影响页岩气产能的关键因素(英文)

OGIP
Thickness and acreage
Mineralogy Diagenesis Effective stress TOC Temp.
Thickness and acreage
Production
Brittleness Pore Geological network & reservoir Pore network & reservoir quality quality
Shale-Gas Production
TOC Pressure Porosity Maturity Water frac Microseismic Refrac Diversion HW+ fiber Technology frac Mstage water frac HTHP proppant Downspacing Temp.
Low effective stress enhances the effectiveness of hydraulic fractures although it tends to reduce the intrinsic brittleness.
In general, the reservoir quality increases with the pressure gradient.
Eagle Ford
–
Pearsall
Biogenic and thermogenic 500–18,000 ft 200–12,000 psi 0.2–0.95 psi/ft 85–360 Canada oF 20–2,000 ft >9,000 wells 2–15% U.S.A. 250 2,500 ft >2.5 Tcf cum. gas 2–25% 35–76 tcf 0.4-5 2,000 8,000 ft 15–400 scf/ton Range IP: 24.5 MMcf 50-370 tcf ?–80% >9600 wells
From Devon Energy, 2006
Ellenburger
(Water-bearing formation)
wenku.baidu.com
Horizontal Drilling in the Barnett Shale: Andrée Griffin, XTO Energy, AAPL, April 2006
• HTHP proppants
>14,300 wells 6500–9,000 ft Cum. Prod.: >7 Tcf 26-44 tcf
>600 wells 11,000–14,000 ft Highest IP: 31.175 MMcf ~250 tcf
Success of Shale Play
Gas/oil content Deliverability Sustainability
Lewis
Woodford Barnett/ Bend Woodford Barnett
(?) wells (commingled) 3,000–6,000 ft
Marfa Pearsall
Eagle Ford
Modified from EIA, 2009; Dawson, F. M., 2008; Schlumberger, 2005.
Pressure System
Shale System Geopressured
Barnett Shale, Texas Haynesville, Louisiana Eagle Ford Pearsall, Texas Horn River, BC, Canada Baxter, Wyoming
Market conditions
Petrophysical
Brittleness
Geophysical
External factors
Technology
Market conditions
External factors
Internal factors
Gas content
Gas content
Internal factors
Baxter Mancos/ Mowry Cane Creek Niobrara
U.S.A.
New Albany Fayetteville Caney Floyd Bossier Haynesville
>9,000 wells 250–2,500 ft >2.5 Tcf cum. gas 35–76 tcf 2,000–8,000 ft Range IP: 24.5 MMcf 50-370 tcf >9600 wells 1,500–6,000 ft Cum. Prod.>2.7 tcf
Property of Shale-Gas Plays
Item name Haynesville Shale1, LA 10,500-14,000 ~10,000 >0.9 260-360 300 1.8 2.0-7.0 8-14 (10) 400* 10-503 10-403 15-30 150-170 7.5 (4.5-8.5) 4.5 11.0 900* xx-603 5-223 <20 180-210 5.5 >35 25-35 140 2.65 12-35 30-150 3.75 Eagle ford Shale1, TX 11,000-13,000 ~8,000 >0.65 280 250 Barnett Shale2 Fort Worth Basin 5,400-9,600 3,500 <0.52 140 200-500 1.1-1.7 2.0-7.0 4.0-7.0 <100* 50-300 0.6-3.0 5.3-7.8 5.5-7.5 0.42-0.7 Marcellus Shale2 Appalachian Basin 1,500-8,000 Depth range (ft) Pressure (psi) Pressure gradient (psi/ft) Temperature range (of) Maximum gross thickness (ft) Vitrinite reflectance (Ro in %) Total organic content (TOC wt%) Total porosity (%) Matrix Permeability (nD) Carbonate content (%) Quartz content (%) Connate water saturation (%) Gas in place/section (Bcf) Estimated EUR per well (Bcf)
Pressure gradient (psi/ft)
0.43–0.52 >0.9 0.7 >0.9 (?) 0.75 0.5 0.20–0.25 0.15–0.40 0.30–0.70
Underpressured
Lewis, Colorado/New Mexico Ohio (Huron), Appalachian Basin
1: 2; 3: *:
Data modified from Stoneburner (2009) Data modified from Chesapeake (2009) Hammes, personal communication Permeability measured from crushed samples
Production Technology
• Water frac （清水压裂，1999) • Refrac （重复压裂， 2002) • Horizontal well + multistage frac (水平 水平 多段压裂) 井＋多段压裂
• Microseismics • Downspacing • Diversion technolog Fiber frac • Facility improvements
Shale-Gas Potential in North America
Horn River (EOG 23 MMcf IP) Muskwa Montney Utica Shale
Colorado
Established Emerging
Canada
Antrim Gammon
Horton BluffElgin Shale
Key Controls in Shale Gas Production
August 26th, 2010 Xian, China
Fred P Wang Bureau of Economic Geology John and Katherine Jackson School of Geosciences The University of Texas at Austin
Haynesville
Utica Shale Horton BluffElgin Shale
Drilling Depth (ft)
Fayetteville
Marcellus
Barnett, FWB
Antrim
Caney
New Albany
Caney
Floyd Bossier Haynesville
20,000
Shale Gas Initiatives
USA 2004-09 China & Europe 2010
Can shale gas better than tightsand gas?
Lisbume
Alaska
Woodford
Fayetteville
Eagle Ford
• • • • • • • • • • •
Shale Gas and Oil
Shale gas and oil are fascinating We do not know much about them They are full of surprises Is Barnett Shale, North Texas the best gas shale?
1,500–6,000 ft Cum. Prod.>2.7 tcf
Barnett-Woodford, Delaware Basin Mancos/Hillard
– –
Shale-Gas Potential in North America
New Albany Ohio
Utica
Lisbume
Alaska
Antrim
Horn River (EOG 23 MMcf IP) Muskwa Montney
Lewis
Colorado
Baxter
Mancos/ Mowry
Floyd
Gammon
Niobrara
Pearsall
Cane Creek
Barnett/ Bend Woodford Barnett Marfa
Type 0 Depth Pressure 5,000 Pressure gradient Established Temperature Emerging Thickness 10,000 Porosity Organic content (TOC) Lewis Thermal maturity (VRo) 15,000 Gas content (?) wells (commingled) Quartz/carbonate content 3,000 6,000 ft
Both
Marcellus, Appalachian Basin
(Myers, 2008; Chesapeake, 2008;Petrohawk, 2009; Encana, 2009)
Effects of High Pressure Gradient
Porosity and permeability enhancements Gas density and adsorption Gas content Brittleness
Modified from EIA, 2009; Dawson, F. M., 2008; Schlumberger, 2005.
>14,300 wells 6500–9,000 ft Cum. Prod.: >7 Tcf 26-44 tcf
>600 wells 11,000–14,000 ft Highest IP: 31.175 MMcf ~250 tcf