Seventh Quarterly Report
September 1, 1997 to November 30, 1997
Fractured Reservoir Discrete Feature
Network Technologies
A Project of
Fundamental Geoscience
Research and Development
BDM-Oklahoma
U.S. Department of Energy
National Oil and Related Programs
Contract Number
#G4S51728
Prepared by:
William S. Dershowitz
Paul L. LaPointe
Alec Pringle
Max Ma
Golder Associates Inc.
Redmond, WA
Herbert H. Einstein
Violeta Ivanova
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA
January 19, 1998
963-1357.521
q7.doc
1. QUARTERLY PROGRESS OVERVIEW
1.1 Overview of Progress
1.2 Project Deliverables
1.3 Issues and Resolutions2.1 Active Tasks
2.2 Task Progress2.2.1 Task 1.1.2: Data Updates
2.2.2 Task 1.2.1: 3D Hierarchical Fracture Model (HFM)
2.2.3 Task 1.2.2: Hierarchical Fracture Model Verification
2.2.4 Task 3.2.1: MS Windows 95 Analysis System
2.2.5 Task 3.2.2: Discrete Feature Analysis for TAGS Process
2.2.6 Task 4.1.2: Well Testing Data Acquisition
2.2.7 Task 4.2.1: Reservoir Model Implementation
2.2.8 Task 4.2.2: Reservoir Simulation
2.2.9 Task 5.1.2: WWW Site Updates
2.2.10 Task 5.2.1: Progress Reports
2.2.11 Task 5.2.2: Research Reports
2.2.12 Task 5.2.3: Presentations
2.2.13 Task 6: Management3. SCHEDULE, DELIVERABLES, AND MILESTONES
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Tract 17 Fracture Spacing
Table 2-2 HFM Numerical simulations of Tract 17 (near wells YU1711, YU1755, and YU17D5)
Table 2-3 Tract 17 HFM Simulations with Intensity as a Function of Lithology
Table 2-4 MS Windows 95 Analysis System
Table 2-5 Spatial Lineament Analysis Sequence
Table 2-6 Preliminary DFN Model for TAGS Support Simulations (Tract 17)
Table 2-7 Orientation Analysis for Yates Field Unit
Table 2-8 Pad Percentages for FMI Log Data
Table 2-9 Pad Percentage Statistics for FMI Log Data
Table 2-10 Fitted Distribution of Pad Intersections (Power Law, D=1.81, Rmin=1.0ft)
Table 2-11 Fracture Intensity from FMI Data
Table 2-12 Fracture Intensity from FMI Logs and Spinner Surveys
Table 2-13 Model Parameters for Sensitivity Studies
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-2 Tracer Test Well YFU1711
Figure 2-3 Tracer Test Well YFU1781
Figure 2-4 Tracer Test Well YFU1782
Figure 2-5 Tracer Test Well YFU2511
Figure 2-6 Tracer Test Well YFU2511
Figure 2-7 Tracer Test Injection Histories Unit 17, Well 03
Figure 2-8 Gas Injection Histories Unit 49, Well C6
Figure 2-9 Fracture Orientations YFU1711
Figure 2-10 Fracture Orientations YFU17D5
Figure 2-11 Fracture Orientations YFU1755
Figure 2-12 Fracture Orientations Tract 17 Vertical Wells
Figure 2-13 San Andres Core Photography
Figure 2-14 Fracture Orientations with Folded Strata
Figure 2-15 Interface to Yates Field Strata Model
Figure 2-16 HFM Simulation Near UY1711
Figure 2-17 HFM Simulation Near UY1755
Figure 2-18 HFM Simulation Near YU17D5
Figure 2-19 Rosette Diagram of YU1711 Fracture Strike
Figure 2-20 Rosette Diagram of YU1755 Fracture Strike
Figure 2-21 Rosette Diagram of YU17D5 Fracture Strike
Figure 2-22 Normalized Dip Direction From Tract 17 Core
Figure 2-23 Spatial 1.0 Analysis Goals
Figure 2-24 Spatial 1.0 Lineament Map Griding
Figure 2-25 Spatial 1.0 Trend Analysis
Figure 2-26 Spatial 1.0 Dependency Analysis
Figure 2-27 Spatial 1.0 Correlation Analysis
Figure 2-28 Spatial 1.0 Flow Chart
Figure 2-29 Production History Data
Figure 2-30 Steam Injection Data
Figure 2-31 Bottom Hole Pressure
Figure 2-32 Preliminary Tract 17 DFN Model 50m Scale Cube View
Figure 2-33 Preliminary Tract 17 DFN Model 300m Scale Trace View
Figure 2-34 Orientations for Preliminary Tract 17 DFN Model
Figure 2-35 Yates Tract 17 Fracture Orientation Data
Figure 2-36 Tract 17 Fold Contours
Figure 2-37 Orientation Bootstrap
Figure 2-38 Bootstrap From YU1711, YU1755, YU2511
Figure 2-39 Pad Percentage Approach for Fracture Size
Figure 2-40 Tract 17 Size Analysis
Figure 2-41 Power Law Distribution Intensity Cutoff
Figure 2-42 Reservoir Production Column Thickness
Figure 2-43 Distribution of Compartment Volume and Area From a Single Realization
Figure 2-44 Variation in Mean Compartment Volume Between Realizations
Figure 2-45 Compartment Volume vs. Oil Column Thickness
Figure 2-46 Compartment Area vs. Oil Column Thickness
Figure 2-47 Tracer Test Modelling Region
Figure 2-48 3D Visualization of Fracture Network
Figure 2-49 Location of Tracer 2 Days After Injection - Initial Basecase Model (Model 1)
Figure 2-50 Location of Tracer 2 Days After Injection - Sensitivity Study on Boundary Conditions
This report describes progress on the project, "Fractured Reservoir Discrete Feature Network Technologies" during the period September 1, 1997 through November 30, 1997. The report presents summaries of technology development for three active research areas: (1) research related to development of the hierarchical fracture model, (2) development and implementation of the Windows 95 data analysis system, and (3) initial discrete feature modeling in support of the TAGS process. In addition, the report provides information on project status, publications submitted, data collection activities, and technology transfer through the world wide web (WWW).
Development of the hierarchical fracture model (HFM) was completed during the quarter, with a description of HFM implementations for a range of geological settings. Validation activities for the HFM were carried out for Tract 49.
Software development activities during the quarter focused on implementation of spatial data analysis algorithms within a Java application, "Spatial 1.0", which is being implemented to execute through the WWW. Updated software versions for FracDim and FraCluster were posted on the project web site.
The major project objective is to demonstrate the value of developed technologies through a practical application at the Yates Field project study site. Modeling of the "Thermally Assisted Gravity Segregation" (TAGS) process using tools developed within the project was initiated during the quarter.
