Estimation of multistage hydraulic fracturing parameters using 4D simulation

At the present stage, most oil and gas condensate fields in the southern part of the East Siberian oil and gas province are characterized by an increasing proportion of difficult oil reserves in tight reservoirs. Multistage hydraulic fracturing (MHF) is proposed for the offshore Challenger Sea field (Southeast Dome). The implementation of this technique at a shelf will be a source of additional risks. For example, the properties of the RR-2 overlying seal have not been unambiguously assessed, and there are a number of geological uncertainties, such as the tectonic regime. However, there are a number of arguments in favor of MHF: heterogeneity of the reservoir; low permeability; low water cut of the field; sufficient thickness of the pay zone; and the overlying seal. One more positive factor is that sand ingress is not observed in the process of oil production. The selection of a principal well completion scheme on the eastern side of the RR-7 formation is aimed at effectively recovering the remaining reserves. The objectives of the study performed are: to create a geological and hydrodynamic model of the Challenger Sea (Southeast Dome); develop 1D and 3D geomechanical models; evaluate oil production forecasts based on fundamentally different well completion schemes; and determine the optimum parameters for multistage hydraulic fracturing. The research methods included: petrophysical methods; logging methods; core studies; drilling reports and formation testing data; and 3D, 4D geomechanical simulation. Other geophysical methods included acoustic logging, density logging, and gamma-ray logging. After building a geomechanical model of the reservoir at the beginning of drilling, a hydrodynamic calculation was performed. This established the reservoir pressures and saturations at certain points in time. The results made it possible for the principal stress directions, the values of effective and principal stresses, and the values of elastic strains to be determined. In order to assess MGF process efficiency, production forecasts were made using a hydrodynamic model for an exploration well with conventional completion (perforated liner) and with five-stage MGF. In the first case, the accumulated production was 144 kt over 15 years, and in the second case, 125 kt over 17 years. The difference in cumulative production is due to different initial well flow rates, as well as the rate of oil withdrawal during the first few years of development. Thereafter, the production and daily flow rate curves showed similar behavior. In order to select the most effective option, an economic analysis of the efficiency was performed.

1. Gayduk V. V. The nature of the oil and gas potential of the Tersko-Sunzhensky Oiland Gas-Bearing Region. Geology, Geophysics and Development of Oil and Gas Fields. 2019;(2):40–46. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30713/2413-5011-2019-2-40-46

2. Danilov V. N. Formation of thrusts and hydrocarbon potential of Urals Foredeep. Russian Oil and Gas Geology. 2021;(1):57–72. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31087/0016-7894-2021-1-57-72

3. Vishkai M., Gates I. On multistage hydraulic fracturing in tight gas reservoirs: Montney Formation, Alberta, Canada. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. 2018;174:1127–1141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.12.020

4. Wasantha P. L. P., Konietzky H., Xu C. Effect of in-situ stress contrast on fracture containment during single- and multi-stage hydraulic fracturing. Engineering Fracture Mechanics. 2019;205:175–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2018.11.016

5. Liu Y., Ma X., Zhang X. et al. 3D geological model-based hydraulic fracturing parameters optimization using geology–engineering integration of a shale gas reservoir: A case study. Energy Reports. 2022;8:10048–10060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.08.003

6. Yaghoubi A. Hydraulic fracturing modeling using a discrete fracture network in the Barnett Shale. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences. 2019;119:98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2019.01.015

7. Ouchi H., Foster J. T., Sharma M. M. Effect of reservoir heterogeneity on the vertical migration of hydraulic fractures. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. 2017;151:384–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.12.034

8. Li J.-Ch., Yuan B., Clarkson Ch. R., Tian J.-Q. A semi-analytical rate-transient analysis model for light oil reservoirs exhibiting reservoir heterogeneity and multiphase flow. Petroleum Science. 2022;20(1):309–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petsci.2022.09.021

9. Liu P., Wang Zh., Lu K., Zhang Zh. Effect of sandstone and mudstone thickness on artificial fracturing for hydrocarbon extraction from low-permeability reservoirs. Natural Gas Industry B. 2022;9(4):411–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ngib.2022.08.001

10. Mohamad-Hussein A., Mendoza P. E. V., Delbosco P. F. et al. Geomechanical modelling of cold heavy oil production with sand. Petroleum. 2021;8(1):66–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petlm.2021.02.002

11. Bosikov I. I., Klyuev R V., Gavrina O. A. Analysis of geological-geophysical materials and qualitative assessment of the oil and gas perspectives of the Yuzhno-Kharbizhinsky area (Northern Caucasus). Geology and Geophysics of Russian South. 2021;11(1):6–21. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.46698/VNC.2021.36.47.001

12. Klyuev R. V., Bosikov I. I., Mayer A. V., Gavrina O. A. Comprehensive analysis of the effective technologies application to increase sustainable development of the natural-technical system. Sustainable Development  of  Mountain  Territories. 2020;12(2):283–290. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21177/1998-45022020-12-2-283-290

13. Manikovsky P., Vasyutich L., Sidorova G. Methodology for modeling ore deposits in the GIS Micromine. Vestnik Zabaykalskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. 2021;27(2):6–14. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21209/2227-9245-2021-27-2-6-14

14. Lyashenko V. I., Khomenko O. E., Golik V. I. Friendly and resource-saving methods of underground ore mining in disturbed rock masses. Mining Science and Technology (Russia). 2020;5(2):104–118. https://doi.org/10.17073/2500-0632-2020-2-104-118

15. Tyulenev M. A., Markov S. O., Gasanov M. A., Zhironkin S. A. Numerical modeling in the structural study of technogenic rock array. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering. 2018;36(5):2789–2797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0501-3

16. Tretiakova O. G., Tretiakov M. F., Sofronov G. V. Modeling of terrigenous collectors and assessment of forecast resources of placer diamond potential on Khanninsky site with the Mining-and-Geological Information System (GGIS) Micromine. Vestnik of North-Eastern Federal University. Earth Sciences. 2019;(4):20–30. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25587/SVFU.2020.16.49722

17. Saveliev D. E., Makatov D. K., Portnov V. S., Gataullin R. A. Morphological, textural and structural features of chromitite deposits of Main ore field of Kempirsay massif (South Urals, Kazakhstan). Georesursy. 2022;24(1):62–73. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18599/grs.2022.1.6

18. Stolyarenko V. V., Minakov A. V., Ryaboshapko A. G. Mineral potential modelling for gold mineralization within the Mesozoic depressions in the Central-Aldan ore-placer area (on the example of the Upper Yakokutsk ore field). Ores and Metals. 2022;(1):44–76. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.47765/0869-5997-2022-10003

19. Bosikov I. I., Klyuev R. V. Assessment of Berezkinskoye ore field prospectivity using Micromine software. Mining Science and Technology (Russia). 2022;7(3):192–202. https://doi.org/10.17073/2500-06322022-3-192-202

20. Khan R. A., Awotunde A. A. Determination of vertical/horizontal well type from generalized field development optimization. Journal  of  Petroleum  Science  and  Engineering. 2018;162:652–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2017.10.083

21. Rybak Y., Khayrutdinov M. M., Kongar-Syuryun C. B., Tyulyayeva Y. S. Resource-saving technologies for development of mineral deposits. Sustainable Development of Mountain Territories. 2021;13(3):405–415. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21177/1998-4502-2021-13-3-406-415