the spe foundation through member donations and a ... · •drilling and completion on same surface...

Primary funding is provided by

The SPE Foundation through member donations

and a contribution from Offshore Europe

The Society is grateful to those companies that allow their

professionals to serve as lecturers

Additional support provided by AIME

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Programwww.spe.org/dl

Multiple Pay Tight Gas Sands

Can the Lessons Learned in the

Rockies Help You?

Mike Eberhard P.E.Halliburton Energy Services

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Programwww.spe.org/dl

Agenda

• Rocky Mountain Tight Gas

• “Factory” Completions for Efficiency

• Reservoir Considerations for Factory Completions

• Fracture Treatment Considerations

• Post Frac Evaluation

• Results

• Summary

Rocky Mountain Tight Gas 4

Rocky Mountain Area - USA


Rockies Tight Gas Definition

• Resource plays

– < 5 µd perm

• Hydraulic fracturing is

required for economic

production

• Over-pressured

• Lenticular sand formations dominate current

completion programs

– Sand shale sequences


LiDAR-Orthophoto Composite

Outcrop Photo – Piceance

Figure provided by Matt Pranter (University of Colorado at Boulder) and Rex Cole (Mesa State College)

1,2

00’


Pinedale/Jonah Area

• Up to 40 wellbores

from a single pad

• 3,000 to 5,000 ft of

gross interval

– 30 to 60% net

– TOOP 8 - 10,000’

• Up to 60 individual

sands


Stacked Pay Geology – Rockies

30 Individual sands

13 Frac Stages


Tight Gas Sand Issues

• Marginal economics

– High decline wells

– Small drainage areas (reservoirs)

• A large number of wells required for economic

programs

– High density drilling programs

• Cost reduction by efficiencies

– Factory “assembly line” approach


High Density Well Spacing - Piceance

1 mile

1 m

ile


High Efficiency Operations

“Frac Factories”

• Simultaneous operations

– Drilling, perforating, fracing, completing,

producing


High Efficiency Operations

“Frac Factories”

• Simultaneous operations

– Drilling, perforating, fracing, completing,

producing

• Multiple wells on a single surface pad

• Multiple wells treated from a single frac

equipment location

• Goal - Multiple fracture treatments done per

crew every day

“Factory” Completions for Efficiency 13

Simultaneous Operations

• Drilling and completion on same surface location

Photo courtesy of Ultra Petroleum


Simultaneous Operations

• Drilling and completion on same surface location

• New to US land operations

• Safety is primary concern

• Requires improved field

coordination

• Better efficiency of existing

equipment

– 24/7 completion operations

• Reduces environmental

impact


Multiple Stages per Day

• Traditional perforate and plug

– Use of composite flow through frac plugs


Multiple Stages per Day

• Traditional perforate and plug

– Use of composite flow through frac plugs

• Coiled tubing deployed placement

• Continuous pumping operations


Multiple Pad Completions

32 335-32

9-32

11-32

15-32

13-32

11-33

15-3313-33

7-32 5-33 7-33

10-33

6-33

14-33

71-32

11-33X

13-32W

16-32

14-32

10-32

8-32

6-32

12-33

59-32

55-32

38-32

44-3246-32

35-32

53-32

56-32

57-32 61-32

73-33

62-3263-32

50-32

64-32

51-32

47-32

49-32

48-32

41-32

39-3233-32

42-33

60-33

74-33 75-33

70-33

76-33

58-33

68-33

77-33

71-33

45-33

43-33

37-33

46-3344-33

40-33

41-33

52-32

25-32

26-32 27-32

28-32 29-32 31-32

32-32

36-32

37-32

60-32

25-33

26-33

27-33 28-33 29-33

35-33

36-33

52-33

59-33

74-32 75-32

48-32X

42-32

67-32

76-3277-32

38-33

53-33

61-33

72-32

66-32

79-32 80-32

65-32

78-32

70-3269-32

58-32

67-33

54-32

40-32

12-32

34-32

39-33

54-33

7-3343-32

72-33

FEET

0 872

PETRA 04/14/2006 9:54:24 AM

10 remote sites

40 wells

406 frac stages

Map Courtesy of EnCana


Pitfalls with Factory Completions

• Ignoring the reservoir

• “Cookbook” frac designs become standard

• Logistics start to mandate completions

• Well cost becomes main concern

Reservoir Considerations for Factory Completions 19

Systematic Approach

Stimulation Design

Petrophysical Model

Model Review Validate Stimulation Model

Surveillance

of Results

Total Well Production Forecast for Champlin 242 J-12

10

100

1000

10000

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Time (Months)

