SPE 59299
Improved Reservoir Management/Characterization for Independent Operators in
Mature Basins, A Case Study: South Slattery Field, Powder River Basin, Wyoming
Lanny G. Schoeling, SPE, Shell CO2 Company, Ltd., and Sandra Mark, Petroleum Technology Transfer Council
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 3–5 April 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
A detailed geological understanding of the reservoir along
with a reservoir simulation to test the reservoir description and
determine the optimum recovery method is important in
successful operations of mature fields. There are thousands of
oil and gas fields in mature basins that have not had the
benefit of detailed study by an integrated team consisting of a
geologist and an engineer. Major oil companies have long
adopted this practice, assisted by the latest software tools, and
now small independent operators have cost-effective means to
similarly help them make reservoir management decisions.
South Slattery Field case study demonstrates how a geologist
using sequence stratigraphic concepts and moderately priced
software can develop a reservoir model, which may be further
analyzed by an engineer using a reservoir simulator affordable
by independent operators.
Applying new geologic concepts in mature basins may
result in a better reservoir model. A company’s fields may
contain old maps that relied on litho-stratigraphic correlations.
For the South Slattery study, the geologic model benefited
greatly from using parasequences as the framework in which
to delineate the reservoir compartments. This process was
facilitated by software that produced effective log displays; a
color fill format used in conjunction with cut-off or cross-over
allowed the geologist to detect patterns that was not obvious
with a simple curve display.
A cost-benefit analysis was performed for the geologic
portion of the study so that the managers of small companies
can judge whether the technology is affordable. Simulation
was conducted utilizing BOAST III which can be obtained
from the Department of Energy at very little cost. The
geological description was placed in the black-oil simulator
and verified with a history match on primary production.
History matching utilized both geological and engineering
input with reservoir parameters varied depending on data
accuracy, availability, and experience. This study
demonstrated that an independent could utilize an integrated
team to characterize and simulate a reservoir using affordable
tools; this analysis will assist in making economic decisions
on the future recovery technique and operations.
In summary this paper presents 1) the methodology of
geologic characterization in the Slattery Field, 2) a description
of the input data needed for simulation, 3) the history
matching process, and 4) results of the simulation to determine
additional optimum recovery techniques.
Introduction
Reservoir Management/Characterization has seldom been used
by small and medium independent operators due to lack of
reservoir data, technical personnel, and the belief that drilling
an additional well will solve their production problems.
Many of these independent operators that operate in domestic,
onshore basins simply do not utilize geologists and engineers
for reservoir characterization and in managing their oil and gas
fields.
In the past, many studies have not been conducted due to
lack of reservoir/fluid data, production/injection data, and
basis well completion data. Today, new technologies exist
that can fill the gap in reservoir data to conduct these
integrated reservoir studies. When data are lacking,
geological insight and reservoir simulation parameter studies
can still provide the reservoir manager with results that can
reduce risk and raise the rate of return on investment.
Maps generated by non-geologists may be adequate for
primary recovery operations, however in secondary and
tertiary recovery operations, it is essential that an integrated
team consisting of a geologist and engineer characterize the
reservoirs. A geologist can provide a solid understanding of
the stratigraphic and structural description of a field area, and
how those elements serve to compartmentalize the reservoir.
An engineer can take this geological model, along with
reservoir and fluid properties, and simulate the history of the
field using a numerical simulator. A simulation will test the
validity of the geologic model and assess the past performance
2 L.G. SCHOELING, S. MARK
of the field. A successful simulation is an iterative process
that must involve the geologist and engineer jointly, requiring
adjustments to the geologic model and reservoir parameters to
give a valid geologic realization or history match. Once a
history match is achieved on the current recovery technique,
predictive simulations may be performed to evaluate present
or future recovery operations. In situations where data is
limited, model sensitivity studies must be conducted to
determine the effects of varying reservoir parameters. This
may result in a quest for additional data, so that a more
accurate model is achieved.
Major oil companies have universally adopted the practice
of using integrated teams, which are provided with the latest
software tools. Personalities of the technical professionals
often dictate the relative success of these efforts, but this way
of working is generally encouraged by management. There is
no reason why the managers of small companies shouldn’t
take advantage of the benefits of using integrated teams,
outfitted with computers and software, to help them make
