Carbonate Reservoir Characterization: Case Study - Berg - Hughes ...
Carbonate Reservoir Characterization: Case Study - Berg - Hughes ...
Carbonate Reservoir Characterization: Case Study - Berg - Hughes ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Carbonate</strong> <strong>Reservoir</strong><br />
<strong>Characterization</strong>: <strong>Case</strong> <strong>Study</strong> of<br />
Womack Hill Field<br />
S Southwest th t Alabama Al b<br />
Ernest Mancini<br />
2007
Location Map
Discovered in 1970<br />
Water Flood in 1975<br />
37 W Wells ll D Drilled ill d<br />
Field Field History<br />
History<br />
31.7 Million Barrels of Oil Produced (2006)
Womack Hill Production
Field Field Characteristics<br />
Characteristics<br />
Trap: Faulted, Faulted Salt Anticline<br />
<strong>Reservoir</strong>: Smackover Multiple Stacked<br />
Shoals<br />
Source: Smackover Basinal Lime<br />
M Mudstone d t<br />
Seal: Haynesville: Anhydrite
Sequence Stratigraphy
Smackover Cycles<br />
Cycle ‘A’ = Cycle 3, Cycle ‘B’ = Cycle 2, Cycle ‘C’ = Cycle 1
Well Log Patterns<br />
1667
Womack Hill<br />
Fi Field ld M Map
1678-WI<br />
Cross Section<br />
Possible<br />
SW-NEtrending<br />
normal<br />
fault
Cycle Facies
Dolotimized Zones,<br />
14 – 5#2Well 5 #2 Well
Dolotimized Zones,<br />
15 – 1 1#1Well 1 # 1 Well
18 – 12 Well Core
9 – 14 Well Core
9 – 14 Well Core<br />
(continued)
13 – 25 Well Core
13 – 5 Well Core
13 – 5 Well Core<br />
(continued)
13 – 6 Well Core
13 – 6 Well Core<br />
(continued)
14 – 5 # 2 Well Core
Buckner Anhydrite Member
Upper Smackover<br />
- G Grainstone<br />
i t
Cross Cross-bedded bedded Upper Smackover Grainstone
Ooid Grainstone
Upper Smackover – Packstone / Wackestone
Upper Smackover – Mudstone / Wackestone
Middle Smackover - Mudstone
Lower Smackover – Brown Dense
Isotope Geochemistry
Interparticle Porosity<br />
X40
Grain Moldic Porosity<br />
X40
Intercrystalline Dolomite Porosity<br />
X100
Mixed Moldic & Intercrystalline Porosity<br />
X100
Vuggy Porosity<br />
X100
Type I Dolomite, 13 – 25 Well
Type I Dolomite, 18 – 12 Well
Exposure Surface<br />
Exposure Surface in Core
Exposure Surface in Thin Section
Type 2 and 3 Dolomite, 14 -5 5 Well
Type 2 and 3 Dolomite, 14 -5 5 Well
Type 3 Dolomite, 9 – 14 Well
Grain Deformation, 13 – 6 Well
<strong>Reservoir</strong> <strong>Reservoir</strong> <strong>Characterization</strong><br />
<strong>Characterization</strong><br />
Stacked Stacked Porosity Cycles (A (A, B B, C)<br />
Cycles Consist of Lime Mudstone to<br />
Grainstone<br />
Depositional Model; Shoal Complex<br />
Porosity Enhancement; Dissolution &<br />
Dolomitization<br />
Pore Systems; Grain Moldic &<br />
Intercrystalline<br />
y
Subsurface Mapping
Womack Hill<br />
Fi Field ld M Map
Seismic Line
Structure Map, Top of Smackover
Structure Map, Top of Buckner
Smackover Isopach Map
Upper Smackover Isopach Map
Cycle A Isopach Map
Cycle B Isopach Map
Cycle C Isopach Map
<strong>Reservoir</strong> Engineering Engineering, Production<br />
and Petrophysics
Production by Well
Production History
Cumulative Production<br />
Production
Vertical vs. Horizontal Permeability, 1591 Well
Vertical vs. Horizontal Permeability, 4575 – B Well
Porosity Comparison,<br />
1591 1591 Well
Porosity Comparison,<br />
4575 – B BWell B Well
Permeability Comparison,<br />
1591 1591 Well
Permeability Comparison,<br />
4575 - B BWell B Well
Permeability Measurements
Porosity Measurements
Comparison of Porosity
Comparison of Porosity and Permeability
Porosity and Permeability Plot for <strong>Reservoir</strong> Cycles<br />
Cycle ‘A’, Well 1678
Porosity and Permeability Plot for <strong>Reservoir</strong> Cycles<br />
Cycle ‘B’, Well 1720
Porosity and Permeability Plot for <strong>Reservoir</strong> Cycles<br />
Cycle ‘C’, Well 1591
Porosity and Permeability Plot for <strong>Reservoir</strong> Cycles<br />
Below Cycle ‘C’, Well 4575B
Porosity vs. Median Pore Throat Aperture
Porosity vs. Median Pore Throat Aperture
Pore Types
Pore Type Associations
Decline Decline-type type curve analysis for an<br />
unfractured unfractured well model for well 1639<br />
After Doublet and Blasingame (1995)
Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) analysis<br />
(oil flow rate/pressure drop vs vs.cumulative cumulative oil<br />
production) for well 1639
Dimensionless multiwell performance index (DMPI)<br />
computed computed for wells in the Womack Hill field<br />
Total oil and water rates<br />
Total oil rates
Dimensionless production rate rate-time time–type type curve,<br />
Womack Hill field<br />
(A) Exponential rate decline model compared to production data from the unitized western area.<br />
(B) H Harmonic i rate t d decline li model d l compared d t to production d ti data d t from f the th unitized iti d western t area.<br />
(C) Exponential rate decline model compared to production data from the eastern area.<br />
(D) Harmonic rate decline model compared to production from the eastern area.
Summary plots (no rate history) from the field field-testing testing<br />
sequence q of wells, , Womack Hill field<br />
Well 1655 Well 1678<br />
Well 1804 Well 4575B
Correlation of estimated ultimate recovery<br />
(EUR) ( ) vs. effective p permeability y ( (k) ) for wells in<br />
Womack Hill field
3D Modeling
3 – D Geologic Model
Cross – Section of Porosity Variability<br />
f for Upper U Smackover S k <strong>Reservoir</strong>s R i<br />
Possible<br />
SW-NEtrending<br />
normal<br />
fault
<strong>Reservoir</strong> Simulation<br />
Actual Field Watercut vs Simulated Watercut
<strong>Reservoir</strong> Simulation<br />
Oil S Saturation t ti on T Top of f Cycle C l ‘A’ I Interval<br />
t l
Simulated Production Profiles<br />
<strong>Reservoir</strong> Simulation<br />
Well 001<br />
Well 002
Prospective Drilling Targets
Change language