You are on page 1of 24

Geophysical Challenges at the HP/HT Erskine Field, North Sea

Joerg Zaske, Caroline Pickles Chevron Upstream Europe Stefano Bagala Chevron Energy Technology Company

Chevron 2010

HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen

Outline
Field Background Subsurface Challenges Geophysics
Seismic

Geomechanics
1D Model Full Field Model

Reservoir Monitoring 4D Seismic Microseismics Conclusions


Chevron 2010 HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen 2

Erskine Field: Location


50% Chevron; 32% BG and 18% BP

Located Western side of the East Central Graben, CNS. 150 miles East of Aberdeen. 300 ft Water Depth.
Chevron 2005 DOC ID 3

Erskine Field Structure


Erskine FieldP.057

2 km

2STRE

- 5150

- 5050

- 520

Salt Dome

Several fault blocks, formed by late Jurassic rifting.


Main Field : Erskine & Pentland

0 - 495

- 5100

0 - 500

-4850

- 4800

19Y
- 4900

Machar Field boundary (above 12000)

-- 4750

3RE W5 7

Block 23/26b

95

- 4650

0 90 -4

- 4600

Main Field
14

-4

W2

Beta Terrace

Erskine Field P.264

GW C

70

- 4600

- 5300

-4

- 5350

Beta Terrace:
A

- 500 0

A
-5 25 0

-4

65

W3

Erskine & Pentland


- 53 - 55 00 00

-5

15

Alpha Terrace
-4

0 95

4
0 55 -4

W1

50 - 50 50 - 49

- 4900

15 - 48

- 53

50

W4 - 485 0
00

Alpha Terrace:
- 5600

Heather Turbidites

50

-4

- 47

Chevron 2005

DOC ID Top Erskine E70 Reservoir Structure Map

- 54

00

-4

95

- 55

85

00

- 500

2008 Interpretation, 2007 PSDM Re-processed Seismic

Erskine Field: Wells


Erskine FieldP.057

2 km

Exploration Wells 2STRE Northern Area 3RE Main Field

0 - 495

- 4800

2STRE 2STRE 2STRE

- 5150

- 5050

- 520

Salt Dome

19Y - Downthrown region adjacent to salt dome Appraisal Wells 4


Erskine Field P.264
- 5300

- 5100

0 - 500

-4850

19Y
- 4900

19Y 19Y

Machar Field boundary (above 12000)

-- 4750

3RE 3RE
3RE

W5

77
Block 23/26b
95 0 -4

W5 W5
- 4600

Main Field Main Field Main Field Main Field Alpha Terrace

7 8

GW C

- 4600

- 4650

W2 W2 W2 1414 14

-4

70

- 5350

14 15 -

- 500 0

0 90 -4

-5

25

-4

65

W3

W3
00 - 55 00

-4

95

1 -5

- 50

50 50 - 49

- 4900

0 55 -4

W1

W1 W1
50

- 53

50

8 88 W4

4 4

Producers W1 W2 Main Field Main Field Main Field Main Field Pentland Erskine Erskine Erskine
5

W4 W4 - 485 0 15 15 1580 -4

0
- 5600

- 53

50

-4

- 55

85

00

- 500

W3 W4 W5 -

- 47

Chevron 2005

DOC ID

- 54

00

-4

50

Alpha Terrace Heather

Seismic & Geoseismic section


A
Base Chalk B.C.U.

Top Erskine

Top Pentland

Alpha Terrace

Main Field

Chalk Group
GWC

Beta Terrace

A
Cromer Knoll Group

B.C.U. Heather Formation

Erskine Shale

GWC

Pentland Formation

Erskine Sands Pre Jurassic


Chevron 2005 DOC ID 1.5km 6

Erskine Some Numbers


First HPHT field developed in CNS
160

Erskine Historical Field Performance


Field Gas Rate Field Oil Rate Field Water Rate 40,000 Pipeline failure W2 pluback to Erskine W5 shut due to downhole scale buildup Export pipeline to Lomond blockage due to stuck pig (outage from 30/06/07, Field startup on 18/08/08) W1 back online 01/05/09 aftertophole scale removal W5 online 26/06/09 after perforating E50/E60 dry zones

Discovered 1987; Field Producing since 1998 HPHT Gas Condensate; Reservoir Temp ~175 DegC; Initial Pressure: ~14070 PSI; Today: 2760-6380 PSI Max. Drop: ~11000 PSI Field off plateau since approx. 2004
Chevron 2005 DOC ID

150 140 130 120 110


Gas Rate (mmscf/d)

35,000

30,000

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

Oil or Water Rate (bbls/d)

Erskine Field

Subsurface Challenges
Significant stress redistribution
Reservoir Overburden

Well integrity problems


Liner deformation Sanding Problems Scaling Issues

Drilling into depleted reservoirs


Very difficult & very expensive (>$100MM)
Chevron 2005 DOC ID 8

Liner Deformations
Can we predict failures ?
Liner Deformation vs Depletion
110 100

Lateral Deformation (mm)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

2010 Liner Failure Strain Limit


Data Points

Uncertainty

Nov04

Oct 04

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Reservoir Depletion (bar)

2004

2005

2006

20x magnification of lateral displacements Here at ~15600.


Chevron 2010 HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen

Goal: Predict life of existing wells & plan for replacement wells Feed data into DA model
9

Where would we drill the next well ?


