, .

SPE
SPE 19837

A Case Study of Improved Recovery Options in a

Volatile Oil Reservoir
P.A. Schenewerk and B. Heath, Woods Petroleum Corp.
SPE Members
x

Copyright 1SS9, Sociefy of Petroleum Engirreere, Inc.

Thk paper was prepared for prseentetiorrat the S4th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibitionof the Socimtyof Psfrokum Engineere held in San Antonio, TX, Cktober S-1 1, 16SS.

Thle paper wee eeleoted for presentation by an SPE Program Commlftse following review-of Informationcontained in an abstract aubmlfted by the aufhor(a). Contents of the paper,
aa presented, have not bean reviewed by the Society Of petroleum Enf$nasra andare aublacttoCOITS@II by the aut~a). The material. IM pf~tedt *a ~ *ffe@Y r-
any p+alt!emof the Sooletyof Petroleum Englneera, ifs offkara, w mernlxa. Pspem pmeented at SPS meetings are a@acf to pubficatbn rewiewBYEdlforfalCommfftseeof the SocbfY
of Petroleumf%giIWW Parmieeionto copy k restrictedto an abatracfof notma than 3(IOworde.ffluatrstkmamay notbe Coplad.The abaWectShoutdCOfddnconapkL we eCkrmkdWMf
of where and by whom the paper ia presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 633S3S, Rkhsrdaon, TX 7SOSMS36. Telex, 730SSe SPEDAL.

Sandstone which is known locally as the “hkota

INIROMWfION Sandstone”. Structure across the field is uniform
with a southwest dip of approximately 100 feet per
W@ South Buck Draw (Dakota) Field lies on the tile. Structure does not play a significant role
eastern flank of the Powder River Sasin along the in the production process in the field.
border of Converse and Campbell Counties, Wyoming
{Figure 1). The reservoirs in the field produce a ltw environment of deposition within the
volatile oil frcm stratigraphic traps tie up of Dakota is varied. In the South Buck Draw Field,
flwial channel and marine longshore bar deposits. production is found in both a regioml marine
This paper presents the results f rcaa a field study facies and localized f lwial facies. The regioml
which was *de to deter@ne the feasibility of marine facies consists of what are interpreted to
partial pressure maintenance -rations for be near ahore rum+arine to marine deposits with
improved recovery. While it was found that partial the productive reservoir being located in areas of
pressure maintenance operations could recover in- preservad longshore bars (Figure 2a). fie f lwial
crenbental oil, it was determined that the field facies consists of point, bar deposits in a
would not be amenable to flooding Operations northeast-southwest trending channel which has been
because of reservoir discontinuities, a develop incised in the older narine sediuents (Figure 2b).
fracture system and highly unstable oil ~ gas Figure 3 shins the delineation of the regional
prices. .,. atarine and fluvi’al facies in the field.
The study showed that primary recoveiy in Sorda pressure and fluid communication appears
volatile oil reservoirs can be very gowi, ~generally to exist betw&en the different producing facies,
in excess of 20% of the original oil-in-place. It howaver, this seem to be limited to localized
also showed that estimation of original oil-in- areas of sand on sand contact. Pressure detawas
place for volatile oils is difficult even:when available from a variety of individual well tests
pressures remain above the bubble point.-Additional as well as two field-wide pressure surveys. ‘i’he
work, done after the original study, is also pre- field-wide pressure data appeared to indicate that
sented which sh.aws the effects of both full and there were at least two and pussibly three isolated
partial pressure maintenance operations begun above regions within the flwial facies. Wall control in
and kelw the bubble point pressure. Incremental this field is lietited due to the current spacing of
oil can be produced, hgwever, the econ~cs of one well per 640 acres, and as a result, detailed
these projects met be carefully scrutinized. reservoir characterizations are difficult if not
iqossible to make.
mIm3Y
DEVEU3- H18’JX)RY
Po@er River Basin is located in north-
The
eastern Wycan.ingand soutkastern Hontana. The The South Buck Draw Field Was discovered in
besin was formed as a result of defamation which August 1977, when the Woods Petroleum Corporation’s
occurred due to t~ late Cretaceous-early Tertiary Moors-Gibbs No. 9-1 was completed for 705 BOPDand
Laramide Orogeny . The field produces from 2,3301WXD. Field developmnt continued throuijh
deposits of the Liner Cretaceous Fall River 1986. ‘redate, there are 12ws11s coqletsd in the
flwial facies and 7 regional marine facies wells.
Eef erences and figures at end ok paper.

