Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MFRAC User's Guide PDF
MFRAC User's Guide PDF
Meyer
Fracturing
Simulators
Information in this document is subject to change without notice. No part of this document or the
associated software may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, for any purpose, other than as permitted in the license agreement, without the expressed
written permission of Meyer & Associates, Inc. (Meyer).
Copyright © 1997, 1999, 2003-2011 Meyer & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the
United States of America.
MFrac, MF2d, MAcid, MPwri, MView, MAcq, MinFrac, MProd, MNpv, MFast, MFrac-Lite,
MShale, and MWell are trademarks of Meyer & Associates, Inc.
Microsoft, MS-DOS, Windows and Word are registered trademarks of the Microsoft Corporation.
All names of companies, wells, persons or products contained in this documentation are part of ficti-
tious scenarios and are used solely to document the use of a Meyer & Associates, Inc. product.
License Grant
This License Agreement permits you to use one copy of the Meyer software program(s) included in
the package. Meyer grants to the end user, a nonexclusive, nontransferable license, with no right to
sublicense or prepare derivative works from the program(s) in connection with your computers.
Warranty
Meyer hereby warrants that it has the right to license the program(s). Meyer agrees to defend, indem-
nify and hold harmless the end user against claims or alleged claims of infringement of any patent,
copyright or other intellectual property rights.
The licensed software is provided “as-is.” All warranties and representations of any kind with regard
to the licensed software are hereby disclaimed, including the implied warranties of merchantability
and fitness for a particular purpose. Under no circumstances will Meyer & Associates, Inc. be liable
for any consequential, incidental, special or exemplary damages even if appraised of the likelihood of
such damages occurring.
The licensed software includes libraries which are licensed under the Common Public License (CPL).
Any provisions of this agreement which differ from the CPL are offered by Meyer alone and not by
any other party.
Vendor Databases
The databases provided with the software are based on sound engineering practices, but because of
variable well conditions and other information which must be relied upon, Meyer & Associates, Inc.
and its database suppliers make, no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy of their data or of
any calculations or opinions expressed therein or derived therefrom. You agree that Meyer & Associ-
ates, Inc. and its database suppliers shall not be liable for any loss or damage whether do to negli-
gence or otherwise arising out of or concerning such data, calculations or opinions.
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and asso-
ciated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell copies of the
Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, provided that the above
copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in all copies of the Software and that both the
above copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-
ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD
PARTY RIGHTS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR HOLDERS
INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, OR ANY SPECIAL INDIRECT
OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM
LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLI-
GENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH
THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
Except as contained in this notice, the name of a copyright holder shall not be used in advertising or
otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authoriza-
tion of the copyright holder.
All trademarks and registered trademarks mentioned herein are the property of their respective own-
ers.
Unicode Data Files include all data files under the directories http://www.unicode.org/Public/, http://
www.unicode.org/reports/, and http://www.unicode.org/cldr/data/ . Unicode Software includes any
source code published in the Unicode Standard or under the directories http://www.unicode.org/Pub-
lic/, http://www.unicode.org/reports/, and http://www.unicode.org/cldr/data/.
Copyright © 1991-2007 Unicode, Inc. All rights reserved. Distributed under the Terms of Use in
http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html.
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of the Unicode data files
and any associated documentation (the "Data Files") or Unicode software and any associated docu-
mentation (the "Software") to deal in the Data Files or Software without restriction, including without
limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell copies of the Data
Files or Software, and to permit persons to whom the Data Files or Software are furnished to do so,
provided that (a) the above copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear with all copies of the
Data Files or Software, (b) both the above copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in
associated documentation, and (c) there is clear notice in each modified Data File or in the Software
as well as in the documentation associated with the Data File(s) or Software that the data or software
has been modified.
THE DATA FILES AND SOFTWARE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF
ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRAN-
TIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONIN-
FRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
HOLDER OR HOLDERS INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, OR
ANY SPECIAL INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, OR ANY DAMAGES WHAT-
SOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION
OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE DATA FILES OR SOFTWARE.
Except as contained in this notice, the name of a copyright holder shall not be used in advertising or
otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in these Data Files or Software without prior writ-
ten authorization of the copyright holder.
The Meyer software is based in part on the work of the Independent JPEG Group.
Libpng
The Meyer software includes software developed by Greg Roelofs and contributers for the book,
“PNG: The Definitive Guide,” published by O’Reilly and Associates.
Lua License
Lua is licensed under the terms of the MIT license reproduced below. This means that Lua is free soft-
ware and can be used for both academic and commercial purposes at absolutely no cost.
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and asso-
ciated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
the following conditions:
• The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substan-
tial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-
ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO
EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM,
DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR
OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR
THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
PCRE LICENSE
PCRE is a library of functions to support regular expressions whose syntax and semantics are as close
as possible to those of the Perl 5 language.
Release 7 of PCRE is distributed under the terms of the "BSD" licence, as specified below. The docu-
mentation for PCRE, supplied in the "doc" directory, is distributed under the same terms as the soft-
ware itself.
The basic library functions are written in C and are freestanding. Also included in the distribution is a
set of C++ wrapper functions.
Cambridge, England.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted pro-
vided that the following conditions are met:
• Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and
the following disclaimer.
• Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions
and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the dis-
tribution.
• Neither the name of the University of Cambridge nor the name of Google Inc. nor the names of
their contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without
specific prior written permission.
WTL
The Meyer software uses a modified version of the Windows Template Library (WTL). Source code
for this modified version is available on our website.
yaml-cpp License
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and asso-
ciated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
the following conditions:
• The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substan-
tial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-
ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO
EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM,
DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR
OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR
THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
- Edward Teller
Chapter 1
Getting Started _________________________________________ 1
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
1.2 System & Hardware Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Chapter 2
MFrac ___________________________________________________ 77
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Exporting to Exodus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2.2 Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
General Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Simulation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Reservoir Coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Real-Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Net Present Value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Fluid Loss Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Treatment Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Treatment Design Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Wellbore Hydraulics Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Fracture Solution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Heat Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Fracture Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Fracture Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Flowback. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Simulate to Closure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Fracture Fluid Gradient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Propagation Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Fracture Initiation Interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Fracture Friction Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Wall Roughness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Tip Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Proppant Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Proppant Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Proppant Ramp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Proppant Flowback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Perforation Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Proppant Transport Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Proppant Settling Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Wellbore-Proppant Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Fracture-Proppant Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
2.3 Data Input. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Wellbore Hydraulics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
General Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Deviation Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Casing/Tubing Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Restrictions Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
BHTP References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Zones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Active . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Zone Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Perforation and Fracture Intervals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Zone Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Treatment Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Auto Design - Treatment Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Input - General Treatment Schedule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Acid Frac Treatment Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Real-Time/Replay Treatment Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Graphical Treatment Scheduling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Foam Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Rock Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Rock Property Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Insert from Database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Log File Importing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Fluid Loss Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Constant Fluid Loss Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Harmonic and Dynamic Fluid Loss Models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Time Dependent Fluid Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Pressure Dependent Fluid Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Fluid Type Dependent Fluid Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Proppant Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Minimum Number of Proppant Layers to Prevent Bridging. . . . . . . . 193
Minimum Concentration/Area for Propped Frac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Embedment Concentration/Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Closure Pressure on Proppant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Non-Darcy Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Heat Transfer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Acid Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Conductivity Damage Factor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Minimum Conductivity for Etched Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Acid Fracture Closure Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Rock Embedment Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
In-situ Acid Temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Chapter 3
MView _________________________________________________ 251
Chapter 4
MinFrac________________________________________________ 299
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
Fracture Closure Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Fracture Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Total Leakoff Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Fracture Geometry Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
Pressure During Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
Determining Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Basic Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
Step Rate Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Step Down Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Horner Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Chapter 5
MProd _________________________________________________ 413
Chapter 6
MNpv __________________________________________________ 469
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .469
6.2 Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .470
Fluid Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
Well Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472
Revenue/Unit Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472
Unit Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472
Partner Share Option. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473
MProd Output File with NPV/Multi-Case Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473
6.3 Data Input. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .474
Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474
Economic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
Frac Fluid Unit Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476
Proppant Unit Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477
Hydraulic Power Unit Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477
Transverse Fracture Unit Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478
Fixed Equipment Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478
Miscellaneous Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
Currency Escalation Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
Unit Revenue for Produced Oil or Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
Unit Revenue Escalation Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
Share of Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
Share of Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
Variable Unit Revenue Table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
Variable Share% Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482
Variable Unit Cost Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484
6.4 Run/Performing Calculations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .485
6.5 Plots - Graphical Presentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486
Plot Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486
Viewing Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486
Chapter 7
MFast __________________________________________________ 491
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
Menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492
7.2 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492
Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
Fracture Friction Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494
Wall Roughness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
Tip Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
Proppant Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498
Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498
Base Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499
Young's Modulus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500
Fracture Toughness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501
Poisson’s Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
Total Pay Zone Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
Total Fracture Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504
Ellipsoidal Aspect Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504
Injection Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504
Flow Behavior Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504
Consistency Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504
Total Leakoff Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504
Spurt Loss Coefficient. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505
Input Total Volume Injected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505
Input Fracture Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505
Maximum Proppant Concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505
7.3 Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506
Run . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506
Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508
7.4 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .509
Chapter 8
MPwri __________________________________________________ 511
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .511
Menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512
8.2 Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .513
General Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514
Reservoir Coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514
Thermal and Poro-Elastic Stresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515
Fluid Temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516
Fluid Loss Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516
Fracture Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517
8.3 Data Input. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .518
Treatment Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518
General Tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518
Stage Tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519
Thermal/Poro-elastic Stresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520
Zone Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521
Initial Stress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521
Layer Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522
Biot’s Constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522
Thermal/Water Front Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522
Injected Fluid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
Reservoir Lithology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
In-situ Fluid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
Minimum Reservoir Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
Reservoir Half-Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524
Drainage Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524
Fluid Loss Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524
Constant Fluid Loss Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
Chapter 9
MFrac-Lite _____________________________________________ 555
9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555
9.2 Options and Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556
General Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556
Fracture Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557
Proppant Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558
9.3 Data Input. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559
Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559
Zone Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560
Rock Properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561
Fluid Loss Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561
Constant Fluid Loss Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561
Harmonic or Dynamic Fluid Loss Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562
Chapter 10
MWell __________________________________________________ 563
10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .563
Menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564
10.2 Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .565
General Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566
Simulation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566
Real-Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566
Treatment Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567
Treatment Design Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567
Wellbore Hydraulics Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567
Wellbore Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569
Fluid Temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570
Proppant Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570
Proppant Ramp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571
Wellbore-Proppant Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571
10.3 Data Input. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .573
Wellbore Hydraulics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573
Zones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573
Zone Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574
Perforation and Fracture Intervals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574
Zone Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574
Chapter 11
MShale ________________________________________________ 579
Appendix A
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory _________________________ 611
A.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611
A.2 Governing Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611
Mass Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612
During Pumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612
After Pumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612
Continuity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612
Momentum Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613
Width-Opening Pressure Elasticity Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613
Fracture Propagation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613
A.3 Solution Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614
A.4 Parametric Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615
A.5 Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623
A.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625
Appendix B
Multilayer Fracturing _________________________________ 627
B.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627
B.2 Governing Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 629
Mass Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 629
Momentum Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 630
B.3 Numerical Solution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631
Momentum Eqns. (i=1,…,n) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631
Mass Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632
Appendix C
Multiple Fractures ____________________________________ 637
C.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .637
C.2 Far Field - Multiple Fractures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .638
Governing Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638
Interaction Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638
Flow Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638
Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639
Fluid Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639
Momentum Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639
Width-Opening Pressure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 640
C.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .640
Net Pressure for Multiple Fractures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641
Viscous Dominated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641
Toughness Dominated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642
Constant Critical Stress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642
Net Pressure Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642
Viscous Dominated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643
Toughness Dominated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643
Constant Critical Stress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643
C.4 Near Wellbore - Multiple Fractures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .644
Governing Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645
Momentum Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645
Laminar Flow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645
Turbulent Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 646
Width-Opening Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 646
Near Wellbore Pressure Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 646
GDK Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647
PKN Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647
General Near Wellbore Dissipation Function. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647
C.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .649
Appendix E
Wellbore Friction Factor _____________________________ 657
E.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657
E.2 Friction Factor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657
E.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 660
Appendix F
Minifrac Methodology ________________________________ 661
F.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661
F.2 Governing Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662
Conservation of Momentum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662
Width-Opening Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663
Fracture Propagation Solution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664
Mass Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665
Fluid Loss During Pumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666
Mass Conservation After Shut-In . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668
Minifrac Closure Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671
Table of Contents xxix
Appendix G
Production Model Theory ____________________________ 689
G.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .689
G.2 Governing Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .690
Dimensionless Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 690
Pseudopressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 691
Trilinear Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692
Constant Flow Rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692
Constant Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692
Pseudosteady-State Pressure Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 693
Pseudosteady-State Resistivity Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 693
Wellbore Choked Skin Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 694
Pseudo-Radial Flow Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 694
Horizontal Well Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 694
Productivity Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 696
Constant Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697
Desuperposition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697
Method of Images - Generate Closed Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698
No Fracture: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700
Fracture: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700
Multiple Transverse Fractures in Horizontal Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700
Single Vertical Fracture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700
Multiply Fractures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 701
Multiple Equally Spaced Transverse Fractures - Lateral Length . . . 703
Multiple Stage/Cluster Transverse Fractures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 704
Transverse Fracture Interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706
G.3 Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .709
Appendix H
Net Present Value Theory ____________________________ 715
H.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715
H.2 General Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717
Fracture Net Present Value (NPV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717
Discount Well Revenue (DWR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718
Discounted Return on Investment (DROI). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719
Appendix I
TSO & Frac-Pack Methodology ______________________ 721
I.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721
I.2 Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722
Design Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723
Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723
I.3 Numerical Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726
I.4 Results and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 731
I.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 732
Appendix J
Produced Water Reinjection Fracturing ____________ 733
Appendix K
After-Closure Analysis _______________________________ 779
K.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779
K.2 Superposition or Duhamel’s Theorem: General Solution 780
K.3 Impulse Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 781
K.4 Linear Solution - Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 785
Constant Velocity Boundary Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 785
Constant Pressure Boundary Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 786
Time Dependent Velocity Boundary Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 788
Variable Injection Rate followed by a Shut-in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789
Constant Injection Rate followed by a Shut-in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791
Apparent Closure Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 792
Linear Solution Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 793
K.5 Radial Solution - Infinite-acting time period . . . . . . . . . . . 794
Horner Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 795
Nolte’s After-Closure Radial Time Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 797
K.6 Summary and Implementation of After Closure Analysis 798
Impulse Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798
Horner Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799
Nolte After Closure Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800
Graphical Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801
General Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801
Permeability and Reservoir Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801
Diagnostic Plots and Derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801
K.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804
Appendix L
Pseudosteady State Analysis of Finite Conductivity
Vertical Fractures ____________________________________ 807
L.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
Appendix M
Discrete Fracture Network Methodology ___________ 911
Subject Index______________________________943
Overview
This User's Guide is designed to explain the installation and use of the suite of
hydraulic fracture design and analysis software developed by Meyer & Associates,
Inc. The suite of computer programs include MFrac, MView, MPwri, MinFrac,
MFast, MProd, MNpv, MFrac-Lite, MWell, and MShale. The Meyer software is
designed for use with the following Microsoft operating systems: Windows 7, Win-
dows Vista, Windows 2003, and Windows XP SP3.
This guide explains the available options and basic procedures used for running the
Meyer programs. A number of example files are included with the software. These
examples demonstrate the utility of many of the program features, as well as, the
manipulation of data. In addition to the examples and the explanation of program
options, supplementary technical information is contained in the appendices.
The figure below shows an overall simulation flowchart for the Meyer intergrated
suite of software.
Program Descriptions
A brief description of each of the programs in the Meyer suite of software is given
below. Please refer to the corresponding chapter for specific information.
MFrac
MFrac is a comprehensive design and evaluation simulator containing a variety of
options including three-dimensional fracture geometry, auto design features, and
integrated acid fracturing solutions. Fully coupled proppant transport and heat
transfer routines, together with a flexible user interface and object oriented devel-
opment approach, permit use of the program for fracture design, as well as treat-
ment analysis. MFrac is the calculation engine for real-time and replay fracture
simulation. When operating in this manner, the program works in conjunction with
our real-time data acquisition and display program, MView.
MView
This program provides a data handling system and display module for real-time
hydraulic fracturing and minifrac analysis. MView was intended primarily for use
with the MFrac and MinFrac hydraulic fracturing design and analysis simulators;
however, its flexible structure also makes it functional as a general data handling
system. This program was created as a separate utility in order to provide a simple
system that would be reliable and operate in a straight-forward independent man-
ner.
MinFrac
The MinFrac program has been specifically designed for use as an analysis tool for
injection tests and minifrac analysis. The program provides a means of examining
rate and pressure data during and after a period of injection. This includes, pump-
in/shut-in tests for the determination of stress, step rate interpretation and conven-
tional or “unconventional” pressure decline analysis. MinFrac, like MFrac, can also
communicate dynamically in real-time with MView to share data. This allows data
interpretation during real-time acquisition.
MProd
MProd is a single phase analytical production simulator developed by Meyer &
Associates, Inc. primarily for hydraulic fracturing applications. The program is
used to assess the production benefit for a variety of treatment scenarios with com-
parison of unfractured wells. Mprod includes an objective methodology for deter-
mining unknown or uncertain parameters through regression analysis of simulated
and measured data by history matching. A Fracture Design Optimization option
enables the user to determine the optimum fracture design (length, width, conduc-
tivity) that will maximize production for a given amount of proppant mass.
MNpv
MNpv provides a tool for forecasting fractured well net present value (NPV) or
return on investment (ROI). Simply stated, fracture treatment optimization is a
methodology used for maximizing well profitability. This process requires a com-
parison of the cost penalties and revenue benefits associated with any proposed
treatment scenario. The program has been designed for use with MProd to automat-
ically determine and compare various NPV fracture scenarios in order to identify an
optimum design.
MFast
MFast is a two-dimensional analytical hydraulic fracturing simulator for aiding the
fracturing engineer in designing 2D fractures. The simulator illustrates the impor-
tance of various parameters and provides a fast first order solution to fracture
geometry, net pressure, fracture efficiency and treatment design. This simulator
provides the capability to compare the fracture geometries for Geerstma-deKlerk
(GDK), Perkins-Kern (PKN) and ellipsoidal type two dimensional models. Since
MFast was developed from analytical solutions it has the inherent limitations of
steady state injection, constant mechanical properties, time independent fluid rheol-
ogy and single layer properties.
MPwri
MPwri is a highly specialized simulator for predicting the pressure and geometry of
hydraulic fractures associated with waterflooding. The program was specifically
designed for evaluating the effects of injecting large fluid volumes over long peri-
ods and for fracture efficiencies approaching zero. Thermal and poro-elastic effects
are also include.
MPwri has options for conventional (diffusion controlled) and ellipsoidal (non-dif-
fusion) fluid loss. At early times, fluid loss from the fracture is generally diffusion
controlled, but at large times the fluid loss is governed by steady-state or pseudoste-
ady-state leakoff. This fluid loss option has a marked effect on fracture geometry
with larger leakoff rates at later times as compared to diffusion alone.
MFrac-Lite
MFrac-Lite is a three-dimensional hydraulic fracturing simulator similar to MFrac
but with a limited number of MFrac features and capabilities (i.e., a lite version).
This simplified three-dimensional simulator provides ease of use with less input
data and fewer options to choose from for applications which do not require some
of the advanced features in MFrac.
MFrac-Lite uses the same numerical routines as MFrac but without some of the
more advanced and user specified options. MFrac-Lite has similar real-time capa-
bilities as MFrac and is designed to be compatible with like features in MFrac. This
simulator is designed for those who do not need the full functionality of MFrac.
MWell
MWell is a wellbore hydraulics simulator for calculating surface or bottomhole
pressures, gravitational head, restrictions, transport times and hydraulic power
requirements in the wellbore. Near wellbore and perforation pressure losses are
also calculated to determine the bottomhole treating pressure in the formation.
MWell was designed for real-time analysis to calculate BHTP’s, from surface con-
ditions but can also be used as a design tool for determining wellbore pressure char-
acteristics prior to the treatment. MWell is essentially a subset of the MFrac
simulator without the fracture simulation. MWell however does provide the capabil-
ity to simulate a time dependent formation pressures with a user specified table that
for inputting the minimum horizontal stress and a time dependent net pressure
(pressure above or below the reference minimum stress). If the formation is not
fracture the reference pressure should be the reservoir pressure.
MShale
MShale is a Discrete Fracture Network (DFN) simulator designed for simulating
three-dimensional (x-z, y-z, and x-y planes) hydraulic fracture propagation in dis-
crete fracture networks. MShale accounts for the coupled parameters affecting frac-
ture propagation (and proppant transport) in multiple planes.
output displayed in the program may vary from the examples shown. All of the
screens depicted in this manual correspond to the Windows convention established
by the Microsoft Corporation.
Chapter 1, “Getting Started,” covers the hardware and system requirements to run
the software, as well as, installation procedures and program initiation techniques.
Program basics, such as, opening and saving files, as well as, entering and editing
values in data fields are discussed. This chapter outlines the hardware and system
requirements for the Meyer suite of software. Specific instructions for installing
and running the software are also given.
analysis are described. An Analysis Wizard is provided for the systematic method
of selecting and performing minifrac analyses. The MinFrac analyses include: Step
Rate, Step Down, Horner and Regression with history matching. Various time func-
tions and pressure derivatives are provided for analyzing rate-pressure data.
Appendix D, “Fluid Loss,” outlines the numerical procedures used to model fluid
diffusion or leakoff to the reservoir. The theory behind various fluid loss options is
given.
Appendix H, “Net Present Value Theory,” provides a brief overview of the meth-
ods used for conducting economic analyses of fracture treatments. The concepts of
fracture Net Present Value (NPV) and Discounted Return On Investment (DROI)
are presented.
Getting Started
The Meyer Software
1.1 Introduction
The Meyer Software is a powerful suite of engineering programs for the design,
analysis and monitoring of hydraulic fractures.
This chapter outlines the hardware and system requirements for the Meyer suite of
software. Specific instructions for installing and running the software are also
given.
After reading this chapter and installing the software, you will be ready to begin
using the programs. This guide assumes you have a working knowledge of the Win-
dows terminology and procedures. If you are unfamiliar with the Windows operat-
ing system, we recommend reading the relevant sections concerning Windows,
menus and using a mouse found in your “Microsoft Windows User's Guide.”
Before Installing
Before installing the software, you should first do the following:
3. Make sure your computer meets the minimum system requirements listed
above in Table 1.1.
6. Verify that you have the necessary access rights (administrative privileges) to
create directories, files and to install device drivers on the designated drive.
The Meyer Setup application is capable of installing all of the main applications
and components. Please read the directions below, and then follow the instructions
in the Setup program to complete the installation.
1. Insert the Meyer CD into the CD-ROM drive. After inserting the CD, a menu
screen as shown in Figure 1.1 will appear. If the Meyer Install Setup screen
does not display, click the Start button on the Windows taskbar, and click Run.
Type D:\Setup (where D is the letter corresponding to the CD-ROM drive) in
the Open box.
2. Click Install Software. If you want to view the Readme HTML file, click on
the View Readme button. The Readme file contains FAQ’s, installation tips,
new features and other information that may be important prior to installation
or other information that was not available at press time.
4. Type in the Customer Information User Name and Organization. Also select
one of the Install this application for options and click the Next > button.
5. Destination Folder. Click Next > to install this folder, or click Change... to
install to a different directory. Choose a directory where the software will be
installed. It is recommended that a directory name that does not exist be speci-
fied. Setup will then create the new directory.
6. Setup Type. Choose the setup type option that best suits your needs:
• Complete. All program features will be installed (requires the most disk
space).
• Custom. Choose which program features you want installed and where
they will be installed. Recommended for advanced users. Click on the icon
in the list to change how the feature is installed. If you are not authorized
to use all of the Meyer application software, you may wish to exclude
these components by clicking “This feature will not be available”. Some
components have sub-components. To change the sub-component selec-
tions, highlight the component in the list and click the appropriate desired
feature.
7. Click the Next > button, and follow the installation instructions in the Setup
Wizard. Click the Install > button to begin the installation. When the installa-
tion is completed, click the Finish > button to return to the Install Software
Setup Menu.
To change selections in the Setup Wizard, click the < Back button.
4. Click the Next > button, and follow the instructions in the Wizard.
These options give you the capability to free up disk space, update components to
refresh their configurations settings and to repair or reinstall any components which
you have inadvertently deleted.
Database Installation
When the applications are ran for the first time, they will attempt to find user data-
bases from previous versions of the software. If a suitable database is found, it will
be copied (and update if necessary) to the required location so that it is usable by
the most recent version of the software. If any of your user databases are deleted,
this process will be repeated.
This folder may be found under the “Meyer & Associates, Inc” folder, which in
turn may be found under the Windows application data folder.
• For a user called Bruce on Windows XP, our folder might be C:\Docu-
ments and Settings\Bruce\Application Data\Meyer & Associates, Inc\
Meyer 2010
• For a user called Bruce on Windows Vista, the application data folder
might be C:\Users\Bruce\AppData\Roaming\Meyer & Associates, Inc
\Meyer 2010
General
Table 1.2 provides a list and description of general file extensions.
1. The path and file name cannot exceed 255 characters (i.e., Windows
MAX_PATH).
2. The following characters not allowed in a path or file name are < > : “ / \ |.
These characters are reserved for Windows.
3. The application must not use reserved words, such as aux, con, and prn, as file-
names or directory names.
4. Long file name support when displaying an opened file in the title bar, Most
Recent File list, and Window menu.
Working Files
The Meyer applications use temporary working files not only for input files, but
also for output and other configuration files associated with the input files. This
allows you to open and run read-only files because the original (including the out-
put) files are only changed when you save them. This also allows you to create and
run untitled projects without having to save to a file first.
Before starting a Meyer application, make sure the hardware security key is con-
nected to your PC. If your PC is on a network with a network security key server,
check with your network administrator to ensure that your PC is properly con-
figured.
If you are using a network security key, it is not necessary to have an individual
security key on your PC. Your network administrator should install the network
security key and configure your PC to access the network security key server.
WARNING; Do not connect the parallel security key to a serial port, as this can
damage the key and/or your PC.
2. The software protection key can be either a USB or Parallel port device. The
USB key is connected to the USB port and the parallel port key to the Parallel
printer port. Do Not connect the key to the serial port, as this can damage the
key or your PC.
4. The PC system date is set to the current date and time (i.e., today's date).
Email - info@mfrac.com
When requesting Technical Support, please include the program and version num-
ber listed in the About Box.
In general, you should not need to use MKey unless specifically instructed to do
so by Meyer or for software upgrades. In such cases, you will be given system-
atic instructions on how to use MKey.
Button Conventions
The Meyer software buttons are used to control many of the program functions.
The conventions used for these buttons are summarized in Table 1.4.
File Management
The following section describes the File menu commands available within the
Meyer programs.
Opening a File
When starting a Meyer program, the file last accessed during the previous session is
automatically opened. If you do not want to work with this file, other data files can
be opened quickly and easily using standard Windows procedures.
A list of the last twelve data files accessed is always maintained at the bottom of the
File menu. You can select from this list to access one of these files. Otherwise, to
open a file, choose FileOpen. The program checks to see if data has been modi-
fied since the last time the file was saved. If it has, the screen shown in Figure 1.3 is
displayed prompting you to save before the current file is closed. If no changes
have been made, the file Open dialog box, as shown in Figure 1.4, is presented.
The FileOpen dialog box alphabetically lists the available files matching your
selection criteria. The files in the default data directory are automatically shown
first.
2. Click the Files box anywhere but on a filename, type the first letter of the file-
name and press ENTER repeatedly until the desired filename is highlighted.
3. Use the TAB key to move to the Files selection box, next use the arrow key to
highlight the desired file and press ENTER.
To change the directory or drive, type in the correct path in the directory field or
scroll to and click on the directory you want.
Saving a File
To save a file, choose either FileSave or FileSave As. The Save command stores
changes made to the current active file and overwrites the previously saved data.
By default, the Save command saves a file under its original name to the drive and
directory last selected. To save the file in a different directory or to another name,
select Save As. After selecting Save As, a screen will appear as shown in Figure
1.5.
Enter the new file name in the field provided or choose an existing file to overwrite.
The file may be stored in any existing directory by making a choice from the Direc-
tories selection box. To accept the new name and directory select OK.
Selecting a Printer
Before a report or plot can be printed, the printer hardware must be specified and
set up properly to work with Windows. First, make sure that the correct printer
driver(s) are loaded by accessing the Control Panel from the Windows Desktop.
Refer to the “Windows User's Guide” if you are unfamiliar with this procedure.
From the Desktop, select the Printers icon to display the list of available printers. If
your printer is not among the list displayed, follow the instructions given in the
Windows Guide to install the necessary driver. After making this verification or
installation return to the application and specify the printer for output.
Choose from the list of printers displayed and click OK. Only printers installed
under Windows are displayed. Make sure the port specified is correct. If it is not,
refer to your Windows User's Guide for instructions or access the Control Panel
from the Desktop and select the Connect button to change the setting.
When the Properties button found in the Select Printer dialog shown in Figure 1.6
is used the dialog box displayed corresponds to the printer device selected. All
printers have varying printing capabilities; however, most printers allow you to
select the paper size and source, as well as the page orientation and number of cop-
ies. The example shown in Figure 1.7 is for a HP Laser Jet 4000 Series PCL printer.
The Meyer software also allows for mixing and matching of input and output unit
sets. To create a custom unit template, make selections from the categories avail-
able and save the modified units system under a new name by clicking the Save
button found at the bottom of the Units dialog box. To apply a saved units template,
use the Load button also found on the Units screen. English and metric default tem-
plates are provided.
The units are not associated with data files. All changes to the units are kept for all
data files and work sessions. In general, once the units are set to your preferences, it
should not be necessary to enter the units box again.
To access the Units menu, click the menu name. The dialog box shown in Figure
1.8 will be displayed. To list the parameters in alphabetical order (or reverse order)
click on the triangular sort marker in the right hand corner of the parameters col-
umn.
• Measurement variables, which lists all the variables currently used in a pro-
gram,
• Input and Output unit group categories to the left and right of the screen, and
• Command buttons.
For English language versions of the software, the units default to the English
oilfield units; however, for the Russian version of the software, the units default
to metric units.
To view the units list, move the scroll box up or down until your choice appears on
the list. The corresponding input and output unit categories will scroll simultane-
ously. To select a unit, click the unit to highlight the item. Click again on the new
unit you want. If you prefer using the keyboard, use the TAB key to scroll to a
parameter and then use the directional or arrows to scroll to the unit item
desired. When all the parameters are set to their desired unit click OK or press
ENTER.
Unit templates can be applied or changed at any time during an active program ses-
sion. Simply open the Units dialog box and make the desired changes. All units dis-
played or contained in any open plot will be automatically converted.
Getting Help
The Meyer User’s Guide (this document) can be used as a standalone reference, or
for context sensitive help while using the Meyer applications. It is available in
CHM (Microsoft HTML Help) and PDF formats.
Accessing Help
When information is needed quickly, use one of the following methods to display
the help file:
dialog box and its components. Pressing the F1 key also accesses context sensitive
help depending on what dialog or window is currently opened.
Error Checking
The error checking routines contained in the Meyer programs provide an extra level
of protection when working within the Windows environment. This protection is
required because Windows, unlike other environments such as DOS, does not
require sequential display and input for the data screens. The Windows’ user inter-
face allows multiple entry points into the data input dialogs.
Extensive error checking procedures contained in the programs check that any
entered parameter is within defined limits; and also verifies the existence of data
relative to the options that are set. The objective is to avoid taking a step in the pro-
gram that will cause a problem during the calculations or during any subsequent
process (e.g., plotting, etc.).
When the program posts an error checking message, you must respond by either
clicking the Change button to return to the data entry dialog to correct the problem
or the Ignore button to continue.
2. If the Ignore button is selected, the program will attempt to use the data
entered. When the Change button is used the program returns to the data field
which caused the error and allows you to re-enter a value.
3. When re-entering a value, make sure that it is within the acceptable limits as
posted by the error message tolerance range.
In order to run the calculations when the Ignore button is used, disable the min/
max checking from the Run Options dialog.
The programs use general solutions that are open to very broad ranges of data input.
The ranges limited by the program are typically adequate for handling most cases.
It is important to realize that even though the programs do allow you to override the
limits, the out of range values may cause a problem with the calculations.
When a dialog box is closed by selecting the OK, Next Page or Previous Page
buttons, the program again checks to make sure that the data is within the ranges
required and that all rows containing data are complete. This process is repeated for
each dialog box that is opened. The program provides a message when an out of
bounds error occurs.
For those instances when the Ignore button has been used during data entry it is
necessary to disable the min/max error checking in order to continue with the cal-
culations. This is accomplished by selecting the appropriate check box from the
RunOptions dialog (e.g., See “Run Options” on page 69). If this is not done the
program will continuously detect an out of bounds error and not permit the simula-
tion to continue.
Once again, the error checking has been designed to cover as much of the program
structure as possible; however, to prevent the possible loss of data, a recovery
mechanism has been implemented in the program. As a “last ditch effort,” if a prob-
lem occurs with one of the data sets or other Windows applications that results in a
program “crash”, the next time the program is started, an option to recover the data
is provided. After a crash the message shown in Figure 1.11 is displayed. Select
Yes to recover your data. If the program crashes while recovering a data file, you
should select No the next time the recover message appears.
Table 1.6 lists the movement keys used to move the active cell within a spreadsheet
and to display different sections in the spreadsheet.
Table 1.7 lists the keys used to modify the action of the movement keys.
A bold face font within the Spreadsheet Options Dialog identifies a non-default
value.
Exports spreadsheet control into a spreadsheet file. The file should have
the.XLS extension and will be in Excel BIFF 4 format.
Cut operation removes the selection and copies it to the Clipboard. Similar to
the copy command below.
Pastes from the Clipboard to the current selection. The Clipboard selection
can come from other spreadsheet controls or Excel.
Fills down the top cells of the selection to the cells below in a column.
Data Shift provides an easy way to shift numerical data. Data shift can be selected
by clicking on . To use Data Shift, highlight the numbers you want to adjust,
select the Data Shift icon and add, subtract, or multiply by a fraction. This is a con-
venient way to calibrate stress, stress gradient, or Young's modulus from actual
minifrac results.
Figure 1.14 shows the data shift (linear transformation) screen. The New Values are
calculated from the Old Values by a simple linear transformation ( y = mx + b ). A
table of new and old column values is displayed. Selecting OK will replace the old
values with the new values.
The column widths in a spreadsheet can be resized by 1) placing the cursor on the
column separation line in the header, 2) holding down on the left mouse button, and
3) dragging the column to a given width. To adjust the spreadsheet within the dia-
log to have equal column widths, highlight the columns to be resized (see Figure
1.15) and resize as discussed above.
Clicking Column Setup... will open up the Spreadsheet Column Configuration dia-
log (Figure 1.17).
Columns may be hidden by unchecking the check box and made visible by check-
ing the check box associated with the column. The columns may also be rearranged
using the Move Up and Move Down buttons.
Plot windows can be “cascaded” from the upper left or “tiled” so that each plot win-
dow is fully visible. This sub-menu also has a list of all the plot windows that are
open. Selecting from the list moves the associated window to the foreground desig-
nating it as the active window. Any opened report windows will also be listed in the
Window menu and will be affected by the Window commands.
After the desired plots are displayed, they can be positioned and arranged according
to your preferences. Plots are treated much the same as any window on the Win-
dows desktop. Plots can be moved, sized and arranged relative to each other for
comparison. Figure 1.19 illustrates the Tile arrangement for displaying plots. Fig-
ure 1.20 illustrates the Cascade form of displaying all the plots in a single window.
Moving Plots
Mouse
1. Click the title bar of the plot to move and hold the left mouse button down
while dragging the plot to its new position.
2. Release the mouse button. To cancel the move, press ESC before you release
the mouse button.
Keyboard
1. Select the plot to move.
3. From the Control menu choose Move. The pointer changes to a four-headed
arrow.
4. Use the arrow keys to move the plot to its new location.
5. Press ENTER.
2. Select either Tile (ALT + T), Cascade (ALT + C), or Arrange Icons (ALT + A) to
affect the arrangement of the plots (Figure 1.19 and Figure 1.20).
To Close a Plot:
1. In Window 3.x, select the Control menu of the plot you want to close. Click the
control box or press ALT + SPACEBAR.
Zooming
All of the Meyer plots have the ability to zoom in on a specific area. You may zoom
in on a zoomed area as many times as you like. Use the Zoom Out command to
return to the previous magnification. Use the Zoom Out 100% (Zoom 100%) to
return to the original magnification.
To Zoom in on a Plot:
1. Position the cursor cross hair at one corner of the plot area.
2. Hold the left mouse button down and drag a box around the area to be zoomed.
3. Release the mouse button when the new visible plot area has been defined.
4. To return to the previous magnification, select Zoom Out from the Plot menu
or the right mouse button menu, or simply press F5.
5. To return to the original magnification select Zoom 100% from the Plot menu
or the right mouse button menu, or simply press F6.
When zooming in on a plot with both left and right axes, both axes will be
zoomed to display exactly what was in the selected area. To change the left and
right scales independently, use the Scales section of the Plot Configuration box.
Printing Plots
Plot windows may be printed using any Windows compatible printer. To print, you
must first select and configure the printer hardware for operation with Windows.
This can be done with the Printer Setup command in the File menu, which allows
you to select a printer and set its properties.
2. Select the Print command from the File menu. The Print Graphics dialog
appears listing the available print options (Figure 1.21). Select the plot option
and page orientation.
4. While the Print Manager is sending the information to the printer, a message is
displayed. During this time the printing process may be aborted by clicking the
Cancel button or pressing ENTER.
The progress of any printing operation can be monitored and controlled with the
Windows’ Print Manager. Refer to the Windows User's Guide for complete instruc-
tions for using the Print Manager.
