Improved Recovery Demonstration Improved Recovery Demonstration for Williston Basin Carbonatesfor Williston Basin Carbonates
DE-FC22-93BC14984DE-FC22-93BC14984
Luff Exploration CompanyLuff Exploration Company
Mark Sippel, Consulting EngineerMark Sippel, Consulting Engineer
Location of Project Demonstration SitesLocation of Project Demonstration Sitesin the Williston Basinin the Williston Basin
Project ObjectivesProject Objectives
• Better Reservoir Characterization– Regional Studies– 3D Seismic
• Better Completion Efficiency– Jetting Lance Perforating– Amoco Sidewinder Short Radius Drilling– Horizontal Mudmotor Drilling
Statement of ProblemsStatement of ProblemsReservoir CharacterizationReservoir Characterization
• High Drilling Cost• 2D Seismic Used for Structure Delineation• Small Structures, Less Than 1 sq. mile• Optimal Reservoir Quality Frequently not
Found at Crestal Position• Reservoir Characterization from Seismic
Attributes in Infancy• 3D Seismic Had not Been Used Locally
Statement of ProblemsStatement of ProblemsCompletion EfficiencyCompletion Efficiency
• Perforation and Acid - Standard Completion• Hydraulic Fracturing Communicates with
Water Zones• Low Primary Recovery• Low Water Injectivity for Waterflooding
Type Log forRed River Formation
0 100 200
Gam ma
-800
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
Rel
ativ
e D
epth
(fe
et)
-100102030
Porosity %
Stony Mountain Shale
Winnipeg Shale
Winnipeg Sandstone
A Zone Porosity Member
B Zone Porosity Member
C Zone Porosity Member
D Zone Porosity Member
Upper Red River
Lower Red River
Red River Formation
Paleozoic Ordovician
The Upper Red RiverConsists of Four Episodesin Shallow Shelf CarbonateSetting
Main Reservoirs are:Red River B ZoneRed River D Zone
Original Drilling Strategy (1970’s)One Well for Each Small-Structure Feature
Seismic TimeSeconds
0.5 mile
0.8 km
ForwardSeismic Modeling
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
Normal ReversePolarityTimeSeconds
P1P2
T1
T2
Duperow
Interlake
Red RiverBaseD zoneWinnipeg
MissionCanyon
Upper Red RiverReservoirs Are“Seismic Thin Beds”
Reservoir InformationContained in TwoPeak-Trough Pairs
Each EventConsistently Labeledin Every Seismic Survey
Synthetic Seismogram
0.0
1.0
Tim
e -
Se
con
ds
Interlake
Red River
Winnipeg
P1
T1
P2
Low Porosity High Porosity
T2
Weak AmplitudeResponse
Strong AmplitudeReponse
Reservoir Variationin Red River D Zone
0 30 60 90GAMMA
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
-15-55152535POROSITY % 0 30 60 90
GAMM A
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
-15-55152535POROSITY %0 30 60 90
GAM M A
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
-15-55152535POROSITY %
Rel
ativ
e D
epth
(F
eet)
0 30 60 90GAMM A
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
-15-55152535POROSITY %
0 30 60 90GAM M A
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
-15-55152535POROSITY %
Weak AmplitudeResponse
Low Porosity
Strong AmplitudeReponse
High Porosity
Red RiverD Zone
C Anhydrite
Example of Red RiverExample of Red RiverSmall-Structure FeatureSmall-Structure Feature
20 21
2829
1278000 1279000 1280000 1281000 1282000 1283000 1284000 1285000
122000
123000
124000
125000
126000
127000
128000
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
AmplitudeResponse
HighPorosity
LowPorosity
Red River TimeStructure
1 msec = 5 ft
Demonstration Site 1Demonstration Site 1Small-Structure Red River Feature Small-Structure Red River Feature
21 22
2728
1253000 1254000 1255000 1256000 1257000 1258000 1259000 1260000154000
155000
156000
157000
158000
159000
160000
161000
162000
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
AmplitudeResponse
OriginalWell
HighPorosity
LowPorosity
Red River TimeStructure
1 msec = 5 ft
Production Rate - Time GraphProduction Rate - Time GraphDemonstration Site 1Demonstration Site 1
1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005C alendar Y ears
100
1000
10000
200
300
400
500
600700800900
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000700080009000
Bar
rels
Oil
Per
Mon
th
Depletion of Crestal Well
NewDrilling
Cumulative Production - Time GraphCumulative Production - Time GraphDemonstration Site 1Demonstration Site 1
1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005C alendar Y ears
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Bum
ulat
ive
Oil
(Mbb
l)
Demonstration Site 2Demonstration Site 2Small-Structure Red River FeatureSmall-Structure Red River Feature
56
7 81269000 1270000 1271000 1272000 1273000 1274000 1275000 1276000 1277000 1278000 1279000 1280000
138000
139000
140000
141000
142000
143000
144000
145000
146000
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
AmplitudeResponse
OriginalWell
HighPorosity
LowPorosity
Production Rate - Time GraphProduction Rate - Time GraphDemonstration Site 2Demonstration Site 2
1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005C alendar Y ears
