The North American gas storage industry uses over 400 reservoirs and 15,000 wells. Tens of millions dollars are spent annually to recover losses of deliverability. Hydraulic fracturing and refracturing were shown to be popular and effective methods to increase deliverability.
The underground gas storage (UGS) industry uses more than 400 reservoirs and 15,000 wells to store and withdraw natural gas and is thus a significant contributor to gas supply in the United States.1 Previous work indicates that many gas storage wells show a loss of deliverability each year due to numerous damage mechanisms and it is estimated that tens of millions of dollars are spent each year to recover or replace this lost deliverability.
Prior Gas Technology Institute (GTI) studies3,4 have been aimed at qualitatively reviewing completion and deliverability enhancement techniques used in the storage industry, identifying specific damage mechanisms present in storage reservoirs, and establishing procedures for damage mechanism identification. This paper presents key results of a major new study sponsored by the Gas Technology Institute (GTI) that focused on a comprehensive, quantitative assessment of the effectiveness and longevity of the various stimulation treatments employed in the UGS industry.
Specifically, this paper summarizes the major results of the most comprehensive quantitative study conducted to date of stimulation treatments employed in the UGS industry. The study involved seven operators and 23 reservoirs (14 carbonate and 5 sandstone). Data were collected, entered into the database, and reviewed for 381 stimulations in 365 wells. Deliverability data were entered for 159 stimulations in 155 wells (67 in carbonate reservoirs and 88 in sandstone reservoirs) with sufficient data for inclusion in the study.
The most popular stimulation treatments currently employed in the UGS industry are identified, the effectiveness and longevity of various treatment types are quantified and compared, and a new quantitative indicator designed to capture the results of effectiveness and longevity calculations in a single benchmark indicator is presented. In addition, the frequency and duration of cleanup effects for various treatment types and the post-stimulation decline rates typically observed for various treatments are also quantified and compared.
The implications of conclusions reached in the study, as they relate to future UGS R&D efforts, are also discussed, and specific areas of additional study are recommended.
Author(s): Kenneth G. Brown, Joseph H. Frantz, Walter K. Sawyer, Schlumberger; Glenn C. Heckman, Independent Consultant
Paper Number: SPE 84393