水力压裂:追赶外国直接投资

该行业继续致力于识别和理解断裂驱动的相互作用。

十多年来,运营商和服务提供商一直致力于了解油井干扰以及如何减轻裂缝驱动相互作用的影响。(来源:michaelrousphotography/Shutterstock.com)

水力压裂技术手册 2021 - Hart Energy

编者注:本文首次出现在 2021 年水力压裂技术书中。在此查看本技术手册的完整 PDF 版本 。 


在更好地理解母井和子井之间的关系,或者主井和填充井之间的关系,以及两者之间相互作用的影响的过程中,不同行业专家存在不同的想法和想法。自 2014 年左右首次出现裂缝驱动相互作用 (FDI) 问题以来,石油和天然气行业已经认识到理解这些相互作用以及在大多数情况下限制这些相互作用的重要性。

虽然 FDI 是 2018 年的热门话题,但 COVID-19 大流行、OPEC+ 价格战以及随后的油价下跌和金融紧缩已经转移了行业的焦点。当很少有公司钻井时,油井相互作用就不那么重要了。

然而,问题并没有就此消失。非常规开发行业仍在寻找答案和解决方案以及对外国直接投资的坚定理解。从更好的井距设计、流体追踪、压力监测到裂缝诊断,各种各样的井设计和技术正在被应用于理解和减轻外国直接投资的负面影响。

“这在我们的行业中是典型的,当进行这样的观察时,人们会全力以赴并试图弄清楚正在发生什么,并且他们有断裂驱动相互作用的概念,”总裁彼得邓肯说实时油藏分析提供商 MicroSeismic 的首席执行官。“这些相互作用的范围可能很广,从暂时的产量损失到永久性的产量损失,再到子井的表现不如母井,直至井筒丧失。”

了解挑战

石油和天然气技术分析和咨询公司 Darcy Partners 在 2 月份举办了一次网络研讨会,重点讨论外国直接投资以及原生井和加密井设计挑战。在随后接受 Hart Energy 采访时,Darcy 的勘探与生产技术研究主管 Jack Blears 表示,这次虚拟会议有 400 多名与会者,其中许多与会者表示,他们解决 FDI 问题的主要挑战是在建模阶段。

“我们收集了一些调查数据,收到了超过 130 份回复,我们提出的第一个问题是‘对于您的组织来说,家长/孩子建模面临的最大挑战是什么?’”布莱尔斯说。“在大约 10 个潜在选项列表中,最重要的三件事是模型本身的准确性。”

Blears 指出的其他主要挑战是工作流程的复杂性,例如建模过程中的软件和学科的数量,以及获得可行见解的能力。

“就准确性而言,这些系统非常复杂,这已不是什么秘密,”布莱尔斯说。“它们是多尺度物理、非线性物理,我们正在构建的所有这些模型都需要大量不同的输入参数,这些参数本质上是不确定的,因为我们关心的系统位于地球下方一英里处。” �

他解释说,估算压裂长度、压裂高度、渗透率和泄漏等任务必须间接执行。

“我们在通过光纤进行测量方面取得了一些良好的进展,”他说。“但在大多数情况下,我们在数据中看到的是,鉴于亲子研究涉及四到五个井,因此当您将其乘以所需参数的数量时,就会发现很多不确定性,很多未知数。这确实是准确性方面的最大挑战之一,也是我们根本不知道这些断裂系统实际上是什么样子的。”

Blears 解释说,无法对建模数据获得可行的见解源于“没有领先”,这意味着很多建模工作,特别是基于物理的建模,都是在回顾的基础上完成的。

“因此,您钻了几口井,然后花几周到几个月的时间来分析并尝试梳理出为什么给定的压裂处理设计会导致给定的结果与了解即将到来的井场以了解我们如何使用它之间的关系。”模型来预测行为并将其用作真正指导我们完井设计的工具,”他说。“这就是行业想要发展的方向。”