67”
,.
 A CASE STUDY OF IMPROVED RECOVERY
OPTIONS IN A VOLATILE OIL RESERVOIR SPE 19837

AS a general rule, the fluvial facies wells least two and sometimes three times as high as the
tend to M significantly better prcducers due to core kh’s.
the presence of a larger volume of reservoir and
better resezvoir rock which is enhanced by a The preserved core material was used.for
fracture system Cumulative production frcsn the steady state gas displacing oil relative &mna-
fluvial tat:’swells through 1988 was 3,663 MST8of ability tests. Aplot of one of these te~ts is
oil and 12,409 HMSCFof gas, while the marine shorn in Figure 7. These tests indicatedlthat the
facies prduced 612 MSTSof oil and 3,574 MM8CFof initial water saturations in the Dakota a$e very
gas. Figure 4 iS a plot of prtiuction fOr the low, less than five percent, which confirmed open
fluvial facies wells. hole log calculations. ‘l%e character of ~ tests,
coupled with the very low water saturations
RSSERVOIRFLUIDS present, indicate that the reservoir is iiiter-
mediate to oil wet3. Laboratory test datafroma
Volatile or near critical oils usually have similar Dakota reservoir off-setting the f$eld
~“1gravities above 40 degrees, gas-oil ratios supports this conclusion. !
above 2,000-2,500 SCF/STS, and formation volume
factors above 2.0 RS/STS. In addition, their ESTIMATION
OF ORIGINALOIL-IN-PLACE /‘
composition is made up of 12.5 to 20 mole percent
of heptanes pluszwith 35 percent or more of methane The simplest mthod for determi;ling original
through hexanes . ‘IWObottomhole fluid samples oil-in-place (OOIP) is by volumetric analysis.
were available for use in the study. Unfortunately, due to the lack of well control and
the complexity of the depositional system, it was
The first sample was taken in the S. Armstrong impossible to map the reservoir with any degree of
No. 1 well in MSy 1981. Laboratory analysis of confidence. Several iterations of the mapping
this sample showed that the reservoir fluid was process were madeby the operators with widaly
undersaturated at the original reservoir conditions divergent results. The resulting maps were plani-
of 8,100 psi and 286 degrees F. The formation metered in order to estimate OOIP. Time estimatet;
volume factor at the bubble point pressure of 4,530 ranged frrsa 15 to 21 FFIS’min place.
psi was 2.314 RB/STS. The initial solution gas-oil
ratio was found to be 2,034 SCF/STS. A second Realizing the inherent limitations of the
sanple, taken in March 1982 from the Anderson traditional black oil material balance equation
Federal No. 1-27, indicated a bubble point pressure (?4BE) in volatile oil systems, its use in esti-
of 4,8BT >&i, a formation volume factor of 2.329 mating 00IPwss consider~~limited and was
RS/STS and a solution gas-oil ratio of 2,075 approached with caution . At the tim of the ;
SCF/STS. Table 1 shows the compositic.ns of these original study, it was believed that as long as the
