Sie sind auf Seite 1von 15

CSUG/SPE 148751

An Integrated Approach for Understanding Oil and Gas Reserves Potential


in Eagle Ford Shale Formation
Li Fan, SPE, Ron Martin, SPE, John Thompson, SPE, Keith Atwood, SPE, John Robinson, SPE, and
Garrett Lindsay, SPE, Schlumberger

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers


This paper was prepared for presentation at the Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1517 November 2011.
This paper was selected for presentation by a CSUG/SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not
been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers,
its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Examples of an integrated approach for quantifying oil and gas production potential in different hydrocarbon windows of the
Eagle Ford Shale are presented. The Eagle Ford basin is unique in that reservoir fluids range from black oil to dry gas
depending on the geology, burial depth, and temperature. The main goal of this paper is to guide operators to an understanding
of potential reserves and their distribution in the Eagle Ford through the use of our specialized analysis and methodology to
estimate ultimate recoveries.
Data from the Eagle Ford Shale was compiled and analyzed to gain knowledge about the basin. The geology aided in
indentifying sweet spots based on the various thermal maturation windows. Also, recent drilling and completion activities
were examined in addition to the observed production from public databases. The intent was to determine curent completion
practices in different parts of the Eagle Ford and also provide insight on the relationship between geologic features and
production trends. A rapid asset evaluation case study is presented to demonstrate technique and workflow that uses vintage
vertical well data to provide an estimate of asset value and reserves for a typical horizontal well in the Eagle Ford.
The results of the study identifies sweet spots of oil and gas production and indicates that 1) Eagle Ford production is
related to the maturation windows, as well as structure; 2) the best wells in the Eagle Ford are in the thicker areas; 3) Austin
Chalk production relates to the underlying Eagle Ford production; 4) different completions for different areas and types of
hydrocarbons should be considered, and 5) data and knowledge integration is the key for rapid evaluation of asset value in the
Eagle Ford Shale.
Operators can use this information and technique to help 1) better understand the uniqueness of the Eagle Ford Shale, 2)
optimize their completion design and field development plan, and 3) calibrate expectations on oil and gas reserves potential
under their acreage.
Introduction
The Eagle Ford Shale play began in 2008 with the drilling of STS First Rock #1 located in La Salle County, Texas. The play
extends over an area of approximately 11 million acresfrom the Texas border with Mexico to the eastern borders of
Gonzales and Lavaca Counties as shown in Fig. 1. The southern border of the trend is subparallel the Sligo shelf edge.

CSUG/SPE 148751

Fig. 1Area of industry activity in the Eagle Ford Shale and associated geologic features.

Late
Early

Cretaceous

Stratigraphically (Fig. 2), the Late Cretaceous Eagle Ford formation (Lock and Peschier, 2006), lies un-conformably above
the Buda Limestone and is overlain by the Austin Chalk.

Fig. 2Stratigraphic column showing the Eagle Ford Shale (Dawson 2000).

The Eagle Ford varies stratigraphically through Texas as a result of several changes in both structure and depositional setting.
The Eagle Ford dips from the outcrop located north of the Maverick basin to the Gulf of Mexico. Along its
northeast/southwest depositional trend, the formation varies in thickness from 50 ft in the northeast to more than 300 ft in the
southwest. Sedimentation was influenced by the Laramide Orogeny which shed sediments into the Maverick and Hawkville
basins located between the Edwards and Sligo shelf edge (Fig. 3) (Scott 2004). The formation thins to approximately 50 ft
over the San Marcos arch, which is located to the northeast and is considered the eastern limit of the play in South Texas.
The Eagle Ford Shale is one of many major source rocks that were deposited during one of two anoxic extinction events
that occurred at the Cenomanian/Turonian boundary. During this event, warm seas existed throughout the world. A runaway
greenhouse effect existed, which resulted in an increased carbon dioxide level and consequently increased organic
productivity. Consumption by aerobic bacteria created an anoxic or oxygen-poor environment that preserved the organic
material. This increase in the level of carbon accounts for the accumulation of the thick black shale deposition observed
around the world.

