Refracture Reorientation

Project #3
Refracture Reorientation in
Lenticular Reservoirs
Daniel Benedict
FAST
Outline
Resume`
Reorientation theory
Objectives
Background
Modeling
Next steps
Project #3: Refracture Reorientation
FAST
Researcher Biography
Hometown: Longmont, CO
B.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering
from CSM in 2002
Cordillera Energy Partners
Associate Engineer - Colorado
Baker Hughes Inteq
LWD/MWD Engineer Gulf of

Mexico
FAST
Theory of Reorientation
Review reorientation
Two types of reorientation

occur
Immediate stress field changes

through fracture and closure
Stress field changes over time
through pressure drawdown
FAST
Reorientation methods
The Mounds experiment

(Moschovidis, et al, 2000)
Immediate reorientation
Wilcox sandstone/Atoka shale
FAST
From Moschovidis, et al, 2000

FAST
The reservoir stress field is altered

through the production of oil and
gas over time.
The coinciding pore pressure drop

incurred in the reservoir will
change the local effective stress
field of the reservoir, making
refracturing possible.
eff = - Pp
FAST
In tight sands, the

production comes
from an elliptical
area around the
fracture
Encounter bypassed
pay that the ellipse
does not produce
Image Source: Devon Energy Corporation Mid-Year Operations Report and Barnett Shale School, 20 JUN 2002
http://media.corportate-ir.net/media_files/ase/dvn/presentations/newpres/Slide80.jpg
FAST
Fracture
propagates
until virgin
pressure
zone is
reached
Image Source: Devon Energy Corporation MidYear Operations Report and Barnett Shale
School, 20 JUN 2002, http://media.corportateir.net/media_files/ase/dvn/presentations/newpres
/Slide80.jpg
FAST
What if this phenomena

occurs in lenticular reservoirs?
This project acts on the

assumption that reorientation
has occurred, and studies its
incremental benefits
FAST
Objectives
Simulate production of
lenticular sands that have
undergone fracture
reorientation
Perform sensitivity studies on

the input parameters and
analyze the results
FAST
Why lenticular reservoirs?
These study areas have been

focused on blanket-type
marine sands
FAST
Fluvial sands have far less areal

extent, and in some cases, like in
the Piceance and Green River,
micro-Darcy permeability
Great vertical/lateral
discontinuity
Downspaced to 10 acres in some

areas
FAST
Image Source: Kuuskraa, V.A., Produced Massively Stacked Lenticular Sands of Colorados Piceance Basin,
GasTIPS, Spring 1997, p 4.
FAST
Geologic Advantages
Stress field alignment

Directional permeability
Reoriented fractures would cross
direction of highest permeability
FAST
Geologic questions
Natural fractures
Depletion
Damage from stress changes
Refracturing to possibly energize
matrix
FAST
Figure 2: Lorenz, J.C., et al.:Fracture Characteristics and Reservoir Behavior of Stress-Sensitive Fracture Systems in
Flat-Lying Lenticular Formations, paper SPE 15244 presented at the Unconventional Gas Technology
Symposium, Louisville, Kentucky, 18-21 May 1986.Laubach, S.E.:Attributes of fracture networks in selected
Cretaceous sandstones of the Green River and San Juan Basins, Geological studies relevant to horizontal drilling:
examples from western North America, Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, Denver, Colorado (1992) 61-74.
FAST
Modeling
CMG IMEX simulator
GUI interface
Direct editing through .dat file as

well
Powerful, yet painless

Able to model naturally fracd
reservoirs
FAST
Modeling
CMG Builder
Grid options
PVT properties
Gas/Water model option
Rel Perm, non-Darcy flow

Well events
FAST
Modeling
First steps
Introduce a fracture to the

system
Construct a cruciform fracture
set in the reservoir
Build fracture model at other
angles
permeability, transmissibility
FAST
Modeling Missteps
MODEL
COMPRESS.
1/PSI
POROSITY, PERM, MD
%
AREA,
ACRES
FRAC
HALFLENGTH,
FT
Base
3*10^-6
0.12
0.02
80
500
Cruciform
3*10^-6
0.12
0.02
80
500
45 Base
3*10^-6
0.12
0.02
80
500
45 Lentic.
3*10^-6
0.12
0.01
33
250
FAST
Modeling
FAST
Modeling
FAST
Modeling
FAST
Modeling
FAST
Modeling
Project wasnt quite that

simple
So began the process of

refinement and matching
FAST
Modeling With Less

Mistakes
MODEL
POR, %
FRAC
POR, %
MATRIX
PERM,
MD
FRAC
PERM
, MD
EFF.
PERM,
MD
AREA,
ACRES
WELL
INDEX
Xf, FT
Base
0.10
.00234
0.008
10000
2.63
40
263
250
Cruciform
0.10
.00234
0.008
10000
2.92
40
293
250
30+original
0.10
.00234
0.008
10000
3.49
40
350
500
30+original
0.10
.00234
0.008
10000
2.92
20
758
250
30+original
0.10
.00234
0.008
10000
2.92
10
758
250
FAST
Modeling
Different reservoir
characteristics for lenticular
sands are being examined.
Multiple approaches tried,

which I will discuss.
FAST
Modeling
Original model contained one

layer
Fracture, matrix in the same

space
Problems encountered in gridding

non-orthagonal fractures
Transmissibility introduced
FAST
Modeling
Dual Porosity model

introduced
Flow occurred from fracture to

fracture and matrix to fracture
only
Underprediction of recovery
FAST
Modeling
Finally, Dual Permeability

model applied to scenarios
Matrix-Matrix Flow
Matrix-Fracture Flow
Fracture-Fracture Flow
Natural Fracture system

introduced
FAST
Modeling
Natural fractures in the dual

permeability model
Fracture system and matrix

system operate concurrently, but
separately, in the same space,
and on different planes, with
independent parameters.
FAST
Modeling
With the natural fracture

system, permeability needs to
be scaled down.
In the CMG software
Keff = Kfrac * frac total
FAST
Modeling
frac = Vtf / Vbulk

