Total Well Perf AD Oct 28,07 Reveal (JRochon)

Well Productivity/Stimulation and Well Performance Enhancement Seminar
Jean ROCHON & Hughes POITRENAUD Laurent BRUNET & Vincent PEYRONY part 1 part 2
Jean ROCHON Meridien Hotel - ABU DHABI - October 28th, 2007
Well Productivity/Stimulation and Well Performance Enhancement Seminar _________ Productivity & Reservoir Part.1
Jean ROCHON & Hughes POITRENAUD
Jean ROCHON Meridien Hotel - ABU DHABI - October 28th, 2007
Productivity & Performance Part. 1-1
Jean ROCHON
- Jean ROCHON Meridien Hotel - ABU DHABI - October 28th, 2007
Content
Introduction Productivity Performance - Monitoring Productivity
Near Wellbore Model for HQ WP team Examples
Sensitivity to well completion Comparison vertical frac/horizontal in TGR
Performance
Integrated model Examples of integration
WTPL: a revolutionary tool for WP team
4 - Jean ROCHON Meridien Hotel - ABU DHABI - October 28th, 2007
Well Performance Management

TOTAL has developed a formal transverse process called WELL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Objective: deliver
maximum production at any time
All disciplines involved in the Production process must participate Well Performance Teams or Groups are in place in ALL affiliates Process enforced by a Company Rule (CR FPO 320) 16 KPIs defined
Well Performance organisation
HQ
Geosciences Drilling & Wells
EXPLOITATION Training cursus of WPE Assignment co-ordination Focal point
Drilling Completion
Well Performance Group

WP Team leader Facilitator
Geosciences
Asset
Operations
Town
Planning
Well Performance Superintendant
Well works
Well & field Operations
Field
Well Performance Engineering and WP- R&D at HQ level is within D&W Division, with cross posted engineers from all involved disciplines
Reservoir Engineering & Well Performance

Reservoir Engineering plays an active role in the Well Performance Group Advanced flow modeling near the well Definition of reservoir management requirements guiding the well exploitation strategy Evaluation of the properties of the formations near the well (saturations, permeability) and control of skin Definition, implementation and analysis of monitoring actions for evaluating the pressures and their evolutions in the formations near the well
Part.1) Advanced Near Well Bore Flow Modeling: REVEAL

NUMERICAL SIMULATOR (Petroleum Experts) selected by TDO/FPL/EP to perform near well bore investigations or special well studies
4 PHASES (O,G,W, Steam/-emuls./foam/gel/polymer) Data importation from ECLIPSE or VIP (with STARS via PETREL) THERMAL & CHEMICAL EFFECTS ON MOBILITY Viscosity (non-newtonian fluids) Precipitation and adsorption Wettability and capillary desaturation & K reduction Wellbore heating Scaling risks, wax/asphalten deposits FRACTURING (Thermal/Hydraulic): finite-element fracture grid and stress calculation TRACERS and STREAMLINES for (G,W,O) Available links with GAP (or other softs) thru RESOLVE
REVEAL: EXAMPLE_1 Water Chemistry

Sulfate concentration in water
(Congo field case)
945 days
2104 days
3405 days
- Formation water contains barium and lot of calcium - Sulfate from sea water will not reach oil producer before year 2014 - At that date, if no barium sulfate precipitation can be anticipated in bottom hole conditions (solubility constant), some calcium sulfate deposit could occur
REVEAL : EXAMPLE_2 TIF - Kioubloka (cube-low K)

Xf: Frac half-length versus time
70
Oil saturation
Gas is dense
60 Kic=1 psi.ft2 Kic=10 psi.ft2 Kic=145 psi.ft2 50 F ra c tu re H a lf-le n g th (m )
40
30
Gas is cold
20
10
0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Time (days) 5000 6000 7000 8000
Temperature (Russia field case)
Acid gas injection (66%H2S, 33%CO2)

