Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
net/publication/254532794
CITATIONS READS
2 293
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Reservoir Characterization for CO2 Injectivity and Flooding in Petroleum Reservoirs Offshore Malaysia View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Reza Rezaee on 22 October 2014.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Morgantown, West Virginia, USA, 12–14 October 2010.
This paper was selected for presentation by an 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
Tight gas reservoirs normally have production problems due to very low matrix permeability and different damage
mechanisms during drilling, completion and stimulation. Tight reservoirs need advanced drilling and completion techniques
to efficiently connect wellbore to the formation open natural fractures and produce gas at commercial rates.
Stress regimes have significant influence on tight gas reservoirs production performance. The stress regimes cause wellbore
instability issues while drilling, which can result in large wellbore breakouts. The stress regimes can also control the well
long-term production performance, since they affect permeability anisotropy. The preferred horizontal flow direction is
expected to be parallel to the maximum in situ horizontal stress. The production and welltest data in non-fractured as well as
hydraulically fractured wells in tight reservoirs have indicated the presence of a long-term linear flow regime due to the well
and reservoir geometry and also as a result of the permeability anisotropy.
The stress anisotropy leads to different permeabilities in different directions, and the natural fractures that are aligned with
maximum horizontal stress; they might have larger aperture and greater permeability. Due to the more severe stress
anisotropy in tight formations, permeability in maximum stress direction might significantly be larger than permeability in
the direction of minimum stress.
This study represents evaluation of parameters that might control well productivity and long-term well production
performance in tight gas reservoirs. Geomechanical modeling is performed in order to understand the effect of stress
anisotropy on aperture evolution of natural fractures in different directions. Furthermore, single well reservoir simulation
study is performed in order to generate pressure build-up data for a typical tight gas reservoir, in order to evaluate effect of
reservoir geometry and permeability anisotropy on late time linear flow regime, and also assess the well production
performance for different well and reservoir conditions.
Introduction
Tight gas reservoirs normally have very low matrix permeability (< 0.1 md) and are exposed to different damage mechanisms
during well drilling, completion, stimulation and production. Besides, in many cases tight sands are stacks of isloalated lenses
of sand bodies that are vertically separated by shale layers. Therefore their geometry and lack of connectedness make it a
challenge to produce gas at commercial rates. Figure 1 shows a conceptual model of sand bodies in a Western Australia tigh
gas sand field.
Tight reservoirs are low in matrix porosity and in contrast have high rock strength. Geomechanical properties and the stress
regimes affect borehole instability, hydraulic fracturing, reservoir flow regimes and long term well production performance.
Stress anisotropy around borehole can induce the wellbore instability and cause large wellbore breakouts during drilling.
Principal stresses in tight formations can also govern the permeability anisotropy, and hence control long term well
production performance.
This study represents assessment of parameters that control long-term well production performance in tight gas reservoirs.
Geomechanical modeling is performed using 2D numerical simulation in order to understand the effect of horizontal stress
anisotropy on natural fracture aperture and closure in different directions. Then, single well reservoir simulation study is
performed for different well and reservoir conditions to evaluate the effect of well configuration, reservoir geometry and
permeability anisotropy on early-time and late-time linear flow regimes on the well production performance. Furthermore,
tight gas strategy for improved gas recovery is presented and discussed.
2 [SPE-136532]
the perforating jet penetration into the formation rock is reduced to 13.8”, whereas the formation penetration is 16.5” in the
direction where the borehole is stable. Therefore, the break out in wellbore affects negatively the perforation efficiency, and
consequently causes the well productivity to be reduced.
