You are on page 1of 9

SPE 84860

An Integrated Model for the Design and Evaluation of Multiwell Hydraulic Fracture
Treatments for Gas-Condensate Reservoirs
K.L. Valencia, SPE, Z. Chen, The University of New South Wales, M.K. Rahman, SPE, The University of Western
Australia, S.S. Rahman, SPE, The University of New South Wales

Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.


is a hybrid of genetic algorithm and evolutionary operation. In
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery our current work, we have incorporated an improved objective
Conference in Asia Pacific held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20–21 October 2003.
function into the optimization scheme and applied it to a
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
specific gas-condensate reservoir.
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to Previous studies simplified the production model by
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at considering the ideal case of a single well, centrally located in
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
a square or circular drainage area. In practice, however, a
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is candidate for a fracture treatment could be part of a multiwell
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous system. To date, several analytical models applicable to
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
multiple wells have been published in literature. Notable is
Rodriguez and Cinco-Ley’s2 pioneering work which was
further improved by Camacho-V. et al.3 Most recently, Ozkan4
Abstract introduced a model that takes into account the transient and
This paper presents a hydraulic fracture treatment design pseudo-steady state flow regimes and allows for possibility of
optimization scheme which integrates a hydraulic fracture any well combination and variable rates. On the other hand,
geometry model, a production model and an economic model. using the matrix approach, Valko et al.5 introduced a simpler
The hydraulic fracture geometry model is used to determine model which is applicable for pseudo-steady state
the final fracture geometry and select the treatment parameters flow regime.
for a given stress and reservoir condition. Production from the In order to obtain the optimum values of the hydraulic
treated well is estimated for pseudo-steady state condition fracture treatment parameters, an accurate production estimate
using a model equivalent to a compositional simulator. A for a given reservoir condition is necessary. Some of the
genetic-evolutionary optimization algorithm is used to obtain published works on the subject coupled a stochastic
the optimum treatment parameters for maximum production or optimization algorithm with a production model that uses
NPV. The integrated model has been used to investigate idealized dry gas reservoir or single phase oil reservoir1,6.
different field scenarios of a multiwell gas-condensate Others used a reservoir simulator for a more accurate
reservoir, including optimization of well locations and production estimate and employed parametric sensitivity
hydraulic fracture treatment parameters for any well type, analysis to get the optimum treatment parameters7. The latter
achievement of target production and maximization of NPV gives improved production estimate but does not explore the
with simultaneous minimization of the associated whole search space for the global optimum design as it is
treatment costs. computationally tedious and time consuming whereas the
former gives inaccurate production estimate for reservoirs
Introduction other than the ideal case but efficiently searches for the
To increase ultimate recovery with minimum treatment cost, optimum values of treatment parameters. In order to overcome
hydraulic fracture treatments are optimized by coupling a the foregoing weaknesses, a generalized production model
hydraulic fracture geometry model, a production model and an applicable to gas or gas-condensate reservoir is incorporated in
economic model. A three-step calculation procedure is then the optimization scheme. This guarantees speedier evaluation
conducted repeatedly to obtain the best combination of of the objective function.
hydraulic fracture treatment parameters. Coupling the production model with an efficient
Previous works in hydraulic fracture treatment design optimization algorithm provides solutions to field
optimization were devoted mainly in the development of a development problems. Particular attention is given to gas-
search scheme for the optimum design. The main drawbacks condensate reservoirs as the need to hydraulically fracture
of these tools include absence of global optimization multiple wells in gas-condensate reservoirs arises since
procedure and limited number of design variables. In our exploitation of higher temperature and pressure reservoirs is
previous work, we have addressed these shortcomings and we becoming increasingly important.
formulated geometric and operational constraints to ensure a
reliable optimum treatment design.1 The search scheme used
2 SPE 84860