Qg= 2. 106 Sm3/d ; Tinj =40C; Pini=350 bara@3730 m ; Tres=100C
REVEAL : EXAMPLE_3 TIF Hydraulic fracturing with gel & breaker

Injection rate: 15bpm for 70 min Cumulative gel injection: 180 m3 35 lb X-link gel dx=dy= 1 m (well)
Even after 2 hours high polymer conc. in the frac and in the reservoir bad and low cleanup
Fracture width = 0.23

21 m
120 m
(China field case)
Example 4 - Choice of completion type (1)
Layering REVEAL
Pe rme ability (mD), Porosity (%)
0.001 1690
0.01
0.1
10
100
1695
1700
Number of Cells (41 x 41 x 29) Cells size (x, y) Number of layering
: 48749 cells
1705
1710
: 50 m
Depth (MD)
1715
1720
: 29
1725
1730
PVT: Gas with few condensate Sandstone formation Press and Temp Initial 161 Bar and 63.2 C
(Argentina field case)
1735
1740
1745
1750
1755
1760
1765 Phi Core Kh Core Phi Reveal Kh Reveal
Choice of completion type (2)

8 classes have been tested
AP 01 (5 subcases) Slanted type ( 86) Without frac With 2 or 3 fracs in direction XZ and YZ Perforation length : 1000 m
AP - 01
Example of subcases
AP 01 F2 orth
AP 01 F2 paralel
AP 01 F3 paralel
AP - 02 Slanted type ( 82) Without frac Perforation length : 506 m

AP - 02

AP 03 (3 subcases) Vertical With (2 and 3) fracs and Without fract Perforation length 70 m AP - 03 AP 06 Perforation length 2470 m
AP-06 3D view
AP 04 Perforation length 1280 m AP - 04
AP-06 side view
AP-06 top view AP 05 Perforation length 1310 m AP - 05

AP 07 Two fracs Perforation length 1230 m
AP-07 AP-08 side View
AP 08 Perforation length 3710 m

AP-08 3D view
AP-08 top view

AP-08 3D view AP-07 AP - 03 AP 01 F2 orth AP - 04
Cummulative Gas Production Prediction Sensitivity 1 - kv/10 qnd kh/10 1200

01 01 01 02 03 03 03 04 05 06 07 08 01 01 02 03 03 04 05 06 07 08 F2orth F3orth
Cumulative Produced Gp (Msm3) Gas (MSm3)
1000
F2 F3
800
600
400
200
Sens F3orth Sens Sens Sens F3 Sens Sens Sens Sens Sens Sens
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Days Production time (days)
Example 5 - Vertical frac/horizontal in TGR (1)

Gas Reservoir set-up
Considered Area : 2 x 2 km2 ; T =115C; Pres= 195 bar 3 sublayers Low permeability: total k*h geometric = 21 md*m Porosity: #3%
(Algeria field case)

Vertical frac/horizontal in TGR (2) : Well Type

Vertical & 3 Fracs
800 1600
700
Vertical & 3 Fracs & Dev80

1200
700
Vertical_base case Vertical & 3 Frac-rect Vertical & 3Frac-ellipse
1400
600
Vertical_base case Dev80_Drain=103 + 625 + 1186 m THP = 80 bar
1000
600 G a s Pro d u c tio n R a te (1 0 0 0 Sm 3 /D )
1200 C u m u la tiv e G a s Pro d u c tio n (M Sm 3 )

G a s Pro d u c tio n R a te (1 0 0 0 Sm 3 /D ) 500
Vertical & 3Frac-ellipse
800
500
1000
400 600 300
400
800
300
600
400 200
200
400
100
200
100
200
0 11/1/05
11/1/07
11/1/09
11/1/11
11/1/13
11/1/15 Date
11/1/17
11/1/19
11/1/21
11/1/23
0 11/1/25
0 11/1/05
11/1/07
11/1/09
11/1/11
11/1/13
11/1/15 Date
11/1/17
11/1/19
11/1/21
11/1/23
0 11/1/25
Vertical
Deviated 80 Lp # 1900 m
3 Rectangular fractures xf = 150 m 3 Elliptical fractures xf = 150 m

wf= 5 mm = 0.2
Lower production with a long near horizontal well without frac
C u m u la tiv e G a s Pro d u c tio n (M Sm 3 )
Vertical frac/horizontal in TGR (3):

