SPE-175914-MS

AOF Analysis of One Shale Gas Play

Wei Pang, Sinopec Research Institute of Petroleum Engineering; Cuiping Xin, Research Institute of Shaanxi
Yanchang Petroleum (Group) Co., Ltd.; Juan Du, Ying He, and Jun Mao, Sinopec Research Institute of
Petroleum Engineering

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/CSUR Unconventional Resources Conference held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 20 22 October 2015.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
China is believed to own the worlds largest shale gas reserve and is the third country to exploit shale gas
breakthrough in the world. Fuling gas play in Sichuan basin is one typical shale gas reservoir in China
gaining good production performance, and the absolute open flow capacity (AOF) of some wells reaches
as high as 1.5 million cubic meters per day. However, we still havent get good understanding of AOF
to evaluate the producing potential and performance of hydraulic fracturing in Fuling shale gas play.
In order to quantify the influence of parameters on AOF, statistical analyses are conducted on fourteen
parameters including formation porosity, total organic carbon (TOC), injected fluid volume, injected
proppant volume, injected fluid volume per stage, injected proppant volume per stage, proppant concentration, fractured stages, and fractured clusters, horizontal lateral length, angle between horizontal lateral
and minimum stress direction, cumulative production in the first three months, stimulated reservoir
volume (SRV) and flowback recovery in the first three months.
Results show that six parameters including cumulative gas in first three months, angle between
horizontal lateral and minimum stress direction, SRV, TOC, porosity and injected fluid volume show
relative strong correlation with AOF with coefficient bigger than 0.50. The influence of the other nine
parameters on AOF is very weak, and the coefficient between AOF and water flowback recovery in early
days is even as small as 0.11.
AOF is negatively correlated to three parameters including proppant volume per stage, proppant
concentration, and angle between horizontal lateral and minimum stress direction. The negative influence
of proppant concentration on AOF may have been caused by ineffective fractures (networks), and a
positive correlation can be expected if proppants are injected into sweet points that meet the geology and
engineering requirements and improved stimulation techniques with better performance of fracture
propagation control. The angle between horizontal lateral and minimum stress direction is suggested to be
less than 20 in order to get bigger AOF. AOF is positively correlated to the other eleven parameters. High
TOC, porosity, injected fluid volume are good indication of high AOF.

SPE-175914-MS

Introduction
On the basis of released data of technically recoverable shale gas sources from the U.S Energy
Information Administration (EIA) or the Ministry of Land and Resources of China, China owns the
worlds largest shale gas reserves (Ministry of Land and Resources of China, 2010; EIA, 2013; Wang
Zhigang, 2014, 2015), 25 1012m3, which are 10 times more than Chinas current proven conventional
gas reserves.
Chinas shale gas resources are widely spreaded in Sichuan, Tarim, Junggar, Jianghan, Songliao and
other basins (Fig.1). Currently, Chinas shale gas exploration and development are mainly focused on
three marine shales formations in and around Sichuan basin including the Silurian Longmaxi, the
Cambrian age Qiongzhusi, and Niutitang.

Figure 1Major Shale Gas Basin in China

Figure 2Sichuan Basin in China (from EIA, 2013)

Fuling shale gas reservoir is Chinas first commercially industrial developed shale gas play. It is located
in Sichuan basin. The major productive formations are Lower Silurian Longmaxi and Ordovician Wufeng.
Its buried over 2,500 meters and target formation thickness is 89 meters, among which, high-graded shale
gas play takes 38 meters (Lu Baoping, 2013; Zeng Yijin, 2014). The average porosity is about 4%. The
formation temperature is about 85 C and formation pressure varies from 36 to 40 MPa. By the end of
2014, 136 wells have been drilled and 75 wells have been put on production. Nearly all the wells are

SPE-175914-MS

horizontal wells with multiple transverse fractures (MTFW). The horizontal lateral lengths are from 1000
to 2000 meters. About 60% of the wells are fractured 16 to 20 stages (Fig.3), with 30 to 40 103 m3 of
injected fluid (Fig.4) and 500 to 1100 m3 of injected proppants (Fig.5). The pilot area of Fuling shale gas
play has about 20 wells and it will be the target area for this paper.