CSUG/SPE 148751

Elevationvaries
between1,500ft.(yellow)
and13,500ft.(darkblue)
KarnesTrough

MaverickBasin
Black Hawk field

Edwardsshelfedge
Hawkville field

Sligo shelfedge

Fig. 3Map of Eagle Ford Shale formation tops with key geologic features.

Identification of Sweet Spots


The Eagle Ford Shale sourced the famous East Texas field (Woodbine sands) located in the East Texas Salt basin. To the
south, the prolific Austin Chalk fields were also sourced by the Eagle Ford Shale. Analysis of the outcrop and samples from
well control identified kerogen types II, II/III, and III. As the Eagle Ford dips south it went through the three maturation
windows (Fig. 4). Pyrolysis data confirms, for example, that the Maverick Basin is in the oil window and the Hawkville basin
is at the transition point between dry gas and wet gas as the San Marcos arch is approached (Tuttle 2010; Edman et al. 2010).
Analysis of dozens of geochemical logs and associated production in the three production windows revealed a
measurement pattern that was indicative of the relative liquid yield of each well (Fig. 5). A fluid-substitution technique was
used to generate a synthetic neutron response (black) in oil, gas condensate, and dry gas windows on the basis of each wells
individual mineralogic composition. When compared to the recorded neutron porosity (blue) and bulk density (red) (at the
point indicated by the arrows), as can be seen in examples A, B, and C in Fig. 5, likely produced fluids are readily identifiable
and indexable. Magnified inserts of the log response have been included in Fig. 5 for clarity.
The neutron density measurement is generally responsive to the type of fluid contained in the pore space. In the presence of
dry gas for instance, the neutron measurement will respond to the hydrogen deficit and will provide the classical crossover
signature. Theoretically, as the density of the hydrocarbon in the pore space increases, the excavation effect on the neutron will
diminish. The actual response we see in the Eagle Ford is varied as a result of the variations in mineral and hydrocarbon
composition. Spectroscopy data allows us to synthesize neutron responses that are calibrated to the produced fluid via fluid
substitution. This provides us with a reasonable indication of what type of fluid will be produced based upon log responses.
A study of the Eagle Ford and Austin Chalk production data related to Eagle Ford thickness and geologic features
identified the best producing areas and geologic controls. A public database provided the production data for this study. Gas
production data from the Austin Chalk and Eagle Ford Shale were posted on an isopach map of the Eagle Ford formation(Fig.
6). The map shows geologic features and production bubbles representing an average daily rate for the maximum-production
month.

CSUG/SPE 148751

Fig. 4Map showing the maturation windows of the Eagle Ford.

The best Eagle Ford gas production occurs in the Hawkville basin between the Edwards and Sligo reef trends where the
Eagle Ford is relatively thick. Austin Chalk gas production is from the Pearsall and Gonzalez fields. We observed that Eagle
Ford production beneath these fields is not as good as the production in the Hawkville area. Our conclusion is that Eagle Ford
gas formed in the gas window and migrated northward to source the two fields. Continued gas generation combined with the
trapping of gas in the Hawkville area created the current area of best gas production in the Eagle Ford.

A Oil

B Heavy Liquids

C Dry Gas

Fig. 5Examples of neutron log response in the three fluid windows

Oil production for the maximum-production month (Fig. 7) was posted on the same basemap used for the gas production.
Oil in the Maverick basin is found throughout the basin, with the best oil production located in the southern sector of the basin.
Oil produced in the Hawkville area is from condensate-rich gas located along the northern edge of the Hawkville basin. The
best oil production occurs to the northeast and is closely associated with the faulting and structuring associated with the Karnes
Trough. Because of the close proximity of the Gonzalez field to the Karnes Trough, Eagle Ford oil did not migrate far from the
point of generation. In the Karnes Trough, the Eagle Ford section is over 200 ft thick. Oil from continued generation in the
Karnes Trough was trapped in fractured Eagle Ford Shale close to the faults and resulting in the largest accumulation of oil
found in the trend.

