Sie sind auf Seite 1von 70

31/08/2015

Modelling of Shale, Tight


Oil and Gas Reservoirs

Agenda
Introduction and the need for unconventional resources
Need for numerical modelling of unconventional
reservoirs
Various aspects of unconventional reservoir modelling

Natural fracture modelling


Gas adsorption in shale
Gas diffusion
Hydraulic fracture modelling
Micro-sesimic data
Planar fractures
Complex fractures and Stimulated Reservoir Volumes
Non-Darcy flow of gas

IMEX or GEM?
CMOST based parameterization and workflow

31/08/2015

CMG Training

Classification of Unconventional Gas and


Oil
Shale gas and oil
Tight gas and oil
Natural gas from coal (NGC/CBM/CSG etc.)
Gas hydrates or Methane hydrates

31/08/2015

Why Do We Need Unconventional Gas?


In the past, technical challenges and cost issues
around producing unconventional gas deterred
resource exploration and development.
However, as conventional gas resources are
becoming depleted and the need for energy has
increased, the necessity for developing alternate
resources has become important.
Although production of unconventional gas in
Canada is very recent, it is anticipated that by 2025,
unconventional gas will account for about 80 per
cent of new drilling and 50 per cent of total gas
production.

Why Do We Need Unconventional Gas?


Our known conventional sources of natural gas in North
America are declining rapidly.
According to the National Energy Board (NEB), gas
production in Canada peaked at 17.5 bcf/d in 2001, and
has been decreasing since then.
New gas finds are needed every year simply to offset a
6.5% natural decline rate in production from existing
wells.
With demand for natural gas expected to remain strong
for the foreseeable future, most, if not all of the available
new supply sources will be required to meet consumer
demand in North America.
Industry and government see Unconventional gas as
having an important role in reducing the gap between
future demand and declining conventional production.

31/08/2015

Why Do We Need Unconventional Gas?

Conventional natural
gas supply decline that
must be found from
new sources such as
tight and shale gas

Source: NEB website

Source: NEB 2011

USA Gas Production (1990-2040)


Tcf/y

History

40

Bcf/d

Projections

2012

100
90

35

80
70

30

60

25

50

Shale gas

20

40
30

15
10
5

20

Tight gas

Non-associated onshore

10

Non-associated offshore

0
1990

Associated with oil


Coalbed methane

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

Alaska

2035

2040

Source: EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Early Release

31/08/2015

North American Gas Supply

Why Do We Need Unconventional Oil


Light oil production
decline that must be found
from new sources such as
tight oil, shale oil and
liquid rich unconventional
gas

Source: NEB website

31/08/2015

The Ramp Up in USA Shale & Tight Oil & Gas


Production (2000-2013)
U.S. shale & tight oil production (mmbpd)

U.S. dry shale gas production (bcfd)


2.8

Eagle Ford (TX)


Bakken (MT & ND)
Granite Wash (OK & TX)
Bonespring (TX Permian)

35

2.4

Rest of US
Marcellus (PA and WV)

30

2.0

Haynesville (LA and TX)

25

Eagle Ford (TX)

Wolfcamp (TX Permian)

1.6

Spraberry (TX Permian)


Niobrara-Codell (CO)

Bakken (ND)

Woodford (OK)
Monterey (CA)

Fayetteville (AR)
Barnett (TX)

0.8

Austin Chalk (LA & TX)

Antrim (MI, IN, and OH)

0.4

15
10
5

0.0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

20

Woodford (OK)

1.2

0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Source: EIA based on DrillingInfo and LCI Energy Insight

United States and Canada Shale Plays

Antrim (Michigan)
Bakken (Montana, N. Dakota, Saskatchewan, Manitoba)
Baxter (Colorado, Wyoming)
Barnett (Texas)
Bend (Texas)
Cane Creek (Utah)
Caney (Oklahoma)
Chattanooga (Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee)
Chimney Rock (Colorado, Utah)
Cleveland (east Kentucky)
Clinton (east Kentucky)
Cody (Montana)
Colorado (central Alberta, Saskatchewan)
Conasauga (Alabama)
Duvernay (west central Alberta)
Eagleford (Texas)
Ellsworth (Michigan)
Excello (Oklahoma)
Exshaw (Alberta, northeast British Columbia)
Fayetteville (Arkansas)
Fernie (west central Alberta, northeast British Columbia)
Floyd/Neal (Alabama, Mississippi)
Frederick Brook (Nova Scotia)
Gammon (Montana)
Gordondale (northeast British Columbia)
Gothic (Colorado, Utah)
Green River (Colorado, Utah)
Haynesville/Bossier (Louisiana, east Texas)
Horn River (northeast British Columbia)

Horton Bluff (Nova Scotia)


