See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289520672

SPE-174998-MS Production Analysis of One

Shale Gas Reservoir in China

Conference Paper · October 2015

DOI: 10.2118/174998-MS

CITATIONS READS

0 248

6 authors, including:

Wei Pang
Sinopec
13 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Wei Pang on 07 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE-174998-MS

Production Analysis of One Shale Gas Reservoir in China

Wei Pang, Qiong Wu, Ying He, Juan Du, and Tongyi Zhang, Sinopec Research Institute of Petroleum
Engineering, China; Christine A. Ehlig-Economides, University of Houston

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, USA, 28 –30 September 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
China is the third country gaining shale gas breakthrough in the world after the United States and Canada.
Fuling shale gas play is the most successful shale gas reservoir by far in China with average absolute open
flow (AOF) capacity of 400 thousand cubic meters per well and the amount reaches 8 million cubic meters
in one year for some wells. However, production rate and pressure transient analysis show quite different
flow regimes which may mean that the wells are producing quite differently and stimulating treatment
have distinct performance.
In this paper, 20 wells in the shale gas reservoir in China are analyzed with production rate and pressure
transient data using rate normalized pressure (RNP) and rate normalized pressure derivative (RNP’)
method. The 20 wells log-log interpretation plots are drawn to diagnose the flow regimes and flow regime
sequence. In the log-log plots, nearly half of the wells see unit slop, which indicate boundary dominated
flow within 1 to 2 years, so the stimulated reservoir volume (SRV) is very small. From production rate
data, most producing wells see interference when their neighborhood wells are hydraulic fracturing.
Interference imposes great effect on log-log interpretation plots, so interpretation comparison are made
with and without using rate and pressure transient data after interference. Because of interference, liquid
loading may be a problem for some wells. External source of energy supplying for the shale gas layer is
researched by rate and pressure transient interpretation modeling because some wells see external pressure
supply.
Results show that Fuling shale gas reservoir has unique production performance with production rate
keeping nearly constant within 2 years for some wells. Fuling Phase I shale gas wells exhibit 4 different
flow regimes with relevant interpretation models categorized by homogenous formation with boundary,
dual porosity formation, pressure support, severe liquid producing. Interference with adjacent wells during
hydraulic fracturing may occur and cause great effect on rate and pressure transient data interpretation.
To the author’s knowledge, this is the first time that comprehensively describes shale gas production
performance detail in China. 4 different flow regimes with different formation interpretation models
within one reservoir block are rarely reported.
2 SPE-174998-MS

Introduction
China has abundant organic-rich source rock shales which are prospective for commercial shale gas
development. The U.S Energy Information Adminstration (EIA) estimated 31.58⫻1012m3 of technically
recoverable shale gas sources in onshore China (EIA, 2013), wich are 10 times more than China’s current
proven conventional gas reserves. Although the value, 25⫻1012m3, released by the Ministry of Land and
Resources of China is smaller than that of EIA, China still has the world’s first largest shale gas reserves
(Ministry of Land and Resources, 2010; Wang Zhigang, 2014, 2015). China’s shale gas resources are
widely spreaded in Sichuan, Tarim, Junggar, Jianghan, Songliao and other basins (Fig.1). Currently,
China’s shale gas exploration and development are mainly focused on three marine shales formations in
and around Sichuan basin including the Silurian Longmaxi, the Cambrian age Qiongzhusi, and Niutitang.

Figure 1—Major Shale Gas Basin in China

Figure 2—Sichuan Basin in China (from EIA, 2013)

Fuling shale gas reservoir is China’s first commercially indutrial deveoped shale gas play. It is located
in Sichuan basin with core exploration area of 1,241 km2. The proven technically recoverable reserves are
1,067⫻108m3. The major productive formations are Lower Siluran Longmaxi and Ordovicain Wufeng.
It’s buried over 2,500 meters and target formation thickness is 89 meters, among which, high-graded shale
gas play takes 38 meters (Lu Baoping, 2013; Zeng Yijin, 2014). The average porosity is about 4%. The
SPE-174998-MS 3

formation temeperature is about 85°C and formation pressure varies from 36 to 40 MPa. Nearlly all the
wells are horizontal wells with multiple transverse fractures (MTFW). The lengths of horizontal lateral
rang from 1000 to 1500 meters. By the end of 2014, there are 136 wells drilled and 75 wells put on
production. The cumulative gas of 12⫻108 m3 has been produced (Niu Xinming, 2014). Following Fuling
shale gas’ success, it’s promising that China fullfils the targets of shale gas porduction of 65⫻108 m3 per
year by 2015 and 600 - 1000⫻108 m3 per year by 2020.

