Unconventional-Reservoir Development

in Mexico

I n 2010, exploration of gas-rich

and possibly liquid-rich shale
reservoirs began in northern Mexico.
sive sequence. Both units were depos-
ited in a low-angle sloping ramp. As of
July 2012, five wells had been drilled in
A two-stage integrated workflow the Eagle Ford formation: AEF, BEF, CEF,
was developed to achieve set DEF, and EEF.
objectives. The drilling stage used The origins of the Pimienta forma-
a petrophysical and geomechanical tion date to the Late Jurassic. It is an
static model to identify the most organic-rich source rock with potential
prospective interval in the reservoir, for hydrocarbon production as an un-
define the best drilling azimuth conventional reservoir. Its mineralogical
and landing point, and reduce composition exhibits ranges of 20–40%
drilling risk. Real-time geosteering quartz, 25–45% clay, and 20–40% car-
was implemented to achieve the bonate, with an average TOC range of
targeted navigation window. In the 3–4%. As of July 2012, one well (AP) had Fig. 1—Structural model updated with
completion stage, reservoir-centric been drilled in the Pimienta formation. information from LWD.
completion-and-stimulation software
was used to optimize completion and Methodology: Implementation Phase II. A fine-scale structural 3D
stimulation design. of a Multidisciplinary Workflow model was built for each well; these
The implementation of the workflow was models were constructed using all the
divided into four phases, as follows: available information (well logs, 2D- and
Introduction ◗◗Phase I: predrill modeling 3D-­seismic data, petrophysical evalua-
The initial target formation was the ◗◗Phase II: geosteering and real- tions, and stratigraphic well tops). The
Upper Cretaceous Eagle Ford; the sec- time monitoring first objective of this model is to com-
ond was a Jurassic formation locally ◗◗Phase III: completion design, plement logging while drilling (LWD)
called Pimienta. hydraulic-fracture modeling, and of the horizontal section. Additionally,
The Eagle Ford shale is a Late Cre- execution to improve the efficiency of well place-
taceous hydrocarbon-producing for- ◗◗Phase IV: evaluation of well ment, risks and time consumption for
mation composed of organic-rich cal- performance decisions made while steering the well
careous mudstones with mineralogical were reduced by implementing real-
composition with ranges of 5–20% Phase I. A 1D mechanical Earth model time geological and petrophysical mon-
quartz, 15–25% clay, and 65–80% car- (MEM) applied to hydraulic fracturing itoring. The horizontal-drilling tech-
bonate, and with a total-organic-carbon was used to integrate all available data niques applied incorporated the use of
(TOC) range of 1–6%. The Eagle Ford and to describe more accurately the in- new technologies that allowed analysis
shale is overlain by the Austin chalk and situ stress, the workflow for the geome- of real-time data, which helped in mak-
overlies the Buda limestone. It has been chanical model, and the integration of ing the best decisions to minimize risk
divided into two units, a lower unit de- the information. For a detailed descrip- and avoid a possible well-placement in-
posited during transgressive sequences tion of the work performed in this phase, cident. Understanding the behavior and
and an upper unit deposited in a regres- please see the complete paper. petrophysical properties of the forma-
tion being drilled is the main benefit of
This article, written by JPT Technology Editor Chris Carpenter, contains highlights the real-time petrophysical evaluation,
which will result in a quantification of
of paper SPE 164545, “Unconventional-Reservoir Development in Mexico: Lessons
formation quality in real time.
Learned From the First Exploratory Wells,” by P.A. Parra, N. Rubio, C. Ramirez, B.D.
The structural model, coupled with
Guerra, V.A. Exler, I.R. Campos, M.D. Trejo, J. Olguin, C.H. Vargas, R. Valbuena, the real-time geological and petrophys-
D.F. Soler, M.I. Weimann, V. Lujan, and P. Bonningue, Schlumberger, and P.G. ical monitoring, is used to determine
Reyes, R. Martinez, R. Muñoz, E. Rodriguez, and M. Garcia, Pemex, prepared for whether the well trajectory is following
the 2013 SPE Unconventional Resources Conference—USA, The Woodlands, Texas, the pay zone. The stratigraphic surfaces
USA, 10–12 April. The paper has not been peer reviewed. of the model can be updated with the in-

For a limited time, the complete paper is free to SPE members at www.spe.org/jpt.