Vertical fractured - Sensitivity to frac geometry
Frac Length impact
700 1200
Fracture Length Impact
Aperture Impact FracFrac width impact
800
1400
600
700
wf = 5 mm wf = 2 mm wf = 10 mm
800
500 800
400 600
400 600
300
300 400
400
200
200
200 100
100
200
0 11/1/05
11/1/07
11/1/09
11/1/11
11/1/13
11/1/15 Date
11/1/17
11/1/19
11/1/21
11/1/23
0 11/1/25
0 11/1/05 11/1/07 11/1/09 11/1/11 11/1/13
0 11/1/15 11/1/17 11/1/19 11/1/21 11/1/23 11/1/25 Date
wf = 5 mm
xf = 100 m
C u m u la t iv e G a s P ro d u c t io n ( M S m 3 )
G a s P ro d u c t io n R a t e ( 1 0 0 0 S m 3 /D )
500 G a s P r o d u c ti o n r a te (1 0 0 0 S m 3 / D )
100 m 50 m 150 m
1000
1200
600 1000
C u m u l a ti v e G a s P r o d u c ti o n (M S m 3 )
Vertical frac/horizontal in TGR (4): Vertical fractured - Sensitivity to proppant & frac damage
Frac Permeability Impact Pack permeability Beta Factorfactor Impact
Fracture Skin Impactskin Frac

1200
900
1400
700
400 beta-factor = 1.5 e-3
1200
800
Kf = 5 D Kf = 10 D Kf = 20 D
Beta-factor = 0 bar.s2/g
1200
600
350
1000
skin Frac = 0 Skin Frac = 2 Skin Frac = 10
Beta-factor = 1.5 e-3 bar.s2/g Beta-factor = 4e-3 bar.s2/g
1000
700 G a s P ro d u c tio n R a te (1 0 0 0 S m 3 /D )
300
C u m u la t iv e G a s P ro d u c t io n ( M S m 3 )
C u m u la tiv e G a s P r o d u c tio n (M S m 3 )
600 800
800
800
250
500
400 600
200
600
400
600
300
150 400
300 400
400
200
200 200 100
100 200 50
100
200
0 0 11/01/05 11/01/07 11/01/09 11/01/11 11/01/13 11/01/15 11/01/17 11/01/19 11/01/21 11/01/23 11/01/25 Date
0 0 11/1/05 11/1/07 11/1/09 11/1/11 11/1/13 11/1/15 11/1/17 11/1/19 11/1/21 11/1/23 11/1/25 Date
0 0 11/01/05 11/01/07 11/01/09 11/01/11 11/01/13 11/01/15 11/01/17 11/01/19 11/01/21 11/01/23 11/01/25 Date
xf = 100 m, wf= 5 mm, Kf = 5 D, = 1.5 e-3 bar.s2/g, fracskin = 2 Gp # 1 BSm3

C u m u la tiv e G a s P r o d u c tio n (M S m 3 )
1000
500 G a s P r o d u c tio n R a te (1 0 0 0 S m 3 /D )
G a s P r o d u c tio n R a te (1 0 0 0 S m 3 /D )
Vertical frac/horizontal in TGR (5): Highly deviated well without frac

Skin impact on we ll De v 80
350 900
800 300 De v80_skin0 De v80_skin2 De v80)_skin5 600 C umulative G as Production (M Sm3) 250 G as Production R ate (1000 Sm3/D ) THP = 80 ba r
Gp # 0.75 BSm3
700
200
500
150
400
300 100 200 50 100
0 11/1/05
11/1/07
11/1/09
11/1/11
11/1/13
11/1/15 Da te
11/1/17
11/1/19
11/1/21
11/1/23
0 11/1/25
Impact of well damage skin Almost no impact of kv/kh But

