Hydraulic Fracturing Test Site (HFTS)

Transcription

1 Hydraulic Fracturing Test Site (HFTS) > July 10, 2013 > Trevor Smith > Gas Technology Institute

2 Hydraulic Fracturing Test Site (HFTS) A field-based hydraulic fracturing research program. 1. Improve cost efficiency 2. Demonstrate safe operations 3. Minimize potential environmental impacts. Phase 1 Planning funded by RPSEA Technical Advisory Team o Hydraulic fracturing experts from operating and service companies, suppliers) Detailed experimental plan, program set-up, budget o Aligned goals and information needs, testing objectives, measurement tools, site selection, experimental designs, cost considerations, etc. Collaborating for Best Practices 2

3 Gas Technology Institute > Not-for-profit research, with 70 year history > Facilities 18 acre campus near Chicago 200,000 ft 2, 28 specialized labs Offices in AL, CA, MA, PA TX, Wash DC > Staff of 250 > Market opportunities are creating substantial growth > 1,200 patents; 500 products Offices & Labs Pilot-Scale Gasification Campus Energy & Environmental Technology Center 3

4 GTI/DOE E&P Legacy Heavy Investment in Resource Development DOE Coalbed Methane R&D $30 million DOE/GTI Led DOE Shale Gas R&D $137 million R&D Programs GRI/GTI Unconventional Gas R&D $565 million Shale expected to reach 50% of U.S. gas production by 2035 Sources: GTI, EIA, DOE Department of Fossil Energy 4

5 More than 30 cooperative research wells since Advanced Hydraulic Fracturing Project, GTI and RPSEA Marcellus Shale Research Project, GTI and RPSEA New Albany Shale Research Project, GTI and RPSEA Underbalanced Completions Program, GTI Mounds Drill Cuttings Injection Project, Gas Research Institute, Oklahoma GRI/DOE Multi-Site Hydraulic Fracture Diagnostics Project (MWX), Gas Research Institute, Colorado Four-staged Field Experiments (SFE wells), Texas and Wyoming. Cotton Valley Hydraulic Fracture Imaging and Waterfrac Projects, Gas Research Institute Fracturing Fluid Characterization Facility (FFCF), Gas Research Institute and University of Oklahoma

6 Meeting Agenda/Intended Outcomes Agenda 1. Results of industry prioritization survey 2. HFTS project development flowsheet and timeline 3. Experiment cost scenarios based on industry prioritization 4. Funding mechanism options Intended Outcomes 1. Alignment on top set of priorities 2. Alignment on timeline and project flow sheet 3. Feedback on cost scenarios and potential funding mechanisms 4. Formation of the Technical Advisory Team Collaborating for Best Practices 6

7 HFTS In many cases the majority of production in a horizontal well comes from a subset of the total stages fracture treated. Advanced technology to adequately characterize, evaluate, and improve the effectiveness of individual hydraulic fracture stages is critical to improving cost efficiency, demonstrating safe operations, and minimizing environmental impacts. A comprehensive hydraulic fracturing research program such as those conducted by GRI/GTI (Mounds, MWX, FFCF) has not been performed in shale. Collaborating for Best Practices 7

8 HFTS Simplified 3 Dimensional View Surface geophones Site design to include planned instrumentation in and around the wellbores i.e. microseismic (surface and borehole), tiltmeter, fiber optic DTS, air quality sensors around pad for continuous air monitoring, etc Simplified Plan View Fracture stages, each with specific research objectives Geophones in the observation wellbores Observation well 1 Treatment well Observation well 2

9 HFTS Goals 1. Improve fracture design. 2. Early detection of fracture effectiveness. 3. Develop methods and techniques for real-time control of fracturing processes. 4. Optimal instrumentation to reduce the margin of error in interpretation of monitoring/measuring. 5. Evaluate new methods and technologies for increasing the efficiency of fracture treatments. 6. Demonstrate safe and reliable hydraulic fracturing operations. 7. Determine environmental impacts and mitigation strategies. Collaborating for Best Practices 9

10 HFTS Phase 1 Planning 2 Workshops held (Houston, Apr; Pittsburgh, May) 37 hydraulic fracturing experts from 22 operating and service companies participated. Feedback was tabulated (HF issues, data needs, instrumentation considerations, and location possibilities for the facility). Simplified list of important HF research needs. Sent list to workshop participants for priority ranking. Collaborating for Best Practices 10

11 Important HF Research Needs FRACTURE GEOMETRY Effects of fluid properties on fracture geometry (viscosity, foams, surfactants, etc ) Effects of pump rates on fracture geometry (high, low, varying, etc ) Effects of natural fractures on fracture geometry (arrest, arrest and offset, pass through, etc ) Effects of stress anisotropy on fracture geometry (vert. confinement, frac network width/length, etc ) Effects of fracture interference on fracture geometry (stress shadowing, zipper frac, simul frac, etc ) Effects of fluid injection points on fracture geometry (number of perfs, clusters, and spacing, etc ) Effects of formation lithology on fracture geometry (clay content, YM, PR, brittleness, etc ) Effects of proppants on fracture geometry (diversion, bridging, banking, etc ) Understanding fracture height growth (landing point, reservoir homogeneity, composite layering, etc ) Testing alternative stimulation techniques (i.e. propellant (controlled explosives), LPG, thermal stress cracking from cryogenic fluids, etc.) FRACTURE EFFICIENCY Created Fracture Network Complexity Created Fracture Network Connectivity Connected Fracture Network Conductivity Collaborating for Best Practices 11

