BABYL OPTIONS: Version: 5 Labels: Note: This is the header of an rmail file. Note: If you are seeing it in rmail, Note: it means the file has no messages in it.  1, forwarded,, Return-Path: Received: from rabbit.ldgo.columbia.edu. by lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA15741; Fri, 14 Jul 95 12:22:50 EDT Date: Fri, 14 Jul 95 12:22:50 EDT Message-Id: <9507141622.AA15741@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu> Received: by rabbit.ldgo.columbia.edu. (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA18067; Fri, 14 Jul 95 12:22:56 EDT To: rread@trc.amoco.com, mobrien@trc.amoco.com, hwlab@chevron.com, mode@chevron.com, LDSE@Chevron.Com, robert.c.wegner@exxon.sprint.com, anderson@ldgo.columbia.edu, amanda@geosc.psu.edu, flemings@geosc.psu.edu, cma@geosc.psu.edu, jhrob@shell.com, jbw@shell.com, wei, liqing, anderson, aboulang Subject: 4D Meeting Minutes From: aboulanger@ldgo.columbia.edu (Albert G. Boulanger) Sender: aboulang Reply-To: aboulanger@ldgo.columbia.edu *** EOOH *** Return-Path: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 95 12:22:50 EDT To: rread@trc.amoco.com, mobrien@trc.amoco.com, hwlab@chevron.com, mode@chevron.com, LDSE@Chevron.Com, robert.c.wegner@exxon.sprint.com, anderson@ldgo.columbia.edu, amanda@geosc.psu.edu, flemings@geosc.psu.edu, cma@geosc.psu.edu, jhrob@shell.com, jbw@shell.com, wei, liqing, anderson, aboulang Subject: 4D Meeting Minutes From: aboulanger@ldgo.columbia.edu (Albert G. Boulanger) Sender: aboulang Reply-To: aboulanger@ldgo.columbia.edu Dear 4-D Consortium Members, Please find attached the minutes of our 1st 4-D seismic monitoring project meeting. We thank you for the interchange of ideas, and we have made several changes to the schedule of milestones as you will see below. For example, we heard that you would like to accelerate the working of each field. That is a resource issue, and both the addition of new company members and service companies should allow that to happen. for example, Arco and Unocal are considering joining but had not completed their evaluations before last Monday, so we hope to have expanded membership by next month. We left the meeting with the following action items: 1. Begin acquiring data. Peter will begin immediately to schedule added log and production data acquisition for EI 330, and proprietary seismic and other field data for EI 360/361 and ST 295. Roger will acquire the Western seismic over ST 295 and continue the negotiations for the GECO and Diamond surveys in EI. 2. Explore possible connection to reservoir engineering at Penn State. Peter will contact Prof ______________, and determine the cost to bring reservoir simulation expertise into the project. 3. Bring in service companies. Roger will produce and circulate a first draft of the invitation letter to the service companies to join the project as equal partners for its research value only. marketing of products will be discouraged. The list so far would include GECO, Western, Diamond, Grant, PGS, Cogniseis/Syntron, and Landmark. Are there others we should make contact with?? 4. We will begin immediately to generate bypassed pay candidate drilling targets along the boundary between EI 330 and 338 in the hopes of convincing the partners to place wells to produce field tests of the new technologies early in the project. We look forward to advancing the state of knowledge in how to use legacy seismic data for reservoir monitoring and identification of bypassed pay. Sincerely yours, Roger N. Anderson Peter B. Flemings SUMMARY OF 4-D SEISMIC MEETING 7/2/95 AT H.E.S.S. CENTER, HOUSTON, TEXAS I. LIST OF ATTENDEES & ADDRESSES AMOCO Randol R. Read Mike O'Brien Research Director Senior Research Scientist Geophysical Research Division Amoco Corporation Amoco Production Company Exploration & Production Research Center Technology Group 4502 East 41st Street Ph: 918-660-3592 P.O. Box 3385 e-mail mobrien@trc.amoco.com Tulsa, OK 74102 Ph: 918-660-3360 Fax: 918-660-4163 e-mail rread@trc.amoco.com CHEVRON William L. Abriel Robert P. Brown Senior Staff Geophysicist Division Geophysicist Chevron U.S.A. Eastern Division Production Company Chevron U.S.A. 935 Gravier Street 935 Gravier Street New Orleans, LA 70115 New Orleans, LA 70112 Ph: 504-592-7358 Ph: 504-592-6732 e-mail hwlab@chevron.com Fax: 504-592-6854 