Interwell Communication Study of UWC and MWC Wells in the HFTS

Wood, T. M.; Leonard, R. S.; Senters, C. W.; Squires, Chris; Perry, Matthew

doi:10.15530/urtec-2018-2902960

Cited by 13 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This would suggest that the observed differences in lithology, particularly the lack of heterogeneity from carbonate debris zones or quartz rich sections in the MWC interval impacts hydraulic fracture propagation and observed fractures far-field as sampled during this test (Table 5; Gale et al 2018;Maity and Ciezobka 2021). Independent observations, such as using segmented tracer studies (Wood et al 2018) provide interwell communication estimates in UWC and MWC wells. Figure 13 and Table 6 highlight oil and water tracer behavior in the UWC vs. MWC wells which were part of this study.…”

Section: Uwc Vs Mwc Fracture Growthmentioning

confidence: 82%

Diagnostic assessment of reservoir response to fracturing: a case study from Hydraulic Fracturing Test Site (HFTS) in Midland Basin

Maity

Ciezobka

2021

J Petrol Explor Prod Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper outlines a data collection and diagnostics case study involving multiple horizontal shale wells. We look at well production profiles using rate transient analysis, differences in near wellbore complexity, geologic variations within the area of interest, as well as compositional differences in the rocks based on cores obtained from within the stimulated reservoir. The Hydraulic Fracturing Test Site is a multi-well experiment involving stimulation of unconventional shale wells in the southeastern Midland portion of the Permian Basin. The targeted formations include both the upper as well as the middle Wolfcamp formations, also referred alternatively as Wolfcamp A and Wolfcamp B. Data integration and analysis shared in this paper help us understand the various geologic controls impacting well productivity, particularly the wide variance observed between the Wolfcamp A and Wolfcamp B formations. Rate transient analysis indicates similar system permeabilities for stimulated wells. However, we observe higher effective fracture half-lengths for upper Wolfcamp wells. Using observations from 3D seismic interpretations (such as pad scale faults) as well as petrophysical and image log data, we highlight the substantial differences in stimulation as we move along the well laterals from the heel toward the toe sections. These differences are further reconciled with observations from zones with high data density at the core locations through stimulated rock, as well as independent data such as microseismic emissions. At the test site, Wolfcamp A was found to be relatively quartz rich with significant heterogeneity whereas Wolfcamp B is richer in clay and organic content. This impacts the geomechanical characteristics of the rock mass with much higher natural fracture density in the shallower interval. Thus, the fracture growth is more uniform in the deeper interval and more heterogeneous with branching likely in upper interval. Increased complexity also leads to consistently better productivity from the wells in the shallower interval as demonstrated from RTA results. This case study is unique because it provides valuable insights from actual sampling of the stimulated zones in hydraulically fractured wells and helps understand impact of various factors that contribute toward variability in well production. The findings from this study provides insights into need for optimization of completion designs in the various Wolfcamp landing zones, such as optimization of cluster or fracture spacing in various Wolfcamp intervals. In addition, it provides a useful template for data collection and research direction in future field test sites of similar nature in unconventional reservoirs.

show abstract

Section: Uwc Vs Mwc Fracture Growthmentioning

confidence: 82%