CSUG/SPE 148751

Fig. 6Gas production from horizontal wells superimposed over net pay (ft). Bubble data is an average daily rate for the maximumproduction month. Eagle Ford production is shown in red and Austin Chalk production in yellow.

Because the two areas have been buried to approximately the same depth, the occurrence of oil to the northeast versus gas
to the southwest is probably caused by difference in kerogen types and their associated maturation windows. We conclude
from this study that the following are probable key drivers that determine good Eagle Ford production: 1) presence of a
trapping mechanism such as faults, fractures, and stratigraphic traps; 2) presence of a barrier to prevent vertical migration; 3)
adequate depth of burial for maturation and accumulation; 4) thick Eagle Ford pay section; 5) presence of natural fractures;
and 6) high calcite and quartz content that varies little through the trend, enabling successful fracture stimulation.

Fig. 7Oil production from horizontal wells superimpoased over net pay (ft). Bubble data is an average daily rate for the maximumproduction month. Eagle Ford production is shown in green and Austin Chalk production in gray.

Drilling and Completion Procedures


Horizontal wells in the Eagle Ford Shale are normally drilled with oil-base mud across the lateral. The average lateral length is
4,500 ft at TVD of 5,000 ft to 12,500 ft. The lateral is completed using a plug-n-perf system with 10 to 20 stages at 200-ft to
400-ft stage lengths. Each stage typically has 4 to 8 perforation clusters that are 1ft to 2 ft wide, shot at 4 to 6 shots per foot.
Fig. 8 shows a wellbore diagram for an example Eagle Ford horizontal well with a 10-stage completion.

CSUG/SPE 148751

Casing

5,000 12,500ftTVD

10

PerforationClusters
4 8clusters/stage

StageLength
200 400ft

Stages

LateralLength
3,500 5,000ft
Fig. 8Example wellbore diagram showing a 10-stage completion in the Eagle Ford Shale.

The Eagle Ford is unique because it contains multiple types of in-situ reservoir fluids ranging from black oil to dry gas.
The hydraulic fracture treatments in the gas-rich areas are typically pumped using a slickwater fluid system similar to those
used in the Haynesville Shale (Thompson et al. 2010). The liquid-rich areas require higher fracture conductivity as a result of
multiphase flow and higher viscosity fluids (Bazan et al 2010). Therefore, the hydraulic fracture treatments are typically
pumped with higher proppant concentrations using a hybrid (slickwater and crosslinked) or crosslink fluid system. Table 1 is a
summary of the type of completions and hydraulic fracture treatments typical for the gas-rich and liquid-rich areas. The
completions (stage and cluster size) do not vary much between gas-rich and liquid-rich areas; however, individual completions
will vary. As discussed, the main difference in the two areas is the design of the hydraulic fracture treatment. For the liquidrich area, a hybrid system is usually pumped with lower fluid volumes and pump rates and higher proppant concentrations.
Table 1Typical completions for horizontal Eagle Ford wells in the gas and liquid-rich areas.
Eagle Ford