D.A. "Tony" Cagle David Moore Staff Geologist Staff Geophysicist SS/El Profit Center Chevron U.S.A. Chevron U.S.A. Ph: 713-230-2960 Production Company Fax: 713-230-2661 5750 Johnston Street e-mail mode@chevron.com P.O. Box 39100 Lafayette, LA 70503 Larry D. Sears Ph: 318-989-3342 Staff Geophysicist Fax: 318-989-3375 3-D Projects Group Chevron U.S.A. 935 Gravier Street New Orleans, LA 70112 Ph: 504-592-6706 Fax: 504-592-6742 e-mail LDSE@Chevron.Com. EXXON David H. Johnston (Dr.) Dr. Robert C. Wegner Senior Research Specialist Section Supervisor Reservoir Geometry & Continuity Reservoir Geometry & Continuity Exxon Production Research Company Division P.O. Box 2189 Exxon Production Research Co. Houston, TX 77252-2189 P.O. Box 2189 Ph: 713-966-3018 Houston, TX 77252-2189 Ph: 713-966-7309 Fax: 713-965-7309 e-mail robert.c.wegner@exxon. sprint.com LAMONT-DOHERTY EARTH OBSERVATORY Dr. Roger N. Anderson Director, Applied Earth Sciences Institute RT 9W/Palisades, NY 10964-8000 Ph: 914-365-8335 Fax: 914-359-1631 1-800-SKY PAGE, 107334 e-mail anderson@ldeo.columbia.edu PENN STATE Peter B Flemings Amanda Shaw Assistant Professor Sr Res Technologist Department of Geosciences Department of Penn State Geosciences University Penn State University 442 Deike Building 226 Deike Building University Park, PA 16802 University Park, PA 16802 Ph: 814-865-2309 (office) Ph: 814-863-9723 Ph: 814-863-9723 (lab) Fax: 814-863-7823 Fax: 814-863-7823 e-mail amanda@geosc.psu.edu e-mail flemings@geosc.psu.edu Carol Ames Staff Assistant Department of Geosciences Penn State University University Park, PA 16802 Ph: 814-863-6051 Fax: 814-863-7823 e-mail cma@geosc.psu.edu PENNZOIL John M. Austin Tom Caldwell Senior Geologist Geophysicist U.S. Offshore Division Pennzoil Pennzoil Exploration and Production Co. Ph: 713-546-8424 P.O. Box 2967 Houston, TX 77252-2967 Ph: 713-546-8422 Fax: 713-546-8737 Thomas A. Medary Petroleum Geologist Pennzoil Exploration and Production Co. Pennzoil Place P.O. Box 2967 Houston, TX 77252-2967 Ph: 713-546-4197 SHELL J.H. Robinson also: P.O. Box 481 Geophysical Consultant Houston, TX 77001-0481 Shell Exploration & Production Ph: 713-245-7642 3737 Bellaire Boulevard Fax: 713-245-7013 Houston, TX 77025 e-mail jhrob@shell.com Terry A. Stellman J.B. Wieseneck Senior Geophysicist Staff Petrophysical Engineer Exploration Department Shell Offshore Inc. Shell Offshore Inc. One Shell Square One Shell Square P.O. Box 61933 P.O. Box 61933 New Orleans, LA 70161 New Orleans, LA 70161 Ph: 504-588-7514 Ph: 504-588-0463 e-mail jbw@shell.com TEXACO Jessee Mericle Kent R. Rinehart Texaco Incorporated Geophysicist P.O. Box 60252 Texaco Exploration and New Orleans, LA 70160 Production, Inc. Ph: 504-595-6800 Offshore Division P.O. Box 60252 New Orleans, LA 70160 Ph: 504-595-1173 Fax: 504-593-4681 II. FINAL MEETING AGENDA 8:00 Coffee 8:15 4-D Seismic Monitoring Project * Lamont/Penn State (Contracted with Lamont) EI 330 EI 360/361 ST 295 * Other GBRN Phase II Activities (Contracted with Cornell) Geochemical Resampling of EI 330 Field Woods Hole/Cornell Faults, Seals, Migration and Traps Lamont/PSU/LSU/Cornell/WHOI 3-D Modeling Cornell/LSU 8:30 Reservoir Characterization Phases, Time Lines and Milestones A) Data Acquisition B) Geological Characterization C) Static Characterization D) Dynamic Characterization Time-Dependent Logs E) Reviews of ST 295, EI 360/361 9:30 Seismic Interpretation Phases A) 4-D Analysis Software Cross-Correlation Region-Growing Differencing Frequency and Phase Bullwinkle Test B) Seismic Modeling 2-D FEMS Integrator: Input: Rock/Fluid Output: Acoustic Responses Predicting Bypassed Pay and Wellpaths C) Time Lines and Milestones EI 330: Shell/Exxon vs Texaco/Chevron Pennzoil/BP Diamond/PGS vs GECO rest EI 360/361: Chevron vs GECO and Diamond ST 295: Shell Grover 1985, Timberwolf 1988 Timberwolf 1995 Reprocessed, and Western 1994 4-D Software in Alpha and Beta Test 10:30 Service Company Proposals GECO PGS Syntron/CogniSeis Western 11:00 Company Directives reservoir simulation?? ECL/Tigress Company Simulators 12:00 Adjourn III. PRESENTATION BY TONY CAGLE Tony Cagle (Chevron, Lafayette) presented a discussion of the EI 360/361 field. Original 3-D was shot in 1979, this survey has a 12.5 x 50 m bin size, was shot with a cable length of 2400 m and was single cable