Advertisement

An Integrated Approach to Uncertainty Assessment for Coalbed Methane Model

  • Yong Yang
  • Ming Zhang
  • Aifang Bie
  • Zehong Cui
  • Zhaohui Xia
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Series in Geomechanics and Geoengineering book series (SSGG)

Abstract

This study deals with quantitative detection of parameters uncertainty in coalbed methane (CBM) modelling, and a systematic and integrated workflow is developed to analyse the uncertainty of CBM model. In the structure modelling, the uncertainty of measure depth and coal thickness uncertainty are analysed by disturbing the structure surfaces or thickness surfaces while fixed at the well locations. In the petrophysical modelling, an analysis of the residual distribution between each correlation and its measurements is used to characterize the uncertainty in each. Sensitivity analysis is performed for the parameters such as gas content, structure surfaces, coal ply thickness, density, ash content, to evaluate the volume uncertainty. The critical sensitive attributes are used to build multiple realizations to determine P90, P50 and P10 gas volumes. The low, middle and high probabilistic geological models are achieved corresponding to the probabilistic gas volumes and are used for the next reservoir simulation and development plan design.

Keywords

Uncertainty analysis Coalbed methane Geological model Sensitivity analysis Gas content 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks are extended to Arrow Beijing Study Center for providing the opportunity to carry out the research. Thanks are also due to a number of our colleagues for their warm help.

References

  1. 1.
    Shirazi AF, Solonitsyn SV, Kuvaev IA (2010) Integrated geological and engineering uncertainty analysis workflow, lower Permian carbonate reservoir, Timan-Pechora Basin, Russia. SPE 136322Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mohsen A, Maskeen AI, Sung RR (2007) Advanced geological modeling and uncertainty analysis in a complex clastic gas reservoir from Saudi Arabia. SPE 109275Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sharma A, Leung J, Srinivasan S et al (2008) An integrated approach to reservoir uncertainty assessment: case study of a Gulf of Mexico reservoir. SPE 116351Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang M, Yang Y, Xia ZH et al (2014) A best practice in static modeling of a coalbed-methane field: an example from the Bowen basin in Australia. SPE 171416Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leahy GM, Skorstad A (2013) Uncertainty in subsurface interpretation: a new workflow. First Break 31(9):87–93Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Piquet G, Pivot AL, Pivot F (2013) Geomodel geometry distorted by seismic velocity uncertainties. SPE 165973Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kimber RN, Curtis MD, Boundy FO et al (2016) Volumetric and dynamic uncertainty modelling in Block 22, offshore Trinidad and Tobago. Pet Geosci 22(1):21–36Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhao CB, Xia ZH, Zheng KN et al (2014) Integrated assessment of pilot performance of surface to in-seam wells to de-risk and quantify subsurface uncertainty for a coalbed methane project: an example from the Bowen basin in Australia. SPE 167766Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Philpot JA, Mazumder S, Naicker S et al (2013) Coalbed methane modelling best practices. IPTC 17137Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yong Yang
    • 1
  • Ming Zhang
    • 1
  • Aifang Bie
    • 1
  • Zehong Cui
    • 1
  • Zhaohui Xia
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Institution of Petroleum Exploration & Development (RIPED)BeijingChina

Personalised recommendations