1 Part A Part B1 Part B2 Part A Part B Paper 1 Reading Paper 2 Writing.
Nas Paper Part
-
Upload
naser-fisher-saleh -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of Nas Paper Part
-
8/2/2019 Nas Paper Part
1/18
1
Texas Creek Oriskany Sandstone Reservoir
Characterization: Final Report
Submitted To: Paul Dudenas, East Resources, Inc.
Date Delivered: 4/27/10
Prepared By: Pure Energy Consultants, LLC.
Michael Cronin Zachary Fidurko Matt Minemier Naser Saleh
Reservoir Engr. Petrophysical Engr. Surface Engr. Production
Engr.
-
8/2/2019 Nas Paper Part
2/18
2
Executive Summary
East Resources, Inc. commissioned Pure Energy Consultants, LLC four months ago to
perform a reservoir characterization of the recently acquired Texas Creek Oriskany Sandstone
Gas Reservoir in the Appalachian Basin. PEC interpreted the reservoirs structure as an upthrust
asymmetric anticlinal block with a fold axis trending ENE. The reservoir terminates North and
South by thrust faults, and is conservatively modeled as terminating in the West by a thrust fault
boundary. There is limited data defining the nature of the reservoir to the East, so PEC has
considered three structural representations; 1) a conservative 4-Way closure, 2) an intermediate
3-Way Closure, and 3) an open 3-Way Closure to provide a basis for volumetric calculations.
The Texas Creek Field is represented using a 78 x 30 grid block model of 339ft x 339ft
cells populated using MATLAB and Excel to linearly interpolate between control points from
well log analysis and linearly extrapolate to PEC defined boundary conditions consistent with
available field data and appropriate extensive reservoir properties from analog Appalachian
Basin fields (Leidy, Tioga). Well-averaged porosity is 7.40% and well-averaged thickness of the
Oriskany is 178ft. Using the most conservative isopach model, recovery factor of 60%,
boundary porosity of 8%, water saturation of 25%, formation volume factor of .00295cu ft/scf,
the recoverable gas in place is estimated to be 134Bcf.
The drilling development plans that were created, for a non-specific location, includes
vertical, direction and horizontal drilling recommendations. For each well type we examined:
drilling muds, bit types, casing selections, cements as well as production optimization. Also a
relative economic analysis was employed as market prices fluctuate with the economy.
In summary, the preliminary drilling evaluation by PEC indicates that due to the reservoir
characteristics vertical or directional wells would be the best. Economic development of the field
as a gas producer is possible, and the probability of the Texas Creek field being used as a natural
gas storage reservoir for Marcellus Shale gas will be high. However, PEC must stress that these
results are preliminary, but the methods employed are conservative to safeguard versus risk but
flexible enough to properly exploit favorable conditions.
-
8/2/2019 Nas Paper Part
3/18
3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary...1
Introduction. 4
Reservoir Overview4
Reservoir Model..5
Results and Discussion.6-17
Summary and Conclusions18
-
8/2/2019 Nas Paper Part
4/18
4
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to provide East Resources Inc. with drilling plans for
vertical, directional, and horizontal wells in the Texas Creek Field, with the ultimate goal of
commenting on the economic value of each well. Included in the PEC analysis is a full
description of models used and assumptions employed, along with commentary on uncertainty in
the available data and strategies to reduce development risks.
Reservoir Overview
The formation of exploratory and commercial interest in this reservoir characterization
study of the Texas Creek Field is the Lower Devonian Oriskany Sandstone. This sandstone was
deposited in the Appalachian Basin ~400Mya in a storm dominated marine shelf depositional
system and is heavily fractured and deformed as a result of subsequent tectonic deformation
events due to the Oriskanys location in the Appalachian Fold and Thrust Belt (Appalachian
Basin Province Ryder, RT).
The reservoir is interpreted as an upthrust anticlinal dome with a fold axis trending East-
North-East (Figure 1). The anticline is bound on the Northern and Southern edges by thrust
faults based on the stratigraphic omission in map pattern and the regional geology (Roen and
Walker, 1996). Limb dip is asymmetric, and the Northern limb dips more steeply than the
Southern, consistent with other structural observations for in the Appalachian Fold and Thrust
Belt.
