You are on page 1of 88

Unconventional Reservoirs:

EUR Calculation & Well Optimization


using Reservoir Simulation
© COPYRIGHT 2014 - COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LTD.

™ Trademark of Computer Modelling Group Ltd. All other company,


product, and service names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are the property of their respective owners.
Agenda
1. Review of CMG’s Unconventional Reservoir
Modelling Physics
2. Using CMG’s Workflows to answer 3 common
questions about Unconventional Reservoirs:
 Calculating EUR from Limited Data
 Optimizing Well Completion Design
 Optimizing Well Spacing
3. Recent SPE papers featuring the use of CMG
technology for modelling Unconventional
Reservoirs
4. E&P Co.’s that have licensed CMG technology
for modeling Unconventional Reservoirs
CMG Software Products
Three-Phase, Black-Oil Reservoir Simulator

Compositional & Unconventional Reservoir Simulator

Advanced Processes, EOR & Thermal Simulator

Phase Behaviour & Fluid Property Application

Simulation Model Building Application

Visualization & Analysis Application

Enhance & Accelerate Sensitivity Analysis, History


Matching, Optimization & Uncertainty Analysis
CMG Software Products
Three-Phase, Black-Oil Reservoir Simulator

Compositional & Unconventional Reservoir Simulator

Advanced Processes, EOR & Thermal Simulator

Phase Behaviour & Fluid Property Application

Simulation Model Building Application

Visualization & Analysis Application

Enhance & Accelerate Sensitivity Analysis, History


Matching, Optimization & Uncertainty Analysis
CMG Simulator Physics
Physics IMEX GEM
PVT
Adsorbed Components
Molecular Diffusion w/ Dispersion
Natural Fracs (NF)
Propped Fracs (PF)
Non-Darcy (turbulent) Flow
Non-Darcy (slip) Flow
Krel & Pc
Press-dependent Compaction
Stress-dependent Compaction
CMG Simulator Physics
Physics IMEX GEM
PVT BO, VO, GC, WG EOS
Adsorbed Components
Molecular Diffusion w/ Dispersion
Natural Fracs (NF)
Propped Fracs (PF)
Non-Darcy (turbulent) Flow
Non-Darcy (slip) Flow
Krel & Pc
Press-dependent Compaction
Stress-dependent Compaction
CMG Simulator Physics
Physics IMEX GEM
PVT BO, VO, GC, WG EOS
Adsorbed Components Gas Phase Multi-Comp
Molecular Diffusion w/ Dispersion
Natural Fracs (NF)
Propped Fracs (PF)
Non-Darcy (turbulent) Flow
Non-Darcy (slip) Flow
Krel & Pc
Press-dependent Compaction
Stress-dependent Compaction
CMG Simulator Physics
Physics IMEX GEM
PVT BO, VO, GC, WG EOS
Adsorbed Components Gas Phase Multi-Comp
Molecular Diffusion w/ Dispersion - Multi-Comp/OWG Phases
Natural Fracs (NF)
Propped Fracs (PF)
Non-Darcy (turbulent) Flow
Non-Darcy (slip) Flow
Krel & Pc
Press-dependent Compaction
Stress-dependent Compaction
CMG Simulator Physics
Physics IMEX GEM
PVT BO, VO, GC, WG EOS
Adsorbed Components Gas Phase Multi-Comp
Molecular Diffusion w/ Dispersion - Multi-Comp/OWG Phases
Natural Fracs (NF) Dual Perm Dual Perm
Propped Fracs (PF)
Non-Darcy (turbulent) Flow
Non-Darcy (slip) Flow
Krel & Pc
Press-dependent Compaction
Stress-dependent Compaction
CMG Simulator Physics
Physics IMEX GEM
PVT BO, VO, GC, WG EOS
Adsorbed Components Gas Phase Multi-Comp