Optimization Strategy for Hydraulic Fracturing Design production is then estimated by the generalized production
model, which allows handling of a wide array of field
Definition of Objective Function development problems. The NPV is then calculated based on
The goal of hydraulic fracture treatment design optimization is production over a period of time and associated well and
to find, for given reservoir conditions, a set of fracture treatment costs under the economic model. Treatment
treatment parameters that would maximize the net present parameter values are then updated as per the rules of the
value (NPV), maximize cumulative production, or maximize optimization algorithm.
NPV and minimize treatment cost, considering the post-
fracture performance of the well. The above three objectives Optimization Algorithm
are defined as objective functions. Optimization starts with the generation of a pre-defined
Formally, the problem is to find the values of hydraulic number of random vertices. Each vertex corresponds to a set
fracture treatment parameters, such as pumping rate, pumping of treatment parameters (design) satisfying the bound
time, end-of-job proppant concentration and fracturing fluid constraints. The coordinates of the random vertex are
viscosity which can be represented as x1, x2, x3, … xN, subject generated by:
to bound constraints (upper and lower limits of each treatment
parameter – uN and lN respectively) denoted by xi = l i + ri (u i − l i ) , i = 1, …, N….........……..………. (3)

l1 ≤ x1 ≤ u1 which ensures that any randomly generated point complies


with the limits enforced by the bound constraints. Here, ri is a
M M M , …... ….…… ...……………….……..…(1) pseudo-random deviate rectangularly distributed over the
lN ≤ xN ≤ uN interval (0, 1) which is controlled by a known value, xin, for
the i-th coordinate.
and design constraints, such as pressure limitation of surface To ensure that the random points generated satisfy the
equipment, burst resistance of tubing and available pump imposed design constraints, points violating some of the
horsepower, expressed as design constraints are moved towards the centroid, c,
Cl1 ≤ C1 (x ) ≤ Cu1 successively by a factor of a perturbation, x’:
1
M M M , .…………….…………….…….(2) x= (c + x ′) , ..……………...………………..……..…(4)
ClM ≤ C M (x ) ≤ CuM 2
until the new point, x, satisfies the design constraints. The
where CM(x) is the design constraint, ClM is the lower bound coordinates of the centroid are calculated using generated
and CuM is the upper bound. The optimum fracture treatment points compliant with the design constraints:
parameters minimize the objective function (maximum NPV,
maximum cumulative production, maximum NPV and 1
minimum treatment cost) represented as f(x1, x2, x3, … , xN). ci = ∑ xi , …….………….…..…………...…………(5)
n
Based on sound engineering practice, the following design
variables, with their upper and lower bounds, are used in where n is the number of compliant points.
this study: The objective function values are calculated from the
0.07Pa-s < viscosity (µ ) < 0.8Pa-s, points which satisfy the bound and design constraints. The
0.0264m3/s < pumping rate (qi)< 0.1992m3/s, point that corresponds to the maximum objective function is
59kg/m3 < end-of-job proppant concentration (Pc )< discarded. The rest of the points are preserved and used to
1797kg/m3 , and define a compound (set of compliant vertices). New random
27.432m < fracture half length (xf )< 457.2m. points are generated around the preserved vertices of the
compound. Search for the optimum values continues until pre-
Optimization Strategy specified convergence criteria are met.
The optimization strategy aims to evaluate the objective Figure 1 shows convergence to the optimum design from
function (maximum NPV, maximum cumulative production, the generated random vertices of two different objective
maximum NPV and minimum treatment cost) by executing a functions. The optimum design has passed three levels of
computational sequence that integrates a hydraulic fracture convergence tests. The first test ensures that a predefined
geometry model, a production model and an economic model. number of consecutive values of the objective function are
Bound constraints are imposed based on industry practice and found identical within the resolution of the convergence
design constraints are formulated to cover operational and parameter. Once the first test has been satisfied, the second
fracture growth control requirements. This eliminates designs test verifies whether the objective function values at all
that are unrealistic and difficult to execute in practice due to vertices of the current compound are also identical within the
equipment restrictions. The search space is therefore narrowed resolution of the convergence parameter. Finally, restarts are
down resulting in quicker optimization run. made using the current optimum point to check if
For a given set of treatment parameters, rock mechanical improvement is still possible.
properties and in-situ reservoir properties, the resulting
fracture geometry and conductivity are determined in the
hydraulic fracture geometry model. The cumulative
SPE 84860 3