122 JPT • JULY 2014

UR164545.indd 122 6/16/14 12:55 PM


Fig. 2—Graphical representation of
the stage design performed in the
completion-adviser module.
formation coming from LWD, resulting in
a more-realistic structural model (Fig. 1).
Once the horizontal well is already
drilled and the petrophysical analysis,
stratigraphic tops, and updated geome-
chanical model are obtained, the static
model is updated and the petrophysical
properties are populated. This updated
model will then be used in the simulator
for the hydraulic-fracture design.
Phase III. Reservoir-centric completion-
and-stimulation software that integrates
petrophysical and geomechanical data
was used to optimize the completion
and hydraulic-fracture design. Histori-
cally, staging has been performed geo-
metrically, equally spacing perforation
clusters along the lateral. However, re-
cent studies suggest that placing perfo-
rations in rocks with similar properties
will improve distribution of hydraulic
fractures along the well and, therefore,
increase well production. Therefore,
staging design was performed by use of
the completion-adviser module of the
completion-and-stimulation software.
An example of the output of the stage-
design process can be observed in Fig. 2.
Once the staging has been defined,
the hydraulic-fracture treatments are
designed. The software used is capable
of simulating the behavior of hydraulic
fractures in unconventional reservoirs
and considers the data gathered in all
of the previous phases of the workflow.
The simulations were performed for each
stage, considering formation properties
specific to that stage and along the length
that the hydraulic fractures develop. Re-
sults of the simulations were observed in
a 3D interface to evaluate coverage and
124
UR164545.indd 124
other required parameters along the lat-
eral. Once the designs were finalized, the
jobs were executed.
Phase IV. After the wells are opened to
production, results are analyzed with
various techniques. These include micro-
seismic monitoring, production-­history
matching, production logging, and well
testing. The results of each of these
analy­ses are coupled with the data gath-
ered during the execution of the fracture
jobs to calibrate the model and update
the hydraulic-fracturing simulations.
Application and Results
Of the six wells that were drilled and
completed, the workflow was fully imple-
mented in three and partially implement-
ed in one. In Wells BEF, DEF, and AP, both
the drilling and the completion stages
were implemented. In Well EEF, only the
completion stage of the workflow was
implemented. The following paragraphs
summarize the methodology applied and
the results achieved in two of these wells
(the complete paper contains this infor-
mation for all four wells in which the
workflow was involved).
Well BEF. This well was placed near the
borderline between the expected con-
densate and oil windows of the Eagle
Ford shale. All phases of the workflow
were applied on this well. The total mea-
sured depth (MD) was 10,400 ft, and the
true vertical depth (TVD) was approxi-
mately 5,085 ft, with a lateral length of
approximately 4,300 ft. The well was
landed and navigated in the lower Eagle
Ford shale with an azimuth mostly paral-
lel to the expected minimum-­horizontal-
stress direction, where the estimated res-
ervoir properties included the following:
◗◗Pressure: 2,800 psi
◗◗Temperature: 169°F
◗◗Permeability: 200 nd
◗◗Effective porosity: 1–8%
◗◗TOC: 3–6%
In this case, the strategy was to nav-
igate the well approximately 16 ft below
the top of the lower Eagle Ford formation
to contact both the lower and upper Eagle
Ford formations with the hydraulic-­
fracture jobs. However, this also meant
that the well was placed approximate-
ly 80 ft above the “sweet spot” identi-
fied in the petrophysical analysis of the
lower Eagle Ford. To simulate the behav-
ior of the hydraulic fractures properly,
an anisotropic MEM was created to es-
timate the stress profile, which showed
considerable differences when compared
with the isotropic geomechanical model
that is commonly used. The engineered
completion design considered 14 stages
with six perforation clusters per stage,
except for Stages 7 and 8, where only
four clusters were used. As mentioned
previously, the perforation clusters were
located along the lateral by considering
similar rock properties. The first stage
was perforated by use of an abrasive per-
foration system with coiled tubing, and
the remaining stages were perforated
by use of the plug-and-perforation tech-
nique with pump-down guns. All stages
were hydraulically fractured by use of the
channel-fracturing technique. The prop-
pant types used were a combination of
40/70- , 30/50- , and 20/40-mesh white
sand. The jobs were pumped at 55 bbl/min
with 180,000 lbm of proppant per stage.
A total of approximately 2,520,000 gal of
fluid was injected in the well.
During the flowback period of ap-
proximately 40 days, and after having re-
covered approximately 20% of the fluid
injected, the well showed intermittent
production of gas and condensate, which
stopped after 11 days. To analyze this be-
havior, the well was closed for 16.5 days
and a buildup test was performed. Inter-
pretation of the buildup test showed a
well fractured with infinite-conductivity
fractures along the lateral. It is suspected
that the main reason for the poor produc-
tion behavior of the well is that it was not
landed in the sweet spot, but rather in
poor-quality rock.
Well EEF. This well was drilled inside
the expected condensate window of the
Eagle Ford shale. Only the last two phas-
es of the workflow were applied on this
well because it had already been drilled
when analysis began. The total MD was
12,320 ft, and the TVD was approxi-
mately 6,772 ft, with a lateral length of
approximately 4,900 ft. The well was
landed and navigated in the lower Eagle
Ford shale with an azimuth mostly paral-
lel to the expected minimum-horizontal-
stress direction. The estimated reservoir
properties included the following:
JPT • JULY 2014
6/16/14 12:55 PM
 ◗◗Pressure: 4,000 psi
◗◗Temperature: 167°F
◗◗Permeability: approximately
200 nd
◗◗Effective porosity: 3–9%
◗◗TOC: 3–5%

The engineered completion design

considered 16 stages with five perfora-
tion clusters per stage. The perforation
clusters were located along the lateral
on the basis of similar rock properties.
The first stage was perforated by use
of an abrasive perforation system with
coiled tubing, and the remaining stages
were perforated by use of the plug-and-
perforation technique with pump-down
guns. The first eight stages were stimu-
lated with slickwater fractures. Because
of some pressure spikes observed dur-
ing these stages, the remaining stages
combined the use of slickwater and lin-
ear gel to place the proppant in the for-
mation. The proppant types used were
a combination of 100- and 40/70-mesh
white sand. The jobs were pumped at
65 bbl/min with 350,000 lbm of prop-
pant per stage. A total of approximate-
ly 5,160,000 gal of fluid was injected
into the well. During the production test,
the well had a peak gas production of
4.6 MMscf/D and a peak condensate pro-
duction of 146 B/D, while flowing by
28/64- and 26/64-in. chokes, respective-
ly. The average wellhead pressure was
2,265 psi.

Conclusions
and Lessons Learned
◗◗The integration of several
disciplines is required to design
and optimize unconventional
shale wells properly.
◗◗The workflow used improves
the design, evaluation, and
optimization of unconventional
shale wells.
◗◗The presence of hydrocarbons
in the Eagle Ford and Pimienta
formations was evidenced in all
the wells where the workflow was
applied.
◗◗The production results suggested
that proper landing and
navigation of the well within
the sweet spot of the target
formation are key to achieving
the expected production. JPT

126 JPT • JULY 2014

UR164545.indd 126 6/16/14 12:55 PM