# Reserves Estimation & Uncertainty analysis

Johny Samaan Reservoir engineer 18 Dec-2009

Introduction
Target
Everybody involved in the actual generation of data for hydrocarbon resource volume management (HCRVM), e.g. Geoscientists, Subsurface Engineers, Economists, Planners.

Objective
Describe the main procedures & definitions related to the subject List and apply the main estimating techniques used.

Key messages
Some best practices in dealing with uncertainty and reserves estimating – Volumetric & performance based estimating methods, probabilistic & deterministic – Use “old-fashioned” res eng practice to back-up/validate simulation results – Module is not meant to replace general foundation courses

Performance Based Reserves Estimation
Used once sufficient production data available (Material Balance) p/Z plots Decline curves Analytical calculation History matched simulation Each has its uses, but the limitations of each need to be properly understood; need to understand the physics. Reality checks Forecast should seamlessly match historical production trends Remaining field life duration must be realistic. Can deal with uncertainty.

Uncertainties make resource volume estimates ambiguous
Measured Low case ?

High case ?

• • • • •

Mapping/Gross Rock Volume Hydrocarbon fluid contact levels Net sand ratio, porosity, HC saturation Reservoir drive mechanisms Recovery techniques, Recovery Factors • Development Scheme, Infrastructure • Market availability (Gas) • Oil and gas prices, fiscal terms, etc.

All affect the level of certainty of estimated volumes

Dealing with uncertainty
“Subsurface Uncertainty” is often quoted in FDPs.

How many pens are in my briefcase?

“Uncertainty” is caused by our inability to quantify exactly the static properties and exactly predict the dynamic behavior of the subsurface

• •

We are often optimistic about our ability to predict the level of uncertainty Reserves prediction is influenced by the decisions we take during the course of a field life-cycle

Once we have “a number”, we sometimes believe it to be “correct”, then use it unwisely.

Judgments & Interpretation, dealing with uncertainty • There is no “one number” for reserves
Proved P85 P90 Low

?
P50 Mid Most Likely

downside

variety of qualifier creates confusion ! How to ensure consistency ?
High P10

1.0

Base

?
0.5

P15

mean, Expectatio n
0 0 50

?
?
100

upside

Reserves (MMm3)

Resource Volume Determination Methods over Field Life

Volumetric Estimates
(or Analogue Recovery)

Performance Based Estimates
Discovery Production TIME Abandon

Ways to deal with uncertainties: Probabilistic Deterministic multi-scenario

Deterministic - multi-scenario method
Model

Realization 1

Realization 2

Realization 3

Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

Using flow simulator to history match

Forecast & reserves

Forecast & reserves

Forecast & reserves

Hydrocarbon Initially in Place (HCIIP) Calculation
Area/depth data, Fluid Area/depth data, Fluid contacts, contacts, Gross thickness Gross thickness Structure model Structure model HC Charge model HC Charge model Reservoir model Reservoir model Seismic mapping & well data Seismic mapping & well data HC saturation HC saturation Reservoir model Reservoir model HC models HC models (HC charge history) (HC charge history) Well data Well data

HCIIP = GRV x N/G x Φ x SHC //FVF HCIIP = GRV x N/G x Φ x SHC FVF

Net-to-gross ratio, Porosity Net-to-gross ratio, Porosity Reservoir model Reservoir model (HC charge history) (HC charge history) Well data Well data

Formation volume factor Formation volume factor HC model HC model PVT data PVT data

Volumetric Probabilistic Approach
Cumulative Probability

Ultimate Recovery = GRV x Φ x N/G x Shc x (1/Bo) x RF
GRV
Probability Density Functions
Monte Carlo or Moment Processing

100 P85

Expectation: probability-weighted average

N/G Φ Shc (1/Bo) RFo

P50

P15 0 Ultimate Recovery

Volumetric Method
16 00 00 15 1400 13 00
1700 1600

1700 1 600

1200

1500 1400 1400

1 5 00

Pore space net rock volume

gas oil water

GO

C

1

0 23

–OWC 1520

O

C W

2 15

0

O

C W

20 15

Top Reservoir Map
GOC

Base Reservoir Map

OWC

OWC

Schematic Cross Section A-A'

