Stratas Tim Analysis Methodology

7/28/2019 Stratas Tim Analysis Methodology

1/13

Fracture SpacingUsing StrataStim Workflow

Integrating data to optimize your frac tre

Lyle Lehman

StrataGen Engineering


2/13

Outline Vertical to horizontal

What are the reasons? Fracture Spacing/Completion

Case history the Cleveland s

Conclusions


3/13

VerticalVertical

FracedHorizontal

Horizontal

Axial FracHorizontal

5 Transv.

Fracs

Ho

11

Fra

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Recovery at 10 Years

(Cum/OGIP)

Well Type

Going sideways

and liking it

As E&P companies developunconventional assets, theneed to expose more net pay

has required that wellboresbe placed horizontally in thepay zone.


4/13

Completion

practices

Tradit ionally, Plug and Perf (PNP) offered a method to place fractures designing engineer wanted them

The cost became prohibitive, both inbut mainly due to time

Most stimulation service companiesthe use of multi -stimulation valves totime on location

Some had higher Capital costs, but quicker completion time


5/13

Optimum production

through bettercompletion practicesFrac L

PerforationSpacing


6/13

The ClevelandNet Pay (ft)

Permeability (md) 0.01

Porosity (%)

Water saturation (%)

Reservoir pressure gradient

(psig/ft)

0

Top of pay (ft TVD) 8

GOR (SCF/bbl) 3

Length of lateral (ft) 4

Reservoir temperature (0F)


7/13

Analysis Approach Surveyed 55 wells recently completed ithe Cleveland

Created a statistical database, and geneaverage values

Created a P10, 50 and 90 case for Perm

Used actual fracture spacing data, with treatment

Generated a production decline curve fo P case

Weighed-in economics with discountedcash flow

Reported the results


8/13

Stimulation data

used in reservoirsimulations

Variable (ft) 400 MFV 2

Fluid volume (gal) 52,000 3

Proppant volume (lb) and

type per fracture

100,000 40/70

White Sand

3

W

Propped length (ft) 521.4 3

Fcd assuming 50% damage to pack 54.478 4

Note: Fcd values in both cases may appear to beBecause of the low-formation permeabil ity, the heasy to achieve. However, mult i-phase flow was considered when assuming the damage factor.


9/13

Results

TimeOil Rate_MFV k=0...., Gas Rate_MFC k=0...., Oil Rate_PNP k=0...., Gas Rate_PNP k=0....

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

400 Spacing

Gas

400 Spacing

Oil

200 Spacing

Gas

200 Spacing

Oil


10/13

Results of

frac spacings

Years/

Spacing (ft)

200 400

1 727,659 145,664

2 1,034,149 226,742

5 1,393,344 382,604

10 1,665,456 503,534

Note: This case is the P50 permeabili ty of 0.00The authors used a P90 case of 0.0006 md andcase of 0.01 md. Only in the P10 case did 400-perform better than the below table represents


11/13

After Tax

Discountedcash flow

($2,000,000)

($1,500,000)

($1,000,000)

($500,000)

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

400 Completion

200 Com

$400 Comp= $200*


12/13

How could this

solution becorrected?

Doubling Proppant volume increacosts 15%, yet equalized the econon the NPV

Shortening the spacing to 200 imNPV performance but increased c

Shortening spacing to 231.5, usi

same frac volumes surpassed theby the other jobs, but increased c


13/13

The main controlling factors for reserrecovery in matrix-based reservoirs th

are hydraulically fractured as part of tcompletion are:

Reservoir perm

Reservoir pressure

Fracture conductivity

Propped length

Fracture spacing

Conclusions

The combin

these variable

solution whichfit your eco

Stratas Tim Analysis Methodology

Documents