prudent reservoir management decisions. Such decisions
might include 1) operational changes, and 2) different
recovery techniques.
The purpose of studying the South Slattery Field was
three-fold, 1) to assist the operator in maximizing oil recovery
in the field, 2) demonstrate an integrated approach to reservoir
characterization that utilizes low cost software, and 3) to
create a “procedure” that independent operators can use to
develop their own methodology for reservoir characterization
in fields with limited data.
Software and Hardware Utilized
The geologic work was completed using a desktop computer
loaded with GeoGraphix GES (well data base manager,
mapping and cross section software), and GeoQuest QLA2
and Digital Formation LESA (log analysis software
programs). Another element of the project was the digitizing
of well logs using Neuralog Digitizing Software. Digital log
data is valuable when working at the reservoir level, but is
also costly to acquire; this study provides a good estimate of
the costs and benefits of digital log data. The engineering
work was completed on a desktop computer loaded with
BOAST VHS and BOAST III, which can be obtained from the
Department of Energy free of charge. BOAST VHS was
initially used to build the data deck for BOAST III. BOAST
III does not have a preprocessor like BOAST VHS, however
does have excellent post processing capabilities for effective
presentation of reservoir parameters. Therefore, the initial
BOAST data deck was build on BOAST VHS and transferred
to BOAST III for the simulation study. BOAST VHS and
BOAST III are three-dimensional, three-phase, finite-
difference black oil simulators, which can be used to simulate
the production and injection from any combination of vertical,
horizontal, and slant wells. The simulators assume that the
reservoir fluids can be described by three fluid phases (oil,
water, and gas) at constant composition whose properties are a
function of pressure only. (Chang, et. al.)
SPE 59299
South Slattery Field History
Slattery Field is located on the eastern flank of the Powder
River Basin, Campbell and Crook Counties, Wyoming. The
principal reservoir is the Minnelusa Formation, a series of
Permian aeolian sandstones, which have produced 9.1 million
barrels of oil since discovery in 1963. The Slattery Field area
contains about 65 wells, and the reservoir occupies an area
elongated in a northwesterly direction, 2 miles long and 1 mile
across. South Slattery Unit, created in 1994, occupies the
southern half of the field and is operated by True Oil
Company, Casper, Wyoming. The South Slattery Unit has
been under waterflood since 1994, has produced 3.7 million
barrels of oil, and is currently producing 17,800 barrels of oil
per month.
Gathering Data for Computer Analysis: Cost
Considerations
If there has already been a commitment to computer
technology through the purchase of hardware and software,
then the additional expense to acquire digital data is certainly
necessary.
The most effective method of gathering information into a
computer database is a combination of purchase and hand-
entries. This combination is both cost effective and
comprehensive because 1) it allows work to commence; a base
map and data framework can be available almost instantly,
and 2) from this beginning, details about the reservoir may be
added by the geologist and engineer, using information in the
company files.
In order to provide information on the cost of purchasing
digital data, it will be assumed that the reservoir study area
covers less than 4 townships and includes 100 wells,
containing 4 curves over a 300 foot reservoir interval. Well
spots (including basic “header data”) and land grid data can be
purchased for $1 per well or less. Major data vendors make
the acquisition convenient through downloads from the web
sites or email. These data can be easily loaded into most
programs using import options specific to the vendor’s data
format.
After the basic data are in the computer, a thorough
checking is required, because it will contain errors. Detailed
well history such as re-completions, core descriptions, etc.,
must be added. If the geologist has already picked tops and/or
other map values, then these should be added. It is often
valuable to have a geologist re-visit the data, especially if
presented in another format (computer versus paper), or is a
new interpretation tool has been acquired (such as sequence
stratigraphy).
Digital log data are essential to both the geologist and the
engineer in reservoir characterization. While an explorationist
may get by with log analysis involving key wells in a play, the
development geologist must incorporate all of the well
information, foot by foot, for every well.
It is important to shop for digital well log data. Not only
do prices vary greatly, but there may be little-known
collections of data that are available at very low cost. Again,
we will use the assumption of 100 wells containing 4 curves
SPE 59299 IMPROVED RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT/CHARACTERIZATION FOR INDEPENDENT OPERATORS IN MATURE BASINS,
CASE STUDY: SOUTH SLATTERY FIELD, POWDER RIVER BASIN, WYOMING
that cover a 300 foot reservoir interval. A recent investigation
of costs for these data ranged from $50 to $16 per well, and
included quotes from both large and small data-capture
companies. Can money be saved by digitizing logs in-house?
The cost of input devices (scanners, digitizing tablets) and
software are for the first 100-well project ranges from $17 per
well to over $100 per well; this is largely dependent upon the
cost of the software. After that first reservoir study is
