Spe 76812 Lest Z Paper
Spe 76812 Lest Z Paper
Spe 76812 Lest Z Paper
net/publication/250088986
CITATIONS READS
7 159
4 authors, including:
Robert Lestz
Chevron
16 PUBLICATIONS 44 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Robert Lestz on 22 June 2016.
Implementation
An ideal opportunity to test the new “perforating for stimulation”
philosophy arose when Well B was drilled. Well B was the eighth
well drilled on its lease. All seven previous wells had perforations
in the majority of the pay, which always included the best-quality
reservoir. Well A was the best of the first seven wells and repre-
sented the best comparison to Well B. Table 2 shows the comparison
of log properties for both wells. A meaningful comparison of the
permeabilities was not possible because of the limited perforation
interval in Well B compared to Well A and because of the strati-
graphic nature of the reservoir, which limited vertical communication.
The openhole logs in Fig. 4 show the perforated intervals for
each well in the depth track with dark, solid lines. As seen in Fig.
Quartz gauge
4, both wells had similar sand qualities and demonstrated the dif-
ference in “perforating for production” and “perforating for stimu-
lation.” Well B was perforated in the lower sand section just above
a siltstone to take advantage of possible proppant bridging and
gravity settling and to ensure good conductivity at the perforations. Strain gauge
When the fracture closes, the fluid will migrate to the more per-
meable sands above the perforations, and gravity will help keep the
shale sections propped for communication to the upper sand se-
quences. If the 5-ft perforated interval had been at the top of the
sand sequence instead of the bottom, any settling from gravity
would have reduced the fracture conductivity near the wellbore.
Immediate flowback can also be used to optimize proppant distri- Fig. 5—Perforating gun with bottomhole gauge.
bution by accelerating closure.
The completion design for Well B started with reviewing the
production history and stimulation treatments of the previous mine the fracture geometry and the ability to effectively stimulate
seven wells on the lease. Treatments ranged between 100,000 to the entire sand package. Different perforated intervals were used to
500,000 lb of proppant. Proppant types also varied from resin- better understand the proppant distribution before selecting where
coated to lightweight ceramics. A production simulator was used to perforate. A comparison of the actual stimulation for both wells
to determine the optimum fracture length and conductivity for is shown in Table 3.
Well B. This identified that length was critical, along with con- The perforating scheme for Well B was to shoot a 5-ft section
necting all the vertical layers. Well B would be “perforated for of poor-quality pay above a silty section at the bottom of the pay.
stimulation.” Several 3D fracture simulations were run to deter- The perforating charges consisted of deep-penetrating and big-
hole, each loaded with 4 shots/ft with 60° phasing. A pressure loading, and breaker schedule [from the bottomhole temperature
gauge was attached below the perforating guns to record reservoir (BHT)], and horsepower requirements.
pressure and temperature.
A schematic of the perforating-gun assembly is shown in Fig. 5.
Results
The first gun shot was the 5-ft, deep-penetrating charges to ensure
effective communication with the reservoir. Before repositioning Comparison of the prefracture production rates shown in Fig. 7
the guns, a 1-hour build was obtained to quantify reservoir pres- clearly demonstrates the difference in “perforating for production”
sure and permeability. The second gun shot the same 5-ft interval vs. “perforating for stimulation.” Well A was “perforated for pro-
with big-hole charges. The big-hole charges would provide perfo- duction,” and initial production exceeded 5 MMcf/D at 3,000 psi
rations large enough to accept 16-30 proppant at higher sand con- before the fracture treatment. Well B’s prefracture production
centrations during the fracture stimulation. A breakdown and mi- reached 660 Mcf/D at 1,250 psi, which was almost one order of
crofracture was performed at bbl/min to determine the fracture- magnitude less than Well A.