实时监控

许多行业顾问和技术提供商认为,这种事后分析、压裂后分析虽然仍然有价值,但在试图减轻外国直接投资的负面影响发生之前基本上为时已晚。允许运营商对其压裂作业做出现场决策的技术和方法是许多人(包括行业顾问 Ali Danesy)青睐的外国直接投资解决方案。

2010 年,Daneshy 与加拿大生产商 Penn West 签约,负责分析压裂后数据,就在那时,Daneshy 首次确定了加密井压裂作业期间主井的压力变化。从那时起,他一直与各种公司和协会合作并通过它们寻找外国直接投资的解决方案。Daneshy 青睐的解决方案之一是实时压力分析。

“业界长期以来都知道的一件事是,这些水平井非常无情,”他说。“一旦钻完井,进行任何类型的补救工作通常都是不可能的或者非常昂贵。如果你钻了一口井,但产量不理想,你真的没有机会回去花一大笔钱来改善它。”

Daneshy 表示,这种动态性催生了大规模且基本统一的赛车设计。

“因为我们无法回头纠正我们的错误,所以业界决定,如果我们要犯错误,就让我们这样做以取得更大的成就,”他说。结果,他们重复了相同的压裂计划。如果你有一口有 50 级的井,你就需要重复同一条裂缝 50 次。”

Daneshy 发现,通过使用压裂数据,操作员可以决定每个阶段何时达到最佳用途。

“当你到达这一点时,你就停下来并转到下一个,”他说。“当您观察主井中发生的情况(就压力变化而言)时,您正在实时观察。如果你认为它会造成损害,你就停止它。随着[加密井]工作正在进行中,实时查看压力完全没有问题。”

Daneshy 还一直倡导外国直接投资可以带来的积极影响。他说,也许最重要的积极影响是更好地了解个别骨折。

“当我开始深入研究这个问题时,我开始意识到这项技术可以彻底改变石油和天然气生产,”他说。“如果你根据相互作用的程度实时记录这些压力,你就可以很好地了解两口井中两条裂缝的相对位置。根据这种互动程度,您可以决定何时做得足够。”

他说,实时压力监测的数据可以提供有关不同压裂特征的宝贵信息。

“这可以让您了解不同裂缝的长度,以及(主井)和加密井中每个不同裂缝的长度,”Daneshy 说。

地下诊断

实时压裂作业分析不仅可以应用于压力监测。Deep Imaging 是一家地下成像和压裂诊断公司,于 5 月宣布收购 ESG Solutions。据新闻稿称,合并后的公司提供了一套技术,其中包括先进的诊断工具,可以跟踪和测量压裂液从地面和远离垫的位置。

Deep Imaging 总裁兼首席执行官 David Moore 表示:“我们的技术确实可以帮助您限制 X 和 Y,即压裂过程中液体和支撑剂的流动方向。” “但我们的产品确实需要一个 Z 组件。所以我们出去收购了 ESG。我们真的很喜欢 ESG,因为他们采用了与我们相同的思维过程。”

他说,思维过程包括对速度模型和数据处理的持续投资,从而产生可行的见解。

“他们拥有实时数据,我们将通过将其迭代为更好的井眼地震实时产品来帮助他们,”摩尔说。

首席开发官 Josh Ulla 详细解释了实时监控与压裂后评估相比的好处。

“尸检对于开始培养‘为什么?’很有用,”他说。“为什么我们会发生压裂事故?但你还需要拥有“那个”。你需要知道发生了什么。如果您正在开车并且即将撞墙,您会很想知道发生了什么,这样您就可以踩刹车并避开这些障碍物。”

Moore 补充说,该操作工具可以帮助您立即识别母井或邻近井的失控压裂阶段。

“这是技术的演变,”他说。“如果你能在它发生之前阻止它,你就会这么做,因为这是技术的演变。我们曾经进行过压裂,其中发生了压裂,它击中了母井,而母井只有一口 5,000 psi 的井,他们将其加压到 4,500 至 4,800 psi。那时,您必须将压裂关闭 12 到 14 小时。因此,仅此一项,从操作上来说,您就浪费了 100,000 美元和人员时间。”

