Transcript Application of Horizontal Wells in Mature Basins: A Case History from Kansas

Application of Horizontal
Wells in Mature Basins:
A Case History from Kansas
Tulsa Geological Society September 5, 2000
Acknowledgements











US Department of Energy
Mull Drilling Company Inc.
Ritchie Exploration Inc.
Sperry-Sun Drilling
CMG (Computer Modeling Group)
Security DBS
Baroid
Norseman
Art Merrick Consulting
Scientific Drilling
Weatherford
University of Kansas






Saibal Bhattacharya
Tim Carr
John Doveton
Paul Gerlach
Bill Guy
Richard Pancake
Presentation Outline
Introduction, Overview, Results
Why Identify Horizontal Candidates in
Mature Basins ?
Remaining Oil and Gas Reserves
Economic Impact
Tools for Identifying Candidate
Reservoirs, Leases and Locations
Large and Numerous Targets
One Kansas Target: Mississippian
Reservoir Heterogeneity (Vertical & Horizontal)
Presentation Outline
Reservoir Characterization & Simulation
Work with Sparse and Old Data
PC-Based
Case Study of Horizontal Well
Operational Success
Economic Success ?$?$?$?$?
The Learning Curve
http://www.kgs.ukans.edu/PTTC
Potential Targets
Compartmentalized Reservoirs
Mississippian “Meramecian”
Thin Beds
Attic Oil
Lansing - Kansas City
Shoaling Carbonates
Sub Unconformity
Ordovician and Mississippian
SAGD
Cherokee Sandstones
in Eastern Kansas
Gas / Water
Coning
EOR Injectors
Multiple Reservoirs
Central Kansas
Reservoirs
Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs
Mississippian “Cowley Facies”
Fractured Reservoirs
Arbuckle, Chat
 Numerous Targets
Modified from Paul Gerlach

State Level
Why Identify Horizontal Candidates in Mature Basins ?
Exploit Remaining Oil and Gas Reserves
Remaining Mobile Oil in Place/Quarter Section
Welch-Bornholdt-Wherry Fields
Rice County, Kansas
Discovered: 1924
Producing Formation: Mississippian
Trap Type: Stratigraphic
Cumulative Oil Production: 60 MMBO
CI: 500 MBO
Color Grid
Red = 7 MMBO
Blue = 2.5 MMBO
Modified from Paul Gerlach
Why Identify Horizontal Candidates in Mature Basins ?
Economic Impact
Oppy South Field
Hodgeman County, Kansas
Discovered: 1962
Producing Formation: Mississippian
Cum. Oil Prod.: 800 MBO
Impact of Horizontal Well
STB/mnth
1000
Production Rate (STB/Mnth)
Modified from Paul Gerlach
Large Potential Target
Regan & Granite
2%
Pennsylvanian
(Virgilian)
3%
Ness County
Schaben
ARBUCKLE
32 %
Pennsylvanian
(Missourian)
23 %
Pennsylvanian
(Desmoisian)
8%
Mississippian
19 %
Upper & Middle
Ordovician
8%
Hunton
1%
Pennsylvanian
(Morrow)
3%
Pennsylvanian
(Other)
1%
Total Production 5+ Billion Barrels
Cumulative Production 6.6+ Billion Barrels
 Numerous Targets