Hovenweep (Colorado, Utah)
Huron (east Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia)
Klua/Evie (northeast British Columbia)
Lewis (Colorado, New Mexico)
Mancos (New Mexico, Utah)
Manning Canyon (central Utah)
Marcellus (New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia)
McClure (California)
Monterey (California)
Montney-Doig (Alberta, northeast British Columbia)
Moorefield (Arkansas)
Mowry (Wyoming)
Muskwa (northeast British Columbia)
New Albany (Illinois, Indiana)
Niobrara (Colorado)
Nordegg/Gordondale (Alberta, northeast British Columbia)
Ohio (east Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia)
Pearsall (Texas)
Percha (west Texas)
Pierre (Colorado)
Poker Chip (west central Alberta, northeast British Columbia)
Queenston (New York)
Rhinestreet (Appalachian Basin)
Second White Specks (southern Alberta)
Sunbury (Appalachian Basin)
Utica (New York, Quebec)
Wilrich/Buckinghorse/ Garbutt/Moosebar (Alberta, British
Columbia)
Woodford (Oklahoma, Texas)

Red CDN Common, Black other CDN, Blue - USA

31/08/2015

Worldwide Distribution of Assessed Shale


Oil & Gas Formations, May 2013

Source: EIA website

So What?
Barnett Shale 6000+ wells
MANY have marginal economics

Horn River Basin 1 million acres


Montney Shale 17 million acres
Estimated 10,000 wells to be drilled in this play
EnCana est. 60 TCF on its lands

Haynesville Shale Primed to Become


World's Largest Gas Field by 2020
Largest well 28.4 mmcf/d

31/08/2015

Does it Really Matter?


Strict cost control is an overriding concern in most operations,
yet there are tangible economic benefits for operators who
make the effort to model reservoir performance before they
drill. - i.e. Spend a day in the Library rather than waste
$1mm
Need to fully understand the underlying physics that govern
the methane release and flow in the shale.
Determine optimal well spacing and optimal frac size &
spacing.
Are vertical or horizontal wells the economically optimal
solution?
Jenkins & Boyer, JPT, Feb 2008
Size fracs to avoid breakthrough to water.
Crucial to identify the reservoir parameters that will have the
most impact on project economics. (sensitivity analysis)

12 pumping units
66 400bbl tanks = 1.1mm gal
PER STAGE!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

31/08/2015

The Technical Issue Contacting the Gas

400 ft gap

Impact of Less than Optimal Fracs

31/08/2015

Yes, It Does Really Matter!

$250k per frac stage, 6 to 20 stages per well


$1.5MM to $5MM per well
What would you pay to get it right?
0.8bcf * $4.10/mcf * 1,000,000 = $3.3MM lost
0.8 Bcf
SPE 119899 : 69% of 389 wells completed in the Barnett
study have less than a 10% internal rate of return !

SPE 102103

Product Suite
Advanced Processes & Thermal Simulator
Compositional & Unconventional Reservoir Simulator
Three-Phase, Black-Oil Reservoir Simulator
Sensitivity Analysis, History Matching, Optimization & Uncertainty
Analysis Tool
Integrated Production & Reservoir Simulation
Intelligent Segmented Wells
Phase Behaviour and Fluid Property Application
Pre-Processing: Simulation Model Building Application
Post-Processing: Visualization &Analysis Application

10

31/08/2015

Modelling Unconventional Resources:


Mechanisms to be Modelled
Reservoir Description
Matrix intrinsic porosity & absolute permeability
Natural Fractures dual permeability representation with
effective fracture porosity & effective fracture permeability
Propped Fractures explicitly modelled as part of matrix
Pore Volume Compaction/Dilation via constant
compressibility and/or compaction/dilation tables
Momentum Transfer Darcy and Non-Darcy (Turbulent)
Flow, the latter in the propped fractures

PVT
Black Oil (IMEX) for black oil and dry gas
EoS for wet gas, gas condensates (lean and rich) and
volatile oil

Modelling Unconventional Resources:


Physics to be Modelled (Contd..)
Adsorbed components
Gas phase only for mostly methane tight/shale gas
Multi-component for multi-component gases
(w/impurities) & liquids

Diffusion
Multi-component gas
Miscible Gas Injection EOR

Rock Physics
Tight rock Rel Perm & Cap Press in matrix
Straight Line Rel Perm & no Cap Press for propped &
natural fractures

11

31/08/2015

Modelling Unconventional Resources:


Physics to be Modelled (Contd..)
Simulation Model Gridding
Logarithmically-Spaced, Locally-Refined, Dual
Permeability (LS-LR-DK or Tartan) Grids surrounding
the propped fractures
For modelling transient multiphase fluid flow (and heat, if
desired) from matrix to natural fractures & from matrix to
propped fractures
For modelling non-Darcy flow inside the propped fractures

Simulation Model Initialization


Initializing the propped & natural fracture network with
water
For modelling flowback of injected fracture fluid

Shale Gas - Unconventional Gas


Why?
Shale acts as both source / reservoir rock.
Therefore, Gas in shales is found in two forms:
Free Gas - Gas stored in matrix pore volume
Adsorbed Gas - Gas is attached or ADSORBED
onto solid organic material in the shale

Lets look at Shale gas modelling only. The


concepts learned can be applied to any
unconventional resource modelling

12

31/08/2015

Shale Gas
Natural Gas stored in organic rich rocks:

Shale
Shaly Siltstone
Shaly Sandstone

Shale Reservoir Properties


Generally Naturally Fractured
Low permeability fractures

Matrix extremely low permeability


Range from micro to nanodarcies

Pore Diameters are extremely small


Range from micro to nanometres

Conventional Gas

Shale Gas

13

31/08/2015

How Do We Develop a Shale Gas Asset


Horizontal wells: To maximize contact area
Multi-stage fracturing: 10-30 fractures per well

Source: thebreakthrough.org

14

31/08/2015

Hydraulic Fracture
Treatments
Pumping Phase

Hydraulic fracture
resumes in SHmax
direction at natural
fracture tip

Reactivation of
natural fractures

Trace of part
of horizontal
wellbore with
perforation

J.F. Gale, UT, 2008


~ 500 ft

15

31/08/2015

Natural Fracture Modeling in


CMG Simulators

Natural Fracture Modelling in CMG


Standard dual-porosity model

MINC model

Dual-permeability model

Subdomain partitioning

16

31/08/2015

Shale Gas Modelling Not Quite CBM


Shale has both Darcy flow and diffusion in matrix as opposed to just
diffusion in coal
Simulator must handle both Darcy flow and multi-component
diffusion in the matrix block.
Storage:
Adsorbed and
free g as in
matrix.

Gas Flows into the Fracture b y:


1). Darcy Flow: Owing to pressure gradient and
small permeability of matrix.
2). Instantaneous desorption from internal
surfaces of matrix- followed b y darcy flow.

Shale Gas Reservoir

How Do We Model Shale Gas?


Gas flow through the Shale Matrix by:
Darcy flow
Diffusion
Gas Flow in Fractures:
Darcy flow
Non-Darcy flow
Incorporate 3 flow regimes

17

31/08/2015

Adsorption Modeling in GEM


& IMEX

Shale Gas in Place


Free gas
Solution gas (in case of shale oil reservoirs)
Adsorbed gas
Similar to CBM reservoirs

GIP = Free gas + Solution gas + Adsorbed gas


Typically > 95% for CBM reservoirs
~ 20 70% for Shale gas reservoirs

18

31/08/2015

Adsorption Modelling

Adsorption of gas increases non-linearly with pressure and is


reversible by decreasing the pressure

Represented by Langmuir adsorption isotherm using two properties:


Langmuir volume (VL)
Langmuir pressure (PL)

At known reservoir T and P, an isotherm can be used to estimate the


max. amount of gas adsorbed in shale & the pressure at which
desorption will start
Gas Adsorption (ft3/ton)

Typical Shale Adsorption Curve


700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Pressure (psi)

Adsorbed Gas - Contribution


1,000

Considering Adsorbed Gas

Gas Rate SC (Mcf/day)

1,500,000

Not Considering Adsorbed Gas

600

1,000,000

400

Cumulative Gas SC (Mcf)

20%

800

500,000
200

0
0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

0
10,000

Time (day)

19

31/08/2015

Adsorbed Gas - Contribution


6,000,000

Cumulative Gas SC (Mcf)

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

New Albany Shale


Barnet Shale 1
Barnet Shale 2
Client "X' shale data

2,000,000

1,000,000

0
0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Time (day)

Adsorbed Gas - Contribution

BUT THIS REQUIRES DRAWDOWN !!!

20

31/08/2015

Adsorption Model in IMEX & GEM:


Single Component
Single component adsorption:
Requires Langmuir Volume, VL (i.e. Max. adsorbed gas)
Langmuir Pressure, PL (represents the pressure at which
gas storage capacity equals one half of the maximum
storage capacity (VL ).

VL P
i

P P
L

Where,
i = Gas content
Volume of adsorbed gas per unit mass of rock (IMEX)
Moles of adsorbed gas per unit mass of rock (GEM)

Adsorption Keywords in IMEX & GEM

IMEX

ADGCSTV- inverse-pressure
parameter for the Langmuir isotherm
(1/PL)

1/kPa or 1/psi

ADGMAXV- Specifies the maximum


volume of adsorbed gas per unit mass
of rock (VL)

sm3 gas/kg of rock or sft3 of gas /


lb of rock

(Watch out for the right unit !!!!)

ROCKDEN : Coal Density (Actual


Rock Density without pore)

kg/m3 or lb/ft3

GEM

ADGCSTV (IMEX); ADGCSTC (GEM)


inverse-pressure parameter for the
Langmuir isotherm (1/PL)
1/kPa or 1/psi

ADGMAXC- Specifies the maximum


moles of adsorbed component per unit
mass of rock (VL)
gmole of component/kg of rock or
gmole of component/lb of rock
(Watch out for the right unit !!!!)

ROCKDEN : Coal Density (Actual


Rock Density without pore)
kg/m3 or lb/ft3

These keywords must be in the ROCK-FLUID section of the dataset.

Typically only one component (Methane) for shale gas simulations in GEM

21

31/08/2015

Adsorption Model in GEM:


Multi-Component
Multi-component adsorption model:
Extended Langmuir model

i i , max

( y ig p / pLi )

1 ( y jg p / pLj )
j

Where,
yig = mole fraction of adsorbed component in the gas phase.

