Numerical Simulation of Well Type Optimization in Tridimensional Development of Multi-Layer Shale Gas Reservoir
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Mathematical Model Descriptions
2.1. Fluid-Governing Equations
2.2. Stress Sensitivity Effect of Shale Reservoir
3. Flow Equation Discretization
4. Model Verification
5. Results and Discussion
5.1. Calculation of Reservoir Utilization Range under Different Natural Fracture Densities
5.2. Productivity Evaluation and Optimization of Different Well Types
5.2.1. Production Capacity Evaluation and Optimization of Horizontal Wells
5.2.2. Production Capacity Evaluation and Optimization of Deviated Wells
5.2.3. Production Capacity Evaluation and Optimization of Vertical Well
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zhao, Y.; Tang, X.; Zhang, L.; Tang, H.M.; Tao, Z.W. Numerical solution of fractured horizontal wells in shale gas reservoirs considering multiple transport mechanisms. J. Geophys. Eng. 2018, 15, 739–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, J.; Zhou, L.; Ma, J.; Li, Y. Numerical simulation study of fracturing wells for shale gas with gas–water two-phase flow system under desorption and diffusion conditions. J. Nat. Gas Geosci. 2016, 1, 251–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghanizadeh, A.; Clarkson, C.; Aquino, S.; Ardakani, O.; Sanei, H. Petrophysical and geomechanical characteristics of Canadian tight oil and liquid-rich gas reservoirs: I. Pore network and permeability characterization. Fuel 2015, 153, 664–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, P.; Liu, J.; Leong, Y.K. A fully coupled multiscale shale deformation-gas transport model for the evaluation of shale gas extraction. Fuel 2016, 178, 103–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pollastro, R.M. Total petroleum system assessment of undiscovered resources in the giant Barnett Shale continuous (unconventional) gas accumulation, Fort Worth Basin, Texas. AAPG Bull. 2007, 91, 551–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhongliang, C.; Mingqian, Z.H.U. Analysis of the combined model for the production decline of the shale-gas fractured horizontal well. Pet. Geol. Oilfield Dev. Daqing 2018, 37, 138–143. [Google Scholar]
- Javadpour, F. Nanopores and apparent permeability of gas flow in mudrocks (shales and siltstone). J. Can. Pet. Technol. 2009, 48, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiong, X.; Devegowda, D.; Michel, G.G.; Sigal, R.F.; Civan, F. A fully-coupled free and adsorptive phase transport model for shale gas reservoirs including non-Darcy flow effects. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, USA, 8–10 October 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Liu, H.; Wang, L.; Zhang, H.; Luo, H.; Gao, Y. Apparent permeability for gas transport in nanopores of organic shale reservoirs including multiple effects. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2015, 152, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.S.; Li, J.; Ding, D.Y.; Wang, C.; Di, Y. A generalized framework model for the simulation of gas production in unconventional gas reservoirs. SPE J. 2014, 19, 845–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, F.P.; Reed, R.M.; John, A.; Katherine, G. Pore networks and fluid flow in gas shales. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4–7 October 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Bustin, R.M.; Bustin, A.M.M.; Cui, A.; Ross, D.; Pathi, V.M. Impact of shale properties on pore structure and storage characteristics. In Proceedings of the SPE Shale Gas Production Conference, Fort Worth, TX, USA, 16–18 November 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Silin, D.; Kneafsey, T.J. Gas shale: From nanometer-scale observations to well modeling. In Proceedings of the Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada, 15–17 November 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Liehui, Z.; Baochao, S.; Yulong, Z.; Jingjing, G.; Hongming, T. Establishment of apparent permeability model and seepage flow model for shale reservoir. Lithol. Reserv. 2017, 29, 108–118. [Google Scholar]
- Ge, J.; Yao, H.B.; Wang, X.; Ye, Y.D.; Wang, J.L.; Wu, Z.Y.; Liu, J.W.; Fan, F.J.; Gao, H.L.; Zhang, C.L.; et al. Stretchable conductors based on silver nanowires: Improved performance through a binary network design. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2013, 52, 1654–1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Waters, G.A.; Dean, B.K.; Downie, R.C.; Kerrihard, K.J.; Austbo, L.; McPherson, B. Simultaneous hydraulic fracturing of adjacent horizontal wells in the Woodford Shale. In Proceedings of the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, TX, USA, 19–21 January 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Kaiser, M.J. Haynesville shale play economic analysis. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2012, 82, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rafiee, M.; Soliman, M.Y.; Pirayesh, E. Hydraulic fracturing design and optimization: A modification to zipper frac. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, USA, 8–10 October 2012. [Google Scholar]