Figure 3Fractured Stages in Fuling Shale Play

Figure 4 Injected Fluid Volume in Fuling Shale Play

Figure 5Injected Proppant Volume in Fuling Shale Play

SPE-175914-MS

Influence of Formation, Stimulation and Well Parameters on AOF

AOF is an important parameter to characterize the highest potential for conventional oil & gas reservoirs.
It needs a long time to get boundary dominated flow (BDF) for shale gas wells; therefore, its hard to
obtain an accurate AOF that can reflect the flow capacity of shale formation. However, AOF can depict
the flow in or near hydraulic fractures zone for shale gas wells, which make us to evaluate the performance
of hydraulic fracturing.
In Fuling shale gas play, AOF varies from 100 103m3 to 1500 103m3. In order to see the influence
of parameters on AOF and find the ones who impose stronger effect on AOF, three kinds of parameters
are analyzed based on field data:

Formation parameters including formation porosity and TOC;

Stimulation parameters including injected fluid volume, injected proppant volume, injected fluid
volume per stage, injected proppant volume per stage, proppant concentration, fractured stages,
and fractured clusters;
Well parameters including horizontal lateral length, angle between horizontal lateral and minimum
stress direction, cumulative production in the first three months, and flowback recovery in the first
three months.

Figure 6 AOF of Fuling Shale Gas Wells

Influence of Formation Parameters on AOF

AOF present positive correlation with both porosity and TOC (Fig.7 and Fig.8). The correlation
coefficients of AOF vs. porosity and AOF vs. TOC are 0.61 and 0.62 separately, so porosity and TOC has
nearly the same influence on AOF.

SPE-175914-MS

Figure 7Relationship between AOF and Porosity

Figure 8 Relationship between AOF and TOC

Influence of Stimulation Parameters on AOF

AOF is positively correlated with injected fluid volume and proppant volume (Fig.9 and Fig.10), but the
correlation is weak with correlation coefficients of 0.56 and 0.30, individually. AOF is more sensitive to
injected fluid volume than proppant volume.

Figure 9 Relationship between AOF and Fluid Volume

SPE-175914-MS

Figure 10 Relationship between AOF and Proppant Volume

As we couldnt get satisfying correlation between AOF and fluid volume and proppant volume, we
wonder whether relationships can be better if we divide the fluid volume and proppant volume by
fractured stages, as shown in Fig.11 and Fig.12. However, the relationships get worse with correlation
coefficients of 0.34 and 0.28, and the injected proppant volume per stage even presents negative
correlation with AOF.

Figure 11Relationship between AOF and Fluid Volume per Stage

Figure 12Relationship between AOF and Proppant Volume per Stage

SPE-175914-MS

Fig.13 shows the relationship between AOF and proppant concentration. Unexpectedly, AOF shows
negative correlation with proppant concentration. If we put Fig.10, Fig.12 and Fig.13 together, we can
infer that some proppants may not have played their role in creating fractures (networks). Or, the fractures
(networks) were indeed created, but some dont contribute to gas flow, so they are ineffective fractures.
Therefore, the AOF may be positively correlated to proppant concentration if all proppants are injected
into sweet points that meet the geology and engineering requirements. Also, the stimulation technique
may still have room for improvement to make effective fractures (networks).

Figure 13Relationship between AOF and Proppant Concentration

Fig.14 and Fig.15 show the relationships of AOF vs. fractured stages and AOF vs. fractured clusters.
AOF is positively correlated with stages and clusters. The clusters have slightly relative stronger influence
on AOF (with coefficient of 0.49) than that of stages (with coefficient of 0.45).

