Scope
The purpose of this project is to summarize the Montney shale gas play that Progress Energy is operating in. We will be looking at and comparing the different wellbore designs they have, such as lengths, casing sizes, stages, frac tonnage. We will also be analyzing 8 wells in the Lily area and provide thorough information on well architecture, interval problems, number of bits/trips, and a day’s vs depth for all eight wells. We are going to analyze on the eight-well pad, located in British Columbia, south of Sikanni Chief. Our focus is on the problem areas located below the surface casing, thus we will not go into depth on the surface hole. Also, we will ignore the strat well (A-9-J/94-G-2) due to its lack of efficiency and focus on exploration. Regarding well D9-J, the information was very limited and thus we have emphasized it accordingly. For the lithology, we will assume that every well within the pad will …show more content…
F9, on the contrary, is much slower. A possible reason for this is the WOB, as both wells are using a 216mm bit, F9 is using a Baker Kymera bit with over 20,000 daNs of weight on bit. Which leads to a Rate of penetration of around 3.6 meters per hour. G9, on the other hand, is using a Smith PDC bit with around 13500 daNs of force for a ROP of 6.5 meters per hour. Each BHA had a similar RPM of approximately 140. The remaining wells all have a very similar rate of penetration (4-5 meters per hour). Another big difference between G9, F9, and the other wells is that G9 and F9 all used 216mm bits until around 1700 mKB, but the remaining four used 222mm PDCs until 1700 mKB and then switched to 216mm Impregnated bits. G9 starts using an impregnated bit at 1300 mKB which is much earlier than the rest of the wells, but it quickly switched back to a PDC at 1500 mKB. Then it follows suite and uses an impregnated bit from 1700 mKB for the rest of the hard and abrasive
The purpose of this project is to summarize the Montney shale gas play that Progress Energy is operating in. We will be looking at and comparing the different wellbore designs they have, such as lengths, casing sizes, stages, frac tonnage. We will also be analyzing 8 wells in the Lily area and provide thorough information on well architecture, interval problems, number of bits/trips, and a day’s vs depth for all eight wells. We are going to analyze on the eight-well pad, located in British Columbia, south of Sikanni Chief. Our focus is on the problem areas located below the surface casing, thus we will not go into depth on the surface hole. Also, we will ignore the strat well (A-9-J/94-G-2) due to its lack of efficiency and focus on exploration. Regarding well D9-J, the information was very limited and thus we have emphasized it accordingly. For the lithology, we will assume that every well within the pad will …show more content…
F9, on the contrary, is much slower. A possible reason for this is the WOB, as both wells are using a 216mm bit, F9 is using a Baker Kymera bit with over 20,000 daNs of weight on bit. Which leads to a Rate of penetration of around 3.6 meters per hour. G9, on the other hand, is using a Smith PDC bit with around 13500 daNs of force for a ROP of 6.5 meters per hour. Each BHA had a similar RPM of approximately 140. The remaining wells all have a very similar rate of penetration (4-5 meters per hour). Another big difference between G9, F9, and the other wells is that G9 and F9 all used 216mm bits until around 1700 mKB, but the remaining four used 222mm PDCs until 1700 mKB and then switched to 216mm Impregnated bits. G9 starts using an impregnated bit at 1300 mKB which is much earlier than the rest of the wells, but it quickly switched back to a PDC at 1500 mKB. Then it follows suite and uses an impregnated bit from 1700 mKB for the rest of the hard and abrasive