How can Geophysics help ? 3D Seismic: Provide correct structure 4D Seismic: Identify unswept reserves
W2

W5

Geomechanics: Avoid areas with high drilling risk, predict well failures Microseismic: Avoid drilling close to faults with subseismic resolution
DOC ID

14

W3 8 4 W1 Proposed Location W4 Existing Wellbore

Chevron 2005

10

Seismic Reprocessing
PSDM Migration Velocities
Machar Salt Body

Base Chalk

2km Thickness

Cromer Knoll Wedge


BCU
Coal Surface
Vint [m/s]

Anisotropic PSDM Reprocessing Better velocity control away from wells


Improved imaging, better event continuity and fault definition at relatively low costs.

Chevron 2010

HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen

11

Seismic Reprocessing Results


1989 vs 2007 comparisons
S
Erskine Main field

Two way time (ms)

BEFOR E
S
Erskine Main field

Clearly improved imaging Better interpretation product Better event continuity, fault definition & signal/noise ratio. Cromer Knoll wedges shown in green. Excellent synthetic ties
12

Two way time (ms)

Erskine Main Field

AFTE R
Chevron 2010

2007 Anisotropic PSDM volume

HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen

Fault Interpretation
EDGE Extraction
Pentland horizon)

Main Field

Interpretation Good imaging of main field faults. Poorer fault definition near the salt dome due to high degree of distortion of reflectors Suitable as input into Reservoir modelling

Alpha Terrace

Chevron 2010

HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen

13

1D Geomechanical model: Drilling


Erskine Mud weight window. 30 deg incl

Studied sensitivity of mud weight window as a function of well inclination Already at 30Deg inclination mud weight window closes
Min. Horiz. Stress Pore Pressure

Collapse

Fracture

Collapse Gradient in undepleted shale is higher than Fracture Gradient in reservoir Highly challenging drilling

Depleted Sands Undepleted Shales

Chevron 2010

HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen

14

1D Geomechanical model: Drilling


Erskine Mud weight window. 30 deg incl Pentland Mud weight window. 30 deg incl

Even worse in Pentland Reservoir. Mud weight window closes in correspondence of several intra reservoir shales.
Min. Horiz. Stress Pore Pressure

Chevron 2010

HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen

Collapse

Fracture

15

1D Geomechanical Model: Sand Failure Analysis

Safe Sanding

Safe Sanding

Chevron 2010

HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen

16

Full Field Geomechanical Model


1. Build full field model to investigate production induced stresses in overburden 2. Overburden grid starts top reservoir & extends up top Chalk. 3. Assume homogeneous, uniform elastic material.
Overburden Model

4. Use different simulation scenarios to calculate reservoir compaction (see below) 5. Reservoir compaction used to calculate overburden stresses - Nucleus-of-strain equations (Geertsma)

2005

2018 & No New Well

2018 & New Well

Input Data: Total vertical compaction based on reservoir simulation scenarios.


Chevron 2010 HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen

Full Field Geomechanics


Even in 2005 there are large regions predicted to slip (CFF > 0) Slip-prone region expands due to continued reservoir depletion (e.g. 2018) Additional well production worsens slip Highest risk: close to major faults; Consistent with liner deformations

Overburden Coulomb Failure Function


2005
Alpha terrace

Main field Beta Terrace

2018 / No New Well

Extract CFF
(Above Reservoir)
New well Target

2018 / With New Well

-100
Chevron 2010 HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen

CFF

+100
18

Reservoir Monitoring
4D Seismic
Timelapse 3D Surveys Observe amplitude and travel time changes Draw conclusions from changes

Microseismic
Deploy Geophones in Boreholes or Ocean-Bottom Record passive Seismicity High Potential at HPHT due to Production related stress re-distribution
Chevron 2010 HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen 19

4D Seismic Monitoring (It works)


Erskine 1989 vs Machar4D 2001
4D seismic response detected (after 3yrs production) 4D Time Effect observed Shows connection of Beta Terrace Would need new 4D survey to detect later production effects Value considered small due to late stage in field life

Beta Terrace
Time Shifts [ms]

clearly Connected to Main Field

Main Field
Triassic Surface

Chevron 2010

HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen

20

Microseismic Monitoring
Conducted Feasibility Study Motivation
Identify 3D distribution of stress changes Detect re-activation of major faults (seismic resolution) Detect compaction and movements (sub-seismic faults)

Impact
Constrain Geomechanical model Help predict well failures Reduce drilling risks Optimize well placement
Chevron 2010 HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen 21

Microseismic Monitoring
Feasibility Study
Workflow
Modelled microseismic source events Used different layouts of Geophones Ocean-Bottom Nodes & Borehole deployed sensors Investigated detectability of events

Results:
Seismic signal very likely detectable. Significantly better sensitivity for borehole deployed sensors Deployment in production wells would be very challenging.

Comments
Value too low at stage of field life

Focal Mechanism based on Geomechanical Modelling


Chevron 2010 HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen

May have been very useful early in field life, i.e. deployment in appraisal or exploration wells

Conclusions
Geophysical & Geomechanical work lead to improved understanding of subsurface 3D Reprocessing improved seismic data quality significantly. Geomechanical modelling improved understanding of stress regime and highlights zones of increased risk for well failure. Can be used to mitigate risk and optimize well placement. Reservoir monitoring techniques such as Seismic 4D and Microseismic monitoring applicable to Erskine and probably other HP/HT fields Maturity of field makes it very difficult to justify any new seismic or other surveillance methods Recommend to consider Seismic 4D & Microseismic Monitoring techniques early on in field life for other HPHT fields.
Chevron 2010 HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen 23

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank our management and coventurers BG and BP for permission to present this work.

Chevron 2010

HPHT Wells Summit 2010, Nov 24, 2010, Aberdeen

24