gannet f 4d still driving decisions after 20 years€¦ · this presentation contains...
Post on 24-Jun-2020
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Seismic 201914th May
Presenter: Ryan Singlehurst-WardCo-Author: Graham Hicks
GeophysicistGeophysicist
Gannet F4D Still Driving Decisions After 20 Years
1
DEFINITIONS & CAUTIONARY NOTE
2
The companies in which Royal Dutch Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate legal entities. In this “Shell”, “Shell group” and “Royal Dutch Shell” are sometimes used for convenience where references are made to Royal Dutch Shell plc and its
subsidiaries in general. Likewise, the words “we”, “us” and “our” are also used to refer to subsidiaries in general or to those who work for them. These expressions are also used where no useful purpose is served by identifying the particular company or
companies. ‘‘Subsidiaries’’, “Shell subsidiaries” and “Shell companies” as used in this presentation refers to companies over which Royal Dutch Shell plc either directly or indirectly has control. Entities and unincorporated arrangements over which Shell has joint
control are generally referred to “joint ventures” and “joint operations” respectively. Entities over which Shell has significant influence but neither control nor joint control are referred to as “associates”. The term “Shell interest” is used for convenience to indicate
the direct and/or indirect ownership interest held by Shell in a venture, partnership or company, after exclusion of all third-party interest.
This presentation contains forward-looking statements concerning the financial condition, results of operations and businesses of Royal Dutch Shell. All statements other than statements of historical fact are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements are statements of future expectations that are based on management’s current expectations and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ
materially from those expressed or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements concerning the potential exposure of Royal Dutch Shell to market risks and statements expressing management’s expectations,
beliefs, estimates, forecasts, projections and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and phrases such as ‘‘anticipate’’, ‘‘believe’’, ‘‘could’’, ‘‘estimate’’, ‘‘expect’’, ‘‘goals’’, ‘‘intend’’, ‘‘may’’, ‘‘objectives’’, ‘‘outlook’’,
‘‘plan’’, ‘‘probably’’, ‘‘project’’, ‘‘risks’’, “schedule”, ‘‘seek’’, ‘‘should’’, ‘‘target’’, ‘‘will’’ and similar terms and phrases. There are a number of factors that could affect the future operations of Royal Dutch Shell and could cause those results to differ materially from
those expressed in the forward-looking statements included in this presentation including (without limitation): (a) price fluctuations in crude oil and natural gas; (b) changes in demand for Shell’s products; (c) currency fluctuations; (d) drilling and production results;
(e) reserves estimates; (f) loss of market share and industry competition; (g) environmental and physical risks; (h) risks associated with the identification of suitable potential acquisition properties and targets, and successful negotiation and completion of such
transactions; (i) the risk of doing business in developing countries and countries subject to international sanctions; (j) legislative, fiscal and regulatory developments including regulatory measures addressing climate change; (k) economic and financial market
conditions in various countries and regions; (l) political risks, including the risks of expropriation and renegotiation of the terms of contracts with governmental entities, delays or advancements in the approval of projects and delays in the reimbursement for shared
costs; and (m) changes in trading conditions. No assurance is provided that future dividend payments will match or exceed previous dividend payments. All forward-looking statements contained in this presentation are expressly qualified in their entirety by the
cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Additional risk factors that may affect future results are contained in Royal Dutch Shell’s 20-F for the year ended December 31,
2016 (available at www.shell.com/investor and www.sec.gov ). These risk factors also expressly qualify all forward looking statements contained in this presentation and should be considered by the reader. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the
date of this presentation 2nd of May 2018. Neither Royal Dutch Shell plc nor any of its subsidiaries undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or other information. In light of
these risks, results could differ materially from those stated, implied or inferred from the forward-looking statements contained in this presentation.
This presentation may contain references to Shell’s website. These references are for the readers’ convenience only. Shell is not incorporating by reference any information posted on www.shell.com.
We may have used certain terms, such as resources, in this presentation that United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) strictly prohibits us from including in our filings with the SEC. U.S. Investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our
Form 20-F, File No 1-32575, available on the SEC website www.sec.gov.