深度成像
伊格尔福特的一位操作员想要了解测序对父母/孩子互动的影响。通过首先对最近的子井进行水力压裂,他们成功地为 B、C 和 D 创建了一个缓冲区。创建该缓冲区的成本是 A 井与父井之间的高相互作用。(来源:深度影像)

MicroSeismic 的邓肯指出,他的业务最近开始出现活动增加。

“五六年前,我们的大部分实践都是为了人们想要了解正在形成的增产储库容量,”他说。“现在,我的实践中可能有 50% 是由那些想要了解裂缝驱动的相互作用的人们所推动的,特别是在像 Eagle Ford 这样的地方,特别是在井筒被压缩或剪断的情况下。先前存在的断层和裂缝重新活动。”

微地震技术通过代理发生的微震事件来监测岩石的破裂情况。

微震公司
该地图视图描绘了对最东边的两口井(紫色和红色)的处理进行微震监测的结果,其中还有一口正在生产的较早的井(蓝色)。请注意,当主要裂缝走向与老井一致时,新井的处理方式会发生巨大变化。这是相邻井之间压裂驱动相互作用的一个典型例子。网格尺寸为 100 m x 100 m。(来源:Pan American Energy SL 和 MicroSeismic Inc.)

“我们可以在受刺激的井眼周围定位这些微震事件,”邓肯说。“我们可以及时定位它们,这样我们就可以看到它们的动态变化以及它们如何远离井眼。我们还可以判断这些裂缝在增产时的运动是倾滑还是走滑,或者或多或少是水平的。”

他发现的趋势包括更加重视保护井眼而不是保护生产。

“我们过去的一些监测是为了尽量减少裂缝驱动的相互作用,这种相互作用会影响产量,”邓肯说。“我发现现在不再那么强调这一点,而是更多地强调监测裂缝驱动的相互作用,并在对井的机械完整性产生任何负面强调之前检测这些相互作用。”

井距趋势

除了可用于限制和了解外国直接投资的无数技术之外,运营商仍在尝试确定哪些井距模式既可以优化生产,又可以减轻风险因素。不仅仅是井间距——竣工设计、井经济性和戏剧的年龄都是生产者在试图更好地理解外国直接投资时考虑的因素。

“如果存在干扰石油生产的风险,如果井间距太紧,这并不一定意味着加大间距总是会带来更好的生产力,因为这实际上还取决于岩石和完井情况Wood Mackenzie 的高级研究分析师阿曼达·理查森 (Amanda Richardson) 表示。“因此,生产力和间距之间的趋势并不像您想象的那样清晰。这只是一个需要从根本上降低的风险。

伍德麦肯齐最近编写了一份研究二叠纪盆地和伊格尔福德盆地井距和产能的报告。该研究比较了两个区块的井密度与盆地成熟度的比较、联合完井对井的影响以及单井经济性与全断面开发经济性的比较。Wood Mackenzie 发现,多台开发在二叠纪盆地的 Wolfcamp 开发中更为常见,这可能导致平均间距比 Eagle Ford 更宽。

“在 Eagle Ford,他们使用的井距要小得多,平均约为 330 英尺,而 Wolfcamp 的井距为 600 至 800 英尺,”理查森说。“在 Wolfcamp 中,您可以更频繁地看到多板凳的开发。它们交错排列在两个长凳之间,就像在鹰福特一样,你会看到更多这样的东西。而且,它只是被钻得更多,而且没有那么多空间。因此,运营商通过安装这些井,可以从他们拥有的土地中获得最大的价值。”

