This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
SPE 30493 The Effect of Long-term Shut-in Periods on Fracture Conductivity
Soebty of PotrolsunlGl@leers
D. M. Bilden, SPE, BJ Services Company, P. A. Fletcher, SPE, and C. T. Montgomery, SPE, Arco Exploration and Production Technology, Piano, USA, R. J. Guillory, SPE, ARCO Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia and T. P. Allen, SPE, ARCO International Oil and Gas Co., Piano, U.S.A.
@Y& 1995, SOcidy OfPeLrOkm EJ@!8m, fnc. TechnicalCmfmidExhibition be held 22-25 to
rig is moved quickly to the next drilling location. Hydraulic fracturing can significantly increase the completion time of a well. It is common to flow the treatment fluid back afler each stage to recover the fluid. Concerns over potential fkacture conductivity damage, due to treatment shut-in for an extended period of time, have dictated this practice. Multiple frac stages per well, compound the completion time problem fhrther. Little work has been done regarding the effect of gel residue on fracture conductivity for extended shut-in _ periods before flowback. Conductivity studies have been performed to evaluate long-term effects on proppant packs, but only after treatment flowback. ‘ Hawkins2 looked at the effkct of fracturing fluids fi~nfi~~t.~i~~ ttin ~ filnQI me nn c~~~I~c~~v~~ AI ~fi~ ~inirnai =Uwu WQ II.* “.”””. “ -.. -
lhis w wn pqued forthe 1995 SPE AN@ CHoba 19P5b’tCalfu, Turn.
Ofinhnmon lhisp,paww+sekcM forpsenhdmbyan SPEPrognm Comittee GMOwing cOntainedrn u18bstWtsuiWnitkd bythe1uthm(s). Ccmtmbofthepaper, a$presmted, hm’enotbml miewedbythe S`xktyOf~EngiWrs 8nduesubju3edt0 mrmtion by theUltf@s). Ihe _=mtihti~aWmy_ofhWof~Etik ObOHIK@US. Memmentidti SPE_umbxm+titim W toan Editaid Cammt&s Ofdle society Of Petmkum Snginem. PammOn toqyisresbicted Sb8tnctofnotmme thmnowmls. ahMtmdmlsnlaynOtbe GOpi.?s. lk1t81Ja13sh0uk2 retain ~~~tOf*~W*~ O. ~X S33S36, Rkfurdsm, TX 750G3636, PP=W=PR=II~ U.SA., fax 01-214-952-9435. WriW bSPE.P.
Polymer residue is known to be a major cause of propped tlacture conductivity damage. Many factors that can contribute to the si~]cance of this damage are polymer type, initial and final polymer concentrations, breaker types and concentrations, formation mineralogy, bottom hole static temperature, shut-in time and fluid cleanup rates. Most fracturing treatments are designed with good fluid stability for a specific period of time that corresponds to the job pump time. It is then desired to break the fluid as quickly and completely as possible to facilitate rapid cleanup of the well and minimize conductivity darnage. A common belief has been that if the treatment is shut-in in the reservoir too long, fracture conductivity darnage may increase. This belief has led to operational completion practices that are costly and unnecessary. A laboratory study was conducted to study the effects of long-term shut-in periods of up to seven days. The resuits irdcated that additional conductivity damage would not occur lLnderLhcCOnd!tiQnsested. These observations resulted in t changes in completion procedures that improved rig time efficiency for the completion of remotely located offshore wells.
in times. The results of this work showed a 10 to 20 percent reduction in conductivity. However, much of the fluid tests were done without breaker, and flowback began irnmcchatelyin most cases or with only a short period of shut-in time(100 hrs) in some cases. It is desirable to move the drilling rig to the next slot as quickly as possible afler drilling is complete on each well. Due to the significant amount of time that was being consumed during flowback of the frac treatments between frac stages, it was decided to investigate the effect of long-term shut-in times on the fracture conductivity to determine if this flowback . . . . ..mt.na *#. maceQQn~ ..W-V , fif the fi~c fluid &Qrnaii Rwfiv~w .-. -. --- .. . ~1a-,lu~ ...es roll., frac stages at the same time atler the last fiat and after the drilling rig moved, would greatly improve the rig utilization efllciency.
W ~ii ,
The desire for improved operational efficiencies led to the laboratory study described here.
Drilling and Completion Program ARCO Indonesia operates several fields in the Offshore North
Offshore and geographically remote well operations otlen require the use of the drilling rig for completion operations. The time consumed on the completion phase of the well can therefore be very expensive. Significant cost savings can be realized if the
West Java Sea (ONWJ) area. A large re-completion and infdl drilling program was proposed for the B and E Field Areas in
. Leakoff was allowed to take place as the top core moved down to the proppant bed and the closure stress was applied.--. These reservoirs are clay cemented. due to the high proppant concentrations incorporated into the fracturing treatment designs.—>—--——-—.<- 2 THE EFFECT OF LONG-TERM SHUT-IN PER1ODS ON FRACTURE CONDUCTIVITY SPE 30493 early 1994. The fracturing fluid being used is an organoborate crosslinked guar with a polymer specific enzyme breaker. These tests incorporated final average gel concentrations of 200 and 450 pounda per 1000 gallons of fluid. procedures for determining short-term fracture conductivity. per square foot. Limitations of the existing test cells dictated a maximum proppant concentration of 3 pounda per square f~t in these tests. heated 2’% KC1water(180°F) was flowed through the pack by using a constant rate pump while maintaining the 500 psi pore pressure in the proppant pack.—LU I 4 wnwrruaucms treatments to date. however.1* the literature. The ultimate goal was to achieve completions with negative skin factors and sand free production. nn A /—_. ARCO could eliminate a substantial cost associated with flowing back the well with the rig on location.200 to 3. The proppant was then added and leveled. The temperature was increased to 150”F prior to starting leakoff and then increased to 180°F while leakoff occumed.000 per day for rig time. . the use of a resin-coated 16/20 mesh intermediate strength ceramic is being investigated. The use of this type of cell is the generally accepted method of testing in the industry. -— . also leading to higher than normal gel concentrations in the fracture. the total rig time for each well completion would be substantially reduced.500 feet TVD (true vertical depth) with permeability that ranges from 10 to 100 md. By allowing the well to remain shut-in after the frac job.L–.3 This technology was applied in the completion of these new wells in the field. Because tip screenout designs were needed to maximize conductivity. This is not the concentration of the polymer in the filter cake but the total average in the closed fracture porosity. The standard average final gel concentration for conductivity tests typically is approximately 180 pounds per 1000 gallons. The leak-off during the fhcture stimulations was estimated to be higher than normal due to the under-pressured reservoir. this flowback period represented a substantial cost to the operation. Typically a rig working in ONWJ would remain on a well anywhere from 24 to 36 hours tier the completion of a fracture stimulation job to allow for adequate clean-up of the ilacturing fluid. 1) which haa been described previously in Main/Massive Formations.-8L:. To simpli~ the complex completions associated with gravel packing multiple zones. The reservoir pressure has been reduced from the original 1500 psi to approximately 500 to 800 psi. A literature search indicated vmy little work had been done in this area. ARCO recently completed a study on using fracturing as a technique for controlling formation failure. waiting on flowback after the completion of a fracture stimulation. If operations could proceed to the next zone immediately ailer each stimulation.-–—– –1–L . After the shut-in period.*~ rrfi ~wnas pruppam aaaea) on au _n.–— -. it was necessary to deviate slightly flom standard practices for conductivity testing.--. -. --L:---. Sand production was a potential problem in these multiple-pay zone wells. All treatments were also designed to achieve a tip screenout. a period of from 7 to 14 days would lapse before the fu-stzone fiat treatment could be flowed back. high final gel loadings needed to be tested to adequately simulate the actual field conditions. The test fluid was then placed on top of the aand ‘ pack and the machined top core was placed in the cell. it was determined that a conductivity test in excess of 2 pounds per square fbot would be necessary. without causing permeability damage to the proppant pack.. A pore pressure of 500 psi was then applied prior to shutting in the cell for the prescribed period of time. the key to success is to obtain a highly conductive fracture.UI up . Testing Procedures The tests were conducted using API I/P 61 recommended When applying fracturing treatments for aand control as well as reservoir stimulation in high permeability formations..3 I ne oouom core slau (urno mnaslone) was macmneu arm placed in the conductivity cell. At a cost of over $50._-.-—.. “-—J–.-– —. Conductivity Testing Equipment The conductivity testing incorporated the use of a modtied API conductivity cell (Fig. A 12/20 mesh northern white sand has been pumped at ..:--._. well-sorted quartz aand reservoirs about 2. The fhctures that were designed for the ONWJ project wells were short (approximately 100 foot half length).. However. Flowback would be conducted after the rig moved on and started drilling the next well. This concentration is achieved by starting with an 8 lbs.—. ->>-2. Fracture Treatment Design and Impact on Testing The primary productive intervals in the ONWJ Field are the In the process of designing and implementing the appropriate test procedures to best simulate actual conditions. however. One of the issues that was brought to the front of this effort was how long a well could remain shut-in. highly conductive fractures that would have final proppant concentrations in excess of 3 lbs.’s The cell has a flow path area through the proppant pack of 10 square inches and allows for leakoff through Ohio Sandstone core slabs and subsequent filter cake development. of proppant added sluny concentration and enough proppant to obtain 2 pounds per square foot of fracture area in the cell. A proppant concentration of 2 pounds per square foot is typically the standard for these tests. anew technique for controlling formation failure was required.
No futher conductivity testing was perfomwd with mutual solvent.. . Test #2 contained the base frac fluid plus 2 gpt enzyme breaker and resulted in 734 Darcies or WYO regain.-At. . ..b This baseline permeability is slightly higher than that measured in the long-term tests.tl luL1&tdln tests. both at a concentration of 3 lbs. It was also concluded that the relatively low flacture conductivity measurement may also have been caused by the instability of the resin coating.. mutual 433 . in a water bath at 180°F.Wulpom. .. . 50 gpt mutual SOhiii. . . Four additives.-1 .. The additives consisted of 50 gpt mutual solvent. ammonium persulfate was added (2 ppt) and the enzyme breaker was removed.-. This resulted in a regain permeability of 595 Darcies or 7 l% regain permeability. . . MONTGOMERY. 2 gpt fluid recovery additive.”. ---. varied from 13 to 20 hours in the short-term tests and . resin coated 16/20 mesh intermediate strength ceramic. KC1water (2V0 by wt. The tlac fluid in these tests consisted of the base formulation presented above with 2 gpt enzyme breaker.. FLETCHEIL C. ~~~. .ma . 4 gpt clay stabihzer and 2 gpt &-emulsifier. . The shut-in time. however. M. The addition of the mutual solvent and fluid recovery additive appeared to lower the regain permeability s!i~htly when compared to the w of the clay stabilizer and anionic de-emulsifier combination. fluid recovery surfactant. Two proppants were investigated. . Test #4 was identical to Test #3 except for the breaker. Very good proppant pack consolidation was observed in Tests #1 and #2. clay stabilizer. .~1. P. . In this test. a Teat Results Table 1 presents the short-term shut-in conductivity test results that were used for comparison to the long-term tests. Test #5 then eliminated the nonionic surfactant and a permeability of 735 Damies or 87% regain was observed. . The pore pressure in the proppant pack during the shut-in and flowback periods was maintained at 500 psi. These tests included a baseline measurement and two tests with the fracturing fluid. The baseline permeability measured was 844 Darcies. When diassembling the test cell in Teat #3. .=-+. was Lo L-. These were a 12/20 mesh northern white sand and a partially cured. R. The . .4.1 m. Test #1.. The enzyme and persulfate breakers appeared to perform equally in these tests.md----.000 psi applied to the fracture pack. The standard components of the fracturing fluid which were held constant for all teats are as follows: 40 ppt” guar gelling agent 2 ppt crosslinker 3 gpt””pH buffer #1 10 ppt pH buffer #2 . . ./ (lays ( 1Uo llUUI a) 111 UIG 1’.. Test #5 was the same as #3 only without the mutual solvent and the fluid recovery additive. P.L:. Test ti contained a nonionic &-emulsifkr in place of the solvent while all other components remained the same as in Test #3. measured difkential pressures are ememely low. .-\ A *t.mc a. BILDEN.mc=mam=mentc. there was no evidence of resin consolidation of the proppant pack. The baseline for the 16/20 mesh resin coated ceramic was 845 Darcies as presented in Table 3.. Baseline conductivity measurements for both proppsnts were generated. Test #3 was the same as test #2 plus additional additives in the fiat fluid. .----. and 2 gpt demulsifier were then added for Test #3.. .. per square fwt of fracture area.----conclusion from these tests was that the resin coating was being stripped ilom the proppant grains due to the preaenee of the mutual solvent. An increase of flow A:6W=-+.=w -o ~mt~-a*~ . . J OUILLORY. . . . The proppant was a 12/20 mesh nofiern white aand.wu mf~ 1 -r. The two&ac fluid testa resulted in Perrneabilities of 718 and 787 Darcies which translates to 85% and 93% regained permeability respectively.”-. de-emulsfler and frac fluid breakers. The result was 674 Darcies or 86°Aregain. T. validation of the permeability measured at the low rate. All tests were conducted at 180”F with a closure stress of 1.. T. Simple bottle tests were then conducted.”” *>---. w uuu em. v al laJIG rplhml cdvent .. This resulted in 701 Darcies or 89?! regain. . 4 gpt clay stabilizer. because of the high proppant concentration (3 pounds per square foot). before flowback was initiated.w .. at this point to evaluate the compatibility between the *SC fluid formulations ad the partia!ly Cured resin.a.using KC1 water for the ptupose of calculating percent regain permeability values. . . but is due to a change in the proppant sample source tier performing these short-term tests.-a rlllG IUbvcu ml U&l p-S. . This resulted in a permeability of 809 Darcies or 96’%regain. .3 ppt bactericide * ppt = pounds per thousand gallons of fluid. . Two milliliters per minute is the standard flow rate while measuring permeability in this type of test. The permeability in this test was 765 Darcies or 97% regain. This resulted in 697 Darcies or 880/0regain. . 2 gpt fluid recovery additive.?m3 SPE 30493 D.U. Measured conductivity values from this battery of tests are presented in Table 5. The baseline (Test #1) was 790 Darcies.. Table 2 presents the conductivity of the 12/20 northern white ad under the above stated conditions with varying fluid compositions.) was used as the base fluid.Vw.ga. ** gpt = gallons per thousand gallons of fluid. Test #2 incorporated the base fiat fluid plus 2 gpt enzyme breaker. Test Parameters This data agrees well with previously published conductivity data. ALLEN Permeability measurements were made while flowing KC1 water at rates of km 2 to 14 milliliters per minute. .
