Buffalo Wallow Field Study. For: Oklahoma Geological Survey

Transcription

1 Buffalo Wallow Field Study For: Oklahoma Geological Survey Stephen Ingram, Halliburton Brian Rothkopf, Forest Oil Company Issac Paterniti, Halliburton Overview Reservoir Overview Field Wide Study Results The Fracture Fluid System Core Tests & Results Case Studies Lease Acreage #1 (15 Wells) (16 Wells) (14 Wells) 1

2 Granite Wash Reservoir Granite Wash Reservoir Wash Types: Morrowan (Historically, Primary Play) Cherty Atokan Chert to Carbonate Lower & Middle Cherokee Typically Carbonate Red Fork Commonly carbonate w/ Granatic Materials (local) 2

3 Granite Wash Reservoir Highly Lenticular Variable Permeability Variable Porosity Variable Water Saturation Variable Rw Difficult OH environment for extensive log sweeps Porosity Thickness (φh) is not directly related to Permiablity Thickness (kh) Drilling Explosion Wheeler, Hemphill & Roberts Counties 3

4 Statistical Analysis of Treatments Production Trends vs. Fracture Variable 11 Wells Buffalo Wallow Field Initial Production 3 Day Cum s 6 Day Cum s 9 Day Cum s 18 Day Cum s Net Pay Gross Pay Fracture Rate Fracture Volume Proppant Type & Mass See SPE for more details Buffalo Wallow Field Development 26 - Present Designed Sand lbs per Well, 11 Wells /14/5 3/24/6 7/2/6 1/1/6 1/18/7 4/28/7 8/6/7 11/14/7 2/22/8 Designed Water bbls per Well, 11 Wells /14/5 3/24/6 7/2/6 1/1/6 1/18/7 4/28/7 8/6/7 11/14/7 2/22/8 4

5 Buffalo Wallow Field Development 26 - Present Lbs/Net Pay per Well, 92 Wells /14/5 3/24/6 7/2/6 1/1/6 1/18/7 4/28/7 8/6/7 11/14/7 2/22/8 Galllons/Net Pay per Well, 92 Wells /14/5 3/24/6 7/2/6 1/1/6 1/18/7 4/28/7 8/6/7 11/14/7 2/22/8 A Water Frac is a Water Frac is a Water Frac RIGHT? Conventional Fluid Systems Adaptive Fluid Systems 1. Conventional Friction Reducer 2. Conventional Surfactant 1. Anionic Friction Reducer 2. Deflocculant / Viscosity Reducing Agent 3. Microemulsion Surfactant 4. Surface Modification Agent on Sand 3. Clay Control (typically KCL) 4. Biocide 5. Clay Control (typically KCL) 6. Biocide 5

6 Core Testing 23 Standard Sidewall Cores Previously Tested by 3 rd Party for Initial Permeability Table 1 Regained Permeability Testing for Lower Permeability Granite Wash Side-Wall Core Samples No. of Tests Regained Permeability, % Baseline 3 68 Surfactant comparison ME 8 82 CS 9 73 Deflocculant comparison* With DE 6 87 Without DE 2 68 SMA comparison With SMA 7 67 Without SMA 1 84 *Tests only performed with new anionic friction reducer. 6

7 Case Study 3 Lease Ranch Areas within the Buffalo Wallow Field Lease Acreage #1 (15 Wells) (16 Wells) (11 Wells) All wells have 4 fracture treaments All treatments targeted 8 bpm, only wells with a standard variation less then 2% are included in this study. Lease Acreage #1 4 Average Production Decline Lease Acreage #1 (15 Wells)

8 Lease Acreage #1 Sand Volume per Well Lease Acreage 1 Fluid Volume per Well Lease Acreage 1 1,, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 5/28/25 9/5/25 12/14/25 3/24/26 7/2/26 1/1/26 1/18/27 4/28/27 2,, 1,8, 1,6, 1,4, 1,2, 1,, 8, 6, 4, 5/28/25 9/5/25 12/14/25 3/24/26 7/2/26 1/1/26 1/18/27 4/28/27 # of Perfs per Well Lease Acreage 1 Net Pay Per Well Lease Acreage /28/25 9/5/25 12/14/25 3/24/26 7/2/26 1/1/26 1/18/27 4/28/27 1, /28/25 9/5/25 12/14/25 3/24/26 7/2/26 1/1/26 1/18/27 4/28/27 Lease Acreage #1 Lease Acreage #1 Lease Acreage #1 1, 1, 1, 1, Series16 Series16 1 IP

9 Lease Acreage #1 Lease Acreage #1 4, 35, 3, 25, 2, 15, , 5, IP Average Production Decline (16 Wells) 25 Average Gas Rate (mscf/d) Days since completion 9

10 Sand Volume per Well Fluid Volume per Well 75, 7, 65, 6, 55, 5, 45, 4, 35, 3, 9/5/25 12/14/25 3/24/26 7/2/26 1/1/26 1/18/27 4/28/27 8/6/27 1,6, 1,5, 1,4, 1,3, 1,2, 1,1, 1,, 9, 8, 7, 9/5/25 12/14/25 3/24/26 7/2/26 1/1/26 1/18/27 4/28/27 8/6/27 Net Pay per well # of Perforations per Well Leaase Acreage # /5/25 12/14/25 3/24/26 7/2/26 1/1/26 1/18/27 4/28/27 8/6/ /5/25 12/14/25 3/24/26 7/2/26 1/1/26 1/18/27 4/28/27 8/6/27 1, 1, 1, 1, IP

11 3, 25, 2, 15, 1, , IP Average Production Decline Lease Acerage 3 (14 Wells) 2 Production Gas Rate (Mscf/d) Days since completion 11

12 Sand Volume per Well Water Volume per Well 65, 6, 55, 5, 45, 4, 35, 3, 5/28/25 9/5/25 12/14/25 3/24/26 7/2/26 1/1/26 1/18/27 1,4, 1,3, 1,2, 1,1, 1,, 9, 8, 7, 5/28/25 9/5/25 12/14/25 3/24/26 7/2/26 1/1/26 1/18/27 Net Pay per Well # of Perforations per Well /28/25 9/5/25 12/14/25 3/24/26 7/2/26 1/1/26 1/18/ /28/25 9/5/25 12/14/25 3/24/26 7/2/26 1/1/26 1/18/ IP

13 16, 14, 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, IP Results and Conclusions Maintain Consistency with Fracturing Variables in order to make informed decisions Sub fields within the Buffalo Wallow have dramatically varying production mechanisms and rates Increased volume of sand per foot of net pay indicates slight production benefit Increased volume of fluid per foot of net pay indicates slight production benefit Increased # of perforations indicate slight production benefit 13

14 Thank You The Authors would like to thank the management of Forest Oil Corporation And Halliburton Energy Services 14