Definition of Models Gas Condensate Reservoirs. Fevang and Whitson9


developed a simple method to calculate the pseudo-pressure
Hydraulic Fracture Geometry Model integral in the general volumetric rate equation for a gas-
From the given formation parameters and treatment design condensate well regardless of geometry. Three flow regions
variables, the resulting fracture geometry is calculated. The may exist when gas condensate wells are produced and the
fracture dimensions define the post-frac productivity index bottomhole flowing pressure drops below the dewpoint
that is used in production estimation. In this work, we have pressure. Region 1 is the inner near-wellbore region where
used the Perkins-Kern-Nordgren (PKN) model coupled with both gas and oil flow simultaneously. This is the main source
the Carter Equation II for leak-off. of deliverability loss in a gas condensate well because the gas
The PKN model assumes: (1) vertical plane strain along a relative permeability is reduced due to condensate build up.
fracture with a length to height aspect ratio greater than unity, Net accumulation of condensate occurs in Region 2 where
(2) flow in the lateral direction and (3) an approximate only the gas phase is mobile. Region 3 is the outer most region
elliptical fracture geometry shape. of single phase gas of constant composition.
We use Carter’s formulation of the material balance to The pseudo-pressure integral may be broken down into
account for leak-off 8. At any injection time, t, Carter three parts corresponding to the three possible flow regions:
postulated that the injection rate entering one wing of the
fracture is equal to the sum of the different leak-off rates plus P*  krg   k  
the growth rate of the fracture volume: Region 1: ∫   +  ro  R dp +
  Bo µo  so 
Pwf  B µ
 g g  
(dw f
)
t C
qi L  dA  dA
= 2∫  dτ + w f + 2S p +A .…. (6)
2 0 t − τ  dt  dt dt Pd  k
 
Region 2: ∫  dp +
rg
……………..(10)
This is further simplified by assuming that width is constant to *  B µ 
P  g g 
give:

A(t ) =
(w f )
+ 2 S p  qi 
( ) 2β  PR  1 
  exp β 2 erfc(β ) + − 1 ….(7) 
Region 3: krg (S wi ) ∫  dp ,
4C L2π  2  π  Pd 
B µ 
 g g 

2C L πt where P* is the pressure corresponding to Ro = 1 R p , Ro is


with β= .
w f + 2S p the solution oil-gas ratio, Rp is the producing gas-oil ratio and
Pd is the dewpoint pressure. When P*>PR (reservoir pressure),
In terms of power-law parameters for a non-Newtonian fluid, integration of Region 1 should only be from Pwf to PR and
the maximum width at the wellbore is defined as8: Regions 2 and 3 do not exist. On the other hand, if P*<PR,
Region 2 integral should be evaluated from P* to PR and
 1   n   n 
      Region 1 should be evaluated from Pwf to P*. If the
 2n + 2   2 n + 2  1 + 2.14n   2 n + 2 
wf = 9.15 3.98   bottomhole flowing pressure is greater than the in-situ dew
 n  point pressure, Region 3 exists. For slightly undersaturated
 1  ............(8) reservoirs, Regions 1, 2 and 3 are evaluated and for rich gas
 1   
  q 
n h1f− n x f   2n + 2  condensate reservoirs, Region 1 dominates.
⋅ K  2 n + 2   i  
 2  E'  Multiple wells. In matrix notation, Valko et al.5 showed
 
that the relationship between production rate and drawdown is
Coupling with the Carter Equation II, the expression for as follows:
fracture half length is expressed as8: r r
q = 2πkh([Ai ] + [Ds ])−1 d , .....…………………………...(11)
(w f )
+ 2S p  qi  
( )
2β  r
xf =   exp β 2 erfc(β ) + − 1 .…(9)
2 2
4C L πh f    π where d is pseudo-pressure integral vector and [Ai] is the

influence matrix with elements aij representing the influence
2C L πt i of well j on the pressure at the circumference of well i.
with β = ,
w f + 2S p  a11 a12 L a1n 
a a L a2n  ………...………………….(12)
which can be solved to obtain fracture half length or height. [Ai ] =  21 22
The individual symbols are presented in the nomenclature. M M O M 
 
