2007 APS March Meeting
Volume 52, Number 1
Monday–Friday, March 5–9, 2007;
Denver, Colorado
Session A2: Future of Fossil Fuels
8:00 AM–11:00 AM,
Monday, March 5, 2007
Colorado Convention Center
Room: Four Seasons 4
Sponsoring
Unit:
FIAP
Chair: Donald Morelli, Michigan State University
Abstract ID: BAPS.2007.MAR.A2.5
Abstract: A2.00005 : The Physics of Heavy Oils: Implications for Recovery and Geophysical Monitoring
10:24 AM–11:00 AM
Preview Abstract
Abstract
Author:
Douglas Schmitt
(University of Alberta)
Our capacity to find and produce conventional light petroleum
oils are
unable to keep pace with the growth in the growing global demand
for energy.
With the breakpoint between petroleum production and consumption
imminent, a
good deal of recent efforts have focused on developing the `heavy'
hydrocarbon reserves. Such resources include the extensive heavy oil
deposits of Venezuela, the bitumen resources of Canada, and even
the solid
kerogens (oil shale) of the United States. Capital investments, in
particular, have been large in Canada's oil sands due in part to the
extensive nature of the resource and already in excess of 30{\%}
of Canada's
production comes from heavier hydrocarbon deposits. The larger
input costs
associated with such projects, however, requires that the
production be
monitored more fully; and this necessitates that both the oils
and the
porous media which hold them be understood. Geophysical `time-lapse'
monitoring seeks to better constrain the areal distribution and
movements of
fluids in the subsurface by examining the changes in a
geophysical response
such as seismic reflectivity, micro-gravity variations, or
electrical
conductivity that arise during production. For example, a changed
geophysical seismic character directly depends on relies on
variations in
the longitudinal and transverse wave speeds and attenuation and mass
densities of the materials in the earth. These are controlled by
a number of
extrinsic conditions such as temperature, fluid pressure,
confining stress,
and fluid phase and saturation state. Understanding the geophysical
signature over a given reservoir requires that the behavior of
the porous
rock physical properties be well understood and a variety of
measurements
are being made in laboratories. In current practice, the
interpretation of
the geophysical field responses is assisted by combined modeling
of fluid
flow and seismic wave fields. The least understood link in this
process,
however, is the lack of knowledge on rock physical properties
under the
conditions encountered within a reservoir.
To cite this abstract, use the following reference: http://meetings.aps.org/link/BAPS.2007.MAR.A2.5