AAPG-SPE 2008 Eastern Meeting Optimal Development of Utica Shale Wells AAPG-SPE 2008 Eastern Meeting Optimal Development of Utica Shale Wells Prepared By: GEORGE KOPERNA, ANNE OUDINOT, JON KELAFANT, VELLO KUUSKRAA ADVANCED RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL, INC. 11-15 October , 2008 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
37
Embed
AAPG-SPE 2008 Eastern Meeting Optimal Development of … · AAPG-SPE 2008 Eastern Meeting Optimal Development of Utica Shale Wells AAPG-SPE 2008 Eastern Meeting Optimal Development
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
AAPG-SPE 2008 Eastern Meeting
Optimal Development of Utica Shale Wells
AAPG-SPE 2008 Eastern Meeting
Optimal Development of Utica Shale Wells
Prepared By:GEORGE KOPERNA, ANNE OUDINOT, JON KELAFANT, VELLO KUUSKRAA
ADVANCED RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
11-15 October , 2008Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Introduction• Flow Testing• Vertical Well Modeling• Horizontal Well Modeling • Field Development• Conclusions
• Input parameters from match of build-up test used for parametric study
• Well producing at 100 psi BHP for 30 years• Spacing: 80 acres• Fracture half-lengths of 150 ft, 300 ft and
500 ft• Matrix block size = 10x10x10 ft• Then, impact of matrix block size tested for
a constant half-length fracture (500 ft) at 1 ft and 100 ft
Grid View – Half-length fracture = 300 ftFractured Vertical Well
X
Y
5
5
10
10
15
15
5 5
10 10
15 15
1
Fracture Gas Pres., psia307.8719 1008.8638658.3678483.1198 833.6158
Gas Production Rate – 80 acresFractured Vertical Well
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Months
Gas
Rat
e, M
scfd
150 ft 300 ft 500 ft
150 ft 300 ft 500 ftOGIP (Bcf) 5.6 5.6 5.6Cum Prod (Bcf) 0.42 0.64 0.91Recovery (%) 7.5 11.5 16.4
Warren and Root Model
Gas Adsorbed on Coal
Micro-porosity System
Coal Cleats
Gas Production Rate – Matrix Block Size Fractured Vertical Well – Xf = 500 ft, 80 acres
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 100 200 300 400
Months
Gas
Rat
e, M
scfd
1 ft 10 ft 100 ft
1 ft 10 ft 100 ftOGIP (Bcf) 5.6 5.6 5.6Cum Prod (Bcf) 1.15 0.91 0.36Recovery (%) 20.8 16.4 6.4
• Introduction• Flow Testing• Vertical Well Modeling
Horizontal Well Modeling • Field Development• Conclusions
Outline
Horizontal WellMultiple Stages Stimulation• Input parameters from match of build-up
test used for parametric study• Well producing at 100 psi BHP for 30 years• 3,000 ft horizontal length• Spacing: 160 acres• Fracture half-lengths of 150 ft, 300 ft and
500 ft, spaced every 500 ft• Then, impact of matrix block size tested for
a constant half-length fracture (300 ft) at 1x1x1 ft and 100x100x100 ft
3D View – Half-length fracture = 150 ftHorizontal Well
X
Y
5
5
10
10
15
15
20
20
25
25
30
30
35
35
40
40
5 5
10 10
Horiz
Fracture Gas Pres., psia321.6356 912.9314617.2835469.4595 765.1074
Gas Production Rate Fractured Horizontal Well
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 100 200 300 400
Months
Gas
Rat
e, M
scfd
150 ft 300 ft 500 ft
150 ft 300 ft 500 ftOGIP (Bcf) 10.3 10.3 10.3Cum Prod (Bcf) 1.77 2.27 2.88Recovery (%) 17.2 22.1 28.1
Warren and Root Model
Gas Adsorbed on Coal
Micro-porosity System
Coal Cleats
Gas Production Rate – Matrix Block Size Fractured Horizontal Well – Xf = 300 ft
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Months
Gas
Rat
e, M
scfd
1 ft 10 ft 100 ft
1 ft 10 ft 100 ftOGIP (Bcf) 10.3 10.3 10.3Cum Prod (Bcf) 3.1 2.27 0.63Recovery (%) 30.3 22.1 6.2
• Introduction• Flow Testing• Vertical Well Modeling• Horizontal Well Modeling
Field Development• Conclusions
Outline
Field Development
• Impact of “Sweet Spot”intersections:– Increased thickness– Improved permeability
Gas Production Rate – More Thickness Horizontal Well – Xf = 300 ft