100
1000
10000
100000
Bar
rels
Oil
Per
Mon
th
Depletion of Crestal Well
NewDrilling
Cumulative Production - Time GraphCumulative Production - Time GraphDemonstration Site 2Demonstration Site 2
1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005C alendar Y ears
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800C
umul
ativ
e O
il (M
bbl)
Completion EfficiencyCompletion EfficiencyHorizontal Wells for WaterfloodingHorizontal Wells for Waterflooding
• Low Water Injectivity in Vertical Low Water Injectivity in Vertical Completions at 100 - 150 bwpdCompletions at 100 - 150 bwpd
• Local Industry Prejudice of Early Water Local Industry Prejudice of Early Water BreakthroughBreakthrough
• Successful Waterflooding Would Require Successful Waterflooding Would Require Downspacing to 80 acre/wellDownspacing to 80 acre/well
• Vertical Well Project - Not EconomicalVertical Well Project - Not Economical
Red River B Zone Type LogRed River B Zone Type Log
TopRed River
B Zone
Gamma Ray Neutron-Density Porosity
0 100 30% 0%
Jetting Lance Jetting Lance Completion Completion TechnologyTechnology
UnsuccessfulUnsuccessful
Amoco Amoco Sidewinder Sidewinder Completion Completion TechnologyTechnology
UnsuccessfulUnsuccessful
North BuffaloNorth BuffaloRed River UnitRed River UnitDemonstration Demonstration
Site 3Site 3
161718
19 20 21
282930
1188000 1189000 1190000 1191000 1192000 1193000 1194000 1195000 1196000 1197000 1198000 1199000 1200000 1201000 1202000
77000
78000
79000
80000
81000
82000
83000
84000
85000
86000
87000
88000
89000
90000
91000
92000
93000
8750
8760
8770
8780
8790
8800
8810
8820
8830
8840
8850
8860
8870
8880
8890
8900
8910
DepthFeet
PilotHorizontal
WaterInjection
Well
PilotHorizontal
WaterInjection
Well
Production Rate - Time GraphProduction Rate - Time GraphDemonstration Site 3Demonstration Site 3
1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004C alendar Years
100
1000
10000
100000
Bar
rels
Oil
per
Mon
th
Cumulative Production - Time GraphCumulative Production - Time GraphDemonstration Site 3Demonstration Site 3
1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004C alendar Years
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200C
umul
ativ
e O
il (M
bbl)
Horizontal Wells for WaterfloodingHorizontal Wells for Waterflooding
• High Water Injectivity at 500 - 1000 bwpdHigh Water Injectivity at 500 - 1000 bwpd
• Early Water Breakthrough Has Not Early Water Breakthrough Has Not OccurredOccurred
• Re-entry Laterals Were Drilled from Re-entry Laterals Were Drilled from Vertical WellsVertical Wells
• Waterflood Reserves Will Equal or Exceed Waterflood Reserves Will Equal or Exceed Primary RecoveryPrimary Recovery
Production from Three Demonstration SitesProduction from Three Demonstration Sites
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000C um ulative O Il (M bbl)
1000
10000
100000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
700080009000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
700008000090000
Ba
rre
ls p
er
mo
nth
Project Start
Project ConclusionCurrent Trend
Prior Trend
Conclusions - Reservoir CharacterizationConclusions - Reservoir Characterization
• Reservoir Characterization from 3D Seismic is Very Rewarding
• Forward Seismic Modeling is a Must• Amplitude Attributes Were Identified for
Prediction of Porosity Development in Red River D Zone
• Development of Depositional Models• Understanding Importance of Depositional
Setting and Relation to Reservoir Quality (porosity and permeability)
Conclusions - Horizontal CompletionsConclusions - Horizontal Completions
• Horizontal Completions Yield High Water Injection Rate and Efficient Waterflood Sweep
• Horizontal Injection Rate Five Times that of Vertical Completion (750 vs 150 bwpd at maximum pressure)
Post-Project ContuationPost-Project ContuationReservoir CharacterizationReservoir Characterization
• Additional Forward Seismic Modeling and Seismic Attribute Study
• Better Prediction of Depositional Setting for Each of Upper Red River Zones
• Further Integration of Geologic and Production Attributes with Seismic Attributes
Post-Project ContinuationPost-Project ContinuationWaterflooding the Red River Fm.Waterflooding the Red River Fm.
• Project Demonstration Waterflood Site was Unitized
• Re-entry Laterals Drilled from Four Wells• Peak Waterflood Rate and Reserves Equal to
Primary• Two Additional Red River Waterflood Units
Formed Since Project Conclusion• Plan Five Additional Units in 2003 and 2004
Post-Project ContinuationPost-Project ContinuationCompletion EfficiencyCompletion Efficiency
• Typical Horizontal Re-entry Completion Yields Three-Fold Increase in Productivity
• Horizontal Drilling from Plugged and Uneconomic Vertical Wells Yielded Rates Over 150 bopd
• Operator is Agressively Re-Developing Fields That Were Initially Developed in the 1970’s