completed, and the equipment if fully amortized, the cost of
digitizing falls to about $5 per well, assuming a geotechnical
assistant is utilized (working at a rate of $10 per hour).
Production data should be acquired for each one in each
well. Sometimes that is not possible due to the reporting
method, or the gathering system on a lease. Production data
may be available free of charge from oil and gas commission
websites (such as North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah). Data from
commercial vendors ranges from $1 to $6 per well.
A very critical step in data gathering is in knowledge of
the precise completion interval for each well. If data are
purchased, this information may not be included, or does not
reflect squeeze jobs or re-completions. It is critical that this
information be incorporated into the database at the beginning
of the study.
Log Analysis
Petroleum geologists and engineers routinely use log analysis
to help determine reservoir properties. Porosity and water
saturation are calculated using logs that are commonly run in
wells, and permeability is determined indirectly, normally by
cross-plotting values derived from core analysis. This
discussion is not intended to provide a background in log
analysis, rather to encourage the use of computer software to
help with the task.
One of the biggest advantages of using log analysis
software is being able to create displays that facilitate
correlation. Using a color-fill format in conjunction with cut-
off or cross-over allows the eye of the geologist (and others) to
detect patterns that may not be obvious with a simple curve
display.
If core analysis data are available for some of the wells
in the field, these data should be in a digital form so that they
can be plotted on displays along with reservoir values
computed with logs. This method of calibrating the computed
curves with core analysis involves varying the parameters in
the equations used for the calculations. It should be realized
that the data are derived from vastly different sources, so one
should not expect identical results. Getting core data into
digital form may involve tedious entry by hand from old data
sheets in the well records. Consider utilizing a scanner and
optical character recognition software to get this job done.
Another big advantage of log analysis software is the ease
with which cross-plots are generated. Plotting a number of
different reservoir values for multiple wells may reveal a
clustering of points; separate reservoir compartments may be
detected in this manner.
3
Reservoir Geology
South Slattery Field reservoir is within the upper Minnelusa
Formation, a lower Permian (Wolfcampian) sequence of
carbonates and sandstones. These rocks were deposited in a
shallow evaporitic basin, and record responses to sea level
changes. The stacking pattern, or parasequences consist of 1)
marine flooding of a dune field, carbonate deposition, 2)
shallowing marine deposition due to eustatic lowering of sea
level, and 3) renewed progradation of aeolian dune fields. Just
as the unconformity at the top of the Minnelusa has long been
recognized as an important trapping mechanism, these
parasequence boundaries can also provide significant traps,
because the geomorphic relief on the dune fields was largely
preserved during each transgression (Fryberger, 1993).
As is routinely done in the Powder River Basin, formation
tops were picked for the Minnekahta, Opeche, and Minnelusa.
A series of correlation cross sections was constructed, hung on
the base of the Minnekahta, and the parasequence boundaries
were picked at the base of each thick, persistent dolomite.
This revealed three parasequences, labeled from the top: Top
A, Upper A, and Lower A. This interpretation uses the
Minnelusa A designation for the reservoir sandstone,
previously suggested by Sheppy (1986), and the concept of
parasequences as described by Fryberger (1993). Three wells
are required to show the complete sequence stratigraphic motif
for the field, shown in Figure 1.
The advantage of this sequence stratigraphic approach is
that it aided the correlation of the various sands of the
Minnelusa A. Figure 2 shows the distribution of these sands;
Top A, Upper A, and Lower A.
Geologic Model Development—Time and Cost
Breakdown, Productivity
Careful record was made of the time and resources that were
required by the geologist to complete this study. Figure 3
shows the time breakdown for the geologic model
development (it does not include reservoir simulation time of
the engineer.) The largest amount of time was spent in
mapping, correlating, and cross section work. This is
appropriate since these tasks result in the basic elements of the
geologic model. It is noted that although the geologist had a
working knowledge of the software, about one-quarter of the
time was spent in learning software. If similar techniques are
applied to future projects using the same software, this
proportion should decrease. A large part of the data
preparation was spent in digitizing the logs. If these data were
purchased, perhaps 20% of the geologist’s time would be
conserved. It should be noted that the time that the geologist
spent preparing for simulation (grid preparation) was quite
small, suggesting that the extra step of simulation would not
add a significant burden to the work of the geologist.
If the integrated team has access to the same
geological/engineering database platform compatible for both
disciplines, the engineer can prepare grid size and orientation
suitable for simulation and at the same time not changing the
