EVALUATION OF INCREMENTAL RECOVERY BY INFILL

DRILLING

M.C.F. CHAN S.J. SPRINGER S. ASGARPOUR D.J. CORNS

this article begins on the next page F

PETROLEUM SOCIETY OF CIM PAPER NO. 86-37-14 THIS IS A PREPRINT - SUBJECT TO CORRECTION EVALUAoriON OF INCREMENTAL RECOVERY BY INFILL DRILLING by M.C.F. Chan S.J. Springer S. Asgarpour D.J. Corns Gulf Canada Corporation PUBLICATION RIGHTS RESERVED THIS PAPER IS TO BE PRESENTED AT THE 37th ANNUAL TECHNICAL MEETING OF THE PETROLEUM SOCIETY OF CIM HELD IN CALGARY, JUNE 8-11, 1986. DISCUSSION OF THIS PAPER IS INVITED. SUCH DISCUSSION MAYBE PRESENTEDATTHETECHNICALMEETINGANDWILLBECONSIDERED FOR PUBLICATION IN CIMJOURNALS IFFILED IN
WRITINGWITHTHETECHNICALPROGRAMCHAIRMAN PRIORTOTHECONCLUSION OF THE MEETING. ABSTRACT The estimation of incremental oil or gas recovery from infill drilling is essential to substantiate the recommendation to drill devel- opment wells or to evaluate the benefit of reducing the well spacing in a developed field. The purpose of this paper is to discuss four different techniques that can be used to quantify incremental oil recovery and acceler- ated production from infill drilling. These methods are surmnarized below. 1) A reservoir continuity model illustrates the concept
that infill drilling improves the continuity between wells, this in turn will improve the reservoir sweep efficiency and ultimate recovery. 2) A plot of water-oil ratio on semilog scale versus cumulative oil production on linear scale is used to demonstrate the incremental oil recovered from infill drilling. 3) Decline curve analysis is used to estimate the incremental recovery and accelerated production, and the interference between infill and offset wells. 4)
A reservoir simulation model is used to predict production forecast for the infill wells, and to estimate the incremental recovery versus the accelerated production from infill drilling. INTRODUCTION Infill drilling can increase ultimate gas or oil recovery but the incremental recovery from infill drilling varies for each pool because of difference in reservoir heterogeneity and fluid propertiesl-3. Consequently, determination of incremental
recovery from infill drilling is a challenging task in reservoir study. A further complication is to quantify and differentiate the incremental recovery from the accelerated produc- tion. The benefits of incremental recovery and accelerated production from infill drilling have been extensively debated and documented4,5. This paper presents four methods that can be applied to estimate or evaluate both incremental recovery and accelerated production from infill
drilling, however no one method is necessarily more accurate than another. Very often, the selection of a specific method depends on the availability of the reservoir performance data and the time constraint. If possible, all four methods should be used to determine incremental recovery. This would enhance the confidence of the results calculated by each method and to complement each other. 163
 - - --.: .. -~~ --'- ._-" ~ _.....: ..

PETROLEUM SOCIETY OF CIM PAPER NO. 86-37-14

;

THIS IS A PREPRINT - SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

."

EVALUATION OF INCREMENTAL
RECOVERY BY INFILL DRILLING

by
M.C.F. Chan
S.J. Springer
S. Asgarpour
D J. Corns
Gulf Canada Corporation

PUBLICATION RIGHTS RESERVED

THIS PAPER IS TO BE PRESENTED AT THE 371h ANNUAL TECHNICAL MEETING OF THE PETROLEUM
SOCIETY OF CIM HELD IN CALGARY. JUNE 8·11. 1966. DISCUSSION OF THIS PAPER IS INVITED. SUCH
DISCUSSION MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE TECHNICAL MEETING AND WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR PUBLICATION
IN CIMJOURNALS IF FILED IN WRITING WITH THE TECHNICAL PROGRAM CHAIRMAN PRIORTOTHE CONCLUSION
OF THE MEETING

