Oil Initial Production, STB/D Predicting Initial Production of Granite Wash Horizontal Wells Using Old Well Logs and Cores 13 November 2014 Granite Wash Workshop Strong correlation, eh? 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0.01 0.1 1 Production Indicator from vertical logs Authors: Narayan Nair, Matt Padgham, Jerome 1
Method and Outline for Talk Determine production contribution log (IP FOM) Based on volumetrics and permeability Petrophysics and Log Analysis Steps Sum over a reservoir interval and upscale to reservoir-scale permeability derived from well production data (PI parameter) Use PI to predict initial production of potential horizontal wells Generate maps of PI parameter Compare to production data Note: more slides are included here than will be covered in the talk. Twelve-Step Granite Wash Log Analysis Groundwork 1. Geology discussions 2. Core & cuttings study 3. Log triage and repair 4. GR & neutron environmental corrections 5. Facies analysis Calculations 6. VShale 7. Total & effective porosity 8. Saturation 9. Permeability & production 10. Flagging 11. Summations 12. Fraccability 4 2
1a 1b 3
1c 1d) Tx panhandle granite wash characteristics Source material is mostly uplifted Paleozoic sediments & carbonate, plus Precambrian granite, diabase, and granodiorite. There are a few thin beds of limestone and shale interspersed. Composition varies widely. The depositional environment is primarily stacked deltas, river channels, and turbidites. Paleoslopes range from steep to quiescent. There are many beds that contain re-worked material. Feldspar content, grain size, and alteration vary widely and wildly, vertically and areally. Chorite is ubiquitous. Reservoirs are often separated by 10-30 ft thick marine and terrestrial shales and flooding deposits. 4
1e) Tx panhandle granite wash exploitation There are about 100,000 vertical wells through the granite wash; many reach below to the Morrow and other horizons. Perms of present-day reservoirs are typically near 500 nd. Two or three 5000-ft laterals are typically drilled per section in one horizon. There are often stacked laterals. Slickwater fracs appear to be the most effective. Fraccing severely bashes adjacent producing wells where pressures have been lowered. Prospecting is done by sifting through production data and old logs. Recently there has been some drilling of pilot holes, or vertical holes before the turn, with coring and logging. 1g) box 12 5
1f) box 11 1h) box 10 6
Core perm (md) 1i) core and hi-res log 13 2a) Core permeability vs porosity Slope: 3 p.u. per log cycle Intercept: Tuning Parameter 0.1000 0.0100 y = 0.0001e 51.4x R² = 0.96 Slope: 5 p.u. per log cycle 0.0010 14 Klinkenberg 0.0001 0.0000 0.0200 0.0400 0.0600 0.0800 0.1000 Core Porosity 7
2b) More core permeability 15 2c) What is core porosity? Th K 8
2d) What is core porosity? RHOB NPHI TPOR EPOR 1 7 2e) Volume fractions of a formation Dry Solids V drysolids or 1- f t Total porosity - f t Wet Solids V wetsolids or 1- f e Effective porosity - f e Matrix V matrix Dry Clays & Silt V dcs Claybound water V wb Capillarybound water V cap Free water V wf Oil V oil Gas V gas 1- V sh - f e Shale - V sh Effective water - V we Hydrocarbons - V hc Total water - V wt S wt = V wt / f t S we = V we / f e Total irreducible water - BVIW Free Fluid FFI or f f 9
3a) Triage: Decent log 3b) Triage: Jumpy log 10
4e) Log Facies based on six wells Use Buckles plot to assess irreducible water for log facies Include results in Tixier or Coates perm calculations Proximal Distal Twelve-Step Granite Wash Log Analysis Groundwork 1. Geology discussions 2. Core & cuttings study 3. Log triage and repair 4. GR & neutron environmental corrections 5. Facies analysis Calculations 6. VShale 7. Total & effective porosity 8. Saturation 9. Permeability & production 10. Flagging 11. Summations 12. Fraccability 2 2 11
9) Definitions Log curve IP FOM = PI h k fs Indicator i r h Log summation across interval PI h k fs Indicator i r h Example 1a 2 4 12
Example 1b 2 5 Example 2 Th K 13
Example 3 Example 4 (sorry about the poor resolution) 14
