Calgary Petroleum Club – February 19, 2013
“Production Performance Unique Type Curve for Horizontal, Multi-Stage Frac'd Gas Wells: WHY, HOW and WHEN!”
FLORIN HATEGAN
Devon Canada Corporation
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
• INTRODUCTIONSPE 162749: HZ-MSF Production Type Curve
• Motivation: WHY?
• Simplicity: HOW?
• Timing: WHEN?
• Pre-Frac Testing Practices Review
• CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
HZ Drilling, Multi-Stage Hydraulic Fracturing:Today is the norm throughout the industryVery High Drilling & Completion costs In WCSB over 5600 HZ Wells Drilled
Over 4000 Wells for Gas and Liquid RichCost > 6 MM $$/wellEUR > 4 BcfeLow Commodity Prices Predicted
SUCCESS IS RESERVOIR SPECIFIC“ONE SIZE FITS ALL” IS NOT THE ANSWERFIELD ANALOGIES ARE DANGEREOUS
INTRODUCTION• HZ-MSF well EUR is critical!
Stimulated Reservoir Volume (SRV)Fracture Contact Area (FCA)Linear Flow SpreadsheetsDecline Curve Analysis Methods
Power Law“Modified”“Stretched”
Conventional Reservoir Engineering ModelsConsider right balance between reservoir properties and
stimulation effectiveness
INTRODUCTION• SPE 162749: HZ-MSF Production Type Curve
INTRODUCTION• SPE 162749: HZ-MSF Production Type Curve
Motivation: WHY?
(AEO2012)(1) by US EIA cut TRR by 42%
Production Performance Overestimated
Reservoir Engineering Abandoned
Well Stimulation Misrepresented
Arbitrary EUR Evaluation Techniques
Motivation: WHY? Basic Reservoir Engineering Concepts Abandoned Well Completion Effectiveness Misrepresented
Motivation: WHY?• Production Performance Overestimated
MONTNEY British Columbia 19 HZ-MSF Wells 9 + stages 1600 m HZ lateral 12 – 50 months of production
CARDIUM Alberta 21 HZ-MSF Wells 10 – 12 stages 900 – 1200 m HZ lateral 8 – 24 months of production
Motivation: WHY?• Production Performance Overestimated
MONTNEY British Columbia
kh [mDm]
20 Yrs. ∆G[Bscf]
0.080 3.65
0.040 2.56
0.016 1.60
Motivation: WHY?• Production Performance Overestimated
CARDIUM Alberta
Motivation: WHY?
• Stimulated Reservoir Volume (SRV)
Mike Mayerhofer = “Godfather” of SRVBetween 2006 – 2010 many SPE papers, articles
SPE 163833 (February 4 – 6, 2013)“Change of heart” Authors distance themselves from SRVCONCLUDE: “Reservoir permeability is the main driver…..”
Motivation: WHY?• Stimulated Reservoir Volume
(SRV)• Stimulated Reservoir Volume
(SRV)
Motivation: WHY?• Stimulated Reservoir Volume (SRV)
Motivation: WHY?• Linear Flow Spreadsheets
Motivation: WHY?
• Linear Flow Spreadsheets
Motivation: WHY?Linear Flow Spreadsheets
• Input Data
• Results
Production Type Curve
Motivation: WHY?Arbitrary Decline Curves &• HIGHER “IP” = HIGER “EUR”
Production Type Curve
Simplicity: HOW?
• Production Type Curve:Pseudo Steady State Equation
Four Parameters Initial Pressure (Pi) Matrix Permeability (km)
Wellbore Completion Skin (s’) Effective Drainage Area (A)
Simplicity: HOW?• Conventional Flow & Buildup Tests• Production Type Curve:
Pressure Permeability Skin
Gas AM-Multifrac-GeneralAnalytical General Hz Multifrac Schem atic
Xw =490.0 m
Lex =780.0 m
Yw
=16
0.0
m
Xe =980.0 m
Ye =320.0 m
Simplicity: HOW?• Modern Production Analysis• Production Type Curve:
Pressure Permeability Skin
Gas AM-Multifrac-GeneralAnalytical General Hz Multifrac Schem atic
Xw =490.0 m
Lex =780.0 m
Yw
=16
0.0
m
Xe =980.0 m
Ye =320.0 m
Simplicity: HOW?• Production Type Curve:
“Effective” Drainage Area
Simplicity: HOW?• Production Type Curve:
HZ-MSF 9 Stages (Update: 1.3 Years)
Simplicity: HOW?• Production Type Curve:
Divide HZ-MSF Total Well Production: Initial Pressure (Pseudo-Pressure) Formation Flow Capacity (km & h) Nr. of Frac Stages
Simplicity: HOW?• Production Type Curve
15 HZ-MSF Wells 4 Fields (4 to 15 Stages)
HZ-MSF Well Production Examples
Simplicity: HOW?