acquisition. This survey suffers from severe wipe-out due to shallow gas. There is a 1994 3-D survey shot by GECO with a 6,000 meter cable. This has a bin size which is 12.5 x 40 meters which has been interpreted to 12.5 x 20 m. should be completed by mid-August. Diamond also has a 1994 east-west survey shot by PGS. Chevron is acquiring the GECO survey, and expects to have it by mid-August. A new drilling program is being planned for 1996-97 based upon the new interpretations. EUGENE ISLAND 361 INTRODUCTION The Eugene Island 361 Field contains excellent examples of Pleistocene deltaic deposition during interglacial geologic periods. A fundamental understanding of these processes is essential to understanding the behavior of this particular oil field. Because the field was developed during the early-mid 1980's, a large volume of modern data exists: extensive reservoir histories, biostratigraphic studies, modern e-logs and a 3-D survey. These tools are invaluable aids to understanding the geology of the field. GEOLOGIC SETTING Throughout the Pleistocene, both glacial and interglacial sediments have been deposited in the outer Eugene Island Area. During the Kansan-Middle Illinoian Blocks 360 and 361 were both distal of the prograing Kansan shelf edge, and received clastic sediments deposited in an upper slope (Zone 5) paleobathymetric environment. The sands in this sequence (5200'-6400' Sands) are poorly developed and produce on the north flank of the field. At the beginning of the Yarmouth interglacial, sea-level rose and the 361 area received deepwater shales. With the onset of the Illinoian glaciation, sea-level dropped (approx. 300') and a large canyon was cut into the existing shelf edge. As the incised river system prograded throughout Illinoian time, this canyon backfilled. The 4800'-3750' Sands represent this canyon fill sequence. Once the prograding Lower Illinoian shelf edge reached the Eugene Island 361 Area the 3700' "Lower" and "Upper" Sands were deposited across the area in a deltaic-marine environment. DEPOSITIONAL ENVIRONMENTS OF THE 3700' "UPPER SAND" The 3700' "Upper" Sand has been the subject of extensive geologic study. Based on the presence of a deltaic fauna and paleobathymetries ranging from brackish water (Zone 1) to deep, middle neritic (Zone 3+), the biostratigraphic work suggests the upper sand was deposited in a shallow marine, deltaic depositional system. A clue to interpreting the stratigraphy can be obtained from the existing structural interpretation of the 3700' "Upper" Sand. The map contains many permeability barriers to explain differences in pressures and gas-oil-water contracts. These perm barriers are indicative of lateral facies changes within the upper sand which involves a sealing (i.e. fine-grained) facies. Therefore, any interpretation of lithologic changes related to depositional environments must work within a deltaic framework and contain lateral facies changes which can seal. According to Prior and Coleman (1981) the abandonment phase of fluvial-dominated deltaic systems can create thick distributary mouth bar sands interrupted by fine-grained channel fill sediments. These channel-fill deposits were at one time open distributaries which have filled with fine-grained debris after the river system was diverted upstream. We have taken this depositional model and applied it throughout the field and identified several stratigraphic prospects and have more accurately explained numerous production anomalies within the field. The following examples document where this interpretation has been successful applied. FAULT BLOCK C-10, D-13, C-1 Wells C-19, D-13 and C-1 provide an example of the application of this work. TOTAL DEPOS. WELL OIL GAS PRESSURE ENVIR. C-1 18,246 86,873 544# 3/89 Dcf C-10 861,524 1,311,670 1557# 9/89??1295# 3/94 Dmb D-13 2,743,489 1,536,474 1321# 6/89??954# 3/94 Dmb, Df These 3 wells are separated by approximately 1500'; all three have produced differently. No major faults can be mapped separating these wells. The C-1 well produces updip from the other 2 wells, yet is the poorest producer. Pressure data indicate that the two downdip wells, D-13 and C-10 are producing from different reservoirs. Our current interpretation has C-1 producing from the distributary channel-fill sequence. This channel