350 likes | 479 Views
IMPACT OF TRANSMISSIBILITY CORRECTIONS ON SHALE GAS NUMERICAL PRODUCTION FORECASTS. Context. Typical analysis workflow involves a step from analytical to numerical models Objective: ensure consistency between models
E N D
IMPACT OF TRANSMISSIBILITY CORRECTIONS ON SHALE GAS NUMERICAL PRODUCTION FORECASTS
Context • Typical analysis workflow involves a step from analytical to numerical models • Objective: ensure consistency between models • Low permeability context induces specific complexity for numerical simulation
Reference solution • Transient models for hydraulic fractures for monophasic, linear PVT based on: • Ozkan, E. and Raghavan, R.: “New Solutions for Well-Test Analysis Problems: Part 1 – Analytical Considerations,” SPEFE (Sept. 1991).
Observations k=30 mD
Observations k=30 mD
Observations k=1E-4 mD Grid size cannot be set irrespectively of k for transient analysis
Observations k=1E-4 mD Linear transmissibilities overestimate production
Non-Linear PVT Gas: PVT non-linearity increases the productivity
Observations • In low-permeability formations, numerical results show specific behavior • Transmissibility values must be corrected to account for NL pressure behavior • Grid size must be carefully chosen to capture transients • Grid size should also capture PVT non-linearity
Transmissibility corrections Linear assumption:
Transmissibility corrections Cell average pressure : Darcy’s law : General expression:
Transmissibility corrections • Analytical pressure field obtained from successive integrations of source point solutions • Numerical volume and surface integrations on every cell geometry
Transmissibility corrections Unitary panel solution Weight First images solution • Weights are either: • set to equate potential at a number of locations along the producing surfaces (iso-potential surfaces), a linear system has to be solved (once for a given geometry). • set equals (uniform flux).
Transmissibility corrections Potential field around a partially penetrating slanted well in a single layer.
Numerical examples Example 1: single, fully penetrating fracture
Numerical examples Isopotentiallines and corresponding truncated numerical grid.
Numerical examples Cumulative production error compared to reference solution
Numerical examples Example 2: MFHW with fully penetrating fractures
Numerical examples Cumulative production error compared to reference solution
Numerical examples Example 3: single, partially penetrating fracture
Numerical examples Cumulative production error compared to reference solution
Numerical examples Example 4: MFHW, partially penetrating fractures
Numerical examples Example 4: MFHW, partially penetrating fractures
Numerical examples Cumulative production error compared to reference solution
Grid Refinement Control MFHW with 30 Fractures, k=1E-4 mD
Grid Refinement Control • Objective: automatic choice of the grid refinement based on the desired time resolution • Effective resolution is related to the radius of investigation:
Grid Refinement Control Constant PVT
Grid Refinement Control NL gas PVT : slightly smaller effective resolution with large P
Conclusions • Specific procedures have been developed for low-k • Transmissibility corrections Reduce numerical errors with large NL pressure effects • Corrections valid only for kfractures >> kreservoir • Automatic grid refinement procedure Based on estimated radius of investigation at desired time resolution