Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
This paper reviews the fracturing history in the Cooper Basin and summarizes the results of over 650 fracturing treatments characterised by high tectonic stresses, high fracturing pressures, high reservoir temperatures, and stacked reservoir lithologies of sands, shales, and coals. Initial treatments targeted multiple moderately high permeability (1–10 md) formations, while multi-staging operations are now targeting single, less extensive, lower quality reservoirs. The paper discusses the techniques used for predicting and designing for natural fracture leakoff, high near wellbore pressure losses and high fracture gradients. It shows the changes in fracturing ideologies and how they have altered the completion strategies, predicted fracture geometries, fracturing materials, treatment schedules, and post-frac production. Introduction Hydraulic fracturing began in the Cooper Basin in 1968 and has been a critical technology in the development of its gas and oil reserves. Although fracturing has been used extensively in other regions of Australia such as the small to medium sized oil fields of the Eromanga Basin in Central Australia and the Coalbed regions of Eastern Australia, this paper is focused on the fracturing experience in the more extreme conditions of the Cooper Basin. Cooper Basin Description. The basin is a Late Carboniferous to Middle Triassic, non-marine sedimentary environment, which underlies the desert region of Eastern-Central Australia (Figure 1). It is characterised as fluvio-lacustrine, with fining upward sandstones, siltstones, interbedded shales and coals. Deposition varies between braided and meandering fluvial sands & alluvial fans, distributary channels, and crevasse splays1. Figure 1 - Location of Cooper Basin (Blue) and Overlying Eromanga Basin (Green) The basin is the primary on-shore producing area in Australia for natural gas, while also producing significant oil and LPG. It extends over a region of 50,000 sq. miles (130,000 km2) and contains over 120 separate gas fields and 10 oil fields. Production from Cooper Basin reservoirs is presently 600 MMscf/day from 700 gas wells and 2,500 bopd from 50 oil wells. Estimates for recoverable oil and gas reserves are 43.9 MMstb and 8.2 tcf, with remaining reserves (as of 1998) of 14.8 MMstb and 3.6 tcf1. Reservoir depletion effects on fracturing can be significant and will be presented later in the paper. A graph of the basement depth structure is presented in Figure 2 and shows the major basin details and fractured well locations. The primary features are the Nappamerri Trough that is located in the middle of the basin and the various ridges that surround the Trough. Most of the significant fields are located on the North-West, South, East, and North-East ridges. Previous publications have been written concerning the Tirrawarra field2–3 which is located in the North-West ridge and the Kurunda Field4 which is located in the South-East ridge. Other publications describe general basin reservoir characteristics and/or fracturing behaviour5–12.
This paper reviews the fracturing history in the Cooper Basin and summarizes the results of over 650 fracturing treatments characterised by high tectonic stresses, high fracturing pressures, high reservoir temperatures, and stacked reservoir lithologies of sands, shales, and coals. Initial treatments targeted multiple moderately high permeability (1–10 md) formations, while multi-staging operations are now targeting single, less extensive, lower quality reservoirs. The paper discusses the techniques used for predicting and designing for natural fracture leakoff, high near wellbore pressure losses and high fracture gradients. It shows the changes in fracturing ideologies and how they have altered the completion strategies, predicted fracture geometries, fracturing materials, treatment schedules, and post-frac production. Introduction Hydraulic fracturing began in the Cooper Basin in 1968 and has been a critical technology in the development of its gas and oil reserves. Although fracturing has been used extensively in other regions of Australia such as the small to medium sized oil fields of the Eromanga Basin in Central Australia and the Coalbed regions of Eastern Australia, this paper is focused on the fracturing experience in the more extreme conditions of the Cooper Basin. Cooper Basin Description. The basin is a Late Carboniferous to Middle Triassic, non-marine sedimentary environment, which underlies the desert region of Eastern-Central Australia (Figure 1). It is characterised as fluvio-lacustrine, with fining upward sandstones, siltstones, interbedded shales and coals. Deposition varies between braided and meandering fluvial