1887

Abstract

Summary

Before implementing an HNP pilot in the field, reservoir studies are usually conducted, and compositional numerical simulations performed, to assess the impact of uncertainty on HNP design parameters. In the previous work conducted by the authors, the impact of parametric uncertainty on designing a single-well HNP was demonstrated using single-porosity models. However, recent studies show that a limited region of shattered rock is likely to be created during the hydraulic fracturing process. This region is closely represented by regional dual-porosity dual-permeability (DP-DK) models. In this study, we expand on the early work and address the impact of model uncertainty on designing an optimal HNP for a Duvernay shale example. In addition, a multi-well HNP design is exemplified to assess the impact of fracture communication during the cyclic gas injection scenarios. A unified framework is required to conduct Bayesian history matching and perform HNP optimizations using the Markov chain Monte Carlo process. This task is achieved by implementing new adaptive sampling designs and employing some surrogate modelling techniques (random forests and Gaussian processes) to obtain the distributions for probabilistic HNP forecasts.

The results show that for an equivalent calibrated DP-DK model, the efficiency of HNP, for both lean and rich gas injection scenarios, can be substantially higher than that predicted with the caliberated single-porosity model. In particular, lean gas injection, predicted to have a low efficiency using single porosity models, is predicted to result in substantial incremental recovery in DP-DK models. The history matching and optimization results show that DK-DP models yield the highest recoveries during early cycles and a reduced efficiency for later cycles, whereas with single porosity models, the efficiency is fairly constant across cycles. The high efficiency of the DK-DP models is related to an enhanced swelling and mixing process due to pervasive communication (contact area) between the fracture network and the matrix. Moreover, the compositional simulations demonstrate that for multi-well HNP scenarios, communication through hydraulic fractures is far more important than the communication through the enhanced fracture region (EFR). This communication is shown to substantially reduce HNP performance, which is inferred by comparing the probabilistic forecast simulations.

