University of Texas at Austin Libraries Home | Mobile | My Account | Renew Items | Sitemap | Help
support us
University of Texas Libraries
details contents options

Table of Contents

  1. Enhanced gas recovery from watered-out reservoirs : Port Arthur field, Jefferson County, Texas
    1. Abstract

    2. Introduction

    3. Selection of Test Area

    4. Studies of the Port Arthur Area

    5. Regional Geological Setting

    6. Frio Stratigraphy

    7. Port Arthur Field

    8. Geology

    9. Potential Salt-Water Disposal Sands

    10. Well Locations, Status of Wells, and Reservoir Properties

    11. Reservoir Fluid Properties

    12. Methane solubility

    13. Temperature and pressure gradients

    14. Well Log Analyses

    15. Seismic Data Acquisition and Processing

    16. Seismic modeling

    17. Production History

    18. The C reservoir

    19. Other reservoirs

    20. Predicted Reservoir Performance and Economic Analysis

    21. Reservoir simulation studies

    22. Model description

    23. Model data and history matches

    24. Predictions

    25. Economic analysis

    26. Conclusions and Recommendations

    27. Acknowledgments

    28. References

    29. Appendix A: Metric conversion factors

    30. Appendix B: Nomenclature

  2. Illustrations
    1. Untitled

    2. Figure 1. Fluid saturation zones within a hypothetical watered-out reservoir

    3. Figure 2. Typical well log response for thick aquifers with gas caps and thin gas stringers

    4. Figure 3. Stratigraphic diagram of Tertiary strata, paleomarkers, sand-body distribution, and marker horizons, Jefferson County area

    5. Figure 4. Map showing location of Port Arthur field with respect to major faults, other nearby fields, and points of interest

    6. Figure 5. Well locations, lines of cross sections, and structural configuration on top of the lower Hackberry sequence, Port Arthur – Port Acres area

    7. Figure 6. Net-sandstone distribution in the lower Hackberry sequence, Port Arthur – Port Acres area

    8. Figure 7. Structural dip cross section Z-Z', Port Arthur field

    9. Figure 8. Structure map contoured on the pre-Hackberry unconformity, Port Arthur field

    10. Figure 9. Stratigraphic strike cross section X-X', Port Arthur field

    11. Figure 10. Type log showing reservoir intervals, Port Arthur field

    12. Figure 11. Submarine-fan facies model showing SP curves from the Hackberry C sandstone, Port Arthur field

    13. Figure 12. Isopach map showing distribution and log character of the Hackberry G sandstone, Port Arthur field

    14. Figure 13. Isopach map showing distribution and log character of the Hackberry F sandstone, Port Arthur field

    15. Figure 14. Isopach map showing distribution and log character of the Hackberry C sandstone, Port Arthur field

    16. Figure 15. Structure map contoured on top of the C sandstone, Port Arthur field

    17. Figure 16. Onlapping submarine-fan depositional model of lower Hackberry sandstones, Port Arthur field

    18. Figure 17. Cross section T-T' showing thickness of shallow Miocene sands suitable for disposal of waste salt water (see figure 15 for location of cross section).

    19. Figure 18. Distribution of initial pressure gradients (psi/ft), Hackberry C sandstone, Port Arthur field

    20. Figure 19. Distribution of temperature (F), Hackberry C sandstone, Port Arthur field

    21. Figure 20. Distribution of salinity, Hackberry C sandstone, Port Arthur field

    22. Figure 21. Distribution of initial methane solubility, Hackberry C sandstone, Port Arthur field

    23. Figure 22. Pressure, temperature, salinity, and methane solubility versus depth, well 14, Port Arthur field

    24. Figure 23. Geothermal gradients, Port Arthur field

    25. Figure 24. Bottom-hole shut-in pressure versus depth for 13 wells, Port Arthur field

    26. Figure 25. Porosity distribution, lower Hackberry sandstones, Port Arthur field

    27. Figure 26. Location of seismic lines in the Port Arthur area

    28. Figure 27. Model of the Hackberry sands along a cross section coincident with seismic line 3

    29. Figure 28. Line 3 showing interpreted and modeled top of Hackberry C sandstone

    30. Figure 29. Spike synthetic seismic section with gas sands shaded, Port Arthur field

    31. Figure 30. Synthetic seismic section with wavelet bandpass = 15 to 45 Hz (model 1), Port Arthur field

    32. Figure 31. Synthetic seismic section with wavelet bandpass = 15 to 65 Hz (model 1), Port Arthur field

    33. Figure 32. Synthetic seismic section with signal-to-noise ratio = 25.1 (bandpass = 15 to 45 Hz, model 1. Port Arthur field).

    34. Figure 33. Synthetic seismic section with no gas, bandpass = 15 to 65 Hz (model 5), Port Arthur field

    35. Figure 34. Stratigraphic strike cross section A-A' showing lower Hackberry sandstone intervals and perforated gas production zones (hachured intervals), Port Arthur field

    36. Figure 35. Reservoir production rates and bottom-hole flowing pressure versus time, Hackberry C sandstone, well 14, Port Arthur field

    37. Figure 36. Reservoir production rates and bottom-hole flowing pressure versus time, Hackberry C sandstone, well 23, Port Arthur field

    38. Figure 37. Simulator grid used for reservoir simulation of Hackberry C sandstone

    39. Figure 38. Distribution of sandstone thickness used for reservoir simulation of Hackberry C sandstone

    40. Figure 39. Permeability distribution used for reservoir simulation of Hackberry C sandstone

    41. Figure 40. Gas/condensate ratio versus time (production history)

    42. Figure 41. Relative permeability curves (Corey-type equation) used in reservoir simulation

    43. Figure 42. History matches for pressure and water production rates, Hackberry C sandstone, well 14, Port Arthur field

    44. Figure 44. Break-even gas price versus rate of return before payment of Federal income tax (B.F.I.T) adn after payment of Federal income tax (A.F.I.T)

    45. Figure 43. Predicted gas and water flow rates in Hackberry C sandstone

    46. Figure 45. Net present worth versus rate of return after Federal income tax for different gas prices.