Eagle Ford

Gas-Rich Area

Liquid-Rich Area

Number of stages

1020

1020

Lateral length, ft

~4,500

~4,500

48

48

Number of clusters per stage


Stage length, ft

200400

200400

Distance b/w clusters, ft

3080

3080

Number of clusters

50120

50120

Fluid total, Mgal

6,112

4,032

Fluid per stage, Mgals

509

252

Fluid per cluster, Mgal

127

50

Fluid per ft, Mgal

1.4

0.8

3,432

5,120

Proppant per stage, Mlbs

246

320

Prop per cluster, Mlbs

61

64

Prop per ft, Mlbs

0.7

Max prop conc, ppa

1.5

Average pump rate, bpm

70

51

Proppant total, Mlbs

Average pump rate per cluster, bpm


Pump rate per perf, bpm

17.5

10

1.52.5

1.28

CSUG/SPE 148751

Several papers have been written reporting the associated benefits of applying specific technology in the Eagle Ford.
Baihly et al. (2010) discusses the importance of geosteering for optimum lateral placement and of lateral measurements for
grouping like rock for selective staging and perforating. Production logging results in the Eagle Ford have shown that 21%
of the perforation clusters are not producing (Miller et al. 2011). Sonic measurements have shown that the stress contrast can
exceed 2,000 psi across the lateral. This contrast is the difference between the highest and lowest in-situ stress along the
lateral. Selective staging and perforating can help reduce this stress contrast and thus enable more initiation into the clusters
which should correspond to more effective stimulation of the lateral. For example, Fig. 9 shows the maximum stress contrast
in a stage for a horizontal well in the Eagle Ford. The red bars are the stress contrast for those stages if the operator were to use
geometric staging (all stages are geometrically spaced using a constant spacing). The blue bars show the stress contrast of each
stage using selective staging and perforating (grouping like rock). The reduction in stress contrast within a stage is reduced
from an average of 600 psi with geometric spacing to less than 200 psi with selective staging and perforating. In addition, the
number of stages is reduced from 19 to 16, thus reducing the cost of the completion while increasing the likelihood of
initiating into more perforation clusters.
Applications of new technology to the hydraulic fracture treatments have also been reported in an effort to more effectively
stimulate the lateral. Inamdar et al. (2010) discusses how the relax-a-frac technique can help increase the production of the
well by increasing the stimulated volume. In addition, a new fracturing technology which creates highly conductive channels is
currently being applied in the Eagle Ford liquids rich-wells, with reported enhanced production (Petrohawk 2011).

Fig. 9Maximum stress contrast between clusters in an Eagle Ford horizontal well using geometric staging (red) versus selective
staging by grouping like rock (blue).

Production Trend Analysis


We performed production data analysis on 826 horizontal wells in the Eagle Ford Shale using two public databases, IHS
(2011) and DrillingINFO (2011). Oil and gas condensate are reported as oil in public databases; therefore, we will use oil
to refer to oil and condensate. Public production data is also reported on a monthly basis. Since the industry typically uses
daily rates for comparing production data, we converted the monthly production data to an average daily production rate for
each respective month by dividing the monthly volumes by the number of days in the month. Martin et al. (2011) presented
type curves for different areas in the Eagle Ford; however, this production analysis mainly focuses on current activity.
The first Eagle Ford horizontal well in the study began producing in 2008. Industry activity in the Eagle Ford has
dramatically increased with the increase in oil price over the past couple of years. Fig. 10 shows the number of horizontal
wells coming online each month from 2008 to April 2011. The number of new wells coming online each month is increasing
with almost 100 new horizontal wells in April 2011. By April 2011, 826 horizontal wells produced more than 213 billion scf
of gas and 21.9 million bbl of oil/condensate. We classified the producing horizontal wells in the trend as oil, condensate, or
gas based on the cumulative gas-oil ratio (GOR) (Fig. 11). Reservoir classification using GOR should be based on production
data at reservoir conditions; however, the cumulative GOR is a good approximation on a basin level when only production is
available. For our analysis, oil wells are wells with a cumulative GOR less than 2,000 scf/bbl, and gas wells are wells with a
cumulative GOR greater than 50,000 scf/bbl. Condensate wells have a cumulative GOR between 2,000 and 50,000 scf/bbl.
Generally speaking, on the basis of production data, the distribution of oil, condensate, and gas wells appears to match the
maturation windows presented previously.

CSUG/SPE 148751

Fig. 10The number of new horizontal wells coming online each month (blue) and the cumulative horizontal well count (red) for the
Eagle Ford.