Oil IP, STB/D Reservoir Accounting 1. The initial production rates of a horizontal well in linear flow will be driven primarily by a lumped parameter J lt, which is dependent on both rock quality (perm k) and stimulation effectiveness (total frac surface area A f ), and pressure drawdown imposed on the well. 2. For comparing wells of similar initial reservoir pressures we can skip normalizing the initial formation volume factor B i, initial viscosity μ i, and approximate initial total compressibility c ti using hydrocarbon saturation S h. The permeability k r is effective to primary hydrocarbon phase. 3. The flow rate of each flow unit (i) will be proportional to the net pay h, the fracture half-length propagated in each unit x f, and its flow capacity. Fracture design related variations in x f can be modeled as needed, for simplicity assume rectangular geometry equal in all units. 4. Early life total flow rate in in tight reservoirs is the sum of the individual flow units; ignore crossflow. The total well rate is the sum of the net pay and flow capacity of each flow unit. For simplicity, the flow units can be the log sampling interval ½ feet intervals. 5. The productivity index indicator is defined and in LINE s experience is correlated to well performance; and can be used as a rock quality index. 6. The upscaled* values of permeability can be calculated from the PI indicator for the tuning to well production results. Q J P IP lt J A k fc lt f r ti 1 B q x h k fs i fi i r h q h k fs T i r h PI h k fs k * Indicator i r h 1 PIindicator * * Sh h f i i 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 Review SPE 139097, 166468, and 166468 for theory and methods to normalize 29 pressure drawdown, and completion practices. SPE 139097, 162843, 166468 Lookback Hz. Kansas City Oil Program 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0.01 0.1 1 P.I. Indicator 30 The Kansas City is a matrix-flow dominated prolific reservoir in the Granite Wash play in Wheeler TX. Identical completion practices and pressure drawdown was used in Linn operated wells. Clear correlation between highest oil production rates seen in these hz. wells compared to log-calculated productivity index. 15
Gas IP (Mcf/d) IP and Net Pay comparison Net Pay Isopach IP map 31 14,000 12,000 10,000 Dyco Granite Wash A Example IP vs. Productivity Indicator Initial correlation based on 3 wells with data. Existing Wells Productivity Estimate Linear (Existing Wells) y = 19455x R² = 0.8579 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Productivity Indicator= Net Pay * Sqrt(Epor x K* x Shc) LOG BASED PRODUCTIVITY 3 2 16
UpscaledPermeability from 3 PU/Decade Transform (md) WELL PRODUCTIVITY / LB PROPPANT Af*Sqrt(k)/Mp 30 Dyco Granite Wash A Example Log Estimated vs. Actual Productivity Single Wells Increased Density Wells Linear (Single Wells) Linear (Increased Density Wells) 25 20 Single wells exhibit increased productivity that suggests significant contribution from natural fractures. y = 36.612x R² = 0.7634 15 y = 19.429x R² = 0.398 10 5 0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Productivity Indicator= Net Pay * Sqrt(Epor x K* x Shc) LOG BASED PRODUCTIVITY 3 3 0.001000 Dyco Granite Wash B Permeability Upscaling Upscaled Perm = 10 (33.3 Porosity Effective 5.6) 0.000800 0.000600 0.000400 Most likely perms based on 75% cluster efficiency 0.000200 Perm range of 200-600 nd observed 0.000000 0.000000 0.000200 0.000400 0.000600 0.000800 0.001000 Permeability From Rate Transient Analysis (md) 17
2 Stream IP (MMCFE/D) 30 Day Peak Gas Rate (Mcfpd) 16000 Dyco Granite Wash B PI Indicator vs. Peak Rate PI Indicator vs. Peak Gas Rate (Mcfpd) Peak 30 Day Rate (Mcfpd) Linear (Peak 30 Day Rate (Mcfpd)) 14000 12000 y = 13749x R² = 0.5402 10000 8000 6000 4000 2009 Completion 2 nd or 3 rd Well in Section Damage (Low FCD) 2000 35 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Productivity Index= Net Pay x Sqrt(Epor x k* x SHC) 16 Dyco Britt PI Indicator 2 Stream IP vs PI Indicator - Britt 14 12 10 8 6 First Wells Second Wells Linear (First Wells) 4 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 PI Indicator (scaled) 36 18
30 Day IP Rate (Mcfpd) Stiles Ranch GWB Productivity Estimate- IP Indicator STILES RANCH GWB 7000 PRODUCERS Linear (PRODUCERS) 6000 5000 4000 y = 0.97x R² = 0.6166 3000 2000 1000 37 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Log Based IP Prediction (Mcfpd) Conclusions Maps based on PI can be used as supplements to more traditional net pay maps. PI is a valuable predictor of performance of proposed wells. This concept has been used over the past few years to improve bottom line success. 19