Based on Langmuir isotherm for single components


Provides a multi-component extension

Multi-Component Adsorption Modeling


Keywords in GEM
E.g.
**$ Property: Maximal Adsorbed Mass(CH4) (gmole/kg) Max: 0 Min: 0
ADGMAXC 'CH4' FRACTURE CON
0

**$ Property: Maximal Adsorbed Mass(CO2) (gmole/kg) Max: 0 Min: 0


ADGMAXC 'CO2' FRACTURE CON
0
**$ Property: Maximal Adsorbed Mass(CH4) (gmole/kg) Max: 0.734287 Min: 0
ADGMAXC 'CH4' MATRIX CON 0.734287

Langmuir Isotherm keywords:


Fracture adsorbed mass always 0
Matrix values for adsorbed mass,
Langmuir constant, and rock
density
Different values for different
components
Keywords can be constants or
arrays for the grid

**$ Property: Maximal Adsorbed Mass(CO2) (gmole/kg) Max: 1.04824 Min: 0


ADGMAXC 'CO2' MATRIX CON 1.04824
**$ Property: Langmuir Adsorption Constant(CH4) (1/kPa) Max: 0.000303306 Min: 0.000303306
ADGCSTC 'CH4' MATRIX CON 0.000303306
**$ Property: Langmuir Adsorption Constant(CH4) (1/kPa) Max: 0 Min: 0
ADGCSTC 'CH4' FRACTURE CON
0
**$ Property: Langmuir Adsorption Constant(CO2) (1/kPa) Max: 0.000809717 Min: 0.000809717
ADGCSTC 'CO2' MATRIX CON 0.000809717
**$ Property: Langmuir Adsorption Constant(CO2) (1/kPa) Max: 0 Min: 0
ADGCSTC 'CO2' FRACTURE CON
0
**$ Property: Rock Density (kg/m3) Max: 1327 Min: 1327
ROCKDEN MATRIX CON
1327

22

31/08/2015

GEM: Other Available Adsorption Models


Options for other complex adsorption models
Tabular input for more complicated systems

GEM: Other Available Adsorption Models


Syntax for tabular adsorption data entry
ADSORBTMAX component max
Where,
max = maximum adsorption value for the component in gmole/kg( or lb) of rock.

ADSTAB component name


** (Partial pressure of component, kpa/psia)

(adsorption of component)

In case of multi-component system, this table can be extended for each


component.

23

31/08/2015

IMEX: Calculation of Langmuir Parameters


Sample Conversion of Adsorbed Mas
Simulator: IMEX
Unit: SI
Lab measurement: VL = 167 SCF/ton, convert to sm3/kg

167

0.00521

3/

GEM: Calculation of Langmuir Parameters


The Langmuir volume can be converted to mole basis using the
ideal gas equation, std. temp. and press. (for GEM only)
Molar Volume= RT/P (cm3/gmole)
Where,
Universal gas constant, R = 82.05 cm3.atm/gmole.K
T = Temperature in K.
P = pressure in atm.
ADGMAXC (gmole/kg)= VL (cm3/kg)/Molar Volume (cm3/gmol)
Lab data (VL )typically reported at
STANDARD conditions (e.g. SCF/ton)
This formula can be constructed using the Formula option in
BUILDER.

24

31/08/2015

GEM: Calculation of Langmuir Parameters


Sample Conversion of Adsorbed Mas
Simulator: GEM
Unit: SI
Lab measurement: VL = 167 SCF/ton, convert to gmol/kg
Standard Conditions:
T= 60 F= 15.55 C= 288.7 K
P: 1 atm
R: 82.05 cm3*atm/(gmol*K)
Molar Volume = RT/P = 23688.29 cm3/gmol
167

0.22

Desorption Needs Pressure Drop!

Test Simulation on a 1 microdarcy shale reservoir has shown the


pressure disturbance around the fracture extending as low as only ~
300 ft after 30 years of production.

SPE102103 Mayerhofer et al.

(similar work done by Fekete in 2007)

There are three main conclusions that can be taken from this :
Minimal gas desorbed from the outer region of the contacted area due
to the small change in reservoir pressure.
Tight well spacing & a dense fracture network are required to reduce the
reservoir pressure enough to desorb MEANINGFUL amounts of gas.
Gas will desorb from the areas exposed to the fractures due to the high
drawdown created at the fracture face.

25

31/08/2015

Diffusion Modeling in GEM

Molecular Diffusion
Available in only GEM
Accessible through Builder too, in Components
section
GEM gas diffusion keywords:
DIFFUSION tortuo (diffus(k), k = 1, 2 .. Nc
Where,
tortuo = Tortuosity of porous medium, dimensionless
diffus = Diffusion coeff. for hydrocarbon components, be in
cm2/sec ONLY

26

31/08/2015

Molecular Diffusion
Can contribute to overall gas flow in case of multiple
components

15%

4.00e+6

Cumulative Gas SC (Mcf)

3.00e+6

Diff: 0.0003 cm2/sec


Diff: 0.003 cm2/sec
Diff: 0.006 cm2/sec
Diff: 0.03 cm2/sec

2.00e+6

1.00e+6

0.00e+0
0

2,000

4,000
Time (day)

6,000

8,000

10,000

Hydraulic Fracture Modeling


in IMEX and GEM

27

31/08/2015

Fracture Model Scenarios

Fracture Model Scenarios

28

31/08/2015

Microseismic Data Results

Trend visible in red stage

Possible trend visible


in blue stage

In-situ stress will


influence dominant
hydraulic fracture
orientations
Shmax direction?