 an1 an 2 L ann 
Post-fracturing production model
This model calculates the cumulative production of a The influence function is a constant, which depends on the
multiwell system in a gas-condensate reservoir for pseudo- shape of the reservoir and the location of the well. This allows
steady state condition. for search of the optimal well locations. Ozkan5 gives the long
4 SPE 84860

time approximations for vertical well, vertically fractured well k rg µ o Bo


and horizontal well solutions. A6 = 1 + Ro ,
k ro µ g B g
Once a hydraulic fracture is created, most pre-treatment
skin effects such as the damage skin, the skin due to partial  1 R 
completion and slant and perforation skin are bypassed and A7 =  − o ,
 Bo B g 
have no impact on post treatment skin performance. Thus, an  
equivalent skin effect, sf, which is the result of a hydraulic  − 1 R so 
fracture of a certain length and conductivity may be added to A8 =  + .
 Bg Bo 
the well inflow equation in lieu of the pre-treatment skin 
effects. Thus, we have for the skin matrix, The flow regions are delineated based on the reservoir
pressure, dewpoint pressure, bottomhole flowing pressure and
  x f1  
 s f 1 + ln  0 L 0  P*, calculated from the gas-oil ratio. Relative permeabilities

  rw1   are determined based on the saturation profile. Production is
  xf2   ….(13) then calculated from Equation 11 using the pseudo-pressure
[Ds ] =  0 s f 2 + ln  L
 0 
 rw2   integral as elements of the pressure vector multiplied by the
 0 0 O 0  inverse of the sum of the calculated influence matrix and
  x fn 
 0 0 L s fn + ln  diagonal skin matrix. The next reservoir pressure is then
 
  rwn  calculated and refinement of solution is done, by iterating with
a new value of oil saturation, S o = S o − ∆S o / 2 , until
Production Forecasting. Future gas production forecasting convergence is achieved. The gas rate at the final saturation
is done by partitioning the gas reservoir depletion process into value is added to the previous production and the time step
successive time steps. In each time interval, the reservoir is in is incremented.
pseudo-steady state flow regime. The wellbore pressures Care should be taken in the determination of the PVT
decline by a small value, then the production rates are reduced, properties, as accuracy of production estimate is dependent on
and the wellbore pressure jumps by a small value5. Initially, the integrity of the PVT data. Extended black-oil PVT
from the given reservoir geometry, well type and properties for use in the calculation of the integral are
configuration, the influence function is calculated for each generated using the Whitson and Torp10 or Coats11 method.
well and the influence matrix is generated. Using the hydraulic
treatment parameter values, the hydraulic fracture geometry Economic Model
created based on the PKN-C model is calculated. The fracture In this model, the NPV is formulated as follows:
half length is an assumed input and the corresponding fracture
height and width are calculated. From the geometry of the NY Rn
NPV = ∑ − Ctr , ..……………………...…….(15)
created fracture, in-situ reservoir properties and pertinent n =1 (1 + i )n
treatment parameter values, the fracture conductivity is
determined and the corresponding diagonal skin matrix where i is the discount rate. The revenue, Rn, for the year n, is
is generated. calculated as the product of total production and average gas
At the i-th time step, the pseudopressure integral is price. The treatment cost, which is a function of the frac fluid
determined for each well considered in the system. From the volume, the type of frac fluid, total weight of proppant used
definition of the gas-oil ratio, the change in oil saturation is and fixed cost to cover equipment hire and other expenses are
calculated as follows: formulated as follows:
Ctr = PflVtfl + PprW pr + Ppump HPav + FC , .………...(16)
dS o A ( A + A2 ) − A6 ( A3 + A4 )
= 5 1 …………………...(14)
dp A5 A7 − A6 A8 where Ctr = treatment cost, $,
with Pfl = price of frac fluid, $/m3 ,
 1 dBo  Vtfl = volume of frac fluid, m3 ,
A1 = S o  2 , Ppr = proppant cost, $/kg ,
B dp 
 o  Wpr = proppant weight, kg ,
 R dB g Ppump = pumping cost, $/hp ,
1 dRo 
A2 = (1 − S o − S wc ) o2 − , HPav = hydraulic power of the pump, hp ,
B dp B g dp  FC = miscellaneous and fixed cost, $.
 g 
 1 dR so R so dBo  Model Application and Discussion
A3 = S o  + 2 ,
 Bo dp Bo dp  In this section, different field scenarios are presented to
 