extension pressure and to gather falloff data to determine the Well B outperformed Well A, as shown by post-stimulation
closure stress for the perforated interval. The data obtained from production in Fig. 8. Post-stimulation production clearly indicated
the bottomhole gauges are shown in Fig. 6. that the entire interval was stimulated with sufficient fracture
The information gathered from this microfracture was then height. These results convinced team members that “perforating
used in the 3D fracture simulator to optimize treatment design, gel for stimulation” did not have a detrimental effect on well perfor-
mance. However, the prefracture reservoir characterization was B was completed, a future workover was anticipated to confirm
limited to the perforated interval. that the fracture would effectively drain the entire pay interval,
The cumulative production curves in Fig. 8 show the long-term as predicted.
performance of both wells and concludes that Well B continues to
outperform Well A. Following the stimulation, a tracer survey Confirmation of Depletion
showed that only one-third of the interval was treated; production
An opportunity to confirm that the “perforating for stimulation”
indicates that this is not likely. This infers that fractures are usually
completion method was effectively draining the reservoir occurred
tilted away from the wellbore, which, in long perforated intervals,
when Well B encountered a casing leak. When production could
can have a negative effect on post-fracture production (Fig. 9).
not be restored in the original 5-ft interval because of mud damage,
Fig. 10 shows the rate vs. cumulative production and indicates that
a plugback to the best-quality interval commenced. Before plug-
boundaries were encountered in both wells after approximately 1
ging back the well, a bottomhole survey determined the reservoir
billion ft3 of production. This infers that both wells are producing
pressure to be 1,968 psi. The original perforations were then iso-
from similar drainage areas.** Fig. 10 confirms that Well B was
lated, and perforations were added in the upper Lobo. The new
more effectively stimulated when compared to Well A. When Well
perforations were located where the tracer survey indicated that the
initial stimulation had not treated, as shown in Fig. 11. The analy-
sis of the pressure data acquired while adding these perforations
** Personal communication with Raymond Wong, Chevron, Houston (1999). indicated that the reservoir pressure was 2,300 psi. Fig. 12 illus-
Conclusions
1. “Perforating for stimulation” should be the rule for formations
that require stimulation.
2. Perforating a small interval enhances the ability to stimulate wells.
3. Perforating a small interval did not adversely effect production
in the stimulated well.
4. Perforating in the low-permeability section did not impact post-
stimulation production.
5. The placement of perforations toward the bottom of the pay
interval offers multiple benefits.
6. Fracture height growth does occur, as predicted by 3D fracture-
simulation models.
7. Tracer logs can be misleading in determining height growth
when fractures are tilted in reference to the wellbore.
Fig. 10—Rate vs. cumulative production comparison for Wells A 8. “Perforating for stimulation” provides an opportunity to suc-
and B. cessfully reestablish production when perforations are damaged.
Acknowledgments
trates the difference in pressure response from initial and subse- The authors wish to thank Chevron USA Production Co. and Hal-
quent perforations. In addition to the lower reservoir pressure, the liburton Energy Services Inc. for permission to publish this paper.
fracturing properties also confirmed that the original interval “per- Appreciation is extended to Tom Neely and Mike Beckman for
forated for stimulation” had effectively drained the entire reser- their cooperation in testing the “perforating for stimulation”
voir. Table 4 compares the key reservoir and fracture properties method. We also acknowledge the graphics contributions from
between the original and the new set of perforations. As expected, Leen Weijers and Chris Wright.
a change in the fracture gradient and closure stress was observed
when the reservoir pressure was decreased. References
A fracture was designed for the new set of perforations when 1. Bain, R.C.: “Chevron Celebrates 25 Years in the Laredo Lobo Trend,”
the unstimulated production did not achieve the rates before the internal memo, Chevron (October 1998).
casing leak. Because of the lower reservoir pressure, a greater 2. “Advanced Stimulation Technology Deployment Program,” final re-
stress contrast existed, and a smaller job was pumped. This job port GRI-97/0029, Gas Research Inst. (1997).
consisted of 100,000 lb of 16-30 proppant and 850 bbl of a low-gel 3. Daneshy, A.A.: “The Study of Inclined Hydraulic Fractures,” SPEJ
loading fluid. After cleaning up, production steadily increased to (April 1973) 61.
GR Porosity
SB IR SC
9,000
8,000
Pressure, psi
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5
Time, hours
First perforating Second perforating