DFIT解释的最佳实践——加拿大Duvernay页岩区83个DFIT的对比分析

C. Virues, Alexandra Robertson, Emile AbouKhalil
{"title":"DFIT解释的最佳实践——加拿大Duvernay页岩区83个DFIT的对比分析","authors":"C. Virues, Alexandra Robertson, Emile AbouKhalil","doi":"10.2118/210266-ms","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In September 2021, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) through a new pressure and deliverability testing directive issued new guidance for minifrac tests, also known as diagnostic fracture injection tests, to align with the current practice for conducting these tests. This paper statistically summarizes results from 83 of these DFITs, submitted by many operators from the Canadian Duvernay shale play. The main parameters analyzed were closure, reservoir pressure and permeability.\n This newly updated directive sets out requirements for pressure and deliverability tests. In the development of tight or unconventional reservoirs, industry moved towards horizontal wells with multistage fracture treatments using a minifrac (also referred to as DFIT or diagnostic fracture injection test), which became the more common well test in determining closure, initial reservoir pressure and permeability. In this paper, a comparison of holistic vs compliance methods descriptions for closure pressure are provided. Complete governing equations for after closure analysis methods are described in detail to permit readers to replicate all results on reservoir pressure and permeability.\n For closure pressure, the compliance model is compared to the holistic model that is published or commercially available. Comparisons are also provided for After Closure Analysis (ACA) models including the Soliman and Nolte methods as far as reservoir pressure and permeability are concerned. 83 field case studies are presented for horizontal wells in an unconventional shale play. The most significant findings are 1) a compliance closure pressure signature is not apparent in the analyzed DFITs, 2) closure pressure estimates, and outcomes are similar for the compliance and holistic methods 3) reservoir pressure determination differentiation using either linear or radial flow 4) PVT impact on interpretation and 5) order of magnitude difference for permeability determination on After Closure Analysis methods. The findings have direct practical implications for operators in the Canadian Duvernay shale play and analogous shale plays in USA and elsewhere. Accurate permeability estimates are needed for calculating effective fracture length and for optimizing well spacing and fracture design. Accurate closure pressure is fundamental to hydraulic fracture design and other geomechanics applications. Accurate initial reservoir pressure is important because it could be used for input for Rate Transient Analysis (RTA) for resources / reserves assessments in similar unconventional plays.\n The novelty of the comparative analysis is in the ability to show in unconventional shale plays how closure pressure methods compared, and the implications of using different after closure analysis methods which could be of significant benefit to a practicing engineer or well testing interpreter","PeriodicalId":113697,"journal":{"name":"Day 2 Tue, October 04, 2022","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Best Practices in DFIT Interpretation - Comparative Analysis of 83 DFITs in the Canadian Duvernay Shale Play\",\"authors\":\"C. Virues, Alexandra Robertson, Emile AbouKhalil\",\"doi\":\"10.2118/210266-ms\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In September 2021, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) through a new pressure and deliverability testing directive issued new guidance for minifrac tests, also known as diagnostic fracture injection tests, to align with the current practice for conducting these tests. This paper statistically summarizes results from 83 of these DFITs, submitted by many operators from the Canadian Duvernay shale play. The main parameters analyzed were closure, reservoir pressure and permeability.\\n This newly updated directive sets out requirements for pressure and deliverability tests. In the development of tight or unconventional reservoirs, industry moved towards horizontal wells with multistage fracture treatments using a minifrac (also referred to as DFIT or diagnostic fracture injection test), which became the more common well test in determining closure, initial reservoir pressure and permeability. In this paper, a comparison of holistic vs compliance methods descriptions for closure pressure are provided. Complete governing equations for after closure analysis methods are described in detail to permit readers to replicate all results on reservoir pressure and permeability.\\n For closure pressure, the compliance model is compared to the holistic model that is published or commercially available. Comparisons are also provided for After Closure Analysis (ACA) models including the Soliman and Nolte methods as far as reservoir pressure and permeability are concerned. 83 field case studies are presented for horizontal wells in an unconventional shale play. The most significant findings are 1) a compliance closure pressure signature is not apparent in the analyzed DFITs, 2) closure pressure estimates, and outcomes are similar for the compliance and holistic methods 3) reservoir pressure determination differentiation using either linear or radial flow 4) PVT impact on interpretation and 5) order of magnitude difference for permeability determination on After Closure Analysis methods. The findings have direct practical implications for operators in the Canadian Duvernay shale play and analogous shale plays in USA and elsewhere. Accurate permeability estimates are needed for calculating effective fracture length and for optimizing well spacing and fracture design. Accurate closure pressure is fundamental to hydraulic fracture design and other geomechanics applications. Accurate initial reservoir pressure is important because it could be used for input for Rate Transient Analysis (RTA) for resources / reserves assessments in similar unconventional plays.\\n The novelty of the comparative analysis is in the ability to show in unconventional shale plays how closure pressure methods compared, and the implications of using different after closure analysis methods which could be of significant benefit to a practicing engineer or well testing interpreter\",\"PeriodicalId\":113697,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Day 2 Tue, October 04, 2022\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Day 2 Tue, October 04, 2022\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2118/210266-ms\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 2 Tue, October 04, 2022","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/210266-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