Gonzales

Wilson

Maverick

Zavala

Frio

De Witt
Atascosa
Karnes

Bee
Dimmit

La Salle
Live Oak
Mc Mullen

Webb

Oil Wells
Condensate Wells
Gas Wells

Fig. 11Locations of producing oil, condensate, and gas wells based on GOR cutoff values.

All 826 horizontal wells had at least 1 month of production data, but only 578 had at least 3 months of production data. We
created cross-plots to compare short-term production indicators with long-term production indicators. We used the highest
consecutive three months (B3) average rate of each well as a key performance indicator (KPI). Cross-plots of the B3 average
rate versus the highest consecutive twelve months (B12) average rate were constructed to validate using B3 average rates as
KPIs (Fig. 12). The R2 values for the oil and gas cross-plots are 0.93 and 0.92, respectively, indicating that the B3 average rate
has a good correlation to longer-term production (at least up to 12 months of production).

CSUG/SPE 148751

B3vsB12GasCrossplot
9,000

900

8,000

Best3MonthAverageGas,Mscf/D

Best3MonthAverageOil,bbl/D

B3vsB12OilCrossplot
1,000

800
700
600

y=1.6668x+4.3202
R=0.9301

500

Oil
400
300
200

7,000
6,000

y=1.5523x+150.43
R=0.9168

5,000
Gas
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000

100
0

0
0

100

200

300

400

Best12MonthAverageOil,bbl/D

500

600

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Best12MonthAverageGas,Mscf/D

Fig. 12B3 average oil production and B3 average gas production.

Bubble maps of the B3 average gas and oil production rates show areas with higher production (Fig. 13). The gas
production is located downdip and follows a trend to the southwest. The highest gas-producing wells are located in the
southern part of La Salle County and in Webb County with the exception of one good well in Live Oak County. The highest
producing oil/condensate wells are in the Karnes trough area in Live Oak, Karnes, and De Witt County. This area is a
condensate area with relatively high volumes of gas. The mixture of poor producers and good producers in the same area are
because of the varation in completion quality and rock quality.
It is difficult to compare different parts of the field because some areas are primarily oil and some are primarily gas. To
compare the entire field, we calculated an equivalent dollar value for each well. We used USD 80 per bbl of oil/condensate,
45% of the oil price (i.e., USD 36) per bbl of natural gas liquids (NGL), and USD 4 per Mscf of gas. Areas with lower GORs
will have a higher NGL processing yield than areas that are primarily natural gas. To account for this, we calculated the
cumulative GOR for all the wells. All wells that had a GOR value greater than 20,000 scf/bbl were given a 12.5-bbl
NGL/MMscf processing yield and a gas shrinkage factor of 10%, whereas wells with less than 20,000 scf/bbl were given a 60bbl/MMscf processing yield and a gas shrinkage factor of 15% (Petrohawk 2011).

10

CSUG/SPE 148751

Best 3-Months Gas ( Mscf/D )


0

4000

Gonzales

8000
Wilson

Maverick

Frio

Zavala

Atascosa

De Witt
Karnes

Dimmit

Bee

La Salle

Live Oak
Mc Mullen

Webb

Gonzales

Best 3-Months Oil ( bbl/d )


0

Maverick

500

1000

Zavala

Wilson

Frio

Atascosa

De Witt
Karnes

Dimmit

Bee

La Salle

Live Oak
Mc Mullen

Webb

Fig. 13The B3 average gas production bubble map (upper) and the B3 average oil production bubble map (lower), larger bubbles
indicate higher rates.

The equivalent dollar value is a gross revenue value. A bubble map showing the B3 price equivalent is shown in Fig. 14.
The areas with the highest estimated three-month average gross revenue are in the Karnes trough area of Live Oak, Karnes,
and De Witt County. This is because of the high volumes of condensate and associated gas found there. This estimate is based
on short-term production at surface conditions and does not take reservoir maintenance into consideration. Fig. 13 (lower) and
Fig. 14 look very similar which probably reflects the stronger impact of the current prices of oil overt he current price of gas.
The best wells are making an estimated gross revenue of USD 3 million per month during their best three-months of
production. Operators are seeing a quick return with the average horizontal well drilling and completion costs at USD 6 to 8
million.