根据 Wood Mackenzie 的说法,2014 年,里夫斯县、洛文县和利县的 Wolfcamp 的平均水平间距约为 1,300 英尺。此后,该间距已降至 800 英尺至 1,000 英尺之间。在 Eagle Ford,井距仅略有变化,特别是在 Hawkville 和 Maverick 凝析油区,这些油井的间距通常约为 600 英尺。在爱德华兹凝析油和卡恩斯海槽(Eagle Ford 两个最具生产力的子区域)中,平均水平间距略有下降,从 2014 年的约 500 英尺降至 2020 年的约 300 英尺。

“在过去三年里,Eagle Ford 的井间距确实没有发生很大变化,”理查森说。“在此之前,有更多的下空间,但近年来,当你以子游戏的平均水平来看它时,它相当一致。”

然而,尽管井距趋于稳定,特别是在 Eagle Ford,伍德麦肯齐发现这些努力并不一定会导致产量增加。

Lower 48 的首席分析师瑞安·杜曼 (Ryan Duman) 表示:“尽管如此,性能并没有出现相应的上升,这就是很难解析出所有这一切的多变量方面以及单独的空间影响如何。”上游与伍德麦肯齐。他提供了米德兰沃尔夫坎普 (Midland Wolfcamp) 的一个例子,该地区与井距相关的产量仍然“基本持平”。

“我认为,随着运营商理论上继续提升空间,提出的关键问题是,你是否看到性能跟随,或者他们只是减轻了一些性能滚动的风险,就像我们在鹰福特中看到的那样“还有特拉华盆地的部分地区?”他说。

断裂驱动的相互作用
从实时压力监测到油藏分析等各种技术和解决方案已被应用于帮助减轻外国直接投资的负面影响。(来源:Mike Irvin/Shutterstock.com)

Wood Mackenzie 分析了联合完井和扩大间距可能对油井性能产生的影响,并确定虽然紧密间距的井如果联合完井,其性能会更好,但平均而言,它们仍然不如间距更宽的井。

据 Wood Mackenzie 称,在 Midland Wolfcamp,宽间距(定义为 660 英尺或以上)的联合完井井在生产 36 个月后产量约为 35 桶油当量/英尺,与非联合完井的宽间距井相似。然而,未共同完成的紧密间距井产量下降至不足 30 桶油当量/英尺。共同完井的紧密间距井的表现仅稍好一些,仅超过 30 桶油当量/英尺。

多年来,人们已经做出了各种努力和技术来帮助缓解外国直接投资,其中一些比其他的更成功。支撑剂追踪和实时压力监测已被证明在不同程度上是有益的,但井距仍然是一门不精确的科学。

“多年来,人们仍然没有可以采用的简单解决方案或商定的解决方案,”杜曼说。“一般来说,间距将减轻这种风险或定制完井设计或其他影响性能的因素。它取决于个体运营商以及他们实际尝试开采的岩石,这使得尝试进行更多流域或非常广泛的宏观分析变得具有挑战性。

在对 Karnes Trough P50 类型曲线的分析中,Wood Mackenzie 发现,间距为 330 英尺至 660 英尺的油井预计每英尺的采收量比间距小于 165 英尺的油井多出约 10%。在卡恩斯海槽,宽间距井的采油量约为 44 桶油当量/英尺,而紧密间距井的采油量约为 39 桶油当量/英尺。

“如果你考虑部分、水平、NPV [净现值]或投资回报或任何选择的指标,当你开始扩大范围时,比如每个部分有六口井,你就开始牺牲你要使用的资源量发展,整体价值再次开始下降,”杜曼说。“因此,它试图平衡您可以开发的总体资源量的最佳点,同时接受单个油井的性能不一定会是最好的。”


相关内容:

2021 年 8 月 5 日, 学术界和工业界拥抱压裂中的细微差别

2021 年 8 月 2 日 页岩油生产商谈论开发计划、ESG 和完井设计

2021 年 7 月 29 日 Cold Bore Technology 完成 1400 万美元融资

2021 年 7 月 28 日 哈里伯顿推出低成本直接骨折监测服务

2021 年 7 月 12 日 Seneca Resources 和 NexTier 将为完井工作开发全面的排放测试

2021 年 7 月 7 日 Liberty 在二叠纪盆地完成 digiFrac 电动压裂泵现场测试

2021 年 7 月 6 日 披露能源墨水交易以实现液压断裂压力诊断的商业化

六月 21, 2021 专业化学提高传统水力压裂的可持续性

原文链接/hartenergy

Hydraulic Fracturing: Catching up on FDIs

The industry continues its work on identifying and understanding fracture-driven interactions.