Vertical frac/horizontal in TGR (6): Highly deviated - Transverse Natural Fractures

Fissures Aperture
1600 1m u 1400 10 mu 100 mu 1 mm 1200 Gas Production Rate (1000 Sm3/D) Dra ina ge Are a 4 km2 THP=80 ba r 1200 Cumulative Gas Production (MSm3) 1400 1600
1000
1000
800
800
600
600
400
400
200
200
0 11/1/05
11/1/07
11/1/09
11/1/11
11/1/13
11/1/15 Da te
11/1/17
11/1/19
11/1/21
11/1/23
0 11/1/25
Damaged horizontal well skin = 2 Frac-Fissure Aperture sensitivity (from 1 m to 1 mm)

To be compared with Gp #1 GSm3 For Vertical 3 fracs
Vertical frac/horizontal in TGR (7): Conclusions

For the same production conditions (drainage area, THP) Optimum values for the fracs xf # 100 m (300ft) wf # 5 mm (0.2) Low impact of Kf Impacts of , frac_skin (cake, embedment, crushing)
Horizontal well is interesting if natural fracs are intercepted or if it is multifractured (not presented here)
Moreover . a lot of parameters can have a major impact on the productivity after fracturing process
Part.2) Performance Integration (1): by using IPM suite

ECL is the TOTAL reference software for reservoir engineering IPM package (Petroleum Experts) is a suite of software used by WP engineering Reveal (reservoir) Prosper (well) Gap (lines network) Resolve (link between all kinds of software) Go & Back between Eclipse and RevealProsper for representing a complex well in a reservoir Importation of ECL model into Reveal After well design, exportation to ECL model of the inflow connection factors (Reveal) and of the outflow VFP (Prosper)
Performance Integration (2): Resolve software for coupling

RESOLVE allows arbitrary software tools to be connected together Can build a single system from a set of pre-modelled components Possible components: Reservoir simulators (REVEAL, VIP, ECL?,...) Material balance calculators (MBAL) Nodal analysis solvers/optimisers (GAP) Process simulators (HYSYS,) Financial packages/spreadsheets (?) Anything at all Word documents, reporters, etc
Performance Integration (3): RESOLVE architecture

REVEAL - Interface - Data Transfer ECL - Data Validation
RESOLVE
- Results collection and display - File handling
REVEAL
- Timestep synchronisation - Advanced- scheduling by flexible script GAP
Performance Integration (4): Example 1

(Angola field cases) 3 FFMs (#150,000 cells)==> 3 PC processors have been used for coupling
(RESOLVE, GAP and the smallest REVEAL model have been run on the same PC-processor )
Field 1
Field 2
Field 3
Performance Integration (5): Coupling 3 FFMs with 1 GAP model (Example1)

Reservoir 2
Gas-Injection
Production network
FPSO
Other FFMs not yet ready Reservoir 3
Water-Injection
Reservoir1
One week-end for 20 years forecast
Performance Integration (6): Example 2a

(Nigeria field case) 36 km FPSO Field 2 Field 3 18 km
Field 1 Mud line separation & boosting to the riser

Performance Integration (7): Example 2b

TLP
Gas lift at bottom riser pipes

Performance Integration (8): Example 2 comparison
32 20 1/ /1 27 31 20 1/ /1 28 30 20 1/ /1 28 29 20 1/ /1 28 28 20 1/ /1 28 27 20 1/ /1 29 26 20 1/ /1 29 25 20 1/ /1 29 24 20 1/ /1 29 23 20 1/ /1 30 22 20 1/ /1 30 21 20 1/ /1 30 20 20 1/ /1 30 19 20 2/ /1 01 18 20 2/ /1 01 17 20 2/ /1 01 16 20 2/ /1 01 15 20 2/ /1 02 14 20 2/ /1 02 13 20 2/ /1 02 12 20 2/ /1 02 11 20 2/ /1 03 10 20 2/ /1 03 09 20 2/ /1 03
Mudline separation
Gas lift at bottom legs
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
SEP FOND
GL Pied de Riser
PerformanceIntegration (9): Integrated Models Benefits