illustrate the application of the optimization scheme. The cases
A4 =
(1 − S o − S wc ) dB g , show that we have extended the scope of the original model
Bg 2 dp proposed in our previous studies, to provide solutions to a
wide range of reservoir development problems. Different
k rg µ o Bo objective functions are executed as deemed appropriate to
A5 = R so + ,
k ro µ g B g
SPE 84860 5

provide operators a margin of freedom in making Functions 4 - 6 as defined in Figure 6. The effect of
sound decisions. simultaneously optimizing the well locations is clearly seen in
Hydraulic fracture treatment design is optimized for two Figure 6. When cumulative production is maximized
vertical wells in a rich gas condensate reservoir. The reservoir (Objective Function 4), a 55% increase in cumulative
has a thickness of 30.48m and a matrix permeability of 5x10-16 production is achieved relative to the base case design. This
m2 (0.5 md). Well 1 coordinates are 488m on the lateral and results in a 63% improvement in NPV and a corresponding
vertical axes while Well 2 is located at 1673m on the x and y- 11% reduction in the treatment cost. For maximum NPV as
axes. Reservoir properties, formation properties and well data the design objective (Objective Function 5), NPV was
are presented in Table 1. The wells start production at the improved by 62% and the treatment cost was reduced by 11%
same time, t = 0. The extended black-oil PVT properties, relative to the base case. Companies would opt for a
generated using the Whitson and Torp procedure, are shown in compromise between the NPV and the treatment cost. For
Figures 2 – 4. Relative permeability curves are given in Figure further improvement, we maximized NPV and minimized
5. Proppant and cost data are given in Table 2. treatment cost simultaneously (Objective Function 6). Results
Results show the importance of using an optimization show that a 42% treatment cost savings is achieved with a
scheme that checks all possible solutions from a wide range of 23% NPV improvement relative to the base case design.
treatment designs. Using parametric sensitivity analysis to Furthermore, this example illustrates how to achieve target
obtain the optimum design values of ten treatment parameters production. This option allows for compliance with the
is very tedious and time consuming. Furthermore, production required contracted quantities of gas to be delivered to the
engineers may fail to obtain values that may be the best sales pipelines. We formulate the objective function as
solution from all possible treatment designs. In this example,  G p − T1 C 
as shown in Figure 6, the treatment cost is considerably high. min Z ( x) = min  P1 + tr P2  , where values of D1 and D2
 D1 D2 
This is where the need to consider net present value as an  
objective function comes in. are adjusted such that the value of both terms at the right hand
Figure 6 compares the treatment cost, production and NPV side of the equation approaches 0.5 and P1 and P2 are set to 1
of the different objective functions during a period of 10 years. to assign equal priority to achieving target production and
A base case is obtained by maximizing cumulative production minimizing treatment cost. In this combined objective
(Objective Function 1 as shown in Figure 6). A 1% function, T1 is the target value for the first objective. This
improvement in NPV is achieved when NPV is considered as design objective is shown in Figure 6 as design objective 7.
the objective function (Objective Function 2) to be optimized For economic reasons, decision to fracture just one well
relative to the base case scenario. This reduced the treatment may also be considered. With the methods outlined here, it is
cost by 28% in comparison with the treatment cost for the possible to handle this scenario by reducing the number of free
base case. design variables and setting the influence function of one well
We then tested the merit of further reducing the treatment as vertical well without fractures. Selection of the well as
cost by maximizing NPV and minimizing treatment cost candidate for a hydraulic treatment job would then be largely
simultaneously (Objective Function 3). This design objective dependent on the NPV-treatment cost trade-off.
is formulated as min Z ( x) = min  − NPV P1 + C tr P2  , where Di is Results show that if Well 1 is hydraulically fractured and
 D1 D 2  Well 2 left as it is (Objective Function 8), a 54% treatment
a normalizing factor and Pi is the priority factor. In this cost savings is achieved relative to the base case design. This
example, 47% savings on treatment cost is achieved for an reduces the NPV by 8%. On the other hand, if Well 2 is
NPV reduction of 5% relative to the base case. The optimum fractured (Objective Function 9 as shown in Figure 6), a
values of treatment parameters for the above case scenarios treatment cost savings of 54% results in 20% NPV reduction.
are presented in Table 3. The optimum values of the treatment parameters for the above
Field development planning entails the determination of two cases are presented in Table 5.
the optimal placement of wells. This depends on well and
surface equipment specifications, reservoir and fluid Conclusions
properties and economic criteria. For placement of several On the basis of information presented in this paper, the
wells, hundreds of combinations must be considered for the following conclusions can be reached:
achievement of target production or NPV. Various approaches 1. Well location and reservoir geometry significantly affect the
have been discussed in literature such as quasi-Newton overall reservoir performance for a multiwell system. Thus,
algorithm designed for unconstrained minimization4, hybrid the optimal location of wells and the optimum treatment
optimization technique based on genetic algorithm, polytope parameters found by the search scheme greatly improved the
algorithm, kriging algorithm and neural networks12 and pure economics of the project.
artificial neural networks13. Although these methods 2. The proposed pseudo-steady state model has been
adequately provide the optimum well locations, this example efficiently coupled with the optimization algorithm and has
illustrates how the well locations are simultaneously optimized given good results for different applications. Extended black-
with the hydraulic fracture treatment parameters, thus, oil PVT data were generated for use in the proposed model to
improving the economics of the project. achieve more accurate results.
Table 4 summarizes the optimum values of the treatment 3. The capability to generate optimum treatment design for
parameters and well locations obtained for Objective any possible scenario, such as different well types (vertical to
horizontal wellbores) and any number of wells extends the
6 SPE 84860