samples. Since a significant auun3nt of reservoir reservoir presurd was above the bubble point, then
depletion had occurred between the time the samples the MEEweuld give satisfactory results. Using
were taken, the initial sa@e from the S. Arm- this approach, however, led toestimtes of ~IP
strong well was used in the study. which ranged from15 to 32 HM81’9withthemst
likely value being 21.51wIs’Is.
RSSERVOIRIKXKPROPERTISfj
This wide range of OOIP estimates frmthe MSE
Seven fluvial facies cores had been taken in is not surprising and arises frcmtwo sources of
the field and ware available for this study. error. Itw first, uncertainty in the value of
Routine laboratory analysis were available fdr each average reservoir pressure, is codrmn to most all
core. In addition, one core had been preserved and applications of the W approach. The second
was mede available for special core analysis. problem ismre difficult since it arises frcmthe
nature of the reservoir fluid and the producing
The routine analysis showed that permeability mchanis3ss in the reservoir. Maile the average
to air ranges from zero to 44 md. The log normal reservoir pressure may be well above the bubble
permeability variation was found to be 0.9, which point, it is still possible for the flowing bottm
is an indication that the reservoir is fairly hole pressures in the producing wlls tobe sig-
heterogeneous. Figure 5 is a plot of the perme- nificantly below the bubble point. As a result of
ability distribution for the wells in South Buck the two phases flowing in the vicinityof the
Draw. fie average core porosity “nthe field is wellbore, sane compositional effects can occur.
4.78% and the gemetric average s rlneability is This will becw s30re pronouncedas the reservoir
0.12 z13. Figure 6 is? Crossplot of permeability pressure falls closer to the bubble mint pressure.
and porosity for all the core data. In general,
the higher pemeabilities and better porosities Secause there was a lack of confidence in both
are located in the lower portion of the sand bcdy the volumetric and MSEmt.hods, another approach
which is characteristic of this type of flwial was used to estimte OOIP. A-single well radial
deposit. compositional nodal using equation of state para-
meters derived frcez the S. AmetrongNo. 1 fluid
Vertical fractures are present in about half study was developed and used to estimate percentage
of the cores and @o not a~ar to be a product of of CJ31Pproduced versus the associated pressure
the coring operation. lt3e presence of a developed drop. Using the single well mdel, the comp-
fracture,system was felt by some to help account ositional effects of producing wells fknting below
for the high production rates in what would other- the bubble point cOUMbe accounted for.
wise be considered very poor reservoir rock. ‘l’here
is little widence of fractures on the pressure It iswell luxnm that single txill mdels are
buildup tests, but buildup kh’s tended tobe at fraught with danger erdsust be tmdwithcautions.