Mississippian
Kansas Regional Cross-Section
Southwest
1
Schaben
Field
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Northeast
11 12
10
Datum top Heebner
Lansing - Kansas City
Pleasanton
Reagan
Marmaton
Ellis
Precambrian
Cherokee
12
Mississippian
Lane
Morrow
Viola
7
Simpson
8
6
3
1
Kearny
4
5
Rush
9
Ness
2
Arbuckle
11
10
Kinderhook
0
10
20
miles
Finney
30
40
Cost Effective High Technology
for the Independent Producer
In the Past....
» Performed on Core Assets of Large Companies
» Required Expensive Hardware and Software
At the Present....
» Advances in PC-Based Hardware Software and Databases
» Within Reach of Independent Producer
Mapping Field Level Volumetrics
Remaining Mobile Oil in Place / Quarter Section
Welch-Bornholdt-Wherry Fields
Rice County, Kansas
Discovered: 1924
Producing Formation: Mississippian
Trap Type: Stratigraphic
Cumulative Oil Production: 60 MMBO
CI: 500 MBO
Color Grid
Red = 7 MMBO
Blue = 2.5 MMBO
Modified from Paul Gerlach
Mapping Field Level Volumetrics
Cumulative Production / Quarter Section
Welch-Bornholdt-Wherry Fields
6
1
2
3
Cumulative Production per Quarter Section
10
9
8
7
3
2
1
10
11
12
15
14
11
12
7
8
9
14
13
18
17
16
30
29
21
5
4
7
8
9
18
17
16
22
23
24
19
28
27
26
25
30
33
34
35
36
31
24
19
20
21
26
25
30
29
35
36
31
32
23
22
20S/
21
20
28
27
33
34
50000
0
= 0.4 mmbo
0
= 1.5 mmbo
20
10
13
20S/6W
20S/7W
19
000
00
6
00
000
15
16
17
4
0
CI: 100 mbo / quarter section
18
5
5
4
5
6
29
0
32
31
0
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
12
7
8
9
10
11
12
7
8
9
13
18
17
16
15
14
13
18
17
16
2
1
6
5
10
11
12
7
8
15
18
17
14
5003 000
0
6
4
1
32
21S/7W
Modified from Paul Gerlach
21S/6W
13
Mapping Field Level Volumetrics
Recovery Efficiency / Quarter Section
4
5
4
1
5
6
2
6
1
3
2
5
4
3
6
8
9
8
9
7
7
11
12
12
10
11
8
9
10
7
18
17
16
16
17
18
30
29
28
23
24
19
20
21
22
23
22
24
27
26
25
30
29
28
27
26
25
= 2%
0 .02
02
0.
32
31
36
35
34
33
32
31
0 .04
0. 0
0 . 04
3
4
5
9
13
18
17
16
0.
2
12
7
8
13
18
17
0.
02
9
10
11
16
15
14
0 .04
0.
0 .02
15
21S/7W
Modified from Paul Gerlach
11
.1
0. 04 0 031. 0 6
0. 02
29
32
1
6
5
0.
12
7
8
18
17
06
0. 0
6
10
02
8
3
0 .12
0. 04 0 . 10
0. 04
7
02
0.
12
4
0.
02
0. .04
0
36
35
8
0. 0
6
5
6
1
2
0 .04
30
02
6
02
1
34
33
21
20
19
0
0. 0
2
20S/
0. 08
21
13
0. 06
= 18%
20
0. 02
20S/6W
20S/7W
19
14
15
0. 08
13
0.
12
14
15
16
17
18
0. 1
0
Recovery Efficiency per Quarter Section
CI: 2%
0 .04
Welch-Bornholdt-Wherry Fields
14
21S/6W
13
Lease Level Analysis
Volumetric Recovery Efficiency
Lease Level Analysis
Volumetric Recovery Efficiency
Horizontal Well Application
in a Lease with Low Recovery Efficiency
Large Potential Target
Ness County
Ness County
Schaben
Field
 Numerous Targets

Regional Level
Production Data Analysis
Schaben Field
High Vertical
Permeability
Result Poor
Horizontal
Sweep
Reservoir Heterogeneity
 Strong Vertical Heterogeneity
3” Interval
 Facies Controlled
 Result Poor Lateral Drainage

