Is There Anything Called Too Much Proppant?

K. Srinivasan, F. Ajisafe, Farhan Alimahomed, M. Panjaitan, S. Makarychev-Mikhailov, Bruce Mackay
{"title":"Is There Anything Called Too Much Proppant?","authors":"K. Srinivasan, F. Ajisafe, Farhan Alimahomed, M. Panjaitan, S. Makarychev-Mikhailov, Bruce Mackay","doi":"10.2118/191800-MS","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Unconventional completions in North America have seen a paradigm shift in volumes of proppant pumped since 2014. There is a clear noticeable trend in both oil prices and proppant volumes – thanks to low product and service costs that accompanied the oil price crash in early 2015. As the industry continues to recover, operators are reevaluating completion designs to understand if these proppant volumes are beyond what is optimal. This paper analyzes trends in completion sizes and types across all major unconventional oil and gas plays in the US since 2011 and tracks their impact on well productivity.\n Completion and production data since 2011 from more than 70,000 horizontal wells in seven major basins (Gulf Coast, Permian, Appalachian, Anadarko, Haynesville, Williston and Denver Julesburg basins) and 11 major oil/gas producing formations were analyzed to examine developments in proppant and fluid volumes. Average concentration of proppant per gallon of fluid pumped was used to understand transitional trends in fracturing fluid types with time. Production performance indicators such as First month, Best 3 or Best 12 months of oil and gas production were mapped against completion volumes to evaluate if there are added economic advantages to pumping larger designs.\n In general, all major basins have seen progressive improvements in average well performance since 2011, with the Permian Basin showing the highest improvement, increasing from an average first-six-months oil production of 25,000 bbl in 2011 to 75,000 bbl in 2017. The Gulf Coast basin, where the Eagle Ford formation is located, has seen a 6-fold increase in proppant volumes pumped per foot of lateral since 2011 while the Permian and Appalachian basins hit peak proppant volumes in 2015 and 2016 respectively. In Permian and Eagleford wells, higher proppant volumes in general have resulted in better production up to a certain concentration. In Williston and Denver basins, most operators are moving away from gelled fluids, and reduced average proppant concentration per fluid volume pumped shows inclination toward hybrid or slickwater designs. While some of these observations are tied to reservoir quality, proppant volumes have begun to peak as operators have either reached an optimal point or are in the process of reducing volumes.\n Demand for proppant is expected to nearly double by 2020. As oil prices continue to recover, well AFEs continue to increase, despite multiple efforts to improve capital efficiency. The need for enhanced fracture conductivity and extended half-lengths on EURs are been discussed by combining actual observed production data and sensitivities using calibrated production models. The industry is moving toward large-volume slickwater fracturing operations using smaller proppants, but he operating landscape is expected to see a correction when such designs become less economical.","PeriodicalId":11155,"journal":{"name":"Day 2 Thu, September 06, 2018","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 2 Thu, September 06, 2018","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/191800-MS","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Unconventional completions in North America have seen a paradigm shift in volumes of proppant pumped since 2014. There is a clear noticeable trend in both oil prices and proppant volumes – thanks to low product and service costs that accompanied the oil price crash in early 2015. As the industry continues to recover, operators are reevaluating completion designs to understand if these proppant volumes are beyond what is optimal. This paper analyzes trends in completion sizes and types across all major unconventional oil and gas plays in the US since 2011 and tracks their impact on well productivity. Completion and production data since 2011 from more than 70,000 horizontal wells in seven major basins (Gulf Coast, Permian, Appalachian, Anadarko, Haynesville, Williston and Denver Julesburg basins) and 11 major oil/gas producing formations were analyzed to examine developments in proppant and fluid volumes. Average concentration of proppant per gallon of fluid pumped was used to understand transitional trends in fracturing fluid types with time. Production performance indicators such as First month, Best 3 or Best 12 months of oil and gas production were mapped against completion volumes to evaluate if there are added economic advantages to pumping larger designs. In general, all major basins have seen progressive improvements in average well performance since 2011, with the Permian Basin showing the highest improvement, increasing from an average first-six-months oil production of 25,000 bbl in 2011 to 75,000 bbl in 2017. The Gulf Coast basin, where the Eagle Ford formation is located, has seen a 6-fold increase in proppant volumes pumped per foot of lateral since 2011 while the Permian and Appalachian basins hit peak proppant volumes in 2015 and 2016 respectively. In Permian and Eagleford wells, higher proppant volumes in general have resulted in better production up to a certain concentration. In Williston and Denver basins, most operators are moving away from gelled fluids, and reduced average proppant concentration per fluid volume pumped shows inclination toward hybrid or slickwater designs. While some of these observations are tied to reservoir quality, proppant volumes have begun to peak as operators have either reached an optimal point or are in the process of reducing volumes. Demand for proppant is expected to nearly double by 2020. As oil prices continue to recover, well AFEs continue to increase, despite multiple efforts to improve capital efficiency. The need for enhanced fracture conductivity and extended half-lengths on EURs are been discussed by combining actual observed production data and sensitivities using calibrated production models. The industry is moving toward large-volume slickwater fracturing operations using smaller proppants, but he operating landscape is expected to see a correction when such designs become less economical.
是否存在支撑剂过多的问题?
自2014年以来,北美非常规完井的支撑剂泵送量发生了翻天覆地的变化。由于2015年初油价暴跌导致的产品和服务成本降低,油价和支撑剂用量都出现了明显的变化趋势。随着行业的持续复苏,作业者正在重新评估完井设计,以了解这些支撑剂的体积是否超出了最佳水平。本文分析了自2011年以来美国所有主要非常规油气区块完井尺寸和类型的趋势,并跟踪了它们对油井产能的影响。研究人员分析了7个主要盆地(Gulf Coast、Permian、Appalachian、Anadarko、Haynesville、Williston和Denver Julesburg盆地)和11个主要油气生产地层自2011年以来7万多口水平井的完井和生产数据,以研究支撑剂和流体量的发展情况。利用每加仑泵送流体的平均支撑剂浓度来了解压裂液类型随时间的过渡趋势。生产性能指标,如第一个月、最佳3个月或最佳12个月的油气产量,与完井量进行对比,以评估采用更大的设计是否具有额外的经济优势。总的来说,自2011年以来,所有主要盆地的平均油井产量都在逐步提高,其中二叠纪盆地的改善幅度最大,从2011年的平均前六个月产量2.5万桶增加到2017年的7.5万桶。Eagle Ford地层所在的墨西哥湾沿岸盆地,自2011年以来,每英尺水平段的支撑剂用量增加了6倍,而Permian盆地和Appalachian盆地的支撑剂用量分别在2015年和2016年达到峰值。在Permian和Eagleford井中,在一定浓度下,较高的支撑剂体积通常会带来更好的产量。在Williston和Denver盆地,大多数作业者都不再使用胶凝液,每泵入流体体积的平均支撑剂浓度降低了,这表明他们倾向于采用混合或滑溜水设计。虽然其中一些观测结果与储层质量有关,但随着作业公司达到最佳点或正在减少支撑剂体积,支撑剂体积已经开始达到峰值。到2020年,对支撑剂的需求预计将增加近一倍。随着油价的持续回升,尽管采取了多种措施来提高资本效率,但油井afe仍在继续增加。通过结合实际观察到的生产数据和使用校准生产模型的灵敏度,讨论了提高裂缝导流能力和延长EURs半长度的必要性。行业正朝着使用更小支撑剂的大容量滑溜水压裂的方向发展,但当这种设计变得不那么经济时,预计会出现调整。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信