To manage globally produced gas with respect to gas export constraints, gas injection constraints (Pfrac), etc especially on multi-fields systems Critical issue as it can impact oil production (No Flaring policy) To deal globally with water injection while meeting local voidage replacement strategy To manage different reservoir fluids PVT mixing To promote inter-disciplines team work and lead to new ideas To ensure consistency between each part of the system over time implicit data cross-checking Finally, production and injection systems are optimized at each time step with consistent reservoir data
Performance Integration (10): centric process

New methodology: centric process
New working flow

Reservoir input Network input
More interaction between people needed at start-up One set of hypothesis One single model (simple or complex) One single profile for all users No iteration required A change in one component >>> no impact on the other parts >>> re run the integrated model >>> new profile for all users Less time consuming
Integrated model
Economic input Process input
Easier and faster approach for new projects Easier re-engineering of mature fields
Performance Integration (11): Use of coupled

models : strong expansion within TOTAL
10 Usan Yukal Placer Bloc 17 Lussagnet Meillon Bloc 32 Moho-Bilondo Akpo ... 9
Dunbar Lacq Bloc32 Akpo
2 1
1 0 0 2003
Moho-Bilondo
2004
2005
2006
Part.3) WTPL: Principles of a new well test
PLT coupled with a servo-controlled modulator for generating periodic signal
Q P
Time (s)
Periodic rate
Periodic pressure
2 Flow rate Pressure's variation
0 -2
BH Measurements of P/Q and phase shift Estimation of K&S
-4 -6
WTPL Investigation radius < 50 m

45 40
1000m D
Investigation radius (m)
35
500m D
30 25 20
100m D
15
50m D
10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
10m D 5m D 1m D
Period (min)
Investigation is a function of variations period & reservoir diffusivity WTPL is a near wellbore tool to monitor and analyze well productivity
WTPL: Data processing

Global recorded bottom-hole signals
PLT measurements @ station 17800 ft/RT
26 -5610 -5620 25 -5630 25 -5640 -5650 -5660 24 -5670 -5680 -5690 23 -5700 22 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 -5710 4000
Spinner measurements Pressure measurements p s i
24
rp s
23
Time (s)
Production carrying signals

Production signal @ 17800 ft/RT
7150 7100 7050 5670 7000 5680
Periodic signals to be interpreted

Periodic variations @ 17800 ft/RT
400 300
5675
40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 2000
200 100
stbd
stbd
6900 6850
Flow rate BHP
5660
psi
0 -100 -200 -300 -400 0 500 1000 1500
5655 6800 6750 6700 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 5650
5645 2000
Time (s)
Tim e (s)
psi
6950
5665
Flow rate BHP
Application to multilayer reservoir

PLT station 1 PLT station 2
Player1 Qlayer1
P@ PLTstation1 Q@ PLTstation1
Formation section influence
Rate Conservation:
Player 2 Q layer 2 + P@ PLT station 1 Q @ PLT station 1 =
Q1 + Q2 = Qtot
P@ PLT station 2 Q @ PLT station 2
Layer 2
Layer 1
K&S
Layer 1 Layer 2
WTPL on J-481: Reservoir scheme, PLT stations & Results

PLT Stations
Investigation radius ~ 10m
17841 ft/wl
Layer A1
17901 ft/wl
kh = 713 mdft / k = 17.8md S = -1.8
Layer A2
18014 ft
Layer B
18261 ft/wl
kh = 877 mdft / k = 43.8 md S = -1.7
Layer C
kh = 450 mdft / k = 15.0 md S = -2.5
Well deviation # 20
(Argentina oil producer)