Depositional Model
Silty Mudstone
and Wackestone
Packstone and
Grainstone
Mudstone and
Wackestone
Wackestone and
Packstone
Shoal Island
Skeletal
l
da
Ti
Mudstone and
Evaporites
Bank
el
nn
ha
lC
Lagoon
at
Fl
da
Ti
Shelf
Restricted
Skeletal Shelf
Bank
Schaben Field
Geologic Reservoir Description
Minipermeability (md)
Oil
Stain
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
Dolo Wacke-Packstone
4430.0
Grainstone
Lime or Dolo
Mudstone - Wackestone
4435.0
Silt-Shale Fill
Ritchie Exploration
#1 Foos "A-P" Twin
NE SW SW Sec. 31-T19S-R21W
Ness County, Kansas
Late Stage Brecciation
Original Facies Indeterminate
Brecciation
Chert
Reservoir Facies
Skeletal Wackestone - Packstone
Ritchie 2 Schaben P
Spicule-Rich
Mudstone -Wackestone Facies
Ritchie 1 Moore B
Petrophysical Analysis
Super Pickett
Plot
Reservoir Porosity
Saturation
Pay Height
BVW
Perforation: 4400-4404. Produced 85 bopd & 132 bwpd
NMR Analysis
Core Plugs
0.50
10.00
0.45
9.00
0.40
8.00
0.35
7.00
0.30
6.00
0.25
5.00
0.20
4.00
0.15
3.00
0.10
2.00
0.05
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
10.00
Saturated Increm ental
Saturated Cumulative
100.00
T2 Relaxation Time, ms
1000.00
Desaturated Incremental
Desaturated Cum ulative
10000.00
Inc re menta l Poros ity, %
Inc re menta l Poros ity, %
Sample S23
POROSITY vs T2
Schaben Field
Effective Porosity
NMR Derived Effective Porosity vs. Core Pororsity
Eff. Por. =( Core Por.)^2*.03295 - (Core Por.)*0.00956
NMR Effective Porosity
25
2nd Order
Fit
Data Points
Effective Porosity
20
15
10
5
0
0
5
10
15
Porosity
CoreCore
Porosity
20
25
Average Reservoir Pressure
Reservoir Simulation
Reservoir Heterogeneity
 Poor Lateral Drainage
Reservoir Simulation
Performance Prediction
24
19
Vertical Infill vs. >
Horizontal
So > 40% & Payheight
20 ft.Infill
GILLIG
GNEISCH
1
Comparison Area
1
GILLIG
1
GILLIG A
GILLIG B
2
1
GILLIG B
SCHABEN
OUT ON BAIL
GILLIG 2
1-24
WITTMAN
GNEICH
GNEICH
WITTMAN
1 WITTMAN 3
2
1
1
WILHELM C
2
1
1
Simulated Horizontal Well #1
ROBERT B LENT
2
BORGER
BORGER 'A'
4
BORGER
BORGER
2
2
BORGER
BORGER
1
1
2
MOORE B-P TWIN 4
MOORE B
MOORE DP 6
MOORE DP 5
MOORE D
MOORE D
2
FRANK REIN
REIN A
4
6
4
MOORE B
3
1
BORGER
2
ROBERT B LENT
1
BORGER
BORGER 'A'
1
1
3
3
BORGER
GILLIG
MOORE B
MOORE D
5
4
1
WAGNER DORA WAGNER
1-X
HUMBURG
HUMBURG
1
1
7
MOORE B
REIN A
REIN A
6
5
30
25
4
2
WAGNER
1
MOORE D
MOORE C
FRANK E REIN
MOORE B
MOORE B
3
2
1
HUMBURG 'A'
MOORE C
2
3
REIN A OWWO
1-A
1
WAGNER
GILLIG
5
DORA WAGNER
1
1
1
1
H L WILLIAMS EST
SCHABEN
2
1
FICKEN
SCHABEN A
SCHABEN A
2
ANNA WILLIAMS
1
SCHABEN A
1
24
20
16
1
BATT A
1
LYLE SCHABEN
1
REIN 'A'
2
WILLIAMS EST
1
ANNA WILLIAMS
REIN OWWO
MOORE B
1
3 HUMBURG
ANNA M WILLIAMS
35
MOORE C
2
2
HUMBURG 1
FICKEN
HUMBURG 'A'
HUMBURG
3
12
Best Areas for Infill Drilling
8
2
4
1
BATT C
1
0 So-Ft
Schaben Field
Reservoir Simulation
Performance Prediction
1
WITTMAN
GNEICH
WITTMAN
1 WITTMAN 3
2
1
Simulated Horizontal Well #1
MOORE DP 6
2
MOORE D
MOORE DP 5
MOORE B-P TWIN 4
4
MOORE B
3
MOORE D
MOORE B
MOORE D
MOORE D
24
20
16
6
12
8
4
Vertical Infill vs. Horizontal Infill
0 So-Ft
Schaben Field
Reservoir Simulation
Performance Prediction
3 Vertical Infills vs. 1 Horizontal Infill
Cumulative MSTB
10,000
1,000
5 Yr. Water Production
5,486.1
2,725.5
1,593.5
1st Year Water Production
820.9
425.3
262.1
100
10
1st Year Oil Production
184.0 mstb - 1 Horizontal Infill
99.4 mstb - 3 Vertical Infill
46.2 mstb - No Infill
5 Yr. Oil Production
337.2 mstb - 1 Horizontal Infill
233.4 mstb - 3 Vertical Infill
1
365
730
1095
1460
1825
2190
Time (days from 1/1/1997)
Boast VHS Performance Prediction
 Numerous Targets