application of the model to field development cases which International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition,
include achievement of production targets and trade-off Villahermosa, Mexico, Feb. 10-12.
analysis thus, allowing operators to make robust 7. Aly, A. M., El-Banbi, A.H., Holditch, S.A.; Wahdan, M., Salah,
business decisions. N., Aly, N.M. and Boerrigter, P.: “Optimization of Gas
Condensate Reservoir Development by Coupling Reservoir
Modeling and Hydraulic Fracturing Design,” paper SPE 68175
Nomenclature presented at the 2001 SPE Middle East Oil Show and
A = fracture surface area, m2 Conference, Bahrain, March 17-20.
Bg = gas formation volume factor, m3/m3 8. Valko, P. and Economides, M.J.: Hydraulic Fracture Mechanics,
Bo = oil formation volume factor, m3/m3 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex, England (1995).
CL = leak-off coefficient, m.s-1/2 9. Fevang, O., and Whitson, C. H.: “Modelling Gas Condensate
E’ = plane strain modulus, Pa Well Deliverability,” paper SPE 30714 presented at the 1995 SPE
FC = fixed cost Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, U.S.A.,
h = pay thickness, m Oct. 22 – 25.
hf = fracture height, m 10. Whitson, C.H. and Torp, S.B.: “Evaluating Constant Volume
k = matrix permeability, m2 Depletion Data,” paper SPE 10067 presented at the 1981 Annual
krg = gas relative permeability Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
kro = oil relative permeability Oct. 5 – 7.
K = consistency index, Pa.s-n 11. Coats, K.H.: “Simulation of Gas Condensate Reservoir
l = lower bound on design variable Performance,” JPT (Oct. 1985) 1870.
n = flow behaviour index, dimensionless 12. Centilmen, A., Ertekin, T. and Grader, A.S.: “Applications of
NY = number of years Neural Networks in Multiwell Field Development,” paper SPE
q = gas rate, m3/s 56433 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference
qi = pumping rate, m3/s and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, Oct. 3 – 6.
ri = pseudo-random deviate 13. Guyaguler, B., Horne, R.N., Rogers, L. and Rosenzweig, J.J.:
rw = wellbore radius, m “Optimization of Well Placement in a Gulf of Mexico
Rn = revenue for year n, $ Waterflooding Project,” paper SPE 63221 presented at the 2000
Rso = solution gas-oil ratio, m3/m3 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
sf = skin due to hydraulic fracture, dimensionless Oct. 1 – 4.
Swi = initial water saturation
Swc = connate water saturation
So = oil saturation
Sp = spurt loss coefficient, m
ti = pumping time, s
v = Poisson’s ratio, dimensionless
wf = fracture width, m
Wpr = proppant weight, kg
xf = fracture half length, m
τ = opening time, s
µg = gas viscosity, Pa-s
µo = oil viscosity, Pa-s

