Characterising and Defining Stimulation Zones in Tight Formations for Appraisal Wells Onshore U.A.E with the Aid of Integrated Standard and Novel Stress Determination Methods
{"title":"Characterising and Defining Stimulation Zones in Tight Formations for Appraisal Wells Onshore U.A.E with the Aid of Integrated Standard and Novel Stress Determination Methods","authors":"Neil Doucette, M. Ziller, T. Addis","doi":"10.2118/193032-MS","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Several onshore concessions, currently under exploration by ADNOC, consist of tight laterally variable reservoirs that pose a significant challenge during the evaluation phase of exploration.\n Most tight hydrocarbon-bearing formations require fracture stimulation. As such, the evaluation phase of these resources comprises not only the characterisation of reservoir rock properties using petrophysical analysis but, crucially, the construction of 1-D Mechanical Earth Models which underpin the identification of stimulation intervals for both vertical and horizontal well completions. The 1-D MEMs discussed here were provided by different vendors and have been calibrated against interval pressure tests, that included standard \"wet\" straddle packer microfractures and novel \"dry\" Sleeve-Fracture tests. The microfracture test data used to calibrate the MEMs were obtained from different depth intervals in onshore Abu Dhabi E&A wells and exhibit non-ideal pressure decline \"shut-in\" behavior. This required re-analysis using different interpretation methods to identify the lower bound fracture closure pressures and minimum stress magnitudes.\n The identification of stimulation intervals from the 1-D MEMs highlighted the uncertainty in the minimum stress magnitude estimations from both the log-based models, and the microfrac interpretations. The uncertainty in the log-based minimum horizontal stresses can exceed 0.15 psi/ft (>17%), even after calibration with the microfracture tests. The uncertainty in the fracture closure pressure obtained from the microfracture test can also be as large as 1,600 psi (0.22 psi/ft and 30%).\n The identification of the sources of the uncertainty, their quantification and the re-evaluation of microfracture tests fed directly into updated 1-D MEMs, which led to improved recommendations for optimised injectivity tests and acid fracturing treatments. This, in turn, has translated into a successful fluid sampling and production appraisal programme.","PeriodicalId":11079,"journal":{"name":"Day 4 Thu, November 15, 2018","volume":"152 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 4 Thu, November 15, 2018","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/193032-MS","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Several onshore concessions, currently under exploration by ADNOC, consist of tight laterally variable reservoirs that pose a significant challenge during the evaluation phase of exploration.
Most tight hydrocarbon-bearing formations require fracture stimulation. As such, the evaluation phase of these resources comprises not only the characterisation of reservoir rock properties using petrophysical analysis but, crucially, the construction of 1-D Mechanical Earth Models which underpin the identification of stimulation intervals for both vertical and horizontal well completions. The 1-D MEMs discussed here were provided by different vendors and have been calibrated against interval pressure tests, that included standard "wet" straddle packer microfractures and novel "dry" Sleeve-Fracture tests. The microfracture test data used to calibrate the MEMs were obtained from different depth intervals in onshore Abu Dhabi E&A wells and exhibit non-ideal pressure decline "shut-in" behavior. This required re-analysis using different interpretation methods to identify the lower bound fracture closure pressures and minimum stress magnitudes.
The identification of stimulation intervals from the 1-D MEMs highlighted the uncertainty in the minimum stress magnitude estimations from both the log-based models, and the microfrac interpretations. The uncertainty in the log-based minimum horizontal stresses can exceed 0.15 psi/ft (>17%), even after calibration with the microfracture tests. The uncertainty in the fracture closure pressure obtained from the microfracture test can also be as large as 1,600 psi (0.22 psi/ft and 30%).
The identification of the sources of the uncertainty, their quantification and the re-evaluation of microfracture tests fed directly into updated 1-D MEMs, which led to improved recommendations for optimised injectivity tests and acid fracturing treatments. This, in turn, has translated into a successful fluid sampling and production appraisal programme.