Operators and service providers have been working for more than a decade to understand well interference and how to mitigate the effects of fracture-driven interactions. (Source: michaelrousphotography/ Shutterstock.com)

Hydraulic Fracturing Techbook 2021 - Hart Energy

Editor's note: This article first appeared in the 2021 Hydraulic Fracturing Techbook. View the full PDF of this techbook here


In the journey to better understand the relationship between parent and child wells, or primary and infill wells, and the effects of interactions between the two, various thoughts and ideas exist from a variety of industry experts. Since the issue of fracture-driven interactions (FDIs) first arose around 2014, the oil and gas industry has recognized the importance of both understanding and, in most cases, limiting those interactions.

While FDIs were the topic du jour by 2018, the COVID-19 pandemic, OPEC+ price war and subsequent drop in oil prices and financial belt-tightening have shifted the industry’s focus. Well interactions were less of a priority when few companies were drilling wells.

However, the issue didn’t just simply go away. The unconventional development industry is still searching for answers and solutions as well as a firm understanding of FDIs. From better well spacing designs to fluid tracing to pressure monitoring to fracture diagnostics, a wide array of well designs and technologies are being applied to understand and alleviate negative impacts of FDIs.

“As is typical in our industry, when observations are made like this, people buckle down and try to figure out what is going [on], and they have with the concept of fracture-drive interactions,” said Peter Duncan, president and CEO of MicroSeismic, a provider of real-time reservoir analysis. “Those interactions can range anywhere from a temporary loss of production to a permanent loss of production to the child well not performing as well as the parent well right up to the loss of the wellbore.”

Understanding the challenges

Darcy Partners, an oil and gas technology analyst and consulting firm, hosted a webinar in February that focused on FDIs and primary and infill well design challenges. In a subsequent interview with Hart Energy, Jack Blears, Darcy’s head of E&P technology research, said the virtual conference had more than 400 attendees, and many of those attendees stated that their primary challenge for addressing FDIs was in the modeling phase.

“We took some survey data and we had over 130 responses, and the first question we asked was ‘What’s the biggest challenge with parent/child modeling for your organization?’” Blears said. “And the top three things out of the list of about 10 potential options were [about] the accuracy of the models themselves.”

The other top challenges noted by Blears were workflow complexities, such as the number of softwares and disciplines in the modeling process, and the ability to gain actionable insights.

“Regarding accuracy, it’s no secret these systems are highly complex,” Blears said. “They are multiscale physics, non-linear physics, and all of these models we are building require a lot of different input parameters that are just inherently uncertain because the systems that we care about, they’re a mile underneath the earth.”

He explained that tasks such as estimating frac length, frac height, permeability and leak-off has to be performed indirectly.

“There is some good progress on what we can measure through fiber optics,” he said. “But for the most part, what we see in our data here is that given a parent/child study is involving four to five wells, so when you multiply that by the number of parameters that are required, there’s just a lot of uncertainty, a lot of unknowns. That’s really one of the biggest challenges around the accuracy as well as just the fundamental lack of knowing what these fracture systems actually look like.”

Blears explained that the inability to achieve actionable insights on modeling data stems from “not being ahead of the bit,” meaning that a lot of the modeling work, especially in physics-based modeling, is done on a look-back basis.

“So you drill a few wells and you take a couple of weeks to months to analyze and try to tease out a relationship between why a given fracture treatment design resulted in a given outcome versus understanding on an upcoming well pad for how we use this model to predict the behavior and use it as a tool to really guide our completion design,” he said. “That’s where the industry wants to go.”

