ATRS Updated Slides

Embed Size (px)

Text of ATRS Updated Slides

PowerPoint Presentation

Optimizing well performance: lessons learned

David M. Andersondanderson@atreservoir.com

What is a well preformance engineer?1

Anderson Thompson who are we?We provide direct support for oil and gas operators and investorsCharacterize the reservoir, completion effectiveness and predict future performanceDesign and optimize completion and field development strategiesProvide resource assessment and auditing services on producing and undeveloped acreage

22 studies completed, 200+ wells analyzed across all major Canadian and US basinsIntegrated team consisting of reservoir engineers, geoscientists and hydraulic fracture specialistsExperts in Rate Transient Analysis

Anderson Thompson Integrated Workflow

Core and Openhole LogsHydraulic Fracture ModelingRate Transient Analysis (RTA)Formation Properties

Porosity, Permeability,Saturations, Net pay, Youngs modulus, Poissons ratioFrac Properties

Frac length,Frac height,Frac conductivity,Perf cluster effectivenessPlacedEffectiveProduction

Relates completion, fracture, PVT and formation properties to well performance

Play by Play Review of Lessons LearnedAssessing the impact of completion type on well performance (Permian)

Optimizing stage spacing and treatment size (Permian and Montney)

Attaining predictable and scalable results (Montney)

Maximizing completion effectiveness for infills (Eagle Ford)

Production Ratetime

OperationsOpen versus choked flowShut-insFlowing pressure profileArtificial liftSeparator pressure/tempReservoir/FluidReservoir pressureNet payPorositySwYoungs modulusPoissons ratioNatural fracturesStress profilePermeabilityFluid compressibilityPore compressibilityFluid viscosityGas solubilityGas gravityOil API gravityCapillary pressure

Completion/WellboreLateral lengthLanding depthTubing/casing size/depthNumber of entry pointsMissed entry pointsCompletion typeProppant volumeProppant typeFluid volumeFluid typeTreatment scheduleWell spacing

Just one of many variables that influence well performanceAssessing the Impact of Completion Type:what causes one well to perform better than another?

5

Modified from Reynolds et al. (CSUR 2015)

Range of 12-month oil is ~ 170 MBOE (P10 P90)Completion technology impacts 12-month oil by only 20 MBOE

Impact of Completion Parameters:Difficult to Measure at the Play Level

6

OperationsOpen versus choked flowShut-insFlowing pressure profileArtificial liftSeparator pressure/tempReservoir/FluidReservoir pressureNet payPorositySwYoungs modulusPoissons ratioNatural fracturesStress profilePermeabilityFluid compressibilityPore compressibilityFluid viscosityGas solubilityGas gravityOil API gravity

Completion/WellboreLateral lengthLanding depthTubing/casing size/depthNumber of entry pointsMissed entry pointsProppant volumeCompletion typeProppant typeFluid volumeFluid typeTreatment scheduleWell spacingAzimuthToe up/down

Measured and modeledMeasured and controlledControlled due to proximityMeasured but not modeled

Benchmarking Procedure Using RTA

7

Objective: Determine whether new pinpoint completions are performing better or worse than incumbent P&P technology

Choose small area (2-5 wells)Control important variables AzimuthLanding Depth

1 P&P well (2010)2 pinpoint wells (2014-15)Well spacing ~ 1320 ft

Permian (Bone Spring) Example 1

8

k = 6 microdarciesxf = 132 ft

xs/xf = 1

Early linear flow followed by transitional flowP&P Type Curve Analysis

k = 1.4 dxf = 288 ft

b = 1.3Transitional flowP&P Simplified Analysis

k = 20 dxf = 135 ftDrainage = 160 acFCD = 5Final Np matches simulated

P&P Benchmark Model

mpropFCDxfxf

P&P (calibration well)2.4 MlbsNCS #2NCS #11.72 Mlbs1.7 Mlbs119 ft120 ft135 ftP&P (calibration well)NCS #2NCS #155.65.7Adjusting for Different Treatment Size Between Benchmark and Comparison Wells

k = 20 dxf = 119 ftDrainage = 160 acFCD = 5.7Pinpoint #1 outperforms P&P by 22 Mstb over 8 months

1320 ftPinpoint #1 Comparison Model

k = 20 dxf = 120 ftDrainage = 160 acFCD = 5.7Pinpoint #2 same as P&P over 5 monthsPinpoint #2 Comparison Model

Oil wells with solution gas(700-1000 scf/stb)

