Capstone Project Presentation final final

21
Petroleum Industry Project Hydraulic Fracturing Optimization using Chemical Tracer Kailash Chhetri

Transcript of Capstone Project Presentation final final

Page 1: Capstone Project Presentation final final

Petroleum Industry Project

Hydraulic Fracturing Optimization using Chemical Tracer

Kailash Chhetri

Page 2: Capstone Project Presentation final final

Agenda

Overview of Canbriam Energy Inc.

Objective and Scope

Canbriam Completion Design

Frac Techniques & Diagnostic tool

Data Sources

Analysis of Data

Conclusion and Recommendations

Page 3: Capstone Project Presentation final final

Canbriam Energy Inc.

Private E&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

Page 4: Capstone Project Presentation final final

Location & Field Information

Over pressured siltstone/shale reservoir

Montney split – Upper, Middle & Lower

Canbriam’s all wells – Upper & Lower

Montney

Drilled horizontally – reservoir exposure

Major players – Progress, Shell, Encana,

etc.

Source: Canbriam corporate presentation March 2015

Page 5: Capstone Project Presentation final final

Objective

Collect data from wells with Chemical Tracer

Analyze & compare with frac properties & 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

design

Page 6: Capstone Project Presentation final final

Scope

Limited to Canbriam’s Hz Montney wells Stimulated using plug & perf and

slickwater frac techniques

Data Frac summaries from Canyon Tracer reports from ProTechnics

Page 7: Capstone Project Presentation final final

Canbriam Completion Design

Canbriam’s 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

Page 8: Capstone Project Presentation final final

Frac Techniques & Diagnostic tool

TechniquesPlug & perfSlickwater frac

Diagnostic toolChemical Tracer

Page 9: Capstone Project Presentation final final

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 2100CFT Total

ppb

Calc Chlorides

Total

>200 1 74.4 8/2/13 12:00 Water (Produced) 65.6 47.6 30.4 0.0 143.6 59,025150 to 200 2 203.2 8/2/13 20:00 Water (Produced) 83.8 52.2 16.4 0.5 152.8 59,168100 to 150 3 340.1 8/3/13 12:00 Water (Produced) 16.0 28.2 24.4 116.8 185.4 53,49470 to 100 4 475.8 8/3/13 20:00 Water (Produced) 42.0 37.0 20.6 55.5 155.0 56,48450 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 60,15725 to 35 7 927.0 8/5/13 8:00 Water (Produced) 47.1 30.3 14.5 43.6 135.6 58,56017 to 25 8 1624.9 8/23/13 3:00 Water (Produced) 36.3 23.2 10.9 24.7 95.2 73,33812 to 17 9 1732.6 8/25/13 0:01 Water (Produced) 30.9 19.7 9.1 15.3 74.9 77,3778 to 12 10 1857.5 8/27/13 18:30 Water (Produced) 37.3 21.0 9.2 18.3 85.8 75,9615 to 8 11 1926.0 8/28/13 18:30 Water (Produced) 33.9 18.4 8.4 19.5 80.2 76,9343 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 91,7321 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 96,79717 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 52,35820 6744.7 1/28/15 18:30 Water (Produced) 2.7 1.5 0.5 10.3 15.0 61,12021 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 71,209Avg 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 DeductHeel/Toe Ratio 0.9 0 Deduct

14 Day flow decline 44% 0 DeductTraced 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

Page 10: Capstone Project Presentation final final

Data and its Source

Well & 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

Page 11: Capstone Project Presentation final final

Data Selection

Started with 13 wells

Chance-Study, compare, analyze & 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

Page 12: Capstone Project Presentation final final

Well Data & Frac properties

Note: This is a partial data. Data for 6 wells that had minimum 8 stages and maximum 17 stages

WELL DATAFRAC 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

Concentration (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

Page 13: Capstone Project Presentation final final

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 22.8CFT2400 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

Page 14: Capstone Project Presentation final final

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)

Page 15: Capstone Project Presentation final final

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

Max

Conc

entra

tion((

kg/m

3)

CFT F

lowba

ck (p

pb)

Stages

Maximum Concentration(Kg/m3) vs CFT Flowback5 days30 days60 daysMax Concentration

Max Concentration vs Time Max Concentration vs CFT Flowback

Source: Canyon Technical Services frac summary report

Page 16: Capstone Project Presentation final final

Tonnage(T) vs CFT Concentration flowback(ppb)

Total Tonnage vs CFT flowback

Tonnage per Meter vs CFT flowback

Page 17: Capstone Project Presentation final final

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)

Page 18: Capstone Project Presentation final final

Conclusion

Found strong correlation between sand

concentration & 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

Page 19: Capstone Project Presentation final final

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 &

SRV

Page 20: Capstone Project Presentation final final

Questions?

Page 21: Capstone Project Presentation final final

Thank you!

Acknowledgements

Graham Janega, MentorMr. Clay Howe, TechnologistAdrian McFarlane, Advisor