CSUG/SPE 148751

11

Gonzales

Best 3-Months Average Price Equivalent ( K$US )


0

Maverick

1500

Zavala

3000

Wilson

Frio

Atascosa

De Witt
Karnes

Dimmit

Bee

La Salle

Live Oak
Mc Mullen

Webb

Fig. 14The best 3-month average price equivalent bubble map shows the areas with the highest estimated gross revenue value. The
highest values are in the Karnes trough area of Live Oak, Karnes, and De Witt County.

Rapid Asset Evaluation: A Case Study


In this example, a small operator holding some promising Eagle Ford leases needed to make strategic economic decisions
concerning these assets with limited data in a short period of time (less than a month). Questions that the senior management
needed answered included 1) How much oil is in place? 2) What are the key production drivers? 3) How much oil can be
recovered, and what is the effective drainage area from a typical horizontal well?
Despite the current practice of drilling horizontal laterals with multistage hydraulic fracture completions, this operator only
had data for 20 vertical wells with triple-combo openhole logs. However, of these 20 wells only 8 had been produced from the
Eagle Ford Shale without hydraulic fracture stimulation. Average initial producing GOR from these wells is about 275
scf/STB. A multidomain team of geotechnical specialists collected and reviewed all available data within the study area. A
rapid asset evaluation workflow was developed to integrate all the available data and knowledge to create a reservoir model,
which was then calibrated by the production data.
The logs were digitized, corrected, normalized, and interpreted. Public information about the Eagle Ford formation around
the study area was also collected and reviewed. A 3D static model was constructed based on the petrophysical analyses. Good
agreement was found between stratigraphic trends seen in the static model and expected trends from analogs. Sweet spots in
the study area and different vertical pay zones were identified. The original oil in place calculated for the study area answered
the operators first question. Fig. 15 shows effective porosity distribution in the study area.

Fig. 15Effective porosity distribution in the study area.

12

CSUG/SPE 148751

Since there were no horizontal wells in the study area, vertical wells with production data were analyzed using reservoir
simulation workflow developed by Fan et al. (2010). Production data from the eight vertical wells were normalized and
averaged to create a type well production profile. Fig. 16 shows the average oil rate and cumulative production of this type
well. These vertical wells have been flowing for more than 10 years at low rate with an openhole completion. This strongly
indicates the existence of natural fractures, which is confirmed from a nearby Eagle Ford outcrop study. One of the objectives
for the vertical well study was to help validate and define natural fracture properties in the study area.

Fig. 16Average oil production profile of the type well.

A dual-porosity, vertical well simulation model was constructed using rock properties from the static model. The model
was then calibrated to match historical oil, gas, and water production rates of the type well by mainly adjusting natural fracture
properties and drainage size. Well productivity was adjusted (to reflect acid-wash jobs on these wells) as fine-tuning to help
match early flush production rates. Matrix permeability, initially obtained from public information, was validated by historymatching the later production trend. Oil production rate was specified in the model as shown in Fig. 16. Reasonable historymatch results were obtained for the type well. Fig. 17 illustrates the history match of the associated gas production and Fig. 18
illustrates the history match of the water production. The effective drainage area of this type well after history-matching is
about 20 acres (933 ft 933 ft), which in this case represents the extent of the natural fracture system that is connected to the
wellbore.

Fig. 17Gas production rate match.

Fig. 18Water production rate match.