.- j
S74 .’
—
.,=.
 . .

SPE ?9837 P. SCHENEWERKand B. HEATH 3

Ho#ever, in the older portion of South Buck Drak partial pressure maintenance might onlyba con-
Field, production frcmthe wells had established sidered where there is the possibility of forming a
well defined no flow boundaries between the secondary gas cap up-structure frc6n the producing
prducingwell,ii. In addition, the production from wells. In this field, the volatile nature of the
thewellswas not influenced by outside mechanisms fluid was seen as an asset in a reservoir Whki?
such as watez encroachment or gas migraticn due to lacked sufficient structure to forma secondary gas
structural di,?. As a result, the single wall model cap. ‘ilte recovary process envisionedby the
can be used. operators was one in which pressure decline wnuld
be slowed and reservoir liquids would be re-
lhe well .phosen for history matching was the vaporized as they casm into contact with the
Anderson Federal NO. 1-27. l’hiswll hada injected dry gas.
sufficient mount of pressure data, both flowing
bottm-hole and buildup, to justify confidence in Apcocess mdel was constructed in order to
the history matched model results and subsequent evaluate the effect of partial pressure suiintenance
predictions. The wll was history matched using operations in the South Buck Draw Field. The
flowing bottm-hole pressure &ta to match in- process model was a vertical cross section through
stantaneous end cumlative production of gas and the reservoir in the preferential direction of
oil. Once the history match was obtained, the flow. A full fieldmdel was not considered
pressure versus percentage recovery data was used because the quality of the reservoir description
to eSti=te the OOIP. Using this method, the OOIP did not justify it and the coarse grid size that
was estimated to @ 15.4 MFIBmwhich confirmed the would be required would have had significant
lower values of both the volmet[ic and MBEmethods numerical dispersion problemaio.
of evaluation.
The 45X3 cross sectional model was fully
M additional benefit of the radial model coaqnxitional using the ~ equation of &ate
study was that by running a pressure depletion parameters previously used in the radial model.
case, it provided an estimate of primary recovery The cross section was 4,500 ft. long and had
efficiency. The model suggested that primary uniform thickness of 25 ft. l’he reservoir was
recovery would be on the order of 23.5% of the layered using the pammbilityd istributionda-
OOIP. This confirmd previous studies7 ‘. This fined in Figure 5. This layering scheae resulted
—
result was iapxtant in that several operators in in three layers with the properties shown in ’f’able
the field felt that primary recovery would h low 2. The layers wre.orderedwith the highastpersx+
due to adverse gas-oil relative pemmbility ability on thebottoleandthe lowest ontha top.
effects below the bubble point. Their reasoning In Bouth Buck Draw Field, t-here are no correlateble
was based on the fact that once the reservoir began zones of uniform reservoir rock properties. ti
producing a free gas phase, the relative pers6e- layer ordering that was chosen reflects the general
abilityto oil wuld decrease rapidlyid oil pro- porosity andpersmbility trend associated with the
duction would fall off dresatically. *is, flwial type deposits in the field. Itahould also
however, does not appear tobe the case as canbe be noted that this type of ordering gatirally
— seen in Figure 8 which is a plot of historical oil yieldamre conservative results than woulda
production-gas-oil ratios for the?loore+ibbs heterogeneous (iei rersha)’ ordering sch.
No* 9-1. This plot shows there is no significant
change in the oil production decline as the The cross section”as described here re-
reeervoir,pressure falls beknv the bubble point. pze~:nted approxirntely 1% of thetX)IP in South Buck
It is mcertiin exactlyuhy this occurs, but it is Dcaw. Ml the simlation reaults were SCaled Up to
ISOSt likely a combimtion of Iiquid production from full field vohswes using this ratio. The mdel
the pr03uced gas phases and a grevity-segregation only amounts for vertical areal sweep efficiencies
between Iayemwhich can occur in these type and, therefore, the recoveries ahouldbe reduced to
reservoirs . account for less than 100% areal swap efficiencies
In the work reported here, eweepefficienq is ~
~HmOvED~Y@TIW AND~ assumed to be 100%. Another area where caution
ahouldbe exercised is the useof modelsof this
At th time of the original evaluation, only type for obtaining actual field ratesmd project
the fluvial facies were considered to be a can- design parameters. l’hese type ofmdels ahouldbe
didate for iaproved recovery. %iaterfloodinghad considered useful as pert of a design process which
been suggested as a possibility, however, because helps the engineer understand the production
of the field’s depth (13,000 ft.) and the fact that ~imas ina resemoir and not necessarily the
the reservoir wes potentially oil *t, this process details of injection Operations G.
was tied out. The general concensus of the
field’s qrators was that hydrocxbcm gas in- MmEL RE8U!TS
jection offered the only real possibility as an
isproved recovery-chaniam A pressure depletion run was made using the
mdel croae-section. :Ilu3 results oi *is run~re
At the tinm5 of ti’ original study, portions of used to estimte the primary perfommca for cm-
-:- the 8mth Buck Draw Fhld -Fe already below the perison of incrmmtal secondary recoveries.
tile point (4,530 psi). zheoperators elected to Priiasry recovery frmthe cross section was 21% of
evaluate the feasibility pf partial pressure IMi.p- the OixP. -
tanance by injecting produced gas. Ztwas felt
that this procese offered the leaste~c risk - caaeof partial preseuremaManence
since it did not require the purchase of make-up starting belcw the bubble point at 4322 psi was
gas for injecticm into what was aaenasaultipl: the only scenario avaluatal in the original stxsiy.
reservoirs
.. within the fluvial facies. usually, Additional caaesswc* run bytfoode for theppoea