摘要

2021年9月,阿尔伯塔能源监管机构(AER)通过一项新的压力和产能测试指令,发布了小型压裂测试(也称为诊断性压裂注入测试)的新指南,以与目前进行这些测试的实践保持一致。本文统计总结了83个dfit的结果,这些结果是由加拿大Duvernay页岩区的许多运营商提交的。分析的主要参数为封闭性、储层压力和渗透率。该新更新的指令规定了压力和交付能力测试的要求。在致密或非常规油藏的开发过程中,油气行业开始转向使用微型压裂装置(也称为DFIT或诊断性压裂注入测试)进行水平井多级压裂处理,这成为了确定闭井、初始储层压力和渗透率的更常用的试井方法。本文对闭合压力的整体方法和顺应方法进行了比较。详细描述了封闭后分析方法的完整控制方程,以便读者能够复制所有关于储层压力和渗透率的结果。对于关闭压力,将遵从性模型与已发布或商业上可用的整体模型进行比较。并对Soliman法和Nolte法两种闭后分析(ACA)模型在储层压力和渗透率方面进行了比较。介绍了83个非常规页岩水平井的现场案例研究。最重要的发现是:1)在分析的dfit中,依从性关闭压力特征不明显;2)关闭压力估计,依从性方法和整体方法的结果相似;3)使用线性或径向流的油藏压力确定区分;4)PVT对解释的影响;5)关闭后分析方法在渗透率确定方面的数量级差异。这些发现对加拿大Duvernay页岩区以及美国和其他地区类似页岩区的运营商具有直接的实际意义。为了计算有效裂缝长度、优化井距和裂缝设计,需要精确的渗透率估算。准确的闭合压力是水力压裂设计和其他地质力学应用的基础。准确的初始储层压力非常重要,因为它可以用于类似非常规油气藏资源/储量评估的速率瞬态分析(RTA)的输入。对比分析的新颖之处在于,它能够显示在非常规页岩储层中如何比较关闭压力方法,以及使用不同的关闭后分析方法的含义,这可能对执业工程师或试井解释人员有很大的好处
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Best Practices in DFIT Interpretation - Comparative Analysis of 83 DFITs in the Canadian Duvernay Shale Play
In September 2021, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) through a new pressure and deliverability testing directive issued new guidance for minifrac tests, also known as diagnostic fracture injection tests, to align with the current practice for conducting these tests. This paper statistically summarizes results from 83 of these DFITs, submitted by many operators from the Canadian Duvernay shale play. The main parameters analyzed were closure, reservoir pressure and permeability. This newly updated directive sets out requirements for pressure and deliverability tests. In the development of tight or unconventional reservoirs, industry moved towards horizontal wells with multistage fracture treatments using a minifrac (also referred to as DFIT or diagnostic fracture injection test), which became the more common well test in determining closure, initial reservoir pressure and permeability. In this paper, a comparison of holistic vs compliance methods descriptions for closure pressure are provided. Complete governing equations for after closure analysis methods are described in detail to permit readers to replicate all results on reservoir pressure and permeability. For closure pressure, the compliance model is compared to the holistic model that is published or commercially available. Comparisons are also provided for After Closure Analysis (ACA) models including the Soliman and Nolte methods as far as reservoir pressure and permeability are concerned. 83 field case studies are presented for horizontal wells in an unconventional shale play. The most significant findings are 1) a compliance closure pressure signature is not apparent in the analyzed DFITs, 2) closure pressure estimates, and outcomes are similar for the compliance and holistic methods 3) reservoir pressure determination differentiation using either linear or radial flow 4) PVT impact on interpretation and 5) order of magnitude difference for permeability determination on After Closure Analysis methods. The findings have direct practical implications for operators in the Canadian Duvernay shale play and analogous shale plays in USA and elsewhere. Accurate permeability estimates are needed for calculating effective fracture length and for optimizing well spacing and fracture design. Accurate closure pressure is fundamental to hydraulic fracture design and other geomechanics applications. Accurate initial reservoir pressure is important because it could be used for input for Rate Transient Analysis (RTA) for resources / reserves assessments in similar unconventional plays. The novelty of the comparative analysis is in the ability to show in unconventional shale plays how closure pressure methods compared, and the implications of using different after closure analysis methods which could be of significant benefit to a practicing engineer or well testing interpreter
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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