Antelope Field Reservoir Analysis

Petroleum Geostatistics Project

Students Name: Alan Alexeyev, Alex Monk, Hrishikesh Joshi

Advisors: Dr. Vamegh Rasouli and Dr. Minou Rabiei

Date: December 8th, 2016

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 1

 Presentation Outline
Literature Discussion Reservoir Characterization
Field Overview Conclusion
Project Workflow Future Work
Well Selection
Classical Statistics
Semivariogram
Covariance
Data Interpretation

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 2

 Antelope Field Literature Discussion
One of the 1st discovered fields in ND
1953 year of discovery
Thickness 37-45 ft in most places
Abnormal pressure
0.73 psi/ft
Low porosity (~3-6%)
Along southeast-trending line, there is a asymmetrical anticline
Area with a steepest dip
Best producing wells are in the northwest
The dip is responsible for tensorial fractures that help high production

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 3

 Field Overview

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 4

 Field Overview

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 5

 Project Workflow

Reservoir
Well Selection Conclusion
Characterization

Classical Data
Future Work
Statistics Interpretation

Semivariogram Covariance

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 6

 Well Selection
18 Wells
Utilized ND DMR Oil and Gas Website
Located wells with logs through the Middle Bakken
Information based on Compensated Neutron Density (CND) log
Log was digitized and data was imported into a spreadsheet
Performed analysis on both the entire Middle Bakken section and the
top 30 feet
Top 30 feet was utilized to normalize different thicknesses
Provides more robust view of potential structures

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 7

 Classical Statistics
Well 14036 Descriptive
Statistics
Analyzed top 30 feet of Middle Bakken Standard Error 0.00203
Done for each well Median 0.058041
0.5 ft intervals Mode #N/A
Standard Deviation 0.015721
4 Different Analysis Methods Sample Variance 0.000247
Descriptive Statistics (Mean, Mode, etc.) Kurtosis 3.866079
Moving Average Skewness 1.182078
Histogram Range 0.091219
Minimum 0.032372
Rank and Percentile Maximum 0.123591
Sum 3.455943
Count 60
Confidence Level(95.0%) 0.003411

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 8

 Classical Statistics
14036 Histogram 14036 Moving Average
16 100.00% 0.09

90.00%
14 0.08
80.00%
12 0.07
70.00%
10 0.06
60.00%
Frequency

8 50.00% 0.05

Porosity
40.00% Frequency Actual
6 0.04
30.00% Cumulative % Forecast
4 0.03
20.00%
2
10.00% 0.02

0 0.00%
0.01

0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58
Bin Data Point

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 9

 Semivariogram
As the lag distance increases, the 14036 SEMIVARIOGRAM VS LAG
semivariogram shows typical DISTANCE
trend representing increasing 0.0004

0.00035
variation 0.0003

We observed sinusoidal behavior

SEMIVARIOGRAM
0.00025

on most of our wells, 0.0002

representing different flow units 0.00015

with porosity variation 0.0001

() 0.00005
1
()
= [( ) ( + )]2 0
2() =1
0 3 6 9 12 15
LAG DISTANCE (FT)

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 10

 Covariance
Covariance is ideally the mirror 14036 COVARIANCE VS LAG
image of variogram conceptually DISTANCE
0.0004
Again, we can see decreasing co-
variance with increasing lag 0.0003

distance 0.0002

COVARIANCE
Sinusoidal effect represents 0.0001

different flow units with 0

increasing depth 0 3 6 9 12 15

-0.0001
1
= ()
=1 ( ) + 2
()
-0.0002
LAG DISTANCE

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 11

 Semivariogram and Covariance
14036 SEMIVARIOGRAM AND COVARIENCE
VS LAG DISTANCE
Semivariogram Covariance
0.0004

0.0003
SEMIVARIOGRAM

0.0002
COVARIANCE

0.0001

0
0 3 6 9 12 15
-0.0001

-0.0002
LAG DISTANCE

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 12

 Data Interpretation
9 different wells showed sinusoidal behavior on semivariograms
Potentially different layers within the Middle Bakken
Also noticed that depths of the formation continued to increase
Along the Northwest to Southeast
Potential dip in the formation
Thickness of the formation varied across the field sample size
Potential anticline or pinchout