C7
.
 . .
A CASE STUDY OF IMPROVED RECOVERY
4 OPTIONS IN A VOLATILE OIL RESERVOIR SPE 19837

of studying volatile oil reservoir behavior. The as the previous case. Unlike the previous case,
cases which were evaluated are: the average gas injection requiremnt per barrel of
increaumtal oil is 27.2 MSCF, of which 8.9 MSCFis
1. Partial Pressure Maintenance Above the make-up. A plot of cumulative oil production
Bubble Point versus cumulative gas injection is shown in Figure
2. Partial Pressure Maintenance Below the 10.
Subble Point
3, Full Pressure Maintenance Above the DISCUSSION
Bubble Point
4. Full Pressure Maintenance Below the In the case of partial pressure maintenance,
Bubble Point the earlier the process is initiated the better the
incremental recovery will be. Additionally, the
In each of the cases, the mod?l was m to a earlier gas injection begins, the less gas in-
preset condition of field oil productim rate or a jection will be required per incremental barrel of
producing GORwhch was not necessarily related to oil recovered. A third run of the partial pressure
the economic limit. These projections are con- maintenace mdel at a lower reservoir pressure of
sidered to be naxinnnas for the system under dis- 3785 psi confirmed this trend and is also shown in
cussion. However, the oil production resulting Figure 9.
from the blowbwn of the reservoir is not included
in these results. Sach case is described below: For full pressure maintenance operations, it
appears that incremental recovery will be similar
Case 1 whether the process is initiated above or FS1OWthe
-al Pressure Maintenace Above Bubble Point bubble point. In both the cgwes evaluated, the gas
handling requirements were similar. Mre mke-up
In this case, partial pressure ~htWWiCe gas is require~ for operations initiated at
operations were initiated at a reservoir pressure pressures belm the bubble point. l’his trend was
Of 5,251. pSi. CMIly85% of the produced gas was confirmed by an additional mdel run at 3785 psi,
reinfected to account for shrinkage due to gas the results of which are also included in Figure
processing. Incremental recovery from this run was 10. While the handling of additional gas is not
35.6% of the CX)IP. On average, 14.4 MSCFof gas advantageous, the fact that equivalent recoveries
was injected for each barrel of incremental oil. can be >btained at lcwer initiation pressures is
Figure 9 shows a plot of cumulative oil prduction quite beneficial information. In the case in
versus cumulative gas injection. point, field lopmmt twk 9 years and the
reservoir p R sure had fallen below the kbble
Case 2 point. In a better defined reservoir and under
-al Pressure 14aintenance Belcn+ Bubble Point nmre favorable economic conditions, it might have
been possible to initiate this type of flood and
Partial pressure maintenance was initiated in still obtain reasonable recoveries.
the reservoir at an average reservoir.pressure of
4,322 psi for the base case. AS in Case 1, only It is clear that in each of the projects
85% of the produced gas was reinfected. This run evaluated, incresmtal oil is recovered. Whether
resulted in an incremental recovery of 30.9% of the they wuldbe economical is largely beyond the
OOIP. Figure 9 shows a plot of cumulative oil pro- GCOp of this work. In order tomske this
duction versus cumulative gas injection. In this evaluation, the effects of areal aweep efficiency
case, 16.2 M$CFof gas.ms injected on average for { would have to be accounted for, then the project
each incremental barrel of oil produced. would be subject to the vagaries of oil and gas
product prices, market availability and compression
Case 3 costs . M a general rule, it is better to initiate
~Pressure Main.tenance Atmve Bubble Point these projects as earlyas reasonably possible
since this will result in higher initial rates and
FUll pressure maintenance operations were a shorter project life.
begun at a reservoir pressure of 5,251 psi. AS in
the previous cases, 85% of the produced gas is CCNCLUSICFJB
reinfected along with as nu.ichmake-up gas as is
required to maintain the reservoir pressure. The South Buck Draw Field Was not unitized for
Incremental secondary recwery in this case is secondary recovery. The operators concluded that
51.l%of the C%)IP. Figure 10 is a plot of “ due to the uncertainties in the resewoir des-
cuadative oil production versus cumlative gas cription (ie., the presence of multiple reservoirs
injection. The average gas injection requirement within the fluvial facies), the presence of a
per barrel of secondary oil is 27.5 MSCFof which fracture syetemandmsrginal incremmtal ecommics
7.7 MSCF is make-up gas. due tolm product prices, they could not justify
the investsmt required for the project. Bowaver,
Case 4 the studies did reveal the following:
WPressure Maintenance Below Bubble @int
1. Primsry recoveries invcilatile oil reservoirs
In this case, fu?,l pressure maintenance was canbe very good. In the case of South 8uck Draw
initiatedat a reservoir pressure of 4,322 pai for primary production wasestirmted kobe in
the base run. mke-upgas alongwith85% of the excess of 23% of CX31P.Ms.hss w been con-
produced gas was r*injected to maintain the firaedbyactual fia.ldqlmducti.on.
reservoir pressure. lhisprqcess reciwers 50.9% of 2. Oil production in wells producing volatile oils
thCX)IPonan incremmtal bssiswhich is the aaam does not undergoa drastic &clinewhen reservoi]
pressure falls below the bubble point.