Timing: WHEN?
BEFORE COMMITTING TO HZ-
MSF LARGE CAPITAL!
$$$$$$
Timing: WHEN?• THINGS TO DO:
VERTICAL WELL PILOTPRE-FRAC TESTING
Reservoir PressureNet Pay & Matrix Permeability ===Drainage Area
HYDROCARBON VOLUM IN PLACE
HZ-MSF OPTIMIZATION STUDYSTART WITH PRODUCTION TYPE CURVE
Drilling & Completion CostsHZ Well LengthStage Frac Spacing & Well Spacing
VERTICAL TO HZ WELL MULTIPLIER
RUN ECONOMICSSTART HZ-MSF PROJECT
Pre-Frac Testing Review
DST TestFirst commercial DST in 1926
Wireline Formation TestIn operation 1953First RFT in 1975
DFIT TestEarly 90s
PID TestIntroduced in 2000 by BJ Services Canada
Pre-Frac Testing Review
• DST Test
Initial pressure (?) Reservoir fluid (NO) Permeability (NO)
Expensive Often miss runs happen
Questionable results very tight formations
Pre-Frac Testing Review
• WIRELINE FORMATION TESTS
Initial pressure (?) Reservoir fluid (Yes, ?) Permeability (NO)
Save rig time Poor results very tight
formations
Pre-Frac Testing Review
• INJECTION-BREAKDOWN (DFIT) TESTS
Can help frac design ISIP Breakdown Closure
Initial pressure (NO, ?) Reservoir fluid (N/A) Permeability (NO)
May work for over-pressured, permeability systems outside the scope of this presentation
Pre-Frac Testing Review• INJECTION-BREAKDOWN (DFIT) TESTS
Over-Pressured, Milidarcy Range Reservoir
Pre-Frac Testing Review• INJECTION-BREAKDOWN (DFIT) TESTS
Over-Pressured, Milidarcy Range ReservoirHZ-MSF, 550 m lateral, 8 Stages
Welltest History
Hz Multifrac Model
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Rat
e (1
03S
m3 /
d)
28800
29000
29200
29400
29600
29800
30000
30200
30400
30600
Pressu
re (kPa(a))
October November December
2012
Hz Multifrac ModelSchematic
xfy =7
0.0
m
xfy =7
0.0
m
xfy =7
0.0
m
xfy =7
0.0
m
xfy =7
0.0
m
xfy =7
0.0
m
xfy =7
0.0
m
xfy =7
0.0
m
Xw =-280.0 m
Xw =-200.0 m
Xw =-120.0 m
Xw =-40.0 m
Xw =990.0 m
Xw =40.0 m
Xw =120.0 m
Xw =200.0 m
Xw =280.0 m
Lex =560.0 m
Yw =
71
0.0
m
Xe =1980.0 m
Ye =1
42
0.0
m
Pre-Frac Testing Review• INJECTION-BREAKDOWN (DFIT) TESTS
Very Tight Gas (Nano-Darcy), Vertical Well, Two Intervals
Pre-Frac Testing Review• INJECTION-BREAKDOWN (DFIT) TESTS
Very Tight Gas (Nano-Darcy), DFIT 1
Pre-Frac Testing Review• INJECTION-BREAKDOWN (DFIT) TESTS
Very Tight Gas (Nano-Darcy), DFIT 2
Pre-Frac Testing Review• INJECTION-BREAKDOWN (DFIT) TESTS
Very Tight Gas (Nano-Darcy), POST-FRAC COMMINGLED
Typo!
