The Montney gas reservoir presents exciting potential and is likely to become a critically important component of future gas supply. However, the Montney often presents variable and unique stimulation challenges. Unlike reservoirs like the US Barnett shale but possibly like the Muskwa in the northeast B.C. Horn River basin, recovery of water-based fluids can be a key issue to achieving economic production rates in the Montney.Choice of fracturing fluid must be carefully determined for each area of the Montney, balancing economics with production response. One must always keep in mind that key reservoir properties can vary dramatically in the Montney, both as a function of geographic location and depth.A presentation entitled "Montney Fracturing Fluid Considerations" was given at the 2009 CSUG conference, which summarized results of regained methane permeability vs. drawdown pressure and contact time with Montney core under representative reservoir conditions. Water-, foamed water-, and hydrocarbon-based fracturing-fluid systems were studied. Implications of the results as to choice of optimum fluid were discussed. This paper presents field-production results of the trials conducted with fluid systems resulting in conjunction with the above study. The concepts and reasoning used to arrive at final fluid choices for field trials are discussed, as well as a theoretical interpretation of the field-production results. BackgoundThe Montney reservoir spans approximately 2961 km 2 and has original gas in place (OGIP) estimates of between 35 and 250 Tcf. The industry accelerated the development of this resource using horizontal wells with fracture stimulations in 2005. As an industry, various gelled, slickwater, and oil-based fracturing fluids have been trialed. To evaluate the effectiveness of these systems, Montney fluids were tested against Montney core in 2009 (Taylor et al. 2009).To follow up on the theoretical core work, various fracture-stimulation methodologies were attempted in the Trident Montney field during 2009 and 2010. The stimulations evolved from CO 2 foam to ultrahigh-quality biopolymer foam with sand and lightweight proppant (LWP), finally settling on slickwater limited-entry fracs. During the evolution of stimulations, there were lessons learned on cement selection, reservoir heterogeneities, and multilaterals and wellbore design.The purpose of this paper is to detail all of the various fracture stimulations trialed in the field and present the results/lessons learned.
Introduction R and D subjects in petroleum industry are numerous and diverse. We look at formations with Scanning Electron Microscopes and satellites. In order to trace hydrocarbons, we measure almost every physical and mechanical property of the rock; from its radioactivity and electrical resistivity, to magnetic properties. We measure fluid pressure to an accuracy of 0.01 psi. We can do well testing based on moon tides. We draw three-dimensional picture of underground strata based on seismic data. We launch and install offshore platforms which cost millions of dollars, weigh thousands of tons. We drill holes miles deep into very hot formations, and produce from them. We can transport fluid hundreds of miles on sea floors, thousands of miles on giant tankers across oceans, and then refine it to a final product usable by the public. And yet, we cannot answer some very basic questions: Where in a reservoir should we drill, how to anticipate the mechanical condition of the formation we will drill into, what are the relative permeabilities of the formation to its fluids, how to determine when we have a good cement bond, how to determine the size and direction of hydraulic fractures, how to prevent water coning, how to prevent damage caused by formation fluid itself, etc. While we have made giant strides in modeling and processing data through computers, we often do not have the very basic properties needed to fully take advantage of them. There are many technical disciplines involved in oil and gas exploration and production. We employ almost all engineering disciplines, as well as draw on achievements of other industries. In such an environment, it is difficult to identify why R and D is vital to the petroleum industry. Any strategy of R and D has to recognize an important element; people. Although people are the most valuable asset of every part of mi organization, R and D accomplishments and value is substantially dependent upon the qualifications of those performing the work. Most R and D functions require people with high level of education and specialized training, disciplined in a methodical and logical approach to problems. Yet breakthroughs are often results of unorthodox thinking, the creative ingredient of a human brain which goes beyond what is normal and expected. It takes a long time to build an effective R and D which is familiar with business and technical requirements of an organization and capable of providing it with workable solutions. R and D goals and objectives are also usually long term. It is very difficult to determine the financial effectiveness of most research; how much it will eventually cost and how much it will contribute to the total revenue. The motivating force behind R and D funding is past performance and future promise. The goal is to anticipate and resolve future problems; whether it is simply providing better and more efficient technology, or ploughing into unchartered grounds in hope of a breakthrough. The combination of all these factors leads one to conclude that the funding of an R and D department should depend on the longer term picture for the company. While it is fully recognized that many elements contribute to the objective of oil and gas production, this paper will focus attention on areas which are directly connected to petroleum exploration and production. Three aspects of R and D are discussed; who funds it, who does it and what are some of the ways to f ace the challenge of the future. P. 31^
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.