Faults transmissibility assessment for terrigenious reservoir of K oilfield

1. MSc REM INDIVIDUAL PROJECT

Faults transmissibility
assessment for terrigenious
reservoir of K oilfield
Andrey Shpindler
Supervisor from HW ASC Sergei
Parnachev1

2. Main aims:

• Faults transmissibility calculation by
different techniques.
• Choosing the most applicable
calculation technique for
transmissibility assessment.
• Recognizing dependences between
fault geometry, reservoir basic
properties and fault transmissibility
2

3. Main objects:

1. Recognizing approved techniques
for fault transmissibility
assessment.
2. Fault throw calculation.
3. Geomodelling and transmissibility
assessment by selected
techniques.
4. Choosing the best techniques by
history matching and fluids contact 3

4. 1. Approved techniques search

SPEseal
59405
Fault
mapping (Freeman et al., 2008)
4

5. 2. Fault throw calculation

1700
Fault 18
Bashenov
Fm.
2100
Хline 128
5

6. 2. Fault throw calculation

Selected area tectonic map (after Kontorovich, 2003)
6

7. 3. Geomodelling and transmissibility assessment

Formatio
n
Porosity
(frac)
U11A+B
0.16
11
64.9
U12
0.14
8.8
44
U13
0.14
U13
Permeability(
Oil
mD)
Saturation(per)
4.7
50.2
fm with full set of faults
7

8.

3. Geomodelling and
transmissibility assessment
Fault 9 juxoposition area (Allan map)
Allan diagram (HWU ResConcepts Manual) 8

9.

3. Geomodelling and
transmissibility assessment
Methods
Mean Eff. K
mD
SGR
0.9
ESGR
0.9
CSP
0.16
MIX
0.79
Results of SGR technique application
9

10.

3. Analysis permeability vs.
fault throw
GSL.SP.1998.127
1

11.

3. Analysis permeability vs.
fault throw
-0,1
THROW
THROW
VSHALE
VSHALE
SGR
0
SGR
MIN 0,1
0.001
0
0,04
0,04
0,2
MOST
2.46
51.16
0,3
0,24
0,13
MAX
17.89
Downside
100
Upside
0.208
 
SGR
 
 
Input
 
Variabl Downsi Upsi
Downsi
e
de
de Range
de
Upside
THROW 0.24 0.04 0.20
2.10
12.64
 
Base
Case
6.14
1

12.

3. Analysis permeability vs.
fault throw
Keff vs. SGR
Brief160summary for K field
140
• Nonsealing
fault with throw below 6.14 m;
120
100 is semipermeable (with great permeability
• Fault
Keff
80
60
variation)
if throw varies from 2.1 m to 6.14 m;
f(x) = -11,99 ln(x) - 8,01
R² = 0,51
40
• Fault
20 is highly permeable, if throw less than 2.1 m.
0
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
SGR
SPE 59405
1

13. 4. Choosing the best technique

Fault 9
Fault 6
Part of simulation model U12
1

14.

4. Choosing the best technique
1

15.

4. Choosing the best technique
1

16.

4. Choosing the best technique
Brief summary:
• Selection of the best technique by history
matching is not possible for present oilfield;
• Fault permeability is not influence greatly on the
oil production within 5-7 years period (at least for
Jurassic West Siberian pays);
• Longer production history and larger oilfield are
needed for effective choice of the best technique
by history matching.
1

17.

4. Choosing the best technique
1

18.

4. Choosing the best technique
f(x) = NaN ln(x)
R² = NaN
12
25
10
20
8
15
DIFF.
DIFF.OWC
OWC 6
10
4
5
2
0
0
0
0
DIFF vs
vs Ksgr
Ksgr
DIFF
f(x) = -4,46 ln(x) + 4,69
R² = 0,33
0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
0,7
0,7
0,8
0,8
Ksgr
Ksgr
1

19.

4. Choosing the best technique
DIFF. vs DISPL
12
25
10
20
8
15
DIFF 6
10
4
5
2
0
0
f(x) = 1,86x + 2,3
R² = 0,79
f(x)
2=
R² = 0
4
6
6
8
8
10
10
12
12
14
14
DISPL
DISPL
1

20.

4. Choosing the best technique
New diff.
between OWC
(m)
SGR
0.6
CSF
2.25
MIX
1.16
Displ
7.7
Average
2.92
Well test manual. HWU
2

21.

4. Choosing the best technique
DIFF.
DIFF.
DIFF vs
vs Ksgr
Kmix
Kcsf
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
DIFF. OWC
DIFF. OWC
5
0
0,01
f(x) = -5,93 ln(x) - 2,4
f(x)==-15,49
-6,91 ln(x)
f(x)
ln(x) -- 2,44
41,08
R²
= 0,9
R²
=
0,84
R² = 0,77
5
0
0
0,1
0,1 0,2
0,2 0,30,3 0,4 0,40,5 0,5
0,6 0,6
0,7
0,8
0,7
0,02
0,03
0,04
0,05
0,06
0,07
0,08
Kmix
Ksgr
Kcsf
2

22.

Practical summary
Fault transmissibility along the fault plane is not unique value and
may be effectively modelled in geomodel scale;
No sealing fault with throw less than 6.14 m;
Fault permeability varies greatly if throw is between 2.1 and 6.14 m;
Fault is fully permeable if throw is less than 2.1m;
Fault permeability does not influence greatly on the production
during 5-7 years period or equivalent 40000tonn (at least for West
Siberian Jurassic oilfields);
The best technique of transmissibility assessment for oilfield K is
integration of SGR & CSF.
2

23.

Thank you for you attention!
2

24.

Backslides
2

25.

Suggestion for further
Wider range of the oilfields should
be investigated to choose main
work
criteria and universal dependences for transmissibility for West
Siberia;
• High quality 3D seismic is needed for high accuracy of
transmissibility determination;
• Cretaceous pays should be investigated for crossflow;
• Special attention should be paid on pre-Mesozoic oilfield;
• Additional investigations as repeat formation tester, good quality well
test and tracer tests are needed;
• Transmissibility assessment is needed to be checked by history
matching process, but this method may be created only on large
oilfield with long period of production.
2

26.

Fragment of West Siberian tectonic map. Kontorovich 2003
2

27.

Faults
Fault 5
Maximum throw
(m)
26
Fault 6
≈20
Fault 9
≈20
Fault 9_1
≈20
Fault 10
50
Fault 15
43
Fault 16
≈20
Fault 17
35
Fault 18
31
Maximum throw of each fault
2

28.

2

29.

Relative permeabilities for U12+3
2

30.

3

31.

3

32.

DIFF vs Ksgr
25
20
R² = 0,84
R² = 0,33
15
DIFF. OWC
10
R² = 0,09
5
0
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
Ksgr
3

33.

DIFF. vs Kcsp
25
20
15
DIFF. OWC
f(x) =
= -10,43
-15,5 ln(x)
f(x)
ln(x)- -41,11
21,63
R² =
= 0,34
0,77
R²
f(x) = 12,41 ln(x) + 45,29
R² = 0,1
10
5
0
0,01
0,02
0,03
0,04
0,05
0,06
0,07
0,08
Kcsp
3

34.

DIFF. vs Kmix
25
20
R² = 0,9
f(x) = -4,06 ln(x) + 4,32
R² = 0,4
15
DIFF. OWC
10
f(x) = 4,1 ln(x) + 13,32
R² = 0,06
5
0
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
Kmix
3