$?$
 ,.
. .

SPE 19837 P. SCHENEWERKand B. HEATH s

3. Process amdels can yield reasonable results and Paper SPE 18305, pceaented at the 1988 Annual
are appropriate in situations where there is SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition,
insufficient tim or data for full field modeling Houston, October 2-5.
or where n~rical dispersion might be a problem
due-to large grid sizes. Results from these 7. s, R.W.: “Case History of Reservoir ;.
models should be used with caution. Per rmance of a Highly Volatile ~
Y
4. Partial pressure maintenance operations will Oil ReservoirWt TRANS.AXME.204.
recover incremental oil in volatile oil reser-
voirs without the aid of structural dip. 8. Cordell, J.C. and Ebert, Cl’ ! “A Case
5. Recovery efficiencies for partial pressure History - Ccsqx4risonof Predicted and
maintenance operations improve as the pressure ACtMl Performance of-ameservqir Pro-
at which the process is initiated gets higher. ducing volatile Crude OilW, JPT (NOV.1965)
6. Incremental recoveries for full pressure 1291-1293.
maintenance operations in volatile oil systems
are similar whether they are initiated above 9. Posten, S.W. and Gross, S.J.: “Numerical
or below the bubble point. Simulation of Sendstone Reservoir Models”,
7. GSS handling and make-up gas requi~enwnts SPEReseWoir Engineering, (JUIY 1986)
increase as the project initiation pressure 423-429.
decreases in full pressure maintenance
operations. 10. Carey, J.P. and Plnanuel, A.S.: “Effect
of Grid Size in the Compositional Simu-
NOMEWLAnms lation of C02 Injection”, Paper SI?E6894
presentedat the 1977 Annual SPE Technical
- Permeability Thickness Conference and Ehibition, Denver, October
s. - Millidarcies 9-12.
M - Thousand
MM - Million S1 MEl?RICCCWVERSIONS
Rs- ReseNoir Sarrel
SCF - Standard Cubic Feet Acre * 4.046 856 E+03 = X2
SIB - Stock Tank Sarrel Sarrel * 1.589 873 E-01 = M3
cuFt * 2.831 685 E-02-Pf
ACKrKWLm3mENTS Foot * 3,048 E-01 = M
~ * 9.869 233 ~04 BAHZ
The authors thank woods PetroleumC orporation Mile * 1.609 347 E+03 = M
for permission to publish this paper. The assis- Psi * 6.894 757 E+1OO= kpa
tance of Kim Adcock and Paul Green for drafting the
figures and Sharon Wood for typins the manuscript
is also acknowledged and appreciated.

