A Comparison of Hydrocarbon Extraction Techniques: Trying to Make a Mountain from a Mole Hill

Donohue, Catherine M.; Barrie, Craig D.; Jarvie, Brian M.; Zumberge, J. Alex; Zumberge, John E.

doi:10.15530/urtec-2020-2432

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…HRGC includes peak height and area results as well as peak ratios from both the heavy range of the chromatography (i.e., pristane/phytane) and the gasoline or light hydrocarbon (LHC) range (<nC 9 ). Hydrocarbon extract samples are analyzed using the sample method on the GC, but are extracted from core chips using a CS2 solvent method while being kept chilled at all times to maximize LC sample integrity [17,19]. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) was carried out on the branched/cyclic component of the saturated fraction and on the aromatic fraction.…”

Section: Geochemical Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies that allocate production fluids back to specific target formations have utilized extracts from core material (sometimes cuttings) from target formations and have assumed that these extracts are representative of produced fluid end-members [5,16]. However, ignoring cuttings, which have their own considerable issues in terms of provenance and contamination, the extraction of fluids from core material, whether it be via solvents, heat, supercritical CO 2 or some other method, does not mimic the geologic processes which produce oil [17][18][19]. Therefore, while these samples may be incredibly important for core-to-oil correlation studies [20][21][22], their utility as viable fluid end-members for allocation is limited.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, as useful as cuttings may be in identifying source zones and so forth, their provenance is much more difficult to confirm than core material, a crucial tenant when it comes to robust allocation work. Oil-based mud (OBM) is a common contaminant and light hydrocarbon loss (LHC) is the norm, even more so than in core, no matter how the sample material is collected and stored [17][18][19]. The usage of cuttings, while cheaper and easier to collect, does not remove the issues raised when using core samples, but merely provides an additional set of problems to deal with rather than improving understanding of the specific allocation contributions of produced fluids.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Production Allocation: Rosetta Stone or Red Herring? Best Practices for Understanding Produced Oils in Resource Plays

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The production of crude oil from resource plays has increased enormously over the past decade. In the USA, around 63% of total output in 2019 was from unconventional production. The major unconventional plays in the USA (e.g., Permian Basin, Anadarko Basin, Eagle Ford, etc.) have become some of the world’s largest oil producers. However, unlike “conventional” exploitation, the target zones in unconventional systems are generally the source rocks themselves or adjacent strata and require numerous horizontal wells and stimulation via hydraulic fracturing to meet production targets. In order to maximize production, operators have developed various well stacking methods, all of which require some form of monitoring to ensure that well spacing is optimized and fluid production is not being “stolen” from adjacent formations, thereby reducing the production potential in associated wells. This necessity, amongst other geochemical considerations related to source rock characterization, has resulted in the expansion of “production allocation” and “time lapse geochemistry” methods. These methods were initially developed for conventional production decades ago, but have since been adapted to unconventional systems. However, the direct applicability of this method is not straightforward and numerous considerations need to be taken into account, foremost among which are: (1) “What defines your end-members?” (2) “Are these end-members valid across a meaningful development area?” and (3) “What is the most appropriate use of geochemistry data in these systems?”. Reservoir geochemistry studies, which include both “time lapse geochemistry/production monitoring” and “production allocation”, are valuable geochemical methods in unconventional plays but need to be used appropriately to provide the cost savings and business direction that operators expect. In this paper, we will discuss a number of case studies, both theoretical and natural, and outline the important factors which need to be considered when designing a reservoir geochemistry study and the common pitfalls which exist. The case studies and best practice approach discussed are designed to highlight the power and flexibility of geochemical data collection methods, integration with the operator’s knowledgebase, and other analytical methods to customize the program for individual development programs. Emphasis is placed upon developing robust and applicable fluid relationships from geochemical data and evidence for statistically significant changes through time.

show abstract

Section: Geochemical Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Production Allocation: Rosetta Stone or Red Herring? Best Practices for Understanding Produced Oils in Resource Plays

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Understanding multiple factors that impact unconventional production: Guidelines to evaluate liquid-rich unconventional resource plays

Abrams

2023

Interpretation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the petroleum industry builds long-term production histories in major liquid-rich unconventional resource (UCR) plays, development geologists and engineers have come to realize the production GOR, petroleum type, and ultimate recoveries do not always match the predictive petroleum system models. Early studies suggested the UCR petroleum systems neither require traditional petroleum traps nor major migration systems, but simply an organic-rich source within the optimal maturity window. Possible explanations for these production discrepancies that were not fully characterized in the initial models include uncertainties in source rock characteristics, primary migration fractionation, fractionation related to storage, and production fractionation. Long term empirical observations suggest off-structure migration contribution, trapping mechanisms, and reservoir phase (single versus two) play an important role in the liquid rich UCR production. If the liquid-rich UCR petroleum system is a well-behaved predominantly local charge system, then the generation product can be estimated with an understanding of the local organic matter type and in-situ level of maturity, but if the UCR play is hybrid with significant migrated down-dip charge contribution, then a more complicated work program will be required to estimate well rates and volumes. The liquid rich unconventional resource play evaluation should reflect these additional factors which can greatly impact surface production rate and liquid recovery.

show abstract

Characterizing petroleum in source-rock core samples using HRGC data

Kornacki

2023

Interpretation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Solvent extracts obtained from center-cut horizontal core plugs selected in Upper Wolfcamp (UW) and Eagle Ford source-rock (SR) beds contain unaltered volatile (i.e., gasoline-range) HC compounds because they were extracted in a closed vial. Therefore, a C7 source parameter, a C7 maturity parameter, and pristane/phytane ratios were used to compare the source and thermal maturity of these petroleum samples and oil samples produced from nearby wells landed in the same SR reservoirs. Five distinct pay zones previously identified in the UW SR reservoir using geological criteria each contain slightly different kinds of petroleum generated at different levels of thermal maturity. A thick overlying carbonate reservoir contains the kind of petroleum generated by the kerogen present in one underlying SR pay zone. The same source and maturity parameters demonstrate that the oil-prone kerogen present in Eagle Ford SR beds in core plugs selected from wells located 7.5 mi (12 km) apart on the San Marcos Arch in South Texas formed in different depositional environments. It is difficult to allocate commingled oil samples using only core-plug extracts because solvents extract the producible oil plus a component that does not readily flow from SR reservoirs because it is sorbed in kerogen and/or on clay minerals. However, because only saturate HC compounds were used to determine C7 source and maturity parameters, they provide valuable insights about the nature of the free oil present in SR reservoirs and in commingled oil samples.

show abstract

A Comparison of Hydrocarbon Extraction Techniques: Trying to Make a Mountain from a Mole Hill

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Production Allocation: Rosetta Stone or Red Herring? Best Practices for Understanding Produced Oils in Resource Plays

Production Allocation: Rosetta Stone or Red Herring? Best Practices for Understanding Produced Oils in Resource Plays

Understanding multiple factors that impact unconventional production: Guidelines to evaluate liquid-rich unconventional resource plays

Characterizing petroleum in source-rock core samples using HRGC data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About