On each printout, the program adds a footer (small identifier) in the lower left cor-
ner of each plot that contains the file name and date. An option to hide the footer is
also available.
Plot Menu
All Meyer programs have a Plot menu that is used to create and manipulate plots.
The menu commands used to manipulate plots are common to all programs.
If a plot is displayed, the Plot menu can be accessed from the Main Plot menu as
shown in Figure 1.22. Figure 1.23 shows the resulting Plot Menu screen by clicking
on the right mouse button.
Figure 1.23: Plot Menu Screen from Right Mouse Button Click.
Exporting Plots
Meyer plots can be exported for use in another program, such as a word processor,
by saving a enhanced metafile (*.emf), bitmap (*.bmp), JPEG (*.jpg) or Portable
Network Graphics (*.png) file. Figure 1.24 shows the Exporting Plot Menu.
To save a plot as a metafile, select Enhanced MetaFile (*.emf) from the Save File
as Type menu. Then enter a file name for the metafile. This will create a standard
windows metafile of the currently active plot, which can be imported into many
graphics packages and word processors. For example, to insert the metafile into
Microsoft Word, choose Picture from the Insert menu in Word. Then specify the
metafile that was saved from the Meyer program. This will insert the picture into
your document. Note that the picture can be stretched without losing quality.
Colors
The Colors command allows you to specify which colors are used in the plots. The
background, text, frame and grid colors are user specified. By default, all plots use
the colors selected in this box; however, a plot can be configured to have a different
set of colors if desired. For more information on configuring colors, see the Plot
Configuration section below.
General Colors
The default background, text, frame and grid colors are user specified under the
General Colors Menu.
To select the default background color click on the color box. A color menu will
then be displayed as shown in Figure 1.26. Select the color you want and press the
OK button.
Curve Attributes
To change the default curve attributes click on the Curve Attributes color box. This
will bring up the Line & Curve Attributes dialog box shown in Figure 1.27.
The attributes of a specific line or curve can be modified by clicking on the button
representing the curve. This will bring up the dialog box shown in Figure 1.27.
From here the Line Color, Marker Style, Line Style and Line Width can be
changed. Setting the Marker Style to Off turns off the markers for an individual
curve. Likewise, setting the Line Style to Off allows you to plot only the markers
without lines connecting them. Choosing a Line Width greater than one will take a
longer time to draw the plot.
Fonts
The Meyer programs support all True Type fonts installed and available in Win-
dows. Clicking on the Font tab will display the font selection screen shown in Fig-
ure 1.28. This will allow you to modify the font and its size.
To change the Main Title, X-axis Label, Y-axis Labels, Scale or Legend fonts click
on the appropriate selection cell. Figure 1.29 displays the default Plot Font Selec-
tion screen. Since font size is always scaled based on the window size, it is impossi-
ble to select an exact point size; however, you may modify the ratio of the font size
to window size with the Font Size list box.
Layout
Figure 1.30 shows the Default Layout folder which allows you to specify some
basic attributes (Plot Layout, Mouse Coordinates, and Left and Right Axes) used to
draw plots. All of these attributes may be overridden in any specific plot by choos-
ing the Plot Attributes button in the configuration screen as discussed below.
Plot Layout
The different options for determining how the plot is drawn in the window are:
1. Standard plot layout: The plot is always drawn such that the frame has a con-
stant aspect ratio, regardless of the size of the window.
2. Maximize plot area: The plot is drawn such that no empty space is wasted. The
aspect ratio of the plot will change as the plot window is sized
Mouse Coordinates
The mouse coordinates option allows the coordinates of the current mouse position
to be continuously updated on the screen. When using the graphical plot layout
option, the coordinates may be positioned anywhere in the window. The coordi-
nates are drawn using the same font as the labels on the axes. To view mouse coor-
dinates of multi-axes plots place the mouse cursor on the existing mouse
coordinates, click the right mouse button and select the desired curve. Figure 1.31
illustrates the mouse button selection dialog box.
Figure 1.32: Axes Label – All Curves on One Axis with Maximize Area.
Figure 1.33: Axes Label – Each Curve has Its Own Axis.
Slope Lines
The Slope Lines section, as seen in Figure 1.34, contains global preferences for the
behavior of plot slope lines.
1. The Show Balloon tip checkbox determines whether or not a balloon tip will
be displayed while hovering over or moving a plot slope line.
2. The Show ghost line checkbox determines whether or not a temporary line
(a.k.a. ghost line) will be drawn while plot slope lines are being moved.
Configuration
This will bring up the Plot Configuration dialog box described in detail below
under Configuring Plots.
By double clicking on the block, or selecting configuration from the right mouse
button menu (Figure 1.35), the attributes of the text block, such as colors, frame,
and font, can be configured. Figure 1.36 shows the text block configuration dialog
box. A text block can be deleted by using the right mouse button menu, or pressing
DELETE when a text block is selected. The text blocks can also be moved and sized
with the mouse.
Zoom Out
This will return the currently selected plot to the previous magnification. For more
information on zooming, see the Zoom section above.
Zoom 100%
This will return the currently selected plot to the original magnification. For more
information on zooming, see the Zoom section above.
All of these commands are easily accessible at any time by clicking the right
mouse button within a plot window.
Configuring Plots
The attributes of an open plot may be re-configured by either double-clicking the
active plot in the main plot area or by selecting the Configuration command from
the Plot menu. This action displays the configuration dialog shown in Figure 1.37.
The Plot Configuration screen provides a method for modifying the text, colors and
scales as described in the sections below.
When finished editing the configuration, choose one of the buttons in Table 1.10 to
close the configuration box.
Plot Labels
To change a plot label, edit the appropriate text in the Plot Labels section at the top
of the box. To change the text on the plot legend, see the Legend section below.
Markers
Turn on the Markers checkbox to see markers on the curve. Fill in the Draw mark-
ers every ith point to specify how often to draw markers. For example, a value of
two will specify to draw a marker at every other data point. To turn off markers for
all curves of the plot, turn this option off. To turn off markers for only selected
curves of the plot, turn this option on and modify the marker type for the curves on
which markers are not wanted.
General Colors
One set of colors, the default colors, is used for all plots. To change these default
colors, check the Apply to defaults check box. However, individual plots may have
their own color scheme.
To use colors other than the defaults, turn off the Use Defaults check box. Then
configure the individual colors by clicking on them, which brings up a palette.
Choose the desired color from the palette and click OK. Double-click on the colors
in the palette for quick selection. The definition of the different colors is described
in Table 1.11.
Curve Attributes
The attributes of a specific curve can be modified by un-checking the Use Defaults
box and clicking on the box representing the curve. This will bring up the dialog
screen shown in Figure 1.39. From here the Line Color, Marker Style, Line Style
and Line Width can be changed. Setting the Marker Style to Off turns off the mark-
ers for an individual curve. Likewise, setting the Line Style to Off allows you to
plot only the markers without lines connecting them. Choosing a Line Width
greater than one will slow down the plot drawing process. Clicking Line Color will
bring up the color selection dialog as shown in Figure 1.26.
To return to the curve defaults, select Use Defaults. From this box, the attributes of
any curve can be changed.
Fonts
The Meyer programs support all True Type fonts installed and available in Win-
dows. Clicking on the Font tab will display the font selection screen shown in Fig-
ure 1.40. This will allow you to modify the font and its size. Since font size is
always scaled based on the window size, it is impossible to select an exact point
size; however, you may modify the ratio of the font size to window size with the
Font Size list box.
Layout
See “Layout” on page 44.
Scales
On certain plots, it may be desirable to have the X and Y-axes use the same scale.
To force them to use the same scale, click on the Scales button in the Plot Control.
This will bring up the scales dialog box as shown in Figure 1.41. Then check X-Y
scales have same Aspect Ratio. To turn off this feature, leave the checkbox
unchecked. Only use this feature when the X and Y scales are in the same unit, for
example the width contour plot in MFrac. In this plot, the Y scale represents depth
and the X scale represents fracture length.
Axes
The X and Y axis may be plotted on a linear or log scale. Select Linear or Log as
desired.
The Upper, Lower and Increment may be specified for each axis. The Upper and
Lower define the range of the scale and the Increment defines how often gridlines,
tick marks and numeric labels are drawn. The Increment must be less than the
Upper minus the Lower (for positive numbers).
To have the program automatically pick the appropriate settings, check the Auto
scale box. This is the default. To manually specify the parameters, turn off the
Auto scale box. Note that the X, Y Left and Y Right, and Z axes may be configured
individually; however the Y Left and Y Right axes share Auto scale and Linear/
Log buttons.
Legend
The plot legend is used to reference a curve that corresponds or represents a given
parameter. To modify the legend’s attributes, click on the Legend button in the Plot
Attributes tree view. The Legend Control dialog box for the vertical orientation is
shown in Figure 1.42.
To hide the Legend, make sure the Show Legend checkbox is not checked. To
eliminate showing a given curve, enter the Line & Curve Attributes and set both
Line Style and Marker Style to Off.
The legends Show Units option has three radial button choices: 1) Yes - to show
the units, 2) No - do not show units, and 3) Automatic - the code will display units
when more than one parameter with different units is present on a given axes. Three
options are available for under
The legend Orientation also has three radial button choices: 1) Vertical - the legend
will be placed in the vertical position, 2) Horizontal - the legends will be oriented
horizontally, and 3) Automatic - the legend will be place vertically for a single vari-
able on each axes and in the Horizontal position for multiple variables with the
option that each has it’s own axis
There are five fixed locations for the vertical legend orientation as illustrated in
Figure 1.42, the four corners of the plot and along the right side of the plot. The
Legend Control dialog box for the Horizontal Orientation is shown in Figure 1.43.
There are three locations for the Horizontal legend orientation: 1) Across the Top,
2) Position with Mouse, and 3) Across the Bottom.
To allow movement of the legend, anywhere on the screen, select Position with
Mouse. If Allow graphical arrangement is checked in the Layout dialog box, the
legend can be arranged anywhere on the plot and the Legend Control dialog box
will be dimmed. Choose the desired location with the corresponding radio button.
To modify the legend font, click on the Fonts button in the tree view. This font can
be modified like the label fonts, described above.
To change the legend text, click on the corresponding button at the bottom of the
screen. The left and right buttons allow you to change the text for the curves on the
left and right scales, respectively. After clicking on either of these buttons, a dialog
box will be displayed that contains all of the legends. Modify them as desired and
click OK. To revert to the original legend text, click on the Default button.
For help with the Multilayer Legend Names section see “Multilayer Legends” on
page 207.
Gridlines
To draw a grid on the plot, click the Gridlines section. The grid is drawn at inter-
vals specified by the Increment section of the X and Y-axes. Figure 1.44 shows the
grid selection screen.
Slope Lines
Slope lines can be added to almost any line plot where the x-axis is the independent
axis. Figure 1.45 shows the slope line configuration screen.
Each slope line is associated with a left or right curve specified within the Curve
Number column. Toggling the Sync slope and curve colors checkbox synchro-
nizes the plot slope line colors to the curve colors.
To manipulate plot slope lines graphically, set the plot mouse mode to Select (press
F4 to toggle between mouse modes). Once in select mode, the slope lines can be
moved by dragging and dropping the points or lines. The plot cursor will change
when hovering over a slope line to indicate which operation is available.
Color Fill
With contour plots, it is possible to show a shaded, color filled or a plain contour
plot. To change this option, click on the Contours button in the Plot Attributes tree
view. This will bring up the contour selection screen as shown in Figure 1.46. Then
choose Shaded, Color Filled Contour, or Plain Contour.
Shading Colors
The shading colors are dependent on the Color Fill Contour Selection shown in Fig-
ure 1.46. Figure 1.47 shows the Shaded Contour Color Selection Screen.
Figure 1.48 shows the Color Filled and Plain Contour Selection Screen. To change
a Filled Area Color, click on the color or curve you wish to change. This will bring
up a dialog box for interactively choosing the color values for Red, Green and Blue.
The values must be in the range of 0 to 255.
To return to the defaults for the Filled Area Colors, select Area Color from the
Default section. To make all the Filled Area Colors be shades of a certain color,
click on the Shading button and select a base color.
Chart Type
For chart plots, it is possible to change the chart type. Click on the Chart button in
the Plot Attributes tree view. This brings up the chart dialog as shown in Figure
1.49. Then choose the desired type of plot from the list. The number displayed in
the legend can also be configured. Select either Stage Number, Percentage (percent
of total) or Unit Values (the value for the stage).
Real-Time
MView supports additional configuration for real-time data sets. The Real-Time
configuration screen, as seen in Figure 1.50, is available when an MView plot con-
tains at least one real-time data curve.
The Sliding X Axis option is used to change the auto scaling behavior of the plot
such that the last X Axis Size units of time are visible within the plot area each time
the plot is rescaled. When the Sliding X Axis option is enabled, the Scale X Axis to
Real-Time option is not available.
The Scale X Axis to Real-Time and Scale Y Axes to Real-Time options modify
the auto scaling behavior of plots that contain both replay and real-time data. To
prevent auto-scaling the X axis according to the replay data on the plot, enable the
Scale X Axis to Real-Time option. To prevent auto scaling the Y axes according to
the replay data, enable the Scale Y Axes to Real-Time option.
Plot Templates
The current state of all the plots on the screen can be saved into a template file. This
template can then be recalled later to view the same plots again, even for a different
simulation. This makes it easy to recall groups of plots that are always viewed
together. Any template that is saved can be added directly on the Template menu
for easy access.
The template contains the current plot default attributes, identifies opened plots and
relative window positions, and the plot configuration for each of these open plots.
Any options associated with these plots (e.g., plotted versus time or volume) are
also saved.
To Save a Template
Once the windows are arranged properly, select Save Template from the Template
pop-up menu that is under the Plot menu as shown in Figure 1.51.
Then specify a descriptive name for the template as illustrated in Figure 1.52. If you
do not want the template to appear in the template menu, uncheck the Add to Tem-
plate Menu check box. Click on the OK button and then specify a file name for the
template.
To Recall a Template
If the template is listed on the Template menu, just select it. Otherwise, select Load
Template from the Template menu. Then specify the template file. The plots saved
in the template will appear.
Figure 1.53 shows the current configuration of the menu, the template description
and file location.
To add a template Click on the Add button and select the desired template file. To
delete a Template select the desired template in the list. Then click on the Delete
button. To Move a Template Up in the list select the desired template and click on
the Up button as many times as needed. To Move a Template Down in the list select
the desired template and click on the Down button as many times as needed.
Right clicking on any of the Simulation Data Window spreadsheets will display a
context menu providing additional options. To reset the Simulation Data Window
columns to their original positions and original visibility, select Restore Default
Column Layout from the spreadsheet context menu.
To open a Simulation Data Window at any time, the Show Simulation Data Win-
dows sub menu under Plots provides a full list of available windows and a user
interface for opening or closing more than one window at a time.
The Simulation Data Windows are magnetic, when a data window is moved or
sized too close to another magnetic window, the two windows will ‘snap’ together.
To override this feature, hold the CTRL key while sizing or moving the Simulation
Data Windows.
When the simulation is started, various Simulation Data Windows are opened
according to the current Run Options described in the next section.
Simulation Data Windows are magnetic; they will snap together if they get close
to one another. Holding the CTRL key overrides this feature.
Run Options
The Run Options dialog box is shown in Figure 1.56 and is available in all applica-
tions that contain simulators. To open the Run Options dialog, choose Options...
from the Run menu. These options are used during the program execution (Run-
ning) and provide flexibility for auto scaling of plots, beeping after each iteration
and min./max. error checking.
Any template that is saved can be shown during running by selecting the Template
file using the browse button (The button containing an ellipse; see Figure 1.56).
Generating Reports
All of the Meyer programs can generate reports which can be viewed on the screen
or exported to a file.
Viewing Reports
To view a report, choose the View Report command from the Report menu and
select the report type. A report window will then appear. Use the arrow keys or the
scroll bars to scroll around the report. The appearance of the report can be config-
ured as described below.
Report Configuration
To configure the appearance of on-screen reports, select Report Configuration
from the Report menu. This will bring up the Report Configuration dialog box
shown in Figure 1.57.
To include a bitmap, such as a company logo, at the top of the report, click on the
Bitmap at top of Report checkbox. Then click on the Select File button to select
the bitmap file. The bitmap can be left, center or right justified.
There are four different levels of text in reports: the Main Title, Title, Subtitle and
Main Text. For each, the justification and font may be configured. Choose the
desired justification with the Left, Center and Right radio buttons. The Main Text
justification is not configurable. To select the font for a text level, click on the
appropriate Select Font button. From the Font dialog box, select the desired Font,
Font style and Size.
The table justification is used to configure how tables are displayed. Select Left,
Center or Right.
To make report windows automatically maximized when they come up, check the
Automatically maximize report windows check box.
Exporting Reports
There are three options for exporting a report, either as a text, HTML or RTF file. A
text file is formatted by spaces and tabs. An RTF file contains all of the formatting
that is in a report window; however, an RTF file can only be read by word proces-
sors that support RTF files.
Pre-Unicode
• Characters were represented by a single byte and interpreted according to the
Windows “language for non-Unicode programs” setting.
• Many common symbols could not be used in the user interface due to character
encoding limitations.
Unicode
• Characters are represented by one or more bytes and interpreted according to
the Unicode standard.
Now that the applications are Unicode compatible, any non-Unicode text loaded
from a file is converted to Unicode when the file is opened. This applies to most of
the file formats that applications prior to Meyer 2009 were capable of saving or
exporting. A prompt for choosing an international text encoding will be displayed if
this conversion process cannot be completed automatically. An example of this
prompt is show in Figure 1.59.
If a file is opened with an incorrect international text encoding, the text may
appear to be corrupt. If this happens, reopen the file and try choosing a different
international text encoding.
Text Files
UTF-8 and UTF-16 encoded text files are supported provided that they contain a
valid BOM (byte order mark). If the byte order mark is omitted, the file will be
interpreted using the Windows “language for non-Unicode programs” setting.
Known Issues
• Languages that read from right to left are not fully supported.
• Characters outside of the Basic Multilingual Plane (BMP) are not fully sup-
ported.
MFrac
A Three Dimensional Hydraulic
Fracturing Simulator
2.1 Introduction
MFrac is a three-dimensional hydraulic fracturing simulator that is designed to be
used as an everyday tool. MFrac accounts for the coupled parameters affecting frac-
ture propagation and proppant transport. MFrac is not a fully 3-D model. It is how-
ever formulated between a pseudo-3D and full 3-D type model with an applicable
half-length to half-height aspect ratio greater than about 1/3 (Meyer15). MFrac also
has options for 2-D type fracture models.
This chapter covers the available menu options and basic procedures required to
run MFrac. Please refer to the Meyer Appendices and listed references for specific
details regarding the governing equations, modeling techniques, methodology and
numerical procedures. Example files are provided with the software to demonstrate
MFrac’s features, utility and general data entry procedures.
An outline of the basic steps for using MFrac is shown in Table 2.1.
Menu
The MFrac menu bar is shown in Figure 2.1. Generally, the menus are accessed
from left to right with the exception of the Units and Database menus.
Exporting to Exodus
After the simulation has completed, the propped fracture characteristics may be
exported for use with T.T. & Associates Exodus reservoir simulator. To do this,
select the Export to Exodus Reservoir Simulator command from the File menu. If
there is more than one active zone, MFrac will ask which zone to export. Make a
selection by choosing the desired zone in the list box and pressing OK. Then MFrac
will ask for the file name. Specify the desired file name and press OK. Use this file
name when importing data into Exodus.
For more information on the Exodus reservoir simulator, contact T.T. & Associates.
2.2 Options
The Options screen is the first input dialog box under the Data menu in MFrac. It is
used to establish the primary model options in the program. Each option relates to a
specific aspect of the fracture and proppant/acid modeling approach.
To access the Options screen, select Options from the Data menu by clicking the
menu name. The dialog box displayed in Figure 2.2 will then be presented.
The Options screen determines what information is needed for a particular type of
analysis. The specific data displayed in a screen or the existence of a data screen
itself varies depending on the options selected. This “smart-menu” approach, mini-
mizes data input and prevents unnecessary or misleading data entry. Simply decide
the relevant options for a specific simulation and the program will only display
those menus and input fields necessary. Any time the options are changed the input
data screens will be updated to enable new input or hide data that is not needed.
This hierarchy methodology is used throughout MFrac.
The selections made in the Data Options screen set the scope for all data entered
into the MFrac program. These options establish the input data required and specify
the nature of the calculations to be performed.
To select an option, click the radio button adjacent to the option preference. A black
diamond will then appear in the center of the button selected. Continuing, select a
radio button within the next option section or use the TAB button to move sequen-
tially through the choices. Once within a section, the current selection for that
option is highlighted with a dotted rectangle. The option choice may be changed by
using either the mouse or the arrow keys.
General Options
The General Options screen allows the user to specify the type of analysis to be per-
formed. The choices available for each of the General Options are summarized as
follows:
Simulation Method
Design Mode
This option is the traditional methodology used for hydraulic fracturing design. The
program flexibility allows for running in standard mode based on a given input
fracture length, slurry volume or treatment schedule. Depending on other options
specified, the program uses the formation and treatment data in the calculation of
associated fracture and proppant transport characteristics. Design Mode refers to
the fact that the design engineer must design (and optimize) the fracture treatment.
Replay/Real-Time
The Replay/Real-Time option is required for replaying or performing real-time
fracture analysis using the data collected during a treatment. This procedure
requires the use of MView as the real-time or replay data handler. Please refer to
Chapter 3 for instructions on the use of MView.
With respect to MFrac, there is essentially no difference in the procedures used for
performing real-time or replay simulations. The difference between these methods
only involves the source data input which is handled by MView. Either method per-
mits pressures matching, geometry prediction and proppant transport simulation.
Reservoir Coupling
The mechanisms which control fluid loss from a propagating fracture are discussed
in the Appendices. Typically, for general fracturing applications where the leakoff
distance perpendicular to the fracture face is small compared to the fracture length
Carters one-dimensional fluid loss model is adequate. However, for cases with
large fluid loss volumes (e.g., produced water reinjection and large scale frac-
packs), the fluid loss behavior is two-dimensional or ellipsoidal. The ellipsoid fluid
loss option should be used for cases when the leakoff distance becomes greater than
a small fraction of the fracture length.
Linear (Conventional)
This is the classic linear fluid loss model as proposed by Carter and assumes that
the fluid loss is one-dimensional. This option can be used for most applications and
is the most common fluid loss model used for propagating fractures.
Ellipsoidal (Koning)
This option allows for ellipsoidal (2D) fluid loss from the fracture and generally
results in lower fracture efficiencies in high permeability formations when large
volumes of fluid are injected. This option requires selection of either the Harmonic
or Dynamic Fluid Loss Model. The Ellipsoidal model should be selected for pro-
duced water reinjection and high permeability large volume frac-packs.
Real-Time
The Real-Time options are only available if the Replay/Real-Time radio button is
clicked On in the Simulation Method dialog. If MView Concentration is selected
the proppant concentration will be taken from the replay/real-time data as sent to
MFrac from MView. If the Input Concentration button is selected the proppant
concentration used by MFrac will be taken from the values specified in the Treat-
ment Schedule. Generally, the MView Concentration is desirable unless the actual
proppant concentration injected is not available.
The Synchronize Well Solution radio button is used to synchronize the numeri-
cally calculated time steps for wellbore events with the replay/real-time data.
Synchronizing the wellbore solution with the incoming real-time or replay data
enables for very refined calculations of the wellbore and near-wellbore frictional
pressure losses. Since the fracture net pressure is not as dependent on the instanta-
neous rate changes, this provides the capability to run the fracture model with a
greater time step while still simulating the effects of rate changes on frictional
losses in the wellbore and near well region.
When the NPV option is turned On, MFrac automatically sets the Treatment
Design to Auto Design and the Treatment Type to Proppant. For this option, a
maximum fracture length is specified in the treatment schedule. MFrac then auto-
matically calculates the proppant distribution and fracture conductivity for a num-
ber of incremental fracture lengths up to the maximum value specified. The
purpose of this type of analysis is to optimize the design length and conductivity for
propped fractures. This process is accomplished by coupling our analytical produc-
tion simulator MProd to forecast productivity for each subdivision of the fracture
length. MProd, in turn, produces output used by MNpv to perform Net Present
Value economic optimization calculations.
Turning NPV Off enables the simulator to perform in standard Design, Replay/Real-
time or Auto Design mode. This is the general mode of operation unless an NPV
analysis to optimize fracture length is desired.
This option determines which fluid leakoff model is used. The fluid loss model
options include specifying the total leakoff coefficient (Constant Model) or the C III
coefficient and the corresponding components which comprise C I and CII (Har-
monic or Dynamic Models). A detailed description of the components characteriz-
ing the Harmonic and Dynamic models is given in Appendix D of the Appendices
and in the Fluid Loss Data section of this chapter.
If Constant is selected, the total leakoff coefficient, C , is entered in the Fluid Loss
Data screen. The total leakoff and spurt loss coefficients are then input as a function
of depth to characterize fluid loss in the fracture at different intervals.
When either the Harmonic or Dynamic models are chosen, the filter cake coeffi-
cient ( C III ) and reservoir diffusivity parameters are input in the Fluid Loss Data
screen for each layer. The C I and C II coefficients are then calculated from the
input reservoir data and fracture propagation characteristics. The total leakoff coef-
ficient is then calculated internally as a function of differential pressure.
The weighting of the individual leakoff coefficients for the Harmonic and
Dynamic models is given in Appendix D.
When the Fluid Type Dependent check box under Fluid Loss Model option is
checked, different total leakoff coefficients (C and Spurt Loss) for each fluid can be
entered for the Constant Leakoff model. When the Harmonic or Dynamic Leakoff
model is chosen the user can input different wall building coefficients ( C III ), fil-
trate viscosities, and spurt loss coefficient for each fluid.
This option is useful when large volumes of 2% KCl or treated fluids are in the
wellbore prior to pumping the main fracturing treatment. The option is also helpful
for modeling leakoff during acid fracturing treatments with alternating pad/acid
stages.
If the Include Fluid Loss History check box under Fluid Loss Model option is
checked, the simulator will remember the fluid loss history if the fracture closes
and then re-opens. This option should be selected to include the effect of the mini-
frac on the main fracture treatment and when multiple open/close cycles are gener-
ated. If this option is checked, the model assumes that the filter cake, viscosity, and
compressibility effects from the previous fracture remain upon re-opening.
Treatment Type
This selection determines the type of fracture treatment. The Treatment Type can
be either a propped (Proppant) or acid (Acid) fracture. In addition, the treatment
can accommodate an optional foam schedule by checking the Foam box. When
Foam is checked, MFrac will include compressibility effects.
In MFrac, either the pumping schedule can be input manually or determined auto-
matically. When Auto Design is chosen, the desired design fracture length or total
slurry volume is input in the treatment schedule dialog box. Depending on the
Proppant Transport Methodology selected, specific criteria for controlling the
proppant scheduling will also be required.
When Input is chosen, the pumping parameters must be entered into the Treatment
Schedule screen. The exact data input required will depend on selections made for
other options (e.g., ramped proppant scheduling, user specified proppant settling,
acid fracturing, etc.).
When the Net Present Value Option is On the Treatment Schedule Option is
automatically set to Auto Design. For Replay/Real-Time this option is automat-
ically set to Input.
None
When this option is selected, wellbore hydraulics calculations are still performed;
however, the frictional pressure loss is assumed to be zero. The wellbore hydraulics
output data is also not displayed or written to file.
Empirical
The Empirical option is an internal correlation for calculating the frictional pres-
sure loss of Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids. This option provides a combined
correlation that is applicable for a variety of fluids ranging from linear systems to
highly non-Newtonian and viscoelastic fluids that exhibit drag reduction due to slip
or shear thinning during turbulent flow. Three distinct types of behavior are possi-
ble with the combined correlation used in MFrac. These behaviors are illustrated in
Figure 2.3 and summarized in the explicit expressions for the Fanning friction fac-
tor outlined in Table 2.3
1
Transitional Flow, Keck, et al.2 ----- = A log Re s f + B
f
When a value for the Relative Pipe Roughness is entered into one of the Wellbore
Hydraulics dialog boxes, the expression for friction factor based on Prandtl’s “Uni-
versal” Law is modified. See Appendix E for additional information.
To include the effects of proppant concentration on friction, the program has a built
in correlation for slurry rheology. The relationship used, originally described by
Keck, et al., is also presented in Appendix E.
User Database
When User Database is selected, the information specified in the fluid database is
used for calculating the frictional pressure loss in the tubing, annulus, and casing.
This data can be edited and plotted by accessing the database. The information in
the database does not represent proppant-laden fluid. Consequently, if the proppant
concentration wellbore option is selected in the proppant option screen, the friction
factor will be adjusted for proppant concentration in a manner similar to the method
described in Appendix E for the Empirical option.
Fracture Solution
These options provide control and flexibility for the time dependent discretization
methodology used in the program. To enable time step size control for capturing
various time dependent events, the user can specify the number of fracture Itera-
tions and the Maximum Time Step. MFrac will also automatically adjust the time
step size as necessary to control local and global errors. For Replay/Real-Time
analysis, the data Restart Time can also be specified.
The base time step used for discretization in the numerical simulation will be the
minimum of the values calculated from either the number of Iterations or Max
Time Step input.
Iterations
The value for the number of Iterations determines the target number of time steps
to be used for the fracture propagation solution. The total or estimated simulation
time is then divided by the number of iterations to determine the time step size.
For example, if the number of iterations is 100 and the pump time is 100 minutes,
the average time step would be one (1) minute. The actual time step may vary
depending on other numerical considerations. For most simulations, a value of 20
to 30 iterations is sufficient.
Generally, the number of iterations is most effectively used for design and auto
design. For Replay/Real-Time, the Max Time Step constraint may be more applica-
ble.
The number of time steps should be increased for cases with order-of-magnitude
changes in the injection rate or fluid rheology properties (e.g., pad/acid). It should
also be increased if the fracture encounters numerous layers in a given time step
(especially with diverse properties) or when the injection times are very large (e.g.,
years as in water flooding). The maximum time step can also be specified to mini-
mize the time step.
If the Alpha Plots accessed from the Fracture Characteristics Plot dialog box
appear erratic, the number of iterations specified may be too small. Generally, the
solution will not be very sensitive to the number of time steps because of the solu-
tion technique used. If the governing equations cannot be solved within a specific
tolerance, an alternate solution method is used for that time step. The number of
actual fracture solution iterations will always be slightly greater than the value
specified. The larger this value is, the longer the program will take to run.
The Real-Time option of synchronizing the wellbore solution to the input data
enables time refinement for wellbore and near-wellbore pressure losses. This is
very useful for history matching pressure changes due to rate. Also, as stated in the
Real-Time options section, the fracture net pressure is a weaker function of rate
than frictional pressure dissipation. This provides the capability to limit the fracture
time step while still maintaining the time refinement necessary to accurately model
wellbore friction.
Restart Time
The Restart Time is used to start or restart a simulation at a time other than the first
entry point in the data file for real-time or replay simulations. This option is nor-
mally used when earlier data is not relevant or multiple injection cycles (i.e., mini-
frac) are pumped and only the later time cycle data (i.e., main frac) is to be
analyzed. Consequently, this option provides the flexibility to restart a simulation at
the beginning or middle of any injection cycle. Enter the time in the replay/real-
time data at which the simulation should begin.
Heat Transfer
When turned On, the heat transfer solution can be used to predict the heat-up of the
fracturing fluid in the wellbore and the exchange of heat transfer in the fracture to
the reservoir during fracture propagation. The heat transfer solution accounts for
conservation of energy and results in simulating the effects of temperature on fluid
rheology. The fluid rheology properties as a function of time and temperature are
specified in the Fluid Database.
If heat transfer is turned Off, the in-situ Fluid Temperature is required. The fluid
rheological properties are then calculated from the fluid database as a function of
time based on this temperature.
Fracture Options
This group of options is accessed by clicking the Fracture tab found on the Data
Options screen. The Fracture Options provide choices for the fracture geometry
model and constitutive relationships that affect the fracture solution methodology
(see Figure 2.4). The choices are as follows:
Fracture Geometry
This section describes the five geometry models used in MFrac. See Appendix A
for a detailed description of each model. The parametric relationships for the 2-D
type models is also discussed.
Horizontal Ellipsoidal
The Horizontal Ellipsoidal fracture is an ellipsoidal two-dimensional planar-type
fracture geometry model for propagation in the horizontal plane. It is similar to the
Vertical Ellipsoidal model but with a number of different constraints and constitu-
tive relationships unique for horizontal propagation (e.g., proppant transport, for-
mation properties, stress orientation, etc.).
Vertical Ellipsoidal
This model produces a vertical ellipsoidal shaped fracture geometry that intersects
the wellbore along the fracture height. This fracture also has an ellipsoidal width
profile in the vertical and lateral planes. The Ellipsoidal Aspect Ratio is equal to
the ratio of the total length (tip to tip, 2L) to the total fracture height ( = 2L H ).
Figure 2.6 shows a vertical ellipsoidal fracture and illustrates the height, width, and
length coordinates.
This model is similar to the Horizontal Ellipsoidal model in appearance only. The
major differences are related to orientation, intersection effects, influence of in-situ
stresses, proppant transport and a number of other constitutive relationships.
GDK
The GDK option invokes a constant height fracture geometry model with a verti-
cally constant fracture width. That is a vertically unbounded geometry with slip at
the upper and lower extremities as shown in Figure 2.7. This model is characterized
by a decreasing net pressure with time. This option is most applicable for fractures
with length to height aspect ratios less than unity = 2L H 1 or for fractures
which display slip at the upper and lower boundaries. Slip may be an appropriate
assumption when rock interfaces are “weak” due to rock competence or when nor-
mal stresses may be low (e.g., at shallow depths). The GDK model typically pre-
dicts greater wellbore widths and shorter fracture lengths than the PKN model for
fractures with aspect ratios greater than unity. The major difference between the
PKN and GDK models is in the width-opening pressure relationship as shown
below:
GDK - W w pL E
PKN - W w pH E
PKN
The PKN model, like the GDK model, is also a constant height model but differs by
having an elliptically shaped width in the vertical plane (vertically bounded geome-
try). Unlike the GDK model, the PKN net pressure increases with time for a con-
stant injection rate. The PKN fracture model is most applicable when the total
fracture length is greater than the total fracture height ( = 2L H 1 ). The major
difference between the GDK and PKN model is in the width-opening pressure rela-
tionship given above. Figure 2.8 shows the PKN fracture geometry profile.
The GDK vertically constant width and PKN elliptical width profiles do not con-
trol either models characteristic behavior. It’s all in the width-opening pressure
constitutive relationship. See Meyer4 for additional comments on model differ-
ences.
3-Dimensional
This is a 3-dimensional planar fracture model with both lateral and vertical frac-
ture propagation. For large length to height aspect ratios, the model approaches the
PKN constant height type geometry. When no confining stress, toughness or mod-
uli contrast are entered, the model approaches a vertical radial-type geometry. This
model produces the most realistic geometries and is applicable for all length to
height aspect ratios. Figure 2.9 shows a typical 3-Dimensional fracture geometry
profile. As illustrated, the model assumes a bounded geometry at the leading edge
(perimeter).
Flowback
This option provides the user with the capability to allow fluid and proppant to
flowback (negative injection rates and/or cross-flow) from the fracture. To simulate
cross-flow between multilayer fractures, this option must be On. If this option is
Off, cross-flow during closure and flowback will not be permitted.
This option must be clicked on to simulate flowback, since a negative rate must be
input into the treatment schedule.
Simulate to Closure
When Simulate to Closure is On, the program will simulate closure after pumping.
Simulate to closure assumes the spatial fracture compliance factors used during clo-
sure remain constant and equal to the values at the end of pumping. This method is
less rigorous than the alternative (i.e., when this option is Off) when closure is sim-
ulated with a treatment schedule rate of zero.
When Simulate to Closure is Off the program will not simulate fracture propagation
or lateral proppant transport during closure, unless a zero rate is input in the treat-
ment schedule. The proppant transport solution during closure can accommodate
both simulate to closure and a zero rate stage (shut-in) in the treatment schedule.
Simulate to closure may not be an appropriate choice for multilayer fractures which
exhibit cross-flow.
Normally this option has little effect on the fracture geometry, except for cases
when the hydrostatic head difference in the fracture is of the same order of magni-
tude or greater than the fracture net pressure. This can happen in soft formations
(low Young’s modulus) when the fracture height is large.
Propagation Parameters
The options for Propagation Parameters are Default Growth, No Growth During
Shut-in, and Positive Growth Only. This option is used to override the propagation
rate calculated by the mass conservation, continuity and momentum equations.
Fracture propagation will be set to zero during closure if no growth during shut-in
is selected. If the Positive Growth Only option is selected the fracture will not be
allowed to recede.
These options may be helpful for interference closure, proppant effects, flowback
and history matching pressure declines. Low permeability rocks fractured with high
efficiency fluids may continue to propagate even after the pumps have shut down.
To model the pressure decline the user may want to select Default Growth or Posi-
tive Growth Only.
When fracturing wells with large stress contrasts between the reservoir rock and the
bounding layers, the upper and/or lower zones may close before the reservoir rock
closes. This will effect the fracture compliance changing the slope of the pressure
decline.