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 13

 Reservoir Characterization - Kriging
Figure on the right shows all of LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE OF WELLS
the wells 48.1

Plotted Latitude vs. Longitude 48.05

For this project only data from 48

these wells is available

LATITUDE
Based on well logs 47.95

No information from between 47.9

well locations
47.85

47.8
-102.85 -102.8 -102.75 -102.7 -102.65 -102.6
LONGITUDE

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 14

 Reservoir Characterization - Kriging
Figure on the right shows more
thorough map of porosity
This map was created through
Kriging
Utilized ordinary kriging method
Kriging interpolates the data
between well locations
Enables better reservoir mapping
Still only an estimate

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 15

 Reservoir Characterization - Kriging
Krigging was done for porosity in
five different sections
Average of entire field
Average of top quartile depth
Average of bottom quartile depth
Average of middle two quartile
depths

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 16

 Reservoir Characterization - Kriging

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 17

 Reservoir Characterization - Kriging

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 18

 Reservoir Characterization Anisotropy Ellipse
When anisotropy ellipse is placed on top of
the field we can see in what direction the
changes of the property occur the most
Northwest direction

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 19

 Reservoir Characterization Anisotropy Ellipse
Semivariogram in different direction showed the
most changes occur in northwest direction and
least occur in northeast

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 20

 Reservoir Characterization Anisotropy Ellipse

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 21

 Reservoir Characterization Reservoir Layers
Sinusoidal and erratic behavior on variogram indicated spatial
difference in porosity data for 9 of the 18 wells
Based on top 30 feet of Middle Bakken section
After careful analysis, it was also revealed that this trended in the
Northwest to Southeast direction
Appears as a spike in squared porosity difference vs depth
Spike appears at multiple lag distances at earlier depths
Indicates consistent difference between potential layers
Several graphs shown on following slides

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 22

 Reservoir Characterization Reservoir Layers
Semivariogram and covariance 12348 SEMIVARIOGRAM AND
plot shown for Well 12348 COVARIANCE VS LAG DISTANCE
Peaks in semivariogram found at Semivariogram Covariance
0.0005
2.5 ft and 8.5 ft lag distances
12 ft lag distance shows trough 0.0004

but still a high value for 0.0003

SEMIVARIOGRAM
COVARIANCE
semivariogram 0.0002

0.0001

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-0.0001

-0.0002
LAG DISTANCE

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 23

 Reservoir Characterization Reservoir Layers

12348 2.5 ft Lag Distance 12348 8.5 ft Lag Distance 12348 12 ft Lag Distance
Squared Porosity Difference Squared Porosity Difference Squared Porosity Difference
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
10490 10490 10490

10495 10495 10495

10500 10500 10500

Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)
10505 10505 10505

10510 10510 10510

10515 10515 10515

10520 10520 10520

10525 10525 10525

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 24

 Reservoir Characterization Reservoir Layers
Based on the previous graphs:
Different layer appears at 10,540 ft depth within Well 12348
Also appears that a layer similar to the newly discovered layer may occur at a
depth of 10,506 ft
This behavior was observed for the other 8 wells
Depth and thickness of the layers varies
Both layer changes appear in 3 of the other wells
Additional third layer change appears in 3 other wells
Final two wells only exhibit one layer change

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 25

 Profiles

NW to SE Thickness Profile N to S Thickness Profile

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 26

 Middle Bakken Top Depth Map

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 27

 Middle Bakken Top Depth and Thickness

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 28

 Middle Bakken Top Depth and Porosity

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 29

 Conclusions
Both literature and calculated structures align well
The dip and anticline explain differences in depth distribution
Seen in both literature and 3D model
Potential for multiple layers and flow units within the Middle Bakken
Found within calculations but not within literature
Most changes appear within the Northwest to Southeast trend
Seen within multiple porosity distribution maps
Reservoir appears heterogeneous across the area of focus

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 30

 Future Work
Expansion to include total depth of all wells
Include more wells
Correlate depths of layers
Tie-in other well log types to determine more reservoir characteristics
Further develop reservoir model
Tie-in reservoir model with production information
Expand to other fields to look for analogies

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 31

 Thank You
Question and Answer

Geostatistics Project Dec. 8th, 2016 32