4.5 Article

Characterization and Prediction of the Gas Hydrate Reservoir at the Second Offshore Gas Production Test Site in the Eastern Nankai Trough, Japan

Journal

ENERGIES
Volume 10, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI AG
DOI: 10.3390/en10101678

Keywords

gas hydrate; reservoir heterogeneity; integration analysis; resistivity log; seismic amplitude; seismic inversion; P-velocity; second offshore production test; eastern Nankai Trough

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Following the world's first offshore production test that was conducted from a gas hydrate reservoir by a depressurization technique in 2013, the second offshore production test has been planned in the eastern Nankai Trough. In 2016, the drilling survey was performed ahead of the production test, and logging data that covers the reservoir interval were newly obtained from three wells around the test site: one well for geological survey, and two wells for monitoring surveys, during the production test. The formation evaluation using the well log data suggested that our target reservoir has a more significant heterogeneity in the gas hydrate saturation distribution than we expected, although lateral continuity of sand layers is relatively good. To evaluate the spatial distribution of gas hydrate, the integration analysis using well and seismic data was performed. The seismic amplitude analysis supports the lateral reservoir heterogeneity that has a significant positive correlation with the resistivity log data at the well locations. The spatial distribution of the apparent low-resistivity interval within the reservoir observed from log data was investigated by the P-velocity volume derived from seismic inversion. The integrated results were utilized for the pre-drill prediction of the reservoir quality at the producing wells. These approaches will reduce the risk of future commercial production from the gas hydrate reservoir.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available