The ultimate goal of the study was to assess production potential from a typical horizontal well in a target area of the Eagle
Ford Shale formation. A 5,000-ft horizontal well model with 14 stages (4 perforation clusters per 320ft of stage length) of
hydraulic fractures was constructed with model dimensions of 5,280 ft 933 ft (about 120 acres). Formation properties
(matrix + natural fracture) in the horizontal well model were inherited from the calibrated vertical well model. For each stage
of the horizontal completion, average fracture geometry and conductivity obtained from various horizontal well reservoir

CSUG/SPE 148751

13

simulation studies in the Eagle Ford formation were used. A base-case production forecast was made to estimate potential
ultimate oil and gas recovery.
Fig. 19 indicates that a properly designed and fracture stimulated 5,000-ft horizontal well in the area could potentially
recover more than 600,000 bbls over a 30-year period. Since there is a lot of uncertainty in the model due to limited amount of
data, sensitivity analysis is performed by varying certain parameters in the base model to determine their impact on ultimate
recovery. Fig. 20 is a Tornado graph of the results of the sensitivity analysis for this example. In this case, the dominant
production drivers were the presence of natural fractures and net pay thickness. The ultimate recovery was relatively
insensitive to initial pressure and matrix permeability in this area. The results of the study indicated that the Eagle Ford
acreage under consideration appeared to contain significant volumes of oil in place. It also provided a distribution of rockquality, such as Fig 15, in the study area and estimated the average effective drainage area of 120 acres. It took only about 3
weeks to complete this asset evaluation study and have all the key questions answered. As a result, a firm plan was developed
to maximize the assets value and meet the companys strategic business objectives going forward.

Fig. 19Horizontal well production forecast.

NaturalfracturePERM,md
Netpay,feet
HydraulicfracturePERM,md
Primaryporosity,percent
Initialpressure,psi/ft
MatrixPERM,nd
RefCase
Fig. 20High-graded production drivers derived from the case study.

Summary
From a geology standpoint, key production drivers in the Eagle Ford trend are 1) the presence of a trapping mechanism such as
faults, fractures, and stratigraphic traps, 2) the presence of a barrier to prevent vertical migration, 3) adequate depth of burial
for maturation and accumulation, 4) a thick Eagle Ford pay section, 5) presence of natural fractures, and 6) a high calcite and
quartz content that varies little through the trend, enabling successful fracture stimulation.
Most recent drilling and completion evaluations indicate that selective staging and perforating can help reduce stress
contrast and thus enable more initiation into the clusters, which should correspond to more effective stimulation of the lateral.
In addition, the number of stages can be reduced, thus reducing the cost of the completion while increasing the likelihood of