Perforated Interval
When this option is chosen, the program uses the entire Perforated Interval as the
initial fracture height. The effective closure pressure is then calculated as the mini-
mum fracture pressure necessary to keep the fracture open over the perforated inter-
val. This initiation pressure may not be (and usually is not) equal to the minimum
horizontal stress in this interval.
f D = 24 Re
2
where Re is the Reynolds number ( Re = w and dp dx = – 1 2 f D w )
Deviations from laminar flow affect the frictional dissipation in the fracture and,
therefore, on the pressure predicted by a model. Turbulent flow in the fracture may
also occur when very low viscosity fluids (e.g., gas) at high rates are pumped. To
account for these phenomena and improve the ability to predict non-laminar fric-
tional pressure loss in a fracture, the following friction factor expression is used
when the Fracture Friction Model is turned On:
b
f D = a Re
Irregularities along the fracture face (e.g., tortuosity, bifuraction and wall rough-
ness) that interrupt and disturb fluid flow can also result in greater energy dissipa-
tion. These effects can be modeled by increasing the a coefficient or modifying the
wall roughness factor discussed below.
The approximations for the a and b coefficients in Table 2.4 have been developed
empirically in accordance with Prandtl's Universal Law of the Wall (see
Schlichting3).
MFrac does not use apparent viscosity. The above formulation is based on a
power-law Reynolds number to provide the user with insight on the effect of
these energy dissipation mechanisms.
Wall Roughness
When this option is turned Off, the Darcy friction factor inside the fracture is used
without modification as determined from the selections made in the Fracture Fric-
tion Model option. This selection assumes that the fracture surface is a smooth pla-
nar feature without roughness.
To include the effects of roughness (or waviness) on the frictional dissipation, turn
this option On. This will result in an increase in the frictional pressure drop and
fracture width, as well as, a decrease in fracture length. If this option is used, the
friction factor defined in the Fracture Friction Model option will be modified using
a Friction Factor Multiplier. The relationship used is defined in the expression
shown below:
f D = M f f D
where
Tip Effects
The observed field pressures for some treatments may at times be much higher than
the simulated pressure. This discrepancy in measured pressure can be minimized in
a number of ways. Typically, the friction factor multiplier, fracture toughness, near-
wellbore effects, confining stress or rock/reservoir properties are modified to obtain
Tip effects, in general, remain an area of some controversy and considerable dis-
cussion. Plausible explanations for these effects have been proposed. The possibili-
ties include tip friction due to flow resistance, rock properties effects (e.g.,
toughness as a function of stress at the leading edge or poroelasticity), or it may be
a consequence of fracture geometry (e.g., complex geometry and/or multiple frac-
tures).
In this version of MFrac, tip effects represent a flow resistance at the tip. Regard-
less of whether you believe this flow resistance is due to viscosity effects or some
other phenomena related to the tip region (e.g., tip geometry), the general effect on
pressure is typically the same (i.e., resistance is resistance). It is important to note,
however, that this type of resistance differs from fracture toughness in its classical
application in that over-pressure varies with injection rate and time, fracture tough-
ness does not.
The range on the over-pressure factor allowed by MFrac is between 0 and 1.0. If
this option is disabled, Off, a default value of zero is used. Usually, the Tip Effect
option is never suggested unless all other reasonable measures have been taken and
the measured injection pressures are still well above the theoretical values predicted
by the simulator.
When reasonable values have been implemented for wall roughness, friction factor
multiplier, toughness and other formation properties, a value between 0.1 to 0.4
may be justifiable. The larger the over-pressure factor the greater the increase in
the net pressure. If you are having difficulty relating the over-pressure factor to
pressure, one approach is to use the MinFrac program to automatically regress on
the tip factor to determine an appropriate value. This best fit value from matching
the net pressure in a minifrac analysis is a good place to start.
Many engineers mistake near wellbore pressure loss for excess net pressure. Keep
in mind that when the injection rate changes suddenly, the near wellbore pressure
loss also changes instantly; whereas, the fracture net pressure cannot because of
storage (i.e., if the rate drops suddenly and the BHTP follows, this is not excess
pressure but frictional dissipation in the near wellbore region).
Figure 2.11: Fracture Tip Width Reduction due to Non-Linear Elastic Effects.
Proppant Options
This group of options is accessed by clicking the Proppant tab found on the Data
Options screen. The proppant options specify the proppant transport methodology
to be employed. Figure 2.12 illustrates the proppant options available. These
options are discussed below.
Proppant Solution
The Proppant Solution may be turned On or Off. If Off is chosen, no proppant
transport calculations will be performed and all other options related to the prop-
pant transport will be dimmed. If Off is selected, there will be no coupling between
the fracture propagation and proppant transport solutions. Consequently, the frac-
ture may propagate backward (negative growth) during closure depending on the
R.O.C. of energy and mass conservation. If the proppant transport solution is On
and the Proppant Transport Methodology is not on conventional, negative growth
will not be allowed (this assumes proppant interaction).
When the Proppant Solution option is turned On, proppant transport calculations
will be performed.
If Input is chosen for the Treatment Schedule Options, MFrac calculates the geom-
etry and proppant distribution based on the input treatment schedule.
When Auto Design is selected, either the desired fracture length or designed slurry
volume must be entered in the Treatment Schedule screen. The program then auto-
matically designs a treatment schedule to satisfy the design criteria. For Auto
Design, the Proppant Type, Initial Proppant Concentration, Incremental Proppant
Concentration, Final Proppant Concentration, Maximum Proppant Concentration
and Proppant Damage Factor must be entered. Depending on the Proppant Trans-
port Methodology option selected, the program will internally calculate the
required PAD and proppant schedule to prevent (or create) a screen-out and
achieve, if possible, the optimum treatment specified.
Proppant Ramp
The ramp option controls the ability to ramp the proppant concentration between a
specified range. When this option is On, the concentration of proppant will be
ramped linearly from an initial value (From) to a final (To) value for each fluid
stage in the Treatment Schedule dialog box. This results in a linear proppant ramp
with liquid volume.
When this option is turned Off, a uniform proppant concentration is assumed for
each stage. The Treatment Schedule screen will then permit only one entry value
for concentration.
Proppant Flowback
The Proppant Flowback may be turned On or Off. This option when selected On
simulates the flow of proppant back towards the wellbore.
Perforation Erosion
This option allows for perforation erosion during the treatment. If this option is
turned On the perforation frictional pressure loss will decrease as the mass of prop-
pant through each perforation increases.
Limited entry designs require a certain differential pressure across the perforations
to ensure that each zone accepts a proportionate amount of fluid and proppant. Dur-
ing the limited entry treatment, perforations are exposed to a proppant and liquid
slurry. The effect of proppant is to increase the discharge coefficient, C D , and the
hydraulic diameter of the perforation. The increase in the discharge coefficient can
be described as a rounding of the perforation.
Conventional
This option disables the link between the proppant transport and fracture propaga-
tion solutions. When this option is selected, the proppant transport calculations will
not affect the fracture propagation behavior. Consequently, for a bridge-out or
screen-out the condition of an increasing net pressure will not occur. The proppant
calculations will be performed after each fracture iteration but the results will not
be coupled.
When the Auto Design option is used, the choice of Conventional (Link Prop-
pant) will cause the program to calculate an optimum proppant transport schedule
without screening-out. To simulate a TSO or Frac-Pack please refer to one of the
options described below.
Therefore, the following discussion will be directed toward using the TSO option as
it pertains to the Auto Design capabilities.
For this option, based on user specified criteria (e.g., target Frac Length, Initial and
Max. Inlet Concentration, Average Concentration/Area and Max. BHP), the pro-
gram will automatically design a pumping schedule that optimizes a tip screen-out
condition (TSO). Once a screen-out occurs, the net pressure will continue rising
during the remaining part of the treatment to meet the desired design criteria. Dur-
ing this type of simulation, the linked solution methodology permits continuous
proppant transport calculations as the slurry is concentrating in the fracture due to
leakoff.
The program always satisfies the specified length and then, if possible, the average
concentration per unit area. User specified constraints are used as absolute limits
and maintain the following priority: Maximum BHP has first priority, Max. Prop-
pant Concentration (lbm/ft2) in the fracture is second and Maximum Inlet Con-
centration is last. If any of the specified criteria are not met, it means that a higher
priority constraint was imposed.
Frac-Pack
This is a more aggressive variation of the TSO solution technique described above.
Once again, it only differs from the Conventional (Link Proppant) option when
the automatic design feature is used.
Like the TSO option, it is also based on the user specified criteria, Frac Length, Ini-
tial and Max. Inlet Concentration, Average Concentration/Area and Maximum
BHP. When this option is used, the program will automatically determine a pump-
ing schedule to first produce a tip screen-out and then pack the fracture. Unlike the
Tip Screen-out option described above, the Frac-Pack method prevents excessive
width growth (ballooning) by decreasing the injection rate after the maximum inlet
concentration is attained.
Empirical
This single particle settling velocity correlation is based on the work of Bird, et al.9
Extension of this work to non-Newtonian fluids for all flow regimes from Stokes
Law to Newtonian flow results in the friction factor equations listed below by
Slatery11. The terminology upper and lower bound refers to the X coefficient used
in these equations. Wall and slurry concentration (bulk viscosity) effects are
included in this option to account for hindered settling. These effects are based on
modified density and viscosity correlations.
24- 2
24- --------
f = --------
a
X + c ; Re 500
b
Re Re
5
f = 0.44 ; 500 Re 2.0x10
where
f = friction factor
Re = non-Newtonian Reynolds number
a = 1.1
b = 0.9
c = 7.5
and
n-1 n + 2- n
X = 3 -------------
3n
Lower Bound12 ( X 1 )
X = 1 Empirical9,11
X = 1 + 0.8 1 – n
0.7
Upper Bound12 ( X 1 )
Convective Transport
The characteristic dimension that has the most significant influence on the particle
settling velocity for classical (Empirical) proppant transport solutions is the particle
diameter. Experimental results have demonstrated for certain fluid/proppant combi-
nations that this approach, based on modified forms of Stokes Law, significantly
underestimates vertical settling velocity when large fluid bulk gradients exist.
These conditions may occur when large pad volumes, high proppant concentra-
tions, or significant stage density contrasts exist.
2
w
v s = ------------
12 a z
where
The vertical velocity determined from the relationship shown above is corrected for
hindered settling using a power law model substitution for apparent viscosity and
effective density approach. The single particle velocity, calculated for an individual
stage using the Empirical method described above, is superimposed over the bulk
settling solution to characterize the complete settling history of the treatment.
Cluster Settling
Like the convective transport methodology described above, Cluster Settling
includes the effects of bulk density gradients and can, therefore, be used to simulate
gravity induced flow. The formulations developed for this option are given below.
The cluster settling rates produced may be higher than convective transport because
of the differences in the rheology and density corrections used. These corrections
result in an apparent viscosity that is lower than predicted by convection and an
effective density that is higher. This has the result of reducing the drag or wall
effects that are calculated; hence higher settling velocity.
In addition, with Cluster Settling, only the bulk flow is considered. No single par-
ticle, Stokes-type settling velocity is included. Consequently, there is no internal
particle settling assumed within an individual cluster.
This correlation may be most applicable when base fluid viscosity is low and prop-
pant concentrations are relatively high (e.g., when you are pumping a banking
fluid). The cluster settling formulation is:
gd eq 2
v s = -------------------
18 a
where
d = particle diameter
d eq = equivalent or characteristic diameter
a = apparent slurry viscosity
= proppant void fraction
s = packed proppant void fraction
= density difference of particulates and fluid
g = gravitational acceleration
w = fracture width
and
d d
d eq = s w + 1 – s d
A power law correlation for apparent viscosity is used for proppant settling.
Wellbore-Proppant Effects
This option controls the methodology used to simulate the effects of proppant con-
centration on pipe friction. The options are as follows:
None
For this selection, proppant has no effect on the friction factors used in the wellbore
hydraulics calculations.
Empirical
This option includes the effects of proppant concentration on pipe friction as origi-
nally described by Keck, et al.2 This correlation uses an expression for relative
slurry viscosity to account for the effects of proppant on increased friction. The
relationship is shown below:
– 1 – n 1000 1.25 2
r = 1 + 0.75 e
1.5n
– 1 e -------------------
1 – 1.5
where
For laminar flow, the friction factor multiplier, M, for proppant-laden fluids is equal
to the value of r . For proppant-laden fluids in turbulent flow, the expression
shown below is used to estimate the effect of proppant on friction:
M f = r0.55 r0.45
and
fs = Mf fb
where
User Specified
For some slurry systems, adequate characterization of the frictional dissipation is
not possible with the empirical correlation contained in MFrac. If this occurs, the
friction factor multiplier as a function of proppant concentration can be specified in
tabular form.
Fracture-Proppant Effects
This option controls the effect of proppant concentration on frictional pressure
losses in the fracture. The options are summarized below:
None
For this selection, proppant has no effect on the friction factor calculated in the
fracture.
Empirical
This option includes the effects of proppant concentration on fracture friction based
on the empirical expressions shown below. The procedure involves a correction to
the base viscosity to produce a relative viscosity term. Once this is done, the fric-
tion factor is calculated based on the Fracture Friction Model selected and the
Friction Factor Multiplier (if the Wall Roughness option is activated). The gen-
eral correlation as a function of proppant void fraction is:
r = 1 –
where
User Specified
For some slurry systems, adequate characterization may not be possible with the
empirical correlation contained in MFrac. If this occurs, the friction factor multi-
plier as a function of proppant concentration can be input in tabular form. The val-
ues entered are then used to determine the relative viscosity term based on the
solids fraction present. Like in the Wellbore Proppant Effects, the friction factor is
calculated based on the Fracture Friction Model and friction factor multiplier spec-
ified (if the Wall Roughness is enabled).
The following sections pertain to the Data menu items found within the main menu.
Each Data menu item is covered in detail along with a description of the data dia-
logs and their associated variables. When pertinent, the conditions or case sensitive
options for a data screen are noted and an example of the resulting dialog shown.
All of the different data screens available within MFrac and the variables contained
within them are presented.
Description
The Data Description screen shown in Figure 2.13 provides a location for entering
information about a simulation. Space is provided for entering the Company
Name, Well Name, Well Location and Simulation Date. In addition, a Comments,
section is included so that descriptive information can be entered. All information
contained in this dialog is optional.
To enter data, position the cursor at the desired location using the mouse or TAB
key. Any text can be selected by using the mouse or the keyboard. The scroll bar to
the right of the Comments section can be used to view all the data entered.
Wellbore Hydraulics
MFrac offers an integrated wellbore hydraulics module that couples the fracture
with the wellbore to provide additional simulation capability. An energy balance
approach is used to calculate the pressure changes due to potential energy, kinetic
energy, frictional dissipation and restrictions in the wellbore.
This general solution permits calculations of surface pressure, BHP in the wellbore,
Frac-Pack screen pressure drop, hydrostatic head, frictional loss and hydraulic
power requirements for a treatment design. The flexibility of the model provides
the capability to history match measured pressures during real-time or replay treat-
ment analysis.
General Data
The General Wellbore Hydraulics screen is shown in Figure 2.14.
Injection Down
Performing wellbore hydraulics calculations requires that the wellbore configura-
tion and perforations be described. Numerous configurations are possible. Injection
can be simulated down tubing, casing, annulus or both. To select the configuration,
choose one of the radio buttons found in the Injection Down section of the General
Wellbore Hydraulics screen shown in Figure 2.14.
1. Casing - Injection is down the casing. This option assumes there is no tubing
in the wellbore. Therefore, tubing data is ignored for this option. If you only
want to pump down the casing/tubing annulus, check Annulus rather than
Casing.
2. Tubing - Fluid is pumped down the tubing string. When the fluid reaches the
end of the tubing it will flow through the casing to the perforations.
3. Coiled Tubing - Fluid is pumped down the coiled tubing. When the fluid
reaches the end of the coiled tubing it will flow through the casing to the perfo-
rations.
4. Annulus - Fluid is pumped down the annulus between the casing and tubing.
Both casing and tubing data must be entered.
5. Tubing and Annulus - For this option, flow will be simulated down both the
tubing and annulus. Both tubing and casing data are required for this option.
When Horizontal Well is selected, the user can input the MD at the center of the
perforations rather than TVD. This provides the capability for locating the perfora-
tions on a horizontal section of the casing.
When selecting Frac-Pack Screen, the Screen O.D. and Crossover Pressure
Loss Coefficient must be entered. This provides the added capability of simulating
flow around the screen (pressure loss) and storage volume reduction due to the
decreased flow area. Once the frac-pack screen diameter is entered it will be dis-
played on the wellbore schematic extending from the end of tubing to the end of the
casing. The Crossover Pressure Loss Coefficient is used to calculate the minor
pressure loss associated with the crossover port:
2
s
p = – K -----------
2
where
p = pressure loss
K = loss coefficient
s = slurry density
v = velocity
Typical values for the loss coefficient are between two and ten.
Maximum BHTP
This is the maximum allowable BHTP at the BHTP Reference Depth. If this value
is exceeded during the simulation a warning message will be displayed. This Maxi-
mum BHTP is also used as a design criteria in Auto Design mode to ensure that the
optimum design does not exceed this value.
Volume
On the top of the General tab of the Wellbore Hydraulics dialog box, a Volume is
displayed. This volume is calculated based on the wellbore configuration and
includes the surface line volume. This volume is also used as the wellbore/flush
volume in the Treatment Schedule.
Deviation Data
The first step in describing the wellbore configuration is to enter the wellbore devi-
ation survey. To do this, click the Deviation tab found on the Wellbore Hydraulics
dialog box, as shown in Figure 2.15. A table for wellbore survey stations will then
be displayed.
This method models the well path between two stations as being along a straight
line whose length is the measured depth difference between the two stations and
whose inclination and azimuth angles are the average of the stations’ values.
This method models the well path between two stations as two line segments, each
having a length that is half the measured depth difference between the stations. The
first segment having the inclination and azimuth angles of the first station and the
second segment have those of the second station.
This method is a refinement of the Balanced Tangential Method where the two line
segments are replaced by a circular arc lying in the same plane as the line segments,
but where the arc length is equal to the difference in measured depths of the sta-
tions. The implementation is based on the formulation of Sawaryn et al. (see SPE
84246)
This method models the well path between two stations as a circular arc lying on a
vertical plane which is then curved along a horizontal circular arc.
Tangential Method
This method, like the Average Angle method, models the well path between two
stations as being along a straight line whose length is the measured depth difference
between the two stations, but whose inclination and azimuth are those of the second
station only.
Deviation Input
The deviation input option determines what data needs to be entered in the devia-
tion table. For 3D directional surveys, choose Inclination and Azimuth (3D) (this is
the only option available for the Minimum Curvature method). For 2D inclination
surveys you have the option of entering the inclination angle or true vertical depth
(TVD).
Deviation Table
The table allows input of the wellbore survey stations. It is composed of various
columns depending on which input option is selected. For 3D surveys, the mea-
sured depth (MD), inclination angle and azimuth angle values are entered, and the
northing, easting and TVD values are calculated based on the wellbore survey
method selected. For 2D surveys, the table has columns for MD , Inclination Angle
and TVD. The input option determines which of the two (inclination angle or TVD)
is enter and which is calculated.
When using the radius of curvature method, the table includes the Angle Build
Rate feature that allows the deviation angle or angle build rate to be specified. If
the deviation angle is input, the angle build rate will be calculated. If the angle build
rate is specified the deviation angle will be calculated.
When you are finished entering the deviation data, or want to view the data graphi-
cally to check its validity, click on the View Deviation Plots button. A dialog box
will open with a set of tabbed plots: The first is the cross-section that plots the devi-
ation’s TVD versus horizontal displacement. The second plots TVD versus MD.
The third plots the inclination angle versus MD. For 3D surveys, three addition
plots are included: TVD versus North, TVD versus. East, and North versus. East.
Casing/Tubing Data
To enter pipe data, choose either the Casing and/or Tubing tabs found on the Well-
bore Hydraulics screen, depending upon your application. The program uses the
information entered to calculate the pipe volume and/or flush volume. The value
calculated is displayed in the upper left corner of the General Wellbore Hydraulics
screen and also in the Wellbore section of the Treatment Schedule. Make sure that
the volume calculated is correct if you are planning to evaluate under- or over-dis-
placement conditions. This is especially important for real-time and replay simula-
tion.
For Casing, enter the Measured Depth and Section Length for the portion of the
casing you want to describe (Figure 2.16). Selecting Allow Casing Overlap
enables the user to input both the measured depth and section length. If no overlap
exists, do not check this box.
To specify the OD, ID and pipe Weight, scroll through the Casing Database, found
at the bottom of the Casing screen to locate the correct pipe size. When you have
found the size, click the corresponding database row and the data will automatically
be entered in the casing data table. If the data is not present in the database, it can
either be entered directly in the table or it can be added to the database.
In MFrac, the entry of Casing and Tubing data is handled in a similar manner. For
Tubing data, however, it is only necessary to enter the Measured Depth, as no
overlap in sizes is allowed (Figure 2.17). Like the Casing data, once the depths
have been specified, fill in the table with the correct pipe sizes from the Tubing
Database. As each row of data is entered, it is displayed in the wellbore configura-
tion diagram located on the left side of the Wellbore Hydraulics screen. The pipe
components and their positions are drawn with the same relative scaling.
For both the Casing and Tubing, a Relative Pipe Roughness and Friction Loss
Multiplier can be entered independently for each string of pipe. The Friction Loss
Multiplier can be used to simulate additional pressure losses, due to collars, joints,
roughness, restrictions, etc. This parameter modifies the calculated frictional pres-
sure loss. When using this feature the calculated frictional pressure loss is multi-
plied by the Friction Loss Multiplier. For example, if the simulated pressure loss is
1000 psi and the friction multiplier is 0.75 the actual pressure loss reported by the
program would be 750 psi.
The Tubing dialog changes when coiled tubing is specified. Only one set of tubing
parameters is applicable, and the option to calculate friction loss (based on the reel
core diameter) or to use a user-defined reel friction loss multiplier is available. The
length of coil on the reel is calculated by subtracting the Measured Depth from the
Total Coiled Tubing Length. An example of the coiled tubing tab is shown in Fig-
ure 2.18.
The Total Coiled Tubing Length is the total length of tubing on the reel and in the
well. The Measured Depth is the length of tubing in the well. Length of Coil on the
Reel is difference between the Total Coiled Tubing Length and the Measure Depth.
The Reel Core Mean Diameter is required input if the User-defined Coiled-Tubing
Reel Friction-Loss Multiplier is unchecked. The friction factor multiplier for the
coil on the reel is then calculated from a modified McCann’s correlation (SPE
36345) as given by
b
f ct = f st 1 + a d D
where f ct is the fanning friction factor for the coiled-tubing, f st is the fanning fric-
tion factor for straight tubing, d is the coil tubing inside diameter, and D is the reel
core diameter (i.e., mean diameter), and the coefficients a = 1.5 and b = 0.1 are
b
fm = 1 + a d D
In general, the frictional loss multiplier for the tubing on the reel is an additional
multiplier to the straight tubing friction factor times the straight tubing multiplier.
Pipe roughness is also included in the frictional pressure loss calculation when the
Wellbore Hydraulics Model is selected as Empirical. When a value is entered for
the Relative Pipe Roughness, the expression used for friction factor is modified in
accordance with Prandtl’s “Universal” law expression. Refer to Appendix E for
addition information regarding the effect of wall roughness on the friction factor.
Restrictions Data
The last component included in the wellbore configuration is the description of any
restrictions that may exist in the tubing. Restriction data is optional and can be
entered by clicking the Restrictions tab found on the Wellbore Hydraulics dialog
box as shown in Figure 2.19. The table that is displayed requires the measured
depth, inside diameter and optional Friction Loss Multiplier for each restriction.
This feature can be used to simulate the effects of various tool or pipe configura-
tions.
BHTP References
Figure 2.20 shows the BHTP reference depth table. Three (3) BHTP reference
depths can be specified for reporting BHTP in the wellbore. Either the Measured
Depth (MD) or True Vertical Depth (TVD) may be entered. If the reference depth
is above the tubing and you are pumping down both tubing and casing, the BHTP in
the tubing will be reported.
Profile
After configuring the wellbore components, click the Profile tab on the Wellbore
Hydraulics dialog box to view a graphical representation of the components and
wellbore deviation (see Figure 2.21). Clicking on the Plot button will open a dialog
box to allow reconfiguring, zooming and printing of the plot.
Zones
The Zones dialog box is used to specify the number and location of the perforated
intervals and corresponding Zone Data (Figure 2.22). A maximum of ten different
perforated intervals or limited entry type fractures can be specified. The methodol-
ogy and governing equations for multilayer or limited entry fracturing is discussed
in Appendix B.
The type of data required to define an interval depends on whether the well and/or
the fracture is horizontal or vertical. A well is assumed to be a “vertical well”
unless the Horizontal check box in the General Wellbore Hydraulics screen is
checked.
Active
Any zone that is defined in the program can be enabled or disabled for use in simu-
lation of multilayer fractures by double-clicking the left column to display or clear
a check mark. A zone is Active when the check mark is displayed. Each Active
zone represents the possibility of creating a multilayer fracture in that zone. If only
one zone is active, the fracture will initiate in that zone.
Zone Name
To assist in keeping track of the data depth intervals, an optional Zone name can be
entered in the second column of the table. This name is only used to help organize
the input and output data.
Perfs TVD, Bottom of Perfs TVD) or measured depths (i.e., Top of Perfs MD, Bot-
tom of Perfs MD).
If a horizontal well is specified in the General Wellbore Hydraulics screen, the cen-
ter of the perforated measured depth (Center of Perfs MD) is input and the true ver-
tical center of the perforated depth (Center of Perfs TVD) is calculated. The Center
of Perfs TVD is dimmed and cannot be edited. This same convention is used when
the Horizontal Ellipsoidal fracture model is specified, even if the well is vertical.
When either the Vertical Ellipsoidal or 3-D geometry options are used in combina-
tion with a horizontal well, it is also necessary to enter the TVD for the top and bot-
tom of fracture initiation.
When any of the two-dimensional fracture geometry models are chosen from the
General Options screen, additional columns of data are required. For the PKN or
GDK models, the Zones spreadsheet will contain two additional columns. In these
columns you must enter the top true vertical depth of the fracture (2-D Top of Frac
TVD) and the bottom true vertical depth of the fracture (2-D Bottom of Frac TVD).
This data is used to characterize the total gross height of the fracture. If an Ellipsoi-
dal fracture geometry model is chosen, the Ellipsoidal Aspect Ratio must also be
specified. This is the ratio of the major and minor ellipse axes (i.e., the ratio of the
total length (tip to tip) to the total height of the fracture (2L/H)).
Zone Data
After entering the Zones perforated depth information, open the Zone Data screen
for each interval by clicking the Edit button found in the far right column. The
Zones Data screen shown in Figure 2.23 has tabs for Perforations, Pay Zone, Mul-
tiple Fractures and Near Wellbore. A feature to include perforation erosion is also
available. To activate the perforation erosion folder you must have Perforation
Erosion selected to User Specified in the Proppant Option Dialog (see Figure
2.12).
Figure 2.23 shows a dimmed perforation erosion table illustrating that Perforation
Erosion was selected to None.
Perforations
Figure 2.24 shows the perforation tab screen. Perforation erosion has been set to
User Specified. This activates the screen for inputting perforation erosion data. The
perforation data requirements are discussed below.
Perforation Erosion
The perforation erosion feature is based on the work of Shah12, Cramer17, and El-
Rabaa, Shah, and Lord18. This option allows for perforation erosion during the
treatment.
Limited entry designs require a certain differential pressure across the perforations
to ensure that each zone accepts a proportionate amount of fluid and proppant. Dur-
ing the limited entry treatment, perforations are exposed to a slurry of proppant and
fluid. The effect of the proppant is to increase the discharge coefficient, C D , and
Figure 2.25 shows the data required to model perforation erosion. To calculate Per-
foration Erosion for limited entry fracturing treatments, select Intercept or Final
Discharge Coefficient from the Perforation Erosion dialog box. When Intercept is
selected, the intercept is calculated. Enter an Initial Discharge Coefficient, Final
Discharge Coefficient, Perforation Erosion Rate, and Critical Proppant Mass.
When Final Discharge Coefficient is chosen enter an Intercept along with the Initial
Discharge Coefficient, Perforation Erosion Rate, and Critical Proppant Mass. The
final discharge coefficient is then calculated.
Unless reliable data is available, set the initial value to 0.6 and the Final Discharge
Coefficient to 0.83.
Typical values for the Perforation Erosion Rate and Critical Proppant Mass are
0.004 in./1000 lbm and 6000 lbm.
To view a plot of the Perforation Erosion correlation, select the Plot icon. Figure
2.26 shows a plot of the hydraulic perforation diameter ( C D1 / 2 D ) and pressure loss
ratio as a function of proppant mass through each perforation. The pressure loss
ratio is the ratio of the perforation pressure loss after proppant has gone through
compared to the base case of no perforation erosion. As the amount of proppant
mass passes through a perforation, the hydraulic diameter increases and the pres-
sure loss ratio decreases. After 6000 lbm of proppant has passed through the perfo-
ration, the pressure loss ratio has dropped to less than 60% of its original value.
Figure 2.26: Hydraulic Diameter (CD1/2D) & Pressure Loss vs. Mass.
The upper and lower dashed lines are the theoretical limits for the initial and final
hydraulic perforation diameters. These limits are based on Initial and Final Dis-
charge Coefficients of 0.60 and 0.83, respectively.
Pay Zone
Figure 2.27 shows the Pay Zone data screen. To determine the fracture conductiv-
ity in a pay zone, a productive interval (pay zone) and average zone permeability
must be assigned. These values are used to determine an integrated (average) con-
ductivity ( k f w f ) and a dimensionless conductivity over the pay interval.
kf wf
F CD = ---------
kr L
L
kf wf = 0 kf x wf x dx L
and for short term production or reduced conductivity near the wellbore the follow-
ing relationship may be more applicable
L 1
k f w f = L ------------------------- dx
0 k f x w f x
where
If the Proppant Transport Plots show a conductive fracture (propped width and
conductivity contours) and the pay zone does not appear on the screen or the
pay zone plots show zero conductivity, it indicates that the fracture is not within
the pay zone.
Multiple Fractures
This section allows the user to specify the number and degree of interaction of mul-
tiple fractures in the specific multilayer zone. This is not the same as multilayer or
limited entry fracturing. Multiple fractures refer to fractures in the far field (not
near wellbore) which may or may not be interacting. These fractures may also be
parallel or dendritic (tree like). Figure 2.28 shows the multiple fractures input data
screen.
Flow Rate
Q i = q Q t where q = 1 N
Stiffness
E i = E E 0 where E = N – 1 E + 1
Fluid Loss
Vi = Vt N
where
Vt = l V0
l = 1 – N l + N
The interaction factors and degrees of interaction are given by and , respec-
tively. The degrees of interaction are the values entered into the program. The
individual fracture properties and parameters are identified by the subscript i. The
total value for N fractures is given by the subscript t.
Depending on the degree of fracture interaction, the fracture net pressure can be
lower for multiple fractures than for a single fracture.
If near wellbore multiple fractures are causing near wellbore pressure losses, the
near wellbore pressure loss table should be used.
Number of Fractures
This is the number of multiple fractures (with two wings) to be modeled in a given
layer. The default is a single two wing fracture (Number of Fractures equal to
one).
Fracture Interaction
Check this box to specify the degree of stiffness and fluid loss interaction for com-
peting fractures. The default is no fracture interaction.
Stiffness Interaction
This represents the per cent of stiffness interaction between the multiple fracture
system. This parameter can range from 0 to 100%. The interaction values for no
and full interaction are zero and 100%, respectively. The closer the fractures are
together, the greater the stiffness. For multiple parallel fractures within a fraction of
their characteristic height, the stiffness increases by a factor equal to the number of
fractures (i.e., full interaction). For tree like (dendritic) fractures the stiffness inter-
action may be negligible (no interaction).
To include the near wellbore pressure drop as a function of time, fill in the spread-
sheet located on the right side of the Zone Data screen. Up to fifty rows can be
specified to define the near wellbore pressure drop as a function of time and rate.
Import RT Button
When performing real-time or replay analysis using MView, MFrac automatically
records “significant rate and pressure changes” and generates a near wellbore pres-
sure loss relationship. After running the acquired data through MFrac, open the
Zone Data dialog box and choose the Import RT Button. The program will then
load the corresponding data file to fill in the Near Wellbore Pressure Table. If no
significant rate/BHTP changes were encountered or if the data was not run through
MFrac, a message like the one shown in Figure 2.30 will be displayed.
The imported near wellbore pressure table includes the total near wellbore pressure
loss. This table can be manually changed to incorporate small rate/pressure changes
not considered significant or indeterminate by MFrac.
Once a Near Wellbore Pressure Table has been created, choose how it will be
applied by clicking one of the radio buttons located below the spreadsheet. The
options are: to ignore the table completely, use the pressure drop as the total near
wellbore effects (including perforations), or to add the resulting effects to the calcu-
lated perforation pressure losses (near well effects only).
The program performs a linear interpolation between successive data points for
K t where p t = K t q t .If the job duration is longer than the maximum time
entered in the table, the last (final) K t value will be used
Note for limited entry the imported table must be modified to account for the
fractional flow rate going into each fracture.
Treatment Schedule
The data required for the Treatment Schedule screen varies depending upon the
selections made in the General, Fracture and Proppant Options screens. The smart-
menu system used by MFrac only requests the data needed to perform a specific
simulation.
The treatment design will be scheduled from the Input Parameter choices of Maxi-
mum Fracture Length, Total Slurry Volume. or Total Proppant Mass. The spe-
cific data required will also depend on the selection made for the Proppant
Distribution Style Option which allows the user to auto design a treatment sched-
ule based on Maximum Proppant Concentration, a specific Concentration per
Unit Area, Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity, or Fracture Conductivity in
the pay zone at closure. An option for the proppant staging profile (staging time
for increasing the proppant concentration using a power law relationship) may also
be selected.
Frac pack designs allow for the additional options for the rate step down during
packing, and a rate step down criteria for multi-stage step downs. An option is also
available to maintain a net pressure increase during the rate step down in order to
pack the fracture.
The following input parameters and their descriptions are specific to the Auto
Design Treatment Schedule. Those input parameters not found here are in the sec-
tion “Input of Treatment Schedule” below.
The target values for the Concentration per Unit Area, Dimensionless Fracture
Conductivity and Fracture Conductivity are limited by the maximum proppant con-
centration pumped. Following are some of the limiting scenarios and numerical
results that will prevent achieving (below or above) the target values for Concentra-
tion per Unit Area and/or Conductivity based on the Proppant Transport Methodol-
ogy selected in the options screen:
Simulated Concentration per unit Area is lower than the specified Target Value.
Possible remedies:
• The fracture width is not large enough. Solutions a) Select a TSO or Frac Pack
design, b) increase the fluid viscosity, increase the fracture efficiency (decrease
fluid loss) or c) Increase the size of the treatment.
Simulated Concentration per unit Area is higher than the specified Target Value.
Possible remedies:
• The fracture width is too small. Solutions a) Select a TSO or Frac Pack design,
b) increase the fluid viscosity, increase the fracture efficiency (decrease fluid
loss) or c) increase the size of the treatment.
• The formation permeability may be too high. Therefore the designed fracture
length may be too large for the formation (Dimensionless Conductivity only).
Simulated Concentration per unit Area is lower than the specified Target Value.
Possible remedies:.
• Increase the final proppant concentration and or/increase the maximum allow-
able BHTP.
Simulated Concentration per unit Area is higher than the specified Target Value.
Possible remedies:
• Increase the final proppant concentration and or/increase the maximum allow-
able BHTP.
• The formation permeability may be too high. Therefore, the designed fracture
length may be too large for the formation (dimensionless conductivity only).
Fluid Type
When clicking or using the TAB key to access a Fluid Type data box, the Fluid
Database pop-up screen is presented allowing the selection of the stage fluid type.
Select the desired fluid from the list by clicking on it and the fluid code will auto-
matically be entered in the Treatment Schedule. To view the fluid properties for the
selected fluid type, click on the Fluid DB button. The specified fluid will be high-
lighted in the Fluid Database pop-up screen. Next, press the Edit button to view the
fluid properties.
Proppant Type
When a Proppant Type field is entered, either by clicking on it or using the TAB
key, the Proppant Database pop-up screen is displayed. Choose the desired prop-
pant type from the list. The proppant code will automatically be entered in the
Treatment Schedule. To view the properties that correspond to this proppant code,
click on the Proppant DB button. Next, press the Edit button to view the proppant
properties.
Fracture Length
This input field is only available if the Input Parameter selected is Maximum Frac-
ture Length. For an auto design based on fracture length (fracture half-length), the
value entered will be used to automatically develop a pumping schedule. MFrac
automatically determines the required pad and stage volumes to create the input
length based on the other parameters entered in the treatment schedule screen.
Proppant scheduling is optimized based on the proppant type, concentrations and
Proppant Transport Methodology option specified.
Pump Rate
This is the slurry rate at which the treatment will be pumped. When performing an
automatic Frac-Pack design, the rate entered is the maximum value that will be
used. If the frac pack Rate Schedule option of Single Step Down is selected, MFrac
will automatically reduce the rate once the maximum proppant concentration is
reached in order to match the leakoff rate and achieve a stabilized fracture pressure.
When the Proppant Ramp option is turned On, this value is used as the initial ramp
concentration and increment for staging.
All automatic scheduling starts with the Initial Concentration and ends with the
Final Concentration. The Max. Proppant Concentration determines how the pro-
gram schedules proppant between these two points.
The value required by the program is the average mass per unit area of fracture face
(e.g., lb/ft2) achieved at closure.
kf wf
C fD = ---------
kL p
where k f wf is the average conductivity in the pay zone, k is the formation permea-
bility, and L p is the propped fracture length in the pay.
The value required by the program is the target value to be achieved at closure.
Lp
kf wf = 0 k f w f x dx L p
where k f w f is the average conductivity in the pay zone, k f w f is the variable fracture
conductivity with position in the fracture, and L p is the propped fracture length in
the pay.