Validation using PIE multilayer model

2004/11/03-1229 : OIL
p r e s s u r eP S I
1 0 . 0.
1 0 .
3 0 .
5 0 .
.10
.20
.3 0
.40
r a te sS T B /D
4 0 0 . 0.
0 .
2 0 0 .
.10
.20
.3 0
.40
T i m e (h o u rs)
Jusepine J481 W TP L
Three -Layer Re servoir w ith ** Si mulation Data ** well . storage = 0.000 648 Skin (1) = -1 .80 Skin (2) = -1 .80 Skin (3) = -2 .59 perm eability- 1 = 1 7.8 perm eability- 2 = 4 3.8 perm eability- 3 = 1 5.0 Omeg a(1) = 0. 327 Omeg a(2) = 0. 268 Lamb da(1) = 0. Lamb da(2) = 0. Perm -Thicknes s = 20 10. Init ial Press . = 28.6 700 Cross -Flow BBLS/ PSI Type- Curve Mod el Layer -1 Thick. = Layer -2 Thick. = Layer -3 Thick. = Static -Data 30.0 F EET 20.0 F EET 40.0 F EET
MD MD MD
MD-FE ET PSI
Stati c-Data an d Constan ts Volum e-Factor = 2.409 vol/vol Thick ness = 90.00 FEET Visco sity = 0.1700 CP Total Compress = .1368E -04 1/PSI Stori vity = 0.0001 081 FEET/ PSI Diffu sivity = 28860. FEET^2/H R Gauge Depth = N/A FE ET Perf. Depth = N/A FE ET Datum Depth = N/A FE ET Analy sis-Data ID: DATA Based on Gauge ID:
WTPL: Well Testing Production Logging

REVOLUTIONARY tool for reservoir and production engineers From short test, Estimate permeability and skin in the near wellbore area Along the well without packer (multilayered reservoir) For all kind of completed wells (O/G producers, W/G injectors), everywhere where a PLT is representative Without stopping the production No need of rate history Low influence of measurement errors Small rate variations avoiding fluid redistribution and cross-flow impairment when shutting-in DEVELOPMENT BY TOTAL WITH SONDEX and HALLIBURTON Commercialization mid 2008
END of Part 1-1
Thank you for your attention
BackUp WTPL
BACK UP
Long horizontal drain: Well capacity

Big volume of fluid between producing intervals
R1 et R2
Layer 1
Layer 2
R2
Measurement
Volume of fluid c,V
1 R tot
R
1 R1
1 = c0Vi Z0
1 R2
1
tot
1 1 = + c 0 Vi R2 R1
Well Aspect: Horizontal Well application

For an horizontal well in an anisotropic reservoir (kh known): skin and kv/kh estimation
Real and estimated anisotropy ratio
0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 kv/kh 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 1 2 3 Case 4 5 Real kv/kh kv/kh from T0 Average kv/kh
Real and estimated skins

20 15 10 Skin 5 0 -5 1 2 3 Case 4 5 Real Skin S from T0 Average S
Well Aspect: Hydraulic Fractured Well application

Formation Permeability supposed known : Frac conductivity estimation
Real and Estimatred Fracture Conductivity
1600 1400 1200 1000 m .m d 800 600 400 200 0 1 2 Fracture 3 4 Real Conductivity Estimated Conductivity
Fracture 1 FCD Formation permeability Half Length Conductivity

Fracture 2 1 1 150 150
Fracture 3 1 10 50 500
10 1 150 1500
Fracture 4 0.1 1 150 15
Average Pressure Estimation
If well drainage area is known, Production Index (PI) could then be derived from K and skin Average Flowing Pressure (PF) and Average bottom hole Flow Rate (Q) could be estimated Finally Reservoir Pressure (PR) could be simply computed as : PR = PF + Q / PI