-
8/2/2019 Nas Paper Part
5/18
5
Figure 1. SSTVD structure map of East Texas Field, North upwards. Courtesy of East Resources.
Reservoir Extensive Properties and Analog Reservoirs
To properly model the reservoir for the purposes of gas in place calculations, extensive
reservoir properties such as recovery factor, water saturation, average porosity, permeability
anisotropy ratio, etc were needed. In the absence of this information directly from the providedTexas Creek Field data, it became necessary to find a field similar to Texas Creek for purposes
of providing insight into the above mentioned extensive reservoir properties. The two analog
fields used for the reservoir characterization were the Leidy Field and the Tioga Field and were
selected on the basis of structural (limb dip, structural grain, fault orientation), pore pressure
gradient, temperature, AOF, gas composition, thickness, and formation similarities to Texas
Creek field (Roen and Walker, 1996), (Figure 12).
-
8/2/2019 Nas Paper Part
6/18
6
Figure 2. Map of two analog fields. Note NE and ENE structural trend of fields. After Boen and Walker, Atlas of
major Appalachian gas plays: West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey Publication V-25, Gas Research
Institute 1996.
1) Atlas of major Appalachian gas plays: West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey Publication V-25, Gas
Research Institute 1996, Edited by John B. Roen and Brian J. Walker"
2) Water saturation values after Paul Dudenas, East Resources, personal communication, 2010.
Results and Discussion
Determination of Pore Pressure and Fracture Pressure
Accurate determination of expected pore pressure and fracture pressure profiles with
depth is crucial in the safe and efficient development of wells. Understanding the pore pressure
and fracture pressure gradients permits selection of appropriate mud weights to avoid kicks or
formation fracture in addition to the optimum number of casing runs.
-
8/2/2019 Nas Paper Part
7/18
7
For the purposes of this analysis, data from well logs and drilling reports for the Graham
#2 well were taken to be representative of a hypothetical well designed to be drilled in the Texas
Creek Field. While this method is limited in its absolute predictive capabilities, it is useful as an
observational and planning tool.
Fracture pressure is a function of pore pressure, overburden pressure, and the poisson
ratio of rocks. There are numerous methods to calculate fracture pressure, but only the following
techniques were considered (EQ 1 -3).
Fmin = 1/3 * (1 + (2P/D)) (1) Hubbert and Willis Min
Fmax= * (1 + P/D) (2) Hubbert and Willis Max
F = (( SP)/D) * ( / (1- )) + P/D (3) Ben Eatons Method
Where:
P = Pore Pressure (psi) S = Overburden Stress (psi)
D = Depth (ft) = Poissons Ratio [ -]
Values from the Bulk Density and Sonic Logs were sampled every 250ft and used to
record overburden gradient (psi/ft), pore pressure gradient (psi/ft), and calculate poissons ratio.
Poissons ratio is calculated through EQ 4, which relates poissons ratio to the compressional and
shear wave slownesses, TC and TS (Appendix).
= [ 0.5*(TS/ TC)2
-1) /[(TS/ TC)2
-1) (4) Dewan Essentials of modern
open hole logging
When Sonic log coverage was not available, a typical poissons ratio of 0.25-0.3 was
used based on log lithology. Pore pressure gradient was assumed to equal 0.47 psi/ft by East
Resources. Since this assumption is unrealistic given pore pressure gradients exceeding 0.6psi/ft
in the Oriskany, a synthetic pore pressure curve was created by converting mud weights used in
-
8/2/2019 Nas Paper Part
8/18
8
drilling to equivalent pressures and equivalent mud weights (EMW). Plots of the pore pressure
and fracture pressure vs depth are included in both psi and EMW space (Figures 1 and 2).
