How Do You Know Your Fracture Design Was Successful?: Fractured Well Performance

Fractured Well Performance
How do you know your fracture design was

successful?
Pumped all fluids and proppants without any mechanical
problems or screenout or additional costs?
.Yes for service company, completions engineer
Achieved a predicted production goal?

.Yes for reservoir and completions engineer
Achieved economic success?

.Yes for manager, production company
Copyright, 2011

Fracture Conductivity Models
1. Infinite Conductivity Model
Pwf
Negligible pressure loss in the fracture
xf
rwa
2
S
rwa rwe
pwf
rw
rwa
xf
Copyright, 2011

Pwf
2. Uniform flux Model

Slight pressure gradient corresponding to a uniformly
distributed flux
xf
rwa
e
pwf
q
rw
rwa
xf
Copyright, 2011

3. Finite conductivity Model
Constant, limited fracture conductivity
Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity
Fcd=10
k w
Fcd f
kx
f
Fcd=50
pwf
Fcd
rw
rwa
xf
Copyright, 2011

McGuire Sikora Empirical Model (1960), Modified by Holditch (1975)
Basis:
Pseudosteady state flow
Constant rate production
Square drainage shape
Compressible fluid
Entire interval is propped
Both xf and kfw are

important
1. Length is dominant variable

Constraining stimulation
2. kfw sufficiently high
Copyright, 2011

Well spacing/shape
2ye
xf
xf
re
2xe
Limit penetration to 80% of the reservoir boundary,

xf
80%
xe
Copyright, 2011

Remarks:
For a given Lf/Le ratio, the solution
approaches a maximum
asymptotic value
Thus at large relative conductivity
(low-k), productivity can be increased
by increasing Lf and not the conductivity.
For a given Lf, there exists an optimal fracture conductivity
Theoretical maximum increase in productivity ratio is 13.6
Copyright, 2011

Point A length limited, increase treatment size to
Point B conductivity limited, change proppant type to
Point C length limited, increase treatment size to
Point D reached drainage radius
B
C
A
Copyright, 2011

Tinsley et al. empirical model (1969)
Effect of fracture conductivity and fracture height on well performance
Rwa = f (xf, Fcd)
Basis:
Steady state flow
Constant rate production
Cylindrical reservoir geometry
Incompressible fluid flow
Fracture Characterization Parameter, X
Copyright, 2011
a. For 0.1 < X < 3
xf
FE B / C 0.785 tan1.83
1.25 4.28 (C )( D) D
re

b. X > 3
Tinsley et al. empirical model (1969)
FE
Empirical Equations
F tanY Z tan(Z ) 1
C
where
a. For 0.1 < X < 3
xf
FE B / C 0.785 tan1.83
1.25 4.28 (C )( D) DB 3.334 X 0.334
re
9.668
b. X > 3
FE
F tanY Z tan(Z ) 1
C
where
3.334 X 0.334
9.668
4.84 6.40
2.38
X2
X
1.32 x f
Y 2.27
X re
h
0.92
C 0.08
hf
h
f
D 1 0.75
h
h
0.92
C 0.08
hf
hf
D 1 0.75
h
1.24 1.64
0.84
2
X
X
4.84 6.40
2.38
2
X
X
1.32 x f
Y 2.27
X re
Copyright, 2011

Example
A given well currently produces at a constant bottomhole flowing pressure of 1200
psia. It was determined this well would be a good candidate for hydraulic fracturing.
Two fracture treatments are proposed by the service company:
Treatment A with xf = 100 ft and FcD = 200
Treatment B with xf = 250 ft and FcD = 10.
To assess the results of the fracture treatments, rate decline is used to forecast
performance.
Assume hf = h
Reservoir data for a typical well
pi
Boi
rw
f
re
= 2600 psia
= 1.642 bbl/stb
= 0.33 ft
= 0.117
= 744 ft
moi
h
cti
Sw
k
= 0.2 cp
= 66 ft
= 30 x 10-6 psi-1
= 0.32
= 0.25 md
Copyright, 2011

Example
Time to start of pss

t pss 3790
fm cT A
k
t DApss
tpss = 77 days
where tDApss = 0.1 (center of a circle) and A = p re2