Figure 14 Relationship between AOF and Stages

SPE-175914-MS

Figure 15Relationship between AOF and Clusters

Influence of Well Parameters on AOF

Fig.16 shows the relationship between AOF and horizontal lateral length. AOF is positively correlated
with horizontal lateral length with correlation coefficient of 0.47.

Figure 16 Relationship between AOF and Horizontal Lateral Length

Fig.17 is the relationship between AOF and angle between horizontal lateral and minimum stress
direction. AOF is negatively related to the angle with a relative high correlation coefficient of 0.63. The
angle is suggested to be less than 20 in order to get bigger AOF.

SPE-175914-MS

Figure 17Relationship between AOF and Angle between Horizontal Lateral and Minimum Stress Direction

Fig. 18 illustrates the relationship between AOF and cumulative gas production in the first three
months. AOF is positively correlated to the cumulative production. Compared with that of other
parameters, the cumulative gas production shows relatively stronger influence on AOF with the correlation coefficient of 0.75. Therefore, we can expect high cumulative production once we get high AOF.

Figure 18 Relationship between AOF and Cumulative Production in First Three Months

Fig.19 demonstrates the relationship between AOF and SRV. The SRV is estimated from production
rate and pressure transient analysis. The SRV presents positive correlation with AOF with coefficient of
0.63. Thus, although AOF may only reflect the gas flow capacity in fractures or near fractures zone for
shale gas wells because the testing duration is usually not long enough, we may still have a quick
qualitative estimation of SRV from AOF.

10

SPE-175914-MS

Figure 19 Relationship between AOF and SRV

Fig.20 shows the relationship between AOF and water flowback recovery in the first three months.
Because the coefficient is as small as 0.0045, we could say that the flowback recovery in early production
days has little effect on AOF.

Figure 20 Relationship between AOF and Water Flowback Recovery in First Three Months

All the correlation coefficients of the correlation equations of AOF and 14 parameters are tabulated in
Table 1.

Table 1Correlation Coefficients for Equations of AOF and Related Parameters

Parameters

Correlation coefficient

Parameters

Correlation coefficient

Porosity
TOC
Injected fluid volume
Injected proppant volume
Injected fluid volume per stage
Injected proppant volume per stage
Proppant concentration

0.61
0.62
0.56
0.30
0.34
0.28
0.38

Fractured stages
Fractured clusters
Horizontal lateral length
Angle between horizontal lateral and minimum stress direction
Cumulative gas in first three months
SRV
Flowback recovery in first three months

0.45
0.49
0.47
0.63
0.75
0.63
0.0045

SPE-175914-MS

11

Conclusions
In order to quantify the influence of parameters on AOF of the pilot wells in Fuling shale gas play,
statistical analyses are conducted on three kinds of parameters including formation, stimulation, and well
parameters.

Formation parameters: formation porosity and TOC;

Stimulation parameters: injected fluid volume, injected proppant volume, injected fluid volume
per stage, injected proppant volume per stage, proppant concentration, fractured stages, and
fractured clusters;
Well parameters: horizontal lateral length, angle between horizontal lateral and minimum stress
direction, cumulative production in the first three months, SRV and flowback recovery in the first
three months.
By the influence on AOF in descending order, the parameters are cumulative gas in first three months,
angle between horizontal lateral and minimum stress direction, SRV, TOC, porosity, injected fluid
volume, fractured clusters, horizontal lateral length, fractured stages, proppant concentration, injected
fluid volume per stage, injected proppant volume, injected proppant volume per stage, and flowback
recovery in first three months.
The first six parameters have relative strong correlation with AOF with coefficient bigger than 0.50.
The influence of the other nine parameters on AOF is very weak, and the coefficient between AOF and
water flowback recovery in early days is even as small as 0.0045.
The AOF is negatively correlated to three parameters including proppant volume per stage, proppant
concentration, and angle between horizontal lateral and minimum stress direction. The negative influence
of proppant concentration on AOF may have been caused by ineffective fractures (networks), and a
positive correlation can be expected if proppants are injected into sweet points that meet the geology and
engineering requirements and improved stimulation techniques with better performance of fracture
propagation control. The angle between horizontal lateral and minimum stress direction is suggested to be
less than 20 in order to get bigger AOF.
The AOF is positively correlated to the other eleven parameters. High TOC, porosity, injected fluid
volume are good indication of high AOF.