The value required by the program is the target value to be achieved at closure.
c t – c t0 t – t0
- = -------------
----------------------------- -
c tp – c t0 t p – t 0
where
The proppant ramp will be linear for = 1 , concave upward for 1 , and con-
cave downward for 1 . Typical values range from 0.5 to 2.0.
Maximum BHTP
The maximum allowable bottomhole treating pressure is required as a constraint
when performing automatic tip screen-out or frac-pack designs. Based on this value
and the specified Fracture Length, Initial and Max. Inlet Concentrations, Average
Concentration/Area and target Average Concentration/unit area or target dimen-
sionless conductivity, MFrac will automatically determine a pumping schedule
using the criteria selected in the Proppant Transport Methodology options. The
maximum BHTP is used as a pressure limit to prevent excessive ballooning. If a
simulation reaches this constraint before achieving the specified fracture length or
proppant concentration, a message will be displayed indicating that the maximum
allowable pressure has been reached. Selecting the message box Cancel button will
terminate the simulation. Selecting the OK button will allow you to enter a new
pressure limit.
General Tab
The General tab for the non-foam Treatment Schedules is shown in Figure 2.32.
The General tab contains dialog boxes for Schedule Type and Wellbore.
Schedule Type
In the Schedule Type dialog box select Surface or Bottomhole to specify whether
the data entered (e.g., volumes, rates, etc.) represent surface or bottomhole condi-
tions. If pumping from Surface, specify a Wellbore Fluid Type. If pumping from
Bottomhole, specify the Flush Fluid Type.
Select Stage Friction Multipliers to enter friction multipliers for each stage.
Select Stage Recirculation to allow the selection of stages, whose rate will be used
to recirculate the fluid that is at bottomhole out of the wellbore.
Wellbore
The wellbore dialog box is related to the initial condition of the wellbore.
Along with the Wellbore Volume displayed from the wellbore hydraulics screen,
you can specify a Recirculation Volume. You can also specify whether the well is
filled or partially filled prior to injection. To indicate a partially filled wellbore,
enter a fraction (0-1) in the Fraction of Well Filled box. A value of one (1) indi-
cates the wellbore is 100% filled. A value of 0.5 means that the well is 50% filled.
If the stage friction multipliers box is selected the Wellbore Fluid Friction Multi-
plier can be specified.
When Input is selected for the Treatment Schedule Option, a user specified Treat-
ment Schedule screen is presented. The resulting screen allows specification of the
size and pumping parameters for each stage. This variety of treatment schedule
uses a spreadsheet table for the data input. A toolbar is provided with each spread-
sheet screen to control functions such as cut, paste, copy, insert, delete and fill
down (see Chapter 1 Working with Spreadsheets). For reference, the Wellbore Vol-
ume from the wellbore hydraulics screen is displayed.
Stage Tab
The Stage tab for the Input Proppant Treatment Schedule is shown in Figure 2.33.
This type of treatment schedule uses a spreadsheet type of interface as shown. Use
the toolbar located at the top of the screen to control functions such as cut, paste,
copy, insert, delete and fill down (see Chapter 1 Working with Spreadsheets). When
pumping from Bottomhole, it is necessary to specify the Flush Fluid Type. This is
selected in the same way as the Wellbore Fluid Type as described above. For refer-
ence, the Wellbore Fluid Type (surface) or Flush Fluid Type (bottomhole) and Well-
bore Volume are displayed.
To aid in defining the Treatment Schedule, the last column of the table (the Variable
Column) displays a variety of parameters. Use the Variable Column list box to
choose the desired parameter. Depending on the options, the list will contain some
subset of Total Time, Total Liquid Volume, Total Slurry Volume, Total Mass, Stage
Mass, Stage Slurry Volume and Stage Liquid Volume. All of these parameters, with
the exception of the mass parameters, may be modified in the last column. When
modifying a total parameter (such as Total Time), changes will be made in the cur-
rent stage and the next stage, such that the total parameter for the next stage
remains constant. For example, consider the case where Stage 1 has a stage time of
10 and Stage 2 has a stage time of 20. Changing the Total Time of Stage 1 to 15 will
cause both Stage 1 and Stage 2 to have stage times of 15.
The treatment schedule table has a few variations that depend on the data options. If
the Proppant Ramp option is enabled, additional columns for specifying the ramp
increment (i.e., From, To) are included. Likewise, when the Proppant Settling
Model is User Specified, a column is added to enter the Proppant Settling Rate.
There are other features of the Input Treatment Schedule screen worthy of note.
After entering any two of the first three columns, MFrac will automatically calcu-
late the third. It is possible to either enter the rate and volume to calculate the time,
or enter the rate and time to calculate the volume. In short, MFrac will always guar-
antee that the rate, time and volume are synchronized.
The following section has a complete list of input parameters and their definitions.
Recirculate
When the Stage Recirculation option is selected on the General tab, this column
will appear in the table to allow the selection of stages, whose rate will be used to
recirculate the fluid that is at bottomhole, out of the wellbore. For bottomhole
schedules, the selected stage is the one that is recirculated out of the wellbore. For
surface schedules, it is the fluid that is bottomhole, while the selected stage is
injected at the surface, that is recirculated out of the wellbore.
Slurry Rate
This is the simulated constant rate at which the slurry will be pumped for a specific
stage or volume specified. Entering a zero rate and volume is equivalent to specify-
ing a shut-in period. For flowback, a negative rate must be specified. The flowback
option should be On to enter a negative slurry rate.
Stage Time
This is the time required to inject the stage slurry volume at the stage slurry rate.
When a slurry rate and stage volume are input, the time is automatically calculated.
Entering or editing the time for a stage will result in an adjustment to the stage vol-
ume.
Stage Type
Figure 2.34 shows the Stage Type in the Treatment Schedule. The stage type option
was added to clearly identify the type of stage in the treatment schedule. The fol-
lowing stage types can be entered in the Treatment Schedule: None (blank), Pre-
pad, Pad, Slug (proppant slug), Prop (proppant), Acid, Flush and Shut-in.
Clicking on the Stage Type box will display a pull down box with the choices
shown in Figure 2.34. Not only are the stage types cosmetically pleasing, they are
functional. The stage type is now an identifier as to whether a given stage can
screen-out or bridge-out.
The Stage Type identifier only allows a stage type of Blank (none), Prop, Flush or
Flowback to screen- or bridge-out. The only exception is if the proppant type is
0000. Then the proppant will not screen-out, independent of the stage type.
Only Stage Types of Blank (none), Prop, Flush and Flowback are allowed to
screen- or bridge-out in the fracture. All other Stage Types (Pre-pad, Pad,
Slug, Acid, and Shut-in) will prevent the proppant from concentrating and
bridging in the fracture. The bridge-out and screen-out criteria are also disabled
for proppant type 0000. In real-time if the proppant type is set to Prop for all
stages the model could screen-out due to slight meter reading fluctuations in the
proppant concentration during the pad or when pumping a proppant slug. If the
Proppant Transport Methodology is set to Conventional, the proppant can
screen- and bridge-out but it will not stop the fracture from propagating. There-
fore, to achieve a TSO the proppant Stage Type must be of type Blank (none),
Prop, Flush or Flowback and the Proppant Transport Methodology must be set
to an option that links the fracture and proppant solutions (i.e., choose Conven-
tional (link proppant), TSO, or Frac Pack. Conventional does not link the solu-
tions).
Fluid Type
When clicking or using the TAB key to access a Fluid Type data box, the Fluid
Database pop-up screen is presented allowing the selection of the stage fluid type.
Select the desired fluid from the list by clicking on it and the fluid code will auto-
matically be entered in the Treatment Schedule. To view the fluid properties for a
given fluid type either select the corresponding spreadsheet row or wellbore fluid
type and then click on the Fluid DB button. The specified fluid will be highlighted
in the Fluid Database pop-up screen. Next, press the Edit button to view the fluid
properties.
Proppant Type
When a Proppant Type field is entered, either by clicking on it or using the TAB
key, the Proppant Database pop-up screen is displayed. Choose the desired prop-
pant for the corresponding stage from the list. The proppant code will automatically
be entered in the Treatment Schedule. To view the properties that correspond to a
proppant code in a given row, click on the Proppant DB button. The specified prop-
pant type will be highlighted in the Proppant Database pop-up screen. Next, press
the Edit button to view the proppant properties.
The bridge-out and screen-out criteria are disabled for Proppant Type 0000
independent of the Proppant Transport Methodology option.
Prop. Concentration
When the Proppant Ramp Option is Off, the value entered is a constant for the cor-
responding stage. It represents the inlet concentration of proppant per unit volume
of liquid to be injected (mass/volume liquid i.e., lbm/gal liquid). When the Prop-
pant Ramp Option is turned On, the inlet concentration is assumed to increase or
decrease as a linear ramp in liquid volume between the From and To values. This
results in a uniform increase (or decrease) in proppant concentration with increas-
ing liquid volume.
k f = k 1 – DF
where
The final permeability is used to determine the fracture conductivity and dimen-
sionless fracture conductivity.
The following explains how the Friction Loss Multiplier is implemented. If the
calculated pipe friction for a stage is 1000 psi and a Treatment Schedule Friction
Loss Multiplier value of 0.85 is entered, the resulting pipe friction would be 850
psi. This multiplier is in addition to the Friction Loss Multiplier in the Wellbore
Hydraulics Screen. Therefore, if the base pressure loss was 1000 psi, and the Fric-
tion Loss Multiplier in the Treatment Schedule was 0.85 with a Wellbore Hydrau-
lics multiplier of 0.5, the total pressure loss would be 425 psi (1000*0.85*0.5).
Database Access
The Fluid, Proppant, and Acid Databases can be accessed from the Treatment
Schedule. Figure 2.35 shows accessing the Fluid Database. Once the Fluid Data-
base screen is activated you can add, delete, copy, edit and plot data as if you had
selected the Database menu from the Main Menu tool bar.
Rock/Acid System
This five (5) character code identifier specifies which data to use from the Acid
Frac Database. The Rock/Acid System database list automatically appears when
the cursor is placed in this column. Click on the desired rock/acid system from the
list and it will automatically be placed in the column. Moving to any other column
closes the Rock/Acid System list box.
The mass of acid in each stage is calculated and included in the output using the fol-
lowing relationship:
M a = C i V
where
Ma = mass of acid
Ci = inlet acid concentration
V = stage volume
= fluid density
Diffusivity Multiplier
The diffusivity of an acid stage used in a simulation is calculated from the follow-
ing:
D = D 0 DM
where
Since the characteristic acid diffusivity is rarely understood, the diffusivity multi-
plier is provided as a means of quickly exploring the sensitivity of diffusivity with-
out changing the diffusivity permanently in the Rock/Acid database.
The most important difference between design and replay/real-time is that the vol-
ume and time values are synchronized with the real-time data. This is done auto-
matically each time a value is changed. For example, when a stage slurry volume is
changed, MFrac will calculate the total slurry volume up to the end of that stage.
Then it will look through the real-time data and find the total time that corresponds
to that total volume. The stage time is then calculated from this total time.
The average slurry rates, proppant concentrations and proppant mass for each stage
are calculated from the real-time data. These columns are grayed out, since they
cannot be changed. That is for a specified slurry volume these values are fixed
based on the real-time data.
When a stage time is changed, MFrac uses a similar process to calculate a new
stage volume. This process insures that the time and volume values are properly
synchronized with the real-time data. If a time or volume value is entered that
causes a stage to go beyond the real-time data, then the rate column is enabled. In
this case, the rate, volume and times are synchronized as they are in design mode.
To better understand the process of synchronizing with the real-time data, explore
the Graphical Treatment Schedule as described below.
When doing a real-time job, as more data becomes available, the time and rate
columns may change in order to maintain the proper synchronization. In gen-
eral, the slurry volume always takes precedence over time in determining stag-
ing.
This plot allows graphical manipulation of stages. The different stages are repre-
sented along the Time and Volume axes by boxes of alternating colors. The alter-
nating colors of the Time scale extend through the plot area. Horizontal lines extend
from the boxes of the Volume scale to aid in visualizing the stage volumes. When
using the Replay/Real-time option, the data in the plot is the real-time data from
MView. The real-time rate is integrated to get the volume curve.
The right axis drop down selection box can now display any parameter sent from
MView (i.e., Rate, Surface Pressure, BHTP, Concentrations etc.).
This will end the editing session without keeping any changes made during the edit-
ing session.
End Editing
This will end the editing session and keep all changes made.
This will add a new stage after the currently selected stage. If the currently selected
stage is last stage, the new stage will have exactly the same properties as the current
stage. If the current stage is not the last stage, it will cut the current stage’s volume
in half. The new stage will have the same properties as the current stage, except it
will have one half of the slurry volume. In this case, adding a stage is essentially
splitting the current stage into two equal stages. A dialog box will allow modifica-
tion of the new stage.
Delete Stage
This will delete the currently selected stage. The stage numbers of all the subse-
quent stages will then decrease by one.
Modify Stage
This will allow manual modification of the currently selected stage. A dialog box
that resembles the treatment schedule table will appear; however, it will only have
one row representing the selected stage. This box functions exactly the same as the
normal treatment schedule with a few exceptions. Changing total values in the Vari-
able Column has no effect on other stages. Any change in stage volume may be
subtracted from the previous or next stage as selected with the Previous, Next or
Neither buttons. When Neither (the default) is selected, none of the other stage vol-
umes will be affected.
Double-clicking the mouse on a stage while in Select mode will also bring up the
modify stage box.
This will undo all changes made during this editing session.
The Toolbar
At the top of the plot is a toolbar. In the top left of the toolbar, the current mouse
location on the X, YL (left), and YR (right) scales is displayed. The End Edit button
can be used to end the current editing session. The mouse can be set to Select
stages or Zoom in with the Mouse list box. The Right Axis list box is used to
change which data is plotted on the right axis. The choices are Rate & Concentra-
tion, Rate, Concentration or None. The bottom portion of the toolbar displays infor-
mation about the currently selected stage.
When in Zoom mode, the mouse functions as in any other Meyer plot, the left
mouse button can be used to define an area of the plot for zooming.
The Select mode is used for selecting and modifying the active stage. Clicking the
mouse on any stage will make it the active stage. To graphically change a stage,
click and drag on the desired boundary (either time or volume). The stage informa-
tion in the toolbar will be updated automatically while dragging the stage boundary.
Also note that a boundary cannot be moved past the boundaries on either side of it.
The stage before and after a boundary will be modified if the boundary is changed.
To keep the stage time (or volume) after the boundary constant, hold down the Con-
trol key when dragging the boundary. Then, only the stage before the modified
boundary will change.
When working with a real-time treatment schedule, the times and volumes will
automatically be synchronized to the real-time data. If a stage goes beyond the end
of the current real-time data, its box on the X axis will extend to the right edge of
the plot. All subsequent stages will not have a box on the X scale; however, all
stages will be represented on the Y axis. As more real-time data becomes available,
those stages which were previously beyond the end of the data may be in the range
of available data. In this case, the stage will get a new stage time from MFrac.
When flowback is enabled, all stages after the first stage with a negative rate stage
will not be represented on the Y axis. The volume of these stages may not be
manipulated graphically; however, the time of these stages may.
Foam Schedule
The Foam Schedule is enabled when the Foam option in the General Option dialog
box is checked. This option is used in simulating foam treatments of nitrogen and/
or carbon dioxide.
Foam Tab
Figure 2.39 shows the Foam Tab. The Foam tab includes the additional input data
required for foam treatment.
Foam Input
The foam schedule permits entering of either bottomhole foam qualities or surface
rates. Use the radio buttons in the middle of the dialog box to select which one to
input; the other will then be calculated.
Quality
The foam schedule allows for the design of Mitchell, Both External Phase, Internal
Phase (CO2), and Internal Phase (N2) foam quality treatments. These qualities are
at bottomhole conditions as defined below:
Mitchell
Internal Phase N2
V f = V N2 + V CO2 + V l
Vt = Vf + Vp
where
Vf = foam volume
Vl = liquid volume
VN = nitrogen volume
2
Vp = proppant volume
Vt = total volume
Standard Conditions
Quantities such as N2 volume & rate and CO2 solubility are given in units at stan-
dard conditions. The user has the following options to indicate the standard condi-
tions:
2. User Specified: The user specifies the densities for CO2 and N2 at standard
conditions.
Density
The density option specifies how densities for CO2 and N2 at bottomhole and CO2
density at the flow meter are determined. The user has the following choices:
1. Van der Waals EOS: Use the van der Waals equation of state.
CO2 Solubility
The carbon dioxide solubility at bottomhole conditions.
Stages Tab
Figure 2.40 shows the Foam Treatment Schedule screen.
This foam schedule is very flexible. If bottomhole rates and concentrations are
input the surface values will be calculated and vise versa. All of the pertinent stage
data is now presented in one spreadsheet making it easier to manage the data.
The foam schedule can also be graphically edited as shown in Figure 2.41. This
may make it easier to manipulate and visualize the slurry volume and rates in each
of the foam stages.
The Variable Column now has menu selections to display the N2, CO2, Foam,
Slurry, Liquid, and Total stage volumes.
Rock Properties
The Rock Properties dialog box provides a table for entering the mechanical prop-
erties of the reservoir and adjacent lithologies including in-situ stresses as a func-
tion of depth (see Figure 2.42). For each layer an optional Lithology Symbol, and
Zone Name can be specified to help organize the rock properties table. The TVD
depth at the bottom of the zone (Depth at Bottom) is the next entry. By convention,
this is the true vertical depth (TVD) at the bottom of each zone or layer. The MD at
Bottom is then calculated from the TVD or if the MD is specified the TVD depth
will be calculated.
Use the Help button located at the bottom of the Rock Properties screen to obtain a
description of these parameters or refer to the description of each property given at
the end of this section.
Options to insert rock properties from our rock properties database (Insert from
Database) and to import mechanical rock properties (Import Log) data are also
available. The file format for the Import Log can be LAS or text.
Depending upon the Fracture Geometry model selected and the data available, the
number of layers or entries to the Rock Properties table may vary. Typically, as a
minimum, at least three layers should be entered to describe the pay zone and the
layers above and below. Even for the two-dimensional models, the modulus in the
adjacent layers will affect the formation stiffness. However, MFrac will run with
just one layer using a constant value across the entire height. This approach is more
appropriate for the two-dimensional models. A maximum of one thousand (1000)
layers can be specified.
Rows in the table may be deleted using the Delete Rows icon and new rows
inserted using the Insert Rows icon.
Lithology Symbols
Lithology symbols can be added to each zone or layer by double clicking in the box
to the left of the zone name and selecting the appropriate symbol. This is illustrated
by the highlighted box in Figure 2.42. Figure 2.43 shows a list of the available
lithology symbols. Options are also available for the foreground and background
colors.
Zone
An optional zone name can be specified for each layer to help organize the rock
properties table.
TVD at Bottom
The TVD depth at the bottom of the zone (TVD at Bottom) is the next entry. This is
the true vertical depth (TVD) at the bottom of each zone or layer. If the TVD is
entered, the MD is calculated.
MD at Bottom
The MD depth at the bottom of the zone (MD at Bottom) is the next entry. This is
the measured depth (MD) at the bottom of the zone or layer. If the MD is entered,
TVD is calculated. If the value for TVD results in a MD greater than the maximum
value specified for the wellbore deviation, a dashed mark (-) will be placed in the
column.
Stress Gradient
The Stress Gradient is defined as the stress at depth divided by the TVD (Stress
Gradient = Stress/TVD). If the stress gradient is entered, the stress will be calcu-
lated. If stress is entered, the stress gradient will be calculated. The stress is
assumed to be the minimum horizontal stress for vertically oriented fractures and
the overburden stress for horizontal fractures.
Stress
It is generally accepted that one of the most important parameters affecting fracture
containment is the in-situ stress. Under ideal conditions adequate contrast will exist
between the target interval and surrounding layers. Normally, for ideal containment
to exist, the stress contrast in the adjacent rock layers must be much greater than the
fracture net pressure (see Appendix A).
Several methods are regularly used in the petroleum industry to estimate the in-situ
stresses. These include micro-hydraulic fracturing methods, pump-in flowback
tests, well logging procedures and in some cases laboratory experiments (ASR &
DSCA).
Stresses may be input to represent a constant value for a layer or a linear gradient
may be used by selecting the gradient check box in the far right column. Using this
switch results in a linear increase or decrease in stress magnitude from the bottom
of the overlying zone to the bottom of the specified zone.
Young’s Modulus
Young`s modulus or the modulus of elasticity is the slope (or derivative) of a stress-
strain curve over the elastic portion of the curve. For linear-elastic deformation,
Young’s modulus is a constant with a unique value for a particular material and in-
situ conditions. The modulus represents the material’s ability to resist deformation
under load. It is, therefore, a measure of the materials stiffness. As the stiffness (E)
of the rock increases, the fracture width will decrease and the length will increase
for a given set of input parameters. See Appendix A for more information regarding
the sensitivity of this parameter.
A range of Young’s modulus values for various rock types is given in Table 2.5.
Poisson’s Ratio
Poisson's ratio is defined as the ratio of the transverse strain to the axial strain
resulting from an applied stress (see Figure 2.44).
Poisson’s ratio
Lateral strain
Poisson’s ratio
Longitudinal strain
w 0
w
l
l0
w w l l
w 0l 0
The theoretical value for Poisson’s ratio is 1/4 for any isotropic body with strains
below the proportional (elastic) limit. For strains beyond the proportional limit, the
ratio increases and approaches the limiting plastic value of 1/2.
Typical Poisson’s ratios for rock formations are 0.25. From parametric studies,
Poisson's ratio affects the fracture propagation characteristics to a very minor
extent. Therefore, if in doubt, use 0.25.
Poisson’s ratio is also used by logging companies to infer in-situ stresses. This
method assumes the rock behaves elastically and that the tectonic stresses are
known or insignificant. The typical relationship is
Hmin = ------------ v – p 0 + p 0 + T
1 –
where
Fracture Toughness
The definition of fracture toughness is obtained from the concept of stress intensity
factor, developed in linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM). Fracture toughness
is a measure of a materials resistance to fracture propagation. It is proportional to
the amount of energy that can be absorbed by the material before propagation
occurs. The basis for this relationship involves the assumption that pre-existing
defects exist which induce high stress concentrations in their vicinity. These sites
become points for crack initiation and propagation.
If a c represents the area of the “largest” defect, it can be shown that the tensile
strength, T , of the rock can be approximated by
T = K IC a c
In hydraulic fractures, propagation is assumed to occur once the stress intensity fac-
tor reaches a critical value. This critical value, related to the propagation resistance
(or energy balance) is assumed to be a material property and is given the name frac-
ture toughness (or critical stress intensity factor). For a crack in the vicinity of a
uniform stress field, , the stress intensity is
K I = H
c = K IC H
Table 2.6 lists some measured values of fracture toughness. The values shown were
reported by van Eekelen13, Thiercelin14 reviewed the testing procedures for deter-
mining this parameter in his article, “Fracture Toughness and Hydraulic Fractur-
ing”.
Setting fracture toughness to zero will result in the classical hydraulic fracturing
propagation solutions dominated by viscous pressure loss. For very low viscosity
fluids, fracture toughness may be the dominant parameter controlling fracture
growth.
Critical Stress
The Critical Stress is the minimum critical stress ( c min ) for the fracture to propa-
gate in the vicinity of a constant stress field. This parameter may also be thought of
as the apparent tensile strength since it is the critical stress that must be over come
for the crack to propagate (in a uniform stress field).
MFrac uses the maximum of c or c min to determine the critical stress intensity
at the fracture leading edge (see Figure 2.45). If c min is set equal to zero, only
fracture toughness will be considered. For illustration purposes, the above discus-
sion was simplified by using a uniform stress field. See Meyer15 for a more general
discussion of the stress intensity factor.
Incorporating this parameter allows for modeling a constant critical pressure at the
fracture tip. Using fracture toughness, the critical pressure decreases as the charac-
teristic crack size increases.
If Interpolate Stress Gradient is not specified, the stress value for that zone is
assumed constant across that layer.
If the Interpolate Stress Gradient option is checked, the Fracture Fluid Gradient
should also be checked to Include. This will ensure a true total liquid and stress
gradient over a given fracture interval for 3D fracture propagation. Note, that if
the fluid gradient is included in a uniform stress field (i.e. constant stress for all
layers with no stress gradient checks) and assuming all other parameters are
unchanged the fracture will tend to propagate downward due to increasing frac-
ture pressure with depth. The fracture width profile would also be more tear
shaped downward. The inclusion of fluid and stress gradients is more important
as the ratio of the resultant fluid and stress gradient to the fracture net pressure
increases. Thus inclusion of a fluid gradient is only important for low net pres-
sure cases when the hydrostatic fluid gradient in the fracture is of the order of
the fracture net pressure.
Pressing OK will place the selected lithology properties and icon into the rock prop-
erties table.
Upon entering the Log File Importing dialog, there are 5 tabs that control the
import process. The tabs are designed to be edited in sequential order. The basic
steps in the sequence are described in Table 2.7 below.
The functionality of each screen, and the log file importing process in general is
described below.
Parameters
The first tab is the parameters tab, it contains a single spreadsheet with a Parame-
ters column, and a Unit Type column. It is used to determine what parameters are
available for import or mapping purposes, and associates each parameter with a
unit type. An example parameters setup is shown below (Figure 2.47).
Once data is entered into the parameters spreadsheet, the next step is to assign a
data source to some or all of the parameters via the Data Sources tab.
Data Sources
This tab (Figure 2.48) is used to associate data found in one or more files with some
or all of the parameters defined on the previous tab.
By clicking the Add... button, a file open prompt will open requesting the selection
of a data file. The default extensions of the files are *.txt, or *.las. To choose a file
with a different extension, choose All Files (*.*) from the Files of Type drop down
list. Once you open the file, Log data will appear in spreadsheet form as shown
below (Figure 2.49).
The purpose of the data sources setup screen is to associate the appropriate data col-
umns with a parameter. For example, if column A contains depth information place
an “A” next to the parameter that represents measured depth. Clicking on the drop
down menu listed under Unit allows you to define what units the data is in. A sam-
ple plot may be generated by defining the sample plot axes and clicking the View
Plot... button.
Once the columns and units are defined, the sampling criteria can be setup based on
measured depth, or by row number. If the sampling parameter is set to (Row Num-
ber), then a minimum, and maximum row along with a row increment determine
which rows are read. If the sampling parameter is set to Measured Depth, a mini-
mum and maximum depth can be entered to quickly find (and use) the rows corre-
lated with those depths. Once this is done, press OK to apply the changes.
To edit existing data sources, select the data source you wish to edit, then click the
Setup... button to re-open the data sources setup screen (Figure 2.49).
To delete an existing data file, select the file you wish to delete, then click the
Delete button (Note: this does not remove the file from your computer). All of the
parameter associations for that file will be removed.
Once the data sources are setup, the next step is the Import Properties tab which is
used to specify the data sources that will be used for the current rock properties
import.
Import Properties
The Import Properties tab (Figure 2.50) contains one spreadsheet. It is where the
properties for the current import are associated with a data source.
Each property may be associated with a previously mapped data source (from a
file), set to Calculate for Stress or Stress Gradient but not both, or set to Generate
which allows manual data entry of that particular property. Once the import proper-
ties are setup, the next step is the Property Generation tab.
Property Generation
The Property Generation tab is optional. Check the “Enable Property Generation”
check box in the upper left hand corner to use this tab.
Note: If the Property Generation tab is disabled, any parameter set to Generate in
the Import Properties tab will be set to zero when imported.
The Property Generation tab (shown in Figure 2.51) is used to do the following:
• Specify the lithology symbols and zone names associated with each zone type
• Generate the rock properties that were set to Generate in the Import Proper-
ties tab. These properties are generated by a table of zone types that maps zone
types to a range of mapping parameter values. Property values are mapped to
data from a file, such as gamma ray or Pe data.
1. Choose the mapping parameter from the drop-down menu. The list contains
the parameters you selected in the Data Sources tab. The parameter’s values
are plotted in the display area.
2. Enter property values in the table for each zone type. Click on a row in the
table of zone types, then do the following:
a. Click on a cell in the first column to select the zone’s lithology symbol.
(This step is optional.)
c. In the Mapping Parameter column, enter the upper range of the mapping
parameter for this zone type. Each row of the table must have a larger
value than the previous row because this value represents the range of val-
ues that are mapped to the zone type.
d. The rest of the columns in the table contain values for the generated
parameters that were selected in the Import Properties tab. Enter the
property’s value for the zone type.
1. Select the row in the zone type table where you want to insert the new zone
type. Alternatively, you can click on the zone type on the plot.
2. Click the Insert from Database button. The Rock Database window appears
as shown in Figure 2.42.
3. Click on the database entry that you wish to insert into the zone type table.
4. Click Insert or double-click to insert the new zone type into the property gen-
eration table.
5. Enter the mapping parameter value for the new zone type.
2. Choose the Add Entry command from the Edit menu or press the Insert key.
The zone type you selected is split into two zone type and a new zone type is
added to the table.
2. Choose the Delete Entry command from the Edit menu or press the Delete
key. The zone type you selected is deleted and its row is removed from the
table.
Zones
The zones tab contains 5 plots depicting measured depth versus Stress Gradient,
Stress, Young's Modulus, Poisson's Ration, and Fracture Toughness as shown
below. If the Property Generation tab is enabled and contains data, the zones will
be initially generated according to that data.
This is where the zones used for the final import are defined. Zones may be auto-
matically selected via the EditAuto Select Zones menu. The choices for auto-
matic selection are described below.
• By Depth: This option selects zones based on a depth increment along with
minimum and maximum bounds.
Importing
Once you have finished editing the log data, press the Import button. This will
import the mechanical rock properties into the Rock Properties table as shown in
Figure 2.53.
Figure 2.53: Rock Properties Table - After Importing from Stress Log.
If some of the parameters are not selected in the Stress Log (as is toughness in this
case) input this data manually using the fill down speed icon. Figure 2.54 shows a
plot of imported rock properties layered to specification.
It is not necessary for these depths to correspond directly to the depths specified in
the Rock Properties screen, although they may. A maximum of 1000 layers is per-
mitted in both the Rock Properties and Fluid Loss data screens.
Please refer to Appendix D for a detailed description of the individual leakoff coef-
ficients which control fluid loss.
Figure 2.55: Fluid Loss Data Dialog Box - Constant Fluid Loss Model.
The specific data required by the program when using a Constant Fluid Loss Coef-
ficient Model is as follows:
Zones
An optional zone name can be specified for each layer to help organize the fluid
loss data properties table.
Depth at Bottom
The TVD depth at the bottom of the zone (Depth at Bottom) is the next entry. By
convention, this is the true vertical depth (TVD) at the bottom of each zone or layer.
By convention, the depth entered is the true vertical depth TVD at the bottom of
the interval. The reservoir parameters are assumed to have constant properties
over this interval.
= C t–
where t is time and is the initial time of fluid leakoff. The total fluid loss volume
to the formation is
t A
Vl = 2 v dA dt
0 0
= CA t
where is a fluid loss parameter and A is the total leakoff area (one face) for both
wings. This equation illustrates that the fluid loss volume is proportional to the
leakoff coefficient and leakoff area product.
Spurt Loss
Spurt loss is the “instantaneous” volume loss of fluid per unit area of fracture face
that occurs prior to the development of a filter cake. The volume of fluid loss due to
spurt V sp for both wings is
V sp = 2AS p
where S p is the spurt loss coefficient and A is the leakoff area the pay zone.
For multilayer leakoff, spurt loss is calculated in each layer separately. Please refer
to Appendix D for additional information.
Figure 2.56: Fluid Loss Data Dialog Box - Harmonic/Dynamic Fluid Loss
Model.
For the Harmonic and Dynamic models the total leakoff coefficient for each zone
is calculated internally by combining C I , C II , and CIII (see Appendix D). This
value is used to simulate leakoff from the fracture to each associated interval as a
function of differential pressure.
The specific data required for the Dynamic or Harmonic Fluid Loss Models is as
follows:
Zone
An optional zone name can be specified for each layer to help organize the rock
properties table.
Depth at Bottom
The TVD depth at the bottom of the zone (Depth at Bottom) is the next entry. By
convention, this is the true vertical depth (TVD) at the bottom of each zone or layer.
Reservoir Pressure
The reservoir or pore pressure is used in conjunction with the minimum horizontal
stress and fracture pressure to calculate the differential pressure for leakoff. The
leakoff pressure differential is
p loss = p f – p 0 = p f + Hmin – p 0
where
The pressure difference between the minimum horizontal stress and average pore
pressure is, therefore, a critical component in calculating the CI and C II leakoff
coefficients.
For new wells, enter the initial reservoir pore pressure for the productive interval.
This value is typically obtained from either a production log or well test. Variations
in pore pressure versus depth can be inferred and entered based on gradient mea-
surements and/or the fluid saturation changes within the interval (e.g., gas caps,
aquifers, etc.).
When a well has been produced for some period of time, enter the average reservoir
pressure as interpreted from a well test. In all cases, the value entered should be less
than the minimum horizontal stress.
Total Compressibility
The total reservoir compressibility is defined as the total change in the reservoir
volume per unit volume per unit pressure difference. It is the reciprocal of the un-
drained bulk modulus and is typically expressed as follows:
ct = So co + Sw cw + Sg cg + cr
where
cg = gas compressibility
co = oil compressibility
cr = bulk rock compressibility
ct = total formation compressibility
cw = water compressibility
Sg = gas saturation
So = oil saturation
Sw = water saturation
The compressibility is used to relate the permeability and porosity with pressure
and time using the expression
2
p k p
= ----------- 2
t c t z
where
k = formation permeability
ct = total formation compressibility
= formation porosity
= reservoir fluid viscosity
z = distance
p = pressure
t = time
Permeability
The reservoir permeability is the formation property that characterizes its ability to
transfer a fluid through the pores when subjected to a pressure gradient. From
Darcy's law
k dp
q = – ---
d x
where
k = formation permeability
= reservoir fluid viscosity
dp dx = pressure gradient
Porosity
The equivalent reservoir porosity is the fraction of a rock’s bulk volume that is
filled with mobile hydrocarbons. The porosity is used to calculate the C I and CII
leakoff coefficients used to simulate fluid loss during injection.
Reservoir Viscosity
The equivalent reservoir viscosity is the total effective viscosity of a multi-phase
fluid system at reservoir conditions. This value is used in calculating the CII leak-
off coefficient for modeling leakoff resistance due to the viscosity and compress-
ibility effects of the in-situ fluids.
Filtrate Viscosity
The filtrate viscosity is the effective leakoff viscosity of the fracturing fluid. This is
the fracturing fluid which leaks off through the fracture face. This viscosity has
been reduced from its original state due to the deposition of polymer on the fracture
face which forms a filter cake. This parameter is used to calculate the CI coefficient
for modeling viscosity and relative permeability effects caused by fracturing fluid
leakoff to the formation.
The effective fluid leakoff viscosity must also account for the relative permeability
effect of the leakoff fluid to that of the reservoir fluid. This is especially important
for a gas reservoir. The effective leakoff viscosity, e , in terms of the fluid leakoff
viscosity and relative permeability is
e = f kr
where f is the true fluid leakoff viscosity and k r is the relative permeability of the
leakoff to the reservoir fluid.
Spurt Loss
Spurt loss is the “instantaneous” volume loss of fluid per unit area of fracture face
that occurs prior to the development of a fracturing fluid filter cake. The volume of
fluid loss due to spurt V sp for both faces of a single wing fracture is
V sp = 2AS p
where S p is the spurt loss coefficient and A is the leakoff area in the pay zone.
For multilayer leakoff, spurt loss is calculated in each layer separately. Refer to
Appendix D for additional information.
This feature allows you to increase or decrease the leakoff coefficient and spurt loss
as a function of time. This is helpful for modeling leakoff in naturally fractured res-
ervoirs. While fracturing a naturally fractured formation, the pressure in the frac-
ture may approach the critical pressure. When the critical pressure of the formation
is reached, natural fractures open and accelerated leakoff occurs. A zero slope on
the Nolte plot may characterize this period of accelerated leakoff.
To use this feature, enter time dependent multipliers for the leakoff and spurt loss
coefficients. If the simulation time is less than the minimum value in the table, the
first multiplier will be used. If the fracture time is greater than the maximum value
in the table, the last data enter will be used.
The multipliers will be interpolated as varying linearly with the time values in the
table.
This feature allows you to increase or decrease the leakoff coefficient and spurt loss
as a function of pressure. This is helpful for modeling leakoff in naturally fractured
reservoirs. While fracturing a naturally fractured formation, the pressure in the frac-
ture may approach the critical pressure. When the critical pressure of the formation
is reached, natural fractures open and accelerated leakoff occurs. A zero slope on
the Nolte plot may characterize this period of accelerated leakoff.
To use this feature, enter pressure dependent multipliers for the leakoff and spurt
loss coefficients. The pressure (pressure in the fracture) is input as increasing func-
tion with row number. Normally, for pressure dependent fluid loss, the multiplier
will increase as the pressure in the fracture increases. If the fracture pressure is less
than the minimum value in the table, the first multiplier will be used. If the fracture
pressure is greater than the maximum value in the table, the last data enter will be
used.
The multipliers will be interpreted as varying linearly with the pressure values in
the table.
Dynamic Leakoff model is chosen the user can input different fluid filtrate viscosi-
ties, wall building coefficients, CIII, and spurt for each fluid.
This option is useful when large volumes of 2% KCl or treated fluids are in the
wellbore prior to pumping the main fracturing treatment. The option is also helpful
for modeling leakoff during acid fracturing treatments when alternating pad/acid
stages are pumped.