Real-time monitoring

A number of industry consultants and technology providers see that such post-mortem, post-frac analysis, while still valuable, essentially comes too late when trying to mitigate the negative impacts of FDIs before they can occur. Technologies and methods that allow operators to make on-the-spot decisions on their frac jobs are a solution to FDIs that many, including industry consultant Ali Daneshy, favor.

In 2010 Daneshy was contracted by Canadian producer Penn West to analyze post-frac data, and it was then that Daneshy first identified pressure changes in primary wells during infill well frac jobs. Since then, he has been working with and through various companies and associations to find solutions to FDIs. One solution Daneshy favors is real-time pressure analysis.

“One of the things the industry has known for a long time is that these horizontal wells are very unforgiving,” he said. “Once you drill the well, doing any kind of remedial work is often not possible or very expensive. If you drill a well and get suboptimal production, you really don’t have a chance to go back and spend a bunch of money to improve it.”

Daneshy said that dynamic gave rise to massive— and largely uniform—frac designs.

“Because we cannot go back and correct our errors, the industry decided that if we are going to make a mistake, let’s do it toward making a bigger job,” he said. “As a result, they repeat the same frac schedule. If you have a well with 50 stages, you repeat the same fracture 50 times.”

What Daneshy discovered was that by using the frac data, operators could decide when each stage reached its optimum usefulness.

“And when you get to that point, you stop it and go to the next one,” he said. “As you are observing what is happening in the primary well [in terms of pressure changes], you are observing that in real time. If you reach a point where you think it’s going to cause damage, you stop it. It is no problem at all to look at that pressure in real time as that job [on the infill well] is in progress.”

Daneshy has also been a voice for the positive impacts FDIs can offer. He said that perhaps the most significant positive effect is achieving a better understanding of the individual fractures.

“As I started to dig in to this issue, I started to realize that this technology could revolutionize oil and gas productions,” he said. “If you record these pressures in real time based on the level of interaction, you can get a very good picture of the relative position of the two fractures in the two wells. And based on that level of interaction, you can decide when you have done enough.”

He said the data from real-time pressure monitoring can provide valuable information on the different frac signatures.

“This is giving you an indication of the length of the different fractures, each of the different fractures in the (primary well) and infill wells,” Daneshy said.

Subsurface diagnostics

Real-time frac job analysis can be applied to more than just pressure monitoring. Deep Imaging, a subsurface imaging and frac diagnostics company, announced its acquisition of ESG Solutions in May. According to a press release, the combined company offers a suite of technologies that includes advanced diagnostic tools that track and measure frac fluid placement from the surface and away from the pad.

“Our technology really helps you constrain the X and the Y, where your fluid and proppant go during the frac,” said David Moore, president and CEO of Deep Imaging. “But we really needed a Z component to our product. So we went out and acquired ESG. We really liked ESG because they took on the same thought process that we did.”

He said that thought process included continued investments in velocity models and data processing that leads to actionable insights.

“They have real time, and we’re going to be helping them by iterating it to an even better real-time product on their borehole seismic,” Moore said.

Chief Development Officer Josh Ulla explained more as to the benefits of real-time monitoring as compared to post-frac evaluation.

“Post-mortems are useful to start cultivating the ‘why?’” he said. “Why did we have that frac hit? But you need to have the ‘what’ as well. You need to know what has happened. If you’re driving a car and you’re about to hit a wall, you’d love to know what’s happening so you can hit the brakes and avoid those obstacles.”

Moore added that the operational tool helps you immediately identify a runaway frac stage toward a parent well or adjacent well.

“It’s an evolution of technology,” he said. “If you can stop it before it happens, you would, because it’s an evolution of technology. We have been on fracs where there has been a frac hit, it a hit a parent well, and that parent well was only a 5,000- psi well, and they pressurized it to 4,500 [to] 4,800 psi. At that point, you’ve got to shut the frac down for 12 to 14 hours. So that alone, operationally you’ve wasted $100,000 and people’s time.”

