Evaluation of Well Performance for the Slot-Drill Completion in Low- and Ultralow-Permeability Oil and Gas Reservoirs
- Tioluwanimi O. Odunowo (Texas A&M University) | George J. Moridis (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory/Texas A&M University) | Thomas A Blasingame (Texas A&M University) | Olufemi M. Olorode (Afren Resources/Texas A&M University) | Craig M. Freeman (Hilcorp Energy Company)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Journal
- Publication Date
- October 2014
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 748 - 760
- 2014.Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 5.8.4 Shale Oil, 4.1.2 Separation and Treating, 1.6 Drilling Operations, 5.8.2 Shale Gas, 3.2.3 Hydraulic Fracturing Design, Implementation and Optimisation, 5.8.1 Tight Gas
- Slot-Drill Completion
- 1 in the last 30 days
- 408 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 10.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 30.00|
Low- to ultralow-permeability formations require "special" treatments/stimulation to make them produce economical quantities of hydrocarbon, and at the moment, multistage hydraulic fracturing (MSHF) is the most commonly used stimulation method for enhancing the exploitation of these reservoirs. Recently, the slot-drill (SD) completion technique was proposed as an alternative treatment method in such formations (Carter 2009). This paper documents the results of a comprehensive numerical-simulation study conducted to evaluate the production performance of the SD technique and compare its performance to that of the standard MSHF approach. We investigated three low-permeability formations of interest--namely, a shale-gas formation, a tight-gas formation, and a tight/shale-oil formation. The simulation domains were discretized with Voronoi-gridding schemes to create representative meshes of the different reservoir and completion systems modeled in this study. The results from this study indicated that the SD method does not, in general, appear to be competitive in terms of reservoir performance and recovery compared with the more traditional MSHF method. Our findings indicate that the larger surface area to flow that results from the application of MSHF is much more significant than the higher conductivity achieved by use of the SD technique. However, there may exist cases, for example, lack of adequate water volumes for hydraulic fracturing, or very high irreducible water saturation that leads to adverse relative permeability conditions and production performance, in which the low-cost SD method may make production feasible from an otherwise challenging (if not inaccessible) resource.
|File Size||3 MB||Number of Pages||13|
Bartberger, C.E., Dyman, T.S., and Condon, S.M. 2002. Is There a Basin-Centered Gas Accumulation in Cotton Valley Group Sandstones, Gulf Coast Basin, U.S.A.? http://geology.cr.usgs.gov/pub/bulletins/b2184-d/ (accessed 2011-06-01).
Boleneus, D. 2010. Estimate of Bakken Oil Resource. McKenzie County, North Dakota USA: Bakken Resources Inc.
Carter, E.E. 2009. Novel Concepts for Unconventional Gas Development of Gas Resources in Gas Shales, Tight Sands, and Coalbeds. RPSEA 07122-7. http://www.rpsea.org/attachments/contentmanagers/2979/07122-07_Final_Report_P.pdf (accessed 2011-06-01).
Dyman, T.S. and Condon, S.M. 2006. Assessment of Undiscovered Conventional Oil and Gas Resources—Upper Jurassic–Lower Cretaceous Cotton Valley Group, Jurassic Smackover Interior Salt Basins Total Petroleum System, in the East Texas Basin and Louisiana-Mississippi Salt Basins Provinces. US Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS–69–E.
Flannery, J. and Kraus, J. 2006. Integrated Analysis of the Bakken Petroleum System, US Williston Basin. Paper presented at the AAPG Annual Convention, Houston, Texas, 10–12 April.
Freeman, C.M. 2010. Study of Flow Regimes in Multiply-Fractured Horizontal Wells in Tight Gas and Shale Gas Reservoir Systems. MS thesis, Texas A&M University.
GTI. 2001. “Tight Gas Resource Map of the United States”. In. Des Plaines, IL: Gas Technology Institute. GTI-01/0114
Halliburton. 2008a. The Marcellus Shale. http://www.halliburton.com/public/solutions/contents/Shale/related_docs/Marcellus.pdf (accessed 2011-06-01).
Halliburton. 2008b. U.S. Shale Gas: An Unconventional Resource. Unconventional Challenges. http://www.halliburton.com/public/solutions/contents/shale/related_docs/H063771.pdf (accessed 2011-06-01).
Heck, T.J., Lefever, R.D., Fischer, D.W. et al. 2012. Overview of the Petroleum Geology of the North Dakota Williston Basin. https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/Resources/WBPetroleumnew.asp (accessed 2012-03-06).
Moridis, G.J., Blasingame, T.A., and Freeman, C.M. 2010. Analysis of Mechanisms of Flow in Fractured Tight-Gas and Shale-Gas Reservoirs. Paper SPE 139250 presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Lima, Peru, 1–3 December. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/139250-MS.
Naik, G.C. 2005. Tight Gas Reservoirs—An Unconventional Natural Energy Source for the Future. 2011. http://www.pinedaleonline.com/socioeconomic/pdfs/tight_gas.pdf (accessed 2011-04-10).
Odunowo, T. 2012. Numerical Simulation Study to Investigate Expected Productivity Improvement Using the “Slot-Drill” Completion, Texas A&M University.
Olorode, O.M. 2011. Numerical Modeling of Fractured Shale-Gas and Tight-Gas Reservoirs Using Unstructured Grids. MS thesis, Texas A&M University.
Rycroft, C.H. 2007. Multiscale Modeling in Granular Flow. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Soeder, D.J. 1988. Porosity and Permeability of Eastern Devonian Gas Shale. SPE Form Eval 3 (1): 116–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/15213-PA.
US Department of Energy. 2009. Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer, by Gwpc. Doc. DE-FG26-04NT15455, pt. Oklahoma City: US Department of Energy.
Zagorski, W.A., Bowman, D.C., Emery, M. et al. 2011. An Overview of Some Key Factors Controlling Well Productivity in Core Areas of the Appalachian Basin Marcellus Shale Play. Paper presented at the AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 10–13 April. AAPG Search and Discovery Article #110147.