Initial Pressure = 4592 psia

TVD ~ 9000 ft

42 deg API

~8000 ft laterals

Permian (Spraberry) Example 2

15

Spraberry Example Benchmark model created using long pinpoint well

Benchmark model is validated using short pinpoint well data

Validation of Benchmark Model

Model outperforms dataBenchmark Model Compared to P&P Well

Benchmark versus Actual after 90 Days

Impact of completion technology is important but may be masked by more dominant variablesReservoir flow capacity (k, h)Reservoir storage capacity (pi, h, ct, f)Well construction (lateral length, stage count, treatment size)

We have been able to quantify (in stock tank barrels) the benefit of pinpoint completions using RTA benchmarking workflow

Assessing the Impact of Completion Technology:Conclusions

Quantifying impact of frac fluid selection on well performance

Identifying poorly performing proppant as the culprit of declining well productivity

Assessing impact of well trajectory on well performance azimuth and toe up/down

Other Applications for RTA Benchmarking

Connecting net pay maximize frac height

Importance of economicsIs bigger always better?

5 yr Oil RecoveryOptimizing Stage Spacing and Treatment Size

The same total treatment size delivered using different completion technologies can yield drastically different and unanticipated results

k =0.55 mdxf = 90 ftFCD = 0.5Drainage = 279 ac(exceeds well spacing)

Bone Spring ExampleP&P (Benchmark)Pinpoint (comparison)Connecting Net Pay Bone Spring Example

ABCD,E40,000 lbs

Designed volume going into each entry point

Likely not connecting the A & B sands

Pinpoint CompletionConnecting Net Pay Bone Spring Example

P&P Completion

ABCD,E+120,000 lbs

Designed for 30-40 k lbs per cluster but most of the proppant and fluid going into only one entry point!

A & B sands likely contributing to well performanceBreakdown pressures range from 3700 to 8700 psi

Connecting Net Pay Bone Spring Example

Treatment size / stage density economics for different oil prices

31 m / 35 T15 m / 45 T$30 oil$40$50$60$70$80Larger job / denser spacingonly becomes optimum above $70 oilImportance of Economics Liquids-Rich Montney

Treatment size / stage spacing economics at $40 oil

45 m / 80 T45 m / 60 T45 m / 45 T45 m / 35 T31 m / 35 T31 m / 45 T31 m / 60 T31 m / 80 T15 m / 45 T

Highest recovery but worst economicsSparse stage spacing with larger treatment size per stage winsImportance of Economics Liquids-Rich Montney

Attaining Predictable and Scalable Results

SRV = 2xfLehf(1-sw)2 xfhLe

A = 4 nf xf hCan we see a proportional benefit from scaling up horizontal well length at fixed stage spacing / treatment size?

Completion Effectiveness MeasuredA and SRV from Rate Transient Analysis Liquids-Rich Montney

92,630 md1/2ft9.3 MMsqft @ 100 nd20,602 md1/2ft2.1 MMsqft @ 100 nd

Square Root Time PlotTotal Frac AreaWell ProductivityFlowing Material BalanceStimulated Reservoir VolumeDecline Rate / ReservesSRV = 3 bcfSRV = 1.6 bcfSqrt Material Balance TimeNormalized Cumulative ProductionNormalized Production RateNormalized Flowing Pressure

Pinpoint Achieves Predictable Results

Pinpoint Achieves Scalable Results

Infill Wells PinpointParent Wells Plug and Perf131H133H132H

Gas CondensateTVD ~ 8,200 ft700 ft700 ftMaximizing Completion Effectiveness for Infills Eagle Ford Example

Completion Effectiveness Comparison

P&PPinpoint P&PHighest connected fracture areaLowest apparent fracture conductivity

33

Stimulated Reservoir Volume Comparison132H NCS

P&P WellsOGIP = 1.5 and 1.8 bcfPinpoint WellOGIP = 2.9 bcfProductivity falls off after frac hits

34

Performance versus Treatment SizeSRV (bcf)Aggregate xf (ft)Proppant Pumped (lbs)P&PP&PPinpointP&PP&PPinpointTotal Fluid (bbl)

35

RTA benchmarking provides an effective way to cut through the noise and identify key completion parametersPinpoint is a quantifiable performance driver in Permian and MontneyEffective frac height is the most important consideration in optimizing completion designMay need $70 oil to support 1 joint spacing in the MontneyPinpoint completions in the Montney demonstrate predictability and scalability Double hz achieved 2X performancePinpoint appears to be a promising technology for infills Eagle Ford

So What Have We Learned?

Thank You!

Questions?