References
1. Rahman, M.M., Rahman, M. K., Rahman, S.S.: “An Integrated
Model for Multi-Objective Design Optimization of Hydraulic
Fracturing,” J.of Pet Sci and Eng., (2001), 31, 41.
2. Rodriguez, F. and Cinco-Ley, H.: “A New Model for Production
Decline,” paper SPE 25480 presented at the 1993 SPE
Productions Operation Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
March 21 – 23.
3. Camacho-V., R., Rodriguez, F., Galindo-N., A. and Prats, M.:
“Optimum Position for Wells Producing at Constant Wellbore
Pressure,” paper SPE 28715 presented at the 1994 SPE
International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, Veracruz,
Mexico, Oct. 10 – 13.
4. Umnuayponwiwat, S. and Ozkan, E.: “Evaluation of
Inflow Performance of Multiple Horizontal Wells in
Closed Systems,” J. of Energy Resources Tech. (March
2000) 122, 8.
5. Valko, P.P., Doublet, L.E. and Blassingame, T.A.: “Development
and Application of the Multiwell Productivity Index (MPI),” SPE
Journal (March 2000), 5(1), 21.
6. Queipo, N.V., Verde, A., Canelon, J. and Pintos, S.: “ Efficient
Global Optimization for Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment
Design,” paper SPE 74356 presented at the 2002 SPE
SPE 84860 7

Table 1 – Well and reservoir properties. Table 2 – Proppant data and material costs

Wellbore radius, m 0.0762 Material Costs


Young’s modulus, Pa 3.50E+10 Proppant cost, per lb $1.0
Poisson’s ratio 0.2 Fracturing fluid cost variable
Leak off coefficient, m/s
0.5
9.84E-06 Pumping cost for10444kW, per 0.746kW $20.0
Lab-measured fracture conductivity, m -m
2
2.04
-12 Fixed cost, $ 10,000.0
3
Gas price, per .0283 m $1.0
Porosity 0.30
Minimum pressure among the rated pressures of Discount rate 0.1
9.65E+07
surface equipment, Pa Proppant Data
Minimum in-situ stress in the pay zone, Pa 4.14E+07 Proppant type 20/40 Westprop
Packed proppant porosity 0.35 Specific Gravity 3.1
Initial reservoir pressure, Pa 2.31E+07 Diameter, m -4
6.2992
Pwf, well 1,2,Pa 6.89E+06 Packed Porosity 0.35
Depth of the pay zone, m 2286 Conductivity @ closure stress (@ 2 lb/ft^2) -12
2.04 m -m
2

Temperature, °K 367 Conductivity Damage Factor 0.6


Proppant specific gravity 3.1
Connate water saturation 0.16
Burst strength of tubing, Pa 8.96E+07
Conductivity damage factor 0.3
Available horsepower, kW 10444
Pump efficiency factor 0.85
Formation Critical Pressure, Pa 6.72E+07
Proppant Diameter, m 2.07E-03
3
Specific gravity of proppant, kg/m 3100
Minimum in-situ stress in the confining zone (shale),
5.31E+07
Pa
Maximum in-situ stress in the pay zone, Pa 5.52E+07
Reservoir dimensions 2161mx2161m

Table 3 – Results for different objective functions.