geological description. If this study is representative of the
4 L.G. SCHOELING, S. MARK
work required for a geologist to conduct a reservoir
characterization, a rule of thumb for time commitment may be
one day per well. If the geologist is paid at a rate that
approximates that given on the AGI website for the mean
salary of a petroleum geologist, then the cost of the geologist’s
time is about $300 per well.
If the cost of the geologic software used in this study is
amortized over the first year, and one well per workday is the
rate of productivity, then the cost per well for the software is
about $82 per well.
As discussed in a previous section, the cost of purchasing
well spots, land grid, and digital log data, and production may
cost as little as $18 per well.
To summarize the above discussion, the cost of the
geologic model development that includes the geologist’s
salary, software cost, and data cost amounts to about $400 per
well. It should be noted that the cost of the geologist’s time is
three times that of software and data combined, so that efforts
to save time and money should be directed at making the
geologist more productive. The wisdom is: don’t cut corners
by depriving a geologist of tools (software) and data (digital).
Rather, cost-cutting efforts should be directed at adopting
work strategies that make the geologist more efficient.
Finally, it is obvious that compared to a dry hole cost of
$225,000 for a Minnelusa well, reservoir characterization is an
inexpensive tool that may be utilized for making management
decisions.
Reservoir Simulation
Reservoir Simulation was a useful tool in characterizing the
South Slattery Field even though reservoir/fluid data were
limited. The simulation was limited to history matching
primary with a coarse grid due to the limited data set.
Some fluid characterization data were available such as
bubble point pressure and solution gas at bubble point
pressure. This study was conducted without a complete PVT
study to keep the expenditures at a minimum and demonstrate
the simulation uses and liabilities with a limited PVT data set.
Therefore correlation was utilized to predict the PVT behavior
for the simulation. These data can be obtained from a
laboratory using a recombined sample at a cost between
$5,000 and $10,000, depending on the depth and location of
the reservoir. No relative permeability data existed on this
field, therefore relative permeability data curves were utilized
typical of the Minnelusa Formation. This was one of the
parameters varied in the history match and was placed at the
top of the hierarchy of uncertainty. Relative permeability
curves are often determined from core floods and cost
approximately $5,000.
No transient test data was available such as drill stem
tests, drawdown tests, buildup tests, or fall-off tests. These
transient tests can assist in determining directional
permeability, wellbore skin, fracture length, and reservoir
limits.
The full field model consisted of a 27X27X3 grid,
selected on the availability of the reservoir data and locations
of wells. The geologist determined that the three layers were
SPE 59299
continuous. Since core data were not available to determine
permeability heterogeneity, it was determined that three layers
provided sufficient detail for the simulator. The 27X27 grid
was determined to provide at least 3 grid blocks in between
each well. Three porosity grids showing the wells completed
in each layer are presented in Figures 4, 5, and 6. If additional
data were available, a more detailed grid would be justified.
(Schoeling, 1993)
Data entered into the simulator consisted of 27X27 grids
from the geologist consisting of:
1) Gross and Net Thickness of Individual pays
2) Structure
3) Porosity
4) Permeability
5) Water Saturations from Log Analysis
Additional reservoir parameters are presented in Table 1.
History Matching Procedure
Every history matching process begins with clearly defined
objectives. Given the limited data typical of mature fields
operated by independents, the history matching scope was
limited to 1) matching cumulative production by well to
determine OOIP by layer and well drainage area, and 2) to
simulate water injection and determine unswept oil saturated
regions.
The initial data deck was built utilizing BOAST VHS and
correlations to determine fluid properties not available. This
deck was edited into a BOAST III input deck along with the
27X27 grids provided by the geologists. Since primary gas-
solution drive was the primary drive mechanism until recently,
primary production was matched. It was felt that this would
provide a good indication of the original oil in place (OOIP) in
the simulation area. Since this is essentially a material
balance, the only parameters varied were the ones that have
highest influence on OOIP. These reservoir parameters
included from highest to lowest certainty: net pay thickness,
porosity, and oil saturation. Net pay thickness was estimated
from logs using a 10% porosity cut-off. Porosity is reasonably
accurate. However oil saturations are of highest suspect when
compared to the other two parameters, since they are a
function of water salinity and other reservoir attributes that
may be in error.
The initial runs indicated that the OOIP of the layers were
low. Individual well and field cumulative oil production
numbers could not be matched with actual data. Therefore the
oil saturations were raised to 65% along with a 15% increase
in hydrocarbon pore volume to get a reasonable primary
match. These increases were conducted uniformly across the
field. Permeability increases were conducted locally to