Figure 1. Pore pressure and fracture pressure profiles for Graham #2 well. Dotted portion of
pore pressure curve indicated pore pressure values taken from drilling fluid EMWs. Note the
increase in mud weight (pore pressure) in anticipation of the Marcellus and Oriskany
Formations.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Depth
(TVD)
Pressure (psia)Pore Pressure and Fracture Pressure
Pore Pressure
Ben Eaton Fracture
Hubbert & Willis Min
Hubbert & Willis Max
Field Mud Pressure
-
8/2/2019 Nas Paper Part
9/18
9
Figure 2. Pore pressure and fracture pressure profiles for Graham #2 well plotted as equivalent
mud weight (EMW) vs depth (ft KB). Dotted portion of pore pressure curve indicated pore
pressure values taken from drilling fluid EMWs. Note the increase in mud weight (pore
pressure) in anticipation of the Marcellus and Oriskany Formations.
It is observed that the Ben Eaton method predicts a fracture pressure estimate that is
intermediate with respect to the Hubbert and Willis predictions (EQ 1 and EQ 2). For the
purposes of this study, the Ben Eaton Method is used in the determination of casing runs and
drilling fluid schedule.
We started by modeling a vertical well with a true vertical depth of 7500 feet. We did this
by examining the well data provided. Majority of data was taken from Graham II and used as a
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0 5 10 15 20 25
Depth
(TVD)
Equivalent Mud Weight (PPG)
Pore Pressure and Fracture Pressure EMW
Pore Pressure
Ben Eaton
Fracture
Hubbert &
Willis Min
Hubbert &Willis Max
Field Mud
Pressure
-
8/2/2019 Nas Paper Part
10/18
10
base for the entire drilling plan. We understand that there is error in this assumption due to
anticlines and other reservoir characteristics that are not analogous with the Graham II this will
be taken into consideration throughout the drilling process.
The next step in our modeling process was designing our casing strings. Based on the
pore pressure and fracture gradient curves analysis we knew how many casing strings were
required. Our data indicated that only two strings were needed. The first string, which is
designed to protect natural underground aquifers from potential contamination, was cemented in
at 1250 feet. This allowed us to use a 12-1/4 inch air hammer bit to drill to this depth. Using air
as our drilling fluid increases the rate of penetration while reducing cost. The casing that we
chose was P-110, which has a weight of 43.5 pounds per foot, over J-55. Examining Table 1 you
can see the comparisons between P-110 and J-55 for varying diameter sizes. P-110 provides
higher burst, collapse, and tensile strength. To calculate these strengths we used the following
three formulas.
Casing Weight Diameter Burst (psi) Collapse (psi) Tensile (lb/ft)
36 # 9-5/8" 3520 2020 3636428
23 # 7" 5280 3270 3636428
10.5 # 4-1/2" 6081 4010 3636428
43.5 # 9-5/8" 8700 4419 83040126 # 7" 9955 5900 830401
13.5 # 4-1/2" 16275 10670 830401
J-55
P110
= 0.875(2
)
= (
)
=
4(
2 2)
Equation 1- Burst Pressure
Equation 2- Collapse Pressure
Equation 3- Tensile Force
Table 1
-
8/2/2019 Nas Paper Part
11/18
11
After deciding on the type of casing to run as well as size of wellbore we next examined
how much cement is required using Equation 4. We used class A because it is the cheapest and
most commonly used in the Appalachian basin. Due to our low reservoir temperature class A can
withstand the Oriskany.2 2
09.4
For the vertical well surface casing we calculated that 334 sacks of cement would be required.
Equation 4 gives results in barrels; which was then converted to cubic feet. In order to calculate
how many sacks were required we calculated a yield factor of 1.17. Of course more cement
would be needed due to some lost in circulation among other factors. The production string,
which is the 7 inch P-110, 26 pounds per foot, would run from surface to TD. We calculated that
559 sacks of class A cement would be required. We also examined some additives that could be
potentially added to our cement depending on the environment and what is required.
The basic additives we chose to examine:
Bentonite- is a clay for building drilling fluid viscosity, lowering cement density andlowering slurry costs.
