SPE DISTINGUISHED LECTURER SERIESis funded principally

through a grant of the

SPE FOUNDATIONThe Society gratefully acknowledges

those companies that support the programby allowing their professionals

to participate as Lecturers.

And special thanks to The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical,and Petroleum Engineers (AIME) for their contribution to the program.

A new Generation of Wells for Developing Tight Reservoir Facies

A new Generation of Wells for Developing Tight Reservoir Facies

by:Salam P. Salamy-Saudi Aramco

SPE Distinguished Lecturer Series Program2004 - 2005

Outline

Evolution of MRC Well ConceptImplementation: Expanding the Learning Curve

MRC Objectives and DesignsResults

Impact on Unit Development CostSummary Future Focus Areas- Way Forward!

World Growth of Horizontal Wells

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

1985 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 20020

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

Annual Well Count Cumulative

Ann

ual W

ell C

ount

Cum

Wel

ls

Growth Of Horizontal Wells in Saudi Aramco

Growth of Horizontal Wells

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

No. o

f Wel

ls

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Cum

ulat

ive

SHAYBAH FIELDSHAYBAH FIELD

Size: 60 Km. X 15 Km.Size: 60 Km. X 15 Km.

Shaybah Field Located in Rub’ al-Khali Desert, Saudi ArabiaDeveloped with Single-Lateral one Km Horizontal Wells in 1996.

Put on Stream July 1998.

Producing Formation the Shu’aibaLow Permeability (Avg. 13 mD)

40% 27% 33%

Heel ToeMiddleTD

1Km horizontal wellAverage Production Profile

Shaybah Horizontal Well Flow Profile

85% of the Logged Section Showed Flow Contribution

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 20140

4000

8000

12000

16000

20000

24000

28000

32000

Case Study: GOR OptimizationHorizontal Length Assessment

CUM OIL

GOR

3 Km

2 Km

1 Km

1 Km3 Km

2 Km

Cum

Oil,

MST

B

GO

R, S

CF/

STB

Horizontal Wells PI as Function of Reservoir Contact – Shaybah Field

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 Km 2 Km 3 Km

Horizontal Well Length

1Km +2Km +3Km

PI, S

TBD

/Psi

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2 Km3 Km

1 Km

1 Km Delay Gas BreakthroughImprove Oil Recovery

Shaybah Field Well PerformanceCum GOR Vs. Cum Oil as Function of Length

GO

R, S

CF/

STB

Cum Oil , MMSTB

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

84 82 83 85 466

752

727

737

430

174

324

325

326

327

219

218

217

216

182

183

185

296

431

432

377

379

381

Res

ervo

ir C

onta

ct, K

m

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

84 82 83 85 466

752

727

737

430

174

324

325

326

327

219

218

217

216

182

183

185

296

431

432

377

379

381

Res

ervo

ir C

onta

ct, K

m

1999 MP Wells 2000 MP Wells 2001 MP Wells

1 Km Contact 2 Km Contact 3 Km Contact

Evolution of Horizontal Drilling in Shaybah

Maximum Reservoir Contact (MRC):Maximum Reservoir Contact (MRC):

A well with an aggregate reservoir contact in excess of 5 kilometers via a single or multi-lateral configuration.

A well with an aggregate reservoir contact in excess of 5 kilometers via a single or multi-lateral configuration.

Drivers / Desired Results

– Unit Development Costs– Unit Operating Costs– Draw down at a given flow rate– Water and Gas breakthroughs

Minimize

– Long term performance– Production rate / PI– Sweep efficiency / Reserves

Maximize

ChallengesChallenges

The New Architecture: Larger Foot PrintThe New Architecture: Larger Foot Print

SHYB-753 (Fork)7.9 Km

SHYB-220 (Hybrid)12.3 Km

Offshore Carbonate (Fishbone)

7.8 Km

7” liner

-4600

-4400

343

368

367 376

378

38079

81

80

82 83

7571

76377

381

217

10

15

366

369253379

1058.5380

673381

39

82

25

PIB/D/PSI

3Avg.3-Km

5.8378

3377

ReservoirContact, Km

WellNo.