Pro

du

cti

on

Ra

te (

MS

CF

/D)

Lf

0'

50'

100'

150'

200'

250'

300'

350'

400'

450'

500'

Gas

Rate vs. Cumulative Plot for Champlin 242 J-12

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Cumulative Production (MMSCF)

Pro

du

cti

on

Ra

te (

MS

CF

/D)

Lf

0'

50'

100'

150'

200'

250'

300'

350'

400'

450'

500'

Cumulative

Field Wide

Surveillance

Reservoir

Characterization

Frac Design

Daily Work Flow Begins Here

Well Name: Champlin 242 J-12 Gas Total Number of Zones: 24Operator: BP Gas Gravity: 0.65 Number of Stages: 2Location: Wamsutter % N2: 0.0% Completed Number of Zones: 5

Swift Model: BP % CO2 0.0% Frac Length: 50 ftWell Type: Gas % H2S 0.0% Frac Length Increment: 50 ft

Condensate? No Economic Limit: 9 mcf/dWI: 100.0% Oil Mechanical Limit: 9 mcf/d

NRI: 75.0% Bo: 1.25 STB/RBPwf (ini): 1292 psia Viscosity: 2 cp Operating Cost: $1,000.00 /month

Pwf (abn): 100 psia GOR: 2500 SCF/STB Gas Price: $3.50 mcf/dRw: 0.25 ft Pbp: 1001 psia Oil Price: $60.00 /bbl

Psc: 14.7 psia Water Gas Sev Tax: 7.5%Tsc: 60 deg F Salinity: 40 kppm Oil Sev Tax: 4.6%

Bw: 1.001 STB/RB Discount Rate: 10.0%OGIP: 2.28 BCF Viscosity: 0.341 cps Condensate Yield: 1 bo/mmcf

Stage Zn Start Zn Stop Net Pay Porosity Sw kgh kwh Pi Temp Area F -h F -hSg F -hSg-Pi F -hSg-T

1 9315.25 9338.25 22.50 0.14 0.26 0.79 0.00 5167.00 203.00 40.00 3.17 2.36 12189.32 478.892 9090.75 9181.25 48.50 0.10 0.40 0.27 0.00 5005.39 199.75 33.22 5.04 3.01 15058.54 600.48

Tota l 9090.75 9338.25 71.00 0.12 0.35 1.06 0.00 5076.42 201.38 35.37 8.22 5.37 27247.86 1079.37

Well Total Production Summary (MSCF/D)

Lf (ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500Stage 1 40 320 420 515 613 720 839 975 1135 1326 1562

Stage 2 13 105 139 170 202 237 276 321 374 437 515Total 54 425 559 685 816 957 1115 1297 1509 1764 2077

SwiftLOOK SM

StimulationReset ApplicationAdd Production Data Adjust B-Factor SummarySwift Frac DesignExport to Word

Predict Well

Performance

Offset Completions

Total Well Production Forecast for Champlin 242 J-12

10

100

1000

10000

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Time (Months)

Pro

duc

tio

n R

ate

(M

SC

F/D

)

Lf

0'

50'

100'

150'

200'

250'

300'

350'

400'

450'

500'

Rate vs. Cumulative Plot for Champlin 242 J-12

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Cumulative Production (MMSCF)

Pro

duc

tio

n R

ate

(M

SC

F/D

)

Lf

0'

50'

100'

150'

200'

250'

300'

350'

400'

450'

500'

