRE 2STRE 2STRE
- 5150
- 5050
- 520
Salt Dome
19Y - Downthrown region adjacent to salt dome Appraisal Wells 4

Erskine Field P.264
- 5300
- 5100
0 - 500
-4850
19Y
- 4900
19Y 19Y
Machar Field boundary (above 12000)
-- 4750
3RE 3RE
3RE
W5
77
Block 23/26b
95 0 -4
W5 W5
- 4600
Main Field Main Field Main Field Main Field Alpha Terrace
7 8
GW C
- 4600
- 4650
W2 W2 W2 1414 14
-4
70
- 5350
14 15 -
- 500 0
0 90 -4
-5
25
-4
65
W3
W3
00 - 55 00
-4
95
1 -5
- 50
50 50 - 49
- 4900
0 55 -4
W1
W1 W1
50
- 53
50
8 88 W4
4 4
Producers W1 W2 Main Field Main Field Main Field Main Field Pentland Erskine Erskine Erskine
5
W4 W4 - 485 0 15 15 1580 -4
0
- 5600
- 53
50
-4
- 55
85
00
- 500
W3 W4 W5 -
- 47
Chevron 2005
DOC ID
- 54
00
-4
50
Alpha Terrace Heather
Seismic & Geoseismic section

A
Base Chalk B.C.U.
Top Erskine
Top Pentland
Alpha Terrace
Main Field
Chalk Group
GWC
Beta Terrace
A
Cromer Knoll Group
B.C.U. Heather Formation
Erskine Shale
GWC
Pentland Formation
Erskine Sands Pre Jurassic

Chevron 2005 DOC ID 1.5km 6
Erskine Some Numbers

First HPHT field developed in CNS
160
Erskine Historical Field Performance

Field Gas Rate Field Oil Rate Field Water Rate 40,000 Pipeline failure W2 pluback to Erskine W5 shut due to downhole scale buildup Export pipeline to Lomond blockage due to stuck pig (outage from 30/06/07, Field startup on 18/08/08) W1 back online 01/05/09 aftertophole scale removal W5 online 26/06/09 after perforating E50/E60 dry zones
Discovered 1987; Field Producing since 1998 HPHT Gas Condensate; Reservoir Temp ~175 DegC; Initial Pressure: ~14070 PSI; Today: 2760-6380 PSI Max. Drop: ~11000 PSI Field off plateau since approx. 2004
Chevron 2005 DOC ID
150 140 130 120 110

Gas Rate (mmscf/d)
35,000
30,000
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
Oil or Water Rate (bbls/d)
Erskine Field
Subsurface Challenges
Significant stress redistribution
Reservoir Overburden
Well integrity problems

Liner deformation Sanding Problems Scaling Issues
Drilling into depleted reservoirs

Very difficult & very expensive (>$100MM)
Chevron 2005 DOC ID 8
Liner Deformations
Can we predict failures ?
Liner Deformation vs Depletion
110 100
Lateral Deformation (mm)
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0
2010 Liner Failure Strain Limit

Data Points
Uncertainty
Nov04
Oct 04
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Reservoir Depletion (bar)
2004
2005
2006
20x magnification of lateral displacements Here at ~15600.

Chevron 2010 HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen
Goal: Predict life of existing wells & plan for replacement wells Feed data into DA model
9
Where would we drill the next well ?

How can Geophysics help ? 3D Seismic: Provide correct structure 4D Seismic: Identify unswept reserves
W2
W5
Geomechanics: Avoid areas with high drilling risk, predict well failures Microseismic: Avoid drilling close to faults with subseismic resolution
DOC ID
14
W3 8 4 W1 Proposed Location W4 Existing Wellbore
Chevron 2005
10
Seismic Reprocessing
PSDM Migration Velocities
Machar Salt Body
Base Chalk
2km Thickness
Cromer Knoll Wedge

BCU
Coal Surface
Vint [m/s]
Anisotropic PSDM Reprocessing Better velocity control away from wells

Improved imaging, better event continuity and fault definition at relatively low costs.
Chevron 2010
11
Seismic Reprocessing Results

1989 vs 2007 comparisons
S
Erskine Main field
Two way time (ms)
BEFOR E
S
Erskine Main field
Clearly improved imaging Better interpretation product Better event continuity, fault definition & signal/noise ratio. Cromer Knoll wedges shown in green. Excellent synthetic ties
12
Two way time (ms)
Erskine Main Field
AFTE R
Chevron 2010
2007 Anisotropic PSDM volume
Fault Interpretation
EDGE Extraction
Pentland horizon)
Main Field
Interpretation Good imaging of main field faults. Poorer fault definition near the salt dome due to high degree of distortion of reflectors Suitable as input into Reservoir modelling
Alpha Terrace
Chevron 2010
13
1D Geomechanical model: Drilling

Erskine Mud weight window. 30 deg incl
Studied sensitivity of mud weight window as a function of well inclination Already at 30Deg inclination mud weight window closes
Min. Horiz. Stress Pore Pressure
Collapse
Fracture
Collapse Gradient in undepleted shale is higher than Fracture Gradient in reservoir Highly challenging drilling
Depleted Sands Undepleted Shales
Chevron 2010
14
1D Geomechanical model: Drilling

Erskine Mud weight window. 30 deg incl Pentland Mud weight window. 30 deg incl
Even worse in Pentland Reservoir. Mud weight window closes in correspondence of several intra reservoir shales.
Min. Horiz. Stress Pore Pressure
Chevron 2010
Collapse
Fracture
15
1D Geomechanical Model: Sand Failure Analysis
Safe Sanding
Safe Sanding
Chevron 2010
16
Full Field Geomechanical Model

1. Build full field model to investigate production induced stresses in overburden 2. Overburden grid starts top reservoir & extends up top Chalk. 3. Assume homogeneous, uniform elastic material.
Overburden Model
4. Use different simulation scenarios to calculate reservoir compaction (see below) 5. Reservoir compaction used to calculate overburden stresses - Nucleus-of-strain equations (Geertsma)
2005
2018 & No New Well
2018 & New Well
Input Data: Total vertical compaction based on reservoir simulation scenarios.

