Muutke küpsiste eelistusi

Optimization of Hydraulic Fracture Stages and Sequencing in Unconventional Formations [Kõva köide]

(University of Houston, Texas), (The University of Texas of the Permian Basin)
  • Formaat: Hardback, 262 pages, kõrgus x laius: 234x156 mm, kaal: 612 g, 100 Illustrations, black and white
  • Ilmumisaeg: 20-Jul-2018
  • Kirjastus: CRC Press
  • ISBN-10: 1138085952
  • ISBN-13: 9781138085954
Teised raamatud teemal:
  • Kõva köide
  • Hind: 159,19 €*
  • * hind on lõplik, st. muud allahindlused enam ei rakendu
  • Tavahind: 212,25 €
  • Säästad 25%
  • Raamatu kohalejõudmiseks kirjastusest kulub orienteeruvalt 3-4 nädalat
  • Kogus:
  • Lisa ostukorvi
  • Tasuta tarne
  • Tellimisaeg 2-4 nädalat
  • Lisa soovinimekirja
Optimization of Hydraulic Fracture Stages and Sequencing in Unconventional FormationsSuurem pilt
  • Formaat: Hardback, 262 pages, kõrgus x laius: 234x156 mm, kaal: 612 g, 100 Illustrations, black and white
  • Ilmumisaeg: 20-Jul-2018
  • Kirjastus: CRC Press
  • ISBN-10: 1138085952
  • ISBN-13: 9781138085954
Teised raamatud teemal:
Teised raamatud sellest sooduspakkumisest: Kevadine sooduspakkumine - kuni 31. maini üle miljoni raamatu kuni 25% soodsamalt
Püsilink: https://www.kriso.ee/db/9781138085954.html
Märksõnad:

Shale gas and/or oil play identification is subject to many screening processes for characteristics such as porosity, permeability, and brittleness. Evaluating shale gas and/or oil reservoirs and identifying potential sweet spots (portions of the reservoir rock that have high-quality kerogen content and brittle rock) requires taking into consideration multiple rock, reservoir, and geological parameters that govern production. The early determination of sweet spots for well site selection and fracturing in shale reservoirs is a challenge for many operators. With this limitation in mind, Optimization of Hydraulic Fracture Stages and Sequencing in Unconventional Formations develops an approach to improve the industry’s ability to evaluate shale gas and oil plays and is structured to lead the reader from general shale oil and gas characteristics to detailed sweet-spot classifications. The approach uses a new candidate selection and evaluation algorithm and screening criteria based on key geomechanical, petrophysical, and geochemical parameters and indices to obtain results consistent with existing shale plays and gain insights on the best development strategies going forward. The work introduces new criteria that accurately guide the development process in unconventional reservoirs in addition to reducing uncertainty and cost.

Acknowledgments xiii
Authors xv
1 Fracturing Chronology: Milestones of the Hydraulic Fracturing Process 1(60)
1.1 Motivation and Objective
1(2)
1.2 Book Outline
3(1)
1.3 Book Chronology: Milestones of the Hydraulic Fracturing Process
4(57)
1.3.1 Introduction
5(1)
1.3.2 1947 to 1953: How the Hydraulic Fracturing Stimulation Process (Hydrafrac) Began
6(2)
1.3.2.1 Era of the Invention of Hydraulic Fracturing
6(1)
1.3.2.2 Another Important Commercialization of 1948
7(1)
1.3.3 Mid-1950s to Early 1960s: The Beginning of Fracturing Applications
8(2)
1.3.3.1 Commercialization of Hydrafrac Broadens to Other Service Companies Allowed to License
8(1)
1.3.3.2 1955 Proved to Be the Peak Year during the Twentieth Century
8(1)
1.3.3.3 A Common Belief Was That Hydraulic Fractures Were Primarily Horizontal Pancakes
9(1)
1.3.4 Late 1960s: Expansion of Basic Knowledge of Downhole Fracturing Events
10(5)
1.3.4.1 Study of Fractures Using "Expanding Open-Hole Impression Packers"
11(1)
1.3.4.2 Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries Was Formed
12(1)
1.3.4.3 Hydrafrac Update through 1963
13(2)
1.3.5 Late 1960s to Mid-1970s
15(5)
1.3.5.1 Project GasBuggy (1967-1973 Underground Nuclear Experiments)
15(2)
1.3.5.2 When Perforated Wells Won't Break Down to Allow Fracturing
17(1)
1.3.5.3 Bringing Rock Mechanics to Fracturing Technology
17(1)
1.3.5.4 Introduction of Handheld Calculators to Oilfield Applications
18(1)
1.3.5.5 Birth of Computerized Fracture Simulation Modeling
19(1)
1.3.5.6 Arab Oil Embargo from 1973 to 1974
19(1)
1.3.6 Birth of Coalbed Methane Fracturing and Massive Hydraulic Fracturing
20(2)
1.3.6.1 Coalbed Methane Fracturing
20(1)
1.3.6.2 Birth of Massive Hydraulic Fracturing
21(1)
1.3.7 Late 1970s to Early 1980s: Proliferation of Knowledge and Application of Fracturing
22(5)
1.3.7.1 Introduction of "Frac Vans" to the Oilfield
22(1)
1.3.7.2 Introduction of the "Pillar Fracturing" Technique
23(1)
1.3.7.3 Gas Research Institute Founded
24(1)
1.3.7.4 Development of New Fracturing Fluids
24(2)
1.3.7.5 Expansion of Massive Hydraulic Fracturing
26(1)
1.3.8 Landmark Concepts That Forever Changed Fracture Stimulation Design and Modeling
27(5)
1.3.8.1 Introduction of Theories of Fracture Extension "Net Pressure" and "Minifrac" to Identify Net Pressure and Fluid Leakoff (Ken Nolte and Mike Smith)
27(2)
1.3.8.2 The Gas Research Institute Tight Gas Sands Project from 1982-1987
29(1)
1.3.8.3 Gas Research Institute Sponsored Fracturing Study at Rifle, Colorado, in 1983
29(2)
1.3.8.4 Laboratory Evaluations of More Realistic Conductivity Testing
31(1)
1.3.8.5 Teaching Fracture Stimulation Technology
32(1)
1.3.9 Mid-1980s: Greatest Crash in Oilfield History
32(4)
1.3.9.1 Glory Years for the United States Oilfield...Then the Crash
32(1)
1.3.9.2 New Fracture Simulation Software Introduced
33(1)
1.3.9.3 Horizontal Wells First Become More Common
34(1)
1.3.9.4 Digital Electronics Become Dominant in Stimulation Oilfield Equipment
34(1)
1.3.9.5 Late 1980s Bring the Digital Frac Van
35(1)
1.3.9.6 Waterfracs Become Popular Again Because of Economics
35(1)
1.3.10 Very End of 1980s and into Early 1990s
36(6)
1.3.10.1 Coalbed Methane Rose in Importance Because of a Special Federal Incentive Program
36(1)
1.3.10.2 More on Waterfracs
37(1)
1.3.10.3 Horizontal Wells Become More Widespread but Not Commonly Fracture-Stimulated...Yet
38(1)
1.3.10.4 Oil Industry Gets a Huge Black Eye
38(1)
1.3.10.5 Revisit of the Multiwell Experiment Site for the Gas Research Institute/Department of Energy-Funded Slant Hole Coring Project
38(4)
1.3.11 Mid- to Late 1990s
42(3)
1.3.11.1 Satellite Live Data Transmission from the Wellsite to the Electronic Host Center Comes to the Oilfield
42(1)
1.3.11.2 Passive Microseismic Monitoring Becomes a Commercially Established, Generally Accepted Technology
42(1)
1.3.11.3 Another Revival for Waterfracs
43(1)
1.3.11.4 Horizontals Increase, but without New Drilling Technology Since the Demand Was Low
44(1)
1.3.12 Late 1990 to 2002: How the Shale Revolution Started
45(13)
1.3.12.1 Birth of the Horizontal Well Revolution
47(6)
1.3.12.2 2010: Offshore Rig Fire and Spill of All Spills
53(1)
1.3.12.3 Antifracture Activists Become Active over Potential Damage to Surface Water and Potable Underground Water Sands
54(1)
1.3.12.4 Hydraulic Fracturing Rarely Linked to Felt Seismic Tremors
55(1)
1.3.12.5 Post-2010
55(1)
1.3.12.6 Mexico, Argentina, China, and Australia Investigate Their Source Rock Shale Formations
56(1)
1.3.12.7 Fracture Sand Becomes a Dominant Commodity and Is Often Handled as a Separate Well Service
56(1)
1.3.12.8 2015: Status of Hydraulic Fracturing
57(1)
1.3.12.9 How We Achieve Economic Production from Shales
57(1)
1.3.13 Components of the Shale Completion Model
58(4)
1.3.13.1 2017: Moderate to Low Global Oil Prices, Natural Gas Prices Low in the United States but Globally Higher
58(3)
2 Shale Gas and Oil Play Screening Criteria 61(38)
2.1 Introduction
61(1)
2.2 Assessing Potential Reserves of Shale Plays
61(1)
2.3 Shale Gas and Oil Production Criteria
62(1)
2.4 Shale Evaluation Proposed Algorithm Data Structure
62(6)
2.4.1 Mineralogy Comparison of Shale Gas and Oil Plays
64(1)
2.4.2 Mechanical Properties of Shale Gas and Oil Plays
65(1)
2.4.3 Sweet Spot Identifier for Shale Plays
65(1)
2.4.4 Production Performance Indicators
65(1)
2.4.5 Sweet Spot Identification Methodology (Clustering Model)
66(1)
2.4.6 Spider Plot of Common Shale Plays' Normalized Petrophysical Characteristics
67(1)
2.5 Statistical Analysis of the 12 Shales
68(8)
2.5.1 Preliminary Data Preparation and Imputation
69(1)
2.5.2 Statistical Similarity Analyses
70(5)
2.5.3 Analysis of Two New Shale Types
75(1)
2.6 Horizontal Completion Fracturing Techniques Using Data Analytics: Selection and Prediction
76(9)
2.6.1 Use of Big Data in Predicting Completion Strategies
76(2)
2.6.2 Data Analytics: Collection and Management
78(1)
2.6.3 Statistical Analysis
79(1)
2.6.4 Analysis of Niobrara Shale Formation for Completion Strategies
79(2)
2.6.5 Results: Selection of the Completion Strategy
81(4)
2.7 Results and Flowchart
85(1)
2.8 Conclusions
86(1)
Appendices
86(13)
Appendix A: Abbreviations
86(1)
Appendix B: Analysis of Two Cases of Shale Plays
87(4)
Appendix C: Completion Strategies of Shale Plays
91(5)
Appendix D: Details of the Computation of Euclidean Distances between Shale Plays
96(3)
3 Fracturability Index Maps for Fracture Placement in Shale Plays 99(16)
3.1 Introduction
99(1)
3.2 Brittleness Index versus Mineralogical Index
100(2)
3.2.1 Isotropic versus Anisotropic Brittleness Index
101(1)
3.2.2 Fracturability Index
101(1)
3.2.3 Objectives of This Work
101(1)
3.3 New Fracturability Indices
102(2)
3.3.1 Geomechanical Fracturability Index
102(1)
3.3.2 Resistivity Fracturability Index
103(1)
3.4 Optimization of Number of Wells and Fractures in a Reservoir
104(1)
3.5 Formulating the Optimization Approach
105(2)
3.5.1 Additional Design Constraints
106(1)
3.6 Method of Solution
107(1)
3.7 Case Study 1
108(1)
3.7.1 Summary of Correlations
108(1)
3.8 Case Study 2 (Well Placement Case Study)
108(3)
3.8.1 Remarks on Case Study 2
110(1)
3.9 Case Study 3 (Fracture Placement Case Study)
111(2)
3.9.1 Conclusions
112(1)
Appendices
113(2)
Appendix A: Abbreviations
113(1)
Appendix B: Summary of Fracturability Indices
113(2)
4 Is Fracturability Index a Mineralogical Index? A New Approach for Fracturing Decisions 115(26)
4.1 Introduction
115(1)
4.2 Background
116(1)
4.3 Well Placement in Conventional Reservoirs
116(2)
4.4 Well Placement in Unconventional Reservoirs
118(2)
4.4.1 Stage 1: Data Analysis
119(1)
4.4.2 Stage 2: Building Mineralogical Index
119(1)
4.4.3 Stage 3: The Three-Dimensional Mineralogical Model
120(1)
4.5 Unconventional Well Placement Problem Formulation
120(2)
4.5.1 Stage 4: Problem Formulation
121(1)
4.5.2 Stage 5: Optimization Approach of Well Placement
122(1)
4.6 Well and Fracture Placement Case Study Using Mathematical Optimization
122(8)
4.7 Conclusions 126 Acknowledgments
130(1)
Appendices
130(11)
Appendix A: Abbreviations
130(1)
Appendix B: Formulation of Optimization Problem
131(10)
5 Sequencing and Determination of Horizontal Wells and Fractures in Shale Plays: Building a Combined Targeted Treatment Scheme 141(26)
5.1 Introduction
141(3)
5.2 The Developed Approach
144(7)
5.2.1 Data Analysis
145(1)
5.2.2 Developing an Integrated Fracturability Index Correlation
146(3)
5.2.2.1 First Correlation
146(1)
5.2.2.2 Second Correlation
147(2)
5.2.3 An Alternative Industry-Used Approach for Locating Sweet Spots
149(1)
5.2.4 Photoelectric Index for Mineral Identification
149(1)
5.2.5 Combining Both Techniques for Sweet-Spot Identification
150(1)
5.3 Study Area
151(4)
5.3.1 Testing and Validation of the Work (Permian Basin Wolfcamp Shale Reservoir Data)
152(3)
5.4 Differential Horizontal Stress Ratio
155(2)
5.4.1 Net Pressure and Stress
155(2)
5.5 Hydraulic Fracturing Stage Sequencing
157(5)
5.6 Conclusions
162(2)
Appendices
164(1)
Appendix A: Abbreviations
164(1)
Appendix B: Classifications of Sweet Spots
164(3)
6 A Computational Comparison between Optimization Techniques for Well Placement Problem: Mathematical Formulations, Genetic Algorithms, and Very Fast Simulated Annealing 167(18)
6.1 Introduction
167(1)
6.2 Algorithm Design
168(6)
6.2.1 Representing Well Locations
169(1)
6.2.2 Genetic Algorithm Design
170(2)
6.2.3 Very Fast Simulated Reannealing Algorithm Design
172(2)
6.3 Optimization via Mathematical Formulations
174(1)
6.4 Optimization Computations
174(10)
6.5 Conclusions
184(1)
7 Two-Dimensional Mathematical Optimization Approach for Well Placement and Fracture Design of Shale Reservoirs 185(30)
7.1 Introduction
185(2)
7.2 Materials
187(1)
7.3 Development of the Mathematical Formulation
187(4)
7.3.1 Objective Function
187(1)
7.3.2 Constraints
188(1)
7.3.3 Stress Interference or Shadowing Effect
189(1)
7.3.3.1 Same Wellbore
189(1)
7.3.3.2 Two Adjacent Parallel Wells
189(1)
7.3.4 Model Limitation
189(1)
7.3.5 Fracture Design Optimization Approach
189(1)
7.3.5.1 Input Parameters
190(1)
7.3.5.2 Output Parameters
190(1)
7.3.6 Decision Variables
190(1)
7.3.6.1 Sets
190(1)
7.3.6.2 Construction of set Xk
190(1)
7.3.7 Indices
191(1)
7.3.8 Parameters
191(1)
7.4 Computational Tests and Results
191(8)
7.4.1 Case Study 1: 50 x 50 x 1
192(2)
7.4.2 Case Study 2: 80 x 80 x 164
194(5)
7.5 Fracture Stage Sequencing
199(1)
7.6 Conclusion and Future Work
199(1)
Acknowledgments
200(1)
Appendices
200(15)
Appendix A: Abbreviations
200(1)
Appendix B: Data Ranges of Main Properties for Both Reservoirs
201(14)
8 Multigrid Fracture-Stimulated Reservoir Volume Mapping Coupled with a Novel Mathematical Optimization Approach to Shale Reservoir Well and Fracture Design 215(22)
8.1 Introduction
215(3)
8.2 Problem Definition and Modeling
218(1)
8.2.1 Geometric Interpretation
218(1)
8.2.1.1 Fracture Geometry
218(1)
8.2.1.2 The Developed Model Flowchart
219(1)
8.2.1.3 Well and Fracture Design Vector Components
219(1)
8.3 Development of a New Mathematical Model
219(8)
8.3.1 Methodology
222(1)
8.3.2 Objective Function
222(1)
8.3.3 Assumptions and Constraints Considered in the Mathematical Model
222(3)
8.3.3.1 Sets
223(1)
8.3.3.2 Variables
223(1)
8.3.3.3 Decision Variables
223(1)
8.3.3.4 Extended Sets
223(1)
8.3.3.5 Constant Parameters
224(1)
8.3.3.6 Constraints
224(1)
8.3.4 Stimulated Reservoir Volume Representation
225(1)
8.3.5 Optimization Procedure
225(2)
8.4 Model Building
227(2)
8.4.1 Simulation Model of Well Pad and Stimulated Reservoir Volume Evaluation
228(1)
8.5 Results and Discussion
229(1)
8.6 Conclusions and Recommendations
230(1)
Appendices
231(6)
Appendix A: Abbreviations
231(1)
Appendix B: Definition of the Fracturability Index Used in the Well Placement Process
232(1)
Appendix C: Geometric Interpretation of Parameters Used in Building the Model
232(5)
9 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations for Future Directions 237(4)
9.1 Summary
237(1)
9.2 Conclusions
237(2)
9.3 Recommendations for Future Directions
239(2)
Bibliography 241(10)
Index 251
Dr. Ahmed Alzahabi is currently an Assistant Professor at University of Texas at the Permian Basin. He earned a PhD and a MS, both in petroleum engineering from Texas Tech University and a MS from Cairo University. He previously served as a researcher at the Energy Industry Partnerships, working in the field of energy to solve complex problems for the industry. He is experienced in introducing new technologies in well-placement and fracture stages in conventional and unconventional oil and gas reservoirs.

Dr. Alzahabi teaches production, reservoir engineering, shale reservoirs, multi-stage hydraulic fracturing modeling, and optimum horizontal well placement in unconventional reservoirs. Dr. Alzahabis research involved Permian Wolfcamp. He has developed six US patents, edited and reviewed multiple journals, and is active in SPWLA, SPE, NAGPS, SEG, and AAPG. He has contributed a chapter and served as author in two books on Fracturing Horizontal Wells and PVT Property Correlation.

Mohamed Soliman is Department Chair and the William C. Miller endowed chair professor of Petroleum Engineering at University of Houston. He received his PhD from Stanford University in 1979. He is a distinguished member of SPE and a licensed professional engineer by the State of Texas. He is also a fellow of the National Academy of Inventors (NAI). He has authored and co-authored more 200 technical papers and holds 29 US patents. He is also the editor of Fracturing Horizontal Wells published by McGraw Hill in July 2016. His areas of interest include well test analysis, diagnostic testing, fracturing and numerical simulation.