Multigeneration Section Development in the Wolfcamp, Delaware Basin | Schlumberger
Tech Paper
Location
Delaware Basin, United States, North America, Onshore
Byline
Raj Malpani, Farhan Alimahomed, and Cyrille Defeu, Schlumberger; Larrez Green, Adnan Alimahomed, Laine Valle, and David Entzminger, MDC Texas Energy; David Tovar, Schlumberger
Society
URTeC
Paper Number
2019-472
Presentation Date
July 22–24, 2019

Multigeneration Section Development in the Wolfcamp, Delaware Basin

Abstract

As well density in a section increases, drilling and completions decisions regarding the stimulation of infill wells are increasingly informed by changes in the in-situ stress, mechanical properties, and material balance that result from depletion around parent wells. This is a multifaceted reservoir-dependent four-dimensional problem with many different dependencies. Accordingly, projects involving parent-child interactions during the completion phase are carefully planned using sound engineering principles to avoid negative effects of depletion and fracture hits. We present a case study from a section development in the Wolfcamp formation. Multiple wells drilled at various times are chronologically described below:

  1. Parent well in the middle of the section – generation I
  2. Child well 1 to the western edge of the section (2 months after parent well) – generation II
  3. Child well 2 to the eastern edge of the section (2 months after child well 1) – generation II
  4. Child well 3A between parent well and child well 1 (6 months after child well 2) – generation III
  5. Child wells 3B, 3C, and 3D (drilled from the same pad) between parent well and child 2 (6 months after child well 2) – generation III

All wells but child 3D are in the same horizon. Downhole and surface gauges were installed on all observation wells during the completion infill wells (child 3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D). Water injection treatment was performed on the existing wells (parent, child 1, and child 2) wells prior to completing generation III infill wells. Child well 3A was completed first to build up pressure on the west side of the section. Child wells 3B, 3C, and 3D were from same pad on the surface and were zipper fractured. Design changes were made to the completion program with contingencies built-in to make additional changes on the fly to incorporate field geometry control aids and reduction to injection rate and fluid volume.

The parent well experienced fracture hits during completion of child 1 and child 2, spaced at ~2,500 ft. Chemical tracers and production behavior suggested that even a few months of production led to pressure reduction in the section. During completion of child wells 3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D, multiple pressure increases were observed on the parent and child 2 wells with varying degree of severity, but no fracture hit. The stress buffer (shadow) created by carefully sequencing the stimulation program aided in reducing the fracture communication. The fluid injection strategy was effective in reducing the magnitude of pressure communication. Additionally, an active pressure-monitoring program and real-time design changes were able to prevent fracture hits.

The tracer data and productivity index (PI) profile suggest that during stimulation, wells have been hydraulically connected; even though the connections fade over time, results in overall of lowering of reservoir pressure. Some sections do show abnormal behavior likely due to localize geological features. The initial PI for the child 3A, child 3B, and child 3C is smaller than that of the parent well, like child 1 and child 2 wells. All wells in Wolfcamp A shows similar PI profile after all the wells were put back on production, except for child 3A. Child 3D well (Wolfcamp B) has higher PI than other generation III wells pointing to no or minimal communication between the two formations. The infill wells (generation III) have increased water cut than the existing wells (generations I and II). Child 3D well is in Wolfcamp B, which has higher water saturation as compared to Wolfcamp A in the area.

Wells with spacing above 1,000 ft show equivalent productivity, but wells less than 500 ft apart show inferior productivity. The optimum well spacing with the general completion and stimulation design in the area seems to be within 500 ft to 1,000 ft (5 to 10 wells in a section) in this area in Wolfcamp A. The results also suggest that hydraulic connectivity from Wolfcamp B to Wolfcamp A but the production seems to be isolated from Wolfcamp A. Developing a section with depletion effects occurring at various distances and durations is challenging. Our proactive approach of designing, monitoring, and responding provides insights into the development of multigeneration wells in the Wolfcamp formation and in similar settings around the world.

Share This