An Eagle Ford Case Study: Improving an Infill Well Completion Through Optimized Refracturing Treatment of the Offset Parent Wells

M. Garza, J. Baumbach, James Prosser, S. Pettigrew, Kirsten Elvig
{"title":"An Eagle Ford Case Study: Improving an Infill Well Completion Through Optimized Refracturing Treatment of the Offset Parent Wells","authors":"M. Garza, J. Baumbach, James Prosser, S. Pettigrew, Kirsten Elvig","doi":"10.2118/194374-MS","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This case study reviews Noble Energy's completion design, execution, and results of an Eagle Ford infill well B3 and the refracturing (refrac) treatments pumped on the direct offsets referred to in this paper as wells A1 and A2. The refrac stimulations were planned to serve the joint purpose of frac hit protection of the existing parent wells' reserves and re-pressurization of depleted zones to improve the performance of the infill child well. Both chemical diversion and mechanical diversion pods were utilized on the bullhead style refrac to optimize lateral placement of fracturing fluid and proppant.\n The A1 refrac was pumped first with a larger job size of proppant, water, and diversion material. The A2 refrac, pumped second, was half the size of the A1. Instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) and diversion pressure response data was captured at each stage for both wells. Infill well B3 was completed last with normal plug-and-perf operations and the optimum job size of the time. The child well B3 production will be compared to offset wells with no depletion risk as well as to a 2014 vintage infill (Y3) well that was completed with no refrac on the direct offsets (X1 and X2).\n The A1 refrac data showed a gradual trend of increasing ISIP and treating pressure throughout the job indicating a more uniform stimulation of the lateral. There is a sustained production uplift resulting in a 36% improvement in estimated ultimate recovery (EUR). The A2 refrac data showed anomalous ISIP and pressure spikes mid-way through the job indicating the stimulation was not accessing the entire lateral. This blockage downhole was caused by being too aggressive with the concentration of pods pumped per stage. Since the A2 was not effectively re-pressurized, there was negligible change to EUR when the well was returned to production. In comparing the two refracs, we concluded that a larger job (increased proppant, fluid, and diversion) with less concentrated but more frequent diversion drops will increase lateral coverage and more effectively protect the parent well reserves.\n The surface treating pressures of the infill B3 indicate new rock was stimulated and initial production results trend with offset well production of the area showing no impact from depletion. Contrasting this with the prior infill Y3 completed with no refracs on parent wells, the Y3 has lower initial production (IP) rates and EUR when compared to its offset wells showing an obvious impact from depletion. Additionally, the refrac'd parent well A1 saw an improvement in EUR while the non-refrac'd parent X1 saw EUR degradation. In conclusion, pumping optimized refracs on the offset parent wells will both protect parent well reserves and improve the performance of the child well.","PeriodicalId":10957,"journal":{"name":"Day 1 Tue, February 05, 2019","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 1 Tue, February 05, 2019","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/194374-MS","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

This case study reviews Noble Energy's completion design, execution, and results of an Eagle Ford infill well B3 and the refracturing (refrac) treatments pumped on the direct offsets referred to in this paper as wells A1 and A2. The refrac stimulations were planned to serve the joint purpose of frac hit protection of the existing parent wells' reserves and re-pressurization of depleted zones to improve the performance of the infill child well. Both chemical diversion and mechanical diversion pods were utilized on the bullhead style refrac to optimize lateral placement of fracturing fluid and proppant. The A1 refrac was pumped first with a larger job size of proppant, water, and diversion material. The A2 refrac, pumped second, was half the size of the A1. Instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) and diversion pressure response data was captured at each stage for both wells. Infill well B3 was completed last with normal plug-and-perf operations and the optimum job size of the time. The child well B3 production will be compared to offset wells with no depletion risk as well as to a 2014 vintage infill (Y3) well that was completed with no refrac on the direct offsets (X1 and X2). The A1 refrac data showed a gradual trend of increasing ISIP and treating pressure throughout the job indicating a more uniform stimulation of the lateral. There is a sustained production uplift resulting in a 36% improvement in estimated ultimate recovery (EUR). The A2 refrac data showed anomalous ISIP and pressure spikes mid-way through the job indicating the stimulation was not accessing the entire lateral. This blockage downhole was caused by being too aggressive with the concentration of pods pumped per stage. Since the A2 was not effectively re-pressurized, there was negligible change to EUR when the well was returned to production. In comparing the two refracs, we concluded that a larger job (increased proppant, fluid, and diversion) with less concentrated but more frequent diversion drops will increase lateral coverage and more effectively protect the parent well reserves. The surface treating pressures of the infill B3 indicate new rock was stimulated and initial production results trend with offset well production of the area showing no impact from depletion. Contrasting this with the prior infill Y3 completed with no refracs on parent wells, the Y3 has lower initial production (IP) rates and EUR when compared to its offset wells showing an obvious impact from depletion. Additionally, the refrac'd parent well A1 saw an improvement in EUR while the non-refrac'd parent X1 saw EUR degradation. In conclusion, pumping optimized refracs on the offset parent wells will both protect parent well reserves and improve the performance of the child well.
Eagle Ford案例研究:通过优化邻井母井的重复压裂处理来提高充填井完井效果
本案例研究回顾了Noble Energy在Eagle Ford B3井的完井设计、执行和结果,以及在本文中提到的A1和A2井的直接邻井进行的重复压裂(frac)处理。重复压裂措施的目的是为了保护现有母井的储量,并对枯竭区进行再加压,以提高填充子井的产量。为了优化压裂液和支撑剂的横向位置,在bullhead式压裂中使用了化学导流和机械导流吊舱。首先泵送的是A1压裂段,支撑剂、水和导流材料的用量较大。第二次泵入的A2折光管尺寸只有A1折光管的一半。在两口井的每个阶段捕获了瞬时关井压力(ISIP)和导流压力响应数据。B3井最后完成,采用了正常的桥塞射孔作业和最佳作业规模。B3子井的产量将与没有枯竭风险的邻井进行比较,并与2014年的一口旧井(Y3)进行比较,该井在直接邻井(X1和X2)上没有发生折光。A1裂缝数据显示,在整个作业过程中,ISIP和处理压力逐渐增加,这表明对分支层的增产更加均匀。由于产量持续上升,估计最终采收率(EUR)提高了36%。A2压裂数据显示了异常的ISIP和压力峰值,表明增产措施没有进入整个分支。这种井下堵塞是由于每级泵入的吊舱浓度太大造成的。由于A2没有进行有效的再加压,因此当井恢复生产时,EUR的变化可以忽略不计。通过对两种压裂方法的比较,我们得出结论,如果作业规模更大(增加支撑剂、流体和导流剂),且导流剂投放浓度更低,但频率更高,则可以增加横向覆盖范围,更有效地保护母井储量。B3区块的地表处理压力表明,该区块已增产新岩,初始生产结果呈趋势,该区域的邻井产量未受枯竭影响。与之前未对母井进行压裂的Y3井相比,Y3井的初始产量(IP)和EUR比邻井低,受枯竭影响明显。此外,重复压裂母井A1的EUR值有所提高,而非重复压裂母井X1的EUR值则有所下降。综上所述,在邻井母井上泵入优化的压裂液,既能保护母井储量,又能提高子井的产量。
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