REFERmWES

1. Rice, D.D., “General Characteristics of

the Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway
and 8asins” in PA’ITEIWSOFSEDIMEN’ITATICW,
DIAGENESIS,AND~ WCUMULATI@l
IN CREIACEDJSROCKSOFTHEROCKY ~NS,
Sot. Econ. Paleontologists, Mineralogists,
Short Course NO. 11, 1983 2-1 - 2-27.

2. Moses, E.L.: “R3gineering ~lications

of Phase Behavior of Crude Oil and Con-
densate Systems”, JPT (July 1986) 715-723.

3. OWenS~W.W. and Archer, D.L.: “The

Effect of Rock Nettability on Oil-water
Relative Permeability Relationships”,
JPT (July 1971) 873-878.
4. Jacoby, R.H. and Ser~, V.J.: “AMethod
for Predicting Depletion Performance of
a ReseNoir Producing Volatile Crwe Oil”,
lRAWS.AIME. 210.

5. Reudelhuber, F.O. and Hinds, R.F.:

-- “Compositional Material Salance Xethod
for Predictionof Recovery fro333Volatile
Oil Depletion Drive Reservoirs”, TSANS.
— AIME. 210.

6. Saleri, N.G. and ‘IYmnyi, R.M.: “Engineer-

ing Control in ReSerVOir Simulation: Part I“,
—
 sw 1983? “ - .
‘lmSLE1

s. Armstrong No. 1 tirson Fe&r& No. 1-27

Hole percent Ible Percent

Hydrogen Sulfide 0.00 0.00
Csrbon Dioxide 2.30 2.55
Nit rogen 0.45 0.46
Methene 54.90 57.83
Ethene 10.11 9.97
Propane 5.61 5*ZO
Iso-Butane 0.98 0.90
N-Butene 2.34 2.04
Iso-Pentane 0.97 0.58
N-Pentane 1.20 1.09
Hexene 1.79 1.97
Heptenes Plus 19.35 17.41
100.00 100.00

Leyer Thickness Porosity PemMhility

(Pt. ) (%) (d. )

1 13 .04 .022

2 6 .06 .18

3 6 .08 1.5

—
R74W

;4 4=-

WYOM
Irio

.-

I I I I I I Fig. l-1.ocetion of the $ouNI Bush Drew W.,

>
m ..
.+
 ..” WE 19832

MAXIE FEDERAL #22-25

SECTION 25-41N-74W

.
TOP OF DAKOTA SAND

a) MARINE FACIES

.- %

MOORE-GIBBS #9-1
SECTION 9-40N-74W

GAMMA RAY

. .,!

b) FUiVIAL FACIES

Fig. 2-F&cies idmtification.

. . $
%79 .- —
Z.*.. -—
 *E 19837 ● .

R74W
!
19 d 21 22 23 24
●

*
* ●

30 29 28 25

.— —-. <A ,;
canwl@
* I N
31 32

L
●
f
.“

.. \
— * -%
/ ● \
\
I

\\”
> *

-.
T ----%
f 20 21 22 23 P4 40
●

☛
N
☛ ☛

☛
/
29 22 27 26 23

a
* *
● ,. *

32 33 34 35 36

* *

* * *

‘- REOIONAL MARINg FACIES

—. — fLWiAL FACIES
. ..

Fig. 3-Facies RNp.

-.
-+.
m . -_ .,
.

.........+...
.........+..
.........+.. ...}...
...+.. 100000
-..---..........}...
.
ai::\-”i--l-~.~~-.-l~~!’’’~’~’’f’~~’l’~’~ . . .. .. . . . .. . .
..4...
. . . . . . . .. . . ..
. . . . . . ..+..
. . . . . . . .. -J...
. . -----
. . . ..-
. ..+..
-.-A-.-
“

10000 10000
+-M+--
..:.- .+. ---:---:--+...a
....... ... ..J , ; ;----
. . . . . . . . . . . :.. :
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....*... ‘
. ..<.... . . . . .“ . . . -.4 . . . . ,.. .L. . . ...?... .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . .
. ..1.... . . . +.. . . ..}...! . ..+... . ...}... -. .+.. . . .. . . ..+...