Possible interaction with preexisting fractures?

Williams-Stroud, Microseismic, 2008

Fracture Model Constraints


300m x 300m grid
Fracture size can be related to event
moment magnitude, defined as:

450m fracture

M0 = mSd
Where
m = rigidity
S = fracture area
d = displacement

200m fracture

360m fracture

Estimates of size of the fracture


planes and the slip patch are
consistent with other published
estimates (Barton and Zoback, 1994)

29

31/08/2015

How Do We Model Shale Gas?


Natural fractures and matrix flow are handled
by DUALPERM model
Adsorption is handled by Langmuir isotherm
Gas-phase diffusion is handled by specifying
the tortuosity and diffusion coefficient.
Non-Darcy flow in hydraulic fractures:
At high velocities, fluid flow deviates from
what would be expected with Darcys Law
More resistance to flow at higher velocities

How Do We Model Shale Gas?


Conventional fractured reservoirs typically can
be modelled using standard Dual
Porosity/Permeability or MINC Models
Due to the extremely slow pressure transients in
shales and other tight reservoirs, flow cannot be
accurately described using these standard
models
Hydraulic Fractures need to be explicitly
modelled to model the flow behavior
To model the transients accurately

30

31/08/2015

Duration of Transient in Shale Gas


A simple estimate of the end of the transient response period is
(from L. H. Reiss):

Where,
DIFRAC is in cm

is in fraction

is in cP

is in md

is in bar-1

For
DIFRAC = 150 ft

= 5%

= 0.02 cP
= 1e-4 1/bar

= 1e-5 md

T = 500 x 45722 x 0.05 x 0.02 x 1e-4/1e-5


T = 3.3 years
(normally this is less than two minutes for a 10 md matrix)

How Do We Model Shale Gas?


In the reservoir, the hydraulic fractures have
widths in the magnitude of a couple millimeters
with very high intrinsic permeabilities
To model this, very fine gridding would be
required
With more grid blocks, runtimes will become very large

To reduce the number of blocks and the runtime,


the fracture can be pseudoized to a width of 2 ft
Permeability of the hydraulic fractures is replaced with an
effective permeability
LS-LR-DK Method (SPE 132093)
Logarithmically Spaced, Locally Refined, Dual-Permeability

31

31/08/2015

Fracture Network Modelling SPE102103


Pinnacle
Technologies
Microseismic
Fracture Map
1,200

1,000

Gas Rate SC (Mcf/day)

Modeled with
high density
fracture network
in GEM

800

600

H.F. Horizontal Well

400

Not H.F. Horizontal Well

200

0
0

2,000

4,000
Time (day)

6,000

8,000

CMGs LS-LR-DK (i.e. TARTAN) Grids for Modelling Planar


& Complex Geometry Propped Fractures

Planar fractures in SRV

Complex fractures in SRV

32

31/08/2015

Propped Frac Gridding


Create LS-LR-DK grids around
fractures automatically

Single Plane Geometry

Complex Geometry

Parameterizing Propped Frac


Properties
Propped Frac Properties:
Half-length, Width, Perm, Spacing,
Height & Perm Gradient
Stimulated Natural Frac Properties:
Width, Perm

SRV Size & Shape:


# MS events per gridblock
MS Moment Magnitude
MS Confidence Value
?

33

31/08/2015

Effective Hydraulic Fracture Perm


Qoriginal=Qnew
Kfwfhf/*(dP/dx)=Keffweffhf/*(dP/dx)
Kfwf=Keffweff
Keff=Kfwf /weff

Local Refinement
To correctly capture the transient effects around the
hydraulic fractures, fine gridding of the matrix is
required
Local Refinement is used around the fractures to
have more accuracy where it is needed
Evenly spaced gridding has too much accuracy far
away from the fractures where it is not needed and
not enough accuracy close to the fracture
Logarithmic Refinement solves this issue by having
more refinement close to the fracture where it is
needed and less refinement far away from the
fracture

34

31/08/2015

Fine Gridding of Matrix


Pressure (kPa) 2000-04-30
0

Scale: 1:1192
Y/X: 0.60:1
Axis Units: m

100

-100

-100

-100

K layer: 1

-200

-200

Well-1

-100

15,051
14,470
13,888
13,306
12,724
12,142
11,561
10,979
10,397
9,815
9,234
8,652
8,070
7,488
6,907
6,325
5,743
5,161
4,579
3,998
3,416
2,834
2,252
1,671
1,089
507

100

Logarithmic Gridding
Pressure (kPa) 2000-04-30
0

Scale: 1:1192
Y/X: 0.60:1
Axis Units: m

100

-100

-100

-100

K layer: 1

-200

-200

Well-1

-100

100

15,051
14,470
13,888
13,306
12,724
12,142
11,561
10,979
10,397
9,815
9,234
8,652
8,070
7,488
6,907
6,325
5,743
5,161
4,579
3,998
3,416
2,834
2,252
1,671
1,089
507