Full Field Geomechanics

Even in 2005 there are large regions predicted to slip (CFF > 0) Slip-prone region expands due to continued reservoir depletion (e.g. 2018) Additional well production worsens slip Highest risk: close to major faults; Consistent with liner deformations
Overburden Coulomb Failure Function

2005
Alpha terrace
Main field Beta Terrace
2018 / No New Well
Extract CFF
(Above Reservoir)
New well Target
2018 / With New Well
-100
CFF
+100
18
Reservoir Monitoring
4D Seismic
Timelapse 3D Surveys Observe amplitude and travel time changes Draw conclusions from changes
Microseismic
Deploy Geophones in Boreholes or Ocean-Bottom Record passive Seismicity High Potential at HPHT due to Production related stress re-distribution
4D Seismic Monitoring (It works)

Erskine 1989 vs Machar4D 2001
4D seismic response detected (after 3yrs production) 4D Time Effect observed Shows connection of Beta Terrace Would need new 4D survey to detect later production effects Value considered small due to late stage in field life
Beta Terrace
Time Shifts [ms]
clearly Connected to Main Field
Main Field
Triassic Surface
Chevron 2010
20
Microseismic Monitoring
Conducted Feasibility Study Motivation
Identify 3D distribution of stress changes Detect re-activation of major faults (seismic resolution) Detect compaction and movements (sub-seismic faults)
Impact
Constrain Geomechanical model Help predict well failures Reduce drilling risks Optimize well placement
Microseismic Monitoring
Feasibility Study
Workflow
Modelled microseismic source events Used different layouts of Geophones Ocean-Bottom Nodes & Borehole deployed sensors Investigated detectability of events
Results:
Seismic signal very likely detectable. Significantly better sensitivity for borehole deployed sensors Deployment in production wells would be very challenging.
Comments
Value too low at stage of field life
Focal Mechanism based on Geomechanical Modelling

May have been very useful early in field life, i.e. deployment in appraisal or exploration wells
Conclusions
Geophysical & Geomechanical work lead to improved understanding of subsurface 3D Reprocessing improved seismic data quality significantly. Geomechanical modelling improved understanding of stress regime and highlights zones of increased risk for well failure. Can be used to mitigate risk and optimize well placement. Reservoir monitoring techniques such as Seismic 4D and Microseismic monitoring applicable to Erskine and probably other HP/HT fields Maturity of field makes it very difficult to justify any new seismic or other surveillance methods Recommend to consider Seismic 4D & Microseismic Monitoring techniques early on in field life for other HPHT fields.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank our management and coventurers BG and BP for permission to present this work.
Chevron 2010
24

Geophysical Challenges at North Sea

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geophysical Challenges at North Sea

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geophysical Challenges at the HP/HT Erskine Field, North Sea

HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen

Reservoir Monitoring 4D Seismic Microseismics Conclusions

Erskine Field: Location

Erskine Field Structure

Several fault blocks, formed by late Jurassic rifting.

Machar Field boundary (above 12000)

Erskine Field P.264

Erskine & Pentland

DOC ID Top Erskine E70 Reservoir Structure Map

2008 Interpretation, 2007 PSDM Re-processed Seismic

Erskine Field: Wells

Exploration Wells 2STRE Northern Area 3RE Main Field

2STRE 2STRE 2STRE

19Y - Downthrown region adjacent to salt dome Appraisal Wells 4

Machar Field boundary (above 12000)

Alpha Terrace Heather

Seismic & Geoseismic section

B.C.U. Heather Formation

Erskine Sands Pre Jurassic

Erskine Some Numbers

Erskine Historical Field Performance

150 140 130 120 110

Oil or Water Rate (bbls/d)

Well integrity problems

Drilling into depleted reservoirs

Lateral Deformation (mm)

2010 Liner Failure Strain Limit

Reservoir Depletion (bar)

20x magnification of lateral displacements Here at ~15600.

Where would we drill the next well ?

W3 8 4 W1 Proposed Location W4 Existing Wellbore

Cromer Knoll Wedge

Anisotropic PSDM Reprocessing Better velocity control away from wells

HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen

Seismic Reprocessing Results

Two way time (ms)

Two way time (ms)

Erskine Main Field

2007 Anisotropic PSDM volume

HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen

HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen

1D Geomechanical model: Drilling

Depleted Sands Undepleted Shales

HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen

1D Geomechanical model: Drilling

HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen

1D Geomechanical Model: Sand Failure Analysis

HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen

Full Field Geomechanical Model

2018 & No New Well

2018 & New Well

Input Data: Total vertical compaction based on reservoir simulation scenarios.

Full Field Geomechanics

Overburden Coulomb Failure Function

Main field Beta Terrace

2018 / No New Well

2018 / With New Well

4D Seismic Monitoring (It works)

clearly Connected to Main Field

HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen

Focal Mechanism based on Geomechanical Modelling

HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen