0 Up votes0 Down votes

7 views9 pagesAn Integrated Model for the Design and Evaluation of Multiwell Hydraulic Fracture

Oct 13, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

An Integrated Model for the Design and Evaluation of Multiwell Hydraulic Fracture

© All Rights Reserved

7 views

An Integrated Model for the Design and Evaluation of Multiwell Hydraulic Fracture

© All Rights Reserved

- Brazil 2014ugm Integration of Aqwa With Friendship in Psv Vessel Design
- HF Treatment Through DST
- spe1025901
- Study on the Distribution Charecteristics of Remaining Oil in Fluvial-Deltaic Reservoirs
- JSEA20111000007_16167737.pdf
- 00084308
- Interpretation of Multirate Test by Tue Pressure Derivative Oil Reservoirs
- 00086587
- Kobayashi Dynamic Optimization Model Description
- Adaptive Blind Equalization Based on the Minimum Entropy Principle
- Bi-level Linear Programming Problem with Neutrosophic Numbers
- SPE-153252-MS
- 5. IJECE - Reliability Optimization Using Hardware Redundancy a Parallel BBBC Based Approach
- [4]_2009-Achieving Light-Weight Design of Automotive Bodies With Advanced High Strength Steels Vi
- Frac Sand
- GA Based Control Using State Space
- Difficulties in High Frequency Transformer Modelling
- EF 2604 Aut16 v1 en Solutions (1)
- ILMI and Probabilistic Robust Control
- The Continuous Measurement and Recording of Drilling Fluid Density & Viscosity.pdf

You are on page 1of 9

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Variables

Well 1 Well 2 Well 1 Well 2 Well 1 Well 2

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

8 SPE 84860

Variables

Well 1 Well 2 Well 1 Well 2 Well 1 Well 2

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

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

2.5

19.1 1.00E+10 400

Cumulative production, Bscf

Net present value, m$

2.0

18.8 9.80E+09 300

1.5

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

3

3

Condensate Gas Ratio, m /m

Condensate Gas

Relative permeability

3

Ratio

0.6

3.0E-02 6.0E-04

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.

NPV 8600

Oil Viscosity

5.E+07 Treatment

3.2E-04 3.6E-05 Cost 7900

NPV, $; Treatment Cost, x10$

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

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

- Brazil 2014ugm Integration of Aqwa With Friendship in Psv Vessel DesignUploaded byphisitlai
- HF Treatment Through DSTUploaded bymoorpvr
- spe1025901Uploaded byAries Moechtar
- Study on the Distribution Charecteristics of Remaining Oil in Fluvial-Deltaic ReservoirsUploaded bymohamadi42
- JSEA20111000007_16167737.pdfUploaded byBoumaaza Farid
- 00084308Uploaded byloralara
- Interpretation of Multirate Test by Tue Pressure Derivative Oil ReservoirsUploaded byLuis Ruiz
- 00086587Uploaded byWaleed Barakat Maria
- Kobayashi Dynamic Optimization Model DescriptionUploaded byPercy Manuel Huancoillo Ticona
- Adaptive Blind Equalization Based on the Minimum Entropy PrincipleUploaded byShafayat Abrar
- Bi-level Linear Programming Problem with Neutrosophic NumbersUploaded byMia Amalia
- SPE-153252-MSUploaded byManuel Coronado
- 5. IJECE - Reliability Optimization Using Hardware Redundancy a Parallel BBBC Based ApproachUploaded byiaset123
- [4]_2009-Achieving Light-Weight Design of Automotive Bodies With Advanced High Strength Steels ViUploaded byAng Choo Siang
- Frac SandUploaded bycrazy boy
- GA Based Control Using State SpaceUploaded byAhmed Khalifa
- Difficulties in High Frequency Transformer ModellingUploaded byEleazar Sierra Espinoza
- EF 2604 Aut16 v1 en Solutions (1)Uploaded byKatherine Trs
- ILMI and Probabilistic Robust ControlUploaded bySunil Kumar
- The Continuous Measurement and Recording of Drilling Fluid Density & Viscosity.pdfUploaded byMax Makhanko
- EE-63Uploaded byAbdoua Abdou Abdou
- ABC Inventory NgUploaded byAde Fita Dwi Oktafiani
- ViscousUploaded byAtulkumar Manchalwar
- SOLVED PROBLEMS_IE003.pdfUploaded byJill D
- Sb St Flexsandhs 00Uploaded byAquiles Carrera
- 4944a493Uploaded byJames Smith
- General Design Considerations-Chemical EnggUploaded byGamechanger Sreenivasan
- Ypf Advanced Control of Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit VisualmesaUploaded byVane Sat
- Optimal Selection of Addendum ModificationUploaded byMujammil Choudhari
- Spe 133452Uploaded bytomk2220

- 2.5 Insulation & RefractoriesUploaded byImhoudu Ben
- ESIA Experiences and Lessons in ChinaUploaded bymohamadi42
- A Project to Identify and Recommend on Use of Best Practices, Involving Employer’sUploaded bymohamadi42
- Can We Ignore Asphaltene in a Gas Injection Project for Light-OilsUploaded bymohamadi42
- Application of Artificial Intelligence to Characterize Naturally Fractured ReservoirsUploaded bymohamadi42
- An Innovative Approach to Integrate Fracture, Well Test and Production Data IntoUploaded bymohamadi42
- A New Method to Characterize the Size and Shape Dynamics of AsphalteneUploaded bymohamadi42
- Extended Brigham Model for Residual Oil Saturation Measurement by PartitioningUploaded bymohamadi42
- In-Situ Diagnosis of Inflow Behavior in Horizontal WellsUploaded bymohamadi42
- A Procedure for Upscaling Two-Phase Flow in 2D Heterogeneous Porous MediaUploaded bymohamadi42
- Determination of Metals in Stack EmissionsUploaded bymohamadi42
- Evaluation of CO2 Based Vapex Process for the Recovery of BitumenUploaded bymohamadi42
- An Innovative System for Complete Cleanup of a Drill-In Fluid Filter CakeUploaded bymohamadi42
- An Innovative System for Complete Cleanup of a Drill-In Fluid Filter CakeUploaded bymohamadi42
- Laboratory Investigation and Field Use of a Novel Sand Cleanout Fluid System ForUploaded bymohamadi42
- Using Geological Knowledge Gained Through Special Seismic StudiesUploaded bymohamadi42
- Estimation of Surface Tension for Two Immiscible Fluids Using Lattice-Gas AutomataUploaded bymohamadi42
- Radical Approach to Water Injection Scheme for BartonUploaded bymohamadi42
- ESIA – More Than a Tick in the BoxUploaded bymohamadi42
- One Step Beyond Managing Areas of High Biodiversity ValueUploaded bymohamadi42
- One Step Beyond Managing Areas of High Biodiversity ValueUploaded bymohamadi42
- Management of Oil & Gas Exploration and Production in Sensitive SocialUploaded bymohamadi42
- Characterizing Partially Fractured Reservoirs by Tracer InjectionUploaded bymohamadi42
- Characterizing Partially Fractured Reservoirs by Tracer Injection.pdfUploaded bymohamadi42
- Simulation of Non-Darcy Flow in Porous Media Including Viscous, Inertial AndUploaded bymohamadi42
- Further Evaluation of Microbial Treatment Technology for Improved Oil Production InUploaded bymohamadi42
- Further Evaluation of Microbial Treatment Technology for Improved Oil Production in.pdfUploaded bymohamadi42
- Hybrid Testing Technique Results in Successful Well Test and Completion of LowUploaded bymohamadi42

- Sem.org 2006 SEM Ann Conf s63p03 Experimental Investigations Spontaneous Bimaterial InterfacialUploaded byYaman Singh
- Len Rogers; Acoustic EmissionUploaded byDennis Chai
- Homework problems 21-28.pdfUploaded byebrahem_sahil5188
- Chapter 12 Structural Reliability Improvement Using in-Service Inspection for Intergranular Stress CorrosionUploaded byJorge Perdigon
- Weight Functions and Stress Intensity Factors for Axial Cracks in Hollow Cylinders, C.-c.M, J.-i .Huang and C.-h.TsaiUploaded by882636013
- FEA Crack ModellingUploaded bywaleedishaque
- 11 Fracture MechanicsUploaded byBanambar Singh
- Fracture Mechanics Project on Plastic Deformation Using AnsysUploaded byVipul Agrawal
- Silling PresentationUploaded byleo
- Beach Marks Fatigue Zones- ChandaUploaded byChandaKunda
- The fatigue crack propagation resistance of Ti–6Al–4V under aqueous saline environments.pdfUploaded bykaliappan45490
- MAE 351 Tension Test 2014Uploaded bylaura villarroel
- Freund-Dynamic Fracture MechanicsUploaded byRavi Sankar H
- Fatigue of WeldingUploaded by1420637
- FInal Tunnel-2 Report.docUploaded byP Allen Samuel Ignatius
- Sec2_4_0.pdfUploaded bypolista
- ojnghd346hUploaded bySushank Dani
- Aircraft Structural RiskUploaded byKuldeep Bhattacharjee
- Article IIW 212Uploaded byMajid Farajian
- STP 514- (1972) Fracture Toughness part 2.pdfUploaded byjacquess
- Bio Mechanics - Part IUploaded byironmonkey00
- Hakeem Babatunde PhD Research ProposalUploaded byNwachukwu Obi
- Trends in Aluminium Alloy Development & Their Joining Methods - 2016Uploaded byMaurizio Bernasconi
- A History of Fatigue _ Walter SchuetzUploaded bystem86
- fatigue analysis of leaf springUploaded byylionkingx
- Contour Integral Evaluation of Centre Cracked Rectangular Panel Under Remote Tensile Stress and Thermal Stress Parametric StudyUploaded byesatjournals
- Fatigue of Composite1Uploaded byFady Moussa
- API 579 – Fitness for Service SummaryUploaded byJustin Onisoru
- 0-Mechanical Behaviour of Materials (Volume 2-Viscoplasticity, Damage, Fracture and Contact Mechanics) [Dominique François,André Pineau & André Zaou].pdfUploaded byAndres Perez Cruz
- STP 590 - (1976) Mechanics of Crack Growth.pdfUploaded byjacquess

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.