Less Money for More Oil - Advanced Drill Cuttings Analysis Improves Post Fracture Oil Production, Wolfcamp Example

Abstract

"How do we reduce the cost of producing a barrel of oil and improve well productivity?" This is probably the most frequently asked question by operators. According to a US Energy Information Administration study, average drilling and completion costs in 2015 in five major unconventional plays in the US dropped 25 to 30% since 2012. Despite an overall price drop in drilling and completion, which accounts for up to 65% of capital expenditure, unconventional oil and natural gas extraction remains non profitable for many operators at current oil prices. Increasing well productivity often requires well intervention with expensive logging tools and high-tech equipment. The use of these technologies is cost prohibitive for some unconventional plays during a market downturn, and incurs the additional risk of the loss of tools downhole. Drill cuttings analysis during mud logging, a well-known formation evaluation tool in conventional drilling, is often overlooked or ignored in unconventional well evaluation because of the limited data from conventional techniques. However, with the development of advanced drill-cuttings analysis such as scanning electron microscope-based automated mineralogical techniques can now provide data-rich information such as brittleness, rock elastic properties and rock typing that can improve completion design and post-stimulation production. One of the main advantages of drill cuttings is that they are readily available and advanced analysis is relatively inexpensive and low-risk. This paper reviews the use of advanced drill cutting analysis (ACA) for hydraulic fracture treatment design optimization in well 1-H in the Wolfcamp formation. The results from the review show the correlation between some formation properties obtained from the ACA and fracture treatment parameters such as treating pressure and pump rate. The post-fracture oil production of well 1-H is compared to the offset geometrically completed well. Limitations of ACA and other factors that can affect the post-stimulation production are also discussed.

Evaluation of Reservoir Quality and Forecasted Production Variability along a Multi-Fractured Horizontal Well. Part 2: Selected Stage Forecasting

“…The workflow consists of the following steps: (1) quantify reservoir quality (RQ) and completion quality (CQ) along a horizontal well, as determined from a combination of petrophysical, geochemical and geomechanical properties; (2) identify intervals of higher RQ/CQ that can be selected for stimulation; (3) use a simulation model, populated with properties determined from step 1, to generate production forecasts for all stages of the well (assuming a geometric fracturing approach); (4) compare the production forecast for the selected (higher RQ/CQ) intervals against the production forecast for all intervals (geometric fracturing case) to determine if fewer stages can be completed in the well without significant loss in well performance. Previous approaches for Steps 1 and 2 have been discussed in the literature e.g., [16][17][18][19][20][21]. If…”