1000 .+... , . ..+.. . ..}...< . ..+... .. . . . . . . . ..+..- ,...,... . ..*.... . ..+... ,.., . . . . 1000
WIK!ti .. . . ..
.. .. ..
. ..+... ....}...
. . . . . . . . . . .. . .
. ..+...
. ..+..

"-"lt"il+.-+i""i"""t""+""t--"!.""t--+".t"..i.""l.""+..t.""!.."l""-+""t--i"-"t"".!"-"i
... ..,.-. ...
&./ . . . . . .b . T..+...f...~..*..+...~ . . . . . ..+..+...~..l...+..+ . . . . . ..t...*.+
:i
: “
.. . . . . . . y... , . . . . . . . . ..+.. , . . . . . . . +.. .. . . . ..- . . . . . . . ....9... . ..*... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

~.

4... ........ . ..4............ ........ ........ ............. ... ........

:
. . . .- . . :... . . . . . . . . -.

, .
: ...<........
... ... .. :... , ...... L.. ...4... .-..i... ..4... ....L. ........ ..... .. . ,...; ....
: ; : “: : ~
: :
: ,
: ;
OIL = .-_.
:. :
GOR . +++ +
: , , : . : ,
. ● 100
77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Fig. 4–South Buck Draw fluvlal facies production history.

681
 COF 10 JIZ?
.

m
w
mm
w

“
❑

8! u“
“ w: H
w
n
*8X” . “
w
x
~ mm w
“

w w x =!(
S* ■= “.

5:-W*
“
w“
. *m”
“
❑ n
*W
w .
n
n
u i
9
M x
m WW
“.
M * Ii
-w
M
.
n

w
u

*
ti 7 2
cow ‘AllllW3W13d

●
●

●
●
☛✎

●O
●*
.0
●
●
●

“(M ‘Alll10VWU3d
.
 SPE 19837

K
rg

I
I
o 10 20 30 40 50 00 70 80 90 n
GAS SATURATION, PERCENT PORE SPACE

Fig. 7–Gaa/oll relathm permeability.

4
t8-
 ,..t. ..(
*
,. . . . . . . 4. . . 100000
,.~... . ..*..
}
..... q.-. .
, , ! ,
,.:.. . .. .. . ..
. . . . . . . . ..+.... . . . . . . . . . . ..*... . . . .
;-- --+- -h- -+- -+- -+
-i- --j---- -.i~- --~... -y. .-j---- ....~-.. .-j--- --.i- -+.. ... . . . . . . . . . .

...... ,.: . . . . . . . . . .

.. . . . . ,. .;...
: , , ,
, i

10000 . ........ .... ........... .... ... ........ ...... 10000

........ ...4... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . ...... . . ..... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .+.. ... . .. .
. .. . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------- .-..,... .... .. . . . . . . . . . . . z
. . } . . . . ..{... a~
4-. .-:--- 2
c)

:
:,
: ;
)
1000 : : ,.
... ... ...+.. 1000
,.. . . . . ... . . , . . . . . . ..} ... ,.. +..
!.- ..., ... ...+..
.
,..
, , , .
... ... ...*..
,..
-!- .- f-
.-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..+.. . . . . . . ..: ...,.......
-.. .- . . 4-.. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. ..L. ...4...< ... ...,...:...
,
:
: ;
--- .. .. $... . .. . . . . ..{... . . . .. . . . .--i.-. . . .. . . . . ..+... . . . .: . . . . . i... .,...-....~...
:
: {
~ ;
: ,
: . . OIL = ----
:. : , . ,
:
.
;
, ,
100 100 G(JR = ++++
77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Fig. 8-Moore Gibbs No. 9.1 production history.

.——.

,.
_, ,...:...
-<~.~_-,
.=..-_–_.=-
...=.... ----------:, -------.: ’,:’-
-., .
SPE 19837

-.

..
:
I.

2
.. “806 ..
 ..

SPE 1983? ,,.

(dosww)
NOU031’NI SVD 3AllVlllUNft3

686