Figure 2.59 illustrates the Fluid Loss Data screen (Harmonic or Dynamic Model)
with Fluid Type Dependent Fluid Loss selected in the General Options dialog box.
Fluid loss data for up to fifty different fluids can be stored in this table even if the
fluid type is deleted from the treatment schedule. Only the fluid types currently
listed in the Treatment Schedule will be displayed.
Proppant Criteria
The Proppant Criteria screen is enabled when the Proppant Solution option is
turned On (Figure 2.60). When this occurs, the program requires additional infor-
mation to characterize the proppant transport process.
The following parameters are required input for the Proppant Criteria Dialog.
The average diameter is the value input in the database record for each proppant.
This is typically determined from a sieve analysis according to API standards. In
MFrac, a bridge-out is assumed to occur if the average fracture width integrated
over the fracture height is less than the Minimum Number of Proppant Layers to
Prevent Bridging. In other words, the fracture width must be greater than the
bridging criteria in order for the proppant to pass through. Typically, a value of 1.5
to 3 is used.
Embedment Concentration/Area
This is the proppant embedment concentration per unit area, c e , in the fracture at
closure ( c e = c s w e ) has units of proppant mass per unit area where
c s = 1 – is the proppant concentration of embedment and w e is the
embedded width. The amount of embedment depends upon the proppant and for-
mation type. The lost propped width, w e , due to embedment is given by
w e = 1 – c e where is the proppant porosity and is the proppant
density.
Non-Darcy Effects
The equation to describe non-Darcy flow is a form of the Forchheimer [1901] equa-
tion
dp 2
– = ---- +
dx kf
2
where k f is the permeability of the porous media with units of L (i.e., md or ft2,
–1
etc.) and is the non-Darcy flow factor or simply factor with units of L (e.g.,
cm-1, ft-1, atm-s2/gm etc.). Clearly the first term in this equation accounts for vis-
cous effects and the second term for inertial or minor loss effects. If the second term
on the right hand side is omitted, the equation simplifies to Darcy’s law. Thus non-
Darcy flow describes the flow regime that does not obey Darcy’s law. Holdith
[1976] reports that the original form of the second term on the right hand side of
2
Eq. by Forchheimer was a which was replaced by Cornell and Katz [1953] by
the product of the fluid density, , and the factor.
The generalized correlation for the beta factor in terms of the fracture permeability
k f and porosity is of the form
a
= ----------
-
kf c
b
where a , b , and c are constants. The effect of immobile water saturation, S w , can
be incorporated by modifying the porosity to be the effective porosity
( e = 1 – S w ). A number of correlations for the beta factor (inertial coefficient)
are provided in the data base.
Darcy Only
Non-Darcy effects will not be considered. This is the same as assuming = 0 .
Heat Transfer
An analytical heat transfer model is included in MFrac that combines thermal con-
vection in the fracture, with transient conduction and convection in the reservoir.
These calculations can be linked to an option for simulating the heat exchange
between the fluid and the wellbore in order to provide a complete thermodynamic
model for the system. When the Heat Transfer option is used, it can predict the
heat-up of the fracturing fluid within the wellbore and/or the exchange of heat
between the fluid and the reservoir during fracture propagation. The model is useful
in high temperature reservoirs when the fracture fluid rheology is temperature
dependent. It couples the heat transfer, fluid flow and fracture propagation expres-
sions to characterize the time-dependent fracture temperature profiles.
When the Heat Transfer option is turned On in the General Options screen, heat
exchange calculations can be performed in the wellbore and fracture (Fluid Inlet:
Surface), or only in the fracture (Fluid Inlet: Bottomhole). The radio buttons
labeled Surface and Bottomhole shown in Figure 2.61 can be used to make this
selection. When the Surface radio button is selected, the Fluid Inlet Temperature
must be input. This is the temperature of the fracturing fluid at the surface. The pro-
gram will use this value as the initial temperature of the fluid and then simulate the
heat-up or cool-down of the fluid within the wellbore and fracture.
The surface option uses the wellbore configuration to determine the wellbore heat
transfer coefficients needed for the simulation. The wellbore data is taken from the
Wellbore Hydraulics screen.
To only perform heat transfer calculations in the fracture, choose the Bottomhole
radio button located on the Heat Transfer dialog box. This selection will disable the
surface calculations in the simulation and enable a small spreadsheet on the Heat
Transfer screen. With this option, bottomhole fluid temperature versus time can be
imported from another source or entered manually.
The heat transfer coefficients and parameters used in the calculations are based on
the Heat Transfer dialog box selections. The program contains an internal database
of values for various reservoir conditions. These conditions are determined based
on the selections for Base Fluid, Reservoir Lithology, In-situ Fluid, Average Poros-
ity and Mean Formation Temperature. The properties contained in the internal data-
base are as follows:
Frac Fluid Conductivity Frac Fluid Heat Capacity
Frac Fluid Density Rock Conductivity
Leakoff Fluid Density Rock Heat Capacity
Power Law Nusselt Number Pore Fluid Conductivity
Frac Slurry Heat Capacity Pore Fluid Heat Capacity
The Base Fluid category should be input to represent the base fluid of the fractur-
ing fluid used. The choices are water, oil, foam and binary foam. The Reservoir
Lithology represents the primary rock type in the region to be fractured. In
extremely heterogeneous reservoirs or when detailed lithology is not known, select
shale, as it typically represents a good average. The database assigns dry rock val-
ues based on the lithology selection and then modifies it depending on the porosity
and in-situ fluid type entered. The Average Porosity and In-situ Fluid that occu-
pies the pores characterize the fractured zone. The Mean Formation Temperature
is the average bottomhole static temperature for the fractured interval. For most
cases, we recommend entering the static temperature at the middle of the perfora-
tions. The general idea for these selections is to characterize the bulk rock that will
be exposed to the fracturing fluid.
Acid Data
The optional acid fracturing module offered in MFrac provides a comprehensive
model for simultaneously calculating hydraulic fracture geometry, leakoff, heat
transfer and acid reaction. The modeling approach uses a numerical implementa-
tion that involves control of the acidizing process by mass transfer (i.e., diffusion
and convection), as well as, the rate of reaction. All of the other options in MFrac,
such as fracture geometry models, wellbore hydraulics and production forecasting
remain available for acid fracturing, just as they are for fractures using proppants.
At the present time, the program does not allow the acid transport to be mixed with
proppant transport. All of the screens related to propped fracturing, therefore, are
disabled when the acid frac option is selected.
When Acid is specified for the Treatment Options selection found in the General
Options screen, the Acid Data dialog box shown in Figure 2.62 replaces the Prop-
pant Criteria screen. This enables the following data to be entered:
kf wf = k f w f 1 – DF
final
where
This value is used to determine the final fracture conductivity based on the theoret-
ical ideal conductivity, closure stress and embedment strength. For more informa-
tion see Nierode and Kruk16.
Typical measured embedment strengths on dry carbonate rocks are shown in Table
2.8.
Exposure to certain fluids, particularly reactive ones, can have a softening effect on
some rock types. Many values, such as the ones reported above, may be an over
estimation of a rocks true embedment resistance.
e
= + 1 – F
where
To start the simulation, select the Run command from the Run menu. This will
bring up the Simulation Data window and the Calculation menu bar. During the
simulation, the Simulation Data window and all open plots will be updated to show
the current state of the simulation.
Stop Menu
The Stop! menu item stops the current simulation. After stopping, a message box
will be displayed to save the simulation results up to the current point. Pressing
Alt+S will also invoke the Stop command.
Simulate Closure
This command is only available in the Replay/Real-time simulation mode. Select-
ing this command will allow MFrac to start simulating closure immediately, ignor-
ing all real-time data beyond the current time step. The utility of this option is to
simulate closure after one stops monitoring real-time data. This is especially true
for fractures which have large closure times (high efficiencies).
The MFrac plots are grouped into different categories as described below. Plots
from any number of categories may be viewed at the same time. During a simula-
tion, the plots will update after each time step, providing an animated view of the
fracturing process. When not simulating, the plots contain the results of the last
simulation that was saved. It is important to note that changing an input parameter
does not affect a plot until the simulation has been run again. For more information
on running a simulation, see Section 2.4.
Viewing Plots
The plots that are contained in MFrac are divided into categories that can be
accessed by different commands in the Plot menu. The specific plots that are avail-
able will be directly controlled by the options selected in the General, Fracture and
Proppant Options tab dialog boxes for the last saved simulation. For example, if
Heat Transfer is disabled by “unselecting” it in the General Options screen, these
plots will not be available in the Plot menu.
To Create a Plot:
1. Select Plot from the main menu. The Plot menu appears listing the available
plot groups.
2. Choose from the list of groups. The associated group selection dialog appears
(see Figure 2.63). Groups that are unavailable due to the options selected will
appear dimmed. To obtain these plots you must activate the option and then re-
run the simulation.
3. Select the desired plots by clicking the adjacent check boxes. Use the Select
All button to view all the plots for the group. To disable a plot, click off the
check box or use the Clear All button.
4. If this is a Multilayer case, click on the Multilayer tab at the top of the screen.
Then select the desired layers. More information on Multilayer plots is given
below.
5. Once the desired selections have been made, click OK to view the plots.
Plot Categories
The plots in MFrac are grouped into different categories, each of which are accessi-
ble with the Plot menu. Each category is summarized below.
Fracture Characteristics
These are plots of general fracture characteristics, such as length, height and width.
Some of the plots may be plotted versus time or volume. The volume selection but-
ton is the total slurry volume pumped.
Leakoff/Rheology
These plots display the leakoff rate and fluid rheology as a function of time.
Wellbore Hydraulics
These plots are used to display the results of the wellbore hydraulics model and
real-time pressure matching. The first section of plots are various pressures versus
time. For these plots, there are check boxes for Replay/Real-Time, BH Rate, Sur-
face Rate, BH Concentration and Surface Concentration. Clicking these boxes will
show the corresponding curves on the graph. Clicking the Replay/Real-Time box
shows the corresponding real-time pressure data, if it is available. These can be
used for real-time pressure matching. The Real Calc BHP from Surface plot is a
plot of the calculated BHP from real-time surface data using the wellbore model.
Similarly, the Real Calc Surface from BHP plot is a plot of the calculated surface
pressure from real-time bottomhole data using the wellbore model.
The last two plots correspond to the near wellbore pressures losses and BHP in the
wellbore and fracture for each multilayer.
Diagnostic
The BHP Difference Plot is used for real-time pressure matching. This is the differ-
ence between the measured and simulated BHP.
A number of net pressure plots versus time in linear and log-log coordinates are
provided to represent the familiar net pressure slope as given in the Nolte plots. The
Nolte slope for each fracture is also plotted to give a graphical representation of
height growth, etc.
The measured net pressure plots for real-time or replay analysis are (of course) not
measured values but calculated from the BHTP differences and fracture net pres-
sure:
p m = BHTP m –
= BHTP m – p f + p f –
= BHTP m – p f + p f
where
and
Treatment
These plots show the fracture treatment. This category is divided into two parts.
The first section pertains to the surface and bottomhole treatment. The volume,
rate, concentration and mass may be plotted versus time, bottomhole volume or sur-
face volume. Bar charts of surface treatment may also be plotted.
The second section pertains to the treatment of the bottomhole and individual frac-
ture(s). The volume, rate, concentration and mass are plotted versus time or bot-
tomhole volume. The bottomhole stage bar plots show the total bottomhole
treatment and how much went into each individual layer.
Proppant Transport
A variety of plots are available to show the placement of proppant during and at the
end of the simulation.
Acid Transport
The plots contained in this category illustrate the generation of etched fracture
length and conductivity for an acid fracturing stimulation.
Heat Transfer
These plots depict the changes in temperature as a function of time and position in
the fracture as predicted for a particular simulation.
Multilayer Plots
When simulating multiple active layers, it is possible to see the data for each active
layer using the Multilayer Selection box. The different layers will be represented on
the plot legend as configured with the Multilayer legend option.
Multilayer Selection
Any combination of the active layers can be selected for a plot. Selecting the
desired layers is accomplished using the Multilayer dialog box, which is accessible
from the Plot menu, the plot shortcut menu or by clicking on the Multilayer tab in a
plot dialog box. When using the Multilayer tab, the selections will be applied to all
plots started with that dialog box. When using the menu options, you can choose to
apply the selection to just the active plot or to all open plots.
The selection box has a list of all the available active layers. Toggle the selection of
the layers by clicking on them. At least one layer must be selected.
For plots that have a Y axis depth scale, there is another option available when the
depth scales of different layers overlap or are significantly far apart. The choices
are summarized below:
Depth scale is not continuous - When two layers are significantly far apart, a
break in the Y axis will be drawn on the plot. This allows for a more detailed view
of each layer. When two layers are overlapping, no break is drawn and the data for
one layer may be drawn on top of the other.
Each zone always has its own depth scale - Each zone will have its own depth
scale, regardless of any overlapping. This is particularly useful for a horizontal
wellbore where all fractures are around the same TVD. The first layer will always
be at the top of the plot.
Continuous Depth Scale - The depth scale will be continuous, regardless of over-
lapping layers. If the layers are far apart, the larger scale will force the fracture out-
lines to be smaller.
For best results use Each zone always has its own depth scale for horizontal
wells and Depth scale is not continuous for vertical wells.
Multilayer Legends
For plots that do not have a depth axis, the legend contains both the name of the
variable and the name of the layer. There are various options which may be config-
ured in the Legend section of the Plot Configuration box. Consider an example of
a length curve for layer number two (2) named “Upper Frac”. The following
options, with examples in parenthesis are available:
Layer Number, Variable Name - This is the layer number, followed by the variable
name (i.e., #2 Length).
Layer Name, variable Name - This is the name of the layer followed by the name
of the variable (i.e., Upper Frac Length).
Layer Name only - This is the name of the layer (i.e., Upper Frac). This is useful
for plots of only one variable, for example, length versus time.
Variable Name Only - This is only the variable name (i.e., Length). This is useful if
only one of the active layers is selected for plotting.
There is also an option at the top to Hide Legend when there is only one layer.
This is used to hide the legend when only one layer is plotted, but show the legend
when more than one layer is plotted.
Composite Plots
A number of composite plots are available in MFrac. Composite plots refer to the
configuration of displaying more than one figure in a given plot.
Figure 2.64 illustrates a composite width contour plot that contains the stress, width
and width contours. Figure 2.65 shows a composite plot of the rock properties
table. Similar plots are available for proppant transport display.
Multi-Axes Plots
Following are a few examples of Multi-Axes Plots with various options for plot
Layout and configuration.
Three-Dimensional Plots
To display a 3D plot select Three-Dimensional from the Plot Menu as shown in
Figure 2.68.
Figure 2.69 displays the dialog menu for creating Three-Dimensional Plots. These
features are mostly related to options for a propped fracture. If acid is selected some
of these items will be dimmed. The dialog menu has options for Plot, Shading,
Show Options, and Titles. This virtual reality plot is saved in a VRML at the loca-
tion shown at the bottom of this menu. In order to view these 3D plots, a VRML
plug-in must be installed with your web browser. You can download the free Cor-
tona VRML plug-in at:
http://www.parallelgraphics.com/products/cortona/
After installing the 3D VRML plug-in you must register the 3D WRL file type gen-
erated by MFrac/MPwri with the web browser so that the browser can find the
plug-in. In the web browser (e.g., Mozilla, Internet Explorer, etc.) go to Folder
OptionsFile Types and Register the WRL Extension with a web browser (e.g.,
Internet Explorer). After installing the plug-in and registering the WRL file type
you may have to restart your computer.
Wellbore
Below is a list of options found under the Wellbore section of the Three-Dimen-
sional Plots screen.
Show Wellbore
By checking this option, the wellbore will be included in the 3D plot output.
Parallel to Fractures
For horizontal wells, this option will orient the wellbore parallel to the fractures.
These 3D plots can be shared with anyone on the Internet. It is not necessary to
have MFrac to view a 3D plot any VRML plug-in (e.g., Cortona) will work.
Figure 2.73 displays the Report Menu for the Multilayer (limited entry) case.
Viewing a Report
To see the results of a simulation select View Report from the Report menu. The
Report Generation dialog shown in Figure 2.74 will then be presented with the Full
Report option enabled as a default. The Full Report contains all of the simulation
results corresponding to the options that were selected in the Options dialog boxes.
It contains all of the input data, as well as the calculation solutions.
When it is not necessary to view all of the data, you may select a pre-formatted
Summary Report, with or without input data. These reports summarize the various
solution tables presented in the Full Report. In many cases, average values are pre-
sented together with fracture geometry and proppant transport information at the
Choosing the Selected Sections item enables the previously dimmed list con-
tained in the Report Generation dialog. These sections represent the components of
the Full Report and can be selected individually or together as a group. This capa-
bility allows you to view a portion of the complete report without displaying any
undesired information. Once again, some of the sections will remain dimmed
depending on the simulation options that have been used.
If there is more than one active layer, clicking on the Multilayer tab will allow you
to choose which layers to include in the report. Select the desired layers from the
list.
Once the selection(s) are made, the report may be viewed by clicking the OK but-
ton.
Fluid Database
A complete fracturing fluid database and database management system is provided
with MFrac to simplify entry of fluid rheology information. The databases con-
tained in MFrac are comprised of System Databases and a User Database (see
Figure 2.75). The System Databases supplied with MFrac cannot be edited or
changed. This is to prevent users from loosing the original data provided to Meyer
by various participating service companies.
To use the data from the System Databases, it must first be copied into the User
Database. To do this, select the desired System Database from the list box at the top
of the screen. Next, select a fluid from the System Database list and press the Insert
button located in the center of the dialog box (or double-click on the database
fluid). This action copies the selected fluid data from the System Database to the
User Database. Once a fluid has been inserted, its position relative to the other flu-
ids in the list can be adjusted by using the Up or Down arrow buttons.
Any fluid record contained in the User Database can be edited by selecting the fluid
name and clicking the Edit button or double-clicking on the fluid. A new blank
record can be created with the Add button. Selections may be deleted from the User
Database by clicking the Delete button. To exit the fluid database dialog box, click
on the Done button.
When either the Add button or the Edit button is used to create or edit a fluid, the
screen shown in Figure 2.76 appears permitting the rheology and friction data to be
entered, viewed, modified or plotted. For a new fluid, a blank screen is presented
providing a template for the entry of data.
Specific Gravity
The Specific Gravity of the fluid at bottomhole conditions must also be entered for
each fluid in the space provided. The fluid specific gravity is used in the proppant
transport solution and for 3-D fracture propagation solution (energy equation for
height growth) when the fluid gradient is clicked on.
n – 1
app = k
where k is the consistency index, n is the flow behavior index, and is the shear
rate. Clearly, as the shear rate increases the apparent viscosity decreases for n 1
and in the limit as the shear rate approaches zero the apparent viscosity goes to
infinity. Apparent viscosity is not used in the Meyer software calculations. The
apparent Viscosity Plot should only be used for relative comparisons.
Rheology Data
The Rheology Data section found in the database record is used to specify the n
and k of the fluid system as a function of Time and Temperature. At least two (2)
entries must be made for each temperature to define the properties for a range of
time. Use the Previous << and Next >> buttons to switch between temperatures.
Friction Data
In addition to the Rheology Data section, the fluid database also provides a section
containing characteristic friction data for various pipe sizes. This information has
also been provided by the respective service companies. When available, the pres-
sure loss data is entered as a function of the pumping rate and Hydraulic Diameter.
This data is only used when the Wellbore Hydraulics Model Option is selected as
User Database.
Hydraulic Diameter
The hydraulic diameter is defined as:
4A
D h = -------
P
where
Dh = hydraulic diameter
A = cross-sectional area
P = wetted perimeter
2
A = D 4
P = D
and
2
4 D 4
D h = ------------------------- = D
D
where
For an annulus,
2 2
A = D – d 4
P = D + d
and
2 2
D –d
D h = ------------------ = D – d
D+d
where
The program assumes that the data entered is specified as a function of hydraulic
diameter. Data specifically generated for an annular configuration should be input
based on the hydraulic diameter. When simulating annular flow, MFrac calculates
the fluid velocities and uses the appropriate friction data from the database.
Once the data has been entered, it may be plotted for verification using the various
plot buttons. When plotted, a curve is generated through the data points using a
cubic spline fit. The spline fitting function may be disabled by clearing the check
box found at the bottom of the plot dialog.
After creating a plot, the plot attributes can be changed by selecting the Plot Con-
figuration button, located on the bottom of the screen. To generate a hard copy,
click the Print button located on the tool bar. This plot can be zoomed like other
Meyer plots; however, to zoom out you must click the Zoom out button or press
F5.
Proppant Database
To characterize the many different proppants available in the industry, various
proppant suppliers have provided us with their databases.
To enter the Proppant Database select the Proppant Database command from the
Database menu. The first screen presented is the Proppant List dialog shown in
Figure 2.81. Just like in the Fluid database, a User Database can be built by copying
proppants from the program’s System Databases. The System Databases contain
data supplied by most of the major proppant manufacturers and suppliers. Once
proppants have been copied from the System Database, they can be repositioned by
using the Up and Down buttons. You can Edit a record, Delete a record, Copy a
record or Add a new record to the list by choosing the appropriate button. To exit
the proppant database dialog box, click on the Close button.
For each proppant entry in the database, specific information is required. A descrip-
tion of these properties is given below.
Specific Gravity
This is the ratio of the proppant density to the density of water. The specific gravity
of a proppant is based on the grain density, not the bulk density of the proppant.
Typical values are shown in Table 2.11.
The proppant Specific Gravity is used in the calculation of the proppant settling
velocity, as well as the pipe frictional, gravitational and perforation pressure losses.
Average Diameter
This is a weighted average value as determined from a sieve analysis according to
API standards. It is used to determine the proppant settling velocity, propped frac-
ture width, monolayer criteria and as a reference value for bridge-out determina-
tions. “Bridging-out” is assumed to occur if the average fracture width integrated
over the fracture height is less than the value entered for the No. of Prop Layers to
Prevent Bridging.
Concentration List
The Concentration list on the left contains concentration (per area) values. Each
concentration is associated with a proppant data table on the right. That is, for each
concentration, at least one closure pressure, and other associated values, must be
entered in the proppant data table. The concentrations must be greater than zero.
The + and - buttons under the concentration list are used to add and remove entries,
respectively.
The proppant data table can be sorted by column by clicking on one of the fixed
column headings.
Calculations within the proppant data table are performed according to the follow-
ing equation:
C a – C ae
= 1 – ---------------------
w
where
= porosity,
w = measured width.
This mass balance equation provides limits to the valid range of values of the vari-
ous parameters in the table. Values in the table that are not valid will be displayed in
a bold/red font. A parameter value will not be recalculated if the value used in the
calculation is not valid.
The Fracture and proppant transport models compute property values associated
with a specific closure pressure and concentration (per area), first by linearly inter-
polating table values by closure pressure, then by concentration. If a closure pres-
sure is beyond the minimum and maximum closure pressures in the table the
associated values of the minimum (or maximum) will be used.
Permeability
This is the proppant pack permeability at specified concentrations as a function of
Closure Pressure. The fracture permeability is assumed to vary with concentration
and closure pressure throughout the fracture. The proppant transport model elemen-
tally tracks the proppant displacement and calculates the effective propped width
and height as a function of position in the fracture. The variation of fracture con-
ductivity with position is then used to calculate an equivalent dimensionless frac-
ture conductivity at the start of pseudo-radial flow in the specific pay zone. For
concentrations beyond the those listed, the permeability is assumed to be con-
stant.(i.e. equal to the permeability computed for the minimum or maximum con-
centration listed)
Width
This is the propped fracture width. The fracture model linearly interpolates the
propped width based on the closure pressure and concentration (per area). For con-
centrations beyond the those listed, the width is linearly extrapolated assuming a
constant porosity and embedment concentration.
Conductivity
This is the fracture conductivity. Conductivity values in the table will be calculated
by multiplying permeability times width. Entering a value for conductivity will
cause the permeability to be recalculated.
Porosity
This is defined as the void fraction between sand grains (i.e., liquid volume to
slurry ratio of the settled bank). The porosity values in the table will be calculated
based on the equation presented above. Entering porosity values will caused the
embedment concentration to be recalculated if embedment is enabled, otherwise
the width will be recalculated. Typical proppant porosity values for low closure
stresses are shown in Table 2.12.
Embedment Concentration
This is the concentration (per area) of the proppant that is embedded into the forma-
tion. If the Enable Embedment box is checked, values enter in the embedment
concentration column of the table will be used to calculate values of porosity. If the
box is not checked, then the embedment concentration will be assumed to be zero
for all of the proppant data tables.
After specifying up to ten (10) closure pressures, choose the Plot versus Concen-
tration tab. The plot on this page shows how the simulator interprets the proppant
data for each closure pressure. See “Closure Pressure on Proppant” on page 194.
Non-Darcy Database
To enter the Non-Darcy Database select the Non-Darcy Database command from
the Database menu. The first screen presented is the Non-Darcy List dialog shown
in Figure 2.86. Just like in the Fluid database, a User Database can be built by copy-
ing non-Darcy beta correlations from the program’s System Database. The System
Database contains correlations for the beta factor as used in the petroleum industry.
Once beta correlations have been copied from the System Database, they can be
repositioned by using the Up and Down buttons. You can Edit a record, Delete a
record, Copy a record or Add a new record to the list by choosing the appropriate
button. To exit the non-Darcy database dialog box, click on the Close button.
(Note: This Non-Darcy database is also used in MProd.)
The generalized correlation for the beta factor in terms of the fracture permeability
k f and porosity is of the form
a-
= ----------
kf c
b
where a , b , and c are the input constants. The a coefficient has units consistent
with the permeability power constant, b , and the units for permeability. The power
coefficients b , and c are dimensionless.
Acid Database
An acid fracturing database and database management system is provided with
MFrac to simplify entry of acid information. The databases contained in MFrac are
comprised of System Databases and a User Database (see Figure 2.88). The Sys-
tem Databases supplied with MFrac cannot be edited or changed. This is to prevent
users from loosing the original data provided to Meyer by various participating ser-
vice companies.
To use the data from the System Databases, it must first be copied into the User
Database. To do this, select the desired System Database from the list box at the top
of the screen. Next, select an acid/rock system from the System Database list and
press the Insert button located in the center of the dialog box (or double-click on
the database fluid). This action copies the selected acid/rock data from the System
Database to the User Database. Once an acid/rock has been inserted, its position
relative to the other acids in the list can be adjusted by using the Up or Down arrow
buttons.
Any acid record contained in the User Database can be edited by selecting the acid
name and clicking the Edit button or double-clicking on the acid. A new blank
record can be created with the Add button. Selections may be deleted from the User
Database by clicking the Delete button. To exit the acid database dialog box, click
on the Close button.
When either the Add button or the Edit button is used to create or edit an acid/rock
system, the screen shown in Figure 2.89 appears permitting the acid/rock data to be
entered, viewed or modified. For a new acid, a blank screen is presented providing
a template for the entry of data.
Like all of the databases, the Acid Frac Database is accessible from the program
Database menu and the Treatment Schedule.
Along with the information described above, each entry must have the following
Characterization Parameters:
where
Heat of Reaction
The heat generated from the reaction of the acid with the rock has an effect on the
temperature in the fracture and, therefore, on the acid spending rate. The heat of
reaction is the associated energy per unit mass of acid that reacts.
Dissolving Power
The governing acid transport relationship used by MFrac based on the rate of cre-
ation of volume (R.O.C Volume) is as follows:
V· l = 2v yl l + 2v yp 1 – l fl + V· w + 2V l – 2V· R l
where
Because the internal acid fracturing calculations are based on the rate of creation of
mass (rather than volume), it is necessary to convert the entered volumes to an
equivalent mass. The dissolving power facilitates this conversion. It is the mass of
rock dissolved divided by the mass of acid used (mass of rock/mass of acid).
n
V = k Cs
where
Ea 1 1
K T = K T o exp ------ ----- – ---
R T o T
where
If the reaction rate coefficient is determined for a series of temperatures, then a log-
log plot of KT vs. 1 T will produce a straight line with slope equal to E a R and the
inverse log of the intercept equal to KT 0 . The Activation Energy, E a , and the Ref-
erence Temperature, T o , therefore, are input in order to provide a basis for adjust-
ing the reaction rate for variation in temperature.
Standard reaction parameter units are used throughout MFrac. The required unit for
the reaction rate coefficient is (g-mole/cc)1-n-cm/sec. The units for the Activation
Energy and Reference Temperature are Kcal/g-mole and degrees Kelvin, respec-
tively.
Diffusivity
The ability to quantify the total mass transfer in the system is directly related to the
ability to characterize the diffusivity (diffusion coefficient). Normally in acid frac-
turing, when laminar flow exists, the diffusivity is equal to the molecular diffusion.
When turbulence is encountered diffusion typically increases. Unfortunately, diffu-
sivity, as it relates to acid fracturing, has historically been difficult to measure in the
laboratory. There are currently several organizations investigating new methods for
characterizing acid diffusion.
Kg W
N sh = -----------
D
where K g is the mass transfer coefficient, W is the fracture width and D is the dif-
fusivity. Notice the similarity to the Nusselt number.
Just like the reactive rate coefficient, the diffusion coefficient also varies as func-
tion of temperature according to the Arrhenius equation. The following formulation
is used:
ED 1 1
D T = D To exp ------- ----- – ---
R To T
where
DT = diffusivity at temperature T
DT
o
= diffusivity at the reference temperature, T o
The required units for the Diffusivity are cm2/sec. Like the Reactive Rate Coeffi-
cient, the associated Activation Energy must be input in Kcal/g-mole and the Ref-
erence Temperature entered in degrees Kelvin.
You may add, modify or delete rows in the table as you would in any other Meyer
table. When finished editing the database, click on the OK button.
Lithology symbols can be added by placing the mouse cursor to the left of the Zone
Name and double clicking the left mouse button. The Rock Database is accessible
from the Rock Properties dialog box by selecting Insert from Database icon.
2.8 Tools
The Tools menu provides the user with options and analytical tools for calculating
or determining scientific parameters. Currently, all applications have a Tool
Spreadsheet option that allows the user to customize the spreadsheet. MFrac and
MProd also have a Proppant Calculator for determining the proppant permeability
and beta factor based on proppant properties.
Proppant Calculator
The Proppant Calculator Dialog screen displayed in Figure 2.92 allows the user to
calculate the theoretical proppant permeability and non-Darcy beta factor.
Beta Correlation
The equation to describe non-Darcy flow is a form of the Forchheimer [1901] equa-
tion
d 2
– (p) = ---- +
dx kf
2
where k f is the permeability of the porous media with units of L (i.e., md or ft2,
–1
etc.) and is the non-Darcy flow factor or simply factor with units of L (e.g.,
-1 -1 2
cm , ft , atm-s /gm etc.). Clearly the first term in this equation accounts for vis-
cous effects and the second term for inertial or minor loss effects. If the second term
on the right hand side is omitted, the equation simplifies to Darcy’s law. Thus non-
Darcy flow describes the flow regime that does not obey Darcy’s law. Holdith
[1976] reports that the original form of the second term on the right hand side of
2
Eq. by Forchheimer was a which was replaced by Cornell and Katz [1953] by
the product of the fluid density, , and the factor.
The generalized correlation for the beta factor in terms of the fracture permeability
k f and porosity is of the form
a
= ----------
-
kf c
b
where a , b , and c are constants. The effect of immobile water saturation, S w , can
be incorporated by modifying the porosity to be the effective porosity
( e = 1 – S w ). A number of correlations for the beta factor (inertial coefficient)
are provided in the database.
Proppant Porosity
This is defined as the void fraction between sand grains (i.e., liquid volume to
slurry ratio of the settled bank). It is used to calculate the propped fracture permea-
bility. Typical values of porosity for proppants are shown in Table 2.13.
Proppant Diameter
This is a weighted average value as determined from a sieve analysis according to
API standards. It is used in calculating the theoretical proppant permeability.
Sphericity
Sphericity is a measure of how spherical (round) an object is. The sphericity, s , is
defined as
6 6V p
s ---------- = -----------
dp as dp Sp
where
Typical values of Sphericity for various shapes are shown in Table 2.13.
tetrahedron 0.671
cube 0.806
dodecahedron 0.910
half-sphere 0.840
sphere 1.0
Specific Gravity
This is the ratio of the proppant density to the density of water. The specific gravity
of a proppant is based on the grain density, not the bulk density of the proppant.
Typical values are shown in Table 2.15.
The proppant Specific Gravity is used in the calculation of the proppant density.
C a = o 1 – w f
3
where o is the reference density of water at 4 C (i.e., 62.43 lbm ft or 1g cm 3 ).
The propped fracture width in terms of the concentration per unit area is
w f = C a o 1 –
Proppant Damage Factor
The proppant damage factor is defined as
DF = 1 – k f k
where
kf = fracture permeability
k = proppant permeability (undamaged or theoretical)
DF = proppant damage factor
k f = k 1 – DF
3 2
dp s dp s –2
k f = --------------------------------2 1 + -------------------------- 1 – DF
3 1 – w f
72 m 1 –
where m 25 12 for 0.5 . The permeability for open slot flow (i.e., no packing
in a slot as 1 ) is
w f2
k f = ------ 1 – DF
12
Beta
The Beta factor is calculated from the proppant property data and selected beta cor-
relation. The generalized correlation for the beta factor in terms of the fracture per-
meability k f and porosity is of the form
a-
= ----------
kf c
b
where a , b , and c are constants. The effect of immobile water saturation, S w , can
be incorporated by modifying the porosity to be the effective porosity
( e = 1 – S w ). A number of correlations for the beta factor (inertial coefficient)
are provided in the database.
2.9 References
1. Virk, P.S.: “Drag Reduction Fundamentals”, AIChE Journal, Vol. 21, No. 4,
July 1975.
2. Keck, R. et al.: “A New Method for Predicting Friction Pressures and Rheol-
ogy of Proppant Laden Fracturing Fluids”, SPE Production Engineering, Feb.
1992.
4. Meyer, B.R.: “Design Formulae for 2-D and 3-D Vertical Hydraulic Fractures:
Model Comparison and Parametric Studies,” paper SPE 15240, May 1986.
6. Huit, J.K.: “Fluid Flow in Simulated Fractures,” AIChE Journal, Vol. 2, p 259.
1956.
7. Louis, C.: “Etude des écoulements d'eau dans les roches fissurées et leurs
influence sur la stabilité des massifs rocheux,” Bull. de la Direction des Etudes
et Recherches, Series A, No. 3, p. 5-132, 1968.
9. Bird, R.B, Stewart, W.E., Lightfoot, E.N., Transport Phenomena, J. Wiley &
Sons Inc., NY, 1965, page 204.
10. Meyer, B.R.: “Generalized Drag Coefficients Applicable for All Flow
Regimes,” OGJ, 1986.
12. Shah, S.N.: “Proppant Settling Correlation for Non-Newtonian Fluids Under
Static & Dynamic Conditions,” paper SPE 9330, 1980.
14. Thiercelin, M.: “Fracture Toughness and Hydraulic Fracturing,” Int. J. Rock
Mech. & Geomechanics, vol 26, No3/4, pp 177-183, 1989.
16. Nierode, D.E. and Kruk, K.F.: “An Evaluation of Acid Fluid Loss Additives,
Retarded Acids, and Acidized Fracture Conductivity,” paper SPE 4549, Sept./
Oct., 1973.
18. El-Rabaa, A.M., Shah, S.N., and Lord, D.L.: “New Perforation Pressure Loss
Correlations for Limited Entry Fracturing Treatments”, presented at the SPE
Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, WY, May 1997.
MView
Acquired Data Visualization
3.1 Introduction
This chapter is a guide to the use of MView. Developed as a data handling system
and display module for real-time hydraulic fracturing; this software is intended for
use with MFrac (a hydraulic fracturing design simulator) and MinFrac (a minifrac
analysis simulator), but can also be used as a general data collection and display
program. This chapter explains the basic procedures for using MView.
MView is a data handling system and display module for the real-time and replay
analysis of hydraulic fracture treatments and minifrac analysis. MView can accom-
modate up to two hundred (200) data channels and simultaneously allows selection
of up to two hundred (200) parameters for processing. A channel can also be speci-
fied for Multi-parameters (e.g., channel C can be assigned to more than one param-
eter.).
MView can process a maximum of 1,209,600 lines of data, but can read or import
virtually an unlimited number of lines of data (limited only by memory) from a file.
If there are more than 1,209,600 lines of data in a file, it will be necessary to adjust
the Sample every box so that 1,209,600 lines or less of data are actually used for
the analyses. For example, if a data file has 1,700,000 lines of data, it would be nec-
essary to set the Sample every box to 20 or higher, or select a range of data (start
row to end row) with less than or equal to 1,209,600 rows of data. This is discussed
below in the Data Set dialog.
All data manipulation in MView is done through the use of data sets. A data set is a
group of related data that may come from a text file, an MFrac file (.mfrac), an
MPwri file (.mpwri) or real-time data from the serial port.
Each data set may have up to two hundred (200) different parameters. A maximum
of five data sets may be used at a time. All data sets share the same list of parameter
names, which includes unit types (length, rate) and units (ft, bpm). There are many
functions available for processing the data sets. Data sets may be edited or saved as
text files. In addition, any number of data sets can be merged into a single file with
a single time scale and any number of them can be plotted together.
The first step in using MView is to specify the parameter names, types and units by
accessing the Parameters dialog box from the main menu.
Once a group of parameters has been specified, go to the Data menu and select
Data Sets. To import a data file into an MView data set, specify the file name and
format of its contents. The contents are defined by associating a parameter with a
channel (or column) of data in the file.