. It was concluded that the higher polymer concentration would not have an adverse effect on fracture conductivity with this fiat fluid and enzyme breaker combination. Tlis observation has led to tier investigations into resin/frac fluid additive compatibility.3 to -4. but there is no flowback of zones until the final completion is placed.T. G. All other steps of the ARCO E&P Technology and ARCO Indonesia Inc. G. and Rich. 3 Fletcher. American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 61 (T@61). 1992. P.T. Pressure buildup testa from four of these completions have been analyzed and are presented in Table 4. G. Montgomery.S. G.7 indicating stimulation in all cases.500. It should also be noted that all fracture stimulated zones have had sand-free production.100 md-fl value. Operational Impact The results ihm this work allowed an improvement in the drilling rig schedule such that a substantial amount of rig time per well was reduced. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the management of BJ Services. for permission to publish this paper..W. Dallas. M. Field Results Ten fracture treatments on seven completions have been normal completion prccedure remained the same. and McDaniel. C.L. 27-30.G. 1. Test #7 contained the extremely high polymer concentration and resulted in 736 Darcies or 87V0 regain. 21.000 gallons.. presented in Table 4. 4 “Recommended practices for Evaluating Short-term Proppant Pack Conductivity”.G. The test fracture conductivity measurements range from 19. M. Proppant Consortium. With the exception of the 4.: “Using Fracturing as a Teohnique for Controlling Formation Failure~paper SPE 27899 presentation at the Western Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Long Beach. 1991 STIM-LAB.10016.J. An average of 3 days per well was saved (1-Z days per zone. Tests #4 through #7 displayed varying degrees of consolidation that were all less than that obaervd-in Test #2. March 23-25. was seen in Test #2. 7 Fletcher. Ca. Designed total average proppant concentrations of greater than 3 pounds per square fbot are being achieved in the field and are providing successful results.E.: “An Evaluation of the Effkcts of Environmental Conditions and Fracturing Fluids Upon the Long-Term Conductivity of Proppants~ paper SPE 16900 presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Inc. Ramos. ChemicaI compatibility issues must be considered when designing fracturing treatments with curable resin coated proppants.A.A. performed to date that have incorporated long-term shut-in perioda prior to flowback of the tlacturing fluid. Montgomery.: “Optimtiing Hydraulic Fracture Length to Prevent Formation Failure in 011and Gas Reservoirs”. R. March 18-20..995 md-il. 2 zones per well) with a resultant cost saving of nearly $200. C. 2 Hawkins. and no evidence of increased polymer damage in the fractures. The analysis of the four completions in the field.000 per well. 6 “Investigation of the Effects of Fracturing Fluids Upon the Conductivity of Proppants:’ Final Report. Other controlling parameters contributing to sand-kc production are fracture length and controlled drawdown pressures.. It should be noted that the strongest resin set or proppant pack consolidation. Tx. October 2-5.J. resulted in fracture conductivity values of 4. 1995 Rock 434 . February. This was done to measure the efkct of extremely high leakoff which was expected to be encountered in these treatments. the zones are stimulated separately and excess sIurty and proppant is washed out between fiat stages.209 to 21. indicating effective stimulation. Ramos. Penney.4 THE EFFECT OF LONG-TERM SHUT-IN PERIODS ON FRACTURE CONDUCTIVITY SPE 30493 Tests #6 and #7 were identical in fluid formulation. TX. and Francis. First E&tion. the values compare very favorable to those measured in the laboratory.R. Special thanks go to Garth Gregory and Mike Francis for their efforts in the field and to Harold Hudson and AlIan Rickards for generating the lab data.1989. G. Pressure Transient Analysis testing on fracture stimulated wells provided wellbore skin damage values fkom -2. Guillory.000 gallons and resulted in a permeability of 753 Darcies or 89% regain. Conclusions Long-tetm (7 day) shut-in periods did not have a detrimental effect on fracture conductivity in laborato~ testing. J.. All results are very positive in that the calculated skin factors were all negative.: “Laboratory Study of Proppant-Pack Permeability Reduction Caused by Fracturing Fluids Concentrated During Closure: paper SPE 18261 presentation at the 63rd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Houston. 5 Gidley. Sept.700 md-fl These values were determined through pressure matching analysis techniques.A. P.950 and 34.1988.’” Table 5 presents the measured fracture parameters for the tests conducted on 12/20 mesh white aand. but differed in that the final average polymer concentration in the fracture was increased from 200 to approximately 450 pounds per 1.. “Effect of Proppant Failure and Finea Migration on Conductivity of Propped Fractures~paper SPE 24008 presentation at the 1992 SPE Perrnean Basin Gil and Gas Recovery Conference held in Midland.1994. The polymer concentration in Test #6 was 200 pounda per 1.. (let. Sand-the production is partially due to high effective fracture conductivity. This cm-relation further substantiates the relativity between the laboratory tests performed and the actual field treatments. R. For multiple zone completions. D.1992. Significant well completion cost savings can be achieved by leaving frac treatments shut-in between stages. References 1 Penny. S. Miller.
