Economic Conductivity - Eagle Ford Shale

  • 1,963 views
Uploaded on

Economic Conductivity Analysis of the Eagle Ford Shale

Economic Conductivity Analysis of the Eagle Ford Shale

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,963
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
62
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Economic Conductivity ® Eagle Ford Shale
  • 2. The Benefits of Hydraulic Fractures Provides Reservoir Contact − Fluid driven parameters: rate, viscosity and volume − Proppant driven parameters: volume Provides Flow Capacity (Conductivity) − Fluid driven parameters: rate and viscosity (and gel loading) − Proppant driven parameters: permeability and width Proppant is the conductive pathway from the reservoir to the wellbore
  • 3. Proppant Types and their Conductivity Highest Production, EUR, ROI Highest Conductivity Engineered, Manufactured Product High strength (minimizes crush) Tier 1 - High Conductivity Uniform size and shape Ceramic (maximizes frac porosity and permeability) Thermal resistant (durable, minimizes degradation) Medium strength Tier 2 - Medium Conductivity Irregular size and shape Resin Coated Sand Low strength Tier 3 - Low Conductivity Irregular size and shape Sand Naturally Occurring Product Chart Prepared by and Property of CARBO Ceramics Economic Conductivity is the conductivity that maximizes the ® economics of the well.
  • 4. Economic Conductivity Optimization ® To maximize the economic potential of a frac, we need to determine: − The realistic fracture conductivity under actual fracture conditions − The resulting production and economics achieved by alternative designs − The proppant which provide the highest profitability for the well − The field validation of analyses This allows us to maximize the return on investment in our completions
  • 5. Fracture Conductivity cf = kf * wf wf kfFactors that affect….  Permeability (kf): Proppant (size, strength, shape), fines, gel damage…  Width (wf): Proppant (density, concentration, embedment), gel filter cake… How wide is the road and how good is the pavement?
  • 6. Conductivity Testing Accounts for: −Proppant size −Proppant strength and crush ‘profile’ −‘Wet’ system −Some temperature effects −Some embedment Does NOT Account for: −Non-Darcy flow −Multiphase flow −Reduced proppant concentration −Gel damage −Fines migration/cyclic stress −Others Reference: ISO 13503-5 SPE 106301
  • 7. Additional Conductivity Considerations Elevated Temperatures – Impact on natural proppants at >200ºF Soft Formations – Increased proppant embedment Flow Convergence – Transverse fracs in horizontal wells
  • 8. Temperature Correction for White Sand 20/40 Premium White Sand Sand based 1 Conductivity Correction from 150 deg F, factor proppant degrades at >200º F 0.8 At Eagle Ford conditions, white 0.6 sand loses 55% of its conductivity compared to 150ºF 0.4 150 deg F RCS loses 20% of its 200 degF 0.2 250 deg F conductivity at the 300 deg F same conditions 350 deg F 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 StimLab PredictK
  • 9. Flow Convergence in Transverse Fracs A 100 ft tall vertical frac has over 100x the flow area at the wellbore than a 6-inch wellbore in a transverse frac. When fluids converge at the wellbore in a transverse frac, the pressure drop is several orders of magnitude higher than the vertical well at comparable rates. You will always benefit from more conductivity near-wellbore in transverse fracs. Forchheimer’s equation   ∂p  αv  = + β ρ v 2 ∂x  hk p   µ    9
  • 10. Conductivity at Realistic Conditions Tier 1 creates 3.5 600 60 times the cond. of Baseline Conductivity Baseline Conductivity Tier 3 are Eagle Ford Baseline Conductivity, mD-ft 500 50 Realistic Conductivity conditions Realistic Conductivity, mD-ft 400 40 300 30 200 20 100 10 0 0 40/80 Tier 1 40/70 Tier 2 40/70 Tier 3 SPE 155779
  • 11. The Reality  Conductivity must be estimated at downhole conditions.  The conductivity of our fractures is much lower than measured in the API/ISO test.  Most hydraulic fractures are ‘conductivity limited’.  Modeling and field testing confirm that increasing the fracture conductivity will increase production/EUR.
  • 12. Conductivity Matters Examples of the Impact of Conductivity on Production and Profitability
  • 13. ®ECONOMIC CONDUCTIVITY - Eagle Ford ShaleConductivity Considerations Permeability: 10 - 400 nD Gas/Oil/Condensate Stress on proppant: 5 -10,000 psi BH Temp: > 275° F YM: 1-3 million psi HZ, multistage transverse fracs SPE 138425 and 155779
  • 14. Eagle Ford Shale Fieldwide Results After 6 months, LWC wells are producing an average of ~35,000 BOE more per well than sand LWC wells are generating $1.1 million* in incremental value per well * $80/BO + $3.5/mscfg 65 LWC Wells 279 Sand Wells
  • 15. Webb County Case StudyEagle Ford Webb and Dimmit Counties − Condensate / Liquids ~4,000 ft laterals 12-16 stages, 4 clusters per stage Transverse fractures 7,000 – 8,000 ft TVD in the field >270º F reservoir temperature Study documented in SPE 155779
  • 16. Modeling Work Tier 1 – CARBO 20% increase in HYDROPROP® cumulative production Tier 2 – Premium Resin- after 12 months Coated Sand Tier 3 – Uncoated Sand SPE 138425
  • 17. Production Comparison to Offset Operators Tier 1 LWC wells have 40-60% more production than Tier 3 sand wells Primarily Tier 1 Primarily Tier 3 SPE 155799
  • 18. ECONOMIC CONDUCTIVITY Evaluation LWC wells have (on average) 80% greater $2.5 million production at 6 months than sand wells LWC wells create (on average) twice the value at 6 months than sand wells * $80/BO + $3.5/mscfg 24 LWC Wells 72 Sand Wells
  • 19. Production Results – Single Operator LWC wells have created Rosetta Resources Gates Ranch 12 Month Cumulative Gas Production, MMCFE Well an average of $1.5 million Completion Between Sand and Ceramic Proppant more value per well than Normalized to Number of Stages sand wells The incremental cost to upgrade to LWC payouts in 9 months SPE 155799
  • 20. Summary Proppant selection is critical in Unconventional Reservoirs Hydraulic fractures are conductivity limited Realistic conductivity should drive proppant selection The Economic Conductivity proppant selection process maximizes ® well economics Field evidence confirms that increasing fracture conductivity in the Eagle Ford Shale increases production and well profitability