increase cumulative production in individual wells. The
matches are presented in Table 2.
When comparing actual and simulated cumulative
recoveries, all but two wells have great matches. Wells 36-2
and A-16 have poor matches. The poor matches on these
wells indicate several possibilities, 1) the model is incorrect in
the vicinity of these wells, 2) invalid production or zone
completed data exists, or 3) zone communication is present
SPE 59299 IMPROVED RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT/CHARACTERIZATION FOR INDEPENDENT OPERATORS IN MATURE BASINS,
CASE STUDY: SOUTH SLATTERY FIELD, POWDER RIVER BASIN, WYOMING
through wellbores. When separating out these two wells, the
history match is within 10% of the actual. This is a reasonable
error in considering the limited data and coarseness of the
simulation grid.
Water injection was started in 1994. Three injection wells
were utilized for pressure maintenance in the reservoir. It is
recommended that these injected volumes be checked for
accuracy. If these wells are the only injection wells, the study
indicates that there may be room for additional water
injection; this could enhance oil recovery. Of course,
implementation would be dependent on the economics.
Economics would be dependent on 1) integrity of old
wellbores, 2) location of temporary abandoned wells that
could be considered for conversion to injection wells, and 3)
drilling cost of possible in-fill injection wells.
It is recommended that additional reservoir parameters be
collected and a more detailed study be implemented due to the
large potential for additional oil recovery indicated by this
reservoir study.
Recommendations for Further Study and Collection
of Additional Data
1) Identify locations for additional water injection wells
through additional simulation (where economics dictate).
2) A complete PVT study will verify the material balance
and the PVT data provided from correlations.
3) Relative permeability data will confirm mobile oil
saturations throughout the reservoir, and locations where
additional water injection will benefit the waterflood.
4) Transient test data will provide localized permeability and
possible skin factors on wells. These tests can be
conducted at low cost using Echometer’s Well Analyzer.
5) If an additional well is drilled, it is advised that a core be
taken and analyzed for permeability variation and a
complete set of open-hole logs be used to determine water
saturations.
6) Minimum miscibility pressure studies will determine if
CO2 flooding is possible.
Reservoir Characterization "Procedure"
It is suggested that a geologist-engineer team use the
following step-by-step procedure as an aid in developing their
own workflow for reservoir characterization.
• Collect data or purchase digital data from a commercial
source.
• Perform a literature search on specific field of study and
for new interpretation tools.
• Evaluate the potential for geological heterogeneities and
compartmentalization.
• Import data into mapping and log analysis programs
• Begin basic geological mapping and correlation.
• Complete log analysis for each well, calibrate to core data
5
• Assess the production performance for each well and for
the field; determine if data patterns reveal information on
reservoir compartments.
• Continue mapping and correlation; incorporate log
analysis results and production assessment.
• Finalize the geologic model. Create maps of reservoir
distribution and properties (plus digital grid files) that
include: structure, gross and net thickness, porosity,
permeability, and water saturation.
• Convey grid files to engineer for reservoir simulations.
Develop coarse and fine grids for simulation.
• Obtain laboratory PVT (pressure-volume-temperature)
data on live oil from a bottom-hole sample.
• Obtain relative permeability data from Special Core
Analysis.
• History match production data.
• Collect additional data if economics dictate.
• Modify the geologic model as needed so that the
simulation results are reasonable.
• Engineer and geologist together supply recommendations
for drilling, re-completion, secondary and tertiary
recovery operations, etc.
Conclusions
1) It is important that both the engineer and geologist have
access to the same relational database. This will allow the
engineer to have access to the grid sizes and orientation
without changing the geologist’s interpretation. This also
allows the geologist the ability to visualize the changes
made by the history match to determine if they are
geologically prudent. Such PC systems include
GeoGraphix, Geoplus along with others.
2) The simulation verified the geological interpretation with
minimal changes.
3) The geologic model development requires about one well
per day. The cost per well of this analysis is about $400,
which includes the geologist’s time, software costs
(amortized over a year), and data (purchased from
vendors.
4) Re-evaluation of old fields using a sequence stratigraphic
approach, or some other new analysis technique, may
result in a more accurate reservoir description.
5) Log analysis software supplies effective displays for ease
in correlating wells, facilitates calibrating computed
values with core data, and readily cross-plots a number of
parameters.
6) A reservoir characterization "Procedure" has been
developed to aid geologist-engineer teams in developing
their own procedure for evaluating fields in mature
basins.
Acknowledgments
The geologic portion of this study was done under the
auspices of the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council,
6 L.G. SCHOELING, S. MARK SPE 59299

