17.00 soliman
DESCRIPTION
Well Completion in tihgt gas wellsTRANSCRIPT
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
Well Completion Design for Tight-Gas Formations
M. Y. Soliman, PhD
September 20, 2006
Mendoza, Argentina
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
Completion of Tight gas sand
• Various completion options• Fluid Flow• GeoMechanics
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
Successful Completion Optimization
• Set up realistic expectations• Consider various completion options
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
Successful Completion Optimization
• Set up realistic expectations– Reservoir Characterization
• Well tests, Logging, and core data
• production analysis of offset well
• Stress field
– Understanding of reservoir fluid properties
– Realistic modeling
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
Successful Completion Optimization
• Optimize completion– Various completion strategy
– Set optimization criterion or criteria
– Define parameters that affect the optimum design• Fracture geometry, conductivity, height• Reservoir properties
– Realistic modeling
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
Some of the Possible completion types
• Vertical well• Fractured vertical well• MLT
– Radially distributed, kicked off in the middle of the formation– Vertical distribution
• Fractured horizontal well
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
Investigated properties
• Permeability 0.005, 0.05, 0.1 md• Height 400 ft, also looked at 100 and 20 ft• Pressure 4000 psi• Fracture Parameters
– half length 400 ft, Conductivity, 1750 md-ft
• MLT – 6 arms 550 ft each + the vertical well
• Horizontal well, – 1320 ft – Four fractures
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
Effect of completion type
Total Production Comparison - 400-ft formation, k=0.1 md
0.00E+00
5.00E+00
1.00E+01
1.50E+01
2.00E+01
2.50E+01
3.00E+01
3.50E+01
4.00E+01
4.50E+01
5.00E+01
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Time, days
Cu
mu
lati
ve
Pro
du
cti
on
, B
cf
Vertical w ell
Fractured V Well
Fractured H WellMLT- Horizontal
MLT- Vertical
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
Effect of completion type
Total Production Comparison - 400-ft formation, k=0.05 md
0.00E+00
5.00E+00
1.00E+01
1.50E+01
2.00E+01
2.50E+01
3.00E+01
3.50E+01
4.00E+01
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Time, days
Cu
mu
lati
ve P
rod
uct
ion
, Bcf
Vertical w ellFractured V WellFractured H WellMLT- HorizontalMLT- Vertical
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
Effect of completion type
Total Production Comparison - 400-ft formation, k=0.005 md
0.00E+00
2.00E+00
4.00E+00
6.00E+00
8.00E+00
1.00E+01
1.20E+01
1.40E+01
1.60E+01
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Time, days
Cu
mu
lati
ve P
rod
uct
ion
, B
cf
Vertical w ellFractured V WellFractured H WellMLT- HorizontalMLT- Vertical
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
Vertical Well Pressure Distribution
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
Fractured Vertical Well pressure Distribution
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
MLT pressure
Distribution
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
Cross section
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
Frac HW pressureDistribution
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
Refrac and multiple Fractures
• One fracture• Two perpendicular fractures• Multiple fractures.
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
Cumulative production comparison for one and two fracs
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time, days
To
tal
Pro
du
ctio
n,
mm
cf
Single Frac
Two fracs
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
One-Frac case
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
Two-Frac case
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
GeoMechanics effect
• Depletion• Stress interference
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Time, days
To
tal
pro
du
cti
on
, b
cf
base Case
Effect of porosity
Effect of permeability
Combined effect
Effect of pressure dependant permeability and porosity
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
Stress Interference in Fractured Horizontal Well
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Dimensionless Distance between Fractures, L / h
Rat
io o
f N
et F
ract
uri
ng
Pre
ssu
re Fracture 5
Fracture 2
Fracture3
Fracture 4
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
Annulus Pressure, Tubing Rate, & Annulus Rate
7/10/200309:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00
7/10/200318:00
Time
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000A
(psi)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40C
(bpm)
Annulus Pressure (psi) Slurry Rate (bpm) Flowback Rate (bpm)A C C
presentation to Repsol by MYS on 9/13/06
Conclusions
• The lower the permeability, the more attractive fracturing.
• Fracturing horizontal wells is the most promising technique in thick, tight gas formations.
• The geomechanics effect on complex reservoir performance should always be considered, especially when creating multiple fractures in horizontal wells
• Multiple fracturing from a wellbore is a fast growing area of technology