35

31/08/2015

Even Gridding
Pressure (kPa) 2000-04-30
0

Scale: 1:1192
Y/X: 0.60:1
Axis Units: m

100

-100

-100

-100

K layer: 1

-200

-200

Well-1

-100

15,051
14,470
13,888
13,306
12,724
12,142
11,561
10,979
10,397
9,815
9,234
8,652
8,070
7,488
6,907
6,325
5,743
5,161
4,579
3,998
3,416
2,834
2,252
1,671
1,089
507

100

Even Gridding
Pressure Profile Around Fracture
15,000

Too much Refinement


Far From Fracture

Pressure (kPa)

10,000

5,000

Not Enough Resolution


Close to Fracture
0
1,922

1,942

1,962

1,982

2,002

2,022

2,042

Distance (m)
Fine Scale Gridding
Even Gridding

36

31/08/2015

Logarthimic Gridding
Pressure Profile Around Fracture
15,000

Lower Resolution Far


from Fracture

Pressure (kPa)

10,000

5,000

High Accuracy Close to


Fracture
0
1,922

1,942

1,962

1,982

2,002

2,022

2,042

Distance (m)
Fine Scale Gridding
Logarithmic Gridding

Local Refinement
Cumulative Gas Production
4.00e+6

Cumulative Gas SC (m3)

3.00e+6

2.00e+6

1.00e+6

0.00e+0
2000-1-1

2000-1-21

2000-2-10
2000-3-1
Time (Date)

2000-3-21

2000-4-10

2000-4

No Refinement (90 m Gridding)


Even Gridding
Logarthimic Spacing
Fine Gridding

37

31/08/2015

Comparison to Finely Gridded Reference


Models (SPE 132093)
Reference Models created with explicitly modelled
fractures using their true width (both hydraulic and
natural fractures) to validate LS-LR-DK method
5-14 Million Grid
Cell Model
Models require
several hours to
run
Not practical for
normal simulation
work

Comparison to Finely Gridded Reference


Models (SPE 132093)
LS-LR-DK model with 9x9 refinement around hydraulic fractures

38

31/08/2015

Comparison to Finely Gridded Reference


Models (SPE 132093)
Grid with 9x9 refinement around hydraulic fractures
compared against reference model
Less than 3 minute runtime
Results very close to reference solution

Non-Darcy Flow Modeling


in IMEX and GEM

39

31/08/2015

Non-Darcy Flow

Non-Darcy Flow

40

31/08/2015

What Beta Factor Should I Use?


In the past we have normally used factor correlations
from Geertsma or Fredrick and Graves
These correlations do not directly apply to propped
fractures
Newer Correlations have been proposed for fractures
which are not explicitly a strong function of saturation
These correlations have the form shown below and are
far easier for the simulator to work with
The simulators can use these correlations simply by setting
N2p = 0

K K

N1p

rp

What Beta Factor Should I Use?


The correlation for b developed by Cooke, C.E.
Conductivity of Fracture Proppants in Multiple Layers
J.Pet.Tech, (Sept 1973) pp1101-1107 is relevant for
fractured systems and is presented below (bfrac in 1/ft,
Kf in mD). Perms varied from 5,000 30,000 md
Proppant Sand Mesh Size

(p)

N1(p)

8-12 (highest Perm)

538.108E9

1.24

10-20

850.525E9

1.34

20-40

3411.752E9

1.54

40-60 (lowest Perm)

2143.503E9

1.60

41

31/08/2015

What Beta Factor Should I Use?


Cookes correlation predicts very large non-Darcy effects in
shales as it is based on more heterogeneous crushed sand
(higher turbulence due to packing of different sized sand)
A newer correlation by Evans and Civan (1994) DOE/BC/14659-7
was proposed:
Evans and Civan collected a total of 183 data points in this work.
In addition to the data discussed in their paper they also employed data
from Geertsma in consolidated media, and
from Evans & Evans and Whitney for the effects of immobile liquid
saturation

The regression line through all the data is shown next


with correlation coefficient R = 0.974. Since this correlation is
obtained from a large variety of porous media under different
conditions, it is expected to provide a reasonable estimation

1.485 E 9

1.021

We assume in the fracture


porosity = 1.0

What Beta Factor Should I Use?

42

31/08/2015

What Beta Factor Should I Use?


For a 5,000 md shale gas fracture (5 md-ft conductivity
and 0.001 ft fracture width)
Evans and Civans values are anywhere from 10 to 60 times
smaller than Cookes, depending on proppant sand mesh size
Only when Kf approached 300,000 md do the models produce
similar results (for the largest sand mesh size)

Ideally you should be able to produce Beta factors from a


lab experiment, but this may not be practically possible
Evans and Civan correlation recommended for Hydraulic
Fracture modelling:
p: 1.485e9
N1p: 1.021
N2p: 0

Non-Darcy Flow Correction


Resistance to Flow is related to velocity
Deviation from Darcys Law only occurs at high velocities
Resistance Factor=1/(1+Fo)

Since a larger width is used for the hydraulic fractures,


the velocity calculated will be lower
Therefore non-Darcy flow will be calculated incorrectly if no corrections
are made
Forchheimer Equation Beta Correction: NDARCYCOR

43

31/08/2015

Forchheimer Equation Beta Correction


Derivation

Forchheimer Equation Beta Correction


Derivation (Cont.)

