Capstone Project Presentation final final

Download Capstone Project Presentation final final

Post on 13-Aug-2015

99 views

Category:

Documents

7 download

TRANSCRIPT

<ol><li> 1. Petroleum Industry Project Hydraulic Fracturing Optimization using Chemical Tracer Kailash Chhetri </li><li> 2. Agenda Overview of Canbriam Energy Inc. Objective and Scope Canbriam Completion Design Frac Techniques &amp; Diagnostic tool Data Sources Analysis of Data Conclusion and Recommendations </li><li> 3. Canbriam Energy Inc. Private E&amp;P company operating in Northeastern B.C Targets Montney Formation 40 producing wells, 2 operating gas plants Facility capacity of 130 MMCF/day 3 rigs active drilling 4 well pads Current production ~18,500 boe/day (~20% liquids) 2014 production 9500 boe/day (20 % liquids) Source: Canbriam corporate presentation March 2015 </li><li> 4. Location &amp; Field Information Over pressured siltstone/shale reservoir Montney split Upper, Middle &amp; Lower Canbriams all wells Upper &amp; Lower Montney Drilled horizontally reservoir exposure Source: Canbriam corporate presentation March 2015 </li><li> 5. Objective Collect data from wells with Chemical Tracer Analyze &amp; compare with frac properties &amp; methods Evaluate contribution of well flowback given by each stage Evaluate properties that have positive or negative effects on flowback Identify areas of optimization for Canbriam frac </li><li> 6. Scope Limited to Canbriams Hz Montney wells Stimulated using plug &amp; perf and slickwater frac techniques Data Frac summaries from Canyon Tracer reports from ProTechnics </li><li> 7. Canbriam Completion Design Canbriams completion design parameters: Perf spacing Clusters per stage Number of Stages Stage length Tonnage per stage Target rates Target concentrations Source: Canbriam corporate presentation Oct. 2014 </li><li> 8. Frac Techniques &amp; Diagnostic tool Techniques Plug &amp; perf Slickwater frac Diagnostic tool Chemical Tracer </li><li> 9. Normalized Data Table- CFT(ppb) Traced Segment 17-13 12-9 8-5 4-1 Stim Date 7/21/13 7/20/13 7/19/13 7/18/13 Totals Avgs Traced Fluid vol (m3) 4,646 3,526 3,972 3,342 15,486 3,872 CFT Injected (g) 3,682 2,522 2,927 2,499 11,630 2,908 % Injected 31.7% 21.7% 25.2% 21.5% Key Cum Vol* Sample Date Sample Type CFT 2500 CFT 2400 CFT 2200 CFT 2100 CFT Total ppb Calc Chlorides Total &gt;200 1 74.4 8/2/13 12:00 Water (Produced) 65.6 47.6 30.4 0.0 143.6 59,025 150 to 200 2 203.2 8/2/13 20:00 Water (Produced) 83.8 52.2 16.4 0.5 152.8 59,168 100 to 150 3 340.1 8/3/13 12:00 Water (Produced) 16.0 28.2 24.4 116.8 185.4 53,494 70 to 100 4 475.8 8/3/13 20:00 Water (Produced) 42.0 37.0 20.6 55.5 155.0 56,484 50 to 70 5 668.2 8/4/13 8:00 Water (Produced) 48.0 39.3 21.7 49.9 158.9 60,874 35 to 50 6 849.6 8/4/13 20:00 Water (Produced) 41.7 30.2 15.7 42.4 130.0 60,157 25 to 35 7 927.0 8/5/13 8:00 Water (Produced) 47.1 30.3 14.5 43.6 135.6 58,560 17 to 25 8 1624.9 8/23/13 3:00 Water (Produced) 36.3 23.2 10.9 24.7 95.2 73,338 12 to 17 9 1732.6 8/25/13 0:01 Water (Produced) 30.9 19.7 9.1 15.3 74.9 77,377 8 to 12 10 1857.5 8/27/13 18:30 Water (Produced) 37.3 21.0 9.2 18.3 85.8 75,961 5 to 8 11 1926.0 8/28/13 18:30 Water (Produced) 33.9 18.4 8.4 19.5 80.2 76,934 3 to 5 12 2032.5 8/30/13 6:30 Water (Produced) 31.9 20.5 8.0 18.7 79.1 79,980 2 to 3 13 2134.2 9/2/13 15:00 Water (Produced) 30.2 22.0 9.0 17.9 79.2 91,732 1 to 2 14 2169.0 9/4/13 17:30 Water (Produced) 27.8 20.8 8.6 16.5 73.7 95,108 0.05 to 1 15 2205.0 9/6/13 18:30 Water (Produced) 25.9 19.5 8.0 15.5 68.9 91,923 16 2240.0 9/8/13 18:30 Water (Produced) 29.7 22.8 9.2 18.0 79.7 96,797 17 2293.0 9/11/13 18:30 Water (Produced) 26.8 20.4 8.0 16.0 71.2 100,156 18 4379.9 5/27/14 0:00 Water (Produced) 11.2 6.0 3.4 6.0 26.6 87,885 19 6739.3 1/28/15 8:53 Water (Produced) 1.6 0.8 0.9 11.4 14.7 52,358 20 6744.7 1/28/15 18:30 Water (Produced) 2.7 1.5 0.5 10.3 15.0 61,120 21 6755.5 1/29/15 14:20 Water (Produced) 4.8 2.8 1.0 10.1 18.6 91,695 12 Time Weighted Avg ppb 8.5 4.9 2.8 9.7 25.9 71,209 Avg M3D % total ppb from Stage 32.8% 18.8% 10.8% 37.6% 100.0% % total ppb @ last sample 25.6% 14.9% 5.4% 54.1% 100.0% Mass Balance Recov'd (g) 149.0 68.4 41.7 97.0 356.1 % of Total Recovery 41.8% 19.2% 11.7% 27.2% 100.0% SLR 10.0 7.4 4.3 10.0 7.9 No Flow Zones 0 0 Deduct Heel/Toe Ratio 0.9 0 Deduct 14 Day flow decline 44% 0 Deduct Traced Fluid Recovered 3.1% Normalized Chemical Frac Tracer, ppb FPE 7.9 Canbriam Energy, Inc. c-B27-H/94-B-8 Normalized Data Table Source: Spectra Chem, Initial Flowback report </li><li> 10. Data and its Source Well &amp; Perf data : Well Name, Stage, Perf cluster, etc. Canbriam well completion DR file Frac properties : Pressure ,Sand amount, Fluid volume Canyon Technical Services Chemical Frac Tracer concentration flow back ProTechincs </li><li> 11. Data Selection Started with 13 wells Chance-Study, compare, analyze &amp; collect viable data Came down to 10 wells 3 initial wells- no enough data Finally picked 6 wells Good representation sample for study Limited time </li><li> 12. Well Data &amp; Frac properties Note: This is a partial data. Data for 6 wells that had minimum 8 stages and maximum 17 stages WELL DATA FRAC PROPERTIES PERF DATA PRESSURE SAND FLUID Well Name Stage Start Date Top (mKB) Bottom (mKB) Stage Length (m) Perf Spacing (m) SPM Perf Clusters Breakdown (MPA) Avg Pressure (MPA) ISIP (MPA) Tonnage TPM Max Concentratio n (kg/m3) Avg Rate (m3/min) Max Rate (m3/min) Rate per Perf (m3/min) Clean Volume (m3) c-B27-H/94-B-8 1 July 18, 2013 4495 4600 105 30 12 4 50.6 54.8 31 121.6 1.16 358 7.6 8.9 1.9 911.2 c-B27-H/94-B-8 2 July 18, 2013 4375 4495 120 30 12 4 57.3 56 30.7 120.5 1.00 363 8.9 9.1 2.2 883.0 c-B27-H/94-B-8 3 July 19, 2013 4255 4375 120 30 12 4 62.6 57 31.8 120.2 1.00 355 8.2 8.5 2.1 854.3 c-B27-H/94-B-8 4 July 19, 2013 4135 4255 120 30 12 4 59.9 56 31.9 124 1.03 359 6.9 8.5 1.7 920.2 c-B27-H/94-B-8 5 July 19, 2013 4015 4135 120 30 12 4 60 56 31.5 120.6 1.01 336 7.0 8.7 1.8 909.0 c-B27-H/94-B-8 6 July 19, 2013 3895 4015 120 30 12 4 60 57 32 120.3 1.00 356 6.2 9.1 1.6 809.1 c-B27-H/94-B-8 7 July 19, 2013 3745 3895 150 30 12 5 58.6 57.5 33 148.8 0.99 355 8.4 9.2 1.7 1005.6 c-B27-H/94-B-8 8 July 20, 2013 3595 3745 150 30 12 5 57.9 57 32.5 165.9 1.11 287 7.7 9.3 1.5 1544.2 c-B27-H/94-B-8 9 July 20, 2013 3475 3595 120 30 12 4 59 57 32.9 142.8 1.19 364 7.6 9.3 1.9 1074.4 c-B27-H/94-B-8 10 July 20, 2013 3355 3475 120 30 12 4 51 57 32.8 120.9 1.01 358 8.6 9.5 2.2 794.1 c-B27-H/94-B-8 11 July 21, 2013 3235 3355 120 30 12 4 50.3 57 32 119.9 1.00 359 9.3 9.8 2.3 788.8 c-B27-H/94-B-8 12 July 21, 2013 3085 3235 150 30 12 5 52.6 57.3 32.1 150.8 1.01 382 10.0 10.7 2.0 971.4 c-B27-H/94-B-8 13 July 21, 2013 2935 3085 150 30 12 5 50.8 57 31.4 150.2 1.00 330 8.7 10.4 1.7 981.7 c-B27-H/94-B-8 14 July 21, 2013 2785 2935 150 30 12 5 51 57 31.9 150.4 1.00 354 8.8 10.3 1.8 1007.5 c-B27-H/94-B-8 15 July 21, 2013 2635 2785 150 30 12 5 53 57.5 32 150.9 1.01 354 10.0 10.5 2.0 1100.2 c-B27-H/94-B-8 16 July 22, 2013 2515 2635 120 30 12 4 55 57 32.2 120.6 1.01 352 10.6 11.0 2.6 831.0 c-B27-H/94-B-8 17 July 22, 2013 2410 2515 105 30 12 4 50.2 58 32.8 119.8 1.14 359 10.6 10.7 2.7 789.0 Source: Canbriam Daily well completion report </li><li> 13. Data- Chemical Tracer flowback(ppb) TRACER Tracer Day 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 CFT2100 0 0.5 116.8 55.5 49.9 42.4 43.6 24.7 15.3 18.3 19.5 18.7 17.9 16.5 15.5 18.0 CFT2100 0 0.5 116.8 55.5 49.9 42.4 43.6 24.7 15.3 18.3 19.5 18.7 17.9 16.5 15.5 18.0 CFT2100 0 0.5 116.8 55.5 49.9 42.4 43.6 24.7 15.3 18.3 19.5 18.7 17.9 16.5 15.5 18.0 CFT2100 0 0.5 116.8 55.5 49.9 42.4 43.6 24.7 15.3 18.3 19.5 18.7 17.9 16.5 15.5 18.0 CFT2200 30.4 16.4 24.4 20.6 21.7 15.7 14.5 10.9 9.1 9.2 8.4 8.0 9.0 8.6 8.0 9.2 CFT2200 30.4 16.4 24.4 20.6 21.7 15.7 14.5 10.9 9.1 9.2 8.4 8.0 9.0 8.6 8.0 9.2 CFT2200 30.4 16.4 24.4 20.6 21.7 15.7 14.5 10.9 9.1 9.2 8.4 8.0 9.0 8.6 8.0 9.2 CFT2200 30.4 16.4 24.4 20.6 21.7 15.7 14.5 10.9 9.1 9.2 8.4 8.0 9.0 8.6 8.0 9.2 CFT2400 47.6 52.2 28.2 37 39.3 30.2 30.3 23.2 19.7 21.0 18.4 20.5 22.0 20.8 19.5 22.8 CFT2400 47.6 52.2 28.2 37 39.3 30.2 30.3 23.2 19.7 21.0 18.4 20.5 22.0 20.8 19.5 22.8 CFT2400 47.6 52.2 28.2 37 39.3 30.2 30.3 23.2 19.7 21.0 18.4 20.5 22.0 20.8 19.5 22.8 CFT2400 47.6 52.2 28.2 37 39.3 30.2 30.3 23.2 19.7 21.0 18.4 20.5 22.0 20.8 19.5 22.8 CFT2500 65.6 83.8 16 42 18 41.7 36.3 30.9 37.3 33.9 31.9 30.2 27.8 25.9 29.7 26.8 CFT2500 65.6 83.8 16 42 18 41.7 36.3 30.9 37.3 33.9 31.9 30.2 27.8 25.9 29.7 26.8 CFT2500 65.6 83.8 16 42 18 41.7 36.3 30.9 37.3 33.9 31.9 30.2 27.8 25.9 29.7 26.8 CFT2500 65.6 83.8 16 42 18 41.7 36.3 30.9 37.3 33.9 31.9 30.2 27.8 25.9 29.7 26.8 CFT2500 65.6 83.8 16 42 18 41.7 36.3 30.9 37.3 33.9 31.9 30.2 27.8 25.9 29.7 26.8 Note: Similar CFT flowback concentration data collected for 6 wells Source: Canbriam Energy Well-Normalized data table </li><li> 14. Analysis Frac properties vs CFT flowback Maximum Concentration (Kg/m3) Total tonnage(T) Tonnage per meter Average rate (m3/min) Maximum rate (m3/min) Rate per perf (m3/min) Clean volume (m3) Average treating pressure (Mpa) Initial shut in pressure (Mpa) </li><li> 15. Maximum sand concentration(Kg/m3) vs Time/CFT 310.0 320.0 330.0 340.0 350.0 360.0 370.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 MaxConcentration((kg/m3) CFTFlowback(ppb) Stages Maximum Concentration(Kg/m3) vsCFT Flowback 5days 30days 60days Max Concentration Max Concentration vs Time Max Concentration vs CFT Flowback Source: Canyon Technical Services frac summary report </li><li> 16. Tonnage(T) vs CFT Concentration flowback(ppb) Total Tonnage vs CFT flowback Tonnage per Meter vs CFT flowback </li><li> 17. Rate(m3/min) vs CFT Concentration(ppb) flowback Average rate(m3/min) vs CFT concentration(ppb) Rate per perf (m3/min) vs CFT concentration(ppb) </li><li> 18. Conclusion Found strong correlation between sand concentration &amp; CFT flowback Higher sand concentration contributed best production performance Worst wells were with most water volume used in completions More contribution by tonnes per meter than total tonnage </li><li> 19. Recommendations Maximize target sand concentration for higher flowback Optimize the number of perf clusters to obtain better production rate Increase tonnage per meter to improve stages conductivity and higher deliverability Reduce the length of stage as it increases TPM &amp; SRV </li><li> 20. Questions? </li><li> 21. Thank you! Acknowledgements Graham Janega, Mentor Mr. Clay Howe, Technologist Adrian McFarlane, Advisor </li></ol>