Unconventional Reservoirs

Flow modelling challenges

Victor Salazar
victor.salazar@cmgl.ca
November, 2013
 Agenda
1. CMG products
2. Unconventional Reservoir Modelling Physics
3. Using CMG’s Reservoir Simulation products
to Determine EUR from Limited Data
4. Using CMG’s Reservoir Simulation products
to Optimize Well Completion Design & Well
Spacing
5. SPE Unconventional Reservoir papers that
feature the use of CMG’s Reservoir
Simulation products
 CMG Software Products
Superior physics
EOR advanced processes leader (+95%)
 Project Manager  Reservoir Numerical Simulators
LAUNCHER IMEX Black Oil/Condensate simulator

 Pre & Post Processors GEM Equation of State Compositional

Simulator
BUILDER
STARS K value compositional, thermal,
chemical, geomechanical simulator
RESULTS 3D

RESULTS GRAPH  Assisted history match, Optimization,

Sensitivity and Uncertainty analysis
RESULTS REPORT
CMOST

 Converter  Phase behavior, PVT modelling

ECL 100 IMPORT ASSISTANT WINPROP
 Unconventional reservoirs physics
 Diffusion
 Desorption
 Fractured system
 Non-Darcy effects
 Low porosity/permeability 700
Typical Shale Adsorption Curve

Gas Adsorption (ft3/ton)

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Shale Pressure (psi)

 CMG Simulator Physics
Physics IMEX GEM
PVT BO, VO, GC, WG EOS
Adsorbed Comp Gas Comp Any Comp
Diffusion No Any Comp
Natural Fracs DP or DK DP or DK
Non-Darcy (turbulent) Flow Yes Yes
Klinkenberg (slip) Flow No Yes
Krel/Pc by Rock Type Yes Yes
Propped Fracs Explicit Grids Explicit Grids
Press-dependent Compaction Yes (& w/ time) Yes (& w/ time)
Stress-dependent Compaction No Yes (w/ GEOMECH)
LS-LR-DK gridding Yes (& w/ time) Yes (& w/ time)
CMG Frac’d Well Modelling History
 Microseismic Results

Possible trend visible Trend visible in red stage

in blue stage
In-situ stress will
influence dominant
hydraulic fracture
Possible interaction with orientations
pre-existing fractures? Shmax direction?

Williams-Stroud, Microseismic, 2008

 Propped Frac Gridding is EASY
BUILDER can create LS-LR-DK
(tartan) grids around fractures
automatically

Single Plane Geometry

Complex Geometry
Varying Propped Frac Properties & SRV
Size with CMOST is EASY
Propped Frac Properties
Half-length, Width, Perm, Spacing,
Height & Perm Gradient
Stimulated Natural Frac Properties:
Width, Perm

SRV Size & Shape

# MS events per gridblock
MS Moment Magnitude
MS Confidence Value
Etc.
 Geomechanics
 Independent
geomechanic grid
 Hydraulic fracture closure
 New fractures opening
 Permeability vs Stress
kf

C
kfmax

D
kfmin
B Beginning /
σ fn
Crack occurs A
 3 key Questions about
Unconventional Reservoirs
1. How can I determine the EUR with
limited data?
2. What is the Optimum Well
Completion Design?
3. What is the Optimum Well
Spacing?
 Physics-based EUR Calculation
1. Choose CMG simulator
with required physics

Engineer builds base model, decides which parameters

to allow CMOST to vary, and CMOST does the rest

2. Build base model

3. Perform SA & AHM

4. Forecast EUR using
best HM models
 Physics-based EUR Calculation
• 4000 ft Eagle Ford “Oil Window” well
• 41-stage frac job pumped
• 7 months of production (222 days)
• Oil, gas & water rates, and flowing BHP
measured daily
• Task: Determine Oil & Gas EURs
• Solution: Match 7 months of history &
Forecast 30 years of future production
Physics-based EUR Calculation
Known Reservoir, Well & Fluid Properties
Property Value Unit
Depth at top of reservoir 10,800 feet
Reservoir thickness 150 feet
Initial Reservoir Pressure 8,100 psi
Initial Reservoir Temperature 270 F
Oil Bubble Point Pressure 3010 psi
Oil Gravity 43 API
Initial Solution GOR 950 scf/stb
Lateral Length 4000 feet
Number of Frac Stages Pumped 10
 Physics-based EUR Calculation
Ranges for uncertain reservoir & frac properties
Min Max
Property Value Value Unit
Matrix Porosity 0.04 0.10 fraction
Matrix Permeability 10 1000 nD
Natural Fracture Effective Porosity 0.0006 0.0006 fraction
Natural Fracture Effective Permeability 40 40 nD
Natural Fracture Areal Spacing 50 50 feet
Propped Fracture Spacing 100 400 feet
Propped Fracture Half-Length 50 400 feet
Propped Fracture Permeability 1 30 D
Swi in Propped & Natural Fractures 0.15 0.45 fraction
Physics-based EUR Calculation
Krel, Pc & PV Compaction Assumptions
Property Assumptions
Matrix Krel Corey Functions are sufficient
Natural Fracture Krel Straight Line behavior
Propped Fracture Krel Straight Line behavior
Matrix Pc Can ignore during primary depletion
Natural Fracture Pc Zero
Propped Fracture Pc Zero
Matrix PV Compaction Constant Compressibility
Natural Fracture PV Compaction Constant Compressibility
Propped Fracture PV Compaction Changes with Pressure
Physics-based EUR Calculation
2D Areal View of Simulation Grid
Physics-based EUR Calculation
3D Perspective View of Simulation Grid
Physics-based EUR Calculation
 CMOST
 Assisted HM
 Optimization
 Sensitivity and
 Uncertainty analysis
 Physics-based EUR Calculation
Discrete Values used in Sensitivity Analysis
Nat Prop’d Prop’d Prop’d Prop’d
Matrix Matrix Frac Rock Frac Frac Frac Frac
Perm Por Swi Comp Xf Perm Spacing Swi
(md) (frac) (frac) Table # (ft) (md) (ft) (frac)

