Sei sulla pagina 1di 40

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 ?

• Mapping/Gross Rock Volume


High case ? • 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

Low ?
P90
downside
variety of qualifier
Mid creates confusion !
P50 Most
1.0
Likely How to ensure
Base
consistency ?
?
P15 High
0.5
P10
mean,
Expectatio
? upside
n ?
0
0 50 100
Reserves (MMm3)
Resource Volume Determination Methods over Field Life

Volumetric Estimates
(or Analogue Recovery)
Performance Based
Estimates
Discovery Production Abandon
TIME

Ways to deal with


uncertainties:
Probabilistic
Deterministic multi-scenario
Deterministic - multi-scenario method
Model

Realization 1 Realization 2 Realization 3

Using flow simulator to


Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
history match

Forecast & Forecast & Forecast &


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

HCIIP
HCIIP==GRV N/GxxΦ
GRVxxN/G Φ xxSSHC / FVF
HC / FVF

Net-to-gross
Net-to-gross ratio,
ratio, Porosity
Porosity Formation
Formation volume
volume factor
factor
Reservoir
Reservoir model
model HC
HC model
model
(HC
(HC charge
charge history)
history) PVT
PVT data
data
Well
Well data
data
Volumetric Probabilistic Approach
Ultimate Recovery = 100
GRV x Φ x N/G x Shc x (1/Bo) x RF Expectation:

Cumulative Probability
P85 probability-weighted
Monte Carlo or
average
GRV Moment Processing

P50
Probability Density Functions

N/G

P15
Φ
0
Shc Ultimate
Recovery
(1/Bo)

RFo
Volumetric Method
16 00
1700
15
1400
00 1700
1 600
gas
13 00
1600
1 5 00
Pore
1500
1400 oil
1200 1400 space
0 water

net rock volume


2
0 15
1 23 C
C W
O
GO –OWC 1520

20
15
C
W
O

Top Reservoir Map Base Reservoir Map


GOC

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
(Rangeof
ofpossible)
possible) Reservoir unit geometry “Reservoir Units Parallel to Bottom”
GOC
GOC Interface between upper
and lower reservoir unit

(Range
(Rangeof
ofpossible)
possible) Gross Thickness Lower Unit
OWC
OWC DEPTH

 Area/depth data,
Fluid contacts, Gross AREA
thickness
GRV – Combined Uncertainties

Base Case
20°
60°

Minimum Maximum
15°
25° 50°
70°
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

height
air C1 C1 free water
A B C level
water

pressure
Capillary Pressure and Fluid Distribution
GGGGGWGGGWGGGGGW
WGGGGWGGGGWGGGGG
GGGWGGGWGGGWGGGG
GGWGGWOGGWGGOGGG
OGWGGGWOGGWGOGGG
WGOGOGOGWGWGOGWG
OOWGGOOWOWGGOWGO
OGOGWOGOWOOOGOWO
GOOWOOGOOOWOWGOO
WOOOOWOOGOOWOOGO
region of OOOOWOOOOWGOOOOW
OOWOOOOWOOOOWOOO
irreducible OOOOOOWOOOOOWOOO
WOOOOOOOWWOOWOOW
water saturation OOOWOOOOWOOOOOWO
OOOOOOOWOOOOOWOW
OOOOWOOOOWOOOOWO
Pc WOOWOOOOOOOWOOOW
OOOWOOOOWOOOOWOO
or WOOOOWOOOOOWOOOO
WOOOOWOOOOWOOOOO
h OOOWOOOOWOOOOWOO
OWOOOOWOOOOWOOWO
OOOWOOOWOOOWOOOW
WOWOOWOOWOOWOOWO
OOWOOWOOWOOWOOWO
WOOWOOWOOWOOWOOW
transition zone OOWOOWOOWOOWOOWO
WOWOWOWOWOWOWOW
OWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
Swc WWOWOWWOWWOWWOW
WWWOWWWOWWWOWWW
OWWWWWOWWWWWOWW
WWWWOWWWWWWOWWW
WOWWWOWWWWOWWWW
0 100 WWWOWWWWWWWOWWW
water saturation WWWWOWWWWWWWWW
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

Rs m3
Bg m3

Bo m3
1 m3
Bw m3 1 m3
RESERVOIR SURFACE
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: % STOIIP


Low natural energy
5 - 20%
Fair reservoir quality

Average conditions 20 - 35%

High natural energy


> 35%
Good reservoir quality

Typical maximum
65 - 70%
achievable
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

Task:
• 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