Molecular Diffusion w/ Dispersion - Multi-Comp/OWG Phases
Natural Fracs (NF) Dual Perm Dual Perm
Propped Fracs (PF) LS-LR in Matrix (MT) LS-LR in Matrix (MT)
Non-Darcy (turbulent) Flow
Non-Darcy (slip) Flow
Krel & Pc
Press-dependent Compaction
Stress-dependent Compaction
CMG Simulator Physics
Physics IMEX GEM
PVT BO, VO, GC, WG EOS
Adsorbed Components Gas Phase Multi-Comp
Molecular Diffusion w/ Dispersion - Multi-Comp/OWG Phases
Natural Fracs (NF) Dual Perm Dual Perm
Propped Fracs (PF) LS-LR in Matrix (MT) LS-LR in Matrix (MT)
Non-Darcy (turbulent) Flow MT, NF & PF MT, NF & PF
Non-Darcy (slip) Flow
Krel & Pc
Press-dependent Compaction
Stress-dependent Compaction
CMG Simulator Physics
Physics IMEX GEM
PVT BO, VO, GC, WG EOS
Adsorbed Components Gas Phase Multi-Comp
Molecular Diffusion w/ Dispersion - Multi-Comp/OWG Phases
Natural Fracs (NF) Dual Perm Dual Perm
Propped Fracs (PF) LS-LR in Matrix (MT) LS-LR in Matrix (MT)
Non-Darcy (turbulent) Flow MT, NF & PF MT, NF & PF
Non-Darcy (slip) Flow - MT
Krel & Pc
Press-dependent Compaction
Stress-dependent Compaction
CMG Simulator Physics
Physics IMEX GEM
PVT BO, VO, GC, WG EOS
Adsorbed Components Gas Phase Multi-Comp
Molecular Diffusion w/ Dispersion - Multi-Comp/OWG Phases
Natural Fracs (NF) Dual Perm Dual Perm
Propped Fracs (PF) LS-LR in Matrix (MT) LS-LR in Matrix (MT)
Non-Darcy (turbulent) Flow MT, NF & PF MT, NF & PF
Non-Darcy (slip) Flow - MT
Krel & Pc MT, NF, PF & time MT, NF, PF & time
Press-dependent Compaction
Stress-dependent Compaction
CMG Simulator Physics
Physics IMEX GEM
PVT BO, VO, GC, WG EOS
Adsorbed Components Gas Phase Multi-Comp
Molecular Diffusion w/ Dispersion - Multi-Comp/OWG Phases
Natural Fracs (NF) Dual Perm Dual Perm
Propped Fracs (PF) LS-LR in Matrix (MT) LS-LR in Matrix (MT)
Non-Darcy (turbulent) Flow MT, NF & PF MT, NF & PF
Non-Darcy (slip) Flow - MT
Krel & Pc MT, NF, PF & time MT, NF, PF & time
Press-dependent Compaction MT, NF, PF & time MT, NF, PF & time
Stress-dependent Compaction
CMG Simulator Physics
Physics IMEX GEM
PVT BO, VO, GC, WG EOS
Adsorbed Components Gas Phase Multi-Comp
Molecular Diffusion w/ Dispersion - Multi-Comp/OWG Phases
Natural Fracs (NF) Dual Perm Dual Perm
Propped Fracs (PF) LS-LR in Matrix (MT) LS-LR in Matrix (MT)
Non-Darcy (turbulent) Flow MT, NF & PF MT, NF & PF
Non-Darcy (slip) Flow - MT
Krel & Pc MT, NF, PF & time MT, NF, PF & time
Press-dependent Compaction MT, NF, PF & time MT, NF, PF & time
Stress-dependent Compaction - GEOMECHanics
CMG Simulator Physics
Physics IMEX GEM
PVT BO, VO, GC, WG EOS
Adsorbed Components Gas Phase Multi-Comp
Molecular Diffusion w/ Dispersion - Multi-Comp/OWG Phases
Natural Fracs (NF) Dual Perm Dual Perm
Propped Fracs (PF) LS-LR in Matrix (MT) LS-LR in Matrix (MT)
Non-Darcy (turbulent) Flow MT, NF & PF MT, NF & PF
Non-Darcy (slip) Flow - MT
Krel & Pc MT, NF, PF & time MT, NF, PF & time
Press-dependent Compaction MT, NF, PF & time MT, NF, PF & time
Stress-dependent Compaction - GEOMECHanics
CMG’s Unconventional Reservoir
Feature Timeline
Propped Frac Gridding is EASY
BUILDER can create LS-LR-DK
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.
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