Max Production Max NPV Max NPV, Min Cost


Variables
Well 1 Well 2 Well 1 Well 2 Well 1 Well 2

Fracture half length, m 444 454 457 233 457 93


3
Pumping rate, m /s 0.1079 0.1171 0.1165 0.1100 0.0265 0.0375
EOJ proppant
3 1489.44 1488.24 1797.40 1425.94 1406.76 599.13
concentration, kg/m
Frac fluid viscosity, Pa-s 0.5507 0.1314 0.7737 0.1361 0.3969 0.1441

Pumping time, s 1127 2221 600 711 600 600


8 SPE 84860

Table 4 – Results for optimized well locations

Max Production Max NPV Max NPV, Min Cost


Variables
Well 1 Well 2 Well 1 Well 2 Well 1 Well 2

Fracture half length, m 432 395 425 397.18 106.83 168.36


3
Pumping rate, m /s 0.0397 0.048 0.0427 0.0476 0.0928 0.0647
EOJ proppant
3 1572 1525.4 1646.41 1478.66 830.39 1268.96
concentration, kg/m
Frac fluid viscosity, Pa-s 0.2055 0.1783 0.1673 0.1784 0.1171 0.0921

Pumping time, s 1950 5183 1901 5279 600 621

x-coordinate 1643.44 745.37 1613 728 494.36 1251.94

y-coordinate 1266.24 1266.92 1281 1281 835.5 788.99

Table 5 – Optimum treatment parameters for single well frac jobs

Parameter Well 1 Only Well 2 Only

Fracture half length, m 310 308


3
Injection rate, m /s 0.1046 0.1034
EOJ Proppant
3 1275 1261
Concentration, kg/m
Frac fluid viscosity, Pa-s 0.1914 0.1933

Pumping time, s 1677 1686

19.4 1.02E+10 500 3.0

2.5
19.1 1.00E+10 400

Oil Formation Volume Factor, m3/m3


Cumulative production, Bscf
Net present value, m$

Solution GOR, m3/m3

2.0
18.8 9.80E+09 300

1.5

18.5 9.60E+09 200


1.0
Objective Function: NPV
Solution GOR
18.2 9.40E+09 100
Objective Function: 0.5
Cumulative Production Oil Formation
Volume Factor
17.9 9.20E+09 0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 5 10 15 20 25
Number of redesign iterations Pressure, MPa

Fig. 1 – Convergence to optimum design Fig. 2 – Solution gas-oil ratio and oil formation volume factor for
rich gas.
SPE 84860 9

1
5.0E-02 1.0E-03

krg krog
Gas Formation
krw krow
3

0.8
Gas Formation Volume Factor, m /m

4.0E-02 Volume Factor 8.0E-04


3

3
Condensate Gas Ratio, m /m
Condensate Gas

Relative permeability
3
Ratio
0.6
3.0E-02 6.0E-04

2.0E-02 4.0E-04 0.4

1.0E-02 2.0E-04 0.2

0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Pressure, MPa Saturation Sw, Sg

Fig. 3 – Gas formation volume factor and condensate gas ratio for Fig. 5 – Relative permeability curves.
rich gas.

4.0E-04 4.5E-05 6.E+07


NPV 8600
Oil Viscosity
5.E+07 Treatment
3.2E-04 3.6E-05 Cost 7900
NPV, $; Treatment Cost, x10$

Gas Viscosity Cumulative

Cumulative Production, m3
Production
4.E+07 7200
Gas Viscosity, Pa-s
Oil Viscosity, Pa-s

2.4E-04 2.7E-05
6500
3.E+07

5800
1.6E-04 1.8E-05
2.E+07
5100

8.0E-05 9.0E-06 1.E+07


4400

0.E+00 3700
0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0 5 10 15 20 25 Different Objective Functions
Pressure, MPa

Fig. 4 – Oil and gas phase viscosities. 1 – Max Production (base case) 6 – Optimum Location,
2 – Max NPV Max NPV, Min Cost
3 – Max NPV, Min Cost 7 – Target Production
4 – Optimum Location, Production 8 – Well 1 Only
5 – Optimum Location, NPV 9 – Well 2 Only

Fig. 6 – Results of example application.