140 likes | 176 Views
Investigate gas prospect simulations for efficient well arrangements, production profiles, and recovery factors. Study sensitivity to rock compressibility, target deliverability rate, tubing size, and completion strategy for optimal gas recovery.
E N D
New Exploration Gas Prospect • Simulation Study Investigating: • Well arrangements to recover hydrocarbons • Production profiles and recovery factors • Sensitivity to rock compressibility • Sensitivity to target deliverability rate • Sensitivity to tubing size – 3.5 versus 4.5
New Exploration Gas Prospect Top of Structure – Sand A
Eugene Island -Thunderbolt Prospect Top of Structure - Sand B
New Exploration Gas Prospect Top of Structure - Sand C
New Exploration Gas Prospect Sand A - 229 BCF
New Exploration Gas Prospect Gas Zone - Sand B, 938 BCF
New Exploration Gas Prospect Gas Zone - Sand C, 642 BCF
Completion Strategy • Objectives: • Maintain deliverability targets – 300 / 715 mmcf/d cases • Produce all fault blocks efficiently • Complete largest targets first • Only plugback completions • Resulting Completion Strategy: • 11 wells required • 2 wells in Sand A • 6 wells in Sand B • 3 wells in Sand C • 6 wells required at time 0 for 300 mmcf/d case • 2 recompletions – A and E both from 21000 to 20000 ft.
Well Completions in Sand A • 715 mmcf/d, 4.5 tbg, Cr =15E-6 Well I - 45 BCF Well K – 105 BCF
Well Completions in Sand B • 715 mmcf/d, 4.5 tbg, Cr =15E-6 Well E – 29 BCF, recompletion Well H – 150 BCF Well F – 189 BCF Well J – 174 BCF Well B – 123 BCF Well C – 56 BCF Well D – 34 BCF
Well Completions in Sand C • 715 mmcf/d, 4.5 tbg, Cr =15E-6 Well E – 86 BCF Well G – 185BCF Well A – 178 BCF
Comparison – low vs. high Crock • 715 mmcf/d, 3.5 tbg, Cr =15E-6 and 5E-6
Comparison – 3.5 vs 4.5 tbg • 715 mmcf/d, Cr = 5E-6
Conclusions • Recoveries between 45-52 % possible • Low recoveries for high Crock, 3/1 Aquifer • 11 wells for 715 mmcf/d • 6 wells followed by 5 drilled wells for 300 mmcf/d • 4.5 tubing increases gas recovery for 715 mmcf/d • 50 BCF additional reserves vs. 3.5 tubing • Tubing size does not increase ultimate recovery or deliverability significantly for 300 mmcf/d case