Agenda
3
◼ Field Introduction & History
◼ 4D Summary
◼ 3D: Extended Elastic Impedance
◼ Results & Integration
◼ Impact & Conclusions
Tay
Odin
Forties
-8000
-8000
-8000
-7900
-7900
-7900
-7800
-8100
-7900
-780
0
-7800
-7800
-7700
-7700
-7700
-7600
-7600
-76
00
-7500
-7500
-7500
-740
0
-7400
-7400
-730
0
-7300
-7300
-720
0
-7200
-7200
-710
0
-7100
-7100
-7000
-7000
-7000
-7000
-8100
-6900
-6800
-6700
-6700
-6700
-6700
-6600
-6900
-690
0
-6900
-6900
-6900
-6900
-6900
-8000
-7100
-7000
-7000
-7000
-7000
-66
00
-6500
-6500
-6400
-6400
-7100
-7100
-6400
-680
0
-6800
-6800
-6800
-6800
-6800
-670
0
-6700
-660
0
-650
0
-6600
-6600
-7000
-6500
-6500
-6500
-650
0
-7000
-6500
-7000
-7000
-7000
-7500
-7500
-8000
-8000
-7000
-7000
-7000
-7000
-7500
-8000
-8000
-800
0
-7000
-700
0
-7000
-6500
557600 558000 558400 558800 559200 559600 560000 560400 560800
557600 558000 558400 558800 559200 559600 560000 560400 560800
63
25
20
06
32
56
00
63
26
00
06
32
64
00
63
26
80
06
32
72
00
63
27
60
06
32
80
00
63
28
40
06
32
88
00
63
25
20
06
32
56
00
63
26
00
06
32
64
00
63
26
80
06
32
72
00
63
27
60
06
32
80
00
63
28
40
06
32
88
00
-8100.00-7800.00-7500.00-7200.00-6900.00-6600.00
Elevation depth [ft]
0 250 500 750 1000 1250m
Top Forties Structure Map
GF01
21/30-13GF02
21/30-1
GF03
21/30-15
21/30-14
Gannet F
◼ Shell (operator) 50%, ExxonMobil 50%
◼ 1960s-’80s E&A wells, 1st oil 1997
◼ Subsea tie back to Gannet A platform
◼ 3 primary Paleocene/Eocene reservoirs
◼ Tay, Odin, Forties (other minor sands)
◼ 3 production wells
◼ GFA01, GFA02 (Forties)
◼ GFA03 (Odin & Forties)
Forties
A
A’
Forties OOWC
Cross section through Gannet F Model A A’ B B’
B
B’
Odin
Tay
OOWC
4
Production, Seismic & Infill Wells
5
Jun 97 Jun 99 Jun 01 Jun 03 Jun 05 Jun 07 Jun 09 Jun 11 Jun 13 Jun 15 Jun 17
Rate
Gannet F: Oil and Water historical ratesOil Water
2017
4D ‘Monitor’
2010
4D ‘Monitor’2006
4D ‘Monitor’
1997
4D ‘Base’
2004
4D Test1993
Seismic
GFA01 GFA02 GFA03
◼ 2015 GFA03: Forties & Odin, Not Tay
~12Mmboe incremental
◼ 2006 ‘barrier’ between GFA01 & GFA02
removed
6
Top Forties Top OdinTop Tay2017: 3rd 4D Monitor Water Sweep
2017201020061997
A
A’
B
B’
A A’ B B’
Background: NtG
4D: 10-97
4D: 17-10
GFA01
GFA02
GFA03
Tay
Odin
Forties Tay Odin FortiesDepth
OOWC
Depth
OOWC
So where does that leave us? Where next?
7
[06-97]
GF01
GF01GF02
GF03
[06-97] + [10-06] + [17-10]
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑 𝑉𝑜𝑙 =∆𝑆𝑤 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 ∗ 252 ∗ 𝑁𝑇𝐺 ∗ ∅ ∗ (1 − 𝑆𝑤𝑖 − 𝑆𝑜𝑟)/𝐵𝑜
◼ Existing FFM did not history match &
difficult to update
◼ 4D Constrained MBAL gives
reasonable matchPrevious target
Acoustic Impedance vs Vp/Vs
8
Brine Sands
VSHALE
Acoustic Impedance
Vp/
Vs
1
0
Shales
◼Elastic properties of Tay,
Odin and Forties are
practically identical.
◼Wet (Brine) sands have
the same AI as much of
the (harder) shales and
are therefore not visible
in AI space
Acoustic Impedance vs Vp/Vs
9
Acoustic Impedance
Vp/
Vs
Oil Sands
(Softer) Shales
◼Oil Sands have a different
AI to the harder shales but
have the same AI as softer
shales, mostly in the Tay
interval.
◼Therefore, Pre-Stack
Attributes will help to
distinguish Oil Sands.
VSHALE
1
0
A concept for Extended Elastic Impedance (EEI) and Chi
10*Shuey 1985, Aki and Richards 1980
◼ The Shuey* approximation gives reflectivity, R, for a
given incidence angle θ; R(θ) = A + B sin2θ
◼ With intercept, A (AI, zero offset reflectivity) and gradient, B
(GI) respectively.
B
(Intercept, R0, AI)A
(Gradient, GI)
SS
WS
No/Poor
separation in AI
A concept for Extended Elastic Impedance (EEI) and Chi
11
B
(Intercept, R0, AI)
*Shuey 1985, Aki and Richards 1980
◼ The Shuey* approximation gives reflectivity, R, for a
given incidence angle θ; R(θ) = A + B sin2θ
◼ With intercept, A (AI, zero offset reflectivity) and gradient, B
(GI) respectively.
A
(Gradient, GI)
Background Shale
Trend
HS
SS
WS
OS
No/Poor
separation in AI
A concept for Extended Elastic Impedance (EEI) and Chi
12
B
(Intercept, R0, AI)
*Shuey 1985, Aki and Richards 1980
◼ The Shuey* approximation gives reflectivity, R, for a
given incidence angle θ; R(θ) = A + B sin2θ
◼ With intercept, A (AI, zero offset reflectivity) and gradient, B
(GI) respectively.