recovery versus the accelerated production from

ABSTRACT
The est1mation of incremental oil or gas
recovery from infill drilling is essential to
substantiate the recorrmendat1on to drill devel-
opment wells or to evaluate the benefit of
reducing the we'l spacing in a developed field.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss four
different techniques that can be used to
quantify incremental oil recovery and acce1er-
ated production from infill drilling. These
methods are summarized below.
1) A reservoir continuity model illustrates the
concept that infil1 drill ing improves the
continuity between wells, this in turn will
improve the reservoi r sweep eff; c; ency and
ultimate recovery.
2) A plot of water-oil ratio on semi log scale
versus cLlmulative oil production on 1 inear
scale is used to demonstrate the incremental
oil recovered from infill drill ing.
3) Decline curve analysiS is used to estimate
the incremental recovery and accel erated
production, and the interference between
infill and offset wells.
4) A reservoir simulation model is used to
predict production forecast for the infi"
wells, and to estimate the incremental
inrill drilling.
INTROOUCTION
Infill drilling can increase ultimate gas or
oil recovery but the incremental recovery from
infil1 drilling varies for each pool because of
difference in reSerVaTI'" heterogeneity and fluid
properties l - 3 . Consequently, determination of
incremental recovery from infi11 drill ing is a
challenging task in reservoir study. A further
complication is to quantify and differentiate the
incremental recovery from the accelerated produc-
tion. The benefits of incremental recovery and :. "-
accelerated production from infi11 drilling have
been extensively debated and documented 4 • 5 . );.~::
"".
This paper presents four methods that can be
applied to estimate or evaluate both incre~en~al
recovery and accelerated production from 1nf111
drill ing, however no one method is necessarily more
accurate than another. Very often, the selection of
a specific method depends on the avaflabil ity of the
reservoir performance data and the time constraint. :.. -
If possible, all four methods should be used to .;~ .'.
determine incremental recovery. This would enhance
the confidence of the results calculated by each
method and to complement each other.

163
 To determine or evaluate incremental (ii) The horizontal permeability and por-
recovery from infill drilling, the applications osity obtained from core data or
of reservoir continuHy model. water-oil ratio core-log correlation, are plotted in
plot, decllne curve analysis. and numerical block diagram and then al igned to the
simulation model are presented based on the field same datum which has been derived
performance data and the experience that we have from the stratigraphic cross-section.
gained in our reservoir studies in Alberta.
(iii) Porosity and permeability cutoffs of
four percent and one mill i darcy are
CONTINU III MODEL used to define the productive zone in
this field example. After the con-
Numerous reservoir studies have revealed ti nuous porous and permeab 1e 1 ayers
that, in a continuous porous reservoir, drainage are correlated, the interwell contin-
af fluids can occur effectively over large area uity can be calculated using the
in formation of either low or higtJ permeability. continuity model described ln
The major factor that appears to restrict the Figure 112.
drainage area by a well is the lack. of continuity
within the formation due to heterogeneity. The The reservoi r continui ty between two adj a-
theory and case history indicating that infill cent wells in a waterflood carbonate reservoir
drilllng will increase resenoir continuity and in Alberta (Figure 2) is calculated to be 79'1
hence improve waterflood pattern conformance 1n before infi 11 dri 11 ing. After an infi 11 well has
heterogeneous ~est Te~as carbonate reservoirs been drilled between these two wells, the average
have been published in literature 6 - 11 . reservoir continuity (Figures 3 & 4) ;s improved
from 79'I. to 841. Based on the assumption that
Reservoir continuity is defined as the por- the areal sweep efficiency is equal to reservoir
tion of the net pay that can be correlated and continuity, the areal sweep efficiency will
connected between ti'lO or more weI 1s at a improve from 79% to 841 after infill drilling and
particular well spacing. ReserVOir continuity the ultimate oil recovery will increase by
can be identified by the geologic evidence which 2.81~ as calculated below.
displays the geometric configuration of the
productive formation, the lateral and vertical The oi 1 recovery by waterflooding can be
variations in lithology, and the eA.tent of phys- defined as 13
ical continuity of each productive zone. Well
logs and core data are correlated, adjusted and Np N x ED x EA x Ev
used to construct stratigraphic cross-sections
from which the extent of reservoir continuity where ED is the maximum oil displacement
can be deri ved. by waterflooding and can be defined as:
Based on the study of carbonate reservoi rs
in West Texas by Stiles 8 • 11 , two porous layers E
1 _ Sorw SOl - Sorw
of unequal thickness may be continuous between D l-Swc Soi
adjacent wells but they may not be flooded or
drained because of difference in the layer thiCK- Based on reservoir parameters summarized in
ness. The reservoir continuity calculation is Table 1 for a waterflood Devonian reservoir in
based on the assumption that only half the thick- Al bert.,
ness difference between two layers can be flooded
and drained by the wells_ An example of reser- Swc = 0.2, Soi = 0.8, Sorw = 0.35
voir continuity calculation is shown in Figure
112.

A case history is used to demonst'r"ate the

major procedures in calculating reservoir ~on~i­ Pnor to infill drill ing,
nuity bet\~een two adjacent wells before lnf,ll
drilllng and the improvement in reservoir conti-
nuity after ,nfil1 drilling. NP 0.5625 x 0.79 x E 0.4444 E
N V V
(i ) The porosity and gailll1d ray logs of
two adjacent well s are al igned using
After infill drilling, EA 84~
the shale marker as the datum to con-
struct a stratigraphic cross-
section.
NP 0.5625 x 0.84 x E 0.4725 E
( i il The horizontal permeabil ity and por- N V V
osity obtained from core data or
core-log correlation, are plotted in Incremental oil recovery is:
block diagram and then aligned to the
same datum which has been derived
from the stratigraphic cross-section. 0.4725 EV 0.4H4 EV 0.0281 Ev

164