44

31/08/2015

Forchheimer Equation Beta Correction


Derivation (Cont.)

Forchheimer Equation Beta Correction


Derivation (Cont.)

45

31/08/2015

Comparison to Reference Model


Post-Correction
With correction factor added (NDARCYCOR),
models match the reference solution very well

Incorporating MicroSeismic Data

46

31/08/2015

Microseismic Data
Microseismic (MS) data acquired by some operators to
monitor (even control) the treatment* can be used as a
first order estimate of the extent of the unpropped SRV
during pumping & the geometry of its fractures
MS data is easily incorporated into BUILDERs model
creation workflow using its MS Import Wizard

* Reference: George Kings SPE course

Incorporating Microseismic Data


MS data can be incorporated into the fracture or SRV
creation process.
Estimate height and half-length of fracture
Estimate total stimulated reservoir volume (SRV) of a complex
fracture network

Does grid already exist?


If a grid exists, this can be imported
Otherwise, a simple grid can created based on MS data

Microseismic Data Manager


Imports and export of Microseismic Data
XML format, CMG format, text, excel
Wizard guides users through the process
Can import customized properties such as moment, confidence
etc.

47

31/08/2015

Importing and Using MS Data


Add SRV stages or planar stages based on MS data

Date 2000-02-01

48

31/08/2015

Date 2000-03-01

Date 2000-05-01

49

31/08/2015

Date 2000-10-01

Date 2001-03-01

50

31/08/2015

Date 2001-08-01

Date 2004-07-01

51

31/08/2015

Date 2006-07-01

Date 2010-01-01

52

31/08/2015

IMEX or GEM?
Physics

IMEX

PVT

BO, VO, GC, WG, DG

GEM
EOS

Adsorbed Components

Gas Phase

Multi-Comp

Molecular Diffusion w/ Dispersion

Multi-Comp/OWG Phases

Natural Fracs (NF)

Dual Perm

Dual Perm

Propped Fracs (PF)

LS-LR in Matrix (MT)

LS-LR in Matrix (MT)

Non-Darcy (turbulent) Flow

MT, NF & PF

MT, NF & PF

Non-Darcy (slip) Flow

MT

Krel & Pc

MT, NF, PF & time

MT, NF, PF & time

Press-dependent Compaction

MT, NF, PF & time

MT, NF, PF & time

Stress-dependent Compaction

Geomechanics-based

Chemical Reactions

Ion Exchange & Geochemistry

Primary Production

Primary Production & EOR

Easy fluids: DG, BO

Complex fluids: GC, VO

Definitions
Matrix Shale rock, not including fractures
Natural fracture - Fractures in the reservoir that have not been
affected by the hydraulic fracture stimulation
Hydraulic Fracture - Stimulated fractures with high
conductivity that have been created during the hydraulic
fracture stimulation. (Sometimes referred to as the primary
fracture)
Secondary Fracture (optional) region of enhanced natural
fractures in the SRV.
Conductivity usually somewhere in between the natural fractures and the
hydraulic fractures

Simulator classification:
MATRIX Matrix continua
Contains Matrix and Hydraulic Fracture

FRACTURE Fracture continua


Contains Natural Fracture and Secondary Fracture

53

31/08/2015

Definitions

The New Builder Hydraulic


Fracturing Wizard

54

31/08/2015

Builder Interface
Builder interface updated for use with new
fracture keywords system
Old Interface
New Interface

Applying Fractures
Select between Planar
Fracture Stage and
Complex Fracture
Stage
Images and
descriptions added to
avoid confusion

55

31/08/2015

Applying Fractures
Select Template
to use or create
a new one
Set spacing or
location of
fractures

Builder Interface - Templates


Typically many
fractures have
the same
settings applied
to them
Now users can
create one
template and
apply it to
multiple fracture
stages or wells

56

31/08/2015

Applying Fractures

Templates on
individual fractures
can be modified

Property values
can be overridden
on an individual
fracture basis

Going Beyond the Wizard


Set different rel-perm curves for matrix and fracture (natural
and hydraulic fractures) : RTYPE
Set up different rel-perm curves in the rock fluid section: One for matrix
(1), one for natural fractures (2) and one for hydraulic fractures (3)
Assign values to different areas using formulas
X0=Forchheimer Equation Beta Correction
Rel Perm Set Num = if ( X0 > 0 ) then ( 3 ) else ( 1 )
Rel Perm Set Num Fracture = 2

Set pressure dependent permeability curves for different


regions : CTYPE
Same formula as above can be used

57

31/08/2015

Going Beyond the Wizard


Adjust water saturations in hydraulic fractures to account
for water injected during stimulation
Fracture conductivity may vary vertically.
Proppant might settle in the lower portion of the fracture
Fracture conductivity may increase from top to bottom

Natural fracture conductivity might be greater near


stimulated region
Max. value
stim. region

near

Property
Sw or NF conductivity

Linear
gradation
towards fracture tip

Constant
matrix value

Distance from well

Results of Distance Based Formulas

58

31/08/2015

Working with CMOST:


A Quick Overview

Working with CMOST


CMOST can perform a variety of tasks
We will focus on the application of CMOST
with shale gas
Specifically with History Matching

A full CMOST Course is available if you are


interested

59

31/08/2015

What is CMOST?
CMOST is CMG software that works in conjunction
with CMG reservoir simulators to perform the
following tasks:
Sensitivity Analysis
Better understanding of a simulation model
Identify important parameters

History Matching
Calibrate simulation model with field data
Obtain multiple history-matched models

Optimization
Improve NPV, Recovery,
Reduce cost

Uncertainty Analysis
Quantify uncertainty
Understand and reduce risk
119

CMOST View of Simulation Models

Parameters
x1, x2, , xn

Simulation Model
y1=f1(x1, x2, , xn)
y2=f1(x1, x2, , xn)

ym=f1(x1, x2, , xn)

Objective Functions
y1, y2, , yn

60

31/08/2015

CMOST Process
Experimental
Design
& Optimization
Algorithms

Select
combination of
parameter values

Substitute
parameter values
into simulation
dataset

Analyze results

Objective
Functions &
Proxy Analysis

Parameterization

Run simulation
121

CMOST User Interface

61

31/08/2015

How Input Data is Organized


Define what data to be extracted
from simulation
(Plots and Formulas)
Define how the simulation model is
parameterized
(Inputs)
Define objective functions to be
calculated
(Outputs)

Parameterization

62

31/08/2015

Parameterization

Parameters are variables in the simulation


model that will be adjusted when creating new
datasets
- E.g. Porosity, permeability, etc.

To determine the location in the dataset to


substitute values, a master dataset must be
created (.cmm)

A master dataset is almost identical to a normal


simulation dataset except CMOST keywords
have been added to identify where a parameter
should be added
- Acts as a template for creating new datasets

Master Dataset

63

31/08/2015

Master Dataset
A master dataset can be created in multiple
ways:
CMOST Editor
Builder
Text editor (Notepad, Textpad, etc.)

Master Dataset Syntax


Original Dataset:

PORCON0.20
Master Dataset:

PORCON<cmost>this[0.20]=Porosity</cmost>

Simulator
Keywords

CMOST
Start

No Spaces in
CMOST Portion

Original
(Default)
Value in
Dataset

Variable
Name

CMOST
End

Variable Names
Case Sensitive

64

31/08/2015

Objective Functions

Objective Functions
An Objective Function (OF) is something (an
expression or a single quantity) for which
you wish to achieve some goal
Usually this goal is to achieve a minimum or
maximum value
In the case of History Matching, one
usually wishes to minimize an error
between field data and simulation
In the case of Optimization, one usually
wishes to maximize something like NPV

65

31/08/2015

Objective Functions

Basic Simulation Results


Values directly taken from simulation results
with no modification
History match error
Percentage relative error
Perfect match: 0%
Net Present Value
Simplified NPV calculation
Can be used to construct user-defined
objective functions which utilize simulation
results discounted by time as variables

Objective Functions

Characteristic Date Times


Specific Dates
Date where maximum or minimum value is
found
Date when value surpasses a specified criteria
Advanced Objective Functions
User defined objective function based on
formula or code (jscript or python)
Soft Constraints
Re-evaluates objective functions based on
simulation results

66

31/08/2015

Master Dataset Creation Using Builder for


Parameterizing Hydraulic Fractures
In Builder:

Tools CMOST Master Dataset Creator

Master Dataset Creation

67

31/08/2015

Master Dataset Resulting Keywords

CMOST Pre-Simulation Commands

68

31/08/2015

HM Using Planar Geometry


Oil Rate

Gas Rate

Water Rate

BHP

HM Using Complex Geometry


Oil Rate
Parameter
Matrix Perm, md
Matrix Porosity
Propped Frac Perm, md
SW Propped Frac
SW Nat Frac
Rock Compaction

Water Rate

Original
Model
0.0006
0.057
18,000
0.36
0.25
ctype4.inc

Best HMd Gas Rate


Model
0.000639
0.0529
14,195
0.358
0.385
ctype4.inc

Using CMOST we can differentiate between a


fracd well with planar geometry versus one
with complex geometry.

BHP

69

31/08/2015

Completion Optimization Using CMOST

The Message
All Shale Gas reservoirs are UNIQUE
Optimized Shale gas exploitation requires simulation
The message is compared to lost production, the cost of

UNIQUE
features
of shale
require
simulator
handle
optimizing
frac stages
and
well spacing
is to
inconsequential
in
1,000

comparison to the lost gas!


DIFUSSION
$250k frac vs. $4.4mm in gas revenue

1,500,000

800

SPE 119143:
ADSORPTION

600

1,000,000

400

Cumulative Gas SC (Mcf)

LGR Dual Perms

Gas Rate SC (Mcf/day)

Examining Our Assumptions Have


Oversimplifications Jeopardized Our Ability to Design
Optimal Frac Treatments?
500,000
200

0
0

2,000

4,000

6,000
Time (day)

8,000

0
10,000

70