GRV =gross rock volume

Ultimate Recovery = GRV x N/G x Φ x Shc x (1/Bo) x RF
Net/gross ratio porosity saturation shrinkage recovery factor

The Area/Depth Graph – GRV Calculation

(Range of possible) (Range of possible) GOC GOC

Reservoir unit geometry “Reservoir Units Parallel to Bottom”

Interface between upper and lower reservoir unit

(Range of possible) (Range of possible) OWC OWC
DEPTH

Gross Thickness Lower Unit

Area/depth data, Fluid contacts, Gross thickness

AREA

GRV – Combined Uncertainties

Base Case
20° 60°

Minimum
25° 70°

Maximum
15° 50°

Reservoir Properties – Sources of uncertainty Core data, sidewall samples, cuttings
Core N/G uncertainty in the order of 5-10% Core porosity uncertainty +/- 1 p.u.

Well logs – tool resolution, quality
Log N/G uncertainty in the order of 10-20% Log porosity uncertainty +/- 2 p.u.

Geological Model – applicability
Representative ness of cores and logs Reservoir model and mapping of trends

Seismic attributes – seismic resolution

Hydrocarbon saturation - Process
Use wire line log measurements.

Calibrate with core data – in doubt logs have preference

Calculate volume weighted average of Sh

Relation between Capillary Pressure and Water Saturation
air
Pnw-Pw A1 A1

water
h∆ρg
B1 B1

air water
A B

C1 C

height

C1

free water level

pressure

Capillary Pressure and Fluid Distribution
GGGGGWGGGWGGGGGW WGGGGWGGGGWGGGGG GGGWGGGWGGGWGGGG GGWGGWOGGWGGOGGG OGWGGGWOGGWGOGGG WGOGOGOGWGWGOGWG OOWGGOOWOWGGOWGO OGOGWOGOWOOOGOWO GOOWOOGOOOWOWGOO WOOOOWOOGOOWOOGO OOOOWOOOOWGOOOOW OOWOOOOWOOOOWOOO OOOOOOWOOOOOWOOO WOOOOOOOWWOOWOOW OOOWOOOOWOOOOOWO OOOOOOOWOOOOOWOW OOOOWOOOOWOOOOWO WOOWOOOOOOOWOOOW OOOWOOOOWOOOOWOO WOOOOWOOOOOWOOOO WOOOOWOOOOWOOOOO OOOWOOOOWOOOOWOO OWOOOOWOOOOWOOWO OOOWOOOWOOOWOOOW WOWOOWOOWOOWOOWO OOWOOWOOWOOWOOWO WOOWOOWOOWOOWOOW OOWOOWOOWOOWOOWO WOWOWOWOWOWOWOW OWOWOWOWOWOWOWO WWOWOWWOWWOWWOW WWWOWWWOWWWOWWW OWWWWWOWWWWWOWW WWWWOWWWWWWOWWW WOWWWOWWWWOWWWW WWWOWWWWWWWOWWW WWWWOWWWWWWWWW

region of irreducible water saturation Pc or h transition zone Swc 0 100

water saturation

Fluid Properties are used to:
To estimate hydrocarbons in place and reserves

To understand reservoir processes and predict reservoir behavior

To identify processing requirements

To identify markets

Reservoir and Surface Volumes

1 m3

Rp m3

Bg m3 Bo m3 Bw m3 RESERVOIR SURFACE

Rs m3

1 m3 1 m3

Fluid Properties Uncertainties
Compositional variation with depth or lateral variations can be complicating factors, necessitating volume weighted averaging

Uncertainty ranges can be based on range of validated samples or the use of PVT correlations

Methods for Determining Ultimate Recovery
No physics
Industry or analog correlation Performance extrapolation Decline curve ‘analysis’

Some physics
Material balance Analytical calculations

Full physics
Numerical simulation

RANGE OF PRIMARY RECOVERY FACTORS

OIL RESERVOIRS: Low natural energy Fair reservoir quality Average conditions High natural energy Good reservoir quality Typical maximum achievable