Cement Retarders- tend to reduce setting time of cement slurries.o Examples: Organic acid with calcium lignosulfonate, Calcium-sodium
lignosulfonate, decahyrate.
Filtration Control- Serves a similar function as mud filtrate controls.o Examples: Latex, bentonite with a dispersant, CMHEC.
The next string of casing that was run for the vertical well went to 7500 feet. The characteristics
of this string are: P-110 with 7 inch diameter, with a weight of 26 pounds per foot. This part of
the well could most likely be drilled with an air rig as our pressure curves indicate. The air
hammer bit we used was based off the drilling reports for the Graham II.
Equation 4
-
8/2/2019 Nas Paper Part
12/18
12
We next created a model for a directional well. We were given a target that we had to
reach for this well. We assumed we were drilling from the corner of a 40 acre plot and had to
reach the middle by the time we reached our true vertical depth. The target was 933 feet from the
corner which is where our well was located. This well has a lot more flexibility in the design as
our kick off point would depend on where the well was drilled along with what formation the bit
is in at the time.
Like the vertical well we ran two strings of casing. One went to our KOP while the other string
goes to TD. Because the vertical and direction wells are very similar we were able to use similar
characteristics for both wells. Our directional well was based on a build hold and drop well. We
designed our KOP to be at 1300 feet; which is where our first string, which is designed to
protect natural underground aquifers from potential contamination, was cemented in at 1300 feet.
This allowed us to use a 12-1/4 inch air hammer bit to drill to this depth. Using air as our drilling
fluid increases the rate of penetration while reducing cost. The casing that we chose was P-110,
which has a weight of 43.5 pounds per foot, over J-55.
The following section describes the selection of well geometries (dog leg severities, arc
lengths, horizontal departure, etc). For the purposes of brevity, SPE Textbook Series Vol 2:
Applied Drilling Engineering was consulted for the geometric relationships and equations of
drilling trajectories.
Figure 3- Graham II Drilling Report
-
8/2/2019 Nas Paper Part
13/18
13
For the purposes of this exercise, the following constraint (Figure 1) was used in the
design of the directional well (Wang, JY. 2010 Personal Communications). The well must be
drilled from the NW corner to the center of a 40 acre block with the target TD of 7500.
Figure 4. 40 acre plot, with target at center and TD = 7500.
For simplicity, a symmetric build and hold drop S directional well was chosen with
radius 450, maximum inclination angle = 20 degrees, and dog leg severity of 12.7deg/100. A
cross sectional view of the well trajectory looking NE is provided (Figure 5).
1320f
t
660
660
TD = 7500
KB
-
8/2/2019 Nas Paper Part
14/18
14
Figure 5. Looking NE at build and hold drop S symmetric directional well. Key values noted.
Similar to the vertical well we decided to use class A cement. For the same reasons stated
above and with the possibility to add the same additives. For the cementing of the 9-5/8 sting
370 sacks would be required. The production string, which is also 7 inch P-110 with a weight of
26 pounds per foot, would run from surface to total depth. The annular capacity will require 350
sacks of Class A cement. These values were calculated using equation 4 similar to calculations
with vertical model.
-
8/2/2019 Nas Paper Part
15/18
15
The final well design that we created was of a horizontal well. Up until our KOP the
design is very similar to that of vertical. This design required three strings of casing, the surface
casing, intermediate casing, and production casing. We designed our KOP to be at 6680 feet. Our
first string would go to the depth of 1250 feet in order to protect natural underground aquifers
from potential contamination; it was cemented in at 1250 feet. This allowed us to use a 12-1/4
inch air hammer bit to drill to this depth. Using air as our drilling fluid increases the rate of
penetration while reducing cost. The casing that we chose was P-110, which has a weight of 43.5
pounds per foot, over J-55.