2. Build base model

3. Perform SA & AHM


4. Forecast EUR using
best HM models
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
• 10-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
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 Constant Compressibility
Compaction
Propped Fracture PV Changes with Pressure
Compaction
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 Constant Compressibility
Compaction
Propped Fracture PV Changes with Pressure
Compaction
Physics-based EUR Calculation
2D Areal View of Simulation Grid
Physics-based EUR Calculation
3D Perspective View of Simulation Grid
Physics-based EUR Calculation
Simulation Grid Statistics
Grid Property Value Unit
X & Y direction gridblock lengths 50 feet
Z direction gridblock length 30 feet
# of X & Y direction grids 105 -
# of Z direction grids (layers) 5 -
# of “parent” gridblocks 55,125 -
# of TARTAN grids when Xf = 275 33,825 -
ft
TOTAL gridblocks when Xf = 275 88,950 -
ft
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 Spacin Swi
(md) (frac) (frac) Table # (ft) (md) g (frac)
(ft)
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
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)
CMOST prior to 2013 could only do
0.00001 0.04 0.15 ctype1.inc 50 1000 100 0.15
discrete value parameterization
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
Continuous Values used in Sensitivity Analysis
Nat Prop’ Prop’ Prop’ Prop’d
Matrix Matrix Frac d d d Frac Rock
Perm Por Swi Frac Frac Frac Spacin Comp
(md) (frac) (frac) Xf Perm Swi g Table #
(ft) (md) (frac) (ft)
Continuous (Min , Max) Discrete
0.00001 0.04 0.15 50 1000 0.15 100 ctype1.inc

0.001 0.1 0.45 400 30000 0.55 200 ctype2.inc

300 ctype3.inc

400 ctype4.inc
Physics-based EUR Calculation
Continuous Values used in Sensitivity Analysis
Nat Prop’ Prop’ Prop’ Prop’d
Matrix Matrix Frac d d d Frac Rock
Perm Por Swi Frac Frac Frac Spacin Comp
(md) (frac) (frac) Xf Perm Swi g Table #
(ft) (md) (frac) (ft)
CMOST 2013 now does
Continuous (Min , Max)
continuous
Discrete
value parameterization
0.00001 0.04 0.15 50 1000 0.15 100 ctype1.inc

0.001 0.1 0.45 400 30000 0.55 200 ctype2.inc

300 ctype3.inc

400 ctype4.inc
Physics-based EUR Calculation
Propped Frac PV Compaction Curves
1

0.1
Permeability Multiplier

ctype1
0.01
ctype2
ctype3
ctype4

0.001

0.0001
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Pressure, psia
Physics-based EUR Calculation
Cumulative Oil Tornado Plot
42 jobs
Combination of
continuous and
discrete
parameters
Physics-based EUR Calculation
Cumulative Water Tornado Plot
42 jobs
Combination of
continuous and
discrete
parameters
Physics-based EUR Calculation
Cumulative Gas Tornado Plot
42 jobs
Combination of
continuous and
discrete
parameters
Physics-based EUR Calculation
Well Flowing BHP Tornado Plot
42 jobs
Combination of
continuous and
discrete
parameters
Physics-based EUR Calculation
Range of Values used in History-Match
Nat Prop’d Prop’d Prop’d Prop’d
Matrix Matrix Frac Frac Frac Frac Frac Rock
Perm Por Swi Xf Perm Swi Spacin Comp
(md) (frac) (frac) (ft) (md) (frac) g Table #
(ft)
Continuous (Min , Max) Discrete
0.00001 0.04 0.15 50 1000 0.15 100 ctype1.inc
0.001 0.1 0.40 400 30000 0.45 150 ctype2.inc
200 ctype3.inc
250 ctype4.inc
300
350
400
Physics-based EUR Calculation
History-Match Run Progress Plot
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
Best 15 History Matches
Matrix Matrix SW Nat Rock Propped Frac Propped Frac SW Propped
Run # XF, ft HM Error (%)
Perm, md Porosity Frac Compaction Perm, md Spacing, ft Frac