12 HFTS Research Priority Ranking 38 voters 23 companies Internal survey by a major producer Voters were asked to assign a total of 10 votes to this list of topics. To determine priorities, we counted: 1. Strength of voting for each topic 2. Number of voters for each topic Collaborating for Best Practices 12

13 Prioritization Results (# of votes) 1 Effects of fluid injection points on fracture geometry (number of perfs, clusters, and spacing, etc ) 44 2 Connected Fracture Network Conductivity 38 3 Effects of pump rates on fracture geometry (high, low, varying, etc ) 36 4 Effects of natural fractures on fracture geometry (arrest, arrest and offset, pass through, etc ) 35 5 Created Fracture Network Connectivity 35 6 Effects of fracture interference on fracture geometry (stress shadowing, zipper frac, simul frac, etc ) 31 7 Effects of formation lithology on fracture geometry (clay content, YM, PR, brittleness, etc ) 28 8 Created Fracture Network Complexity 27 9 Understanding fracture height growth (landing point, reservoir homogeneity, composite layering, etc ) Effects of fluid properties on fracture geometry (viscosity, foams, surfactants, etc ) Effects of proppants on fracture geometry (diversion, bridging, banking, etc ) Effects of stress anisotropy on fracture geometry (vert. confinement, frac network width/length, etc ) Testing alternative stimulation techniques (i.e. propellant (controlled explosives), LPG, thermal stress cracking from cryogenic fluids, etc.) 18 Collaborating for Best Practices 13

14 Prioritization Results (# of voters) 1 Effects of fluid injection points on fracture geometry (number of perfs, clusters, and spacing, etc ) 26 2 Effects of natural fractures on fracture geometry (arrest, arrest and offset, pass through, etc ) 25 3 Connected Fracture Network Conductivity 23 4 Effects of pump rates on fracture geometry (high, low, varying, etc ) 22 5 Effects of fracture interference on fracture geometry (stress shadowing, zipper frac, simul frac, etc ) 22 6 Created Fracture Network Connectivity 20 7 Effects of formation lithology on fracture geometry (clay content, YM, PR, brittleness, etc ) 19 8 Effects of fluid properties on fracture geometry (viscosity, foams, surfactants, etc ) 17 9 Effects of stress anisotropy on fracture geometry (vert. confinement, frac network width/length, etc ) Created Fracture Network Complexity Effects of proppants on fracture geometry (diversion, bridging, banking, etc ) Understanding fracture height growth (landing point, reservoir homogeneity, composite layering, etc ) Testing alternative stimulation techniques (i.e. propellant (controlled explosives), LPG, thermal stress cracking from cryogenic fluids, etc.) 12 Collaborating for Best Practices 14

15 Top 6 HFTS Priorities 1. Effects of fluid injection points on fracture geometry (number of perfs, clusters, and spacing, etc ) 2. Effects of natural fractures on fracture geometry (arrest, arrest and offset, pass through, etc ) 3. Connected Fracture Network Conductivity 4. Effects of pump rates on fracture geometry (high, low, varying, etc ) 5. Effects of fracture interference on fracture geometry (stress shadowing, zipper frac, simul frac, etc ) 6. Created Fracture Network Connectivity Collaborating for Best Practices 15

16 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT FLOW SHEET Hydraulic Fracture Test Site (HFTS) Phase 1 Planning Phase 2 Tech Assessment Phase 3 Launch RPSEA Funding Secured Secure Funding RPSEA/Industry Executive Committee Formed Workshop 1: Houston State of HF/Stim Tech Site Identified Workshop 2: Pittsburgh Feedback Tabulated Prioritize Testing Needs No Yes Priorities Acceptable? HFTS Plan 1 st Draft Report Review w/ Technical Advisory Team Data Availability Matrix by Play No Secure Funding RPSEA/Industry Site and Funding Level Acceptable? Workshop 3: Webinar Form Technical Advisory Team RPSEA Review Final Report to RPSEA Relevant Data for Target Plays Final Report and Searchable Database Yes Design of Experiments Launch HFTS Mar July 2013 Jul Dec Q 2014 (2-4 yrs)

17 Phase 2 Technology Assessment A valuable, stand-alone assessment of the state of HF/Stimulation technology Phase 2 Tasks What research has been done Where Who did it What was accomplished What data sets are available What data is relevant to HFTS Deliverables 1. Report summarizing existing literature and data sets 2. Matrix by play, by tech 3. Searchable database/index HF Technology Assessment $000 s RPSEA contribution 20 Industry ($10 20k each) 180 Total 200 Collaborating for Best Practices 17

18 HFTS Budget Scenario* Fixed Variable 4000 ft lateral wells in the Marcellus $ Million Drilling and Completion 3.5 Total $ Million Coring Logs % cost margin x 3 Wells (1 Test + 2 Observation) 19.5 Tests Tests Total 34.5 * Does not include site acquisition cost est. of $2-4 Million Collaborating for Best Practices 18

19 HFTS Funding Mechanism Funding Goal $35 M RPSEA/DOE Proposal (Not a given) 6.0 Operator Tiered Funding* 21.5 Tier 1 (>1000 Bcf/yr) 1.5 Tier 2 ( Bcf/yr) 1.0 Tier 3 ( Bcf/yr).5 Tier 4 (<100 Bcf/yr).3 Service Company Funding (4) Technology Providers * Based on annual oil/gas production, public reserve estimates, or secured shale acreage. Collaborating for Best Practices 19

20 HFTS Technical Committee Role Assist with Design of Experiments. Refine budget estimates. Review 2 Drafts of the Final Plan for RPSEA. Your contribution to be acknowledged in the report. Collaborating for Best Practices 20

21 Hydraulic Fracturing Test Site (HFTS) THANK YOU