runs N-S between the C-10 and D-13 wells. This interpretation effectively explains the production histories of the wells. The C-1 is producing from discontinuous sands within the channel sequence. The D-13 and C-10 are producing from clean Dmb sands on either side of the channel which is acting as the lateral seal between the wells. FAULT BLOCK A-7, A-20, C-15 Engineering and geologic data most strongly support the model in this fault block. TOTAL TOTAL DEPOS. WELL OIL GAS PRESSURE ENVIR. A-7 550,188 2,976,305 1090# 1/90??436# 6/94 Dmb, Df A-20 2,929,481 1,147,527 1651# 1/90??740# 6/94 Dmb C-15 917,188 1,294,380 902# 6/89??485# 6/94 Dmb, Df NOTE The lower perforations (Df) in A-7 are not open (results of prod. log run 11/89) These wells are all completed in different members of the 3700' "Upper" Sand (see strat section). The NW-SE trending distributary channel facies separates the Dmb sands in A-7 from the C-15 and A-20 wells. Materials balance calculations show that the A-7 well is producing from a reservoir that is not connected to an aquifer. This supports the idea that the Dcf is the downdip seal for A-7's reservoir. Not only does the Dcf facies seal A-7 from water, it also provides pressure separation for the 3 wells. C-15 and A-20 contain Dmb sands, however, C-15's perfs in the Dmb are not open; it is only producing from Df sands (Note - a secondary gas cap exists in the C-15 Df facies that does not extend into the Dmb sand). This fault block contains significant opportunities for additional drilling. FAULT BLOCK A-19, A-11 S/T The A-11 S/T is producing from the 3700' "Upper" Dmb facies fault separated from the C-14, A-13, and A-18 wells by a down-to-the-north fault and separated from the A-20 fault block by a down-to-the-south fault. The gas liberated by producing oil from the A-11 S/T has migrated updip and displaced oil in the A-19 well to a depth of -4083 (see PNL run 11/89). There are two possible updip seal to gas migration in this reservoir, the "S" fault or the old Dcf (represented by A-15's thin-bedded sand-shale sequence and running NW-SE through C-1 and A-15). The correct volume of liberated gas can be represented by using the Dcf to provide the updip seal. FAULT BLOCK C-5 (INCLUDING THE PROPOSED C-17 WELL) A well proposed for 1993-1994, C-17 would test Dmb sands NE of the C-5 well which is interpreted to be producing from Df sands. The seismic is poor in this area, therefore we relied heavily on the depositional interpretation to provide a drillable prospect. Materials balance gives us a reasonable idea of reservoir sizes to expect. The C-5 is producing out of a 25 acre Df reservoir, however, approximately 102 acres can be mapped under closure in this fault block. Our most optimistic interpretation suggests that C-17 can drain approx. 77 acres of well-developed Dmb sand. FAULT BLOCK A-18, A-17, A-1 and #7 This is an extremely interesting area of the field from a stratigraphic standpoint. Wells A-1 and #7 have a sand distinctly separated from the 3700' "Upper" Sand. This stray sand has been identified as a transgressive sand overlying the main deltaic body, not called the 3700' "A" Sand (see correlation section). This sand correlates to the clean, productive sand at the top of A-17. The rest of A-17 (see log and conventional core) is a laminated silt, sand and shale sequence that is probably Dcf. Several samples from A-17's core were analyzed for pore throat sizes, in an attempt to see if this rock is a good hydrocarbon seal, was found to be a fine grained poor reservoir rock. Oil may be trapped downdip of this well and updip of CAGC #4 and #5 wells (clean, massive Dmb sand). SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK This model has been tested by production data and by materials balance work. Further refinements of this depositional model will always be necessary as more data is collected. The 3700' "Lower" Sand needs to be taken apart and put back together along the same lines as the "Upper" Sand. Most importantly, current PNL effectives are different from the original effectives marked on most logs. Sand maps and oil isopachs will need to be adjusted accordingly. IV. PRESENTATION BY TERRY STILLMAN (SHELL OFFSHORE) ON ST 295 Two proprietary 3-D surveys were shot before production production began. These surveys are