Rocky Mountain Region, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Complex Minnelusa (Permian) Field, Wyoming
Colorado. True Oil Company, Casper, Wyoming, provided Geological Association Symposium 1986, Rocky
the data on South Slattery Field. Software was provided by Mountain Oil and Gas Fields, pp245-256.
Digital Formation, GeoGraphix, GeoQuest, Neuralog, and the 4) Schoeling, L.G., “Simulation-A Tool to Improve and
U.S. Department of Energy. Test a Reservoir Description”, Reservoir Description
Workshop: Application of Underutilized Technologies,
References: February 16 and 17, 1993, Kansas Geological Survey
Open-file Report 93-5.
1) Chang, M.M., Sarathi, P., Heemstra, R.J., Cheng A.M.,
and Pautz, J.F., “User’s Guide and Documentation Table 1, Reservoir Parameters
Manual for BOAST-VHS for the PC”, January 1992, API 32
NIPER-542, (DE92001021), Bartlesville Project Office, Depth, ft 7900
U.S. Department of Energy, Bartlesville, Oklahoma. Bubble Point Pressure, psi 421
2) Fryberger, S.G., 1993. A review of Aeolian bounding Gas Gravity 0.9
surfaces, with examples from the Permian Minnelusa Initial Pressure, psi 3244
Formation, USA, in North, C.P. & Prosser. D.J. (eds), Formation Temp, 194 degrees
1993, Characterization of Fluvial and Aeolian Reservoirs, Average Porosity, % 15
Geological Society Special Publication N. 73, pp167-197
3) Sheppy, R.J., 1986, Slattery Field, Powder River Basin,
Wyoming: A Multidisciplinary Interpretation of a

