Deep Aquifer Characterization in Support of Montney Gas ...
Deep Aquifer Characterization in Support of Montney Gas ...
Deep Aquifer Characterization in Support of Montney Gas ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
6 th B.C. Unconventional <strong>Gas</strong> Technical Forum<br />
April 2, 2012
Acknowledgements<br />
Geoscience BC – <strong>Montney</strong> Water Project<br />
‘Lyn Angl<strong>in</strong>, Derek Brown<br />
Fund<strong>in</strong>g / participat<strong>in</strong>g partners<br />
ARC, ConocoPhillips, Devon, EnCana, Progress, Shell, Talisman<br />
B.C. M<strong>in</strong>istry <strong>of</strong> Energy M<strong>in</strong>es and Petroleum Resources, M<strong>in</strong>istry <strong>of</strong><br />
Environment, M<strong>in</strong>istry <strong>of</strong> Healthy Liv<strong>in</strong>g and Sport<br />
Science and Community Environmental Knowledge (SCEK) Fund<br />
Canadian Discovery<br />
Sheldon Thistle, Jordan Br<strong>in</strong>sky, Steve Burnie<br />
Petrel Robertson Consult<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Shelley Costanzo, Mike Hopk<strong>in</strong>s
MONTNEY<br />
PLAY TREND
Subsurface<br />
Study Areas
PLAINS F HILLS<br />
Pla<strong>in</strong>s<br />
Stratigraphic<br />
Column<br />
Focus on Cretaceous<br />
sandstones<br />
Foothills<br />
Some <strong>of</strong> Cretaceous<br />
eroded or shaled out<br />
<strong>Deep</strong>er carbonates<br />
(Baldonnel, Debolt)<br />
may be more important
CRETACEOUS<br />
JURASSIC<br />
TRIASSIC<br />
Pla<strong>in</strong>s Study Area<br />
Stratigraphic Review<br />
Good aquifer candidate<br />
Moderate aquifer candidate<br />
Poor aquifer candidate
CRETACEOUS<br />
JURASSIC<br />
TRIASSIC<br />
BLUESKY<br />
CADOMIN<br />
Pla<strong>in</strong>s Study Area<br />
Stratigraphic Review<br />
<strong>Aquifer</strong>s reviewed <strong>in</strong> this<br />
presentation
Cadom<strong>in</strong> Fm – Regional Geology (Pla<strong>in</strong>s)<br />
Alluvial fan to alluvial pla<strong>in</strong> sandstones<br />
and conglomerates<br />
Thickest <strong>in</strong> northwest, near Peace River<br />
depocentre<br />
Good primary reservoir quality where<br />
well-sorted, but much is poorly-sorted<br />
<strong>Aquifer</strong> quality degraded through burial<br />
compaction and silica cementation<br />
Widespread gas production <strong>in</strong> <strong>Deep</strong><br />
Bas<strong>in</strong>, but few conventional traps <strong>in</strong><br />
updip regional aquifer
20<br />
Pla<strong>in</strong>s Study Area<br />
Cadom<strong>in</strong><br />
Gross Isopach
10<br />
Pla<strong>in</strong>s Study Area<br />
Cadom<strong>in</strong><br />
Net Porous Sand<br />
(10% Φ Cut<strong>of</strong>f)
Pla<strong>in</strong>s Study Area<br />
Cadom<strong>in</strong><br />
Storativity<br />
0.24 – 0.26 m3 /m2 0.03 – 0.04 m3 /m2
Pla<strong>in</strong>s Study Area<br />
Cadom<strong>in</strong><br />
Hydraulic Head
10000<br />
Pla<strong>in</strong>s Study Area<br />
Cadom<strong>in</strong><br />
Water Sal<strong>in</strong>ity
Cadom<strong>in</strong> Fm (Pla<strong>in</strong>s) – Assessment<br />
750 – 2500+ metres deep<br />
1100 – 1500 m <strong>in</strong> most favourable areas<br />
Extensive compaction and silica cementation at depth,<br />
but coarser gra<strong>in</strong> sizes allow retention <strong>of</strong> considerable<br />
porosity/perm <strong>in</strong> the north and northeast<br />
Very high storage, excellent deliverability<br />
Low sal<strong>in</strong>ities, no H 2S<br />
Good aquifer candidate <strong>in</strong> northern half <strong>of</strong> Pla<strong>in</strong>s area
Bluesky Fm – Regional Geology (Pla<strong>in</strong>s)<br />
Two major accumulations<br />
North – stacked shoreface sandstones<br />
Lithic / glauconitic sands, extensively<br />
bioturbated<br />
Good primary and secondary solution<br />
porosity <strong>in</strong> clean sands capp<strong>in</strong>g<br />
coarsen<strong>in</strong>g-upward successions<br />
Few gas pools – lacks trap configurations<br />
South – Chamberla<strong>in</strong> delta complex<br />
Relatively f<strong>in</strong>e sands<br />
Poor reservoir quality – little solution<br />
porosity, deeper burial
10<br />
Pla<strong>in</strong>s Study Area<br />
Bluesky<br />
Gross Isopach
DEEP BASIN<br />
Pla<strong>in</strong>s Study Area<br />
Bluesky<br />
Net Porous Sand<br />
(12% Φ Cut<strong>of</strong>f)
DEEP BASIN<br />
Pla<strong>in</strong>s Study Area<br />
Bluesky<br />
Storativity<br />
0.24 – 0.26 m3 /m2 0.03 – 0.04 m3 /m2
DEEP BASIN<br />
Pla<strong>in</strong>s Study Area<br />
Bluesky<br />
Hydraulic Head
DEEP BASIN<br />
Pla<strong>in</strong>s Study Area<br />
Bluesky<br />
Water Sal<strong>in</strong>ity
Bluesky Fm – Assessment (Pla<strong>in</strong>s)<br />
West-east, stacked shoreface complex provides good<br />
potential aquifer cont<strong>in</strong>uity<br />
600 – 2400+ metres deep<br />