referred to as Grover (acquired in 1985) and Timberwolf (acquired in 1988). The latter has been reprocessed by Shell in 1995 with 3-D DMO. Production began in 1989, and the field is about 25% through its production history. Western conducted a spec survey over the field in 1994, and they have agreed to make that survey available to the project. The field has 40 pay sands, 132 reservoirs. Seven millions boe, and 7.5 bcm have been produced which represents around 20% of the field. The whole field is geopressured; some of it is moderate pressure, some is hard pressure (15.5-16 ppg mud). There have been 27 total wells drilled, of which 23 are still producing. The field is a faulted salt dome of late Pliocene to early Pleistocene age. The depositional environment is interpreted to be a turbidite channel and ponded sands. The sands get much better off structure and there is not good sand on structural highs. There was a field study done in 1990. 27 synthetics, 14 dipmeters, 10 rft's 12 wells of multiple vintages of Pulsed Neutron logs. Western Atlas logged the field. There is a workover ongoing now, with repeat Pulsed Neutron logging planned for all wells. V. Company-by-Company Instructions for the Project: During final wrap-up each company was asked for their comments and directives: AMOCO - We should plan into the verification strategy a pre-stack AVO study of selected differenced anomalies for verification and proof-of-concept. EXXON - We should match to condensed sections as well as reservoir intervals to verify that what should have changed, has and what should not have changed, has not. Reservoir simulation is critical to the overall problem, but the current team does not have much expertise. Look into engaging the Penn State Petroleum Engineering Department's reservoir simulation group. PENNZOIL - Stay focused on techniques for locating bypassed pay. Asked that it be clearly stated what the situation is with respect to other participating compaies' access to data donated by each company to 4-D effort. Flemings responded that data donated to the 4-D effort would not be available to other companies without written permissions--which we will try to obtain for each request. However, research results from these data would be available, and each company is always welcomed to visit project sites at Lamont and Penn State to review the project in its entirety. SHELL - Data should not be shared among companies, but technologies and technical results shared. Seismic modeling is very important to the "believability" of any 4-D differences. What should change and doesn't is as important as what changes. AVO is very important, but pre-stack is much noisier than post-stack, so AVO study should be research part of the project. CHEVRON - The project is timely and well-defined. Concerned that analysis be done both on both reservoirs and non-reservoirs for quality-control (e.g. amplitudes associated with major flooding surfaces). Forward modeling will be critical. We will be working in cross-functional, multi-disciplining teams, geostatistics and reservoir simulation have roles that you should consider. Pre-stack work of great importance (e.g. AVO). We need to learn from this project: if we were to put in permanent listening structures, exactly what data set would we need to record. WE DONT YET KNOW HOW TO ESTABLIH PERMANENT MONITORING YET. The business connection must be made as well, so we need to find ways to accelerate timetable to better coincide with drilling programs in each field--for verification. TEXACO - The key issue being addressed here is whether multiple vintages of old seismic data can be used to image extraction. Focus on that. Texaco has a sense of urgency about this problem, and would like to see your timetable accelerated--perhaps with inclusion of service companies as research participants on equal footing with oil companies. At this time, we cannot afford permanent monitoring sites, so the focus on legacy seismic data must teach us how to properly do it. Service companies must be engaged in this solution so oil companies can take advantage of the results of this project immediately. At the same time, we have to emphasize to the service companies that we are interested in the science and the right answers, not in half-tested product introductions.