MView provides a means of sharing the real-time or replay data set with MFrac and
MinFrac for use as simulation input. This data can include the parameters: pump
rate, bottomhole and surface pressure, proppant concentration, and nitrogen or CO2
injection rate. Sharing a data set with MFrac and MinFrac can be done after the data
sets are setup by choosing Simulation Setup from the Simulation menu.
It is important to realize that MFrac, MinFrac and MView are always in constant
communication with one another. When these programs are open, they automati-
cally share any Real-Time or Replay data set.
After data has been imported into MView, it is possible to construct composite plots,
by choosing the Build Plot command from the Plot menu. This command will dis-
play all of the data that has been imported and allow a choice of which parameters
to include in a plot. MView allows the construction of up to six plots for simultane-
ous display.
After the plots have been built, they can be viewed by selecting the View Plot com-
mand from the Plot menu. Whenever a plot is open, all the standard configuration
and exporting functions of all Meyer plots are available. In addition, MView allows
manipulation of the data contained in the plot using statistical and editing functions.
This is described in Section 3.6 “Creating Plots- Graphically Editing Data.”
It is important to realize that MFrac, MinFrac, and MView are always in con-
stant communication with one another. When these programs are open, they
automatically share any replay/real-time data set.
An outline of the basic steps for using MView is shown in Table 3.1.
Menu
The MView menu bar is shown in Figure 3.1. Generally, the menus are accessed
from left to right as shown in Figure 3.1.
3.2 Parameters
The first step in using MView is to create a list of the parameters to include in the
analysis.
To create a list of parameters, choose Parameters from the Main menu. This will
display the screen shown in Figure 3.2.
To Specify a Parameter:
1. Enter a descriptive name in the text box under the Parameters column.
2. Select a corresponding Unit Type for the parameter using the list box provided
to the right of each Parameter Name. If the desired unit type is not present in
the list, choose No Units.
3. After the Unit Type has been selected, a list of the available units correspond-
ing to the Unit Type will be in the adjacent Output Unit list box. Choose the
desired unit.
2. This will set all of the Parameter Names to blank, the Unit Type to No Units,
and the Output Unit list box to blank.
2. Click the Save button located in the lower left corner of the Parameters screen.
This will display the Save As screen.
3. Enter a name for the file in the space provided and click OK. By default,
parameter files contain the extension mvu (e.g., default.mvu).
Once saved, a set of parameters can be recalled and applied to an MView session by
using the Load Units button.
2. Browse to select the saved parameters file containing the extension mvu.
3.3 Data
A key aspect in the analysis of fracturing data is the manner in which data files of
various types are accessed, viewed and edited. This chapter outlines the data han-
dling capabilities of MView and provides instructions for importing and manipulat-
ing data sets.
Data Sets
The Data Sets dialog box is used to import data from files for display or use in a
simulation (Figure 3.3). Up to five different data files can be imported for simulta-
neous display. The first of these data sets may be setup as a real-time or replay file
to be used as input for an MFrac and/or MinFrac simulation. This file may be either
a real-time file that is transmitted to MView or it can be an acquired data set that
was provided by a service company after the treatment was performed (i.e.,
Replay). The remaining four data sets (A, B, C, and D in Figure 3.3) may be either
text files (delimited with commas, spaces or tabs), or MFrac or MPwri output files
(with the extension “mfrac” or “mpwri”, e.g., Samplefile.mfrac).
To import a data file into a data set, choose the desired data set by clicking the cor-
responding tab in the Data Sets box (e.g., Real-Time/Replay, Data Set A). Notice
that a Reference Name can be entered for each data set (e.g., Design). The Refer-
ence Name is used as the data set’s unique identifier and is displayed on each data
set tab.
For details on importing data files, refer to the instructions below that correspond to
the data file type.
2. Open the Data Sets dialog box by selecting Data Sets from the Data menu and
click on the left-most tab. Then click on the Real-Time radio button located
near the center of the screen (Figure 3.3).
4. Click on the Setup button and follow the instructions below for Setting up a
Text File.
MView and MACQ no longer support the unconventional time format of Hours
Minutes Seconds format (HH MM SS) separated by spaces. The standard format
is Hours Minutes Seconds separated by colons (HH:MM:SS). If you have a data
file with time in the format (HH MM SS) separated by spaces you can import the
file into Excel or other spreadsheet program, separate the columns by colons,
and save the new format. If real time data is being sent in a time format sepa-
rated by spaces, in MACQ under Acquisition Setup check the Time Box to “Add
the computer’s time to the start of each data line”.
3. Be sure to click on the Data File check box which is used to enable or disable a
file setup from the active session. When the box is checked, the data set is
used. When it is cleared, the data set is omitted from all plots.
4. After checking the Data File box, click on the Ellipses (Select File button). A
file browse dialog box will then be displayed. Select the desired file and click
OK.
5. Click on the Setup button and follow the instructions below for Setting up a
Text File.
Note that text files and real-time data must contain data lines delimited with
either tabs, spaces, or commas. When reading a data file, MView will interpret
and display these delimiters as column breaks. If the data file contains text head-
ers, we recommend that you use single word phrases. This will keep the headers
aligned properly with the correct column of data. If you must use more than one
word, try hyphenating the words to prevent unwanted column breaks (e.g., Sur-
face-Pressure).
Setup
Once the data source has been defined and the Setup button has been clicked,
MView will display the Data File setup screen (Figure 3.4).
The bottom-left side of the screen has the list of Parameters, the top has a spread-
sheet that contains the data from the data file. Each column of data displayed in the
spreadsheet is labeled with a column letter. The primary purpose of the Setup
screen is to associate these columns with a parameter name and unit type. The
Parameter names are those that are entered in the Parameters screen.
2. Choose the appropriate input unit for the parameter from the drop-down list in
Unit field. Note that this is the unit of the data in the spreadsheet, it may not
necessarily be the same unit as specified in the Parameters screen. Thus, it is
possible to have different input and output units. If the column is a time col-
umn with the format HH:MM:SS, choose the input unit that the shift and filter
values (and formulas for other parameters) will use.
4. To filter out unreasonable parameter values, specify Filter Min. and Filter Max.
values. To use this option move the cursor to the filter fields and type in both
the minimum and maximum filter values. The Filter Min. and Filter Max. must
be entered using the input unit selected in the Unit field. All lines of data that
contain a parameter which is out of its range will be ignored.
Formulas
Not only can a single column be associated with a parameter, but a formula of col-
umns may be used. The formula may contain arithmetic operations on column let-
ters and numbers using the following operations: + (addition), - (subtraction), *
(multiplication), / (division), and ^ (exponentiation). The operations may be
grouped using () (parantheses). For example: 1.5 * A * (B + C).
In addition to the arthematic operations, there are two special functions, delta and
sum, that operate between iterations (i.e, from row to row). The delta function cal-
culates the difference between the value of the contain expression at the current
iteration and the previous one. On the first iteration delta evaluates to 0 (zero). For
example, if column A was time then delta(A) is the change in time. The sum func-
tion calculates the cumulative value of the contained expression. Building on the
example for the delta function: if column B is the flow rate, then the following
would calculate the cumulative volume: sum (B * delta (A)).
Care must abe taken to ensure that the correct units are selected. In the example
above, if column A is in minutes and column B are in barrels per minute, then bar-
rels should be the input unit selected for the parameter associated with the forumla,
sum (B * delta (A)). If column A was in hours, then the formula would have to be
modified to the convert from hours to minutes: sum (B * delta (60.0 * A)). If col-
umn A is a clock time (e.g., HH:MM:SS or HH:MM), then it needs to be associated
with a parameter as a single column if it is to be used in other formulas. The input
unit selected for this parameter is the unit that the other formulas will interpret the
columns values to be in.
Row Sampling
For text files, the range of interpretable data is indicated by the Start and End Row
listed in the Row Selection portion of the screen (Figure 3.4). These values may be
changed as desired. Character strings, such as column headers, are ignored and can
be included in the selection of rows.
To sample the data contained in the spreadsheet, specify the sampling frequency by
entering a number in the Sample every box. For example, to use every fifth data
point, enter a 5 in this box. MView can select a maximum of 1,209,600 lines of data,
but can read or import virtually an unlimited number of lines of data (limited only
by memory) from a file. If there are more than 1,209,600 lines of data in a file, it
will be necessary to adjust the Sample every box so that 1,209,600 lines or less of
data are actually used for the analyses. For example, if a data file has 1,700,000
lines of data, it would be necessary to set the Sample every box to 20 or higher, or
select a range of data (start row to end row) with less than or equal to 1,209,600
rows of data.
Preview Plot
When importing data it is sometimes difficult to determine which column of data
corresponds to which parameter type. To assist in this situation, MView provides a
quick method of generating X-Y plots using any of the columns of a file.
To preview the data in the Setup screen, type or drag the column labels of the
desired parameters to the boxes found in the View Plot portion of the dialog box
(Figure 3.4). One X parameter and two Y parameters may be included (e.g., rate
and proppant concentration vs. time). Once a selection has been made, click on the
View Plot button to display the plot.
2. Check the Data File check box and then click the Select File button. Before
browsing to select the data file, choose MFrac Files from the List Files of
Type box. Then select the desired file and click the OK button to return to the
Data Sets screen.
3. When an MFrac output file has been chosen MView automatically adds a list
box adjacent to the Select File button (Figure 3.5). This list box contains three
choices: Wellbore Hydraulics, Fracture Characteristics or Proppant Trans-
port. Choose which type of data you want to import.
4. Click on the Setup button. This will bring up the MView Data Setup box (Fig-
ure 3.6).
5. Associate rows in the list on the right of the screen to parameters on the left
side of the screen, similar to setting up text files.
When importing an MFrac File it is possible to configure the units for previewing
plots by selecting the Units button.
When importing a multilayer MFrac File, there will be more than one fracture
(and/or proppant) characteristic zone. To analyze Fracture Characteristics or
Proppant Transport, select the desired zone #. The wellbore hydraulics results
are contain in the Wellbore Hydraulics item list.
After data has been imported from an MFrac output file, the data in MView is inde-
pendent of the file. Thus, if the simulation is run again, there will be no change in
the data in MView. However, to update the information in MView, select the
Refresh button in the data sets screen. This will re-import the data from the output
file, using the same setup as the last time the data was imported.
Re-running MFrac will automatically update the *.mfrac file. There is no longer
any need to save the *.mfrac file after running before selecting the Refresh but-
ton.
Setup Templates
If the same basic data setup is used repeatedly from job to job, it may be saved as a
template. Once saved, a template may be recalled and applied at any time.
To save a setup as a template, click the Save As... button located at the bottom of
the Setup dialog box. This will present a screen for entering a file name and loca-
tion for the template. Choose a directory and enter a name in the Save As dialog
box. Click the OK button. Setup template files are automatically given the exten-
sion VHD (e.g., demo.vhd).
Once a template is created, it can easily be applied to another data set by choosing
the Load... button and selecting a file name with the extension VHD (e.g.,
demo.vhd). The same Parameters must be defined when a template is loaded as
when the template was saved.
Editing Data
The Edit Data command in the Data menu allows some basic spreadsheet editing of
a data set. For more advanced editing, refer to the Graphically Editing Data part of
Section 3.6.
When the Edit Data command is used from the Data menu, a box listing the current
data sets is displayed. From the list, choose the desired data set and click the Edit
button. A spreadsheet containing the data will be presented. Real-time data may be
viewed, but not edited.
The edit command allows you to view the entire data set and inspect it for inconsis-
tencies or potential problems. If a problem is discovered, you may either attempt to
correct it by re-typing the data or completely removing the row. The data that is
viewed and edited is not the original text or MFrac file, but rather a copy kept in
memory by MView. The original data file is never changed by MView.
To Re-Type Data:
1. Select the desired data cell by clicking on it.
2. Type the new value. Press the ENTER key when finished.
2. Use the Delete Row button located at the bottom of the spreadsheet to remove
the highlighted row. If you make a mistake and remove the wrong data use the
Cancel button to avoid saving the mistake. If the cancel button is used, all
changes made during the active editing session will be lost.
The edit function allows data to be viewed either with the defined shifts applied or
disabled. This choice is made by selecting either the View Data with Shifts or View
Data Without Shifts radio buttons found at the bottom of the spreadsheet.
The shifts applied to data may also be edited by clicking on the Edit Shifts at the
bottom of the screen. This will provide a list of parameters and their shifts, which
can be edited.
2. Select the desired data set and click the Save As Text button located at the bot-
tom of the screen.
3. Enter a name and location for the text file and click OK.
2. Select the data sets to be merged by checking the adjacent box next to each
data set name. When finished, click the OK button to display the Merge Data
Sets dialog box. If the time range for each of the files is not overlapping or if
the times are not increasing, the following message will appear “There is no
parameter of time for which these files have increasing data. These files cannot
be merged.” In order to merge the data you will need to return to either the
Setup or Edit Data dialog boxes to synchronize the data by applying a shift.
The shifted values, when active, are always used when merging data files. The
error message may also occur if you have used different parameters for time.
3. From this screen, select the time parameter to base the match on. Normally,
there is just one time parameter; however, it is possible to have more than one.
Consequently, any parameter that is defined as a Time Unit Type and has data
in all selected data sets will appear in the list.
4. The program scans the selected data sets and determines the Min. and Max. val-
ues for the selected match parameter and displays them in the Range section of
the screen. A Time Step will also be suggested based on the existing data. Any
of these values may be changed. Notice that by adjusting the time step value,
the function can also be used to apply filtration to data files and affect the delta
time between data points. Use the Smallest Common Range or Largest
Range buttons to automatically set the Min. and Max. values. For example, if
the range for data set A is 0-100 minutes and 50-150 minutes for Data Set B
the smallest common range is 50-100, while the largest range is 0-150. Any
data set which does not have time values within the selected range will not be
completely interpolated. There is an option to specify what is written to the
data file when interpolation is impossible in the Preferences dialog box.
5. MView lists all of the active parameters in the Possible portion of the dialog
box. Select which of these parameters to include in the composite file by high-
lighting them and clicking the Add button. Likewise, parameters may be elim-
inated from the Selected list by using the Remove button.
6. After making selections, choose the OK button to display the File Save box.
Enter or choose a location and name for the file and click OK. The selected
data is written to the file along with the parameter names and units as column
headers.
Preferences
MView allows the selection of certain preferences that provide some variation in the
program control. These preferences are described as follows:
option, the line will be accepted and parameters associated with invalid columns
will receive a value of zero for those lines.
MView can receive real-time data either through a serial cable (Direct Connect),
network, or remotely using a modem. MView is also capable of emulating real-time
data transfer internally without the use of a second computer or acquisition system.
The Test Mode: Send a text file instead of Real-Time data, then stop is included
to facilitate training and demonstration of MView in real-time mode.
In addition to receiving data, MView can also transmit the data that it receives. This
provides a means of sending treatment data from the field to other remote locations
(e.g., someone’s office). A common example of this type of data transfer would be
the capture of data from the service company acquisition system via an MView
cable link on location. A second copy of MView could then be run remotely and
linked to the location copy of MView via modem. In this manner, it is conceivable
that the process of sending data in a daisy-chain fashion could continue repeatedly
as many times as needed. When used, this type of setup permits real-time simula-
tion and analysis from virtually anywhere telephone service exists (cellular or oth-
erwise).
The procedures used for setting-up various types of real-time data links are outlined
below.
Acquisition Toolbar
To receive data from a remote data acquisition system, either through a TCP/IP,
serial, or modem connection, the Acquisition Toolbar (a.k.a. the Meyer Data
Acquisition application) must be activated by selecting the Acquisition Toolbar
command from the Real-Time menu.
The purpose of the Meyer Data Acquisition (MACQ) program is to acquire real-
time data. The data is logged (as an ADT file specified by the user) and sent to
MView for further processing. The main MACQ screen is shown in Figure 3.8.
2. Click on the File ellipse button and specify an output file for the acquired data.
If data is appended to an existing file, MACQ will attempt to respect the current
file’s encoding and line endings. Otherwise, the file will be encoded as UTF-8
(with BOM). The default file extension is “adt” (other commonly used exten-
sions are “dat” and “txt”).
The individual components of the MACQ user interface are described below:
Normally, once data acquisition has been setup, the toolbar is minimized or ends up
in the background behind other open applications (e.g., MView). To bring the tool-
bar back to the foreground, select the Acquisition Toolbar command from the
Real-Time menu in MView.
Setup
The Setup button allows the user to configure the communication links for the
input and output ports. The Acquisition Setup dialog box is shown in Figure 3.9.
This action will either display the Communications Setup Input (Figure 3.10) or
Output dialog box (Figure 3.11). Keep in mind that data transmission (Output) is
only used to pass along the real-time data to another computer.
2. Continue with the setup by choosing the appropriate COM Port, Bits Per Sec-
ond, Stop Bits, Data Bits, Parity, and Flow Control. A definition of each of
these parameters is given in Table 3.2. These settings should match the settings
of the data acquisition software that will be sending data to MView.
3. The Ignore First Line of Data option for the Input port (Figure 3.12) may be
helpful if the first line of data is normally bad. However, for most cases, this
option should be set to False.
4. For input ports, the International Text Encoding determines how text that is
received is interpreted. For an output port, the option determines how text is
encoded before it is sent.
MView requires that each line ends in either a carriage return or a carriage
return followed by a line feed.
Depending on whether you want to setup a Modem Connection for data Input
(reception) or Output (transmission), either the Communications Setup Input (Fig-
ure 3.12) or Output dialog box (Figure 3.13) will be displayed. Keep in mind that
data transmission (Output) is only used to pass along the real-time data to another
computer.
2. The Modem Initialization String is sent to the modem when the port is started.
Check the modem’s documentation for a valid string, or leave the value blank
to use a default initialization string. Please refer to “Troubleshooting Modem
Problems” below for more information.
3. Options are available for the modem to Auto Answer and/or Redial if the con-
nection is lost. The Output port also has an option Upon connection, send
all data that was acquired during off-line time (see Figure 3.13).
4. Once an initialization string has been entered, continue with the setup by
choosing the appropriate COM Port, Bits Per Second, Stop Bits, Data Bits,
Parity and Flow Control. For a definition of each of these parameters, refer to
Table 3.2. These settings must be consistent with the system you are communi-
cating with.
5. For input ports, the International Text Encoding determines how text that is
received is interpreted. For an output port, the option determines how text is
encoded before it is sent.
Input Port
1. Select Receive text from a TCP/IP data source from the Input Communica-
tion Setup screen.
2. Specify a destination address in the Host Name (or IP address) field. This is
the host name that MACQ will connect to.
Output Port
1. Select Send text to another computer that will connect via TCP/IP from the
Output Communication Setup screen.
3. Specify a TCP port to listen on in the Port Number field (possible values are
from 1 to 65535).
Once a client is connected to the Output port, the Disconnect button becomes
available in the user interface. Selecting Disconnect will disconnect the current cli-
ent and return the port to listening mode.
Special Considerations
MACQ TCP/IP connections support IPv6 connections. However, IPv6 addresses
must be enclosed in brackets. e.g. “[2001:db8::abc:123]”.
The following addresses also have special meaning when specifying a network
interface to bind to within the Output port configuration screen:
Firewalls
TCP/IP connections may be blocked by various software and/or hardware firewalls
between the local and remote machine (including software firewalls running on the
machines themselves). If a port is started, but connections are not getting through, a
firewall might be blocking the connection. Due to the security implications, and the
sheer number of possible firewall configurations, firewall related issues are outside
the scope of this User’s Guide.
UTF-8 is the recommended setting; it should be used when both sides are running
Meyer Data Acquisition.
2. Click the “+” button to add an entry, click the “-” button to delete an entry, and
to edit an entry click in the spreadsheet cell.
When the Dial button is enabled, it can be used to dial a phone book entry. To con-
nect, click the Dial button to present the Modem Dial Selection dialog box shown in
Figure 3.16. Choose the target location from the list displayed and click the Dial
Modem button found in the dialog box. The program will display message screens
to indicate that it is dialing, connected or otherwise (e.g., busy, etc.).
If another computer dials your computer’s modem, MView will ask if you want to
answer the phone. Answer yes to answer the phone and establish communication.
2. If you cannot connect without a modem initialization string try typing some-
thing as simple as “ATZ”.
3. If after trying the steps listed above, the modem still does not connect, consult
the modem’s manual or contact the modem’s manufacturer for assistance.
In general, it is important to realize that the amount of data that is actually being
sent over the modem is quite minimal (usually only one line of text each second).
Thus, for best results, try to simplify everything as much as possible. Setting the
baud rate lower will solve many problems; 2400 Baud should be more than suffi-
cient for most cases. If this still does not work, try turning off any compression fea-
tures of the modem. Also, the modem must be in verbose mode. For most modems,
adding “V1” to the initialization string will put the modem in verbose mode. If
there are still problems, consult the modem’s manual for the proper initialization
string.
Once the Digital Data View window is opened, its position and size can be manipu-
lated like any standard window.
When the Configure View dialog box (Figure 3.21) is opened, it displays the active
real-time parameters in the Possibilities section of the screen. To view a parameter
it must be added to the View list.
2. The Configure View dialog box can also be used to specify whether to view the
data with any specified shifts applied or not. To use the shifts, click on the Use
Shifts check box.
3. The Selection parameter order can also be changed by using the Move Up and
Move Down buttons on highlighted items.
4. The text color and decimal format of a highlighted Selection parameter can be
changed by clicking on the Properties button. This will bring up the dialog as
shown in Figure 3.22. The Text Color and the number of Decimal Places can
be different for each selected parameter. To use scientific notation check the
Scientific check box.
The fonts, for both the caption and data, can be specified independently by choos-
ing either the Caption Font or Data Font buttons. The caption can also be Left,
Center or Right justified. The data is right justified to ensure that the decimal place
remains in the same position for easy of reading the display. To view the headers in
the text color specified by the parameter’s properties, check the Use colors for
titles box.
If MView was collecting data, but suddenly shut down and then started back up
again, it would only have the real-time data collected since the last (second) start.
To recover the data collected during the first session, use the following steps:
2. Next, activate the Acquisition Toolbar and open the same file that you were
working with before the crash. A message will inquire if you want to append or
overwrite the data contained in the file. Choose append to save the data already
acquired and click the start button on the toolbar as quickly as possible to pre-
vent any further loss of data. If for some reason only MView crashed, but the
Acquisition Toolbar did not, just restart MView.
3. Once the acquisition has been restarted, select the Recover Real-Time Data
command from the MView’s Real-Time menu. This will display the file open
dialog box and pre-set the file extension to *.ADT.
4. Select the name that was given to the data file from the Acquisition Toolbar
(e.g., *.ADT) and choose OK.
5. This will cause the program to re-read all the data up to the point that the con-
nection was lost or the crash occurred.
6. At this point you will be back to where you were when the crash occurred,
minus the data lost during any Acquisition Toolbar down-time.
The Recover Real-Time Data command may also be used to load a real-time data
set without having to open the Acquisition Toolbar (MACQ). This is particularly
useful when a user has multiple replay files that contain the same data format (i.e.,
each file contains the same number of columns each with the same type of data).
(TSS), and Concentration Oil-in-Water (OIW) may also be used for simulation;
however, they are optional and only used if available.
To send real-time or replay data from MView to MFrac and/or MinFrac choose Sim-
ulation Setup from the Simulation menu to display the screen shown in Figure
3.24. MView will automatically place all configured parameters with units of pres-
sure in the Bottomhole Pressure list box. Likewise, all rate parameters will be
shown in the Rate list box, etc. When there are multiple parameters with the same
unit, select the parameter to use from the list. Other than Time and Rate, a parame-
ter can be disabled by choosing Not Available from the list.
You must indicate for all rate and concentration data whether the data was mea-
sured at the Surface or Bottomhole. This information is required so that MFrac
initializes the data at the correct time. When using surface data, make sure that the
wellbore volume is adequately described within MFrac. If the wellbore volume is
incorrect, the transport time for any portion of the treatment will be wrong and the
chronology of the job will be misrepresented.
Additional parameters can also be sent to MFrac for display and staging by access-
ing the Additional Parameters tab as shown in Figure 3.25. Checking the Send
box will send this parameter data to MFrac
Once you have selected which parameters to pass from MView to MFrac and/or
MinFrac, the programs will be in constant communication with each other.
Any changes that are made to the data in MView (e.g., graphical editing) are
automatically updated in MFrac and MinFrac.
3.6 Plots
As soon as data is available in a data set(s), it can be used to construct plots to assist
in the analysis. Composite or multi-component plots may be useful for creating
parameter match plots (e.g., measured vs. simulated pressure), comparing plausible
scenarios (e.g., best case/worst case) or simply depicting data trends in order to
document the quality control of a treatment.
Before a plot can be displayed, you must first specify the data to be displayed in the
plot. In MView, this process is referred to as “building a plot” and is accomplished
by choosing the Build Plot command from the Plot menu. When selected, this
command will display all data sets and their available parameters.
Once the desired plots are built, they can be viewed by selecting the View Plot
command located on the Plot menu. Whenever a plot is opened, it can be config-
ured (colors, line styles, fonts, etc.) and graphically edited. It is also possible to
export the produced graphics to include them in a customized report.
Building Plots
After the data sets have been imported and setup, the Build Plot dialog shown in
Figure 3.26 can be accessed from the Plot menu. This screen is used to choose
which parameters from the different data sets are to be included on a plot. Once a
plot is selected, the Parameters spreadsheet reflects the available data channels
associated with the selected Data Set or Data Sets. In order to build a valid plot, a
parameter must be assigned to the X-Axis, and at least one parameter must be
assigned to a Y-Axis. The plot description will be displayed in a dark red and bold
faced font along with an error message if the settings are invalid.
The first time you build a plot or create a new plot, the legends, axes names and the
plot title are set to the default Parameter text for a given Data Set. If more than one
parameter is plotted on an axis, the default axis caption will be blank.If an axis
parameter is changed, the legends and affected axis name will be changed to their
default settings. The default settings are obtained from the Parameter text preceded
by the Data Set Reference Name.
To Build a Plot:
1. Use the Build Plot command from the Plot menu to access the Build Plot
screen.
2. Select a plot by highlighting one of the plot rows located near the top of the
screen or add a new plot by clicking the Add button.
3. Enter a title for the plot within the cell in the Name column. This can be
accomplished by double clicking within the cell, or by clicking the Rename
button.
4. To add data to a plot, under Data Sets highlight the data set box from which
the desired data set parameters are to be selected.
5. From the Parameters drop down menu associate the parameters with a given
Axis. Only one X parameter may be chosen per data set; however, multiple Y
parameters may be used.
6. Once the plot parameter selections are made, the plot can be previewed by
clicking the Preview Plot button.
7. Repeat the above process to build other plots. Click the OK button to finish
building the plots.
The Delete button under the Plots menu can be used to delete a plot.
The Clear All button under the Parameters spreadsheet can be used to clear all the
parameter associations for a given data set and plot.
Viewing Plots
After the plots have been built, they may be viewed. To view the built plots, access
the View Plot selection screen as shown in Figure 3.27 by choosing View Plot from
the Plot menu. This screen will contain all of the built plots. Choose the plots to
display by clicking the adjacent check box and then click the OK button. The
selected plot(s) will be presented using all of the data that is available. If a plot con-
tains real-time data, the real-time data will appear as the data is acquired.
When graphically editing the data sent to MFrac or MinFrac for use as simula-
tion input, the changes that occur as a result of the editing are automatically
reflected in MFrac and MinFrac.
To graphically edit the active plot, choose Graphically Edit Data from the Plot
menu. The plot will continue to be displayed; however, it will automatically be
maximized and the Graphically Edit toolbar and menu will be added at the top of
the plot (Figure 3.28). The plot must remain maximized during the graphical edit-
ing session. To end the graphical editing session, select End Editing from the File
menu.
The Graphical Edit mode requires that all X axes parameters be increasing or
constant (i.e., non-decreasing) sequences. For example, if there are time values
of 1.0, 2.0, 1.5 and 3.0, they may not be graphically edited. In this situation,
either choose a different parameter as an X axis, or manually edit the data using
the Edit Data command in the Data menu.
The next step in the graphical edit process is to choose the curve to be edited. Make
this selection using the list box located on the left side of the toolbar. All editing
operations are only applied to the Active Curve. This selection can be changed at
any time during the editing session by accessing the list box.
Because only a limited number of mouse buttons are available to work with, MView
allows toggling the function of the left mouse button as you work with the graphical
editing feature. This is accomplished by selecting the desired function from the sec-
ond list box on the toolbar. The possible choices are: Select Range, Zoom, Select
Single Point, Drag Single Point and Drag Single Point (Y only). The function for
each of these selections is defined below.
Select Range
The Select Range mouse function is used to choose a range of data for processing.
The editing functions under the Range menu will only be applied to the active range
on the active curve. This mouse mode permits the range of the active curve to be
defined by dragging a box around it. After the range is specified, a function from
the Range menu can be selected. The arrow keys can be used to expand or contract
the range. The selected range is shown as a box on the plot and the starting and
stopping values are displayed at the top of the screen.
Zoom
This mouse function allows the normal zooming of all Meyer plots as described in
Chapter 1. Click and drag to define a zoom area on the screen. To return to the nor-
mal magnification, access the Zoom Out command in the shortcut menu (right
mouse button), choose Zoom Out from the Plot menu or press the F5 key.
Edit Menu
Whenever a change is made to data it can be undone by selecting Undo from the
Edit menu. MView tracks the operations performed on a data set so that you can
undo (or redo) in series to trace forward or backwards through the editing steps.
Range Menu
The functions provided in the Range menu provide statistical operations that can
be applied to the active range of data on the active curve. This menu also lets you
delete a group of data points directly or filter the data points based on a specified
maximum standard deviation. The name of the active curve is in the title bar of the
dialog boxes that are displayed after selecting a Range menu item. This helps you
to determine if you are working on the proper curve. The specific operations con-
tained in the Range menu are summarized as follows.
Set to Value
Use this command to set all data point in the range to a specific constant value. The
dialog box shown in Figure 3.29 will then be displayed. Either a constant value can
be specified or it can be selected graphically using the Graphically Choose button.
Set to Average
To replace a portion of data with the statistical average, use this command. To view
the value calculated and used as the average, choose the Show Statistics command
found on the Range menu.
Linear Interpolation
This will linearly interpolate each point in the range. The Linear Interpolation
Screen (Figure 3.30) allows you to specify an X1,Y1 and X2,Y2 or to define them
graphically. These coordinates are used to define a line. Then for each point in the
selected range, the Y value will be set on this line. Thus, even though X values may
be specified that are not on the borders of the range, all points in the range will be
affected. If Graphically Choose is selected, two points on the graph, point 1 and
point 2, must be selected. After selecting point one, the interpolation line will be
displayed as the mouse is moved around to select point two.
Add Shift
This command can be used to shift a range of data relative to its current Y coordi-
nates. When used, this function will allow you to enter a Shift Value or select it
graphically (Figure 3.31). This shift value will be added to the current data (new =
old + shift.) Note that this shift is completely different from the shift that can be
entered in the Data setup screen or under the Shift menu. To shift an entire curve,
relative to X and Y or only X, use the commands found in the Shift menu.
Smooth
When data is very erratic it can be smoothed with the Smooth command. Select
this command to display the Smooth Data dialog box shown in Figure 3.32. Use
the horizontal scroll bar to adjust the level of smoothness.
Remove Points
This will delete all of the points in the selected range. Use it with caution. It will
delete all points in the selected range for all parameters in the data set, even if these
parameters are not on the current plot. This cannot be undone.
Show Statistics
This command displays the information in Table 3.6 about the selected range.
Show Derivative
This command will show the derivative of the active curve within the selected
range. If the active curve is on the left scale, the derivative scale is on the right and
all curves on the right scale are hidden. If the active curve is on the right scale, the
opposite happens.
Point Menu
The commands in the Point menu apply only to the currently selected point on the
active curve. To see or choose the currently selected point, set the mouse function
to Select Single Point, Drag Single Point or Drag Single Point (Y only).
Set Values
Choose set values to manually type in a new X and Y value for the selected point.
Note that the X value cannot be before the previous point’s X value and cannot be
after the next point’s X value.
Remove Point
This will remove the currently selected point from the active curve. It will also
remove all other points in the data set that correspond to this point. This cannot be
undone.
Shift Menu
The Shift menu allows a graphical means of shifting an entire parameter of a data
set. These are the same shifts that are set in the data sets setup screen.
MinFrac
Minifrac Analysis
4.1 Introduction
This chapter is a user’s guide for the MinFrac program. All of the available options
and the basic procedures used for running the software are covered in this chapter.
Please refer to Appendix F for specific information regarding the governing equa-
tions, modeling techniques and numerical procedures used in the MinFrac Analysis
Software.
The term minifrac is commonly used to describe any type of injection test per-
formed in a reservoir to obtain characteristic information associated with the
hydraulic fracturing process. Tests such as these are usually applied, as part of the
design optimization process, to calibrate the fracture model input data and redesign
the treatment. These tests typically involve periods of intermittent injection fol-
lowed by intervals of shut-in and/or flowback. As with any well test, pressure and
rate are measured throughout a minifrac and recorded for subsequent analyses.
MinFrac for Windows was developed to aid the fracturing engineer in analyzing the
data recorded during a minifrac treatment. The principles of fracturing pressure
analysis have been discussed extensively in the literature during the past several
years1-9. The evolution of this technology has resulted in procedures that permit the
interpretation of injection and fall-off pressures in order to characterize the basic
fracturability of a reservoir. This process results in the ability to approach an opti-
mum treatment design.
MinFrac is a comprehensive tool that implements the latest fracture injection and
pressure decline theory. With the many types of analyses and superposition deriva-
tives available, MinFrac is considered a “state of the art” simulator by the petro-
leum industry.
An outline of the basic steps for using MinFrac is shown in Table 4.1.
Methodology
Minifrac analysis provides a method of estimating fracture efficiency, closure pres-
sure, ISIP, net pressure, fracture dimensions and leakoff coefficients prior to
designing a full-scale fracture treatment. These types of analyses, as originally for-
mulated by Nolte1-5 and modified by Castillo6 quantify the fracturing process as
estimated from the measured pressure decline data.
Most minifrac analyses are based on Nolte's equations and do not account for the
effects of fluid rheology or the conservation of momentum. The measured pressure
decline data is simply used in place of solving the momentum equation. Neglecting
momentum can result in unrealistic estimations of fracture characteristics and fluid
leakoff coefficients that are critical to the design of the main fracture treatment.
Up until 1987, only the width-opening pressure relationship and pressure decline
data were used to estimate minifrac characteristics. Lee7 improved upon this by
including Biot's energy balance equation for two-dimensional type fractures geom-
etry models.
The energy balance method does eliminate some of the anomalies in minifrac anal-
ysis. However, this method does not fully account for viscous driven fractures.
Meyer and Hagel8-9 (1988, 1992) reported a new minifrac methodology that solved
the governing conservation of mass and momentum equations for power-law type
fluids using the 2-D fracture propagation equations-of-state. The solution technique
does not assume the fracture width is proportional to the measured pressure.
Instead, the governing mass and momentum equations are coupled with the mea-
sured closure time to predict fracture propagation characteristics. From the numeri-
cally simulated fracture geometry, pressure, fluid efficiency and leakoff coefficient,
you can determine which fracture model more closely represents the measured
pressure response and formation permeability.
The main advantage of this technique is that mass and momentum are both satis-
fied. In addition, the important effects of flowback, interference closure, time
dependent leakoff and fluid rheology are simulated.
The numerical results are used in conjunction with the measured pressure decline
data to history match a number of fracture characteristics such as fracture height,
pay zone height, Young's modulus and spurt loss. Closure time can also be more
accurately estimated from these parametric studies.
Definitions
The following basic concepts are critical to the use of the MinFrac Program. If you
are uncertain about the terminology, please review the following definitions. For
more information about minifrac theory, refer to Appendix F.
The correct definition of fracture closure pressure as used throughout this guide is
the pressure in the fracture at the point of closure. This is more commonly referred
to as the minimum horizontal stress or least principal stress.
Fracture Efficiency
Fracture efficiency is defined as the ratio of the fracture volume to the volume of
slurry injected. The fluid efficiency, therefore, changes as a function of volume
injected. This change depends on the rate of creation of fracture area, as well as, the
leakoff characteristics of the fracturing fluid and reservoir. The fracture efficiency
is approximately equal for all models, since it is only a function of the pressure
decline slope and closure time. For a minifrac, the fluid efficiency of interest is gen-
erally the efficiency at the end of pumping. This instantaneous value provides a ref-
erence point for determining the total leakoff coefficient relative to a given volume
of fluid injected and fracture geometry model.
For additional information about the fluid leakoff models and minifrac leakoff refer
to Appendices D and F.
Each of these p components has their own dependency on rate and fluid proper-
ties. A change in either one (i.e., rate or fluid properties), therefore, should bring
about a predictable change in p gauge . If actual changes in p gauge differ from expec-
tations, plausible explanations may be considered. When this occurs, the signifi-
cance of the deviation should be weighed against it's influence on the desired
outcome of the propped fracturing treatment. This process allows the engineer to
decide whether the appropriate model(s) is being used; and to decide whether the
signal (i.e., p gauge ) and model combination provide a unique understanding of the
current fracturing process.
Determining Closure
The method chosen to identify fracture closure will depend on the test procedure
and on the quality of the acquired data. This guide is not meant as a primer to these
procedures; however, a list of the industry accepted methods is given below along
with a brief description of each. All of these methodologies are grouped here as
minifrac analyses. For additional information on each of these methods, refer to the
references cited.
