DOCSLIB.ORG

Abstract Introduction a GEOLOGIC MODEL of FRACTURE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Abstract Introduction a GEOLOGIC MODEL of FRACTURE A GEOLOGIC MODEL OF FRACTURE OCCURRENCE IN CARBONATE ROCKS IN YATES FIELD Juan Florez1, Amgad Younes2, Richard Steevers2 and Diana Sava1 1 School of Earth Sciences, Stanford University 2 Marathon Oil Co. Abstract located in the Guadalupe Mountains, about 100 miles The structural style observed at Yates Field, east of Yates (figure 2). By this methodology we combined with the analysis of fracture systems within were able to characterize the structural style of the a reservoir analog observed at outcrops, as well as a field area in addition to the brittle deformation style rock physics analysis of well log and core data, of the San Andres Formation at an outcrop analog. provide the basis to construct a conceptual model of fracture-occurrence at Yates Field. Two main factors control the density and spatial distribution of fractures: location with respect to faults, and lithofacies. Our results indicate that, in this particular case, the location with respect to normal faults is the dominant factor controlling fracture distribution. In addition to this, a relationship between fracture density and lithofacies was observed both at outcrops and in the subsurface data. Finally, fracture density was different for each particular set, as a consequence of the impact of the coeval stress field on fracture-occurrence. Introduction Yates field is located on the Central Basin Platform (CBP) of the Permian Basin in western Figure 1. Location Map of Yates field showing the Texas (figure 1). It was discovered by surface paleogeography of the Permian Basin (After, geology in 1926. Oil originally in place exceeds 5 Craig, 1988). MMB. After producing more than 1.3 MMB during 74 years, the field is still delivering about 25,000 At surface, Yates Field is a broad, subtle bopd. The geological model for the field is based on anticline depicted by the Lower Cretaceous. It is well logs and production data. Seismic information is surrounded by normal faults arranged in an limited to four 2-D lines, very few for the 91 km2 orthogonal pattern. Immediately north and south of area. In spite of the high density of wells in the field Yates, the system of NW-trending normal faults is (average 10-acre spacing), there is still significant predominant and cut pre-existing NE-trending faults. uncertainty regarding the existence of faults, spatial Immediately west of Yates the NE-trending normal distribution of fracture density, and orientation of the fault system is more conspicuous. In addition to these conductive features. faults, there is a system of sub-vertical, mutually Reservoir heterogeneities can be summarized in orthogonal fracture sets. The younger set of fractures three main groups: (1) stratigraphic or is N50-70°W and abuts against the older, N40°E, set. sedimentologic, (2) structural or geo-mechanical, and Fracture densities are different for the different (3) diagenetic or geochemical. The present study is sets. In addition to this, two main factors were found focused in understanding the factors controlling to control fracture density within the San Andres structural heterogeneities at Yates Field. Formation: (1) The location of the outcrop in respect In order to understand the distribution of to major faults, and (2) the lithofacies. fractures in carbonate rocks of Yates Field, we Slip along the fault planes produces stress employed a twofold analogue study. First, we studied concentrations at the tips and alters the stress field in the structural style in the field area, analyzing the the surrounding area. Therefore, fracture density patterns of faults and fractures within the cretaceous could not only by a function of the position in respect limestone cropping out at Yates. Afterwards, we to the faults, but also of the amount of shear on those studied the fractures and faults within the San Andres faults. On the other hand, the conspicuous difference Formation, the main reservoir at Yates, at outcrops in fracture density between the lithofacies observed at Stanford Rock Fracture Project Vol. 12, 2001 C-1 outcrops, indicates a strong control of facies on the (Adams, 1940) proposed that Yates anticline was elastic properties of these rocks, as should be developed by differential compaction, probably expected. These observations were confirmed by rock related to the underlying