sands & alluvial fans, distributary channels, and crevasse splays1. Figure 1 - Location of Cooper Basin (Blue) and Overlying Eromanga Basin (Green) The basin is the primary on-shore producing area in Australia for natural gas, while also producing significant oil and LPG. It extends over a region of 50,000 sq. miles (130,000 km2) and contains over 120 separate gas fields and 10 oil fields. Production from Cooper Basin reservoirs is presently 600 MMscf/day from 700 gas wells and 2,500 bopd from 50 oil wells. Estimates for recoverable oil and gas reserves are 43.9 MMstb and 8.2 tcf, with remaining reserves (as of 1998) of 14.8 MMstb and 3.6 tcf1. Reservoir depletion effects on fracturing can be significant and will be presented later in the paper. A graph of the basement depth structure is presented in Figure 2 and shows the major basin details and fractured well locations. The primary features are the Nappamerri Trough that is located in the middle of the basin and the various ridges that surround the Trough. Most of the significant fields are located on the North-West, South, East, and North-East ridges. Previous publications have been written concerning the Tirrawarra field2–3 which is located in the North-West ridge and the Kurunda Field4 which is located in the South-East ridge. Other publications describe general basin reservoir characteristics and/or fracturing behaviour5–12.
As horizontal drilling programs continue to proliferate across the industry, and new technologies and operational practices are developed and advanced, the reality of a one-run well has emerged. In various applications across several provinces in Western Canada, the ultimate goal of drilling a horizontal well in one run from surface casing has been realized. This success comes as a function of the combined effort of the operator, directional drilling company and PDC bit company to solve the multitude of technical challenges facing a monobore strategy in areas with hole stability issues.
A novel well concept to unlock reserves from mature gas fields in Northern Germany has been developed. This concept combines cemented completions with through-tubing coiled-tubing drilling to enable significant cost reductions using ultra slim hole drilling in sour gas bearing, Upper Permian Zechstein dolomite reservoirs. Once gas reservoirs mature, drilling of conventional infill wells can quickly become economically unattractive. Often this leaves resources untouched and it limits the economic life span of a field. To improve the economics of infill drilling in deep and mature gas fields significant cost reductions are necessary. These cost reductions can be achieved by changing the proven, yet costly, casing scheme to an ultra slim hole well concept. Besides unfavorable economics another challenge while drilling with conventional technology in mature fields can be the reduced inflow performance caused by formation damage. This challenge can be overcome by under- or at-balanced drilling, which is enabled by through-tubing coiled-tubing drilling. Despite improved efficiencies gained from knowledge by drilling many offset wells, the estimated gas volumes are not sufficient to justify drilling of new wells with the established and conventional well design. Therefore, the operator prepared an advanced ultra slim hole well concept. The casing shoe setting depths remained unchanged, however the hole sizes are reduced significantly. The openhole reservoir section is changed from 5.875-in to 2.5-in and this section is drilled with coiled-tubing and through the installed completion. The size of the completion is selected to be 3.5-in and it is cemented in a 4.125-in hole. In this application, the cemented 3.5-in completion eliminates an entire 7-in liner that would be necessary in the conventional casing scheme. The remainder of the ultra slim hole well is drilled with a 5-in drilling liner, a 7-in intermediate casing and a 9.625-in surface casing. This needs to be compared with the conventional casing scheme comprising of an 18.625-in surface casing, a 13.375-in intermediate casing, a 9.625-in production casing and a 7-in liner. The reduction in cost is estimated to be in the order of 40%. The presented concept can enable significant cost reductions and by applying this ultra slim hole concept further infill drilling in mature gas fields can become more economically attractive. Moreover, formation damage can be overcome by underbalanced drilling, which is enabled by drilling through-tubing with coiled-tubing. The synergies created by combining cemented completions with coiled-tubing drilling are presented in this paper.
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 © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.