257 0.00051985 0.0661 0.245 ctype4.inc 247.75 23330 200 0.354 2.5231357
315 0.0005248 0.0658 0.245 ctype4.inc 251.25 23620 200 0.351 2.5662061
327 0.00046045 0.0661 0.215 ctype4.inc 261.75 26230 200 0.348 2.6612571
259 0.0004654 0.0676 0.2 ctype4.inc 265.25 21880 200 0.339 2.713867
316 0.00061885 0.0658 0.265 ctype4.inc 286.25 20720 250 0.381 2.7676386
328 0.00042085 0.0643 0.19875 ctype4.inc 277.5 22315 200 0.342 2.7685183
159 0.0006733 0.0547 0.25125 ctype4.inc 307.25 21300 250 0.408 2.8155553
205 0.0005743 0.0613 0.23625 ctype4.inc 307.25 21300 250 0.36 2.8254706
240 0.0006535 0.0529 0.295 ctype4.inc 309 23040 250 0.3915 2.8693452
266 0.0004654 0.0667 0.215 ctype4.inc 254.75 26375 200 0.3495 2.9005211
95 0.000604 0.0442 0.28875 ctype4.inc 274 25650 200 0.423 2.9039852
306 0.0006139 0.0628 0.21875 ctype4.inc 302 26520 250 0.39 2.9388746
199 0.000604 0.0475 0.26625 ctype4.inc 272.25 24200 200 0.426 2.9438707
224 0.00062875 0.049 0.26 ctype4.inc 256.5 22460 200 0.4155 2.9524625
233 0.000604 0.0589 0.24375 ctype4.inc 317.75 18980 250 0.366 2.9682553
Physics-based EUR Calculation
Best History Match
Nat Prop’ Prop’ Prop’ Prop’d
Matrix Matrix Frac d d d Frac Rock
Perm Por Swi Frac Frac Frac Spacin Comp
(md) (frac) (frac) Xf Perm Swi g Table #
(ft) (md) (frac) (ft)
Continuous (Min , Max) Discrete
0.00001 0.04 0.15 50 1000 0.15 100 ctype1.inc
0.001 0.1 0.40 400 30000 0.45 150 ctype2.inc
200 ctype3.inc
250 ctype4.inc
300
350
400
0.00052 0.066 0.264 247 23330 0.354 200 Ctype4.inc
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
8.00e+5

6.00e+5
Cumulative Oil SC (bbl)

4.00e+5

2.00e+5

0.00e+0
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Time (Date)
Physics-based EUR Calculation
30-yr Oil EUR using 15 best HM models
8.00e+5

6.00e+5
Cumulative Oil SC (bbl)

4.00e+5

Oil EUR (stb)


Maximum 674,957
2.00e+5
Minimum 533,915
Average 618,311
Median 621,845
Std Dev 40,542
0.00e+0
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Time (Date)
Physics-based EUR Calculation
30-yr Gas EUR using 15 best HM models
8.00e+8

6.00e+8
Cumulative Gas SC (ft3)

4.00e+8

2.00e+8

0.00e+0
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Time (Date)
Physics-based EUR Calculation
30-yr Gas EUR using 15 best HM models
8.00e+8

6.00e+8
Cumulative Gas SC (ft3)

4.00e+8

Gas EUR
(MMscf)
2.00e+8
Maximum 707
Minimum 576
Average 656
Median 659
0.00e+0
2015 2020 Std Dev
2025 2030 2035 40
2040 2045
Time (Date)
Time to do Physics-based EUR
Time Time/Run
Task (hr) (min)
ENGINEER’s time 8 -
42 CMOST SA runs* 1.1 1.6
350 CMOST AHM runs* 8.7 1.5
15 x 30-year forecast runs** 0.9 3.5
TOTAL COMPUTE Time 10.7 -
* 4 simultaneous 8-way parallel IMEX runs
** Sequential 16-way parallel IMEX runs
Sandy Bridge Quad-Socket 8-Core Dell PowerEdge M820 Blade Server
(E5-4650, 2.7 Ghz, 20M Cache, 8 GT/s)
Physics-based Well Optimization
1. Choose CMG simulator
with required physics

2. Build base model

3. Perform SA
4. OPT Completion Design
5. OPT Well Spacing
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
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
Physics-based Well Optimization
Assumed Reservoir, Well & Fluid Properties

Property Value Unit


Reservoir Matrix Porosity 0.066 fraction
Reservoir Matrix Permeability 520 nD
Reservoir Natural Fracture Effective Porosity 0.0006 fraction
Reservoir Natural Fracture Effective 40 nD
Permeability
Reservoir Natural Fracture X-direction 50 feet
Spacing
Reservoir Natural Fracture Y-direction 50 feet
Spacing
Reservoir Natural Fracture Z-direction 0 feet
Spacing
Physics-based Well Optimization
Assumed Reservoir, Well & Fluid Properties
Property Data
Natural Fracture Relative Straight Line data from EUR
Permeability calc.
Propped Fracture Relative Straight Line data from EUR
Permeability calc.
Matrix Capillary Pressure Assumed to be zero
Natural Fracture Capillary Pressure Assumed to be zero
Propped Fracture Capillary Assumed to be zero
Pressure
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 5,000,000 $US/well
Cost
Function of
Frac Cost Propped Frac XF $US/Stage
& Perm
Forecast Period 30 years
Physics-based Well Optimization
Fracturing Cost entered in CMOST “J-script”
Cost of one planar
fracture with the
800 permeability of 1D
600
Cost, MUSD