Regional Level
Ness City North Field
 Numerous Targets

Local Level
Reservoir Heterogeneity

Strong Horizontal
Heterogeneity
 10’ - 100’ Interval
 Karst Controlled
 Result Poor Lateral
Drainage
Economic Success $?$?$?
IP: 85 BOPD & 54 BWPD
Daily Prod:
55 BO& 50 BW
1000’ of fluid over
pump
Current Daily Prod:
18 BO & 32 BW
Pumped off
Cum Prod: 3,417 BO
(7/31/00)
Plan to work over
in September
Lessons Learned for
Horizontal Well
 Operational Flexibility (Maintain Your Options)
 New Well vs. Reentry
 Hole Size
 Drilling Fluids
 Case off the Curve
 Well Operations
 Good Planning
 Communication
 “The Lateral is a Piece of Cake”
 Reservoir Heterogeneity
Reservoir Characterization
Geologic Model
Geologic model:
log (GR, Res),
core,
production, DST
data
Maps & crosssections of
Mississippian
sub-units: 5
layered
reservoir model
Reservoir Characterization
Petrophysical Model
Log K (eff. Klink) vs. Phi
y = 0.1251x - 1.2269
2
R = 0.5407
y = 0.1361x - 1.7989
R2 = 0.43
3.0
Log K (md)
41 core plugs
from wells in
study area
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
0
5
10
y = 0.1401x - 2.3942
R2 = 0.6537
Moldic Pckst
Mudstone
Linear (Moldic Pck-Wckst)
Linear (Wckstone)
15
Phi (% )
20
25
30
y = 0.0815x - 2.5567
2
R = 0.209
Moldic Pck-Wckst
Wckstone
Linear (Moldic Pckst)
Linear (Mudstone)
Reservoir Characterization
Initial Reservoir Model
Sparse porosity logs
DST and IP
Assumption
uniform K for
each layer
25
20
Frequency
average K
HP1>HP2>LP2
>LP1& LP3
Frequency histogram of core permeability
15
Class 1: LP1 & LP3, 8 md
10
Class 2: LP2,
25 md
5
Class 4: HP1,
60 md
Class 3: HP2,
40 md
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Insitu Klinkenberg horizontal K, md
60
65
70
75
Reservoir Characterization
Initial Reservoir Model
Identification of dominant
lithofacies - core studies
LP1, LP2, LP3 –
Sub
unit
Phi, %
K, md
LP1
LP2
LP3
HP1
HP2
15
21.5
15
23.6
22.2
8
25
8
60
40
Moldic Wackestone
HP1 & HP2 –
Moldic Packstone
Layer porosity –
from phi-K correlation, and
dominant lithofacies
Reservoir Characterization
Swi - Core Plugs
Variation of Swi with porosity
y = -2.0764x + 55.709
Swi @ 150
ft above
OWC
Swi, %
R2 = 0.4884
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Phi, %
Swi - Pck
Swi-Mudst
Swi - PckWck
Linear (Swi - Pck)
Swi-Wck
30
Reservoir Characterization
Sorw - Core Plugs
Sorw
averaged
in each
cluster
Variation of Sorw with porosity
40
35
Sorw
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Phi
Sorw-Pck
Sorw-PckWck
Sorw-Wck
30
Reservoir Characterization
Relative Permeability
Relative permeability profiles
Relative K (fraction)
Honarpour’s
correlation intermediately
wet
carbonates
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Sw (fraction)
Krw - HP1
Krow - HP1
Krw - HP2
Krow - HP2
Krw - LP2
Krow(f) - LP2
Krw - LP1&3
Krow(f) - LP1&3
Reservoir Characterization
Capillary Pressure
Cap Pr - Ness City