Dimensionless time
0.000264kt
tD = 2,258 t/rwa2
t
D
2
fm c t rwa
Copyright, 2011

Example
Calculate rwa
Case A:
100 744
X 0.5931
ln
200 123
744 .33
From the figure this value

of X indicates an infinite
conductivity fracture; thus
rwa = xf/2 = 50 ft.
FE=3.3
xf/re = 0.336
Case B:
X = 15.4
xf/re = 0.336
From the figure or equations,
r
ln e
rw
FE
3.3 rwa 72 ft .
re
ln
rwa
X=15.4
X=123
Copyright, 2011

Example
1000
Case B
Case A
qo,bopd
100
Unfrac
10
1
1
10
100
1000
10000
time,days
Copyright, 2011

Example
Transient rate decline

a. From Example 1 the t pss = 77 days, therefore
dimensionless time
t
0.000264kt
2
fm c t rwa
tD = 2,258 t/rwa2
b. Dimensionless rate is from the approximate

solutions corresponding to t D.
c. Calculate flow rate from
qD
141.2moBo
q
kh (pi p wf ) o
qo = 498 qD
Depletion rate decline

Apply Fetkovichs type curve
a. Calculate tDd
t Dd Bt D
1
* tD
r r 2 1 ln re rwa .5
e wa
b. Calculate qDd assuming exponential decline

q Dd e t Dd
c. Calculate qD
1
q D Aq Dd
*q
ln re rwa .5 Dd
d. Calculate qo
Copyright, 2011
Decline Curve Analysis
Advanced Topics
Composite of analytic and empirical type curves (Fetkovich, 1980)
GRM-Engler-09
Advanced Topics
Example Use type curve matching to analyze the given well data
Dimensionless Flow Rate, qdD
10
Linear
reD=2.5
5
10
20
50
200
5000
QdD=1-exp(-tdD)
b=0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Dimensionless Time, tdD
10
100
b = 0.4, re/rwa = 1000

GRM-Engler-09
Advanced Topics
Example - Results
Estimated Properties
Productivity Factor, PF
Pore Volume, PV
Initial Gas-In-Place, IGIP
Drainage Acreage
Equivalent Drainage Radius, r e
Apparent Wellbore Radius, r wa
Skin Factor, S
Flow Capacity, kh
Permeability, k
Current Recovery, % IGIP
Current Recovery, Per Acre
Units
Mscf/d/psi
MMcf
Bscf
Acres
ft
ft
md-ft
md
%
Mscf/acre
Last Reported Rate, qlast

Remaining Reserves
Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR)
Projected Recovery, % IGIP
Projected Recovery, Per Acre
Rate-Time Rate-Cum Cum-Time

0.176
14.463
2.091
86.5
1094.9
1.1
-1.1
2.628
0.08211
50.0
12097.6
0.176
14.026
2.028
83.9
1078.3
1.1
-1.1
2.628
0.08211
51.6
12474.4
91.10
334533
1380543
67.39
16294.79
Mscf/d
Mscf
Mscf
%
Mscf/acre
0.171
14.026
2.028
83.9
1078.3
1.1
-1.1
2.548
0.07963
51.6
12474.4
GRM-Engler-09
Advanced Topics
Example Use type curve matching to analyze well data from example 1.8
Dimensionless Flow Rate, qdD
10
Linear
reD=2.5
5
10
20
50
200
5000
QdD=1-exp(-tdD)
b=0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Dimensionless Time, tdD
b = 0.8, re/rwa = 5
10
100
GRM-Engler-09
Advanced Topics
Example - (results)
Estimated Properties
Units
Rate-Time
Productivity Factor, PF
Pore Volume, PV
Mscf/d/psi
MMcf
Initial Gas-In-Place, IGIP

Drainage Acreage
Bscf
Acres
0.718
79.7
Equivalent Drainage Radius, re

Apparent Wellbore Radius, rwa
Skin Factor, S
ft
ft
-
2636
2636
-9.4
Flow Capacity, kh
md-ft
1.762
Permeability, k
md
0.044
Current Recovery, % IGIP

Current Recovery, Per Acre
%
Mscf/acre
73.3
6604
b = 0.8, re/rwa = 5
0.139
15.281
GRM-Engler-09

Basis:
The fracture has finite conductivity that is uniform throughout the fracture
The fracture has two equal wing lengths
The reservoir is infinite acting
Transient solution for finite-conductivity vertical fractures, (Agarwal, et al.,1979)
k w
FCD f
kx f
141.2qmB
khp
tD
xf
.0063kt
2
fm c t x f
Copyright, 2011