Deep Imaging
An Eagle Ford operator wanted to understand the effect sequencing had on parent/child interaction. By fracking the nearest child well first, they successfully created a buffer for B, C and D. The cost of creating that buffer was high interaction between well A and the parent well. (Source: Deep Imaging)

MicroSeismic’s Duncan noted that his business has recently started to see an uptick in activity.

“Five or six years ago, the majority of our practice was driven toward people wanting to understand the stimulated reservoir volume that was being created,” he said. “Now, probably 50% of my practice is being driven by people wanting to be aware of fracture-driven interactions, and specifically being concerned in places like the Eagle Ford [and] specifically being concerned about wellbores being constricted or sheared off by the reactivation of previously existing faults and fractures.”

MicroSeismic’s technology monitors the fracturing of rock through the proxy of the microseismic events that occur.

MicroSeismic Inc.
This map view depicts results of microseismic monitoring of the treatment of the two easternmost wells (purple and red) in the presence of an earlier well (blue) that is on production. Note how the treatment of the new wells changes drastically when the predominant fracture strike direction aligns with the older well. This is a prime example of frac-driven interaction between adjacent wells. Grid size is 100 m by 100 m. (Source: Pan American Energy S.L. and MicroSeismic Inc.)

“We can locate those microseismic events around the stimulated wellbore,” Duncan said. “We can locate them in time so we can see them change dynamically and how they move away from the wellbore. We can also tell whether the movement on these fractures when they stimulate the well are dip-slip or strike-slip, or more or less horizontal.”

Trends he has identified include more emphasis on protecting the wellbore rather than protecting production.

“Some of our monitoring in the past was driven by trying to minimize fracture-driven interactions that would affect production volumes,” Duncan said. “I see less emphasis on that now and more emphasis on monitoring fracture-driven interactions and detecting those prior to there being any negative emphasis on the mechanical integrity of well.”

Well spacing trends

In addition to the myriad technologies available to limit and understand FDIs, operators are still trying to determine which well spacing patterns can both optimize production while also mitigating risk factors. And not just well spacing—completion designs, well economics and the age of a play are all factors producers are considering when trying to better understand FDIs.

“If there is a risk of interference in the oil production, if you space the wells too tightly, that doesn’t necessarily mean that upspacing is always going to lead to better productivity because it really also depends on the rock and on the completion and on a whole lot of different factors,” said Amanda Richardson, senior research analyst with Wood Mackenzie. “So it’s not as clear cut of a trend as you might expect between productivity and spacing. It’s just a risk that needs to be mitigated basically.

Wood Mackenzie recently compiled a report studying well spacing and productivity in the Permian and Eagle Ford basins. The study looked at well densities in both plays compared to basin maturity, the effect of co-completions on wells, and single-well economics versus full section development economics. Wood Mackenzie found that multi-bench developments are more common in the Permian Basin’s Wolfcamp development, which likely contributes to wider spacing on average than in the Eagle Ford.

“In the Eagle Ford, they are using much tighter well spacing, around 330 ft on average versus in the Wolfcamp [where] it’s 600 to 800 ft,” Richardson said. “In the Wolfcamp you see multi-bench developments a lot more often. Those are staggered between the two benches, where as in the Eagle Ford, you see more of that. Also it’s just much more drilled out and there’s not as much room. So operators are getting the most value out of the acreages they have by fitting those wells in.”

According to Wood Mackenzie, the average horizontal spacing in the Wolfcamp in Reeves, Loving and Lea counties was about 1,300 ft in 2014. Since then, that spacing distance has declined to between 800 ft and 1,000 ft. In the Eagle Ford, well spacing distances have only varied slightly, particularly in the Hawkville and Maverick condensate plays where wells have typically been spaced about 600 ft apart. In the Edwards Condensate and Karnes Trough—the two most productive Eagle Ford subplays—average horizontal spacings have declined slightly from about 500 ft in 2014 to about 300 ft in 2020.

