SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Volume 14, Number 2, April 2011, pp. 248-259

SPE-121290-PA

Comparison of Fractured-Horizontal-Well Performance in Tight Sand and Shale Reservoirs

View full textPDF ( 1,072 KB )

DOI  More information 10.2118/121290-PA http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/121290-PA

Citation

  • Ozkan, E., Brown, M., Raghavan, R., and Kazemi, H. 2011. Comparison of Fractured-Horizontal-Well Performance in Tight Sand and Shale Reservoirs. SPE Res Eval & Eng  14 (2): 248-259. SPE-121290-PA. doi: 10.2118/121290-PA.

Discipline Categories

  • 6.6.3 Pressure Transient Testing
  • 6.6.5 Well Performance Monitoring, Inflow Performance

Keywords

  • Formation evaluation

Summary

This paper presents a discussion of fractured-horizontal-well performance in millidarcy permeability (conventional) and micro- to nanodarcy permeability (unconventional) reservoirs. It provides interpretations of the reasons to fracture horizontal wells in both types of formations. The objective of the paper is to highlight the special productivity features of unconventional shale reservoirs. By using a trilinear-flow model, it is shown that the drainage volume of a multiple-fractured horizontal well in a shale reservoir is limited to the inner reservoir between the fractures. Unlike conventional reservoirs, high reservoir permeability and high hydraulic-fracture conductivity may not warrant favorable productivity in shale reservoirs. An efficient way to improve the productivity of ultratight shale formations is to increase the density of natural fractures. High natural-fracture conductivities may not necessarily contribute to productivity either. Decreasing hydraulic-fracture spacing increases the productivity of the well, but the incremental production gain for each additional hydraulic fracture decreases. The trilinear-flow model presented in this work and the information derived from it should help the design and performance prediction of multiple-fractured horizontal wells in shale reservoirs.

View full textPDF ( 1,072 KB )

History

  • Original manuscript received: 27 January 2009
  • Meeting paper published: 27 May 2010
  • Revised manuscript received: 11 October 2010
  • Manuscript approved: 12 October 2010
  • Published online: 29 March 2011
  • Version of record: 6 April 2011