This study provides a novel workflow to accurately assess the impact of model uncertainty on the HNP designs for unconventional shale and tight light oil reservoirs.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202035075
2020-09-14
2020-10-31
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Acuña, J. A.
    [2018] Straightforward Representative Fluid Flow Models for Complex Fracture Networks in Unconventional Reservoirs. SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, 13, Houston, Texas, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alfarge, D., Wei, M. and Bai, B.
    [2017] Factors Affecting CO2-EOR in Shale-Oil Reservoirs: Numerical Simulation Study and Pilot Tests. Energy & Fuels31(8), 8462–8480.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beattie, C. I., Boberg, T. C. and McNab, G. S.
    [1991] Reservoir Simulation of Cyclic Steam Stimulation in the Cold Lake Oil Sands. SPE Reservoir Engineering6(02), 200–206.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Carlsen, M., Whitson, C., Dahouk, M. M., Younus, B., Yusra, I., Kerr, E., Nohavitza, J., Thuesen, M., Drozd, J., Ambrose, R. and Mydland, S.
    [2019] Compositional Tracking of a Huff-n-Puff Project in the Eagle Ford. SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, 25, Denver, Colorado, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Christie, M., Cliffe, A., Dawid, P. and Senn, S. S.
    [2011] Simplicity, Complexity and Modelling. Wiley. 220p.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cipolla, C. L., Lolon, E., Erdle, J. and Tathed, V. S.
    [2009] Modeling Well Performance in Shale-Gas Reservoirs. SPE/EAGE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference, 16, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cotter, S. C.
    [1979] A screening design for factorial experiments with interactions. Biometrika66(2), 317–320.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Crombecq, K.
    [2011] Surrogate Modelling of Computer Experiments with Sequential Experimental Design. 176. Universiteit Gent.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Crombecq, K., Tommasi, L. D., Gorissen, D. and Dhaene, T.
    [Year] A novel sequential design strategy for global surrogate modeling. Proceedings of the 2009 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), 731–742
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Du, F. and Nojabaei, B.
    [2019] Estimating Diffusion Coefficients of Shale Oil, Gas, and Condensate with Nano-Confinement Effect. SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, 20, Charleston, West Virginia, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fragoso, A., Lopez Jimenez, B. A., Aguilera, R. and Noble, G.
    [2019] Matching of Pilot Huff-and-Puff Gas Injection Project in the Eagle Ford Shale Using a 3D 3-Phase Multiporosity Numerical Simulation Model. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 22, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Geman, S. and Geman, D.
    [1984] Stochastic Relaxation, Gibbs Distributions, and the Bayesian Restoration of Images. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on PAMI-6(6), 721–741.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Goodwin, N.
    [2015] Bridging the Gap Between Deterministic and Probabilistic Uncertainty Quantification Using Advanced Proxy Based Methods. SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, 73, Houston, Texas, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Green, D. W. and Willhite, G. P.
    [1998] Enhanced Oil Recovery. Henry L. Doherty Memorial Fund of AIME, Society of Petroleum Engineers. 545p.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hamdi, H., Clarkson, C. R., Esmail, A. and Costa Sousa, M.
    [2019] A Bayesian Approach for Optimizing the Huff-n-Puff Gas Injection Performance in Shale Reservoirs Under Parametric Uncertainty: A Duvernay Shale Example. SPE Europec featured at 81st EAGE Conference and Exhibition, 23, London, England, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hamdi, H., Clarkson, C. R., Ghanizadeh, A., Ghaderi, S. M., Vahedian, A., Riazi, N. and Esmail, A.
    [2018] Huff-N-Puff Gas Injection Performance in Shale Reservoirs: A Case Study From Duvernay Shale in Alberta, Canada. SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, 25, Houston, Texas, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hamdi, H., Couckuyt, I., Costa Sousa, M. and Dhaene, T.
    [2017] Gaussian Processes for history-matching: application to an unconventional gas reservoir. Computational Geosciences21(2), 267–287.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hao, S., Dengen, Z., Adwait, C. and Meilin, D.
    [2016] Quantifying Shale Oil Production Mechanisms by Integrating a Delaware Basin Well Data from Fracturing to Production. SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, 16, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hoffman, B. T.
    [2018] Huff-N-Puff Gas Injection Pilot Projects in the Eagle Ford. SPE Canada Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hoffman, B. T. and Rutledge, J. M.
    [2019] Mechanisms for Huff-n-Puff Cyclic Gas Injection into Unconventional Reservoirs. SPE Oklahoma City Oil and Gas Symposium, 13, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Houzé, O., Viturat, D., Fjaere, O. S., Trin, S., Allain, O. and Tauzin, E.
    [2019] Dynamic Data Analysis :The theory and practice of Pressure Transient, Production Analysis, Well Performance Analysis, Production Logging and the use of Permanent Downhole Gauge data (ebook). KAPPA. 505p.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Huang, X., Wang, J., Chen, S. and Gates, I. D.
    [2016] A simple dilation-recompaction model for hydraulic fracturing. Journal of Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources16, 62–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Islam, A. and Settari, A.
    [2013] Injection Modeling and Shear Failure Predictions in Tight Gas Sands — A Coupled Geomechanical Simulation Approach. ISRM International Conference for Effective and Sustainable Hydraulic Fracturing, 16, Brisbane, Australia.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kazemi, H., Merrill, L. S., Jr., Porterfield, K. L. and Zeman, P. R.
    [1976] Numerical Simulation of Water-Oil Flow in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal16(06), 317–326.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kurtoglu, B.
    [2013] Integrated Reservoir Characterization and Modeling in Support of Enhanced Oil Recovery for Bakken. PhD thesis, Colorado School of Mines. Department of Petroleum Engineering.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lemieux, C.
