1887

Abstract

Abstract

Resource plays present unique challenges. These large, continuous accumulations need to be assessed by mapping out variations in risks and prospectivity that divide the resource play fairway into discrete, contiguous segments. For the resources - such as shale gas, shale oil, coal bed methane - the challenge is economic recovery. The assessment challenge is the same: Modeling how the resource play should be explored and exploited. Given the current focus on liquid hydrocarbons, the challenge for shale-based resource plays is assessing the potential for oil in rocks that typically hold both gas and oil. This paper extends earlier work by applying an activity-based model to exploration and exploitation of a shale play. The model segments the play into three types of areas: shale oil, shale gas, and transition areas with uncertain proportions of both shale oil and shale gas. The assessment model also promotes understanding of both the areas and the relative impact of alternative completion solutions. The model generates stochastic performance metrics that capture alternative outcome scenarios, economic returns, and the delivery schedule of production and reserves. The performance metrics support both project-level and portfolio-level decisions related to resource plays. Project-level application is illustrated using data from an Eagle Ford– type resource play.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.2118/167724-MS
2014-02-25
2024-04-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Grant, S., N.Milton, and M.Thompson
    , 1996, Play fairway analysis and risk mapping: An example using the Middle Jurassic Brent Group in the northern North Sea, in A. G.Dore and R.Sinding-Larsen, eds., Quantification and prediction of petroleum resources: Norwegian Petroleum Society Special Publication 6, p. 167–181.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Haskett, W.J. and Brown, P.J.
    2005. Evaluation of Unconventional Resource Plays. Paper SPE 96879 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 9–12 October.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Hood, K.C., Yurewicz, D.A., and Steffen, K.J.
    2013. Assessing Continuous Resources-Building the Bridge Between Static and Dynamic Analyses. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology60(3): 112–133.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Martin, R., Baihly, J., Malpani, R., et al.
    2011. Understanding Production from Eagle Ford–Austin Chalk System. Paper SPE 145117 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 30 October–2 November.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. MullenJ., LowryJ. C., NwabuokuK. C.
    , 2010. Lessons learned developing the Eagle Ford Shale. Paper SPE 138446 presented at the SPE Tight Gas completions conference, San Antonio, Texas, 2–3 November.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Stabell, C.B.
    2012. Modeling Learning in Resource Play Assessment: An Integrated Approach for Decision Support. Paper SPE 162914 presented at the SPE Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 24–25 September.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Stabell, C., Gonzales, R., and Langlie, E.
    2007. Stochastic Modelling of Shale Gas Resource Play Economics. Paper SPE 108081 presented at the SPE Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation Symposium, Dallas, Texas, USA, 1–3 April.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Swindell, G. S.
    2012. Eagle Ford Shale–An Early Look at Ultimate Recovery. Paper SPE 158208 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8–10 October.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.2118/167724-MS
Loading
/content/papers/10.2118/167724-MS
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error