- De Souza, O.C.D.; Sharp, A.; Martinez, R.C.; Foster, R.A.; Simpson, M.R.; Piekenbrock, E.; Abou-Sayed, I. Integrated Unconventional Shale Gas Reservoir Modeling: A Worked Example From the Haynesville Shale, De Soto Parish, North Lousiana. In Proceedings of the SPE Americas Unconventional Resources Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 5–7 June 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, W.; Sepehrnoori, K. Optimization of multiple hydraulically fractured horizontal wells in unconventional gas reservoirs. J. Pet. Eng. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramanathan, V.; Boskovic, D.; Zhmodik, A.; Li, Q.; Ansarizadeh, M.; Michi, P.; Garcia, G. A Simulation Approach to Modelling and Understanding Fracture Geometry with Respect to Well Spacing in Multi Well Pads in the Duvernay—A Case Study. In Proceedings of the SPE/CSUR Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada, 20–22 October 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, R.Z.; Yuan, J.W.; Cui, Y.Z.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, F.L.; Zhang, H.T.; Mao, N.Y. Productivity analysis of multi-fractured horizontal wells in shale gas reservoirs based on TPHM. Nat. Gas Geosci. 2019, 30, 95–101. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, X.; Huang, Z.Q.; Yao, J.; Li, Y.; Fan, D.; Sun, H.; Zhang, K. An efficient numerical hybrid model for multiphase flow in deformable fractured-shale reservoirs. SPE J. 2018, 23, 1412–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahmoud, M. Development of a New Correlation of Gas Compressibility Factor (Z Factor) for High Pressure Gas Reservoirs. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2014, 136, 012903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beskok, A.; Karniadakis, G.E. Report: A model for flows in channels, pipes, and ducts at micro and nano scales. Microscale Thermophys. Eng. 1999, 3, 43–77. [Google Scholar]
- Civan, F. Effective correlation of apparent gas permeability in tight porous media. Transp. Porous Media 2010, 82, 375–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, W.; Yao, J.; Li, Y.; Sun, H.; Zhang, L.; Yang, Y.; Zhao, J.; Sui, H. Apparent gas permeability in an organic-rich shale reservoir. Fuel 2016, 181, 973–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, R.; Ning, Z.F.; Yang, F.; Zhao, H.W.; Li-Hong, D.U.; Liao, X.W. Experimental study on microscopic pore structure controls on shale permeability under compaction process. Nat. Gas Geosci. 2014, 25, 1284–1289. [Google Scholar]
- Ju, B.; Wu, Y.; Fan, T. Study on fluid flow in nonlinear elastic porous media: Experimental and modeling approaches. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2011, 76, 205–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Y.; Cavalcante Filho, J.S.; Yu, W.; Sepehrnoori, K. Discrete-fracture modeling of complex hydraulic-fracture geometries in reservoir simulators. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 2017, 20, 403–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, W.; Xu, Y.; Weijermars, R.; Wu, K.; Sepehrnoori, K. A numerical model for simulating pressure response of well interference and well performance in tight oil reservoirs with complex–fracture geometries using the fast embedded–discrete–fracture–model method. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 2018, 21, 489–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, L.; Huang, Z.; Yao, J.; Di, Y.; Wu, Y.S. An efficient hybrid model for 3D complex fractured vuggy reservoir simulation. SPE J. 2020, 25, 907–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, X.; Huang, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Fan, D.; Yao, J. Numerical investigation of the effect of partially propped fracture closure on gas production in fractured shale reservoirs. Energies 2020, 13, 5339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geng, L.; Li, G.; Wang, M.; Li, Y.; Tian, S.; Pang, W.; Lyu, Z. A fractal production prediction model for shale gas reservoirs. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2018, 55, 354–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, W.; Sepehrnoori, K. Simulation of gas desorption and geomechanics effects for unconventional gas reservoirs. In Proceedings of the SPE Western Regional & AAPG Pacific Section Meeting 2013 Joint Technical Conference, Monterey, CA, USA, 19–25 April 2013. [Google Scholar]
Parameter | Value | Units |
---|---|---|
3D model size | 1100 × 290 × 90 | m |
Initial reservoir pressure | 25 | MPa |
Bottom hole pressure | 2.5 | MPa |
Langmuir pressure | 4.48 | MPa |
Langmuir volume | 2.72 × 10−3 | m3/kg |
Reservoir temperature | 340 | K |
Well radius | 0.1 | m |
Reservoir porosity | 0.06 | Dimensionless |
Initial permeability | 1.4 × 10−19 | m2 |
Hydraulic fracture half-length | 40 | m |
Hydraulic fracture spacing | 30 | m |
Number of hydraulic fractures | 28 | Dimensionless |
Hydraulic fracture height | 90 | m |