“[Well spacing in the Eagle Ford] really hasn’t changed a lot in the past three years,” Richardson said. “Prior to that, there was more downspacing, but in recent years when you look at it on an average level at the subplays, it’s been fairly consistent.”

However, despite the plateauing of well spacing, particularly in the Eagle Ford, Wood Mackenzie found those efforts haven’t necessarily led to production increases.

“The performance hasn’t shown a corresponding uptick though, and that’s where it’s hard to parse out the multivariate aspect of all of this and how impact spacing alone has,” said Ryan Duman, principal analyst of Lower 48 upstream with Wood Mackenzie. He provided an example of the Midland Wolfcamp, where production related to well spacing has remained “about flat.”

“I think the key question that is asked as operators theoretically continue to upspace [is] do you see performance follow, or is it one where they just mitigated some of that risk of performance rolling over like we’ve seen in the Eagle Ford and portions of the Delaware Basin?” he said.

fracture-driven interactions
A variety of technologies and solutions ranging from realtime pressure monitoring to reservoir analysis have been applied to help mitigate the negative effects of FDIs. (Source: Mike Irvin/ Shutterstock. com)

Wood Mackenzie analyzed the impact co-completions along with upspacing might have on well performance and determined that while tightly spaced wells performed better if they were co-completed, they still underperformed more widely spaced wells on average.

According to Wood Mackenzie, in the Midland Wolfcamp, co-completed wells with wide spacing (defined as 660 ft or more) produced at about 35 boe/ft after 36 months on production, similar to wide-spaced wells that were not co-completed. However, tightly spaced wells that were not co-completed saw production fall to less than 30 boe/ft. Co-completed tightly spaced wells performed only slightly better, just over 30 boe/ft.

Over the years, there have been a variety of efforts and technologies emerge to help alleviate FDIs, some with more success than others. Proppant tracing and real-time pressure monitoring have each proven beneficial to varying degrees, but well spacing remains an inexact science.

“We’re years down the line, and there’s no simple solution or agreed upon solution that folks can employ,” Duman said. “Generally, spacing is going to mitigate that risk or tailor completion design or other things to impact performance. It’s dependent on individual operators and what rock they’re actually trying to exploit, which can make it challenging to try to do more of the basinwide or very wide macro analysis.

In an analysis of Karnes Trough P50 type curves, Wood Mackenzie found that wells spaced 330 ft to 660 ft apart would be expected to recover about 10% more barrels per foot than wells spaced less than 165 ft apart. Widely spaced wells recovered about 44 boe/ ft in the Karnes Trough, while tightly spaced wells recovered about 39 boe/ft.

“If you look at sections, levels, NPV [net present value] or payback or whatever metric of choice, as you start to move wider, say six wells per section, you start sacrificing the amount of resource you’re going to develop and the overall value starts to decline again,” Duman said. “So it’s trying to balance that sweet spot of how much resource overall you can develop while accepting that individual well performance isn’t necessarily going to be the best that it possibly can be.”


RELATED CONTENT:

Aug. 5, 2021 Academia and Industry Embrace Nuance in Fracturing

Aug. 2, 2021 Shale Producers Talk Development Plans, ESG and Completion Designs

July 29, 2021 Cold Bore Technology Closes $14 Million Financing

July 28, 2021 Halliburton Launches Low Cost, Direct Fracture Monitoring Service

July 12, 2021 Seneca Resources, NexTier to Develop Comprehensive Emissions Testing for Well Completions Work

July 7, 2021 Liberty Completes digiFrac Electric Frac Pump Field Test in Permian Basin

July 6, 2021 Reveal Energy Inks Deal to Commercialize Hydraulic Fracture Pressure Diagnostics

June 21, 2021 Specialized Chemistry Increases Sustainability of Traditional Hydraulic Fracturing