1995. .A~[l~~R. u.. M.LONG-TERM CONDUCTIVITY MUTUAL S(xv!m T .i — — 4 2 — ~~ < al TABLE 3... GUILLORY. T. CERAMIC TEST X!&lkwmm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7* 2% KCI Water Base Frac Fluid Base Frac Fluid Base Frac Fluid Base Frae Fluid Base Frae Fluid Base Frae Fluid lw&Q!l_@nl — 2 GPT Enzyme 2 GPT Enzyme 2 GPT Enzyme 2GPTEnzyrne 2 GPT Enzyme 2 GPT Enzyme ANIONIC DEEMULSIFIER @!?m NON-IONIC DEEMULSIFIER ffml — — — 5 — — — mz!lm!zl — — 50 — — — — — — 2 2 2 — — — — 4 4 4 4 4 PERMEABILITY (DARCIES) 845 734 595 809 735 753 736 REGAIN m 100 87 . .SPE 30493 D. FLUID RF~f)Vi711 V . J.. -. TESTS WITH 16/20 MESH RESIN-COATED CLAY sT. A FLETCHEK C.i. “-n mr. BILDEN.p-p — — — — (QpT) — (GPT) — — — m — — — m — — — (DAR ClES) 844 718 787 m 100 85 93 2°76KCI Waler Base Frac Fluid 2 GPT Enzyme Base Frsc Fluid 2 GPT Enzyme ~~ELE z . Nevada. MONTGOMERY. ALLEN 5 MechanicsSymposium. Lake Tahoe. . r-’- rnl. June 7-9.PT Fro-e CLAY Stabilizer @m_ — — — 4 mm — — — 50 — — — 2 AN1ON1CDEEMULSIFIER ----(tit’1 ) — — — ~ PERMEABILITY /B A D~117C# 790 697 701 674 REGAIN 100 88 89 86 Base Frac Fluid Base Frac Fluid Base Frac Fluid < R.71 96 87 89 87 — — 2 2 2 2 2 435 . TABLE 1.. T. .. P. R..SHORT-TERM CONDUCTIVITY TESTS WITH 12/20 MESH WHITE SAND TEST J!!!2& 1 2 3 . .glT w&wm!m 1 2 3 4 2% MUTUAL FLUID SOLVENT RECOVERY lwAxm&l!Q KCI Water — 2 GPT Enzyme 2 GPT Enzyme 2 GPT Ammonium Peraulfate 7 C.. P..~ONG-TERM CONDUCTNITY TESTS WITH 12/20 MESH WHITE SAND NON-1ON1C DEEMULSIFIER (ml — — — — m.”n~ PKG~~ n — AN1ON1C NONIONIC CLAY MUTUAL FLUID SOLVENT RECOVERY STABILIZER DE-EMULSIFIER DE-EMULSIFIERERMEABILITYREGAIN P (P.
44 6 THE EFFECT OF LONG-TERM SHUT-IN PERIODS ON FRACTURE CONDUCTIVITY SPE 30493 II TABLE 4.995 .3315 ..700 4..7 -2. 436 . Schematic of modified API conductivity test cell.7 -3.3 u TABLE 5.34s0 same tests as in Table #2 nnt.7S9 19. r*r** Figure 1.tl q -** bb* q Wan”.100 16.~~_DATA FROM INITIAL STKMUJLATIONS IN KNDOIWslA FRACTURE CONDUCTIVITY fMD-Fn 34.500 FORMATION PERMEAEILITY FRACTURE HALF LENGTH 1 2 3 80 53 91 10 30 33 -4..FRACTURE PARAMETER (IN) MEASUREMENTS FOR 12/20 MESH WHITE SAND TESTS PROPPANT PERMEABILITY (D&jXES) 790 697 700 674 76S -T 1 2 3 4 5 q WIDTH FRACTWRE FRACTURE CONDUCTNITY (MD-IT) 21.3310 .3310 .3420 .SUMMARY OF STIMULATION .229 19.209 21.350 19....
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.