Zone kh

1E-

04 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

8962.75

8972.25

9008.25

9030.75

9039.25

9052.75

9070.75

9090.75

9114.25

9128.75

9166.25

9199.25

9209.75

9235.75

9278.75

9285.25

9315.25

9355.75

9370.25

9397.25

9404.75

9421.75

9432.75

9457.75

Depth

(ft

)

Zn Data

Stage 1

Stage 2

Zone HPV

0 1 2 3

8962.75

8972.25

9008.25

9030.75

9039.25

9052.75

9070.75

9090.75

9114.25

9128.75

9166.25

9199.25

9209.75

9235.75

9278.75

9285.25

9315.25

9355.75

9370.25

9397.25

9404.75

9421.75

9432.75

9457.75

Dep

th (ft

)

Zn Data

Stage 1

Stage 2


A Petrophysical Model Will…

• Assist with determining completion intervals

– “What-if” scenarios

• Incorporate reservoir potential into frac

design considerations

– Proppant type, job size, etc.

• Predict well performance based on

completion program


Building a Petrophysical Model

• Core analysis

– Corrected for bottom hole conditions

• Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests (DFIT)

– Before and after closure

• Treating pressures

• Production results

Sh2005ag - X-Permeability (md)

01/01/1980 00:00:00 0.0000 days

0.020

0.018

0.016

0.014

0.012

0.010

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0.000


Unconventional Pressure Transient

Testing

Fracture-Injection/Falloff Tests

• Pre-frac or Refrac Evaluation

• Falloff Analysis

– Reservoir Properties

– Fracture Properties

• Multilayer models

Fracture Treatment Considerations 23

Stimulation Issues

• Very long completion intervals

• Optimization of stimulation design

• Supply chain management

– Water, proppant

• Consistent improvement in a large scale

project


Design and Operations

• Traditional issues

– Fluid systems

– Proppant types

– Additives

• Single or multiple well completion program

• When to flow back and for how long

• Reuse of frac and/or formation fluids


Single Well Completion

• Typically wireline plug and perf

– Use flow thru composite bridge plugs

(FTCBP)

• Limit number of intervals per frac stage

• Can be 24/7 operation

• Use a solid BP to isolate different

pressure regimes

• Flow back well after completion


Multiple Well Completions

• Treat several wells from a single location

– Requires close proximity

• Complete one or two stages then flow the

well back

• Only move frac iron not equipment

• Use FTCBP for frac stage isolation

Post Frac Evaluation 27

More Frac Factory Concerns

• No time to review results from changes

• Several wells completed before a problem is

noticed

• Science is not done up front

– High density drilling

• High change over of personnel


Diagnostics for Design

• Tiltmeters

• Microseismic monitoring


Diagnostics for Design

• Tiltmeters

• Microseismic monitoring

• Chemical/radioactive tracers

• Temperature distribution analysis

• Production Logs


Monitor and Adjust

• Does the actual production match predicted?

• Does the stimulation treatment pressure

history matches predicted?

• Does the production profile look reasonable?

Results 31

Production Improvement Using

Reservoir Based Completion Designs

G a s p e r D o lla r S p e n t

0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 7

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

G a s p e r D o lla r S p e n t

0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 7

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

The median well produces 50%

more gas per frac dollar spent

than the average well with only

customer input.

2005 wells designed to meet

customer Criteria

2006 wells designed using a swift

evaluation analysis

2006 wells designed by service

company and customer

90 DAY MCF per Frac $90 DAY MCF per Frac $

Median well

finding cost

improved by 50%

90 Day MCF per Frac $

Results 32

Benchmark ChangesC

um

ula

tive F

req

uen

cy

EUR, BSCF

Slick Water with

Microemulsion

Gel System

Slick Water Frac

Hybrid Frac

33

Summary

• Efficient drilling/completion programs

• Effective stimulation of multiple intervals

• Watch out for pitfalls of factory mentality

• Calibrated petrophysical models

• Unconventional PTA used

• Consideration well completion strategy

• Use of diagnostic tools and lookback studies

the spe foundation through member donations and a ... · •drilling and completion on same surface...

Documents