Table 2, Comparison of Actual and Simulated Oil Production

Well Name Actual Cum. Prod., MSTB Actual Sim. Prod, MSTB % Error
Russell 1 191 195 2%
Krause RD3 189 158 16.4%
Krause RD5 215 224 0.4%
A-16 424 306 38.5%
43-30 8 7.5 6.2%
Krause RD4 197 206 4.3%
Burrows 18 523 480 8.2%
44-30 18 17 5.5%
Stat4 173 150 13.2%
MidState 36-1 119 115 3.3%
State 1 1051 976 7.1%
Ham Krause #1 397 246 38%
36-2 248 73 70%

Total Cumulative, (Excluding 3,086 2,774 10.1%

Wells 36-2 and A-16)
Total Cumulative, (excluding 3,510 3,084 12.2%
Well 36-2)
Total Cumulative, MSTB 3,758 3,153 16%

Table 3, Water Injection Data Utilized in the Simulator

Wells Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3
44-30 192,000 582,000
14-30 447,000
Kra 6 1,487,000
A-14 1,095,000
SPE 59299 IMPROVED RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT/CHARACTERIZATION FOR INDEPENDENT OPERATORS IN MATURE BASINS,
CASE STUDY: SOUTH SLATTERY FIELD, POWDER RIVER BASIN, WYOMING 7

Krause C 1 State 4 Krause C 4

Minnekahta

Opeche
PS
Top A SS
Upper
FS A Dolomite
PS
Upper A SS
Minnelusa
FS
Lower A SS
PS
A Dolomite
FS

PS Parasequence
B Dolomite
FS Flooding Surface

Figure 1. The sequence stratigraphic motif for South Slattery Field. Reservoir units of Top A Sandstone, Upper
A Sandstone, and Lower A Sandstone are shown along with their associated parasequences (PS), which are
bounded by flooding surfaces (FS).
8 L.G. SCHOELING, S. MARK SPE 59299

Top A Sandstone Upper A Sandstone

T49N
T49N
RUSSELL
RUSSELL SLATTERY 41-25
SHAW ANNE FEDERAL
HAW ANNE FEDERAL SLATTERY 41-25 2 BURROWS
BURROWS
21-25
21-25 2 A-17
A-17

SLATTERY
SLATTERY
2-3
2-3 BURROWS A FEDERAL
BURROWS A FEDERAL RUSSELL
RUSSELL 12-30
12-30 1
1
44.
44.

