SPE 71090 Advanced Reservoir Modeling in Desorption-Controlled
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SPE 71090 Advanced Reservoir Modeling In Desorption-Controlled Reservoirs Scott Reeves, Advanced Resources International, Houston, Texas; Larry Pekot, Advanced Resources International, Arlington, Virginia Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. permeability, etc. Analysis of core and other data suggests that This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Rocky Mountain Petroleum Technology another porosity and permeability system is required to Conference held in Keystone, Colorado, 21–23 May 2001. account for this effect, specifically within the matrix blocks This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of themselves. An advanced, triple-porosity/dual-permeability information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to model has therefore been developed, in which gas desorbs correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at from the internal matrix block surfaces, migrates via SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of conventional Darcy flow through micro-permeability matrix, Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is and into the cleat system where it then flows to the wellbore. prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous Water can also be stored both within the matrix blocks and in acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. the cleat system. In essence, this model requires that desorbed Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. gas must work its way through the matrix before reaching the cleat system, and must establish a relative permeability to gas Abstract within the matrix block before it can do so. This geometry is Reservoir models typically utilized for desorption-controlled similar to conventional dual-porosity models, with the reservoirs such as coals and gas shales possess dual- addition of an adsorbed gas component. porosity/single-permeability characteristics. In this case dual- porosity means that two in-situ locations exist that can be used Comparisons of this new model versus the historical for gas storage, adsorbed within the matrix and in the free modeling approach confirm that the new model predicts lower form in the cleat system. Single-permeability, which refers to gas and higher water production rates, consistent with field the cleat system, is the only permeability network that gas or evidence. Further, more accurate production forecasts can be water must flow through to reach the wellbore. While this achieved using measured well test information (for the cleat approach to modeling coals and shales has become accepted permeability), low cleat porosities (which are known to exist), practice, experience has shown that the models can frequently and lab-derived porosity and permeability data for the matrix be in gross error when forecasting well or field performance block properties. This paper presents the historical accuracy based on limited reservoir and/or production data; gas problem with reservoir simulation in desorption-controlled production is usually over-predicted and water production reservoirs, the practical theory behind the new model, under-predicted. The implications for economic decision- comparisons between the new and conventional models, and making in an exploration mode are obvious, and there are some example applications. many examples of projects that have suffered from this very problem. Further, reservoir parameters derived from history- Introduction matching, when historical gas production does exist, are In the early 1980’s, when producing gas from coalbeds in the commonly found to be inconsistent with measured U.S. was in its infancy, one of the greatest hurdles for resource permeability and gas sorption/content data. While there has development was having the tool(s) to accurately predict long been considerable effort focused on improved data collection term well and field performance so that investment decisions procedures, such as well testing and gas content measurement could be made. It was in response to this technology obstacle for example, these problems persist. that the staff of Advanced Resources International (ARI) developed the COMET coalbed reservoir simulator (and later While performing reservoir studies in the Antrim a desktop version – COMETPC) with funding from the Gas shale and low-rank coal plays throughout the world, it became Research Institute (now the Gas Technology Institute, or GTI), clear that the accepted assumption of gas desorbing directly which became the de-facto industry-standard tool for coalbed from the coal matrix into the cleat system is not entirely valid. methane (CBM) modeling. Since its earliest versions, the In practice, gas production occurs much later than the models model has been upgraded to a fully 3-D version (COMETPC- predict, and cannot be adequately explained though the normal 3D, funded by a industry consortium in 1989-90). At its core, parameters of sorption time, permeability, relative 2 SCOTT REEVES; LARRY PEKOT SPE 71090 the COMET model is based on the Warren & Root sugar-cube incorporating it either in the adsorbed state within the matrix model to replicate the dual-porosity nature of coals 1 (i.e., gas block, or as free gas in the natural fractures17. Essentially, if adsorbed on the internal surfaces of the coal in the matrix that “extra” gas was placed in the natural fractures, it was blocks, and a cleat system through which two fluid phases - produced too quickly, and if it was placed in the adsorbed free gas and water - flow in the reservoir). state, it was produced too slowly. In either case, to achieve material balance the initial saturation conditions in either the A common schematic for illustrating the nature of natural fractures or the matrix blocks had to be modified from fluid flow in coals is shown in Figure 1, and the model actual measured (and known) values, and the producing rates representation is shown in Figure 2. The processes of would still be in error. To solve this problem, the traditional desorption and diffusion (Figure 1 (a) and (b)) are lumped dual-porosity representation was modified to incorporate a together as one of the sugar-cubes and gas release, described third porosity (gas storage) system within the matrix block to by parameters such as diffusion coefficient and sorption time, provide needed free gas (and water in some cases) storage occurs directly into the cleats. Details on the reservoir capacity. Fundamentally, rather than lumping together mechanics incorporated into the model are provided in the desorption and diffusion (Figure 1 (a) and (b)), they were references2,3. This representation of coalbed methane decoupled such that each could be discretely modeled. This reservoirs has become widely accepted, and now numerous enabled material balance in each porosity system to be models have been developed with a similar premise and are honored, improved well performance forecasting, and the commercially available in the marketplace. COMETPC-3D, direct use of lab and well test data in the model. The following and presumably other models, have been used for a wide sections describe the new model, COMET2, how it performs variety of purposes, including coalbed methane reserve relative to the previous versions, and the implications. estimation4,5, resource assessments6, development of exploration strategy7, development of field spacing rules8, and Description of Triple-Porosity/Dual-Permeability evaluation of best completion, stimulation and operating Model practices9,10,11. COMETPC-3D has also been used extensively for coalbed reservoir characterization, most notably as a Model Description. A conceptual illustration of the new centerpiece of GTI’s extensive R&D programs in the San Juan reservoir model is provided in Figure 3. The mechanics of gas and Warrior basins in the late 1980’s and early desorption are similar to prior versions of COMET (i.e., are 1990’s12,13,14,15,16, which played a significant role in facilitating governed by a Langmuir isotherm and sorption time), as are the growth of U.S. CBM production. the traditional physics of two-phase flow in the cleats. The difference lies in the addition of an entirely new porosity However, mounting evidence suggested that the dual- system within the matrix blocks. This system is characterized, porosity replication being utilized in the various CBM models in terms of reservoir parameters, by values for porosity and was not matching actual field performance without significant permeability, relative permeability (like the cleats, this micro- adjustments to measured reservoir properties. Specifically, porosity is also a two-phase system), capillary pressure, gas results of core analysis could not be directly utilized in the and water saturations, as well as other common reservoir models – permeability estimates were too low, and porosity engineering parameters. The net effect of this system is estimates were too high, to be representative