Total Well Perf AD Oct 28,07 Reveal (JRochon)

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Total Well Perf AD Oct 28,07 Reveal (JRochon)

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Well Productivity/Stimulation and Well Performance Enhancement Seminar

Jean ROCHON Meridien Hotel - ABU DHABI - October 28th, 2007

Jean ROCHON & Hughes POITRENAUD

Jean ROCHON Meridien Hotel - ABU DHABI - October 28th, 2007

Productivity & Performance Part. 1-1

- Jean ROCHON Meridien Hotel - ABU DHABI - October 28th, 2007

WTPL: a revolutionary tool for WP team

4 - Jean ROCHON Meridien Hotel - ABU DHABI - October 28th, 2007

Well Performance Management

maximum production at any time

5 - Jean ROCHON Meridien Hotel - ABU DHABI - October 28th, 2007

Well Performance organisation

Geosciences Drilling & Wells

EXPLOITATION Training cursus of WPE Assignment co-ordination Focal point

Well Performance Group

Well Performance Superintendant

Well & field Operations

Reservoir Engineering & Well Performance

7 - Jean ROCHON Meridien Hotel - ABU DHABI - October 28th, 2007

Part.1) Advanced Near Well Bore Flow Modeling: REVEAL

REVEAL: EXAMPLE_1 Water Chemistry

REVEAL : EXAMPLE_2 TIF - Kioubloka (cube-low K)

Temperature (Russia field case)

Acid gas injection (66%H2S, 33%CO2)

Qg= 2. 106 Sm3/d ; Tinj =40C; Pini=350 bara@3730 m ; Tres=100C

REVEAL : EXAMPLE_3 TIF Hydraulic fracturing with gel & breaker

Fracture width = 0.23

11 - Jean ROCHON Meridien Hotel - ABU DHABI - October 28th, 2007

(China field case)

Example 4 - Choice of completion type (1)

Number of Cells (41 x 41 x 29) Cells size (x, y) Number of layering

1765 Phi Core Kh Core Phi Reveal Kh Reveal

Choice of completion type (2)

AP - 02 Slanted type ( 82) Without frac Perforation length : 506 m

13 - Jean ROCHON Meridien Hotel - ABU DHABI - October 28th, 2007

Choice of completion type (3)

AP 04 Perforation length 1280 m AP - 04

AP-06 side view

AP-06 top view AP 05 Perforation length 1310 m AP - 05

14 - Jean ROCHON Meridien Hotel - ABU DHABI - October 28th, 2007

Choice of completion type (4)

AP 08 Perforation length 3710 m

AP-08 top view

15 - Jean ROCHON Meridien Hotel - ABU DHABI - October 28th, 2007

Choice of completion type (5)

Cummulative Gas Production Prediction Sensitivity 1 - kv/10 qnd kh/10 1200

Cumulative Produced Gp (Msm3) Gas (MSm3)

0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

16 - Jean ROCHON Meridien Hotel - ABU DHABI - October 28th, 2007

Example 5 - Vertical frac/horizontal in TGR (1)

(Algeria field case)

Vertical frac/horizontal in TGR (2) : Well Type

Vertical & 3 Fracs & Dev80

Vertical_base case Vertical & 3 Frac-rect Vertical & 3Frac-ellipse

600 G a s Pro d u c tio n R a te (1 0 0 0 Sm 3 /D )

1200 C u m u la tiv e G a s Pro d u c tio n (M Sm 3 )

Vertical & 3Frac-ellipse

400 600 300

3 Rectangular fractures xf = 150 m 3 Elliptical fractures xf = 150 m

Lower production with a long near horizontal well without frac

18 - Jean ROCHON Meridien Hotel - ABU DHABI - October 28th, 2007

C u m u la tiv e G a s Pro d u c tio n (M Sm 3 )

Vertical frac/horizontal in TGR (3):

Fracture Length Impact