◼ Whitcombe et al. (2002) define EEI as:
◼ Conceptually, this rotates the axis in an intercept-gradient
plot by the angle and can improve separation of events
indistinguishable in Acoustic Impedance, AI.
A
(Gradient, GI)
HS
SS
OS
WS
Good separation
in EEI
EEI Analysis – Oil Sands vs Shales
13
Mea
n EE
I
Chi Angle
EEI
No.
of s
ampl
es
Chi=0
Oil Sands, Hard Shales, Soft Shales
EEI Analysis – Oil Sands vs Shales
14
EEI
No.
of s
ampl
es
Mea
n EE
I
Chi Angle
EEI
No.
of s
ampl
es
Chi=25
Chi=0
Oil Sands, Hard Shales, Soft Shales
◼ Chi 25 aligns hard shales and soft shales but also greatly
reduces overlap with oil sands in EEI space.
Updated 3D; Relative Extended Elastic ImpedanceProvides Evidence for crestal targets
15
Other
HC Sand
OOWC
4D Provides supporting evidence for crestal targets
16
Softening signals (17-10) at the crest give
confidence in sand presence and
communicationHarder
Softer
Other
HC Sand
OOWC
Integrating data; Can we believe the softening signals at the crest?
17
◼ Good connectivity and strong aquifer shown by a
wealth of different data.
◼ Based on RFT data, we’re ~200psi above bubble point
at the crest.
◼ Given GFA03, we wouldn’t expect Tay sands at the
crest but we see softening in Odin and Tay.
◼ Geochemistry, provides compelling supporting
evidence that fluids in the upper reservoirs are lighter
so could be below bubble point
Tay (21/30-14)Forties (GF02)
GF03 isotube isotope dataFluid Fingerprints
Meet Maureen; Is she a beauty or a witch?
18Credit: Anon, 19th Century Germany
4D Shows tantalising hints of potential deeper Maureen
19
Other
HC Sand
Harder
Softer
OOWC
Meet Maureen; Is she a beauty or a witch?
20
PGIt’s outside
regional GDE maps. What
concepts support it? Risks of higher
pressures.
REIt could be my
missing volumes but water could
back out primary target
production
PPOnly thin sands encountered by
nearby wells (fluorescing sidewall
core). Analogues (for properties) are
often far away.
WEGetting there
might be difficult.
Increased risk of sidetrack
PTIncreases the risk of water
breakthrough.No constraint on the grain size for the completion.
GP Looks great! It doesn’t match a
chalk response but we can’t rule out
siltstone.
◼And much more!
Considerations for the next 20 years…
21
◼ What are the volumes in the Tay, Odin and Forties to the South?
◼ What explains the tilted contact in the Forties at the North?
◼ Northern fault bounding Odin sweep or cusping?
◼ And more! Tay
Tay
Odin
Tay
Conclusions and Impact
22
◼ Previously, 4D was used to drill & monitor 2 infill wells (GFA02 and GFA03s1)
◼ Delivering over 20 MMboe and among the top performing Shell CNS wells
◼ The 4D and updated 3D is now being used to
◼ Prevent drilling swept reservoir (previously identified next target)
◼ Justify an additional infill well
◼ Highlight possible previously unknown/undocumented reservoir (can be targeted by the same infill
well)
◼ Bolster and add to opportunities in the South (some not previously documented)
◼ Support WRFM: highlighting the importance of ensuring GFA02 is kept on production
Acknowledgements
Shell Gannet F Subsurface Team
Andrew Vaughan (Dev/WRFM lead)
Ryan Singlehurst-Ward (Geophysicist)
Nicola Stewart (Geologist)
Kenneth Juquiana (Reservoir Engineer)
Diana Christancho (Petrophysicist)
Charles Ileagu (RE & Opportunity Manager)
Susannah Stott (Well Engineer)
Cliff Lovelock (Senior Geologist)
Stacey Emmerton (Geophysicist)
James Harrison (Geophysicist)
Shell Project & Technology
Jonathan Brain (4D SME)
Graham Tipney-Hicks (QI)
Jonathan Wall (Acquisition)
Thomas Piesold (Acquisition)
Richard Shipp (Processing)
Dan Bright (Processing)
Steve Gouldesbrough (Processing)
Pim van Bergen (Geochemistry)
Esso Exploration and Production UK Limited
Dag Isaksen (Operations Technical Manager,
Geoscience)
Jon Saundry (Joint Interest Reservoir Advisor)And Many, Many More!
23
Copyright of Shell International
Questions and Answers
24
EEI Analysis – Wet Sands vs Shales
25
Mea
n EE
I
Chi Angle
EEI
No.
of s
ampl
es
Chi=0
Wet Sands, Hard Shales, Soft Shales
EEI Analysis – Wet Sands vs Shales
26
EEI
No.
of s
ampl
es
Mea
n EE
I
Chi Angle
EEI
No.
of s
ampl
es
Chi=25
Chi=0
Wet Sands, Hard Shales, Soft Shales
◼ Chi 25 aligns hard shales and soft shales but also greatly
reduces overlap with wet sands in EEI space.
top related