    [2009] Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Sampling. Springer Science & Business Media. 373p.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lou, X., Chakraborty, N., Karpyn, Z., Ayala, L., Nagarajan, N. and Wijaya, Z.
    [2019] Experimental Study of Gas-Liquid Diffusion in Porous Rocks and Bulk Fluids to Investigate the Effect of Rock Matrix Hindrance. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 20, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Louppe, G.
    [2014] Understanding Random Forests: From Theory to Practice, arXiv:1407.7502
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Moinfar, A., Erdle, J. C. and Patel, K.
    [2016] Comparison of Numerical vs Analytical Models for EUR Calculation and Optimization in Unconventional Reservoirs. SPE Argentina Exploration and Production of Unconventional Resources Symposium, 21, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Moinfar, A., Varavei, A., Sepehrnoori, K. and Johns, R. T.
    [2013] Development of a Coupled Dual Continuum and Discrete Fracture Model for the Simulation of Unconventional Reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, 17, The Woodlands, Texas, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Ning, Y. and Kazemi, H.
    [2018] Ethane-Enriched Gas Injection EOR in Niobrara and Codell: A Dual-Porosity Compositional Model. SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference, 18, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Orozco, D., Fragoso, A., Selvan, K. and Aguilera, R.
    [2018] Eagle Ford Huff-and-Puff Gas Injection Pilot: Comparison of Reservoir Simulation, Material Balance and Real Performance of the Pilot Well. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 19, Dallas, Texas, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Rasmussen, C. E. and Williams, C. K. I.
    [2005] Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning (Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning). The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Rassenfoss, S.
    [2017] Shale EOR Works, But Will It Make a Difference?Journal of Petroleum Technology10(69), 34–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Rock Flow Dynamics
    Rock Flow Dynamics. [2020] tNavigator Reservoir Simulator’s user manual (v.20.1).
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T., Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J., Gatelli, D., Saisana, M. and Tarantola, S.
    [2008] Global Sensitivity Analysis. The Primer.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Shelkov, V., Bogachev, K., Piskovskiy, E. and Piatsky, G.
    [2018] Fully Coupled Geomechanics Approach to Determine Critical Wellbore Intervals. SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference, 11, Moscow, Russia.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Sheng, J. J.
    [2017] Optimization of huff-n-puff gas injection in shale oil reservoirs. Petroleum, 1–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Sigmund, P. M.
    [1976a] Prediction of Molecular Diffusion At Reservoir Conditions. Part 1-Measurement And Prediction of Binary Dense Gas Diffusion Coefficients. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology15(02), 11.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. [1976b] Prediction of Molecular Diffusion At Reservoir Conditions. Part II -Estimating the Effects Of Molecular Diffusion And Convective Mixing In Multicomponent Systems. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology15(03), 11.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Stalgorova, E. and Mattar, L.
    [2012] Analytical Model for History Matching and Forecasting Production in Multifrac Composite Systems. 2012 SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Stalgorova, K. and Mattar, L.
    [2013] Analytical Model for Unconventional Multifractured Composite Systems. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering16(03), 246–256.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Storn, R. and Price, K.
    [1995] Differential Evolution- A Simple and Efficient Adaptive Scheme for Global Optimization over Continuous Spaces. Technical Report TR-95-012, Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Sun, J., Zou, A. and Schechter, D.
    [2016] Experimental and Numerical Studies of CO2 EOR in Unconventional Liquid Reservoirs with Complex Fracture Networks. SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference, 28, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Telishev, A., Bogachev, K., Shelkov, V., Eydinov, D. and Tran, H.
    [2017] Hybrid Approach to Reservoir Modeling Based on Modern CPU and GPU Computational Platforms. SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference, 8, Moscow, Russia.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Thomas, F. B., Piwowar, M., Zhang, H. and Gibb, W.
    [2019] Gas-Cycling Enhanced Oil Recovery in Liquids-Rich Production. SPE Liquids-Rich Basins Conference - North America, 24, Odessa, Texas, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Warpinski, N. R., Mayerhofer, M. J., Vincent, M. C., Cipolla, C. L. and Lolon, E.
    [2008] Stimulating Unconventional Reservoirs: Maximizing Network Growth While Optimizing Fracture Conductivity. SPE Unconventional Reservoirs Conference, 19, Keystone, Colorado, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Warren, J. E. and Root, P. J.
    [1963] The Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal3(03), 245–255.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Whitson, C. H., Brulé, M. R. and Engineers, S. O. P.
    [2000] Phase behavior. Henry L. Doherty Memorial Fund of AIME, Society of Petroleum Engineers. 233p.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Wilke, C. R. and Chang, P.
    [1955] Correlation of diffusion coefficients in dilute solutions. AIChE Journal1(2), 264–270.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Yusra, I.
    [2018] Dual-Porosity Modeling of Tight Unconventionals, MSc thesis. Department of Geoscience and Petroleum. NTNU.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Zhang, J. and Sanderson, A. C.
    [2009] JADE: Adaptive Differential Evolution With Optional External Archive. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation13(5), 945–958.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Zhou, T., Zhang, S., Feng, Y., Shuai, Y., Zou, Y. and Li, N.
    [2016] Experimental study of permeability characteristics for the cemented natural fractures of the shale gas formation. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering29, 345–354.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202035075
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202035075
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error