Length of horizontal well | 900 | m |
Shale density | 2580 | kg/m3 |
Initial gas saturation | 0.776 | Fraction |
Initial water saturation | 0.224 | Fraction |
Gas viscosity | 2.01 × 10−5 | Pa⋅s |
Natural fracture permeability | 1 × 10−13 | m |
Hydraulic fracture permeability | 1.17 × 10−11 | m |
Compression coefficient of water | 4.4 × 10−10 | Pa−1 |
Porosity variation coefficient | 0.08 | Pa−1 |
Permeability variation coefficient | 0.62 | Pa−1 |
Layer Number | Layer Thickness/m | Porosity | Water Saturation | Gas Saturation | Matrix Permeability/10−3 mD | Natural Fracture Density/m/m2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 20 | 0.028 | 0.25 | 0.75 | 0.326 | 0.012 |
2 | 45 | 0.025 | 0.23 | 0.77 | 0.407 | 0.012 |
3 | 40 | 0.022 | 0.22 | 0.78 | 0.172 | 0.006 |
4 | 50 | 0.034 | 0.24 | 0.76 | 0.150 | 0.006 |
5 | 40 | 0.038 | 0.21 | 0.79 | 0.180 | 0.006 |
6 | 30 | 0.022 | 0.30 | 0.70 | 0.137 | 0.001 |
7 | 35 | 0.015 | 0.21 | 0.79 | 0.133 | 0.001 |
Essential Parameter | Value | Units |
---|---|---|
Initial reservoir pressure | 38.5 | MPa |
Bottom hole pressure | 10 | MPa |
Shale density | 2800 | kg/m3 |
Hydraulic fracture half-length | 100 | m |
Hydraulic fracture height | 20 | m |
Initial gas saturation | 0.776 | Fraction |
Initial water saturation | 0.224 | Fraction |
Gas viscosity | 2.0 × 10−5 | Pa·s |
Natural fracture permeability | 1 × 10−13 | m |
Hydraulic fracture permeability | 1.17 × 10−11 | m |
Porosity variation coefficient | 0.08 | Pa−1 |
Permeability variation coefficient | 0.62 | Pa−1 |
Level | Factor | ||
---|---|---|---|
Factor 1 X Direction Well Spacing/m | Factor 2 Y Direction Fracture Spacing/m | Factor 3 Z Direction Well Spacing/m | |
1 | 240 | 40 | 30 |
2 | 260 | 45 | 32 |
3 | 280 | 50 | 34 |
Orthogonal Design Table | Well Production 107 m3 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Scheme | Factor-1 | Factor-2 | Factor-3 | |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2.76 |
2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3.06 |
3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3.56 |
4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3.11 |
5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3.63 |
6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3.43 |
7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3.04 |
8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3.16 |
9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3.52 |
Level | Factor | ||
---|---|---|---|
Factor 1 X Direction Well Spacing/m | Factor 2 Y Direction Fracture Spacing/m | Factor 3 Z Direction Fracture Spacing/m | |
1 | 240 | 40 | 30 |
2 | 260 | 45 | 32 |
3 | 280 | 50 | 34 |
Orthogonal Design Table | Well Yield 107 m3 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Scheme | Factor-1 | Factor-2 | Factor-3 | |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3.13 |
2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3.09 |
3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3.14 |
4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3.34 |
5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3.31 |
6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3.32 |
7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3.26 |
8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3.11 |
9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3.21 |
Level | Factor | ||
---|---|---|---|
Factor 1 X Direction Well Spacing/m | Factor 2 Y Direction Well Spacing/m | Factor 3 Z Direction Fracture Spacing/m | |
1 | 240 | 40 | 30 |
2 | 260 | 45 | 32 |
3 | 280 | 50 | 34 |
Orthogonal Design Table | Well Yield 107 m3 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Scheme | Factor-1 | Factor-2 | Factor-3 | |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.12 |
2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1.02 |
3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0.98 |
4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1.11 |
5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1.16 |
6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1.13 |
7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1.23 |
8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1.18 |
9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1.25 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Huang, T.; Liao, X.; Huang, Z.; Song, F.; Wang, R. Numerical Simulation of Well Type Optimization in Tridimensional Development of Multi-Layer Shale Gas Reservoir. Energies 2022, 15, 6529. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15186529
Huang T, Liao X, Huang Z, Song F, Wang R. Numerical Simulation of Well Type Optimization in Tridimensional Development of Multi-Layer Shale Gas Reservoir. Energies. 2022; 15(18):6529. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15186529
Chicago/Turabian StyleHuang, Tao, Xin Liao, Zhaoqin Huang, Fuquan Song, and Renyi Wang. 2022. "Numerical Simulation of Well Type Optimization in Tridimensional Development of Multi-Layer Shale Gas Reservoir" Energies 15, no. 18: 6529. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15186529