Pre-Frac Testing Review• INJECTION-BREAKDOWN (DFIT) TESTS
Very Tight Gas, (Nano-Darcy) Vertical Well, DFIT
Pre-Frac Testing Review• INJECTION-BREAKDOWN (DFIT) TESTS
Very Tight Gas, (Nano-Darcy) Vertical Well, POST-FRAC BUILDUPHistory
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
22000
24000
26000
28000
30000
32000
34000
36000
Pres
sure
(kPa
(a))
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300
Time (h)
pdata
t 0.00 h
t 0.00 h
pdata 2758 kPa(a)
t 1288.58 h
pdata 33618 kPa(a)
Pre-Frac Testing Review• INJECTION-BREAKDOWN (DFIT) TESTS
HZ Well, DFIT (Repeat Test)
Pre-Frac Testing Review• DFIT 1 • Repeat DFIT
Pre-Frac Testing Review
• INJECTION-BREAKDOWN (DFIT) TEST
Tool for frac engineers!
Pi & k may be obtained for “mD” rocks
Does not work for “sub mD” rocksUNKNOWN FRACTURE GEOMETRYUNKNOWN NET PAY TESTED
Pre-Frac Testing Review
• Perforation Inflow Diagnostic (PID) Test
Most Successful Pre-Frac Test AvailableINITIAL PRESSUREMATRIX PERMEABILITYRESERVOIR FLUID IDENTIFICATION
Simple Wellbore ConfigurationCost EffectiveWorks Every Time (> 90 %)Easy to AnalyzeNet Pay Controlled by Perforation Configuration
PROVIDE UNIQUE SOLUTION!
Pre-Frac Testing Review
• Perforation Inflow Diagnostic (PID) TestWellbore Configuration
Pre-Frac Testing Review
• Perforation Inflow Diagnostic (PID) TestVertical Well: 3 Intervals
Pre-Frac Testing Review
Controlled Net Pay
Where: n – meters of guns [m]
- gun frequency [shots/m]
d – perforation diameter [m]
d
Hkf
kv = 0
dn
PIDk khf
n
iifkh dkPID
1
dndn
ii
1
d
H
Pre-Frac Testing Review• Perforation Inflow Diagnostic (PID) Test
PID Analysis (McKinley Type Curves)
Pre-Frac Testing Review• Perforation Inflow Diagnostic (PID) Test
PID Analysis Results & HZ-MSF OPTIMIZATIONComparison
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
Gas
Rat
e (10
3 Sm
3 /d
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
110000
120000
130000
140000
150000
160000
170000
180000
190000
200000
Gas
Cu
m (1
03S
m3 )
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
LegendForecast 1 Cumulative Gas Production
Forecast 1 Cumulative Gas Production (2)
Forecast 1 Gas Rate (2)
Forecast 1 Gas Rate
HZ-MSF 0.0003 mDSchematic
xfy =8
0.0
m
xfy =8
0.0
m
xfy =8
0.0
m
xfy =8
0.0
m
xfy =8
0.0
m
xfy =8
0.0
m
xfy =8
0.0
m
xfy =8
0.0
m
xfy =8
0.0
m
xfy =8
0.0
m
xfy =8
0.0
m
xfy =8
0.0
m
xfy =8
0.0
m
Xw =-360.0 m
Xw =-300.0 m
Xw =-240.0 m
Xw =-180.0 m
Xw =-120.0 m
Xw =-60.0 m
Xw =390.0 m
Xw =0.0 m
Xw =60.0 m
Xw =120.0 m
Xw =180.0 m
Xw =240.0 m
Xw =300.0 m
Xw =360.0 m
Lex =720.0 m
Yw =
90.0
m
Xe =780.0 m
Ye =1
80.0
m
CONCLUSIONS
1. UNIQUE TYPE CURVE FOR HZ-MSF WELL PRODUCTION EXISTS
2. CONVENTIONAL APPROACH FOR PRODUCTION EVELUATION OF HZ-MSF COMPLETIONS WORKS
PSS Equation (Pi, km, A, s’, n)
3. IN-SITU km & Pi CONTROL AND DETERMINE HZ-MSF EUR
4. PID TESTING IS THE MOST ACCURATE PRE-FRAC TECHNIQUE Pi, km
5. DFIT TEST IS A GREAT TOOL FOR FRAC ENGINEERS ISIP, Breakdown, Closure, Tortuourosity
6. MAYERHOFER et al, PULLED THE PLUG ON “SRV”
THANK YOU!