Damage Mechanisms in Unconventional-Gas-Well Stimulation--A New Look at an Old Problem
- Josef R. Shaoul (StrataGen Delft) | Lars F. van Zelm (TU Delft) | C.J. de Pater (StrataGen Delft)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Production & Operations
- Publication Date
- November 2011
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 388 - 400
- 2011. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 5.5 Reservoir Simulation, 1.8.5 Phase Trapping, 3.2.3 Hydraulic Fracturing Design, Implementation and Optimisation, 4.3.4 Scale, 1.8 Formation Damage, 1.2.2 Geomechanics, 5.3.2 Multiphase Flow, 2.5.2 Fracturing Materials (Fluids, Proppant), 5.1 Reservoir Characterisation, 5.8.1 Tight Gas, 5.6.4 Drillstem/Well Testing, 3 Production and Well Operations, 5.2 Reservoir Fluid Dynamics, 1.6.9 Coring, Fishing, 4.1.2 Separation and Treating, 5.1.1 Exploration, Development, Structural Geology, 2.4.3 Sand/Solids Control, 1.2.3 Rock properties, 5.1.5 Geologic Modeling, 5.8.7 Carbonate Reservoir, 2.5.1 Fracture design and containment, 5.5.3 Scaling Methods, 4.6 Natural Gas, 5.5.8 History Matching, 4.1.5 Processing Equipment
- tight-gas, fracture performance evaluation, unconventional gas, rel-perm jail
- 2 in the last 30 days
- 1,142 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 12.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
After fracture stimulation, production often rises slowly instead of showing an early transient. This indicates either severe reduction in fracture conductivity or reservoir damage. There is still no agreement in the industry about the most important damage mechanisms. Work performed by Pratts and Holditch in the 1970s showed that fracture-face damage from filtrate invasion is unimportant unless there is permeability damage in the invaded zone of at least 99%. New ideas have been proposed that may better explain the behavior commonly seen in actual production data. These ideas include relative permeability with water and gas both immobile at a given saturation ("permeability jail"), small-scale reservoir heterogeneity, and stress-sensitive-matrix permeability at high drawdown.
Experience from the field has been contradictory. Sometimes no water is produced back, but gas production does not appear to suffer. In other cases, the gas rate is significantly lower than expected, but significant fracture fluid is recovered. With the inherent coupling of fracture length and permeability in well-test interpretation and the practical impossibility of achieving radial flow in tight-gas reservoirs with large fracture lengths, it has been difficult to prove any theory about the cause of poor performance from tight gas fracture treatments. This paper shows simulation results of these effects on post-fracture production from an unconventional (0.001-md) gas well. Furthermore, realistic assumptions about proppant-pack cleanup show a connection not only between poor cleanup and short effective fracture length, but also reduction in contacted kh and connected reservoir volume. New reservoir-simulation results are presented that show a 50% reduction of production in the first years because of these effects in unconventional reservoirs.
|File Size||5 MB||Number of Pages||13|
Aguilera, R. 2008. Role of Natural Fractures and Slot Porosity on Tight GasSands. Paper SPE 114174 presented at the SPE Unconventional ReservoirsConference, Keystone, Colorado, USA, 10-12 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/114174-MS.
Bang, V., Pope, G.A., Sharma, M.M., Baran, J.R. Jr., and Ahmadi, M. 2010. ANew Solution To Restore Productivity of Gas Wells With Condensate and WaterBlocks. SPE Res Eval & Eng 13 (2): 323-331.SPE-116711-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/116711-PA.
Barree, R.D. 2009. Unconventional Reservoir Stimulation presentation (May2009), Baree & Associates, http://barree.net/index.html (accessed14 December 2009).
Barree, R.D., Cox, S.A., Barree, V.L., and Conway, M.W. 2003. RealisticAssessment of Proppant Pack Conductivity for Material Selection. Paper SPE84306 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,5-8 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/84306-MS.
Barree, R.D., Cox, S.A., Gilbert, J.V., and Dobson, M. 2005. Closing theGap: Fracture Half-Length from Design, Buildup, and Production Analysis. SPEProd & Fac 20 (4): 274-285. SPE-84991-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/84491-PA.