Micro-Frac Test
This type of test is used to measure the in-situ stress in discrete intervals within a
zone. The procedure involves isolating a narrow interval using packers in order to
pump a minimum volume of fluid (usually low viscosity) to break-down and initi-
ate a hydraulic fracture. The resulting ISIP can be determined by plotting the
acquired pressure versus the square root of time. When performed properly, it is
generally accepted that the ISIP is a reasonable estimate of the minimum horizon-
tal stress and, therefore, is a form of closure pressure. The problems associated with
using this type of test, particularly in cased and perforated wellbores is discussed by
Warpinski14,15.
Pump-In/Decline
Unlike the discrete measurements associated with Micro-Frac Testing described
above, un-isolated injection tests performed through the entire perforated height
provide estimates of the state-of-stress over the total interval affected by the frac-
ture. These types of tests involve larger volumes of fluid than a test designed solely
for the purpose of determining in-situ stress. To obtain representative stress data, as
well as characteristic fluid loss, it is essential that the volume of fluid pumped cre-
ate a fracture of significant dimensions. For this reason, a “pump-in” test is usually
preceded by a step rate test to ensure that the propagation pressure is obtained and a
fracture is created.
The basic principle of this type of injection test is to create and propagate a fracture
in order to monitor the natural pressure decline following shut-in. Once the pres-
sure and time data is acquired, various graphical methods are used to identify the
closure event. Diagnostic plots involving numerous time and characteristic func-
tions can be produced to identify fracture behavior. For high permeability wells, a
Horner plot is sometimes used to identify pseudo-radial flow. The utility of this plot
is based on the concept that if a semi-log straight line is observed, the flow is
pseudo radial and therefore, the fracture is closed during the remaining portion of
the test. That is, data beyond the point of pseudo-radial flow is not used to evaluate
closure time.
To “pick” the closure time, normally, a plot of pressure versus square root of time is
a good place to start. For this time function, initially, pressure should decline along
a straight line indicating linear flow in the fracture. The point at which the fracture
closes should be marked by a distinct change in slope. Unfortunately, depending on
the relative relationship between the physical properties of the fracture and the res-
ervoir, the change in slope may be either positive, negative or so subtle that it is not
detected. Different situations require different diagnostic plots (i.e., different X-axis
functions) to interpret the closure event. When conditions result in an inability to
identify closure (e.g., low permeability resulting in long closure times), a Pump-In/
Flowback test may be required.
Pump-In/Flowback
When fluid loss is extremely low, as it is in many low permeability reservoirs, the
increased time required for a fracture to close due to natural pressure decline can
make the identification of closure extremely difficult. When this scenario is likely,
the closure identification process may be augmented by using a Pump-In/Flowback
procedure. This type of test uses constant rate flowback immediately following the
injection to increase the deflation rate of the fracture. Flowback is designed to
match the order-of-magnitude rate of leakoff. The objective is to affect the pressure
response in such a way as to develop a characteristic curvature (S-shaped) that
reverses from positive up to positive down (see Figure 4.1). This procedure usually
involves trial and error to determine the proper flowback rate. The return rate is
typically controlled using a manifold assembly containing operable valves (e.g.,
gate valves) or an adjustable choke. A low-rate flow meter is also beneficial in
monitoring the flowback rate and may allow digital acquisition of the data for sub-
sequent analysis.
The fracture continues to close and the communication between it and the wellbore
is choked as a result of decreasing conductivity and corresponding flowback rate.
The restriction caused by fracture closure reduces the wellbore recharge rate result-
ing in an increase in the relative wellbore deflation rate. This produces a character-
istic acceleration in the rate of pressure decline as the wellbore pressure is reduced.
Once this point of acceleration is identified, the fracture is assumed to be closed.
The identification of this point is typically made using a plot of the derivative
( dp dt ) to illustrate the change of pressure with respect to time. The maximum
point on the derivative plot represents the maximum rate-of-change in the pressure
decline and, therefore, the point at which the fracture is closed8,16.
Derivative Method
Analyzing the derivative, dp dt as a function of time is another method of deter-
mining closure. The resulting trend represents the rate-of-change in the pressure
with respect to time. Depending on the type of data (i.e., flowback or natural
decline), the derivative plot can be used to identify the closure by observing a char-
acteristic change in the shape of this relationship. Refer to Figure 4.2 for an exam-
ple of the desired trends.
P P
tc
dP dP
dt dt
Time Time
P P
dP dP
dt dt
Figure 4.2: Idealized Pressure and Derivative Trends for Time and Slope.
Basic Concepts
The fundamental methodology implemented in the MinFrac Program is discussed
by Nolte1-5, Castillio6, and Meyer8.
The basic concepts essential to using MinFrac and understanding the results are dis-
cussed below for each type of analysis:
This analysis is performed after fracture propagation has been established. Then
during shut down the rate is decreased in a stair-step fashion for a short period of
time while the pressure stabilizes. As the injection rate decreases, the pressure will
also decrease as a result of perforation and near wellbore pressure losses. The rela-
tionship between the decreasing rate and pressure results in a determination of near
wellbore pressure losses.
Horner Analysis
The Horner plot is used to determine if pseudo-radial flow developed during pres-
sure decline. If a semi-log straight line is observed and the line can be extrapolated
to a reasonable value of reservoir pressure, radial or pseudo-radial flow may be
affecting the decline behavior. This suggests that the fracture is already closed and
that data beyond the point of influence need not be considered in the evaluation of
closure.
The Horner plot provides a lower bound of the minimum horizontal stress or clo-
sure pressure.
Regression Analysis
Regression Analysis is a procedure whereby time dependent rate-pressure data dur-
ing fracture propagation and shut-in is analyzed to determine information regarding
fracture characteristics. The specific methodology used is given below:
1. Graphically identify the major events that occurred during the treatment cycle
(e.g., Initiation, ISIP , Closure etc.). Diagnostic plots can be generated using a
variety of time functions. These plots are used in the determination of closure.
In addition, a statistical procedure can be invoked to automatically determine
closure.
2. Once the events, including closure time, have been identified, parameters can
be selected and history matches performed comparing the theoretical response
to the actual measured data for each fracture model contained in the program.
A regression technique is used to minimize the difference between the model
results and the measured data. This process can be repeated as many times as
desired.
2. Closure pressure, p c .
4. Closure time, t c .
5. Fracture efficiency, G t c 2 + G t c .
2
6. Fraction of PAD, f pad 1 – and f pad 1 – 1 + .
min max
Derivative Method
The Derivative Method is one of the methodologies for determining inflection
points (i.e. fracture closure). Analyzing the derivative, dp dt as a function of time
is a method of determining closure. The resulting trend represents the rate-of-
change of pressure with respect to time. Depending on the type of data (i.e., flow-
back or natural decline), the derivative plot can be used to identify the closure by
observing a characteristic change in the shape of this relationship.
Nolte1-5 was the first to implement this concept. In simple terms, if one can find a
time function where the rate of pressure decline with respect to a time function is a
constant during fracture closure, the closure time would be indicated by a deviation
from the measured and theoretical pressure declines. This concept is formulated
below:
dP
ISIP – p = d ISIP – p =
d d
or
dP
p = ISIP –
d
The time function Nolte purposed was the Nolte G time (i.e., P = GdP dG ). Table
4.2 lists a number of other time functions also used in MinFrac. During closure the
user may perform a minifrac analysis with a time function that gives the best fit
pressure decline match with an inflection point at closure. Although this time func-
tion may give the best fit, it may not be a “unique solution”.
12 12
Root Theta’ Time = t tp –1 2 1 1/2
12 12
Root Delta Time t = t – tp 2 1 1/2
1 2 = t t – 1 12
Root Nolte Time tD p
2 1 1/2
General Equation
The general form of the after closure pressure response is
p – p* = m F (4-1)
where m is slope, F is a time function and p* is the straight line intercept at
F = 0.
reservoir pressure p* can be found from the intercept of the extension of the
straight line with the F = 0 axis.
Taking the derivative of Eq. (4-1) with respect to the time function, we find
dp dF = m (4-2)
or
dp
p = p* + F ------- (4-3)
dF
Therefore at late time (small values of F ) the measured pressure data should over-
lay Eq. (4-3) in Cartesian coordinates. Figure 4.3 illustrates the use of Eq. (4-3) by
overlaying the derivative function to help identify the intercept (reservoir pressure)
and late time slope (permeability).
Figure 4.3: After Closure Analysis - Surface Pressure vs. Nolte - FR Linear
Plot.
If a plot (see Figure 4.4)of net pressure p = p – p* vs. F is generated, the pres-
sure should overlay the following equation
dp
p = p – p* = F ------- (4-4)
dF
Figure 4.4: After Closure Analysis - Delta Pressure vs. Nolte - FR Linear
Plot.
dp
ln p = ln F ------- (4-5)
dF
Therefore, the net pressure curve in log space should also overlay the derivative
function for radial flow.
Another important derivative is the log slope. Taking the natural log of Eq. (4-1) we
find
ln p – p* = ln m + ln F (4-6)
where for F = 1 the slope is equal to the net pressure (i.e., ln p – p* = ln m ).
Eq. (4-6) also illustrates that if ln p is plotted versus ln F , the log-log slope
will approach unity for large times. That is
ln p
d--------------------
1 as F 0
d ln F
Figure 4.5: After Closure Analysis - Delta Surface Pressure vs. Nolte- FR Log-
Log Plot
Please refer to Appendix K for a detailed formulation and description of the gov-
erning equations.
Menu
The Meyer MinFrac menu bar is shown in Figure 4.6.
4.2 Options
This section describes the various options available in MinFrac. The Menu layout
(see Figure 4.6) and Data options are as shown in Figure 4.7. A complete descrip-
tion of the options is presented in this section.
To access the Options screen, select the DataOptions menu. The dialog box dis-
played in Figure 4.8 will then be presented. The default menu selection of the radio
button is Graphical Technique – Use real-time data from MView opening a new
file.
The Options screen determines what information is needed for a particular type of
analysis. The specific data displayed in a screen or the existence of a data screen
itself varies depending on the options selected. The selections made in the Data
Options screen set the scope for data used in MinFrac. These options establish the
General technique, Graphical and Fracture options.
General Options
The General Options screen allows the user to specify the type of Graphical or user
specified technique used to perform the analysis. Figure 4.9 shows the General
Options screen.
To take full advantage of MinFrac’s ability to process acquired pressure and rate
data, choose one of the Graphical Technique options. Selecting the Graphical
Technique option configures the program for graphically analyzing the data from
an actual minifrac treatment. This data can be replay data from a text file or Replay/
Real-Time data sent by MView.
The third choice is to simply perform minifrac closure and geometry calculations.
To use MinFrac to perform calculations only, select the User Specified Closure
option. This option is not recommended, since the user is required to specify the
pertinent regression data of closure time, pressure, etc. This option is used to per-
form parametric studies with different scenarios for various closure times and
hence fracture efficiencies.
This selection will disable all data input that corresponds to graphical analysis and
simply present data dialog boxes that require characteristic reservoir and fracture
data.
In addition to the reservoir data, specific information regarding the minifrac must
also be entered. For User Specified Closure the following information is required:
• Injection rate
• Closure time
• Closure pressure
Graphical Options
The Graphical Options are only fully available if a Graphical Technique option is
selected in the General Options box. The Graphical Options provide choices for the
User Specified Pumping Data, Derivative, Mouse Button and Wizard steps. Figure
4.10 shows the Graphical Option choices.
The Graphical option allows you to decide where specific information for the anal-
ysis will be obtained. This set of options is provided for occasions when a complete
data set is not available for analysis. When this occurs, the data set can be supple-
mented by using the calculation facility contained in this dialog.
These variables are necessary to determine fluid efficiency and the leakoff coeffi-
cients for each fracture model. The program is capable of obtaining these from the
rate and pressure versus time graphs by using the event selections to start or end a
time interval for processing. The data contained within a time interval (e.g.,
between Initiation and End of Pumping) must contain sufficient data to identify
the injection period, as well as the period of pressure decline. For those instances,
when data is missing from the imported file, it must be entered in this dialog or cal-
culations cannot be performed. For example, when only the bottomhole pressure
and time records are available, the injection rate and volume or some complemen-
tary combination of time and volume, or rate and time must be input in order to
continue with the analysis.
The injection time found in the calculator portion of this dialog is considered to be
t. This is important because of the link between these values and those that may be
obtained graphically (i.e., end of pumping time, ISIP time, closure time, etc.).
If the values entered in the Graphical Calculation Options dialog are input prior
to importing the actual data records and subsequently these values are specified
graphically, it will be necessary to return to this option screen and reset the
option to: Nothing (All data taken from graph). This will allow the actual data
values to take precedence over those input manually in this data screen. Keep in
mind that these options are global for a given interpretation. Changing them to
obtain a different set of results will change the entire analysis.
Derivative
This option pertains to the three-point method used to calculate the derivative in the
regression plots. However, since many data pressure values stay constant over a
few time steps, a three-point method would result in many data points having a
derivative of zero. To avoid this situation, consecutive points are not used.
It is recommended that this box be checked. Also, if you have to click next a num-
ber of times to proceed to the next step in the regression analysis, you may have this
box unchecked.
Fracture Options
Clicking the Fracture tab found in the Options screen will access this group of
options. The Fracture Options provide choices for the fracture geometry model and
constitutive relationships that affect the fracture solution methodology. Figure 4.11
shows the Fracture Option choices.
f D = 24 Re
2
where Re is the Reynolds number ( Re = w and dp dx = – 1 2 f D w )
Deviations from laminar flow effect the frictional dissipation in the fracture and,
therefore, on the pressure predicted by a model. Turbulent flow in the fracture may
also occur when very low viscosity fluids (e.g., gas) are pumped at high rates. To
account for turbulent flow and improve the ability to predict non-laminar frictional
pressure loss in a fracture, the following friction factor expression is used when the
Fracture Friction Model is turned on:
a
f D = --------b-
Re
Irregularities along the fracture face (e.g., tortuosity, bifuraction and wall rough-
ness) that interrupt and disturb fluid flow can also result in greater energy dissipa-
tion. These effects can be modeled by increasing the a coefficient or modifying the
wall roughness factor discussed below.
Typical values for the a and b coefficients have been developed empirically in
accordance with Prandtl's Universal Law of the Wall17 as shown in Table 4.3.
Wall Roughness
When this option is turned off (not checked), the Darcy friction factor inside the
fracture is used without modification as determined from the selections made in the
Fracture Friction Model option. This selection assumes that the fracture surface is
a smooth planar feature without roughness.
To include the effects of roughness (or waviness) on the frictional dissipation, turn
this option on. This will result in an increase in the frictional pressure drop and
fracture width, as well as, a decrease in fracture length. If this option is used, the
friction factor defined in the Fracture Friction Model option will be modified using
a Friction Factor Multiplier. The relationship used is defined in the expression
shown below:
= M f
fD f D
where
fD = modified Darcy friction factor
fD = Darcy friction factor
Mf = friction factor multiplier
Tip Effects
The observed field pressures for some treatments are at times much higher than the
simulated pressure. This discrepancy in measured pressure can be minimized in a
number of ways. Typically, the friction factor multiplier, fracture toughness, near
wellbore effects, confining stress or rock/reservoir properties are modified to obtain
Tip effects, in general, remain an area of some controversy and considerable discus-
sion. Plausible explanations for these effects have been proposed. The possibilities
include tip friction due to flow resistance, rock properties effects (e.g., toughness as
a function of stress at the leading edge or poroelasticity), or it may be a conse-
quence of fracture geometry (e.g., complex geometry and/or multiple fractures).
In this version of MinFrac, tip effects represent a flow resistance at the tip. Regard-
less of whether you believe this flow resistance is due to viscosity effects or some
other phenomena related to the tip region (e.g., tip geometry) the general effect on
pressure is typically the same (i.e., resistance is resistance). It is important to note,
however, that this type of resistance differs from fracture toughness in its classical
application; over-pressure varies with injection rate and time, fracture toughness
does not.
The range of the over-pressure factor allowed by MinFrac is between 0 and 1.0. If
this option is disabled, a default value of zero is used. Usually, the Tip Effect option
is suggested when the measured injection pressures are well above the theoretical
values predicted by a classical model (i.e., Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics).
When reasonable values have been implemented for wall roughness, friction factor
multiplier, toughness and other formation properties, a value between 0.1 to 0.4
may be justifiable. The larger the over-pressure factor the greater the increase in
the net pressure. If you are having difficulty relating the over-pressure factor to
pressure, one approach is to use MinFrac to automatically regress on the tip factor
to determine an appropriate value. This best fit value from matching the net pres-
sure in a minifrac analysis is a good place to start.
Many engineers mistake near wellbore pressure loss for excess net pressure. Keep
in mind that when the injection rate changes suddenly, the near wellbore pressure
loss also changes instantly whereas the fracture net pressure cannot because of stor-
age (i.e., if the rate drops suddenly and the BHTP follows, this is not excess pres-
sure but frictional dissipation in the near wellbore region).
Figure 4.13: Fracture Tip Width Reduction due to Non-Linear Elastic Effects.
Proppant Effects
Analysis of the pressure decline from a fracture containing proppant (i.e., interfer-
ence closure) requires special considerations. If the fracture is partially filled with
proppant, the fracture will close on the proppant before all of the fluid leaks off.
The propped fracture volume corresponds to the reduction in fluid required to leak-
off before the fracture closes. The limiting case occurs if the fracture is 100%
packed with proppant. This exists when the Propped Fraction entered in the Frac-
ture Model Options dialog box is set to 1 (see Figure 4.11). For this scenario, the
fracture closure time would be equal to 0 (see Appendix F).
If there is no proppant in the fracture, the entire volume in the fracture at the end of
pumping must leakoff into the reservoir before the fracture actually closes (unless it
does not close totally). This case corresponds to a value of 0 for the Propped Frac-
tion. The fracture closure time and pressure can be obtained using the methodology
given in Appendix F.
Use the Data menu commands to input data (see Figure 4.7). The Closure Data
command is only activated if the User Specified Closure option has been previ-
ously selected. Likewise, the History Matched Data command is not enabled
unless the Graphical Technique is used. This section explains the Data menu input
screens.
Description
The Data Description screen shown in Figure 4.14 provides a location for entering
miscellaneous information about the specific analysis being performed.
Base Data
The Base Data dialog box shown in Figure 4.15 provides the information neces-
sary to describe the rock properties, fluid rheology and fracture parameters. Each of
these data items are discussed below.
Young's Modulus
Young`s modulus or the modulus of elasticity is the slope (or derivative) of a stress-
strain curve over the elastic portion of the curve. For linear-elastic deformation,
Young’s modulus is a constant with a unique value for a particular material and in-
situ conditions. The modulus represents the materials ability to resist deformation
under load. It is therefore a measure of the materials stiffness. As the stiffness (E)
of the rock increases, the fracture width will decrease and the length will increase
for a given set of input parameters. See Appendix A for more information regarding
the sensitivity of this parameter.
A range of Young’s modulus values for various rock types is given in Table 4.4.
Fracture Toughness
The definition of fracture toughness is obtained from the concept of stress intensity
factor, developed in linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM). Fracture toughness
is a measure of a material’s resistance to fracture propagation. It is proportional to
the amount of energy that can be absorbed by the material before propagation
occurs. The basis for this relationship involves the assumption that pre-existing
defects exist and induce high stress concentrations in their vicinity. These sites
become points for crack initiation and propagation. See the MFrac chapter for more
information.
If a c represents the area of the “largest” defect, it can be shown that the tensile
strength, T , of the rock can be approximated by
T = K IC a c
In hydraulic fractures, propagation is assumed to occur once the stress intensity fac-
tor reaches a critical value. This critical value, related to the propagation resistance
(or energy balance) is assumed to be a material property and is given the name frac-
ture toughness (or critical stress intensity factor). For a crack in the vicinity of a
uniform stress field, , the stress intensity is
K I = H
c = K IC H
Table 4.5 lists some measured values of fracture toughness. The values shown were
reported by van Eekelen22. Thiercelin23 reviewed the testing procedures for deter-
mining this parameter in his article, “Fracture Toughness and Hydraulic Fractur-
ing.”
Setting the values of fracture toughness to zero will result in the classical hydraulic
fracturing propagation solutions dominated by viscous pressure loss. For very low
viscosity fluids, fracture toughness may be the dominant parameter controlling
fracture growth.
Poisson’s Ratio
Poisson’s ratio is defined as the ratio of the transverse strain to the axial strain
resulting from an applied stress (see Figure 4.16).
The theoretical value for Poisson’s ratio is 1/4 for any isotropic body with strains
below the proportional (elastic) limit. For strains beyond the proportional limit, the
ratio increases and approaches the limiting plastic value of 1/2.
Typical Poisson's ratios for rock formations are 0.25. From parametric studies,
Poisson's ratio affects the fracture propagation characteristics to a very minor
extent. Therefore, if in doubt, use 0.25.
Poisson’s ratio
Lateral strain
Poisson’s ratio
Longitudinal strain
w 0
w
l
l
0
w w l l
w 0l 0
Poisson’s ratio is also used by logging companies to infer in-situ stresses. This
method assumes the rock behaves elastically and that the tectonic stresses are
known or insignificant. The typical relationship is
Hmin = ------------ v – p 0 + p 0 + T
1–
where
n
w = k
where is the wall shear rate, w is the wall shear stress, k is the consistency
index, and n is the flow behavior index (dimensionless).
Consistency Index k
See the explanation of the flow behavior index above.
V sp = 2AS p
where S p is the spurt loss coefficient and A is the leakoff area in the pay zone.
Flowback Rate
The flowback rate is simply the average negative return flow rate following a
period of injection. This rate is applied in the calculations beginning at the Flow-
back Time (after ISIP) described above and continues until closure.
Leakoff Data
The Leakoff Data screen shown in Figure 4.17 is provided for the additional reser-
voir data needed to calculate the leakoff coefficients and permeability of the frac-
tured interval. Each of the data items in this screen are described below. The reader
is referred to Appendix D for additional information regarding fluid loss.
ct = So co + Sw cw + Sg cg + cr
where
cg = gas compressibility
co = oil compressibility
cr = bulk rock compressibility
ct = total formation compressibility
cw = water compressibility
Sg = gas saturation
So = oil saturation
Sw = water saturation
The compressibility is used to relate the permeability and porosity with pressure
and time using the expression
2
p k p
= ----------- 2
t c t z
where
The effective fluid leakoff viscosity must also account for the relative permeability
effect of the leakoff fluid to that of the reservoir fluid. This is especially important
for a gas reservoir. The effective leakoff viscosity, e , in terms of the fluid leakoff
viscosity and relative permeability is
e = f kr
where f is the true fluid leakoff viscosity and k r is the relative permeability of the
leakoff to the reservoir fluid.
Closure Data
When using MinFrac with the User Specified Closure (i.e., no imported data file),
it is necessary to enter specific information regarding injection rate, volumes and
closure time, in addition to the reservoir and leakoff data described in the preceding
sections. This data is entered in the Closure Data dialog box shown in Figure 4.18.
The items contained in this dialog box are defined below.
Pumping Time
The total pump time is needed to calculate the volume of fluid injected during a
treatment. This value is also needed to calculate certain required time functions,
such as the dimensionless total time, (see Appendix F). The value required is the
total time of injection (i.e., the difference between the start and end of pumping).
Closure Pressure
Fracture closure pressure or the minimum horizontal stress is needed to define the
net pressure during injection. The net fracturing pressure, p net , is the difference
between the pressure in the fracture, p fracture , and the closure pressure, p closure ,
(i.e., p net = p fracture – p closure ). These values can be determined by performing a
minifrac analysis as discussed below.
The regression parameters can be selected from the Regression Analysis window.
During the regression (i.e., History Match) the selected parameters are optimized to
minimize the error between the measured and calculated pressure decline. When
the best fit is achieved (i.e., error is minimized), the regression is complete. For
more information on History Matching, see the Regression Analysis section.
The individual fracture model data values used in the regression can be viewed and
edited by accessing the History Match Data dialog shown in Figure 4.19. This
screen is not updated until after the first regression is performed. The values dis-
played or entered in this dialog box are the values used each time a new regression
is started (i.e., the History Match is performed). These values are also reported in
the History Match section of the report. The first time you regress on a data set, this
screen contains the values entered in the Base Data dialog box. Each subsequent
regression analysis then uses the History Match Data contained in this screen. To
reset all values to the base data press Reset to Base Data. For reference, the origi-
nal Base Data values are shown on the right hand side in the dialog box.
For information on the individual parameters in this screen, refer to the appropriate
part of the Base Data section.
There are two steps to importing a data file, selecting a file and importing the
parameters.
3. Once a file is highlighted, use the OK button to finalize the selection. The dia-
log box shown in Figure 4.21 will be presented.
The file should be an ASCII file with columns of data separated by commas, spaces
or tabs. Text headers at the top of the file will be ignored. Any text in between rows
of data will also be ignored.
To sample the data contained in the spreadsheet, specify the sampling frequency by
entering a number in the Sample every box. For example, to use every fifth data
point, enter a 5 in this box. MinFrac can select a maximum of 86,400 lines of data
from a file. If there are more than 86,400 lines of data in a file, it will be necessary
to adjust the Sample every box so that 86,400 lines or less of data are actually
imported. The other option is to adjust the Data starts at row and Data ends at row
values to limit the number of selected rows to a maximum of 86,400.
Note any changes made here will only affect the imported data, no changes will
be made to the original ASCII file.
2. Click on a row or record to change and type the correction. Press ENTER to
accept the changes.
4. To delete row(s) of data, select the desired rows by clicking on the row num-
bers. Then click on the Delete button.
5. When you are finished editing the file use the OK button to close the editing
window and accept all changes. Use the Cancel button to abort and discard the
changes made.
A more powerful method to edit data is to use the graphical editing features in
MView (see Chapter 3).
4.4 Analysis
The main purpose of MinFrac is to graphically analyze time dependent rate and
pressure data associated with minifrac treatments. This section summarizes the
options and features involved in performing graphical analyses.
The fracture data found in the Data menu is used for history matching and model
dependent parameter optimization. A minifrac analysis to find fracture efficiency
and closure pressure can be performed without knowledge of the specific fracture
model.
To use MinFrac as a graphical tool for processing minifrac data, choose one of the
Graphical Technique options. After importing all the data, begin an analysis using
the commands under the Analysis menu.
Figure 4.23 shows the Analysis menu in MinFrac. The different types of analyses
available displayed under the Analysis menu are Analysis Wizard, Step Rate, Step
Down, Horner, Regression, and After Closure. The Analysis Wizard is a step by
step tool for performing all types of different analyses.
The analysis menu and methodology for performing minifrac analysis has evolved
over the years. A detailed description of all the analyses is presented below for con-
tinuity.
Since each analysis begins with the Select Ranges menu, a general Select Ranges
procedure is presented first.
Select Ranges
By default, MinFrac uses the entire range of imported time and pressure data for an
analysis. This command provides the capability to work with a limited range of
data (i.e., when multiple injection cycles have been recorded).
Figure 4.24 shows a typical Select Ranges menu item for the Step Rate Analysis.
The dialog box as shown in Figure 4.25 is only displayed if both surface and bot-
tomhole pressure data are available.
The radio buttons in the Select Ranges dialog box are used to indicate which pres-
sure to use in the analysis if both are available. After making your selections, click
the OK button and a plot of the data will be generated. An example is shown in Fig-
ure 4.26.
The plot created using the Select Ranges procedure includes all of the imported
data. The purpose of this plot is to graphically define a range of data to use for anal-
ysis. To make a selection slide the mouse to the left or right edge of the highlighted
data range. Then drag the highlighted edge horizontally to bracket a segment of
time on the plot. This is accomplished by using the left mouse button. Click and
hold the mouse button while dragging the vertical edge to the desired position.
Release the button to fix the position of the highlighted edge. Remember the color
filled region outlines the range used for the analysis.
Notice that the Start and Stop position is continuously displayed in the upper left-
hand corner of the plot dialog (or where you graphically place the box). The abso-
lute position of the selected range can be viewed and edited by choosing the Range
Menu button as shown in Figure 4.27. The Range Menu has two options: Extend
Range to the End of Data and Edit Selections. This displays a dialog box contain-
ing the coordinates of the selected range (see Figure 4.28).
The RangeExtend Range to End of Data menu defines the end of the range to be
the end of the data. This is useful for working with real-time data when the end time
of the data is continually increasing.
Analysis Wizard
The Analysis Wizard is a systematic method for selecting and performing minifrac
analyses. The Wizard allows for all the analyses under the Analysis menu (Step
Rate, Step Down, Horner, Regression, and After Closure).
This Analysis Wizard section is a “How to use the Wizard” presentation. The
details on performing a specific analysis are discussed in the individual analysis
sections presented below.
Figure 4.29 shows the AnalysisAnalysis Wizard menu. To utilize the many
menus and features in the Wizard, systematically follow the Wizard steps.
The purpose of the Wizard is to organize and step the user through an analysis. This
is a great way for novice users to begin or for experienced users to set up a Wizard
template for performing analyses consistently.
The Wizard’s systematic menu methodology will step you through the analysis and
will not allow you to access a dependent procedure until the previous step has been
performed. Informational help screens are provided at the top of each Wizard step
to guide you in performing a particular analysis.
The AnalysisAnalysis Wizard menu consists of two parts: Select Analyses and
Wizard Window.
Select Analyses
After selecting the AnalysisAnalysis Wizard menu, the Select Analyses dialog
box will be displayed as shown in Figure 4.30.
The Analysis WizardSelect Analyses menu is setup very similar to the MFrac
Fluid, Proppant and Acid database dialogs. The buttons at the bottom of the screen
are used to Edit, Add, Delete or move the Selected Analyses Up or Down in the
Menu. The select analyses Save Analyses and Load Analyses buttons can be used
to save and load a file. This makes it easy to setup the MinFrac Wizard with stan-
dardized template analyses.
Select the OK button to enter the Wizard Window or Cancel to exit the Analysis
Wizard.
To add a selection to the Select Analyses menu select the Add button. Selecting the
Edit or Add buttons will bring up the menu shown in Figure 4.31.
This Edit Selection menu consists of the Analysis Type, Regression Options and
Report Options. The Regression Options are only highlighted if Analysis
TypeRegression is selected. Likewise, the Report Options will be dimmed unless
the Analysis TypeReport menu is selected.
Analysis Type
The analysis type provides a drop down selection box as shown in Figure 4.31. The
Analysis Types available are Step Rate, Step Down, Horner, Regression, After Clo-
sure, and Report. Each of these analyses is discussed below in detail. To generate a
report as one of your Wizard Window tabs select Analysis TypeReport.
If both the surface and bottomhole pressures are available for analysis, select the
Data Source drop down menu and choose either surface or bottomhole pressure.
Regression Options
If you choose Analysis TypeRegression the Regression Options will be high-
lighted (see Figure 4.32). Select the Regression Options Time Axis (e.g., Nolte G
time). The allowable choices are given in the drop down menu (see also Table 4.2).
Next select the Right Axis derivative for Pressure (e.g., ISIP-GdP/dG). The
Regression Plots can display multiple Right Axis derivatives and are selected by
clicking the “...” button which opens the Right Axis Derivatives dialog as shown in
Figure 4.33. Next, click the corresponding check boxes if you want to see the
Delta Pressure Log-Log and/or Linear analyses.
If you want to perform a history match analysis check the History Match box.
Report Options
If you choose Analysis TypeReport the Report Options will be activated as
shown in Figure 4.34.
The Report Options specify which items you want to include in the report.
Wizard Window
After selecting OK in the AnalysisAnalysis WizardSelect Analyses menu, the
Wizard Window will be displayed as shown in Figure 4.35. The number of folder
tabs corresponds directly to the number of analyses selected in the Analysis Wiz-
ardSelect Analyses menu.
Please refer to the specific analysis in question when using the Select Points menu.
The Select Points menu is discussed below for each analysis.
At the top of the Wizard Window, descriptive text informs the user of any actions or
steps to be taken. Plot configuration and point selection features are also described
at the top right corner of each plot.
At the bottom of the Wizard Window is a set of selection buttons as shown in Fig-
ure 4.36.
The options at the bottom of the Wizard Window are; < Back, Next >,
Select Analyses and a check box to Hide Description.
To hide the descriptive text above the plot check Hide Description. This will
enlarge the viewable plot area as shown in Figure 4.37.
The Select Analyses button will return you to the AnalysisAnalysis Wiz-
ardSelect Analyses menu (see Figure 4.30). The < Back and Next > buttons are
used to navigate through each step of an analysis. After a step is completed you will
be allowed to proceed to the Next > step. The Back and Next buttons are addressed
in the next section where a complete regression analysis in the Analysis Wizard is
presented.
Any time you are in the Wizard Window, each of the tabs will be displayed at the
step last viewed. The main menu Tool Bar will also change depending on the analy-
sis type.
Figure 4.38 shows the second Wizard Window tab for this example. Notice the drop
down Axes menu selection to change the right axis derivative function.
Figure 4.38: Wizard Window - Nolte G Time Plot with Axes Selected.
Figure 4.39 shows the next tab of Sqrt Delta time plot with the Select Points menu
selected. From the Select Points menu the user can perform all the point, line, hide,
edit etc., options in this menu. The Select Points menu for the Regression Analysis
is discussed below in the Regression Analysis section.
Figure 4.39: Wizard Window - Sqrt Delta Time with Select Points Menu.
Figure 4.40 shows the Report tab based on the Report Options selected. The full
report menu features are available in the Main Tool Bar.
Selecting the Next > button will change the Wizard Window to the plot shown in
Figure 4.42. Here the Wizard asks the user to select the Min/Max Range Bar. This
can be done from the Select Points menu. Please refer to the Regression Analysis
section describing the Select Points menu Min/Max Range Bar.
The next step is to do the Regression Analysis to find closure by choosing the
Select Points menu. Figure 4.43 shows the Wizard Window for the Select
PointsAutomatically Find Points menu. The instructions at the top of the Wiz-
ard Window describe the Select Points menu. The scroll bar can be used to show
additional comments.
Figure 4.44 shows the next item in the Analysis Wizard Select AnalysesEdit
Analyses menu (see Figure 4.31). This is the Nolte G time in log coordinates.
Figure 4.45 shows the Next > step of the Delta Pressure in linear coordinates with
the right axis derivative of GdP/dG.
The user has total control on which regression plots to place in the Wizard Window.
The Wizard allows you to create your own methodology of performing Step Rate,
Step Down, Horner, Regression, After Closure, and Report windows. The Wizard is
a tool, which will help minimize the complicated procedures by systematically per-
forming an Analysis.
Figure 4.47 shows the AnalysisStep Rate menu. To perform a step rate analysis,
systematically follow the menu.
The AnalysisStep Rate menu consists of four parts: Select Ranges, Select Points,
Pressure Table and Diagnostic Plot. The first time you perform a Step Rate test with
a new data file all of the menu items will be dimmed except for the Select Ranges
as shown in Figure 4.48. The reason these menus are dimmed is that Select Points,
Pressure Table and Diagnostic Plot are all dependent on Select Ranges. Conse-
quently, this menu step-by-step methodology will not allow you to access a depen-
dent procedure until the previous step has been performed.
The menu command items for the Step Rate analysis are described in the sections
below.
Select Ranges
Using the graphical method described above in this section, select a range of data to
analyze by activating the AnalysisStep RateSelect Ranges menu (Figure
4.48). Figure 4.49 shows a typical Select Ranges plot.
Select Points
To select the data points for the step rate analysis, click on the Step RateSelect
Points menu item as shown in Figure 4.50.
This will bring up a plot as shown in Figure 4.51. Once the Step Rate plot is dis-
played the mouse pointer changes to a vertical bar. Slide the bar horizontally to
align it with the time values to be used in the analysis. To choose a time, click the
left mouse button. Two markers will be displayed corresponding to the selection,
one on rate and the other on pressure.
To edit or erase the selected points click on the Select Points menu shown in Figure
4.52. The Select PointsEdit Selections menu can be used to display and edit the
coordinates (Figure 4.53). To erase all of the data points use the Select
PointsErase All menu. You can also erase selected points by clicking the mouse
button on an existing point.
Pressure Table
To perform a meaningful Step Rate Analysis from the surface (or bottomhole) the
frictional pressure drop in the wellbore and across the perforations and the net frac-
ture pressure should be accounted for in the calculations.
To input the wellbore friction and perforation losses, and net fracture pressure
dependence on rate select the AnalysisStep RatePressure Table menu (see Fig-
ure 4.54).
After selecting the Pressure Table menu, the table shown in Figure 4.55 will be dis-
played.
Figure 4.55 shows the step rate pressure table with the selected rate and pressure
points in the first two columns, respectively.
Then the wellbore pressure loss (DP Fric) is entered. Since this case was with bot-
tomhole pressure data the DP Fric in the wellbore was set to zero. For surface pres-
sure the frictional pressure loss as function of rate should be specified.
The fracture net pressure (DP Frac) is then specified in column four. Once the frac-
ture begins to propagate the net pressure may be relevant to the analysis. In this
case a value of zero was entered for the fracture net pressure. As the net pressure
increases the calculated Extension Pressure will decrease.
Next is the ideal perforation pressure loss (DP Perf Ideal) as a function of rate. The
perforation pressure loss is calculated from the Specific Gravity of Fluid and the
Number, Discharge Coefficient, and Diameter of the perforations. Typical values
for the discharge coefficient are 0.60 for a sharp orifice entrance and 0.83 for a
rounded entrance. If no proppant has passed through the perforations select the
lower discharge coefficient value of 0.60.
The extension pressure (surface or bottomhole) is then calculated from the equa-
tion: Extension Pressure = Pressure – DP Fric – DP Frac – DP Perf Ideal.
Diagnostic Plot
When you finish editing the Pressure Table, choose the Step RateDiagnostic Plot
menu (see Figure 4.56). A diagnostic plot like the one shown in Figure 4.57 will be
presented.