Open-hole completed wells: In tight gas wells in case of open-hole completion system, the wellbore breakouts cause
enlargement of wellbore and can affect the well productivity positively by reducing total skin factor, improving productivity
and providing higher flowing bottom-hole pressure. Effect of wellbore enlargement on skin factor can be estimated using the
following equation (Tarek Ahmed, 2000):
r / rw e S [1]
Where r is effective wellbore radius, rw is wellbore radius in stable intervals, and S is skin factor. The above equation can be
written as follows:
rbreakout
S ln ( ) [2]
rw
Equation 2 shows the relationship between skin factor and radius of break out. The larger the wellbore breakout, the lower is
the total skin factor. For example compared with a zero skin cased-hole perforated well with 7” liner (6.2” ID), an openhole
well with breakout diameter of 17” results in skin factor of -1.
Open-hole vs. cased-hole well productivity comparison: In order to quantitatively evaluate the effect of wellbore breakouts
on well productivity in different completion systems, the single well reservoir simulation modeling was performed based on
well XX-01 data. The input data and the model details are shown in Figure 6-a. The model production predictions indicated
that the open-hole completion in the gas wells with wellbore breakouts can provide significantly higher initial gas production
rate compared with cased-hole completion system, as can be seen in Figure 6-b. Therefore in single layer tight gas
formations, drilling long horizontal/deviated wells completed as open-hole can provide a large area open to flow and might
help achieving commercial gas production rates.
Conclusions
Knowledge of the state of stresses has significant economic importance in developing and managing tight gas reservoirs.
The difference between minimum and maximum horizontal stresses in tight gas reservoirs is significantly larger
compared with conventional reservoirs.
The stress anisotropy governs wellbore instability and permeability anisotropy in tight gas reservoirs.
Wellbore instability is more severe in tight sand intervals, resulting in large wellbore breakouts across the wellbore.
[SPE-136532] 5
The breakouts affect well productivity negatively in cased-hole completion system as they cause reduction in perforation
jet penetration into the formation rock. In openhole wells, the wellbore breakouts have positive impact on well
productivity since they increase effective wellbore radius and reduce the total skin factor.
Stress anisotropy causes permeability anisotropy in naturally fractured tight gas reservoirs. The natural fractures that are
aligned with the local maximum horizontal stress; they might have larger aperture and greater permeability.
The early time linear flow regime is due to the hydraulic fractures. Long-term linear flow regime in tight gas reservoirs is
mainly controlled by permeability anisotropy and reservoir geometry.
In horizontal wells, drilling perpindicular to the maximum stress direction, results in intersecting the higher permeability
natural fractures. Therefore drilling long horizontal wells perpindicular to the h, max direction can result in achieving
higher gas production rates.
To plan for well spacing, a larger space between wells should be considered in the direction of h, max, compared with the
wells in the direction of h, min.
The strategy of under-balanced drilling, long horizontal/deviated wells perpendicular to maximum stress direction, and
completing as openhole, can results in an improved well productivity from tight gas reservoirs.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to appreciate Ahmadreza Younesi Sinaki from Curtin Petroleum Geomechanics Group (CPGG) for
many helpful discussions on this work.
Nomenclatures:
P Pressure
Q Flow rate
t Time
K Permeability
S Skin
rw Wellbore radius
rbreakout Wellbore radius at the interval of breakout
h Thickness
hf Fracture aperture
ct Total Compressibility
h, min Minimum horizontal stress
h, max Maximum horizontal stress
v Vertical stress
References
Abass, H., Ortiz, I., “Understanding Stress Dependanet Permeability of Matrix, Natural Fractures, and Hydralic
Fractures in Carbonate Formations”, SPE 110973, SPE Saudi Arabia Technical Symposium, May 2007
Teufel, L.W., Natil, Sandia, “Control of Fractured Reservoir Permeability by Spatial Temporal variations in Stress
Magnitude and Orientation”, SPE 26437, SPE annual technical concerence, Texas, US, Oct 1993
Behrmann, Larry. , “Perforating Practices That Optimize Productivity”, Oilfield Review, Spring 2000
Bratton, T., Bricout, V., “Rock Strength Parameters from Annular Pressure While Drilling and Dipole Sonic
Dispersion Analysis”, SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, The Netherlands, June 6–9, 2004.