Behr, A., Mtchedlishvili, G., Friedel, T., and Haefner, F. 2003.Consideration of Damaged Zone in Tight Gas Reservoir Model with HydraulicallyFractured Well. Paper SPE 82298 presented at the SPE European Formation DamageConference, The Hague, 13-14 May. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/82298-MS.
Bennion, D.B. and Thomas, F.B. 2005. Formation Damage Issues Impacting theProductivity of Low Permeability, Low initial Water Saturation Gas ProducingFormations. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 127 (3): 240-247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.1937420.
Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., and Schulmeister, B. 1996. Water and Oil BaseFluid Retention in Low Permeability Porous Media—an Update. Paper CIPC 2006-136presented at the Canadian International Petroleum Conference/57th AnnualTechnical Meeting, Calgary, 13-15 June. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/2006-136.
Bennion, D.B., Tomas, F.B., and Bietz, R.F. 1996. Low Permeability GasReservoirs: Problems, Opportunities and Solutions for Drilling, Completion,Stimulation and Production. Paper SPE 35577 presented at the SPE Gas TechnologyConference, Calgary, 28 April-1 May. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/35577-MS.
Blasingame, T.A. 2008. The Characteristic Flow Behavior of Low-PermeabilityReservoir Systems. Paper SPE 114168 presented at SPE Unconventional ReservoirsConference, Keystone, Colorado, USA, 10-12 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/114168-MS.
Britt, L.K. and Schoeffler, J. 2009. The Geomechanics of a Shale Play: WhatMakes a Shale Prospective! Paper SPE 125525 presented at the SPE EasternRegional Meeting, Charleston, West Virginia, USA, 23-25 May. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/125525-MS.
Britt, L.K., Jones, J.R., Heidt, J.H., Adil, I., Kelly, P., Sparkes, D., andCollin, B. 2004. Application of After-Closure Analysis Techniques to DeterminePermeability in Tight Formation Gas Reservoirs. Paper SPE 90865 presented atSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 26-29 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/90865-MS.
Byrnes, A.P. 1996. Reservoir Characteristics of Low-Permeability Sandstonesin the Rocky Mountains. The Mountain Geologist 34 (1):39-51.
Byrnes, A.P., Cluff, R.M. and Webb, J.C. 2009. Analysis Of CriticalPermeablity, Capillary Pressure And Electrical Properties For Mesaverde TightGas Sandstones From Western U.S. Basins. Final Scientific/Technical Report,Solicitation No. DE-PS26-04NT42072, US DOE Contract No. DE-FC26-05NT42660,University of Kansas Center for Research and the Kansas Geological Society,Lawrence, Kansas (30 June 2009).
Cluff, R.M. and Byrnes, A.P. 2010. Relative Permeability in Tight GasSandstone Reservoirs - The ‘Permeability Jail' Model. Presented at the SPWLA51st Annual Logging Symposium, Perth, Australia, 19-23 June.
Cramer, D.D. 2005. Fracture Skin: A Primary Cause of StimulationIneffectiveness in Gas Wells. Paper SPE 96869 presented at the SPE AnnualTechnical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 9-12 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/96869-MS.
Friedel, T. 2004. Numerical simulation of production from tight-gasreservoirs by advanced stimulation technologies. PhD dissertation, TechnischenUniversität Bergakademie Frieberg, Frieberg, Germany.
Gdanski, R. 2007. Modeling the Impact of Capillary Pressure Reduction bySurfactants. Paper SPE 106062 presented at the International Symposium onOilfield Chemistry, Houston, 28 February-2 March. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/106062-MS.
Gdanski, R. and Walters, H. 2010. Impact of Fracture Conductivity and MatrixRelative Permeability on Load Recovery. Paper SPE 133057 presented at the SPEAnnual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 19-22 September.http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/133057-MS.
Gdanski, R., Fulton, D., and Shen, C. 2006. Fracture Face Skin EvolutionDuring Cleanup. Paper SPE 101083 presented at the SPE Annual TechnicalConference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 24-27 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/101083-MS.