0.00001 0.04 0.15 ctype1.inc 50 1000 100 0.15

0.0001 0.06 0.25 ctype2.inc 150 10000 200 0.25

0.0005 0.08 0.35 ctype3.inc 250 20000 300 0.35

0.001 0.1 0.45 ctype4.inc 400 30000 400 0.55

Physics-based EUR Calculation
Propped Frac PV Compaction Curves
1

0.1
Permeability Multiplier

0.01 ctype1
ctype2
ctype3

0.001 ctype4

0.0001
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Pressure, psia
Physics-based EUR Calculation
Cumulative Oil Tornado Plot
Physics-based EUR Calculation
Cumulative Water Tornado Plot
 Physics-based EUR Calculation
Discrete Values used in History-Match
Nat Prop’d Prop’d Prop’d Prop’d
Matrix Matrix Frac Rock Frac Frac Frac Frac
Perm Por Swi Comp Xf Perm Spacing Swi
(md) (frac) (frac) Table # (ft) (md) (ft) (frac)
0.00001 0.04 0.15 ctype1.inc 50 1000 100 0.15
0.00005 0.05 0.16 ctype2.inc 100 5000 150 0.20
0.0001 0.06 0.17 ctype3.inc 150 10000 200 0.25
0.0002 Total
0.07Search
0.18 Space:
ctype4.inc 200
6.22 million15000 250
combinations 0.30
0.0003 0.08 0.20 250 20000 300 0.35
0.0004 0.09 0.25 300 25000 350 0.40
0.0005 0.10 0.30 400 30000 400 0.45
0.0007 0.35
0.001 0.40
Physics-based EUR Calculation
History-Match Run Progress Plot

Engineer only has to monitor

History-Match progress….. so is
free to work on other projects!
Physics-based EUR Calculation
Oil Phase History-Match
Physics-based EUR Calculation
Gas Phase History-Match
Physics-based EUR Calculation
Water Phase History-Match
Physics-based EUR Calculation
Flowing BHP History-Match
Physics-based EUR Calculation
30-yr Oil EUR using 15 best HM models

Oil EUR (stb)

Maximum 724,059
Minimum 571,847
Average 654,125
Median 649,323
Std Dev 45,162
Physics-based EUR Calculation
30-yr Gas EUR using 15 best HM models

Gas EUR (MMscf)

Maximum 981
Minimum 851
Average 926
Median 922
Std Dev 44
 Time to do Physics-based EUR
Time Time/Run
Task (hr) (min)
ENGINEER’s time 8 -
100 CMOST SA runs* 2.8 1.7
446 CMOST AHM runs* 8.5 1.1
15 x 30-year forecast runs** 0.6 2.5
TOTAL COMPUTE Time 11.9 -

* 4 simultaneous 4-way parallel IMEX runs on a Dell Precision T5600

** Sequential 16-way parallel IMEX runs on a Dell Precision T5600
 Physics-based Well Optimization
1. Choose CMG simulator
with required physics

Engineer builds base model, decides which parameters

to allow CMOST to vary, and CMOST does the rest

2. Build base model

3. Perform SA
4. OPT Completion Design
5. OPT Well Spacing
Physics-based Well Optimization
Assumed Reservoir, Well & Fluid Properties
Property Data
Natural Fracture Relative Permeability Straight Line data from EUR calc.
Propped Fracture Relative Permeability Straight Line data from EUR calc.
Matrix Capillary Pressure Assumed to be zero
Natural Fracture Capillary Pressure Assumed to be zero
Propped Fracture Capillary Pressure Assumed to be zero
Matrix Pore Volume Compaction Constant
Natural Fracture PV Compaction Constant
Propped Fracture PV Compaction “ctype4.inc” from EUR calc.
Physics-based Well Optimization
Assumed Economic Parameters