Our intermediate string is 7 inch P-110 with a weight of 26 pounds per foot, and set at a
depth of 6000 feet. This is right at our KOP and just above the Marcellus. This was done so that
we could switch the drilling fluid to mud to avoid kicks, also it allows us to kick off in the Tully
Limestone. This helps us maintain wellbore integrity while minimizing fluid loss. This string
would require 137 sacks of Class A cement. Our production string is 4-1/2 inch P-110 with a
weight of 13.5 pounds per foot, and set at a depth of 10966 feet. This string will run horizontally
through the Oriskany. This string would run from surface to total depth and would require 937
sacks of Class A cement. For our production sting we realize that liners could also be a
possibility and that this zone would require perforations.
The horizontal well was designed to reach a TD of 7500. In the absence of production data and
rigorous reservoir simulation, a lateral length of 3000 was arbitrarily selected. Future workmay
certainly may refine this length. The dog leg severity of 7deg/100 is consistent with those
observed already in Texas Creek (Shepard #1). Kick off point was chosen to kick off in
competent Tully Limestone. A cross section of the well trajectory is included (Figure 6).
-
8/2/2019 Nas Paper Part
16/18
16
Figure 6. Directional well trajectory.
For our vertical, directional and horizontal wells we chose to use fresh water mud. Table
2 shows mud capacities for vertical, directional, and horizontal. We realize that more mud would
be required to have on location in case of loss circulation and to maintain proper well control.
We chose fresh water mud due to it being less expensive than other oil based muds, and it is the
most commonly used type of much in the Appalachian basin due to low reservoir temperatures.
There are a variety of additives that could potentially use with our drilling mud depending on
drilling environment. The most common type of additive is lost circulation control which
prevents fluid loss and the build up of mud cakes on the borehole walls and example of this is
Nut Shell.
-
8/2/2019 Nas Paper Part
17/18
17
During our bit selection process, we looked over the formation of the area from the
Appalachian Basin Province. The primary reservoir is the Oriskany sandstone, which is a quartz-
rich, calcite and silica-cemented, fine to coarse-grained sandstone sequence. Also, we calculated
the ROP of all DelCiotto #1, DelCiotto #2 and Graham #2 from the daily report that was locatedunder the Field data folder. After doing so, it was decided that the best bit to use was the PDC bit
because of the information retrieved. Also, we believed that it would be the most effective in
terms of economics and time. Though it can drill through harder formations, the PDC bit is most
affective against weak formation which in our case gives us the advantage because the formation
was found to be medium to medium hard. A PDC bit has a much better resistant than both a steel
and tungsten carbine bit which is why it can be used to drill in three or more wells. It is proven to
be the most economical alternative in many drilling scenarios and we believe it will be an asset
towards drilling here.
Vertical
Depth (ft) Capacity (bbls)
TVD (7500) 526
DirectionalDepth (ft) Capacity (bbls)
KOP (1300) 116.98
TD (7660) 552.1
Horizontal
Depth (ft) Capacity (bbls)
KOP (6680) 446
Landing Pt (7966) 493
TD (10966) 602
Table 2
=
Equation 5
-
8/2/2019 Nas Paper Part
18/18
18
Summary and Conclusions
Pure Energy Consultants, LLC has developed three drilling designs based on the
characteristics of the Texas Creek field. The drilling designs were created for a vertical,
direction, and horizontal well within the field. The main focus areas were pore and fracture
pressure gradients, casing design, bit selection, cements and drilling fluid. Based on our research
we believe that either vertical or directional well should be drilled if infill drilling is to take
place. This is due to high expenses with horizontal with minimal extra recovery. Economic
evaluation of each well was extremely hard to do due to a large fluctuation in pricing depending
on economy and company. We used an air rig to drill till KOP largely due to economic factors
and the high rate of penetration that an air hammer provides. After KOP we would switch to
freshwater based mud. Our casing strings go down from 9-5/8 surface casing to 7 intermediate
casing and the horizontal casing is 4-1/2. We used P-110 casing for all of the strings to reduce
cost and improve wellbore stability. We used Class A cement for all of our cementing jobs as it
reduces cost and can withstand the temperatures. We understand that there are a variety of
additives for drilling fluid and cement however they are largely added depending on drilling
environment. The basic additives we would add are bentonite, fluid lose, retarders.