400

200

0
0 200 400 600
XF, ft

Cost of one planar fracture


with the half length of 100
1500 ft
Cost, MUSD

1000

500

0
0 10 20 30 40
Frac Propped Perm, D
Physics-based Well Optimization
Proposed Well Completion/Spacing Options
Min Max
Property Value Value Unit
71 640
Proposed Well Spacing (9 (1 well) acres
wells)
Proposed Well Lateral Length 4000 4000 feet
Proposed Propped Fracture Spacing 100 600 feet
Proposed Propped Fracture Half- 100 600 feet
Length
Proposed Propped Fracture 1 30 D
Permeability
Physics-based Well Optimization
Proposed Well Completion/Spacing Options
Min Max
Property Value Value Unit
71 640
Proposed Well Spacing (9 (1 well) acres
wells)
Proposed Well Lateral Length 4000 4000 feet
Proposed Propped Fracture Spacing 100 600 feet
Proposed Propped Fracture Half- 100 600 feet
Length
Proposed Propped Fracture 1 30 D
Permeability
Physics-based Well Optimization
Discrete Values used for
Completion Optimization
Propped Frac Propped Frac Propped Frac
Spacing Permeability Half-Length
(feet) (Darcies) (feet)
100 1 100
200 5 200
300 10 300
400 15 400
500 20 500
600 25 600
30
Physics-based Well Optimization
Discrete Values used for
Completion Optimization
Propped Frac Propped Frac Propped Frac
Spacing Permeability Half-Length
(feet) (Darcies) (feet)
100 1 100
200 5 200
300
Total 10 252 combinations
Search Space: 300
400 15 400
500 20 500
600 25 600
30
Physics-based Well Optimization
Optimization Run Progress Plot
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 Values

Propped Frac Propped Frac Propped Frac


Spacing Permeability Half-Length
(feet) (Darcies) (feet)
100 1 100
200 5 200
300 10 300
400 15 400
500 20 500
600 25 600
30
Physics-based Well Optimization
“Adding Another Value”

Propped Frac Propped Frac Propped Frac


Spacing Permeability Half-Length
(feet) (Darcies) (feet)
100 1 100
150 5 200
200 10 300
300 15 400
400 20 500
500 25 600
600 30
Physics-based Well Optimization
“Adding Another Value”

Propped Frac Propped Frac Propped Frac


Spacing Permeability Half-Length
(feet) (Darcies) (feet)
100 1 100
150 5 200
200 10 300
Total
300Search Space:
15 294 combinations
400
400 20 500
500 25 600
600 30
Physics-based Well Optimization
Optimization Run Progress Plot
Physics-based Well Optimization
Optimization Run Progress Plot

No need to restart the whole


process! … Just add 15 jobs to
the previous study.
Physics-based Well Optimization
Optimum Parameter Values

Propped Frac Propped Frac Propped Frac


Spacing Permeability Half-Length
(feet) (Darcies) (feet)
100 1 100
150 5 200
200 10 300
300 15 400
400 20 500
500 25 600
600 30
Physics-based Well Optimization
Cum Oil after 30 years vs # of Wells
6.00e+6
Cumulative Oil SC OPT_1 Well
Cumulative Oil SC OPT_3 Wells NPV
Cumulative Oil SC OPT_5 Wells
5.00e+6
Cumulative Oil SC OPT_7 Wells
Cumulative Oil SC OPT_9 Wells # of Wells (MMUSD)
1 13.0
4.00e+6
3 39.0
Cumulative Oil SC (bbl)

5 64.6
3.00e+6
7 85.3
2.00e+6 9 80.7
100

NPV, MMUSD
80
1.00e+6

60

0.00e+0
40
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Time (Date)
20

0
1 3 5 7 9
# of Wells
Physics-based Well Optimization
9 Wells - Optimization Run Progress Plot
NPV (MMUSD) 95.3
Frac Spacing (ft) 150
Frac Propped Perm
(D) 5
Frac XF 200

NPV (MMUSD) 80.7


Frac Spacing (ft) 150
Frac Propped Perm
(D) 5
Frac XF 300

• 50 30-year 9-well CMOST OPT runs required 9


hours
• Using 2 simultaneous 16-way parallel IMEX runs
Physics-based Well Optimization
Matrix Pressure @ 30 years with 7 & 9 wells
Pressure (psi) 2043-08-12 K layer: 1 Pressure (psi) 2043-08-12 K layer: 1
File: OPT_9Wells_2 File: OPT_7Wells_3
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 User: alim 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 User: alim
Date: 3/13/2014 Date: 3/13/2014
0