Halleck, P.M., Saucier, R.J., “Reduction in Jet Perforator Penetration in Rock Under Stress”, SPE 18245, 63rd
Annual Technical Conference, Houston, TX, Oct 1988
FJÆR, E., Holt, R.M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A.M. and Risnes, R., 2008. Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics. Elsevier
B.V., Hungary
Jaeger, J.C., Cook, N.G.W., Zimmerman, R.W., 2007. Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics, Oxford, UK, Blackwell
Ahmed, Tarek, « Handbook of reservoir engineering », 2nd edition, 2000
Matsuki K, Wang EQ, Giwelli AA, Sakaguchi K., “Estimation of closure of a fracture under normal stress based on
aperture data. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences”, Volume 45, Pages 194-209, Feb 2008
M.M. Rahman, M.K. Rahman, S.S. Rahman, "Multivariate Fracture Treatment Optimization for Enhanced Gas
Production From Tight Reservoirs", SPE 75702 , 2002
Dusseault, M. B. , “Stress Changes in Thermal Operations”, SPE 25809, 1993
Fjaer J, Holt RM, Horsrud P, Raaen AM, Risenes R. Petroleum related rock mechanics 2nd, edition. Developments
in petroleum science 53, 2008
Matsuki K, Chida Y, Sakaguchi K, Glover PWJ. , “Size effect on aperture and permeability of a fracture as
estimated in large synthetic fractures”, Int. J Rock Mech Min Sci 2006;43:726–55
6 [SPE-136532]
Shale
Sandstone
Figure 1: Reservoir geometry for a typical fluvial tight sandstone gas reservoir. Sand bodies are laterally and vertically
isolated and communication between them is limited.
[SPE-136532] 7
Z Z
Y Y
X X
Wellbore
breakouts in
Wellbore Y direction
breakouts in
Y direction
Figure 2: Vertical and horizontal wells 3-D stress regimes, borehole instability and wellbore breakout (wellbore instability is
controlled by stresses. The hole is enlarged in the direction of the smallest stress perpendicular to wellbore)
Shale
Wellbore
Breakouts
Shale
Fig. 4: Wellbore breakouts on caliper log in the tight gas well XX-01
8 [SPE-136532]
(a)
Y
Gun
(b) X
(c)
Fig 5: Perforation results for the cased-hole perforated well X-01 assuming 5” damaged zone radius:
X direction: Formation penetration for the perforating jets in the direction where there are wellbore breakouts
(Casing ID: 6.2”, Borehole ID: 20”)
Y direction: Formation penetration for the perforating jets in the direction where there are no wellbore breakouts
(Casing ID: 6.2”, Borehole ID: 9.5”)
[SPE-136532] 9
(a)
Reservoir simulation grids around the wellbore Well and reservoir data
(b)
Fig 6: Simulation results for effect of wellbore breakouts on well productivity based on well XX-01 data
(Significantly higher gas production rate from open-hole well with breakouts, compared with cased-hole perforated well)
10 [SPE-136532]
Fracture
Matrix
14500 psia
(a)
7250
psia
(b) X
Y
hf,y
hf,x
Fig 9: Pressure distribution in the reservoir during gas production, based on different permeability anisotropy values (tight
gas reservoirs have elliptical drainage area)
Top
view
X
Kx>>Ky Y
Fig 10: Typical reservoir flow regimes in vertical wells in hydraulically fractured tight gas reservoirs
(The early time flow regimes are bi-linear flow and linear flow respectively due to the hydraulic fractures. As pressure pulse
propagated deeper into the reservoir, flow regimes change to elliptical due to the permeability anisotropy)
500 m
Late time
linear flow
Pressure
drawdown
Early time radial
(elliptical) flow
Fig 11: Pressure distribution in the reservoir during gas production, based on different permeability anisotropy values
(permeability anisotropy controls the time at which late-time linear flow is started)