Acknowledgement
Financial support from SINOPEC project (No. P14056 and P13088) is gratefully acknowledged. The
authors would like to thank Sinopec Research Institute of Petroleum Engineering (SRIPE) for the
permission to publish this paper.

References
Scott H. Stevens, Keith D. Moodhe, and Vello A. Kuuskraa. 2013. China Shale Gas and Shale Oil
Resource Evaluation and Technical Challenges. Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 22-24 October. SPE-165832-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/165832-MS.
Ministry of Land and Resources of China. 2010. National Oil and Gas Resource Assessment (in
Chinese). China: China Land Press.
Wang Zhigang, Sun Jian. 2014. Practice and Understanding of Pilot Well Block Development in
Fuling Shale Gas Play (in Chinese). China: Sinopec Press. ISBN-13: 978-7-5114-3147-9.
Wang Zhigang. 2015. Breakthrough of Fuling Shale Gas Exploration and Development and Its
Inspiration (in Chinese). Oil & Gas Geology, 36(1): 16.

12

SPE-175914-MS

Lu Baoping. 2013. Sinopec Engineering Technical Advance and Its Developing Tendency in Shale
Gas (in Chinese). Petroleum Drilling Techniques, 41(05): 18.
Zeng Yijin. 2014. Integration Technology of Geology & Engineering for Shale Gas Development (in
Chinese). Petroleum Drilling Techniques, 42(1): 16.
Niu Xinming. 2014. Drilling Technology Challenges and Resolutions in Fuling Shale Gas Field (in
Chinese). Petroleum Drilling Techniques, 42(4): 16.
Nie Haikuan, Zhang Jinchuan, Li Yuxi. 2011. Accumulation Conditions of The Lower Cambrian
Shale Gas in the Sichuan Basin and Its Periphery (in Chinese). Acta Petrolei Sinica, 32(6):
959 967.
Zou Caineng, Dong Dazhong, Wang Shejiao, et al 2010. Geological Characteristics, Formation
Mechanisisman and Resource Potential of Shale Gas in China (in Chinese). Petroleum Exploration
and Development, 37(6): 641651.
Jia Chengzao, Zheng Min, Zhang Yongfeng. 2014. Unconventional Hydrocarbon Resources in China
and the Prospect of Exploration and Development (in Chinese). Petroleum Exploration and
Development, 39(2): 199 208.
Carl W. Neuhaus., Mary Ellison, Cherie Telker, and Keith Blair. 2014. Drainage Estimation and
Proppant Placement Evaluation from Microseismic Data. Presented at the SPE/EAGE European
Unconventional Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, 25-27 February. SPE-167685-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/167685-MS.
Zhang X., Holland M., W. van der Zee, and Moos D. 2014. Microseismic Estimates of Stimulated
Rock Volume Using a Detection Range Bias Correction: Theory and Case Study. Presented at the
SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 4-6 February.
SPE-168580-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/168580-MS.
Nick Bahrami, David Pena, Lan Lusted. 2014. Welltest and Rate Transient Analysis for SRV
Characterization in Shale Oil and Shale Gas Reservoirs: Field Examples from Eagle Ford Shale.
Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA,
46 February. SPE-167800-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/167800-MS.
Khalifa Mohammed, Yemez Ivan, Stigliano Horacio, Vicente Sekulin Mario, Angulo Reinaldo. 2010.
Comparison of Different Deliverability Testing Techniques in Low Permeability Gas Reservoir
And Its Impact on the Absolute Open Flow (AOF) Estimation. Presented at the SPE EUROPEC/
EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Barcelona, Spain, 14-17 June. SPE-130552-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/130552-MS.