structure. physics analysis of subsurface data. Finally, sets of fractures with different orientations showed different fracture densities and apertures. Since the fracture- saturation and aperture is a function of the magnitude of the stress field, this observation indicates that stress field that originated the dominant fracture system, N 40° E, was higher in magnitude than the stress field that generated the N 50° W set. Geologic setting Figure 2 shows the regional tectonic setting of the Central Basin Platform (CBP), where Yates is located, and its relationship to the outcrops at Guadalupe Mountains. Basically, the CBP is a major Figure 2. Regional W-E cross section illustrating the pre-Permian horst bounded by normal faults. The San structural setting of Yates and the visited Andres Formation is mostly a dolomitized limestone outcrops. (modified from Renfo et al, 1984). with different facies, deposited in a carbonate shelf platform during the Permian. The CBP apparently Stratigraphy controlled the facies distribution of San Andres and The stratigraphy at the Central Basin Platform the other units of the Guadalupian series. Carbonates can be divided into four main sequences separated by were deposited within the platform, while sands and three main unconformities: the pre-Permian, Permian- shale were deposited in the Delaware and Midland Triassic, and the Triassic-Cretaceous unconformities. basins, which were deeper depositional centers The four sequences are pre-Permian, Permian, adjacent to the platform. Triassic and Cretaceous. The Permian sequence is The time gap between the Triassic and the composed of the Wolfcamp, Leonardian, Cretaceous suggests that Yates area was above the Guadalupian and Ochoan series. Relevant for Yates is depositional base level during a long period of time, the Guadalupian series, which in this area is and therefore was exposed to erosion, or at least not composed of dolomitized limestones, mixed deposition. Considering the low deformation observed siliciclastic-carbonate rocks and evaporites in the Cretaceous rocks, it is inferred that Yates has (anhydrite-gypsum and salt). At Yates, this series is not suffered major tectonic deformation since the composed of the San Andres, Grayburg, Queen, Early Cretaceous. It is also inferred that this region Seven Rivers, Yates and Tansill formations (Donogue was part of the foreland basin during the Laramide and Gupton, 1956). The Ochoan series is reduced to a Orogeny. Probably it has been exposed to erosion thin interval (25’-200’) of shale, anhydrite and since the early Tertiary. dolomite (Figure 3). About 200 km west of Midland and Yates is the The San Andres Formation is mainly composed Rio Grande rift basin, which is part of the Basin and of dolomitic limestone deposited in a shallow marine Range extensional province, a tectonic environment platform, close to a ramp (Kerans et al, 1994; that has been active during the Cenozoic (Russel and Sonnenfeld, 1991). The location of the ramp was Snelson, 1994). Field observations suggest that Yates controlled by normal faults. There is an eustatic is within a normal-fault stress state, with maximum unconformity between Grayburg and upper San compressive stress in WNW direction. The same Andres rocks. Above the unconformity a relatively stress state is suggested by drilling-induced tensile thin package of shale, dolomitic mudstones and fractures interpreted from FMI logs. The stress sandstones are found, corresponding to the Grayburg regime suggested by these two independent sources is and Queen Formations (Donoghue and Gupton, in agreement with the results derived from regional 1956). studies (Zoback and Zoback, 1991). The Seven Rivers is a thick section (about 400’) The CBP structure does not seem to have had a of anhydrite, followed by 55’-90’ of sandstone. The major impact in the facies distribution of the Top of the Guadalupian series is a thin interval of cretaceous sediments. Nevertheless, the fact that the shale, sandstone and anhydrite, that laterally subtle anticline resembles the structure of the Permian correlates with a gross package of salt, prominent in rocks at subsurface (Hennen and Metcalf, 1929) the surrounding areas of the field, but virtually absent suggests that this subsurface structure is still at Yates (Donogue and Gupton, 1956). impacting the deformation in the area. Earlier studies Stanford Rock Fracture Project Vol. 12, 2001 C-2 The Triassic system is reduced, in this area, to a stratigraphy (Tinker et al, 1995). This facies thin unit (0-200’) of sandstones and claystones. It is distribution can also be controlling the occurrence of bounded by unconformities: The Triassic-Permian caves, which are associated with high productivity unconformity (below), and the Cretaceous-Triassic areas (Craig, 1988). unconformity (above). The big time gap represented Kerans et al (1994) and Sonnenfeld (1991) by the Cretaceous-Triassic unconformity indicates studied the sequence stratigraphy of the San Andres that this area was above the stratigraphic base level Formation in the areas where its depositional setting during a long period of time (about 100 m.y.). was quite similar to Yates. Tickler et al (1995) The Cretaceous is composed by a transgressive present a summary of the stratigraphy of the upper depositional cycle that starts with sandstones and San Andres at Yates. Basically they divide the section continues with shale and limestones. The remarkable in three genetic cycles within a major stratigraphic lateral continuity of the limestones suggests sequence. Each cycle is composed of dolomitic deposition in the inner shelf. These cretaceous rocks wackestone and mudstone to the west, and dolomitic are flat and virtually not deformed, but there are few fusulinid packstone and grainstone to the east (Figure normal faults and some large and subtle folds.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Approach to the Classification of Potential Reserve Additions of Giant Oil Fields of the World
    An Approach to the Classification of Potential Reserve Additions of Giant Oil Fields of the World Open-File Report 2007–1438 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey An Approach to the Classification of Potential Reserve Additions of Giant Oil Fields of the World By T.R. Klett and M.E. Tennyson Open-File Report 2007–1438 U. S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2008 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. Suggested citation: Klett, T.R., and Tennyson, M.E., 2008, An approach to the classification of potential reserve Additions of giant oil fields of the world: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1404, 28 p. 2 An Approach to the Classification of Potential Reserve Additions of Giant Oil Fields of the World By T.R. Klett and M.E. Tennyson Foreword This report contains notes for slides in a presentation given to the Committee on Sustainable Energy and the Ad Hoc Group of Experts on Harmonization of Fossil Energy and Mineral Resources Terminology on 17 October 2007 in Geneva, Switzerland.
    [Show full text]
  • Kinder Morgan, Inc. 2006 Form 10-K
    KMI Form 10-K UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K ; ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 or TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from _____to_____ Commission File Number 1-06446 Kinder Morgan, Inc. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Kansas 48-0290000 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77002 (Address of principal executive offices, including zip code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code (713) 369-9000 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Name of each exchange Title of each class on which registered Common stock, par value $5 per share New York Stock Exchange Securities registered pursuant to section 12(g) of the Act: Preferred stock, Class A $5 cumulative series (Title of class) Indicate by checkmark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act: Yes ; No Indicate by checkmark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act: Yes No ; Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days: Yes ; No Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.
    [Show full text]
  • Zukunft Der Weltweiten Erdölversorgung
    Supported by Ludwig Böl kow Stiftung Zukunft der weltweiten Erdölversorgung Überarbeitete, deutschsprachige Ausgabe, Mai 2008, mit freundlicher Unterstützung des Club Niederösterreich (www.clubnoe.at) Autoren: Dipl.-Kfm. Jörg Schindler Dr. Werner Zittel Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH, Ottobrunn/Deutschland Wissenschaftlicher und parlamentarischer Beirat: siehe unter www.energywatchgroup.org © Energy Watch Group / Ludwig-Bölkow-Stiftung Zitieren und auszugsweiser Abdruck bei ausführlicher Quellenangabe und gegen Belegexemplare erlaubt. Energy Watch Group Zukunft der weltweiten Erdölversorgung Mai 2008 Über die Energy Watch Group Energiepolitik braucht objektive Informationen. Die Energy Watch Group ist ein internationales Netzwerk von Wissenschaftlern und Parlamentariern. Träger ist die Ludwig-Bölkow- Stiftung. In diesem Projekt werden unabhängig von Regierungs- oder Unternehmensinteressen Studien erarbeitet über die Verknappung der fossilen und atomaren Energieressourcen, Ausbauszenarien für die Regenerativ-Energien sowie daraus abzuleitende Strategien für eine langfristig sichere Energieversorgung zu bezahlbaren Preisen. Die Wissenschaftler erheben und analysieren nicht nur ökologische, sondern vor allem geologische, technologische und ökonomische Zusammenhänge. Die Ergebnisse dieser Untersuchungen werden in die Parlamente und in die politisch interessierte Öffentlichkeit transportiert. Objektive Informationen brauchen unabhängige Finanzierung. Ein großer Teil der Arbeit im Netzwerk geschieht ehrenamtlich. Darüber hinaus finanziert
    [Show full text]
  • IOR2016 NEWS Volume 6, Number 1, 2016
    IOR2016 NEWS Volume 6, Number 1, 2016 Register NOW April 9-13, 2016, Tulsa, Oklahoma and $AVE TWENTIETH SPE IMPROVED see page 4 OIL RECOVERY CONFERENCE NEW CHALLENGES, NEW SOLUTIONS Five iOR 2016 PiOneeRs selected from crowded, distinguished Field There was an embarrassment of riches for the committee tasked with selecting the IOR Pioneer awardees for the 2016 SPE Improved Oil Recovery conference. As was the case in SPE IOR 2014, five candidates made the final cut to be named an IOR Pioneer and to be honored at the 20th SPE Improved Oil Recovery conference, scheduled for April 9–13, 2016, in Tulsa, Okla. In all, 19 distinguished nomi- nees were on the “short” list for SPE IOR 2016, compared with 11 for SPE IOR 2014—which itself was deemed a substantial number of candidates 2 years ago. The SPE IOR 2016 Pioneers are Richard Hutchins, Sada Joshi, Jenn-Tai Liang, Lanny Schoeling, and Ali Yousef. These five IOR Pioneers will be feted at a special recognition luncheon on April 11, 2016, at Cox Business Center in downtown Tulsa— also the site for the conference. Articles on each of the 2016 IOR Pioneers follow this one. The biennial conference, sponsored by the Mid-Continent Section of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, is the world’s larg- est gathering of petroleum scientists and oil and gas industry professionals focused on advancing knowledge and technology to improve and enhance oil and gas recovery. Since the inception of the IOR Pioneer award in 1984, “I think that improved oil recovery pro- when the inaugural Pioneer class of 10 was selected, there cesses will continue to be important for have been only five other instances when there were five the longer term.
    [Show full text]
  • Card 32: Scope of Performance Assessments (PDF)
    CARD No. 32 Scope of Performance Assessments 32.A.1 BACKGROUND The radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR Part 191 include requirements for containment of radionuclides. The containment requirements specify that releases from a disposal system to the accessible environment must not exceed the release limits set forth in Appendix A, Table 1 of 40 CFR 191.13. Assessment of the likelihood that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) will meet EPA’s release limits is conducted through the use of a process known as a “performance assessment” (PA). The WIPP PA essentially consists of a series of computer simulations that attempt to describe the physical attributes of the repository (site, geology, waste forms and quantities, engineered features) in a manner that captures the behaviors and interactions among its various components. The results of the simulations show the potential releases of radioactive materials from the disposal system to the accessible environment over the 10,000-year regulatory time frame. The PA must include both natural and man-made processes and events that have an effect on the disposal system (61 FR 5228). Section 194.32, “Scope of Performance Assessment,” stipulates that the PA must include both natural and man-made processes and events that may affect the disposal system over the regulatory time period. Section 194.32 requires that the PA include the effects of excavation mining, drilling, fluid injection and future development of leases. The PA also must include the effects of current activities such as secondary oil recovery methods (waterflooding), disposal of natural brine, solution mining to extract brine, etc., in the vicinity of the repository.
    [Show full text]
  • The Exxon-Mobil Merger: an Archetype
    Forthcoming Journal of Applied Finance, Financial Management Association The Exxon-Mobil Merger: An Archetype J. Fred Weston* The Anderson School at UCLA University of California, Los Angeles [email protected] January 31, 2002 * Fred Weston is Professor of Finance Emeritus Recalled, the Anderson School at the University of California Los Angeles. Thanks to Matthias Kahl, Samuel C. Weaver, Juan Siu, Brian Johnson, and Kelley Coleman for contributions. The paper also benefited from comments at its presentation to the 1999 Financial Management Association Meetings (Orlando). The Exxon-Mobil Merger: An Archetype ABSTRACT: In response to change pressures, the oil industry has engaged in multiple adjustment processes. The 9 major oil mergers from 1998 to 2001 sought to improve efficiency so that at oil prices as low as $11 to $12 per barrel, investments could earn their cost of capital. The Exxon-Mobil combination is analyzed to provide a general methodology for merger evaluation. The analysis includes: the industry characteristics, the reasons for the merger, the nature of the deal terms, discounted cash flow (DCF) spreadsheet valuation models, DCF formula valuation models, valuation sensitivity analysis, the value consequences of the merger, antitrust and competitive reaction patterns, and the implications of the clinical study for merger theory. JEL classification: G34, G20 Keywords: Mergers; Acquisitions; Alliances The Exxon-Mobil Merger: An Archetype The high level of merger activities throughout the world between 1994 and 2000 reflected major change forces. These shocks included technological changes, globalization of markets, intensification of the forms and sources of competition leading to deregulation in major industries, and the changing dynamics of financial markets.
    [Show full text]
  • Capitan Reef Complex Structure and Stratigraphy
    Capitan Reef Complex Structure and Stratigraphy Report by Allan Standen, P.G. Steve Finch, P.G. Randy Williams, P.G., Beronica Lee-Brand, P.G. Assisted by Paul Kirby Texas Water Development Board Contract Number 0804830794 September 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive summary....................................................................................................................1 2. Introduction................................................................................................................................2 3. Study area geology.....................................................................................................................4 3.1 Stratigraphy ........................................................................................................................4 3.1.1 Bone Spring Limestone...........................................................................................9 3.1.2 San Andres Formation ............................................................................................9 3.1.3 Delaware Mountain Group .....................................................................................9 3.1.4 Capitan Reef Complex..........................................................................................10 3.1.5 Artesia Group........................................................................................................11 3.1.6 Castile and Salado Formations..............................................................................11 3.1.7 Rustler Formation
    [Show full text]
  • Three Approaches for Estimating Recovery Factors in Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery
    Three Approaches for Estimating Recovery Factors in Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5062 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Three Approaches for Estimating Recovery Factors in Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery Mahendra K. Verma, Editor Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5062 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey William H. Werkheiser, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2017 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Verma, M.K., ed., 2017, Three approaches for estimating recovery factors in carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5062–A–E, variously paged, https://doi.org/10.3133/ sir20175062. ISSN 2328-0328 (online) iii Preface The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 authorized the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct a national assessment of geologic storage resources for carbon dioxide (CO2) and requested the USGS to estimate the “potential volumes of oil and gas recoverable by injection and sequestration of industrial carbon dioxide in potential sequestration formations” (42 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Application of Decline Curve Analysis to Estimate Recovery Factors for Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery
    Application of Decline Curve Analysis To Estimate Recovery Factors for Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery By Hossein Jahediesfanjani Chapter C of Three Approaches for Estimating Recovery Factors in Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery Mahendra K. Verma, Editor Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5062–C U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey William H. Werkheiser, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2017 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Jahediesfanjani, Hossein, 2017, Application of decline curve analysis to estimate recovery factors for carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery, chap. C of Verma, M.K., ed., Three approaches for estimating recovery factors in carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5062, p. C1–C20,
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 95/Monday, May 18, 1998/Rules
    27354 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION section 18 of the WIPP Land B. Performance Assessment: Modeling and AGENCY Withdrawal Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102± Containment Requirements (§§ 194.14, 579), as amended by the WIPP LWA 194.23, 194.31 through 194.34) Amendments (Pub. L. 104±201). 1. Introduction 40 CFR Part 194 2. Human Intrusion Scenarios FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT [FRLÐ6014±9] : (a) Introduction Betsy Forinash, Scott Monroe, or Sharon (b) Spallings RIN 2060±AG85 White; telephone number (202) 564± (c) Air Drilling 9310; address: Radiation Protection (d) Fluid Injection Criteria for the Certification and Division, Center for the Waste Isolation (e) Potash Mining Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Mail Code 6602±J, U.S. (f) Carbon Dioxide Injection Pilot Plant's Compliance With the Environmental Protection Agency, 401 (g) Other Drilling Issues 3. Geological Scenarios and Disposal Disposal Regulations: Certification M Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460. Decision System Characteristics For copies of the Compliance (a) Introduction AGENCY: Environmental Protection Application Review Documents (b) WIPP Geology Overview Agency. supporting today's action, contact Scott (c) Rustler Recharge (d) Dissolution ACTION: Final rule. Monroe. The Agency is also publishing a document, accompanying today's (e) Presence of Brine in the Salado SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection action, which responds in detail to (f) Gas Generation Model Agency (``EPA'') is certifying that the significant public comments that were (g) Two-Dimensional Modeling of Brine Department of Energy's (``DOE'') Waste and Gas Flow received on the proposed certification (h) Earthquakes Isolation Pilot Plant (``WIPP'') will decision.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Jean Laherrère 24 May 2015 Some Examples of Oil & Gas Production Linear Extrapolation to Estimate Ultimate When Estimates
    Jean Laherrère 24 May 2015 Some examples of oil & gas production linear extrapolation to estimate ultimate When estimates of reserves from the operator are not available (usually confidential), it is possible from production data to estimates the ultimate reserves by extrapolating the annual production decline (or the percentage annual over cumulative = HL) versus the cumulative production. When the annual or percentage production reaches zero, it means that the production is terminated and that the cumulative production equals the ultimate. The Hubbert linearization (HL) as described by Deffeyes (in his 2001 book “Hubbert’s peak”) is often described as unreliable to estimate oil ultimate reserves. The problem is that in many cases the trend displays several linear different periods and that the linear trend is only for few years. It is true that for conventional fields (where the area, net pay and porosity are well known) the geological estimate of oil in place with a reliable recovery factor is a good way to estimate 2P (equals to the mean value) ultimate recovery, followed by production simulation (with large computer with long Monte Carlo runs for huge grid (100 millions for Ghawar)) before the development of the field and after, using physical data (from well production & log tied to seismic surveys). In the US, reserves are in fact remaining reserves at a certain date, but the date is rarely given. Reserves without date should be remaining reserves at a certain year plus the cumulative production up this year: they are called initial reserves or ultimate reserves or EUR (Estimated Ultimate Reserves). Uncertainty of the estimate is huge and reserves value can be proved (or proven), probable or possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Crude Oil: the Supply Outlook
    C R U D E O I L T H E S U P P L Y O U T L O O K Report to the Energy Watch Group October 2007 EWG-Series No 3/2007 Crude Oil – the Supply Outlook Final Draft 2007/10/13 LBST ABOUT ENERGY WATCH GROUP This is the third of a series of papers by the Energy Watch Group which are addressed to investigate future energy supply and demand patterns. The Energy Watch Group consists of independent scientists and experts who investigate sustainable concepts for global energy supply. The group has been initiated by the German Member of Parliament Hans-Josef Fell. Homepage: www.energywatchgroup.org Responsibility for this report: Dr. Werner Zittel, Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH Jörg Schindler, Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH This report is sponsored by Ludwig-Bölkow-Stiftung, Ottobrunn, Germany Ottobrunn, October 2007 Page 2 of 101 Crude Oil – the Supply Outlook Final Draft 2007/10/13 LBST CONTENT About Energy Watch Group.......................................................................................................2 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................18 Scope and methodology ...........................................................................................................20 Types of oil...........................................................................................................................20 Conventional oil ...............................................................................................................20
    [Show full text]