Figure 3—Phase I of Fuling Shale Gas Play

The Phase I is the pilot area and it has about 20 wells with the longest production duration in Fuling
shale gas play. It’s important for fracturing performance evealuation and produciton prediction to estimate
the formation parameters like SRV and hydaulic fracture parameters like fracture half-length.
Production data analysis (PDA) is a strainghtforwad method to quatify fracturing and production
performance. Usually, rate normalized pressure is computed from field production data and log-log
interpretation plot is drawn to characterize the possible drawdown flow regimes of MTFW (Song,
Economides and Ehlig-Economides, 2011). Based on typical flow regimes including pseudolinear flow
and pseudo pseudosteady state flow (Song and Ehlig-Economides, 2011), we can calculate the above-
mentioned parameters.
This paper will characterize the flow regimes and build relevant models to interprete formation and
hydraulic fractures parameters of the Phase I wells in Fuling shale gas play.

Production Data Analysis

Fuling Phase I shale gas wells exhibit 4 different flow regimes with relevant interpretation models
categorized by homogenous formation with boundary, dual porosity formation with boundary, pressure
support, severe water producing. We will illustrate different models and flow regimes one by one using
4 wells in detail.
4 SPE-174998-MS

Figure 4 —Schematic Showing 4 Interpretation Models

Category I: Model of Homogenous Formation with Boundary

Well 8-2 and Well 7-3 have similar flow regimes, they both experimenced pseudolinear flow and pseudo
pseudosteady state flow. They can be interpreted using the model of homogenous formation with
boundary. As shown in Fig.5, from the pseudolinear flow, we estimate a fracture half-length of 87 meters
and permeability of 800 nd for Well 8-2. We also get the SRV pore volume as 0.448⫻106 m3 from the
pseudo pseudosteady state trend and 1.12⫻108 m3 of stock tank free gas initially in place (STFGIIP).

Figure 5—Log-log Plot and History Match of Well 8-2

Category II: Model of Dual Porosity Formation with Boundary

12 Wells including Well 10-3, 11-2, 11-1, 12-1, 12-2, 12-3, 13-3, 13-2, 6-3, 6-2, 12-4, 1-2 have similar
flow regimes, they all experimenced fracture storage, transition flow and pseudo pseudosteady state flow.
They can be interpreted using the model of dual porosity formation with boundary. This is consistent with
the geology understanding that Fuling shale gas play is with rich natural fractures and hydraulic fracturing
can create fracture network in some extent. As shown in Fig.6, we estimate a fracture half-length of 116
meters and permeability of 2500 nd for Well 12-2. We also get the SRV pore volume as 0.3⫻106 m3 from
the pseudo pseudosteady state trend and 1.41⫻108 m3 of STFGIIP.
SPE-174998-MS 5

Figure 6 —Log-log Plot and History Match of Well 12-2

Category III: Model with Pressure Support

5 Wells including Well 1, 1-3, 1-4, 7-2, 8-3 have similar flow regimes, they all experimenced pseudolinear
flow or pseudo-bilinear flow. Then the pressure derivative curve drops sharply which looks like the wells
met pressure support. Possible explanations are as follows,
● Pressure support appears after start of SRV boundary dominated flow, suggesting pressure support
is at lower than the initial shale formation pressure;
● Pressure support from aquifer should result in water production, so more likely the support is from
gas;
● During drilling, some wells meet shallow gas about 100 to 200 meters above the shale layer, so
it maybe because one or several fracture(s) intersect with the upper gas layer; but the upper gas
is only dispersed gas with very small volume and there’s no clear evidence about the intersection;
● Maybe it’s just another kind of transition flow especially for shale gas wells which we still don’t
get full understanding.
There is no model that can describe this phenomenon. Just by history match, as shown in Fig.7, we
estimate a fracture half-length of 89.9 meters and permeability of 1500 nd for Well 1-3. We also get the
SRV pore volume as 0.231⫻106 m3 and 1.96⫻108 m3 of STFGIIP. Because this well doesn’t experice
pseudosteady state flow, we may underestimate the SRV pore volume.
6 SPE-174998-MS

Figure 7—Log-log Plot and History Match of Well 1-3

Category IV: Model with Severe Water Production

Well 10-2 produces water at an average daily rate about 12 m3/d as shown in Fig.8, and that is much
higher than that of the other shale gas wells. The well only experices pseudolinear flow trend. By history
match, as shown in Fig.9, we estimate a fracture half-length of 90 meters and permeability of 3500 nd for
Well 10-2. We also get the SRV pore volume as 0.258⫻106 m3 and 1.01⫻108 m3 of STFGIIP. The same
reason as that of Well 1-3, we may underestimate this well’s SRV pore volume.

Figure 8 —Production data of Well 10-2

SPE-174998-MS 7

Figure 9 —Log-log Plot and History Match of Well 10-2

Interference from Adjacent Well’s Fracturing

As shown in Fig.10, once the adjacent well, Well 8-3, starts hydraulic fracturing operation, the gas rate
of Well 8-2 declines and water rate increases sharply. It seems that Well 8-2 can feel Well 8-3’s fracturing.
One or several of hydaulic fractures are possibly connected between the two wells by hydraulic fractures
or fracture network because Fuling shale gas play is with rich natural fractures. Well 8-2 continues to
produce water from Well 8-3 fracture network even after Well 8-3 putting onto production, so gas rate
decline may be caused by possible water loading.