Br-HC, psi
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Sw
HP1,Pck 55md,24%
HP2,Pck,33md,22%
LP2,PckWck,24md,19%
LP1&3,Pck,8md,17%
100
Engineering Analysis
DST Interpretation
Ness City North Field
y = -0.0587x + 2953.3
R2 = 0.9316
Pi, psi
Pressure
declined
by 450 psi
over a
period of
17 years
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Nov-99
Nov-95
Nov-91
Nov-87
Nov-83
Nov-79
Dec-75
Engineering Analysis
Production History Reconstruction
WOR vs. cumulative production
y = 0.0008x
R2 = 0.6933
120
100
WOR
Limited water
production
data available
R2 = 0.684
140
y = 0.0001x
80
60
40
20
0
y = 0.0068x
R2 = 0.6882
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
Cum Oil prod. STB
Ummel#1
Ummel#3
Linear (Ummel#2 )
Ummel#2
Linear (Ummel#1)
Linear (Ummel#3)
Engineering Analysis
Production History Reconstruction
Water
production
approximated
when data
unavailable Ummel #2
Cumulative comparison - well production
Cumulative production
(STB)
Lease
production allocated to
wells
1000000
100000
10000
1000
100
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Days produced
Ummel #1
Ummel #3
Pfannenstiel #1
Pember A5
Ummel #2
Pfannenstiel #2
Pfannenstiel #1-24
Engineering Analysis
Reservoir Simulation - History Match
Reservoir Simulation
Residual Potential - So-ft, 2000
Performance Prediction
Performance Prediction - Infill
Average quarterly bbl/d
Rate performance & best case - Ummel #4 H
skin = 4.5, Pwf = 675 psi, effective producing
length = 400 ft
Oil
Oil (b) Wtr
Wtr (b)
1st yr 18803 23526 59208 37232
2nd yr 32128 33560 126069 86816
300
250
200
186
153
150
143
100
134
198
206
148.7
155.5
211
214
160
163
32.8
25.9
29.9
24
28
22.7
Dec-02
Dec-03
Dec-04
76
60.755
50
51
46.6
37
0
Dec-99
Dec-00
37.5
28.5
Dec-01
Qo
Qw
Qo - avg 2 mnths
Qo - best
Qw - best
Qw - avg 2 mnths
Dec-05
Original Plugged Well
Drill Out Cement & Set CIBP
Set Whipstock - Mill Casing
Drill Build Section
Drill Lateral Section
Set Liner
Final Completion
Rig Time & Job Costs
Work Performed
Drilling out cmt & setting CIBP
Setting whipstock & milling casing
Drilling build section
Approximate
Rig Hours
82.0
84.5
120.0
% of
Total
23.5
24.2
34.4
(actual drilling time)
(27.8)
(8.0)
Drilling lateral section
52.0
14.9
(actual drilling time)
(32.8)
(9.4)
Setting liner through the curve
10.0
348.5
Totals
Approximate
Workover Costs
$26.4 M
$24.2 M
$135.1 M
% of
Total
10.6
9.8
54.4
$44.3 M
17.8
2.9
$18.2 M
7.3
100
$ 248.2 M
100
Lessons Learned for
Horizontal Well
 Operational Flexibility (Maintain Your Options)
 New Well vs. Reentry
 Hole Size
 Drilling Fluids
 Case off the Curve
 Well Operations
 Good Planning
 Communication
 “The Lateral is a Piece of Cake”
 Horizontal Heterogeneity
Total Horizontal Wells, Jan-1998
Where We Are in Kansas
The Learning Curve
3500
3000
3042
2500
2000
1500
1100
1000
500
271
28
0
Saskatchewan North Dakota
Montana
Kansas