Low FCD case
Start with point A
Double xf
Reduces FCD by
and reduces tDxf by
k w
FCD f
kx f
Result:
An increase in fracture length
results in no difference in flow
rate
tD
xf
.0063kt
2
fm c t x f
Copyright, 2011

Low FCD case
Start with point A
Double xf and
kfw is increased by
a factor of 4, then
FCD would double
and tDxf reduces by
k w
FCD f
kx f
A
A
Result:
And fracture conductivity results
in an increase in flow rate
tD
xf
.0063kt
2
fm c t x f
Copyright, 2011

High FCD case
Start with point B
Double xf and
Reduces FCD by
and reduces tDxf by
k w
FCD f
kx f
Result:
results in an increase in flow
rate
tD
xf
.0063kt
2
fm c t x f
Copyright, 2011

Guidelines
FCD 3
Cannot be improved
significantly by increasing xf
with same fracture
conductivity
k w
FCD f
kx f
FCD 30
Increasing xf will be more
beneficial than increasing
conductivity
tD
xf
.0063kt
2
fm c t x f
Copyright, 2011

Example
A low-permeability gas well required a massive hydraulic fracture (MHF) to become productive.
The following data was acquired for analysis.
pi
Tf
rw
f
pwf
2394 psia
260F
0.33 ft
0.107
1600 psia
mgi
h
cti
A
z
0.0176 cp
32 ft
2.34 x 10-4 psi-1
640 Acres
0.93
0.0081 md
The well has produced for a little less than a year, with the performance data shown below.
Time,days
20
35
50
100
150
250
300
q, mscfd
625
476
408
308
250
208
192
The objectives are to compute the fracture length and fracture flow capacity, and to predict future
performance.
Copyright, 2011

Example
Example
Transient Type Curve Matching for

Finite Conductivity Fractures
Solution
Type curve match with the finite conductivity
fracture solution
Since kh were determined from an earlier well test,

the y-axis match is fixed.
2 0.000264k t
xf
fm g c t t D
100
xf2= 4.853*(t/tD)m
xf = 357 ft.
1000
(q/qD)m = 50
q,mscfd
1422m gi zT q
k
2 q
2
h p i p wf D m
10
1
10
100
1000
time,days
From the type curve, Fcd = 500; thus the fracture

flow capacity can be computed by,
k f w FCD * (kx f ) 1446 md ft

Match Point
q = 100 mcfd
qD = 2
t = 100 days
tDxf = .0038
Copyright, 2011

Example
Find the time to the beginning of pss
t pss 3790
fm cT A
k
t DApss
tpss = 23,951 days (66 yrs)
where tDApss = 0.1 (center of a circle) and A = p re2
Future performance
a.
b.
c.
d.
Assume a time
Calculate tdxf
From type curve find corresponding qD
Calculate q
Copyright, 2011

Example
A Mesaverde gas well in the San Juan Basin was stimulated with a hydraulic fracture treatment.
The reported fracture parameters are a fracture half-length of 1030 ft and a dimensionless
fracture conductivity of 500.
pi
Tf
rw
f
pwf
1175 psia
173F
0.33 ft
0.08
600 psia
mgi
h
cti
A
z
0.0143 cp
29 ft
5.2 x 10-4 psi-1
320 Acres
0.87
0.04 md
re
2106 ft
Objective
Calculate the rate-time forecast for the well assuming an infinite-conductivity fracture.
Copyright, 2011

Example
Solution
Time to start of pss

fm cT A
t pss 3790
t DApss
k
Calculate apparent wellbore radius

Rwa = xf/2 = 515 ft.
rwa rw e s
0.000264kt
2
fm c t rwa
tD = 1.61 x 10-3 t {days}
Calculate dimensionless rate
qD
S = -7.4
Calculate Dimensionless time

t
tpss = 3,272 days (9 years)
141.2moBo
q
kh (pi p wf ) o
qo = 0.00946 qD {mscfd}
For transient rate decline, find qD from (1)uniform flux solution approximate equations,
and (2) infinite conductivity solution from type curve.
For depletion rate decline use Fetkovich type curve.
Copyright, 2011

Example
1000
infinite conductivity
rate,mscfd
measured data
uniform flux
100
10
0
10
100
time,yrs
Copyright, 2011

How Do You Know Your Fracture Design Was Successful?: Fractured Well Performance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

How Do You Know Your Fracture Design Was Successful?: Fractured Well Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fractured Well Performance