Lecture 19 - Final For Posting - Reservoir Geomechanics Standford

Reservoir Geomechanics
In situ stress and rock mechanics applied to reservoir processes

Mark D.
Professor of

Zoback

Geophysics

Week 10 Lecture 19
Geomechanics of Shale Gas/Tight Oil - 2
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Outline
Section 1
Shale Permeability and Desorption
Section 2
Slow Slip on Faults and Permeability
Enhancement
Section 3
Modeling Reservoir Stimulation
Section 4
Watch out for Faults
Section 5
Environmental Protection
2

Barnett Shale Production

Average Monthly Well Production
Barnett Shale
Valko and Lee (2010)

Extended Exponential Model
SPE 134231
Persistent Production
Will These Wells Last 25-30 Years?

3

Why Is Production Persistent?

Average Monthly Well Production
Barnett Shale
Valko and Lee (2010)

Extended Exponential Model
SPE 134231
Are Diffusion and Desorption
Contributing to
Persistent Production?

Is Desorption Important?
R.J. Heller, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University (2012)

5

Is Desorption Important?
R.J. Heller, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University (2012)


Is Slip Flow Important?

Slippage Effects and Diffusion
Klinkenberg, 1941
bk
k a = k0 1 +
p

Permeability System
Gas
QX-6000 Pump

Hydrostatic
Pressure Vessel
Pressure
Generator
Permeability Test Sequence
10

Permeability and Effective Stress
11

Isolating Slip Flow at Low Pressure
12

Isolating Slip Flow at Low Pressure
13

To What Extent Does Slip Flow

Contribute to Production?

Slip flow contributes appreciably to total

flow at pore pressure <800 psi
Slip flow is sometimes more important
than Darcy flow at pore pressure <500
psi
As we increase effective stress for a given
pore pressure, we narrow the pore
aperture and the relative contribution
of diffusion increases
14
Eagle Ford Shale Pore Structure
Kohli and Zoback (in prep)

15

Effective Pore Size vs. Effective Stress
16c 2 RT
w=
k b M
Pore width decreases with increasing effective stress

Pore widths range from 20-40nm in Marcellus and Barnett samples, ~130
nm in Eagle Ford
Klinkenberg pore sizes consistent with SEM images
16

MicroCT Image of Eagle Ford Shale
TOC
TOC + porosity
200 m
A.H. Kohli (in prep)
Outline
Section 1
Section 2
Enhancement
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
18

5 5 Wells 50 Stages,
~ 100 Microearthquakes/Stages
Microseismic fault patches

MW
-1.0
MW
-1.5
MW
4000 ft
-2.0
~100 m

~200 m

Well A
Well
WellB
N
Map View
Well E
Well D
~100 m

Rock volume affected by one

fracturing stage
4000 ft
19

Production Does Not Correlate

with Microseismicity
Dan Moos et al.

SPE 145849
20

Long Period Long Duration Seismic Events
Slowly Slipping Faults
22

Microearthquakes and Spectragrams
Vr ~ 2 km/s

tr ~ 0.5 ms


aaaa
23

Long period (below 80 Hz) long duration (10-100
s) events detected in the spectrograms
LPLD waveforms after band-pass

filtering from 10-80 Hz
104

350 s

Tectonic tremor waveforms from Vancouver
Island, Central Range (Taiwan) and the SAF (Peng
and Gomberg, 2010)


350 s

24
LPLD Events in Two Barnett Shale Data Sets
25


LPLD event locations in Barnett 2

LPLD event locations in Barnett 1

SHma
x
SHmax
Recordin
g Well 2
Treatment
well 2
A
N
SHma
Map View

D
E
Recordin
g Well 1
Treatment
well 1
SHma
x
26

How Big Are LPLD Slow Slipping Faults?
Spectral Division

80s

-3
Corner Freq. ~ 30 Hz
1s


1 sec window ~M -1
~ 60 sec LPLD ~M 0
27
Earthquake/Fault Scaling Relationships
Earthquake Magnitude
7
6
5
4
Major: can cause serious damage over large areas.
1020
Strong: can be destructive in populated areas
1018
Moderate: can cause damage to poorly constructed buildings

largest
Guy, AR
event
Noticeable shaking but damage is unlikely

Minor: felt but does not cause damage
1014
3
2
1012
1010
LPLD
event
-1
108
106
-2
-3
1016
Earthquake Moment (Nm)
100
101
Fault Patch Size (m)


102
103
104
10
5
28
Implications of Spatial Variations in Pressure

a

7

8

9

Shear Stress (Mpa)

9
c

6

3

0

18
42

26
8
16
24

Critical P
(Mpa)

34
Normal Stress (Mpa)

Shear Stress (Mpa)

29

Slowly Slipping Faults II Poorly Oriented Faults
1
fluid or pressure

fault surface

1
fast

no slip

*

30

Outline
Section 1
Section 2
Enhancement
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
31

IIf We Cant Us Microseismicity, How Do We

Build a Useful DFN Reservoir Model?
Microseismic fault patches

MW -1.0
MW -1.5
4000 ft
MW -2.0
~100 m

~200 m

Well A
Well B
Well C
N
Map View
Well E
Well D
~100 m

Rock volume affected by one

fracturing stage
4000 ft
32

Creating a Discrete Fracture Network
33

Creating a Discrete Fracture Network

One
HF per Stage
All
Fractures
Percolating Fractures
Before Stimulation
After Stimulation
After Stimulation
Including Evolution
34

Geomechanically Constrained DFN Models

Heel of
the well

Stage 7

Stage 6

Stage 5

Stage 4

Stage 3

Stage 2

Stage 1

Toe of
the well

35

Geomechanically Constrained DFN Models

Linear Gas Flow into a Fracture
Cumulative flow into the
fracture over time t

2
Pr2 Pbhf
= A
Ps
m kmc f
A Fracture area

Pr Reservoir pressure

Pbhf Bottom hole flowing pr

Ps Surface pressure

cf Gas compressibility

Km Matrix permeability

m Matrix porosity

Gas viscosity

Flow rate into a fracture scales with fracture area

36

What About the Assumption of Fracture Length?
n

n

n

37

Hydraulic Fractures at Every Perforation
38

Concentrate Stimulation in Parts of the

Reservoir with Pre-Existing Faults
Devonian Shale Northeastern U.S.

Micro seismicity
Correlation of Flow with

Fractures not Meqs
Natural Fracture /
Joint Density
Ports
Packers
Dan Moos et al.

SPE 145849

Production from PLT
Outline
Section 1
Section 2
Enhancement
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
40

Fractures are Good, but Faults Can be Problematic
Yi (Alec) Yang, Stanford PhD Thesis (2013)

41

Three Unusual Observations

1. Stimulation in stage 4 of well X initiates an increase in
pressure in well Y, associated with microseismic events
along well Y.
2. Microseismic events occur at two formations: the Bakken,

and ~800 ft above in the Mission Canyon (MC).
3. Most fracturing stages are not associated with an

elongated cloud of events trending in the direction of
SHmax.
42

Sequence of the Microseismic Events
43

Recording Geometry
Toe

Stage 1

Stage
30

Geophone

Array

1900 ft

Stage
20

Formation Tops:

Mission Canyon

Stage
50

Lodgepole

Stage
29

Middle Bakken

Three Forks

0

Stage
67

1000 ft

Heel


67 stages along X and Z

6 vertical observation wells

3 component , 40 level geophones

44
All Microseismic Events
45

Observation 1: Events Along Well Y
46

Observation 2: Many Events Out-of-Zone
Depth Relative to Bakken(ft)
Well X

1200
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1000
26
27
28
29
Mission Canyon

800
600
Lodgepole

400
200
Bakken

0
200
400
Well Z

1200
30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
39 40 41 42 43
1000
800
44 45 46 47 48
49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62
63 64 65
66
67
Mission Canyon

600
400
Lodgepole

200
0
Bakken

200
400
47

Are the Shallow Events Real?
H1

H2

48

Abnormal Injection Pressure?
1200
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1000
28
29
Mission Canyon

800
600
Lodgepole

400
200
0
Bakken

200
400
Events Number vs. Avg Inj Pressure
Events Number
1500
6500
1000
6000
5500
500
0
5000
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Stage Number
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
4500
Avg Injection Pressure(psi)
ell X
Well X

There is no correlation between the number of events and

injection pressure.

49

Well Z

1200
30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
39 40 41 42 43
44 45 46 47 48
49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62
63 64 65
1000
66
67
Mission Canyon

800
600
400
Lodgepole

200
0
Bakken

200
Events Number vs. Avg Inj Pressure
1500
6500
1000
6000
5500
500
0
5000
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
4500
Avg Injection Pressure(psi)
400
Events Number
Abnormal Injection Pressure?
Stage Number
There is no correlation between the number of events and

injection pressure.

50

Observation 3: Event Trend
Strike-slip faults trend ~ 30from SHmax

~30

Shmin
SHmax
~30
51

Focal Mechanism Analysis
52

P Wave Polarity Modeling

Prediction: strike/dip/rake: 75/66/-74

Observation

Schmidt Net
Up:compression
Down:dilation
P wave radiation pattern: point shear dislocation

homogeneous medium

far field


53
Earthquake Focal Mechanisms of MC events
Suggest:

Sv~ SHmax >Shmin

Normal faulting/
Strike-slip

A high dipping angle fault plane exists striking at N75E

Mostly normal dip-slip with some strike-slip motion

54

Events Within the Bakken are Consistent With

MC Focal Mechanisms
55

Why Out-of Zone Seismicity?
56

Relatively Large Scale Faults Diverting Flow

fault
preexisting fractures
MC
Mission Canyon

Lodgepole
Bakken
Three forks
52-50
5432
Preexisting fractures and faults

large-scale: fluid/pressure transmission conduit to Mission Canyon

small-scale: fluid/pressure communication between wells

57

Outline
Section 1
Section 2
Enhancement
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
58

Horizontal Drilling and Multi-Stage Fracing is

a Large-Scale Industrial Process
59

Horizontal Drilling and Multi-Stage Fracing is

a Large-Scale Industrial Process
60

Reducing the Impact of Shale Gas

Development is Critical
61

Environmental Issues
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Surface Contamination Due to Spills

Impacts on Residents and Land Use
Air Pollution
Hydraulic Fracturing Affects Well Water
Utilization of Scarce Water Supplies
Methane Leakage From Wells
Earthquake Triggering Associated with
Injection of Flow-back Water
62

New DOE Committee
President Obama directed Secretary Chu to

convene this group as part of the Presidents
Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future

64

Report Summary
Shale gas can be developed in an

environmentally responsible manner

but..
The SEAB Subcommittee Made 20
Recommendations
About How to Develop Shale Gas
Resources in a More
Environmentally Responsible Manner
65

Will Vertical Hydrofrac

Growth Affect
Water Supplies?
Not in currently active

shale gas plays
because shales
are deep

Hydraulic Fracturing in the Barnett Shale
Fisher and Warpinski (2012)

67

Well Construction Is a Major Issue
Adopt best practices in well development and construction,

especially casing, cementing, and pressure management.
Pressure testing of cemented casing and state-of-the-art cement
bond logs should be used to confirm formation isolation.
What the Experts Say About the Environmental Risks of Shale Gas Development. Survey of
N=215 NGO, Industry, Regulatory , Academic Experts in shale gas by Resources for the Future.
February 2013.
68

Aquifers
To Prevent Leakage, Casing and

Cementing
are
Critical
Surface Casing at 500 ft.
Coal Seam
Saline Aquifer
C
API Recommended
Practice
Minor Gas Producing Shales
Well Construction
Top of Cement
Secondary Casing
Production Casing
Well Construction
Well Construction
Best Practice
Additional Casing at 2000 ft.

Provides Secondary Barrier
to Leakage
Courtesy George King, Apache Corp.
WILL
But we still
have a lot of
work to do!

Lecture 19 - Final For Posting - Reservoir Geomechanics Standford

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Lecture 19 - Final For Posting - Reservoir Geomechanics Standford

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Reservoir Geomechanics

In situ stress and rock mechanics applied to reservoir processes

Barnett Shale Production

Valko and Lee (2010)

Will These Wells Last 25-30 Years?

Why Is Production Persistent?

Valko and Lee (2010)

R.J. Heller, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University (2012)

R.J. Heller, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University (2012)

Is Slip Flow Important?

Slippage Effects and Diffusion

Permeability Test Sequence

Permeability and Effective Stress

Isolating Slip Flow at Low Pressure

Isolating Slip Flow at Low Pressure

To What Extent Does Slip Flow

Slip flow contributes appreciably to total

Eagle Ford Shale Pore Structure

Kohli and Zoback (in prep)

Effective Pore Size vs. Effective Stress

Pore width decreases with increasing effective stress

MicroCT Image of Eagle Ford Shale

A.H. Kohli (in prep)

Rock volume affected by one

Production Does Not Correlate

Dan Moos et al.

Long Period Long Duration Seismic Events

Slowly Slipping Faults

Microearthquakes and Spectragrams

Long Period Long Duration Seismic Events

LPLD waveforms after band-pass

LPLD Events in Two Barnett Shale Data Sets

Long Period Long Duration Seismic Events

LPLD event locations in Barnett 1

How Big Are LPLD Slow Slipping Faults?

Earthquake/Fault Scaling Relationships

Major: can cause serious damage over large areas.

Strong: can be destructive in populated areas

Moderate: can cause damage to poorly constructed buildings

Noticeable shaking but damage is unlikely

Earthquake Moment (Nm)

Fault Patch Size (m)

Implications of Spatial Variations in Pressure

Normal Stress (Mpa)

Shear Stress (Mpa)

Slowly Slipping Faults II Poorly Oriented Faults

IIf We Cant Us Microseismicity, How Do We

Rock volume affected by one

Creating a Discrete Fracture Network

Creating a Discrete Fracture Network

Geomechanically Constrained DFN Models

Geomechanically Constrained DFN Models

Flow rate into a fracture scales with fracture area

What About the Assumption of Fracture Length?

Hydraulic Fractures at Every Perforation

Concentrate Stimulation in Parts of the

Devonian Shale Northeastern U.S.

Correlation of Flow with

Dan Moos et al.

Production from PLT

Fractures are Good, but Faults Can be Problematic

Yi (Alec) Yang, Stanford PhD Thesis (2013)

Three Unusual Observations

In situ stress and rock mechanics applied to reservoir processes