Vtf = Lres * Hres * Wres * (Wnf/nf spacing)
+ Vhf
For simulation
Vnf = (933*18*933)*(.0016404/7)
Vnf = 3673.37 ft^3
Vbulk = 1.56816*10^7 ft^3
frac = .00234 + Vhf/Vbulk
FAST
Modeling
Kfrac = 10 Darcies to simulate

infinite conductivity
Fcd = Wf*Kf / Kfm*Xf
For simulation
Fcd = (.1*10) / (8*10^-6 * 250)

Fcd = 500 -> essentially infinite
FAST
Modeling
Additional Parameters
Well Index, *WI

WI = (2*k*h*wfrac)/
(LN(Re/Rw)+S)
Re=geofac*(AreaP/*wfrac)^.5
Wfrac=1; geofac=.37; skin=0
FAST
Modeling
A semi-analytical solution has

already been developed to test
numerical solutions for an
infinite-slab reservoir, (Craig,
2006).
Infinite conductivity desirable for

easiest match with analytical
solution
FAST
The Scenarios
A working model is in place, I

am adjusting sensitivities for
the following parameters:
Aspect ratios
Number of fractures
Fracture orientation
Fracture half-length
Fracture conductivity
Reservoir area
FAST
Multiple fracs, year 2
FAST
Single frac, year 2
FAST
Multiple fracs, year 3
FAST
Single Frac, year 3
FAST
Comparison after 10
years
MODEL
Area,
acres
Gas
produced,
mmscf
Gas
remaining,
mmscf
EFF.
PERM,
MD
WELL
INDEX
Xf, FT
Single Frac
10
136.01
42.344
2.92
758
500
30+original
10
147.29
31.061
3.49
906
500
FAST
500 foot fracture, year 2
FAST
FAST
FAST
FAST
Comparison after 10
years
MODEL
Area,
acres
Gas
produced,
mmscf
Gas
remaining,
mmscf
EFF.
PERM,
MD
WELL
INDEX
Xf, FT
30+original
10
147.029
31.061
3.49
906
500
30+original
10
143.73
34.496
2.92
758
250
FAST
Cruciform fracture, year

2
FAST
30 fracture, year 2
FAST
Cruciform fracture, year

3
FAST
30 fracture, year 3
FAST
Comparison after 10 years

MODEL
Area,
acres
Gas
Gas
produced, remaining,
mmscf
mmscf
90+original
40
536.23
30+original
40
461.67
EFF.
PERM,
MD
WELL
INDEX
Xf, FT
892.17
2.92
293
250
966.06
2.92
293
250
FAST
250 foot fracture, 40

acres
FAST

acres
FAST

acres
FAST
Comparison after 10
years
MODEL
Area,
acres
Gas
produced,
mmscf
Gas
remaining,
mmscf
EFF.
PERM,
MD
WELL
INDEX
Xf, FT
30+original
40
461.67
966.06
2.92
293
250
30+original
20
239.13
117.79
2.92
758
250
30+original
10
143.73
34.496
2.92
758
250
FAST
Anisotropy, 1:1
FAST
Anisotropy, 1:10
FAST
Anisotropy, 1:100
FAST
Comparison after 10
years
MODEL
Area,
acres
Gas
Gas
Anisotropy
produced, remaining,
mmscf
mmscf
30+original
10
143.73
34.496
30+original
10
155.54
30+original
10
156.42
WELL
INDEX
Xf, FT
1:1
758
250
22.623
1:10
758
250
21.795
1:100
350
250
FAST
Conclusions
Refracture reorientation has

been theorized, studied in
simulation, and proved possible
Reorientation in lenticular
reservoirs has not been studied
The model has been enhanced
to simulate changes in reservoir
variables
FAST
Conclusions
Final analysis is underway
Numerical/Analytical results
expected shortly
Criteria for selection

candidates will be discussed
FAST
Timeline
Literature
Review
Preliminary
Modeling
Sensitivity
Studies
January
2006
May
2006
January 2007
May
2007
X XX X X
- -- X XX X
X XX X
Project
Completion
FAST
Questions and
Comments
FAST

Refracture Reorientation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Refracture Reorientation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project #3

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Associate Engineer - Colorado

Baker Hughes Inteq

LWD/MWD Engineer Gulf of

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Two types of reorientation

Immediate stress field changes

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

The Mounds experiment

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

From Moschovidis, et al, 2000

The reservoir stress field is altered

The coinciding pore pressure drop

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

In tight sands, the

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

What if this phenomena

This project acts on the

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Perform sensitivity studies on

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Why lenticular reservoirs?

These study areas have been

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Fluvial sands have far less areal

Downspaced to 10 acres in some

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Stress field alignment

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

CMG IMEX simulator

Direct editing through .dat file as

Powerful, yet painless

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Gas/Water model option

Rel Perm, non-Darcy flow

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Introduce a fracture to the

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Project wasnt quite that

So began the process of

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Modeling With Less

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Multiple approaches tried,

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Original model contained one

Fracture, matrix in the same

Problems encountered in gridding

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Dual Porosity model

Flow occurred from fracture to

Project #3: Refracture Reorientation

Finally, Dual Permeability

Natural Fracture system

Fcd = WfKf / KfmXf

Fcd = (.110) / (810^-6 * 250)