Gdanski, R., Weaver, J., Slabaugh, B., Walters, H., and Parker, M. 2005.Fracture Face Damage—It Matters. Paper SPE 94649 presented at the SPE EuropeanFormation Damage Conference, Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 25-27 May. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/94649-MS.
Holditch, S.A. 1979. Factors Affecting Water Blocking and Gas Flow FromHydraulically Fractured Gas Wells. J Pet Technol 31 (12):1515-1524. SPE-7561-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/7561-PA.
Holditch, S.A. 2006. Tight Gas Sands. J Pet Technol 58 (6):86-93. SPE-103356-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/103356-MS.
Holditch, S.A. and Morse, R.A. 1976. The Effects of Non-Darcy Flow on theBehavior of Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells. J Pet Technol 28 (10): 1169-1179. SPE-5586-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/5586-PA.
Horne, R.N. 1995. Modern Well Test Analysis: A Computer AidedApproach, second edition. Palo Alto, California: Petroway, Inc.
Jones, F.O. and Owens, W.W. 1980. A Laboratory Study of Low-Permeability GasSands. J Pet Technol 32 (9): 1631-1640; Trans, AIME,269. SPE-7551-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/7551-PA.
Mahadevan, J. and Sharma, M. 2003. Clean-up of Water Blocks in LowPermeability Formations. Paper SPE 84216 presented at the SPE Annual TechnicalConference and Exhibition, Denver, 5-8 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/84216-MS.
Mahadevan, J., Duc, L., and Hoang, H. 2009. Impact of Capillary Suction onFracture Face Skin Evolution in Waterblocked Wells. Paper SPE 119585 presentedat SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA,19-21 January. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/119585-MS.
Rickman, R.D. and Jaripatke, O. 2010. Optimizing Microemulsion/SurfactantPackages for Shale and Tight-Gas Reservoirs. Paper SPE 131107 presented at theSPE Deep Gas Conference and Exhibition, Manama, Bahrain, 24-26 January. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/131107-MS.
Rushing, J.A., Newsham, K.E., and Blasingame, T.A. 2008. Rock Typing—Keys toUnderstanding Productivity in Tight Gas Sands. Paper SPE 114164 presented atthe SPE Unconventional Reservoirs Conference, Keystone, Colorado, USA, 10-12February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/114164-MS.
Settari, A., Sullivan, R.B., and Bachman, R.C. 2002. The Modeling of theEffect of Water Blockage and Geomechanics in Waterfrac. Paper SPE 77600presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,Texas, USA, 29 September-2 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/77600-MS.
Shanley, K.W., Cluff, R.M., and Robinson, J.W. 2004. Factors controllingprolific gas production from low-permeability sandstone reservoirs:Implications for resource assessment, prospect development, and risk analysis.AAPG Bulletin 88 (8): 1083-1121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/03250403051.
Shaoul, J.R., Behr, A., and Mtchedlishvili, G. 2006. Automatic Generation of3D Reservoir Simulation Input Files Directly from a Fracture Simulation Model.OIL GAS European Magazine 32 (42006): 176-182.
Shaoul, J.R., de Koning, J., Chapuis, C., and Rochon, J. 2009. SuccessfulModelling of Post-Fracture Cleanup in a Layered Tight Gas Reservoir. Paper SPE122021 presented at the 8th European Formation Damage Conference, Scheveningen,The Netherlands, 27-29 May. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/122021-MS.
Spencer, C.W. 1985. Geologic Aspects of Tight Gas Reservoirs in the RockyMountain Region. J Pet Technol 37 (7): 1308-1314.SPE-11647-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/11647-PA.
Voneiff, G.W., Robinson, B.M., and Holditch, S.A. 1996. The Effects ofUnbroken Fracture Fluid on Gaswell Performance. SPE Prod & Fac 11 (4): 223-229. SPE-26664-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/26664-PA.
Wang, J.Y., Holditch, S.A., and McVay, D.A. 2010. Modeling Fracture-FluidCleanup in Tight-Gas Wells. SPE J. 15 (3): 783-793.SPE-119624-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/119624-PA.