% STOIIP 5 - 20% 20 - 35% > 35%

65 - 70%

Simulation Uncertainty - Introduction
Focus on Reservoir Engineering uncertainty
• Fault Analysis • Aquifer volume and productivity index • Fluid models-contact levels • Well completions

Selection of uncertainty parameters
In our project we will investigate the effects of structural uncertainty on our simulation results: •Fault transmissibility •2 Oil Water Contacts for different initialization regions •Fetkovich Aquifer volume and productivity index •Well perforation bottom depth

Fault analysis: Fault transmissibility
Task: Based on the structural uncertainty, the positions of the horizons were varying due to changes in depth conversion. This could change the Fault transmissibility

The Fault analysis process in Petrel allows you to generate fault transmissibility multipliers, either directly or by modeling fault properties based on grid properties (e.g. fault throw) These are then used as input to the simulation or simply as a visual assessment of the sealing potential of faults. Study the effect of that structural uncertainty in combination with a varying fault transmissibility multiplier on the e.g. the water breakthrough in one or more wells

Fault transmissibility uncertainty Workflow
• Use the existing workflow “Structural Uncertainty” and create new.

• Add the Fault analysis and the define simulation case processes • Disable the volume calculation process

Uncertainty task: Fault transmissibility

• • • •

Use a Uncertainty task Add results to Folder Set Number of samples to 5 Save the workflow by pressing Apply and press Run to execute it

Fault transmissibility uncertainty: Results
After 5 runs Field Water cut

Make Fluid Model process: Contact levels
Task: Add to the existing workflow “Contact uncertainty” the execution of a simulation case where the “Make fluid model” depends on the varying water contact

The case:
• Previously we studied the effect of a fluctuating fluid contact in the Make contacts process The same uncertainty could be used to define the initialization of our simulation model in the “Make fluid model”

Make Fluid Model process: Contact levels

The oil water contact is made uncertain in the “Make Fluid model” process instead of in the “Make contacts” process

Make Fluid Model process:
Contact levels
1) Define variables: => Number of contacts to investigate 2) Define the distribution for the uncertain variables

500 picks from the above distributions would yield the following distributions for C1 and C2

Fluid model uncertainty: Results after 5 runs
The oil water contact is made uncertain in the “Make Fluid model” process Field Oil production cumulative after 5 runs

Aquifer uncertainty - Introduction
• By varying the aquifer volume and the productivity index, the Fetkovich model can encompass a range of aquifer behaviour from steady state to the ‘pot’ aquifer. The aquifer volume and productivity index are made uncertain in order to see how much modelling the aquifer improves the oil recovery

The case:
• • A reservoir with a large aquifer The Fetkovich aquifer model uses a simplified approach based on a pseudosteady-state productivity index and a material balance relationship between the aquifer pressure and the cumulative influx.

Aquifer Modelling: Fetkovich Aquifer Volume and
productivity index

The large aquifer around the reservoir is modelled by a Fetkovitch aquifer. The volume and productivity index are uncertain parameters

Aquifer Modelling Workflow: Variables
1. Define the variables under the Variables tab (i.e. their uncertainty ranges) 2. Define \$AQ_PI and \$AQ_VOL as being a list of 5 values. \$AQ_PI= list(100, 400, 600, 800, 1500, 2000) and \$AQ_VOL=list(20000000, 100000000, 150000000, 200000000, 20000000000, 200000000000)

Aquifer modelling uncertainty: Results after 5 runs

Field Oil production cumulative after 5 runs

Uncertainty by shifting Completion Intervals
Task: This short workflow shows how to perform a sensitivity analysis by shifting the perforations vertically (bottom depth).

The Well Completion design is used in a workflow, thus it is possible to assess the impact of the perforation interval on the production/injection scheme.

Uncertainty by shifting Completion Intervals

This workflow can be used for a variety of completion items and cases; the following steps only give one example of usage.

Uncertainty by shifting Completion Intervals

Field Oil production rate after 5 runs

Thank you

Sign up to vote on this title