Fuentes, el reventón energético

Vol. 14 No. 2 (2016): Fuentes, el reventón energético
Articles

Estudio de la perdida de conductividad debida a empotramiento de propante en formaciones de shale mediante simulación numérica

PDF
  • Kristhian Leandro Peña Cerón,
  • Luis Carlos Prada Socha,
  • José Carlos Cárdenas Montes
Kristhian Leandro Peña Cerón
Universidad Industrial de Santander (UIS), Carrera 27 calle 9, Bucaramanga, Santander, Colombia.
Luis Carlos Prada Socha
Universidad Industrial de Santander (UIS), Carrera 27 calle 9, Bucaramanga, Santander, Colombia.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18273/revfue.v14n2-2016008

Published 2017-01-30

How to Cite

Peña Cerón, K. L., Prada Socha, L. C., & Cárdenas Montes, J. C. (2017). Estudio de la perdida de conductividad debida a empotramiento de propante en formaciones de shale mediante simulación numérica. Fuentes, El reventón energético, 14(2), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.18273/revfue.v14n2-2016008

Copyright (c) 2016 Fuentes, el reventón energético

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

El empotramiento es inherente en la estimulación de yacimientos a través de fracturamiento hidráulico, ocurre cuando los esfuerzos en sitio son aplicados a la superficie de los propantes causando su incrustación en la formación. El empotramiento ocasiona pérdidas de conductividad producción y dinero, intensificándose en yacimientos no convencionales de formaciones de lutitas.


Este trabajo describe algunos factores composicionales y geomecánicos que influyen en el empotramiento, así como modelos matemáticos de empotramiento. Se estudia la pérdida de conductividad y ancho de fractura a través de simulación numérica. El software Predick K fue usado para pre-seleccionar los tipos de propante implementados en la simulación. La simulación numérica fue corrida en un simulador de Aceite Negro: IMEX, de la suite CMG.

Las fracturas empotradas son simuladas con un modelo de doble permeabilidad para un yacimiento de gas de lutita, considerando el esfuerzo de cierre efectivo mediante multiplicadores de permeabilidad y porosidad. En este artículo se generaron curvas de conductividad que muestran el desempeño del propante con esfuerzos aplicados en la producción. Debido a la escasez de datos de yacimientos de lutita, trabajar con la metodología de este trabajo es conveniente, los multiplicadores pueden replicar la geomecánica sin un alto esfuerzo computacional. Adicionalmente, se muestra los impactos de la mineralogía y geomecánica en la explotación de gas de lutita.


Palabras clave: Geomecánica, Fractura hidráulica, Modelo de doble permeabilidad, Multiplicador de porosidad, Multiplicador de permeabilidad, Yacimiento de gas, Yacimiento no convencional.