25 30 25 30

0
KRAUSE R D BURROWS
BURROWS BURROWS BURROWS A FEDERA

0
KRAUSE R D BURROWS A-14

0
BURROWS A FEDERAL 3 R.D. KRAUSE A-16
3 R.D. KRAUSE A-14 43-30
A-16 43-30 5
5

10
20

10
COMING-LOWER 0 10
KRAUSE
KRAUSE R D
6
R D KRAUSE BURROWS A FEDERAL BURROWS A
KRAUSE
44-30
KRAUSE R D
6 R D KRAUSE BURROWS A FEDERAL BURROWS A
14-30
20 44-30
4
0

18

10
14-30

5
4 18

COMING-UPPER 20
30 40
5

10
COMING-UPPER
HAM KRAUSE 30 HAM KRAUSE
1 KRAUSE
STATE 1 KRAUSE STATE
10

MIDWEST STATE 36-1

5

4
MIDWEST STATE 36-1
3
STATE
1
1
44.
4
3
STATE
1 40 1
44.

15

30
0

0
0

2
COMING-UPPER 0 40
10 BUSSELL KRAUSE
KRAUSE C WYOMING STATE BUSSELL
KRAUSEKRAUSE
C KRAUSE C
WYOMING STATE KRAUSE C

5 30
F2231P
5 36-2 F2231P
5 4

10
0

36-2 4 KRAUSE C

20
KRAUSE C
2 2

36 0 31
COMING-UPPER
36 31
20
COMING-LOWER

0
COMING-UPPER KRAUSE C UNIT 1 KRAUSE C UNIT 1
KRAUSE
KRAUSE C
C3
1
1 10 KRAUSE
KRAUSE C
C3
1
1

R69W COMING-UPPER
R68W R69W R68W
105090 105080 105070 105090 105080 105070

Lower A Sandstone
9
RUSSELL
SHAW ANNE FEDERAL SLATTERY 41- 25
21- 25 2 BURROWS
A-17

SLATTERY
2- 3
0 RUSSELL
1
BURROWS A FEDERAL
12- 30 0
10 44.2

COMING-
25 UPPER 30
KRAUSE R D BURROWS
BURROWS BURROWS A FEDERAL
3 R.D. KRAUSE A-16 A-14
43- 30
5
0
1
COMING-
TOP 1
0 0 0 0
0
KRAUSE R D
6 R D KRAUSE BURROWS A FEDERAL BURROWS A
2KRAUSE
44- 30
4 14- 30 18

STATE
0 HAM KRAUSE
1 KRAUSE
MIDWEST STATE 36- 1 STATE 1
4 44.1
3 1

0 0 10 0
WYOMING STATE BUSSELL KRAUSE
KRAUSE C KRAUSE C 2
36- 2 KRAUSE C
2
10 F2231P
5 4

36 30 4 0 50
COMING-
COMING-
20 31
COMING-
TOP UPPER
KRAUSE C UNIT 1
UPPER
KRAUSEC
KRAUSE
C3 1
1

R69W R68W
105 090 105 080 105 070

Figure 2. South Slattery Field, showing the distribution of reservoir units; net sandstone distribution of the Top
A, Upper A, and Lower A Sandstones, using a 10% porosity cut-off. Contour Interval 10 feet. Circled wells
produce from the mapped interval.
SPE 59299 IMPROVED RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT/CHARACTERIZATION FOR INDEPENDENT OPERATORS IN MATURE BASINS,
CASE STUDY: SOUTH SLATTERY FIELD, POWDER RIVER BASIN, WYOMING 9

Mapping, Data
cross Preparation
sections 20%
34%
Simulation
6% Learning
software
Log Analysis Correlating 27%
6% 7%

Figure 3. South Slattery Field study; time breakdown for the geologic model development.

A-16

14-30 44-30

HK-1
State 1

36-2

Figure 4. Porosity Grid for Simulation Layer 1 in Boast 3.

10 L.G. SCHOELING, S. MARK SPE 59299

Russell 1

Krause 5
Krause 3
A-16 43-30

44-30
14-30 Burrows 18
Krause 6

Krause 4

State 4

36-1 State 1

Figure 5. Porosity Grid for Simulation Layer 2 in Boast 3.

Russell 1

A-14
A-16

Figure 6. Porosity Grid for Simulation Layer 3 in Boast 3.