0
0

0
Scale: 1:12593 Scale: 1:12593
Y/X: 1.00:1 Y/X: 1.00:1
Axis Units: ft Axis Units: ft
-1,000

-1,000
-1,000

-1,000
8,139 8,139

7,384 7,384
-2,000

-2,000
-2,000

-2,000
6,629 6,629

5,874 5,873

5,118 5,118
-3,000

-3,000
-3,000

-3,000
4,363 4,363

3,608 3,608
-4,000

-4,000
-4,000

-4,000
2,853 2,853

2,098 2,097
-5,000

-5,000
1,342 1,342

587 587
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

# of Wells 9 # of Wells 7
NPV (MMUSD) 95.3 NPV (MMUSD) 85.3
Frac Spacing (ft) 150 Frac Spacing (ft) 150
Frac Propped Perm Frac Propped Perm
(D) 5 (D) 5
Frac XF 200 Frac XF 300
Time to do Physics-based
Well Completion & Spacing
Optimization
Time/Run
Task (1-well) Time (hr) (min)
ENGINEER’s time 8.0 -
85 CMOST OPT runs* 1.5 1.05
4 x 30-year Forecast runs** 0.5 7.5
TOTAL COMPUTE Time 2.0 -
* 4 simultaneous 8-way parallel IMEX runs
** 4 Sequential 16-way parallel IMEX runs
Sandy Bridge Quad-Socket 8-Core Dell PowerEdge M820 Blade Server
(E5-4650, 2.7 Ghz, 20M Cache, 8 GT/s)
SPE Papers using CMG for modelling
Unconventional Reservoirs

• Searching www.onepetro.org for CMG and


UNCONVENTIONAL GAS = 79 hits
• Searching www.onepetro.org for CMG and
UNCONVENTIONAL OIL = 43 hits
SPE Papers using CMG for modelling
Unconventional Reservoirs

1. 166279 – A. Alhkough (TAMU), S. McKetta (SWN) & R.


Wattenbarger (TAMU) “Estimation of Effective Fracture
Volume Using Water Flowback and Production Data for
Shale Gas Wells” 2013 ATCE
Used IMEX to model water flowback and long-term
production
SPE Papers using CMG for modelling
Unconventional Reservoirs

2. 166201 – A.S. Padmaker (Chevron) “Geomechanics


coupled reservoir flow simulation for diagnostic
fracture injection test design and interpretation in
shale reservoirs” 2013 ATCE
Used GEM w/GEOMECH to model DFITs
SPE Papers using CMG for modelling
Unconventional Reservoirs

3. 157448 – D. Cakici, C. Dick, A, Mookerjee (Shell E&P), B.


Stephenson (Shell Canada) “Marcellus Well Spacing
Optimization – Pilot Data Integration and Dynamic
Modeling Study 2013 URTeC
Used GEM and CMOST to do history-matching
& optimization
SPE Papers using CMG for modelling
Unconventional Reservoirs

4. 14940 – Y. Xiao et al (ExxonMobil) “Evaluation in Data


Rich Fayatteville Shale Gas Plays – Integrating Physics-
based Reservoir Simulations with Data Driven
Approaches for Uncertainty Reduction” 2012 IPTC
Used GEM to model Fayatteville wells
Barry Rubin’s
“TARTAN Gridding” Paper

132093 – B. Rubin (CMG) “Accurate Simulation of


Non-Darcy Flow in Stimulated Fractured Shale Gas
Reservoirs” 2010 WRM
Justification for LS-LR-DK (TARTAN) gridding
Coming Next?: Mechanistic Modelling of
Hydraulic Fracturing
Nano-Scale Pore Throat Physics: Is it
really important?

Most literature says it is important in pore throats


less than 50 nm in diameter.

50 nm pore throat diameter equates to a matrix


permeability of 28 nd when matrix porosity is 5%,
using Katz & Thompsons (1986) formula and
referenced in Nelson’s 2008 API Geologic Note.
39 E&P Co.’s that have licensed CMG for
Unconventional Reservoir Modelling

Confidential material removed.


Our vision:
To be The Leading Developer & Supplier of
Dynamic Reservoir Technologies in the WORLD

For more information or follow-up:


info@cmgl.ca