Figure 10 —Production History of Well 8-2 and Well 8-3

Fig.11 shows the new interpretation of Well 8-2 using all production data affected by Well 8-3. Fig.5
illustrates the interpreation of only using production data before interference. The well interference causes
great departure of cumulative production and pressure in history match. Thus, we’d better distinguish the
start of well interference and find the potentional reasons, and then, judge whether the production rate and
8 SPE-174998-MS

pressure transient data after well interference should be kept or deleted to get an accurate interpreation
model characterizing parameters like formation permeability and fracture half-length.

Figure 11—Log-log Plot and History Match of Well 8-2 with Production Data Affected by Well 8-3

Several producing wells see interference during their adjacent well’s hydraulic fracturing; this may be
because of rich natural fractures. But based on our interpretation, the SRV and fracture half-length (about
100 meters) is very small compared with well space (about 600-1000 meters), we still don’t have distinct
understanding how the fracutes are connected.
Conclusions
Fuling shale gas reservoir has unique production performance and is different from shale gas plays in
America. Fuling Phase I shale gas wells exhibit 4 different flow regimes with relevant interpretation
models categorized by homogenous formation with boundary, dual porosity formation, pressure support,
severe liquid production.
Interference during well fracturing is evidence of fracture connection and may be caused by primary
fracture(s) or secondary fracture network. Interference can impose great effect on rate and pressure
transient interpretation, so well interference should be diagnosed on the log-log interpretation plot in order
to get accurate formation and stimulating parameters like formation permeability and fracture half-length.
Penetrating gas layers above the shale gas layer may be the reason of pressure support in the log-log
interpretation plot.
The research shows comprehensive analysis of shale gas in China and gets some understanding for
development and optimization for shale gas wells.

Acknowledgement
Financial support from SINOPEC project (No. P14056 and P13088) is gratefully acknowledged. The
authors would like to thank Sinopec Research Institute of Petroleum Engineering (SRIPE) for the
permission to publish this paper.

References
Scott H. Stevens, Keith D. Moodhe, and Vello A. Kuuskraa. 2013. China Shale Gas and Shale Oil
Resource Evaluation and Technical Challenges. Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 22-24 October. SPE-165832-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/165832-MS.
 SPE-174998-MS 9

Ministry of Land and Resources of China. 2010. National Oil and Gas Resource Assessment (in
Chinese). China: China Land Press.
Wang Zhigang, Sun Jian. 2014. Practice and Understanding of Pilot Well Block Development in
Fuling Shale Gas Play (in Chinese). China: Sinopec Press. ISBN-13: 978-7-5114-3147-9.
Wang Zhigang. 2015. Breakthrough of Fuling Shale Gas Exploration and Development and Its
Inspiration (in Chinese). Oil & Gas Geology, 36 (1): 1–6.
Lu Baoping. 2013. Sinopec Engineering Technical Advance and Its Developing Tendency in Shale
Gas (in Chinese). Petroleum Drilling Techniques, 41 (05): 1–8.
Zeng Yijin. 2014. Integration Technology of Geology & Engineering for Shale Gas Development (in
Chinese). Petroleum Drilling Techniques, 42 (1): 1–6.
Niu Xinming. 2014. Drilling Technology Challenges and Resolutions in Fuling Shale Gas Field (in
Chinese). Petroleum Drilling Techniques, 42 (4): 1–6.
Nie Haikuan, Zhang Jinchuan, Li Yuxi. 2011. Accumulation Conditions of The Lower Cambriarian
Shale Gas in the Sichuan Basin and Its Periphery (in Chinese). Acta Petrolei Sinica, 32 (6):
959 –967.
Zou Caineng, Dong Dazhong, Wang Shejiao, et alet al 2010. Geological Characteristics, Formation
Mechanisisman and Resource Potential of Shale Gas in China (in Chinese). Petroleum Exploration
and Development, 37 (6): 641–651.
Jia Chenzao, Zheng Min, Zhang Yongfeng. 2014. Unconventional Hydrocarbon Resources in China
and the Prospect of Exploration and Development (in Chinese). Petroleum Exploration and
Development, 39 (2): 199 –208.
Song, B., Economides, M.J. and Ehlig-Economides. C. A. 2011. Design of Multiple Transverse
Fracture Horizontal Wells in Shale Gas Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 24-26 January. SPE-140555-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/140555-MS.
Song, B. and Ehlig-Economides, C. A. 2011. Rate-Normalized Pressure Analysis for Determination
of Shale Gas Well Performance. Presented at the North American Unconventional Gas Conference
and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 14-16 June. SPE-144031-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/144031-MS.

View publication stats