Economic
Parameter Value Unit
Oil Price 100 $US/bbl
Gas Price 3 $US/Mscf
Well Drilling Cost 3,000,000 $US/well
Frac Cost 250,000 $US/Stage
Forecast Period 30 years
Physics-based Well Optimization
Proposed Well Completion/Spacing Options
Min Max
Property Value Value Unit
128 640
Proposed Well Spacing (5 wells) (1 well) acres
Proposed Well Lateral Length 4000 4000 feet
Proposed Propped Fracture Spacing 200 800 feet
Proposed Propped Fracture Half-Length 50 400 feet
Proposed Propped Fracture Permeability 1 20 D
Physics-based Well Optimization
Discrete Values used for
Completion Optimization
Propped Frac Propped Frac Propped Frac
Spacing Permeability Half-Length
(feet) (Darcies) (feet)
200 1 50
300 3 100
400Search Space:
Total 6 240 combinations
200
500 9 300
600 12 400
800 15
18
20
Physics-based Well Optimization
Optimization Run Progress Plot

Engineer only has to monitor

Optimization progress….. so is
free to work on other projects!
Physics-based Well Optimization
Optimum Parameter Histograms
Physics-based Well Optimization
Cum Oil after 30 years vs # of Wells

NPV
# of Wells (MMUSD)
1 49
2 97
3 145
4 191
5 230
Physics-based Well Optimization
Matrix Pressure @ 30 years with 4 & 5 wells
 Time to do Physics-based
Well Completion & Spacing
Optimization
Time/Run
Task Time (hr) (min)
ENGINEER’s time 8.0 -
55 CMOST OPT runs* 2.2 1.9
5 IMEX 30-year Forecast runs** 0.85 10.2
TOTAL COMPUTE Time 3.05 -

* 4 simultaneous 4-way parallel IMEX runs on a Dell Precision T5600

** 5 Sequential 16-way parallel IMEX runs on a Dell Precision T5600
 SPE References

Used GEM to model DFITs and concluded:

• Greatly enhances our ability to efficiently design DFIT's for tight shale reservoirs
• Shows the validity of the Nolte analysis technique for tight rocks and provides guidelines for the shut-in
time duration required to generate a reasonable estimate of reservoir properties from DFIT pressure
response
• Shows that geomechanics-coupled reservoir flow simulation of DFITs can provide estimates of fracture
dimensions that compare reasonably with those from more traditional fracture design tools
• Demonstrate that geomechanics-coupled reservoir flow simulation provides an additiona advantage over
traditional fracture design tools in that is can numerically model the system response even after fracture
closure
• Shows significant fracture tip extension, both vertically and horizontally, for a significant period after the
end of the shut-in period
 SPE References
SPE 166279
Estimation of Effective Fracture Volume Using Water
Flowback and Production Data for Shale Gas Wells
Ahmad Alhkough (TAMU), Steve McKetta (Southwestern Energy) and Robert
Wattenbarger (TAMU)

Used IMEX to model water flowback and long-term production, and

concluded:
• Used to simulate production of gas and water from a shale gas
well
• Water production analysis can provide effective fracture volume
estimates, which were confirmed by cumulative water produced,
which in turn can evaluate fracture-stimulation treatments.
• Water production analysis can show the pitfalls of ignoring
flowback data (i.e. in some cases the time-shift on diagnostic plots
changes the apparent flow regime indentification of the early gas
production data, as well as water production data, which leads to
different (incorrect) interpretation of the fracture/matrix system.
 SPE References
URTeC 1575448
Marcellus Well Spacing Optimization – Pilot
Data Integration and Dynamic Modeling Study
Deniz Cakici, Chris Dick, Abhijit Mookerjee, Shell Exploration &
Production; Ben Stephenson, Shell Canada

Used GEM & CMOST to Match production history

 36 E&P Companies are using CMG for
Unconventional Reservoir Modelling
• Anadarko • EOG • Samson
• Apache • ExxonMobil • Sasol
•
•
“Physics-based”
BG Group
BHP Billiton
•
•
Harvest
Marathon
•
•
Seven Generations
Shell
• EUR & Well Optimization
Birchcliff • Matador • Sinopec Daylight
• Bonterra • Nexen • Southwestern Energy
• BP in hours
• Noble Energy • Statoil
• Chesapeake • PennWest • Talisman
•
using CMG software
Chevron • Perpetual • Taqa North
• Devon • Petrobakken • Total
• Encana • Reliance • Vitruvian
• Enerplus • Rosetta • XTO
Resources
VISION:
To be the Leading Developer and Supplier of
Dynamic Reservoir Technologies in the World

info@cmgl.ca www.cmgl.ca