Summary
Many companies operating in the upstream gas industry in the Middle East and
North Africa (MENA) are interested in the outstanding technical successes
achieved by the US and Canadian tight and shale gas producers. It seems almost
miraculous that companies can obtain significant gas-production rates from
rocks with permeabilities measured in nanodarcies--so low, in fact, that
permeability becomes almost impossible to assess accurately. In North America,
the main factor now constraining shale gas production is the historically low
gas price. Operators in MENA, who are accustomed to working in formations with
permeabilities five or six orders of magnitude greater, have realized recently
that they may be sitting on top of huge untapped gas reserves that had been
evaluated previously as subeconomic.
In recent years, several major MENA-based operating companies have bought
interests in US and Canadian tight and shale gas operations, with the objective
of acquiring experience and technology that can be applied to similar
formations in MENA and elsewhere. This seems to be an obvious and wise
strategy; unfortunately, the problem is not the strategy, it is the tactics
("the devil is in the details"). In many instances, operating companies have
been disappointed to discover that they cannot simply transplant an
American-style development into MENA. Similarly, many North American
independents have viewed the untapped low-permeability gas reserves of MENA as
a natural territory for expansion, only to find themselves frustrated at almost
every turn.
This paper seeks to highlight the potential pitfalls of trying to use North
American development techniques in MENA, and to promote strategies and tactics
that are more suitable. In addition, this paper will suggest structural changes
that could have a significant positive impact on low-permeability gas
developments in MENA.
© 2012. Society of Petroleum Engineers
View full textPDF
(
1,481 KB
)
History
- Original manuscript received:
11 June 2011
- Meeting paper published:
7 March 2011
- Revised manuscript received:
12 April 2012
- Manuscript approved:
1 June 2012
- Published online:
3 July 2012
- Version of record:
13 July 2012