shale gas development: integrated approach
DESCRIPTION
Shale Gas Development: Integrated Approach. Hemant Kumar Dixit Mumbai, India 18 January-2013. Introduction. Motivation : Use seismic data to improve economics in resource shale plays Higher margins with less drilling and perforations/fracturing stages Minimize environmental impact - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
SAMPLE IMAGEShale Gas Development:
Integrated Approach
Hemant Kumar DixitMumbai, India18 January-2013
Introduction Motivation: Use seismic data to improve economics in resource
shale plays– Higher margins with less drilling and perforations/fracturing stages– Minimize environmental impact
Challenges: – Sweetspot identification – Optimize well location– Optimize completions
Drilling Completion
Installations
Motivation of Unconventional Resources
Source: Halliburton 2011-03
23% US gas production is from unconventional reservoirs (2010) Coal stores 6-7 times more gas than conventional reservoirs 4 trillion bbl of oil in Canada oil sands and Venezuela heavy oil Environment – proppant, water, noise, contamination
Based on graphic by Al Granberg
Fissures
The shale is fractured by the pressure induced
in the well10,000 ft
2,000 ft
8,000 ft
4,000 ft
6,000 ft
0 ft
FissureSand keeps
fissures open
Mixture of water, sand and chemical
agents
Well
Natural gas flows from fissures into
well
A mixture of water, sand and chemical agents is injected at high pressure in
the well
The challenge: prediction and control of fracturing
What seismic brings: Seismic Reservoir Characterization Stress & Fracture modeling Real-time Microseismic
Challenges in Shale Explortaion
CGGV North American Experience
2007 - 2011
5 Projects726 sq km
Marcellus
2008 - 20116 Projects
1405 sq km
Montney
2009 – 2 projects
178 Sq km+ 2D
Regional
Utica
2009 - 20112 Projects
5607 sq km
Haynesville
2010 - 2011
13 Projects6920 sq
km
Woodford
2009 - 2011
8 Projects1155 sq
km
Horn River
2010 - 1 Project
340 sq km
Eagle Ford2009 -
3 Projects457 sq km
Bakken
2006 - 20083 Projects
+440 sq km
Picenace / Uinta 2007 –
8 Projects+500 sq km
Barnett
More than 40 projects and 18,000 km2
CGGV in Shale Resource Exploration Integrated solutions for Unconventional Resources
Full suite of tools and technologies From prediction to monitoring Calibration & correlation with well data
Data acquisition Processing & Imaging
Fracture / stress characterization & rock properties
Sweet spot prediction with well-calibrated
attributes
Microseismic fracture
monitoring
Feasibility study & survey design
Calibration with well data – correlation with production data
6
Generating Geomechanical Properties and Sweet Spot Identification for optimum driling
Tri-Parish Line Case Study
Shale Plays: Questions?
Shale TypeDuctile or Britle
Gas ContentTOC, Bulk Volume of Gas
FractureFracture Type, Direction and Length
Validation
Shale Plays: Seismic Driven Answers?
Shale Gas
Randomly oriented fractures
Bulk Volume Gas
Closure Pressure
Young’s Modulus
Poisson’s Ratio
17
Reservoir Quality
Brittleness
Stress
Shale Plays: Seismic Workflow
Haynesville Shale: Bulk Volume Gas
Bulk Volume Gas = Total Porosity x (1–Water Saturation)
Stress Analysis Workflow
Seismic AzAVO Terms E – Young’ s Modulus n – Poisson’s Ratio ZN – Normal Compliance
Hooke’s Law / Linear Slip Theory
h H
H
h
V
V
Patent Pending
Differential Horizontal Stress Ratio (DHSR)
If Hmax ≈ hmin (DHSR ≈ 0) Tensile cracks any direction
|| rock weakness Fracture network
If Hmax >> hmin (DHSR > 3-5%) Fractures || Hmax
Shear Fractures Tensile Fractures
Connect to existing fracture network for production Hmax
Hmax
Pressure
hmin = Closure Stress
hmin
Patent Pending
H - h
HDHSR
Cross-plot DHSR vs. Young’s Modulus
Static Young’s Modulus
Aligned Fractures will form (YELLOW)Fracture Swarms will occur (GREEN)
Ductile (RED)
Diff
eren
tial H
oriz
onta
l Stre
ss R
atio
Ductile Brittle
DHSR platelets overlaying Young’s Modulus
Plate orientation: direction of maximum horizontal stressMap colour: derived Young’s modulus
DHSR
BRITTLE
H - h
H
Volumetric Interpretation
16
Aligned Fractures (YELLOW)Fracture Swarms (GREEN)
Ductile (RED)
Probable Zones of Better Hydraulic Fractures
Static Young’s ModulusDiff
eren
tial H
orizon
tal S
tress
Rat
io
H-h
H
Percentage of Hydraulic Fractures HighProbability: Zones of better hydraulic fractures (random pattern)
Low
H
h
H- h
H
Bottom of HVL
Multi-Attribute Analysis
High
Low
Highlighting Potential Good Production Areas
Validation: Analysis of orientation of HTriaxial Measurements and
Orientation H from oriented core samples from
different depths in the Haynesville Shale
Orientation H across the Haynesville Shale derived
from seismic
EASTWEST
The direction of maximum horizontal stress predicted from
the seismic observations matched the corresponding
core stress measurements to within 5%.
compared with
-25 o
Conclusions
Fully Integrated workflow for shale plays – acquisition to interpretation
Flexible multi-attribute solution correlating seismic observations to production figures, using Geomechanical rock properties Stress – HTI
Applications for: Sweet spot identification Well location optimization Completions optimization
20
Conclusions
Environment Water access Proppant access Leakage prevention
Financial Well costs reduced Well performance enhanced Return On Investment
SEISMIC can help!
21
22
Thank YouReference:
Gray et. al.Estimation of Stress and Geomechanical Properties using 3D Seismic Data, First Break, Volume 30,March 2012
Differential Horizontal Stress Ratio (DHSR)
If Hmax ≈ hmin (DHSR ≈ 0) Tensile cracks any direction
|| rock weakness Fracture network
If Hmax >> hmin (DHSR > 3-5%) Fractures || Hmax
Shear Fractures Tensile Fractures
Connect to existing fracture network for production
Hmax
hmin
Hmax
Pressure
hmin = Closure Stress
H - h
H
E: Young’s Modulus
DH
SR
E E
DHSR and Young’s Modulus Crossplot