800 – 1100 m <strong>in</strong> most favourable area<br />
Consistent development <strong>of</strong> secondary solution porosity <strong>in</strong><br />
lithic, burrowed mar<strong>in</strong>e sands<br />
Degraded westward with burial compaction<br />
12% Φ cut<strong>of</strong>f (perm: 10 mD) – cont<strong>in</strong>uous sands up to 40+<br />
metres thick <strong>in</strong> northeast<br />
Average porosities range up to >20%<br />
Good aquifer candidate <strong>in</strong> north part <strong>of</strong> Pla<strong>in</strong>s area
PALEOZOIC TRIASSIC JURASSIC CRETACEOUS<br />
Foothills Study Area<br />
Stratigraphic Review<br />
Good aquifer candidate<br />
Moderate aquifer candidate<br />
Poor aquifer candidate
PALEOZOIC TRIASSIC JURASSIC CRETACEOUS<br />
NIKANASSIN<br />
Foothills Study Area<br />
Stratigraphic Review<br />
Sample <strong>Aquifer</strong>
Nikanass<strong>in</strong> Fm – Regional Geology (Foothills)<br />
Westward-thicken<strong>in</strong>g clastic<br />
wedge<br />
Easterly-sourced quartzose sands<br />
(Buick Creek sandstone)<br />
Westerly-sourced lithic sands<br />
Good secondary solution porosity to<br />
east<br />
Silica cementation <strong>in</strong>creases with<br />
depth – glassy and brittle to west<br />
Large conventional gas pools to east at<br />
Buick Creek and Fireweed<br />
Some fracture-related gas<br />
production associated with Foothills<br />
structures
Foothills Study Area<br />
Nikanass<strong>in</strong><br />
Gross Isopach
Foothills Study Area<br />
Nikanass<strong>in</strong><br />
Net Porous Sand<br />
(12% Φ Cut<strong>of</strong>f)
Foothills Study Area<br />
Nikanass<strong>in</strong><br />
Storativity<br />
0.121 – 0.140 m3 /m2 0.056 – 0.06 m3 /m2
Foothills Study Area<br />
Nikanass<strong>in</strong><br />
Hydraulic Head
Foothills Study Area<br />
Nikanass<strong>in</strong><br />
Water Sal<strong>in</strong>ity
Nikanass<strong>in</strong> Fm – Assessment (Foothills)<br />
Thick, cont<strong>in</strong>uous quartzose basal sandstone (Buick Creek<br />
sandstone)<br />
More lithic sands (westerly provenance) to southwest<br />
900 – 1500+ metres deep<br />
Diagenetic degradation – dom<strong>in</strong>ated by silica cementation,<br />
strongly tied to burial depth<br />
6% Φ cut<strong>of</strong>f (perm: about 0.5 mD) – thick, extensive sands,<br />
but probably too tight for aquifer purposes<br />
12% Φ cut<strong>of</strong>f (perm: up to 20 mD) – up to 20m <strong>in</strong> the east<br />
Moderate aquifer candidate <strong>in</strong> east
Case Study –<br />
Encana Farm<strong>in</strong>gton Water Resource Hub<br />
Encana to build a sal<strong>in</strong>e water storage facility just west <strong>of</strong><br />
Dawson Creek to provide source water for fracs<br />
Reduce fresh water requirements, reduce truck traffic, and manage<br />
frac water recycl<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Enable water pipel<strong>in</strong>e construction to further reduce impacts<br />
<strong>Montney</strong> produced water and spent frac fluids will be<br />
blended with lower-sal<strong>in</strong>ity water from Peace River Fm to<br />
meet frac specs<br />
Two non-economic gas wells are be<strong>in</strong>g completed uphole as water<br />
source wells <strong>in</strong> the Peace River Fm aquifer<br />
Relatively modest output– about 120 m 3 /day
Peace River Formation<br />
Storativity Map<br />
Case Study –<br />
Encana Farm<strong>in</strong>gton<br />
Water Resource<br />
Hub<br />
Water source well<br />
Water resource hub
<strong>Deep</strong> <strong>Aquifer</strong> <strong>Characterization</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Support</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Montney</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> Development<br />
CONCLUSIONS<br />
Operators <strong>in</strong> Pla<strong>in</strong>s area have viable options <strong>in</strong> deep sal<strong>in</strong>e aquifers for<br />
water source and disposal<br />
Encana Farm<strong>in</strong>gton project is us<strong>in</strong>g modest volumes from Peace River<br />
Formation to support water resource hub<br />
Push<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>Montney</strong> play southward and westward carries more risk <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>adequate deep aquifer support<br />
Operators <strong>in</strong> Foothills area have fewer deep sal<strong>in</strong>e aquifer options<br />
Fractured reservoirs may provide local support, but are more difficult to<br />
characterize and are more likely to be limited volumetrically<br />
Alternative water sources will likely be more important
HORN RIVER<br />
BASIN<br />
MONTNEY<br />
PLAY TREND<br />
• <strong>Deep</strong> subsurface aquifer characterization has<br />
proven useful for the Horn River Bas<strong>in</strong> and <strong>Montney</strong><br />
• Many other unconventional play fairways require<br />
similar analysis
Change language