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Akrad, O., Miskimins, J., & Prassad, M. (2011)
  2. The Effects of Fracturing Fluids on Shale Rock
  3. Mechanical Properties and Proppant Embedment.
  4. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
  5. Denver, Colorado, USA. SPE 146658: 7-9.
  6. Alexander, T., Baihly, J., Boyer, C., Clark, B.,
  7. Waters, G., Jochen, V., Le Calvez, J., Lewis, R.,
  8. Miller, C.,Thaeler, J. & Toelle, B (2011) Shale Gas
  9. Revolution. Oilfield Review, Autumn 2011; 23(3), 40-
  11. Alramahi, B. & Sundberg, M. (2012) Proppant
  12. Embedment and Conductivity of Hydraulic Fractures
  13. in Shales. 48th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics
  14. Symposium, Chicago, IL, U.S.A. ARMA 12-291.
  15. Chaitanya, M. (2012) Mechanics of Light Weight
  16. Proppants: A Discrete Approach. Ph.D. Dissertation,
  17. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA,
  18. pp: 40.
  19. Ciezobka, J. & Salehi, I. (2013) Controlled
  20. Hydraulic Fracturing of Naturally Fractured Shales
  21. – A Case Study in the Marcellus Shale Examining
  22. How to Identify and Exploit Natural Fractures.
  23. SPE Unconventional Resources Conference-USA,
  24. Woodlands, Texas, USA. SPE-164524-MS: 4, 5.
  25. COMPUTER MODEL GROUP. (2012) User’s Guide
  26. IMEX Advanced Black Oil/Gas Reservoir Simulator.
  27. COMPUTER MODEL GROUP. (2014) CMG Suite,
  28. General Release v.14.10.
  29. Corapcioglu, H., Miskimins, J. & Prassad, M. (2014)
  30. Fracturing Fluid Effects on Young’s Modulus and
  31. Embedment in the Niobara Formation. SPE Annual
  32. Technical Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam,
  33. The Netherlands. SPE-170835: 8, 13, 14.
  34. CORE LABORATORIES. Program Description and
  35. User’s Manual. Predict K v.13.1
  36. Cui, A., Glover, K. & Wust, R.A.J. (2014) Elastic
  37. and plastic mechanical properties of liquid-rich
  38. unconventional shales and their implications for
  39. hydraulic fracturing and proppant embedment: a case
  40. study of the Nordegg Member in Alberta, Canada.
  41. th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium,
  42. Minneapolis, MN, USA. ARMA 14-7556.
  43. Elamin, A., Fathi, E. & Ameri, S. (2013) Simulation
  44. of Multicomponent Gas Flow and Condensation in
  45. Marcellus Shale Reservoir. SPE Unconventional
  46. Resources Conference-USA, Woodlands, Texas,
  47. USA. SPE-164538-MS: 8.
  48. Espinoza, C. (1983) A New Formulation for
  49. Numerical Simulation of Compaction, Sensitivity
  50. Studies for Steam Injection. SPE Reservoir Simulation
  51. Symposium, San Francisco, California, USA. SPE-
  52. -MS.
  53. Fredd, C., McConnell, S., Boney, C. & England, K.
  54. (2000) Experimental Study of Hydraulic Fracture
  55. Conductivity Demonstrates the Benefits of Using
  56. Proppants. 2000 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low
  57. Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO,
  58. USA. SPE 60326: 6, 14.
  59. Gao, Y., SINOPEC Petroleum Exploration &
  60. Production Research Institute, Lv, Y., Wang, M., China
  61. Pingmei Shenma Group, Li, K., China University of
  62. Geosciences (Beijing) & Yangtze University. (2013)
  63. New Mathematical Models for Calculating the
  64. Proppant Embedment and Conductivity. International
  65. Petroleum Technology Conference, Beijing, China.
  66. IPTC 16410.
  67. Guo, J., Liu, Y. (2012) Modeling of Proppant
  68. Embedment: Elastic Deformation and Creep
  69. Deformation. SPE International Production and
  70. Operations Conference and Exhibition, Doha, Qatar.
  71. SPE 157449: 4, 8.
  72. Huitt, J. & McGlothlin, Jr. (1958) The Propping of
  73. Fractures in Formations Susceptible to Proppingsand
  74. Embedment. Pacific Coast District, Division of
  75. Production, Los Angeles, California, USA. API-58-
  77. Kassis, S. & Sondergeld, C. (2010) Fracture
  78. Permeability of Gas Shale: Effects of Roughness,
  79. Fracture Offset, Proppant, and Effective Stress.
  80. CPS/SPE International Oil & Gas Conference and
  81. Exhibition in China, Beijing, China. SPE 131376: 3,
  82. , 11.
  83. King, G. (2010) Thirty Years of Gas Shale Fracturing:
  84. What Have We Learned? SPE Annual Technical
  85. Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy. SPE
  86. : 8, 17.
  87. Lacy, L., Rickards, A. & Bilden, D. (1998) FractureWidth and Embedment Testing in Soft Reservoir
  88. Sandstone. SPE Drilling & Completion, 13(01), 25-
  89. : 27, 28.
  90. Lacy, L., Rickards, A. & Ali, S. (1997) Embedment
  91. and Fracture Conductivity in Soft Formations
  92. Associated with HEC, Borate and Water-Based
  93. Fracture Designs. 1997 SPE Annual Technical
  94. Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
  95. USA. SPE 38590.
  96. Martins, J., Leung, K., Jackson, M., Stewart, D. &
  97. Carr, A. (1992) Tip Screenout Fracturing Applied to
  98. the Ravenspurn South Gas Field Development. SPE
  99. Production Engineering, 7(3), 252-258: 253.
  100. Montgomery, C. & Steanson (1985) Proppant
  101. Selection: The Key to Successful Fracture
  102. Stimulation. Journal of Petroleum Technology,
  103. (12), 2163-2172: 2165.
  104. Nagarajan, N. Honarpour, M. & Arasteh. (2013)
  105. Critical Role of Rock and Fluid - Impact on Reservoir
  106. Performance on Unconventional Shale Reservoirs.
  107. Unconventional Resources Technology Conference,
  108. Denver, Colorado, USA. SPE-168864-MS: 2.
  109. Silseth, J. (2015) Effect of Relative Permeability
  110. on History Matching a Permian Basin Oil Well.
  111. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Petroleum Engineering
  112. and Applied Geophysics, Norwegian University of
  113. Science and Technology, Norway, 109pp: 28.
  114. Terracina, J., Turner, J., Collins, D. & Spillars.
  115. (2012) Proppant Selection and Its Effect on the
  116. Results of Fracturing Treatments Performed in Shale
  117. Formations. SPE Annual Technical Conference and
  118. Exhibition, Florence, Italy. SPE 135502: 3.
  119. Wang, G. & Carr, R. (2013) Organic-rich Marcellus
  120. Shale lithofacies modeling and distribution pattern
  121. analysis in the Appalachian Basin. AAPG Bulletin,
  122. December 2013; 97 (12), 2173-2205: 21181.
  123. Yu, W. & Spehrnoori, K. (2013a) Simulation of
  124. Gas Desorption and Geomechanics Effects for
  125. Unconventional Gas Resources. SPE Western
  126. Regional & AAPG Pacific Section Meeting, 2013
  127. Joint Technical Conference, Monterrey, California,
  128. USA. SPE 165377.
  129. Yu, W. & Spehrnoori, K. (2013b) Simulation of
  130. Proppant Distribution Effect on Well Performance
  131. in Shale Gas Reservoirs. SPE Unconventional
  132. Resources Conference-Canada, Calgary, Alberta,
  133. Canada. SPE 167225.
  134. Yu, W., Sepehrnoori, K. Patzek, T. (2014) Evaluation
  135. of Gas Adsorption in Marcellus Shale. SPE Annual
  136. Technical Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam,
  137. The Netherlands. SPE-170801-MS: 3, 10.