14

CSUG/SPE 148751

initiating into more perforation clusters. A new hydraulic fracturing technology, such as channel fracturing, is currently being
applied in the Eagle Ford liquid-rich wells with reported enhanced production (Petrohawk 2011).
Production data analysis shows that the number of new wells coming online each month is continuously increasing with
almost 100 new horizontal wells in April 2011. By April 2011, 826 horizontal wells produced more than 213 billion scf of gas
and 21.9 million bbl of oil/condensate. The best 3-month average rate correlates well to longer-term production (at least up to
12 months of production). The highest gas-producing wells are located in the southern part of La Salle County and in Webb
County. The highest producing oil/condensate wells are in the Karnes trough area in Live Oak, Karnes, and De Witt County.
By integrating data and knowledge in the Eagle Ford Shale play, a workflow was developed to generate a working model
of an asset, estimate its long-term potential, and make a well-informed economic decision in time to meet critical deadlines.
This process involves building reservoir and completion quality into a 3D static reservoir model, which was then calibrated by
the well performance data observed in the field. In just a few weeks, the following key questions about the asset were
addressed: 1) How much oil is in place? 2) What are the key production drivers? 3) How much oil can be recovered and what
is the effective drainage area from a typical horizontal well?
Acknowledgments
We would like to dedicate this paper to Ron Martin who passed away earlier this year. Ron was not only an excellent oil and
gas geologist but also a good friend to all of us. We will miss him and wish the best for his family that he has left behind.
References
Baihly, J.D., Malpani, R., Edwards, C., Han, S.Y., Kok, J.C.L., Tollefsen, E.M., and Wheeler, C.W. 2010. Unlocking the Shale Mystery:
How Lateral Measurements and Well Placement Impact Completions and Resultant Production. Paper SPE 138427 presented at the
Tight Gas Completions Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2-3 November. doi: 10.2118/138427-MS.
Bazan, L. W., Larkin, S.D., Lattibeaudiere, M.G., and Palisch, T.T. 2010. Improving Production in the Eagle Ford Shale with Fracture
Modeling, Increased Conductivity and Optimized Stage and Cluster Spacing Along the Horizontal Wellbore. Paper SPE 138425
presented at the Tight Gas Completions Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 23 November. doi: 10.2118/138425-MS.
Dawson, W. C. 2000. Shale Microfacies: Eagle Ford Group (Cenomanian-Turonian) North-Central Texas Outcrops and Subsurface
Equivalents. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions. 50. 607-621.
Drilling-Info. 2011. Production, http//info.drillinginfo.com. Downloaded July 2011.
Edman, J. D. and J. K. Pitman. 2010. Geochemistry of Eagle Ford Group source rocks and oils for the First Shot field area: Texas. Gulf
Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions. 60. 217-234.
Fan, L., Thompson, J., and Robinson, J. 2010. Understanding Gas Production Mechanism and Effectiveness of Well Stimulation in the
Haynesville Shale Through Reservoir Simulation. Paper SPE 136696 presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources &
International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1921 October. doi: 10.2118/136696-MS.
IHS Energy. 2011. Enerdeq, http//energy.ihs.com/Products/Enerdeq/. Downloaded July 2011.
Inamdar, A., Malpani, R., Atwood, K., Brook, K., Erwemi, A., Ogundare, T., and Purcell, D. 2010. Evaluation of Stimulation Techniques
Using Microseismic Mapping in the Eagle Ford Shale. Paper SPE 136873 presented at the Tight Gas Completions Conference, San
Antonio, Texas, USA, 23 November. doi: 10.2118/136873-MS.
Lock, B.E. and Peschier, L. 2006. Boquillas (Eagle Ford) Upper Slope Sediments, West Texas: Outcrop Analogs for Potential Shale
Reservoirs. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions. 56. 491-508.
Martin, R, Baihly, J., Malpani, R., Lindsay, G., and Atwood, W.K. 2011. Understanding Production from Eagle Ford-Austin Chalk System.
Paper SPE 145117 presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 30 October2 November.
doi: 10.2118/145117-MS.
Miller, C., Water, G., and Rylander, E. 2011. Evaluation of Production Log Data from Horizontal Wells Drilled in Organic Shales. Paper
SPE 144326 presented at the North American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 1416
June. doi: 10.2118/144326-MS.
Petrohawk. 2011. http://www.petrohawk.com/Investor-Relations/presentations.aspx. Downloaded 20 June 2011.
Scott, R.J. 2004. The Maverick Basin: New TechnologyNew Success. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions. 54.
603-620.

CSUG/SPE 148751

15

Thompson, J.W., Fan, L., Grant, D., Kanneganti, K.T. and Lindsay, G.J. 2010. An Overview of Horizontal Well Completions in the
Haynesville Shale. Paper SPE 136875 presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources & International Petroleum Conference,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1921 October. doi: 10.2118/136875-MS.
Tuttle, S. 2010. Oil Resource Plays Examples and Technology. Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists: Houston Chapter. 24
September.

SI Metric Conversion Factors


acre
4.046 873
E + 03 = m2
bbl
1.589 873
E 01 = m3
ft
3.048*
E 01 = m
gal
3.785 412
E 03 = m3
lbm
4.535 924
E 01 = kg
psi
6.894 757
E + 00 = kPa
scf/bbl 1.801 175
E 01 = m3/m3
scf/D 2.863 640
E 02 = m3/s
*Conversion factor is exact

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen