1887
  1. Home
  2. Conferences
  3. Conference Proceedings
  4. SPE/EAGE European Unconventional Resources Conference and Exhibition
  5. Conference paper

Abstract

Abstract

This paper presents a detailed case study of using surface to in-seam wells to develop a major coalbed methane (CBM) field in the Bowen Basin of Australia. This study was novel in that special emphasis was given to quantification of subsurface property uncertainty and modeling of dynamic uncertainty. The result was the generation of recovery factor versus depth correlations which can be used to calculate the estimated ultimate recoverable.

In this work, a 3D box model around three pilot wells was extracted from the regional static model. To quantify key subsurface uncertainties such as permeability, both the Percentile and Confidence Interval Methods were used. Trends of laboratory-measured parameters like gas content, ash, Langmuir volume, permeability were established. Reservoir properties without measurements such as cleat porosity, desorption time and relative permeability were estimated based on rules-of-thumb, basin-wide analogue or educated guesses. A reservoir simulation model was built and production data from pilot wells were manually history matched. Parametric analysis was conducted to determine key parameters that significantly affect model history matching and forecasting results. Given the complexities of the coal reservoir and the non-uniqueness of the history match, Experimental Design was used to generate a population of simulation models that sampled the uncertainty range of key reservoir properties. This ensemble was reduced to include only those that matched the pilot wells’ production. With different combinations of reservoir properties thus obtained, recovery factor versus depth correlations were generated.

This study is a good example of early resource assessment critical to the field development planning of a major CBM field. It presents a systematic method to handle uneven distribution of often sparse subsurface data over a large geographic area which often confounds the CBM industry. Furthermore, this method may be extended to assess other well architectures like vertical, slant, horizontal, multi-branch, multi-lateral and hydraulically fractured vertical and horizontal wells.

© EAGE Publications BV
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.2118/167766-MS
2014-02-25
2024-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/papers/10.2118/167766-MS
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Corre, B., Thore. P, de Feraudy, V. and Vincent, G.
    : “Integrated Uncertainty assessment for project evaluation and risk analysis,” paper SPE 65205 presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference, Paris, France, 24–25 October2000.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Charles, T., Guemene, J.M., Corre, B., Vincent, G. and Dubrule, O.
    : “Experience with the quantification of subsurface uncertainties,” paper SPE 68703 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 17–19 April2001.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Philpot, J.A., Mazumder, S., Naicker, S., Chang, G., Boostani, M., Tovar, M. and Sharma, V.
    : “Coalbed Methane Modelling Best Practices,” paper SPE 17137, presented at the 6th International Petroleum Technology Conference, Beijing, China, 26–28 March2013.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Jerrald, L. and Saulsberry, P.S.
    : “A Guide to Coalbed Methane Reservoir Engineering,” Gas Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 1996.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Mantica, S., Cominelli, A. and Mantica, G.
    : “Combining Global and Local Optimization Techqiues for Automatic History Matching Production and Seismic Data,” paper SPE 66355 presented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, Texas, 11–14 February2001.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Joshi, S.D.
    : “Augmentation of Well Productivity with Slant and Horizontal Wells,” J. Petroleum Technology, Vol. 40, No. 6, June 1988.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Kamal, M. and Six, J.L.
    : “Pressure Transient Testing of Methane Producing Coalbeds,” SPE Advanced Technology Series, Vol. 1, No. 1, April 1993.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Feraille, M., Roggero, F., Manceau, E., Hu, L.Y., Zabalza-Mezghani, I. and Costa Reis, L.
    : “Application of Advanced History Matching Techniques to an Integrated Field Case Study,” paper SPE 84463 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5–8 October2003.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Alessio, L., Coca, S. and Bourdon, L.
    : “Experimental Design as a Framework for Multiple Realization History Matching: F6 Further Development Studies,” paper SPE 93164 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 5–7 April2005.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Clarkson, C.R., Rahmanian, M.R., Kantzas, A. and Morad, K.: “Relative Permeability of CBM Reservoirs: Controls on Curve Shape,” paper SPE 137404 presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 19–21 October2010.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Cheong, Y.P., Gupta, R., Vijayan, K., Smith, G., Rayfield, M. and DePledge, D.R.
    ,: “Experimental Design Methodology for Quantifying UR Distribution Curve - Lessons Learnt and Still to be Learnt,” paper SPE 88585 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Perth, Australia, 18–20 October2004.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Cheong, Y.P. and Gupta, R.
    : “Experimental Design and Analysis Methods in Multiple Deterministic Modelling for Quantifying Hydrocarbon In-Place Probability Distribution Curve,” paper SPE 87002 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modelling for Asset Management, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 29–30 March2004.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Cheong, Y.C. and Gupta, R.
    : “Experimental Design and Analysis Methods for Assessing Volumetric Uncertainties,” SPE Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3, September 2005.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. White, C.D. and Royer, S.A.
    : “Experimental Design as a Framework for Reservoir Studies,” paper SPE 79676 presented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, Texas, 3–5 February2003.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Charles, T., Guemene, J.M., Corre, B., Vincent, G. and Dubrule, O.
    : “Experience with the Quantification of Subsurface Uncertainties,” paper SPE 68703 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 17–19 April2001.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Van Elk, J.F., Guerrera, L, Vijayan, K and Gupta, R.
    : “Improved Uncertainty Management in Field Development Studies through the Application of the Experimental Design Method to the Multiple Realizations Approach,” paper SPE 64462 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Brisbane, Australia, 16–18 October, 2000.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Petrel Software Manual
    , Schlumberger, 2012.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Baker, M., Mazumder, S., Sharma, H., Philpot, J.A., Scott, M. and Wittemeier, R.
    : “Well Design and Well Spacing Optimization in Unconventional Plays,” paper SPE 159325 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Perth, Australia, 22–24 October2012.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.2118/167766-MS
Loading
Integrated Assessment of Pilot Performance of Surface to In-Seam Wells to De-Risk and Quantify Subsurface Uncertainty for a Coalbed Methane Project: An Example from the Bowen Basin in Australia
Conference Proceedings 2014, 1 (2014); https://doi.org/10.2118/167766-MS
/content/papers/10.2118/167766-MS
/content/papers/10.2118/167766-MS
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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