MRC Performance (South Shaybah)

3

10

6.5

4.0

8

3

RateMBOD

SHYB-380:

2.5 Fold Increase In PI Compared to Average 3-Km Well

381

379

377

380

378

Fork and Fishbone Type Sidetracked in Open Hole

The total depth : 16,026’Contact : 40,384’ ( 12.3 km)12 MBOD

L- 8

L- 7

L- 6

L- 5

L- 4

L- 3

L-2

L-1

MOTHERBORE

7” Shoe9-5/8” shoe

76.94,882L-859.02,537L-761.53,597L-649.42,964L-556.42,255L-449.63,052L-339.75,951L-239.15,350L-146.69,796MB

ROP(ft/hr)

Length (ft)

Laterals

-4600

-440

0

207

2

7372

77

379211

216

217218

219220

323

2209�

236�237239

17

26

126

PIB/D/PSI

1207

2219

12.3220

ReservoirContact, Km

WellNo.

SHYB-220:6 Fold Increase In PI and

Rate Compared to 1- Km Well

MRC Performance (South Shaybah)

2

3

12

RateMBOD 220

207

219

Reservoir Contact, Km

PI,

bbl/d

ay/P

siPI /Rate Vs. Reservoir Contact

020406080

100120140

1.0 2.0 3.0 5.8 8.5 12.302468101214

PI, STBD/PsiRate, MBOD

Rat

e, M

BO

D

Shaybah Horizontal Well PerformanceCumulative Production vs. Time

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48

`

1 Km (8/1998)

3.7 Km (6/2000)

1 Km (8/1998)

8.5 Km (8/2002)12.3 Km (11/2002)

5.8 Km (8/2002)

Cum

ulat

ive

Prod

uctio

n , M

MST

B

Time, Months

Other Field Examples-MRC Wells

Onshore Carbonate ReservoirOffshore Carbonate Reservoir

MRC ApplicationOnshore/Carbonate ReservoirOnshore/Carbonate Reservoir

428

412

MRC Well Results- PI and Rate Test

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Offset Horizontal MRC Well

Onshore MRC Well Performance

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Offset Horizontal MRC Well

Onshore MRC Well Performance

PI=40 b/d/psi

PI=85 b/d/psi

Prod

uctio

n R

ate,

MB

OD

Offshore/Carbonate ReservoirOffshore/Carbonate Reservoir

MRCMRC

0046

-10

112

1314

2426

282.

0 km

0.8

km

1.3

km1.75 km

1.0 km

1.25

km

142

Tested: 14.0 MBOD

Production Rate:MRC: 10 MBODOff-set 1 Km: 3 MBOD

Outline

Evolution of MRC ConceptImplementation: Expanding the Learning Curve

DesignsResults

Impact on Unit Development CostSummary Future Focus Areas - Way Forward!

71%

29%

1-KmSHYB- 257

1-KmSHYB- 257

74%

26%

MRC 8.5 KmSHYB- 380

MRC 8.5 KmSHYB- 380

IntraReservoir

IntraReservoir

ExtraReservoir

ExtraReservoir

Extra versus Intra Reservoir Drilling Time

68%

32%

62%

38%

1-KmSHYB- 257

MRC 8.5 KmSHYB- 380

IntraReservoir

IntraReservoir

ExtraReservoir

ExtraReservoir

Extra versus Intra ReservoirUnit Cost

Unit Development Cost vs. Reservoir ContactShaybah FieldUnit Development Cost vs. Reservoir ContactShaybah Field

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Reservoir Contact, KmReservoir Contact, Km

Nor

mal

ized

Uni

t Cos

tN

orm

aliz

ed U

nit C

ost

$/bb

l/day

of I

nitia

l Pro

duct

ion

$/bb

l/day

of I

nitia

l Pro

duct

ion

1998 1999 2002 2002 2002

SummaryMRC Wells mark the beginning of a new era.

The experience to date is limited but promising. Over 25 MRC wells have been drilled to-date.

Primary Beneficiaries: Tight-facies.

Opportunities: Medium & High Quality Reservoirs.

MRCs combined with Intelligent Well Technologies will reduce costs.

Drill bit: Tool for modifying Reservoir architecture-Knowledge Management Tool.

Guidelines and Best Practices to Ensure Proper Implementation.

Future Focus Areas- Way Forward

Formation Damage:Prevention over Remediation

Reducing Cost Smart/Intelligent Wells

Appropriate Integration of New Technologies:Solution Oriented vs. Application

THANK YOU