Two lines may be placed on this plot to determine the extension pressure by locat-
ing two points per line. The active point is selected from the Select Points menu
(see Figure 4.58). To position a point on the plot click the left mouse button. The
points are labeled 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B. An alternative to manually selecting the
points and line positions is to perform the selection automatically by regression.
The intersection point of the two lines is generally considered the upper bound of
the closure pressure.
This analysis is performed after fracture initiation and propagation has been estab-
lished. During shut down the rate is decreased in a stair-step fashion for a short
period of time while the pressure stabilizes. As the injection rate decreases, the
pressure also decreases as a result of perforation and near wellbore pressure losses.
The relationship between the decreasing rate and pressure results in a mechanistic
approach for determining near wellbore losses.
If the step down analysis is performed using surface treating pressure, the pipe fric-
tion needs to be entered.
Figure 4.59 shows the AnalysisStep Down menu. To perform a Step Down analy-
sis systematically, follow the menu steps.
The AnalysisStep Down menu consists of four parts: Select Ranges, Select
Points, Pressure Table and Diagnostic Plot. The first time you perform a Step Down
analysis with a new data file all of the menu items will be dimmed except for the
Select Ranges as shown in Figure 4.60.
The reason these menu items are dimmed is that Select Points, Pressure Table and
Diagnostic Plot are all dependent on Select Ranges.
The menu command items for the Step Down analysis are described below.
Select Ranges
To select ranges click on the AnalysisStep DownSelect Ranges menu.
Using the graphical method described above in this section, select a range of data to
analyze by activating the Select Range Menu. Figure 4.61 shows a typical select
range plot.
Select Points
To select the data points for the Step Down analysis, click on the AnalysisStep
DownSelect Points menu shown in Figure 4.62. As illustrated for a new data file,
the Pressure Table and Diagnostic Plot menus are dimmed since Select Points has
not been performed.
After accessing Select Points a plot will be displayed as shown in Figure 4.63. If
this is the first time you entered Select Points no markers will be on the curve.
Once the Step Down plot is displayed the mouse pointer changes to a vertical bar.
Slide the bar horizontally to align it with the time values to be used in the analysis.
To choose a time, click the left mouse button. Two markers will be displayed corre-
sponding to the selection: one on rate and the other on pressure. The program will
automatically find a zero rate and associated pressure point.
To edit or erase the selected points click on the Select Points menu. The Select
PointsEdit Selections menu (Figure 4.64) can be used to display and edit the
coordinates (Figure 4.65). To erase all of the data points select Erase All. You can
also erase a set of selected points by placing the mouse pointer on the existing point
and left clicking the mouse button.
Pressure Table
To perform a meaningful Step Down Analysis from the surface (or bottomhole) the
wellbore losses, calculated perforation friction, and the net fracture pressure must
be accounted for in the calculations.
To input the wellbore friction and net fracture pressure dependence on rate select
the AnalysisStep DownPressure Table menu (see Figure 4.66).
After selecting the Pressure Table menu, a table will be displayed as shown by Fig-
ure 4.67.
Figure 4.67 shows the selected rate and pressure points in the first two columns.
The Delta Pressure is the next column which is calculated by subtracting the Pres-
sure at a given rate from the ISIP (i.e., Delta Pressure =Surface Pressure-ISIP).
The user-specified values for frictional pressure loss in the wellbore (DP Fric) and
fracture net pressure (DP Frac) go in the next two columns. The change in the
wellbore friction and net pressure from the ISIP (zero rate value) is then calculated
and placed in the Change DP Fric+ DP Frac column.
The total near wellbore loss including perforations (DP Total NW) is then calcu-
lated from the difference between Delta Pressure and Change DP Fric+ DP Frac.
The ideal perforation pressure loss (DP Perf Ideal) as a function of rate is calcu-
lated from the Specific Gravity of Fluid and the Number, Discharge Coefficient,
and Diameter of the perforations. Typical values for the discharge coefficient are
0.60 for a sharp orifice entrance and 0.83 for a rounded entrance. If no proppant
passes through the perforations select the lower discharge coefficient value of 0.60.
For surface pressure the frictional pressure loss as a function of rate should be spec-
ified. The fracture net pressure may be relevant to the analysis if it is rate/time
dependent. In this case a value of zero was entered for the fracture net pressure.
Entering a variable value for net pressure will change the calculated near wellbore
pressure loss. If the fracture net pressure is assumed to be relatively constant, it will
not effect the analysis.
The Apparent Number of Perfs is given in the last column. This is the equivalent
number of perforations that would have to be open to match the Total Near Well-
bore Pressure loss (DP Total NW).
Diagnostic Plot
When you finish editing the Pressure Table, choose the AnalysisStep
DownDiagnostic Plot menu (see Figure 4.68). A diagnostic plot similar to the
one shown in Figure 4.69 will be presented.
The diagnostic plot shows the Total Pressure Loss, Perforation Only and Near Well-
bore Only losses. The data points displayed by the markers are the calculated total
and near wellbore pressure losses as given in the Pressure Table (see Figure 4.67).
The near wellbore power coefficient (Alpha) for this case is shown to be 1.21018.
The total near wellbore pressure loss is calculated from the following equation:
2
p Total = p Perfs + p NW = K Perfs Q + K NW Q
where
The near wellbore pressure loss and Alpha coefficient ( ) curve is calculated from
a regression analysis. If the near wellbore pressure loss is much less than the perfo-
ration or total pressure loss there probably is not a near wellbore problem (like this
example). If the alpha power coefficient is near two, it may be a condition where
not all the perforations are opened.
Horner Analysis
For some reservoirs it may be desirable to evaluate the decline data for production
effects (i.e., high permeability reservoirs) to determine the lower bound for fracture
closure. Normally, plotting pressure versus the log of Horner time will help identify
the onset of pseudo radial flow (i.e., fracture closure). This time function is typi-
cally defined as t p + t s t s , or t t – t p where t p is the pump time and t s is the
shut-in time that is equal to t – t p .
The Horner plot provides a lower bound, first estimate of closure pressure.
Figure 4.70 shows the AnalysisHorner menu. To perform a Horner analysis, fol-
low the menu steps.
The Horner menu consists of two parts: Select Ranges and Select Points. The first
time you perform a Horner analysis with a new data file Select Points will be
dimmed as shown in Figure 4.70. Again, the reason this menu is dimmed is because
Select Points is dependent on Select Ranges.
The menu command items for the Horner analysis are described below.
Select Ranges
To select the Horner range click on AnalysisHornerSelect Ranges menu (see
Figure 4.71).
Using the graphical method described above in this section, select a range of data to
analyze. Figure 4.72 shows a typical select range plot.
For the Horner and Regression analyses two ranges must be selected. A range from
the initiation to end of pumping (Pump Time) and a range from the end of pumping
to the end of the pressure decline data (beyond closure) must be specified.
After the range cycles have been selected the Horner plot can be generated. This
analysis is only reliable if the fracture closes.
Select Points
To display the Horner Plot, click on the AnalysisHornerSelect Points menu
shown in Figure 4.73.
After accessing the AnalysisHornerSelect Points menu a plot of the data will
be displayed as shown in Figure 4.74. If this is the first time you entered Select
Points no lines will be on the graph as illustrated. The pressure data is only plotted
from the Select Ranges data from the end of pumping to the end of the selected
range data (stop).
Straight lines may be drawn on this Plot with the use of the Select Points menu.
Two points may be selected on the graph, 1A and 1B and a line will be drawn
between them. To select the points, choose the desired point from the Select Points
menu. Then click on the graph with the left mouse button. The coordinates of the
selected point are shown under the Select PointsEdit Selections menu.
To manually enter coordinates for the points, click on the Select PointsEdit
Selections menu. To click and drag the points that are already on the graph, click on
the Select PointsDrag Points menu. The mouse coordinates can also be shown
on the plot to pin point the start of pseudo-radial flow.
Figure 4.75 shows a typical line placement after closure. The deviation of the
straight line from the Horner data (Horner time of about 0.15 and pressure of about
5200 psi) signifies the start of pseudo radial flow and represents the lower bound
for the closure pressure.
The Horner plot is used to determine if pseudo-radial flow developed during the
test. If a semi-log straight line is observed as shown in Figure 4.75 and the line can
be extrapolated to a reasonable value of reservoir pressure (4400 psi), radial or
pseudo-radial flow may be affecting the decline behavior. This conclusion suggests
that the fracture is already closed and that data beyond the point of influence need
not be considered in the evaluation of closure.
Regression Analysis
The main purpose of a minifrac analysis is to provide a method of estimating clo-
sure pressure, near wellbore effects, fracture dimensions, fluid efficiency, and leak-
off coefficients prior to designing and pumping the main treatment.
The various methods to estimate the upper and lower bounds of closure pressure are
the Step Rate and Horner analyses as addressed above. Near wellbore pressure
losses can be determined from a Step Down analysis as presented. These analyses
provide alternate ways to help identify the fundamental characteristics of wellbore
friction, perforation and near wellbore losses and closure pressure.
2. Closure pressure, p c .
3. Closure time, t c .
4. Fracture efficiency, G t c 2 + G t c .
2
5. Fraction of PAD, f min 1 – and f max 1 – 1 + .
The derivative method is one of the MinFrac methodologies for determining inflec-
tion points (i.e. fracture closure). As discussed in Section 4.1, the derivative plot
can be used to identify closure by observing a characteristic change in the slope.
The Regression menu consists of three parts: Select Ranges, Select Points, and His-
tory Match. The first time you perform a Regression analysis with a new data file
Select Points will be dimmed as shown in Figure 4.76. The reason this menu is
dimmed is because Select Points is dependent on Select Ranges.
The menu command items for the Regression analysis are described below.
Select Ranges
To select the Regression range click on AnalysisRegressionSelect Ranges
menu (see Figure 4.76).
Using the graphical method described above in this section, select a range of data to
analyze. Figure 4.77 shows a typical select range plot. As illustrated this is the same
range as used for the Horner Plot (see Figure 4.72).
For the Regression analysis two ranges must be selected. A range from the initia-
tion to end of pumping (Pump Time) and a range from the end of pumping to the
end of the pressure decline data (beyond closure) must be specified.
After the ranges have been selected the regression plot can be generated.
Select Points
To display the regression analysis select points, click on the AnalysisRegres-
sionSelect Points menu shown in Figure 4.78.
Figure 4.79 shows the pump time cycle (shaded area) and the pressure decline cycle
in data time. The solid bar at the top of the plot is the Min/Max Range Bar. This
bar defines the range of data to be used for performing the regression analysis. This
bar is discussed below.
Figure 4.80 shows the Main Menu bar after selecting the AnalysisRegres-
sionSelect Points menu. This Main Menu bar allows you to use all of the Select
Points and Axes menu features. The Main Select Points menu is shown in Figure
4.81.
The Select Points and Axes Main Menu Bar features are discussed below.
Straight lines may be drawn on this Plot with the use of the Select Points menu.
Two points make up a line (i.e., 1A and 1B). To select the points, choose the desired
point from the Select Points menu. Then click on the graph with the left mouse
button. The coordinates of the selected point are shown under the Select
PointsEdit Selections menu. Points can also be chosen using the F7 and F8 func-
tion keys. The currently selected point and line slopes are reported in the Slope
Information Box.
The intersection of the resulting curves represents the fracture closure pressure.
This statistical technique is based on the MinFrac Methodology given in Appendix
F. The basic premise is that there is some function or functions that linearizes the
pressure decline (e.g., P = GdP dG where P = ISIP – p ). This technique thus
characterizes the deviation from a straight line on a pressure versus time plot to
help determine when an inflection point occurs.
A Regression Analysis is in the current space coordinates of the plot (i.e., uses the
same time scale and pressure scale as the plot). Thus, if the X-axis changes, the
regression results will be different. The TC that is found by the regression will
always be in the range defined by the Min/Max Range Bar.
2. After the points are selected, select one of the time and pressure functions
given in the Axes menu. The Axes menu is discussed below.
4. When the regression is complete, a message box similar to the one shown in
Figure 4.82 will be displayed. This message is provided to update the ISIP.
The theoretical or calculated ISIP is estimated from the projection of the early
time decline data back to the y-axis. Choose Yes to use the calculated ISIP.
During and after the regression, the TC curve is displayed on the plot. To hide these
lines, choose the Select PointsHide Lines menu.
Figure 4.83 illustrates the Select PointsAutomatic Find Points method for the
Nolte G function in linear coordinates.
Figure 4.83 shows the calculated time of closure and regression data. The regres-
sion data displayed is the Pump Time, Delta TC (closure time after pumping), ISIP
and Closure Pressure, BH (bottomhole) Closure Pressure, Efficiency (after spurt),
Residual (difference between pressure data and line fit), and Slope 1 and 2 (of line
1 and 2).
Edit Selections
The Select PointsEdit Sections menu allows you to edit the data points for Shut-
in, Closure and the line points (1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A and 4B). Figure 4.84
shows the Edit Selection dialog box.
sure), and the right Y-axis is the Derivative coordinate. The regression select
AxesTime, AxesPressure and AxesDerivative menus are discussed below.
Axes Time
The AxesTime menu is shown in Figure 4.86. This is the time function to be used
on the X-axis.
The pressure data may be plotted versus a variety of time functions. As presented,
Table 4.2 lists the formulas used to calculate the different time scales
AxesPressurePressure
Pressure on the left Y-axis and the X-axis time function are in linear coordinates.
To plot a derivative(s), choose any of the following derivative options from the list
menu:
• Linear [dy/dx]
• [xdP/dx]
• [ISIP-xdP/dx]
For Nolte G time derivatives, the nomenclature will use the G symbol (i.e., ISIP-
GdP/dG).
The derivative is calculated using the formula for the option selected, where y is the
current pressure curve (Pressure or Delta Pressure) and x is the current time func-
tion. A modified three-point method is used to calculate the derivative, as described
in the Options section. The derivative is plotted for the data defined by the Min/
Max Range Bar at the top of each plot.
When using a log scale on the Y-axis, it is impossible to plot a negative derivative.
To remedy this situation, check the Plot absolute value of derivative from the
AxesDerivative menu. Then the absolute value of the derivative will be plotted.
Figure 4.89 shows a Nolte G plot in linear coordinates. The right axis displays the
ISIP-GdP/dG derivative. As illustrated, this derivative helps identify closure as
shown by the deviation from the measured data.
Note the time of closure will always be slightly after the derivative curve devi-
ates from the data (to the right of deviation).
The calculated regression data is shown within the Information Box. You can edit
which data is displayed in the information box by choosing Plot Select Informa-
tion Lines as seen in Figure 4.90.
Figure 4.91 shows the corresponding Delta Pressure plot in log coordinates with the
GdP/dG derivative function. The same deviation pattern is also illustrated in the
graph.
Note: for the Nolte G function the GdP/dG derivative should normally be used
with the Delta Pressure plots and the ISIP-GdP/dG derivative with the Pressure
plots. This also applies to the generic plots (i.e., Pressure use ISIP-xdP/dx, and
Delta Pressure uses xdP/dx). In log-log coordinates, the slope, d log y d log x ,
may also be used.
Figure 4.92 shows the Delta Pressure plot in log coordinates. The slope,
d log y d log x , is presented. From Table 4.2 the slope in log space should be
unity for the fracture and 1 2 for radial flow. Values of two represent storage.
Slopes greater than two represent other anomalous effects. As illustrated the slope
is near unity up to the time of closure (TC) and then drops to around 1 2 . The early
time data derivative is not critical since some water hammer is present.
Figure 4.93 shows the Delta pressure (ISIP-p(t)) in linear coordinates with the GdP/
dG derivative on the right axis. As illustrated the time of closure is slightly to the
right of the derivative deviation from the Delta Pressure curve.
History Match
To display the history match, click on the AnalysisRegressionHistory Match
menu shown in Figure 4.94.
History Matching allows for specifying a dependent parameter for each fracture
geometry model. Then regression is performed by systematically varying the
dependent parameter to achieve the best match with the measured decline data.
During the regression calculations, the dependent parameter is continuously
updated and displayed along with a graphical representation of the simulation. To
2. Choose the regression parameter for each model using the GDK, PKN and
Ellipsoidal list boxes found in the toolbar.
3. After choosing the models and dependent variables for regression, click the
History Match button to History Match on the selected parameters (see Figure
4.95).
4. View the History Match Data and make any desired changes. For successive
regressions another data parameter must be changed to get a different regres-
sion solution. If nothing is changed from one regression to another, MinFrac
will have already minimized the error, and therefore, cannot improve on the
match (i.e., the program will have nothing to do).
1. Reservoir pressure, p i .
2. Formation permeability, k .
Since the after closure analysis plots and procedures are very similar to the discus-
sion of the Regression Analysis redundant explanations of various steps and the
Wizard will not be reiterated.
The menu command items for the After Closure Analysis are described below.
Select Ranges
The AnalysisAfter ClosureSelect Ranges menu item, as seen in Figure 4.97 is
used to specify a specific data range.
Select TC
The Time of Closure (TC) is specified within the Select TC dialog box (Figure
4.99), and can be opened by clicking the AnalysisAfter ClosureSelect TC
menu item (Figure 4.98).
Select Points
To select the data points for the After Closure analysis, click on the Analysis
After ClosureSelect Points menu item as shown in Figure 4.100.
The Select Points plot is used to graphically select data points for the after closure
analysis. Two data points are required to generate data.
Figure 4.101 shows a Nolte After Closure plot in linear coordinates. The right axis
displays the p* x dp dx derivative. As illustrated, this derivative helps identify
the correct slope and p* value as shown by the deviation of the derivative from the
measured data
Figure 4.101: After Closure Analysis - Surface Pressure vs. Nolte - FR Linear
Plot.
Figure 4.102 shows the Delta Pressure plot in linear coordinates with the xdP dx
derivative function. The same deviation pattern is also illustrated in the graph.
Figure 4.102: After Closure Analysis - Delta Surface Pressure vs. Nolte - FR
Linear Plot with the xdP/dx Derivative.
Figure 4.103: After Closure Analysis - Delta Surface Pressure vs. Nolte - FR
Log-Log Plot with xdP/dx derivative.
Figure 4.104 shows the corresponding Delta Pressure plot in log coordinates with
the log-log derivative function. As illustrated the log-log slope asymptotes to one
for pseudo-radial behavior.
Figure 4.104: After Closure Analysis - Delta Surface Pressure vs. Nolte - FR
Log-Log Plot with the Log Slope Derivative.
4.5 Output
When the closure time has been determined and all of the required reservoir infor-
mation has been entered, calculations can be performed to determine fracture and
reservoir characteristics (leakoff coefficients, etc.). The methodology used to model
fracture characteristics and fluid leakoff behavior is outlined in Appendix F.
The Output menu is shown in Figure 4.105. There are two main Output section
items, simulation results and viewing the report.
Simulation Calculations
There are two types of simulations that MinFrac can do, Simulation using Base
Data and Simulation using History Match Data as selected from the Output menu.
The parameters used for history matching are the ISIP, closure time and closure
pressure. Consequently, the history matched net pressures (ISIP- closure pressure)
will be the same for all models. The fracture efficiencies will also be approximately
equal for all models. A summary of the History Match results for the GDK, PKN
and Ellipsoidal models is shown in Figure 4.107.
The history match solution matches the calculated net pressure (ISIP-Closure Pres-
sure). Figure 4.107 shows that the net pressures are the same for all three geometry
models. This is not so for the base data output (see Figure 4.106).
From history matched parameters, the individual leakoff coefficients for each frac-
ture model can be calculated based on the leakoff area. Remember that minifrac
analysis only gives insight into the fracture efficiency. A fracture model is required
to calculate the leakoff area.
Although all fracture models will give a history-matched solution for various
dependent parameters (within reason), it is up to the design engineer to evaluate/
determine if this is a reasonable solution. The model with the most reasonable his-
tory matched parameters should be the model of choice.
Since all fracture models will have about the same fracture efficiencies or leakoff
coefficient and area product (based on mass conservation), the calculated leakoff
coefficient is strongly dependent on the fracture model. Consequently, do not use a
leakoff coefficient calculated for a GDK model in the PKN model unless the leak-
off areas are the same.
Reports
MinFrac can generate reports similar to the other Meyer Programs. Before generat-
ing a report, MinFrac will inquire if Base Calculations and/or History Match Calcu-
lations are to be included in the report. Figure 4.108 shows the View Report dialog
box.
Simulation using History Match Data is not available when using the User Speci-
fied Closure option.
The order of the Time of Closure (TC) points can be changed using the Move Up
and Move Down buttons. Only the rows marked active will be displayed in the
report.
For more report options, select Configuration... from the Output menu (See
“Report Configuration” on page 71.)
Manage Points
The Manage Points dialog (OutputManage Points...) can be used to delete
unwanted points or to change the order of existing points. Any changes made
within the Manage Points or View Report dialog will be reflected in the other dia-
log boxes and maintained per minfrac file.
4.6 References
1. Nolte, K.G., Smith, M.B.: “Interpretation of Fracturing Pressures”, SPE 8297,
Sept. 1979.
7. Lee, W.S.: “Study of the Effects of Fluid Rheology on Minifrac Analysis,” SPE
16916, Sept. 1987.
10. Meyer, B. R.: “Frac model in 3-D - 4 Parts,” Oil and Gas Journal, June 17,
July 1, July 22 and July 29, 1985.
11. Meyer, B. R.: “Design Formulae for 2-D and 3-D Vertical Hydraulic Fractures:
Model Comparison and Parametric Studies,” paper SPE 15240 presented at the
SPE Unconventional Gas Technology Symposium, Louisville, KY, May. 18-
21, 1986.
13. Gidley, J. L., Holditch, S. A., Nierode, D. E. and Veatch, R. W.: “Recent
Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing,” SPE Monograph Vol. 12, Chapter 14,
1989.
16. Smith, M.B.: “Stimulation Design for Short, Precise Hydraulic Fractures,”
SPEJ (June 1985) pp 371-379.
18. Hudson, P. J. and Matson, R.: “Fracturing Horizontal Wells,” presented at the
54th Annual SPE Technical Conf., Midland, TX, Sept. 1992.
19. Huit, J.K.: “Fluid Flow in Simulated Fractures,” AIChE Journal, Vol. 2, pp
259, 1956.
20. Louis, C.: “Etude des écoulements d'eau dans les roches fissurées et leurs
influence sur la stabilité des massifs rocheux,” Bull. de la Direction des Etudes
et Recherches, Series A, No. 3, p. 5-132, 1968.
23. Thiercelin, M.: “Fracture Toughness and Hydraulic Fracturing,” Int. J. Rock
Mech. & Geomechanics, vol 26, No3/4, pp 177-183, 1989.
MProd
Analytical Production Simulator
5.1 Introduction
MProd is a single phase analytical production simulator developed by Meyer &
Associates, Inc. Although the program was designed primarily for hydraulic frac-
turing applications, it can also be used to explore the production potential of unfrac-
tured reservoirs. This chapter explains the options available and basic procedures
for running MProd. Detailed information regarding the methodology and basic the-
ory is presented in Appendix G.
MProd has options for Production Simulation, History Match Production Simula-
tion, and Fracture Design Optimization. Production Simulation, allows the user to
input typical production data to simulate well performance for fractured and unfrac-
tured wells. The capability to compare the output (numerical simulated results)
with measured data is also provided. An objective methodology for determining
unknown or uncertain parameters by regression analysis of measured data through
history matching is available. The procedure is implemented by parametric optimi-
zation to minimize the error (standard deviation) between the measured and history
matched results. The history matching process allows the user to history match on
various parameters depending on whether the well is unfractured or fractured. For
an unfractured well, the user has an option to history match on the following
parameters: 1) reservoir drainage area (closed system), 2) permeability, 3) reservoir
aspect ratio, and/or 4) wellbore skin. For the fractured well, the user has an option
to history match on one or all of the following parameters: 1) reservoir drainage
area (closed system), 2) permeability, 3) reservoir aspect ratio, 4) fracture length,
and/or dimensionless fracture conductivity. A Fracture Design Optimization feature
enables the user to determine the optimum fracture design (length, width, conduc-
tivity) that will maximize production for a given amount of proppant mass. Appen-
dix L provides a detailed explanation of the theory and optimization methodology,
MProd is integrated and fully compatible with MFrac to provide full feature optimi-
zation. Output produced by MFrac can be used by MProd. The numerical results of
MProd, in turn, can be imported by MNpv to perform economic analysis.
An outline of the basic steps for using MProd is shown in Table 5.1
5.2 Options
This section outlines the flexibility of the MProd program and describes the param-
eters that define the conditions and intended use of the software. The first step in
performing a simulation is establishing the options that will be used. This is accom-
plished by accessing the Options dialog box from the main menu.
The option selections determine the scope of the MProd program. The options
establish the input to be entered and the nature of the calculations to be performed.
The parameters selected are global for the current file you are working with. They
remain with the file and are saved and recalled with the data.
The Options dialog box is typically the first input screen used in the MProd pro-
gram. Its function is to establish the primary model options that will be employed.
Each section deals with a different aspect of the modeling approach.
To access the Options screen, select Options from the main menu by clicking the
menu name. The dialog box displayed in Figure 5.1 will then be presented.
The Options screen determines what information is needed for a particular type of
analysis. The specific data displayed in a screen or the existence of a data screen
itself varies depending on the options selected. This “smart-menu” approach mini-
mizes data input and prevents unnecessary or misleading data entry. Simply decide
the relevant options for a specific simulation and the program will only display
those menus and input fields necessary. Any time the options are changed the input
data screens will be updated to enable new input or to hide input that is not needed.
This methodology is used throughout MProd.
An explanation of the choices available for each of the Program Options are sum-
marized in the following section.
General Options
The General Options screen allows the user to specify the type of analysis to be per-
formed. The choices available for each of the General Options are summarized as
follows:
Simulation Options
This section describes the fundamental options available for running MProd.
Depending on the Simulation Options selected different general options and dialogs
will be displayed. Throughout this User’s Guide, we will identify which sections
are applicable for the different options.
Production Simulation
This option allows the user to input typical production data to simulate well perfor-
mance for fractured and unfractured wells. The fluid and formation properties are
input and the code will simulate the projected production rate or bottomhole treat-
ing pressure based on the specified boundary condition. The production simulation
option also provides the capability to compare the output (numerical simulated
results) with measured data.
The history matching process allows the user to history match on various parame-
ters depending on whether the well is unfractured or fractured. For an unfractured
well, the user has an option to history match on the following parameters: 1) reser-
voir drainage area (closed system), 2) permeability, 3) reservoir aspect ratio, and/or
4) wellbore skin. For the fractured well, the user has an option to history match on
one or all of the following parameters: 1) reservoir drainage area (closed system),
Since the history match algorithm uses a methodology of steepest descent, a mini-
mum, estimated, maximum value for a parameter must be specified. The initial esti-
mate for a given parameter can either be Internally Estimated or User Defined. The
user must also select the Maximum Iterations allowed for the regression analysis.
The user must be aware that if the solution is not dependent on a given parameter
the code may select any value in the minimum/maximum range depending where it
initializes or estimates the starting point (e.g., a short term well test may not be able
to accurately determine the drainage area or aspect ratio).
Internal Estimate
Given a minimum and maximum range for a history match parameter, the code will
provide an estimate of the best parameter values to minimize the error between the
measured and history matched data. A report is then available that lists the best and
worst fit parameters based on the associated error.
This option is useful if you have no idea what a reasonable history match value for
the parameters may be.
User Estimate
Given a minimum and maximum range for a history match parameter, the user must
also provide an estimate of the best parameter values to minimize the error between
the measured and history matched data.
This option is useful if a reasonable history match value cannot be readily esti-
mated.
Number of Iterations
This is the maximum number of iterations the code will perform prior to exiting
with a last best fit parameter. This is necessary in case the code has not fully con-
verged within some reasonable number of iterations (i.e., the solution is non-lin-
ear). Normally, 20 to 50 iterations are sufficient for a reasonable solution. If you are
trying to get a quick estimate of the history match parameters (especially a large
number) you may want to put in fewer iterations and then refine your minimum and
maximum ranges in the history match parameters dialog.
sented by Econimides, Valko and others. This concept, however, was first
addressed by Prats in 1961.
The main idea of Fracture Design Optimization is to provide the user with an opti-
mum fracture design (length, width, conductivity) for a given proppant mass that
will maximize production. Appendix L provides a detailed explanation of the the-
ory and optimization methodology.
Selecting this option, a pseudosteady state analysis will be performed based on the
formation data, proppant properties, and desired proppant mass pumped to optimize
productivity. The numerical results provide the user with the optimum design char-
acteristics for fracture width, length, penetration ratio, dimensionless conductivity,
conductivity, concentration/area, productivity index and productivity ratio. These
optimum values can then be used as input into MFrac for auto scheduling the opti-
mum design.
This option also allows for the addition of Optimization Diagnostic Plots option for
McGuire and Sikora Type Curves and Optimum Fracture Performance Curves. The
additional diagnostic plots are discussed in Appendix L.
Number of Sub-divisions
The number of data points used to provide a smooth curve of fracture optimization
parameters is the Number of Sub-divisions plus one. If the number of sub-divisions
is less than the number needed between each table sequence, the code will add
additional points.
If the Optimum Fracture Performance Curves are activated, the Number of Sub-
divisions is specified within that section instead.
mally 100 sub-divisions (101 data points) is sufficient to generate a smooth curve
as presented in Appendix L (see also SPE 95941).
Well Orientation
The well orientation can be either Vertical or Horizontal. The vertical well orienta-
tion option provides production solutions for un-fractured and vertical fractures
intersecting a vertical wellbore. The horizontal option provides solutions for the
production and interference of multi-stage/multi-cluster fractures in a horizontal
well and production from an un-fractured perforated or open-hole horizontal well-
bore.
Reservoir
The Reservoir can be either a Closed System or an Infinite Reservoir.
Solutions
The Solution options are only applicable when the Simulated Options of Production
Simulation or History Match Production Simulation Data is selected. These options
are not applicable for pseudosteady-state analyses as used with the Fracture Design
Optimization Option.
MProd provides three (3) alternatives to describe the un-fractured and fractured res-
ervoir solutions. The selections are:
No Fracture
This case models the performance of an un-fractured well or wellbore that has not
been hydraulically fractured. If the well orientation is horizontal the simulator will
model the productivity from an unfractured horizontal wellbore. Options for base
and stimulated wellbore skin factors are available in the well data dialog.
Fractured - Multi-Case
This solution models the performance of finite conductivity vertical fracture for
multiple cases. Thus vertical fractures of various lengths and conductivities for dif-
ferent areas, skins etc. can be simulated and compared. This option allows for pro-
ductivity comparisons of numerous scenarios of fractured wells and fractured well
optimization based on NPV.
No Fracture
• Vertical and Horizontal Wellbore Orientation - The base case is that of an
unfractured well with a base skin (Vertical - No Frac (base skin)) and the Stim-
ulated case is for an unfractured well with a given stimulated skin (Vertical -
No Frac (stim skin)).
• Horizontal Wellbore Orientation - The base case is selected from a drop down
menu consisting of the following options: i) Vertical - No Frac (base skin), ii)
Vertical - No Frac (stim skin), iii) Horizontal - No Frac, or iv) Vertical fracture
- Darcy. The Stimulated case has options ii-iv.
Fracture - Multi-Case
The Base Case drop down menu is dimmed for this option. Only the Stimulated
Case can be specified.
Fluid Type
The formation Fluid Type option is only applicable when the Simulated Options of
either Production Simulation or History Match Production Simulation Data is
selected. This option is not applicable for pseudosteady-state analyses as used with
the Fracture Design Optimization Option.
In general, for liquid production above the bubble point, the oil or water phase is
assumed to be slightly compressible. Conversely, when the fluid type is specified as
gas, the gas phase is assumed to be highly compressible. These basic differences
obviously influence model behavior.
When the Internal PVT Table is On, internal correlations are used to generate the
PVT data for the Fluid Type specified. For oil, the oil solution GOR and formation
volume factor versus pressure, are determined using the correlation originally
described by Vazquez and Beggs1. For these same conditions, the oil viscosity ver-
sus pressure is estimated based on the work of Beggs and Robinson2. For this com-
bination of options, the Gas Gravity, Oil gravity and bubble point pressure must be
entered.
When the Fluid Type is gas and the Internal PVT Table is On, the Gas Specific
Gravity and Reservoir Temperature are required in the Formation Data dialog box.
The correlation used for gas viscosity is as originally described by Lee &
Gonzalez3. If the Internal PVT Table is Off, and the Fluid Type is gas, a separate
Gas PVT Table must be entered. This table contains a list of the Gas Viscosity and
Z-Factor as a function of pressure.
This option specifies whether the simulation will be based on a specified rate or
pressure production. When Rate is selected, production will be simulated at con-
stant rate or a series of variable rates depending on the data entered. Specifying
Pressure results in the simulation of a constant bottomhole flowing pressure or
series of variable bottomhole flowing pressures. Since the simulator uses superpo-
sition, mixing constant rate and pressure production is not permitted.
The convention for rate is positive for production and negative for injection. If a
negative rate is specified in the production table, the properties are assumed to be
the same as the reservoir fluid.
Fracture Options
The Fracture Options screen displayed in Figure 5.2 allows the user to specify the
type of analysis to be performed.
The choices available for each of the Fracture Options are summarized as follows:
Non-Darcy Effects
The equation to describe non-Darcy flow is a form of the Forchheimer [1901] equa-
tion
dp 2
– = ---- +
dx kf
2
where k f is the permeability of the porous media with units of L (i.e., md or ft2,
–1
etc.) and is the non-Darcy flow factor or simply factor with units of L (e.g.,
cm-1, ft-1, atm-s2/gm etc.). Clearly the first term in this equation accounts for vis-
cous effects and the second term for inertial or minor loss effects. If the second term
on the right hand side is omitted, the equation simplifies to Darcy’s law. Thus non-
Darcy flow describes the flow regime that does not obey Darcy’s law. Holditch
[1976] reports that the original form of the second term on the right hand side of the
2
above equation by Forchheimer was a which was replaced by Cornell and Katz
[1953] by the product of the fluid density, , and the factor.
The generalized correlation for the beta factor in terms of the fracture permeability
k f and porosity is of the form
a
= ----------
-
kf c
b
where a , b , and c are constants. The effect of immobile water saturation, S w , can
be incorporated by modifying the porosity to be the effective porosity
( e = 1 – S w ). A number of correlations for the beta factor (inertial coefficient)
are provided in the database.
Darcy Only
Non-Darcy effects will not be considered. This is the same as assuming = 0 .
Permeability Options
The fracture Permeability Options are given below:
Proppant Porosity
This is defined as the void fraction between sand grains (i.e., liquid volume to
slurry ratio of the settled bank). It is used to calculate the propped fracture permea-
bility. Typical values of porosity for proppants are shown in Table 5.2.
Fractured Well
The Fractured Well check box to Include Horizontal Choked Skin is only available
if the Well Orientation is Horizontal. If the Include Horizontal Choked Skin is
checked the user will be prompted to input a Choked Skin Multiplier.
kh h h 1 h
S ch = --------- ln -------- – --- = ---- --------- ln -------- – ---
k f w f 2r w 2 x f C fD 2r w 2
where the above equation has been placed in terms of the dimensionless fracture
conductivity.
To enable the user to modify the above equation a choked skin multiplier m is
introduced
S ch = m S ch
m
The choked skin multiplier allows the user to modify the magnitude of the choked
skin used in the solution to simulate the fluid flow restriction from a vertical frac-
ture into a horizontal wellbore. A multiplier of zero represent the case of no choked
skin. A multiplier of unity results in a choked skin equal to the base choked skin.
When Fracture - Multi-Case is Selected, the simulator will run in standard mode
simulating the production response of a well and reservoir with or without a frac-
ture, depending on the Stimulation Case selected. The Multi-Case Fracture solu-
tion allows the simulator to calculate a series of automated runs based on a variety
of fracture geometries. The fracture characteristics for a Vertical Well Orientation
may be identified by either specifying a MFrac file or by inputting a table of frac-
ture data directly (i.e., User Specified). Please refer to the description of the Multi-
Case (NPV) Fracture Data Source option for more information on this topic as pre-
sented below.
When the Multi-Case (NPV) option is used, the output produced can be read by the
MNpv program to perform economic calculations. This procedure can be used to
design the economically optimum treatment.
1. Select MFrac File and browse for an MFrac file that contains NPV output data.
The file must have been created in MFrac with the NPV option set to On. If the
NPV option was not used to create the fracture output file, an error message
will be displayed. Also, the MProd and MFrac versions of the software must be
compatible.
2. Choose User Specified and the Multi-Case (NPV) Fracture Data dialog will be
enabled from the Data menu. Use the import button provided in the NPV/Frac-
ture Data dialog to read the data from any MFrac “.mfrac” file containing NPV
data. Once the data is imported it can be modified. The User Specified option
will be selected and dimmed when the Well Orientation is Horizontal.
Variable Conductivity
This option allows the user to input a spatially varying fracture conductivity. This
option is not available if the Fracture - Multi-Case (NPV) Solution is selected. If
the option is checked, a Variable Fracture Conductivity dialog will be activated
with input for fracture height, width, permeability, conductivity, and dimensionless
conductivity as function of fracture position.
This approach minimizes data input and prevents unnecessary or misleading data
entry. Simply decide what options are relevant to the simulation and MProd will
only display those menus and input fields necessary. Any time an option is
changed, the screens will vary to enable new input, or hide data that is not needed.
This methodology is used throughout MProd.
The following sections pertain to the Data menu items found by selecting Data
from the program's Main menu. Each Data menu item is covered in detail along
with a description of the data dialogs and their associated variables. When perti-
nent, the conditions or case sensitive options for a data screen are noted and an
example of the resulting dialog is shown. All of the different data screens available
in MProd and the variables contained within them are presented.
Description
The Data Description screen shown in Figure 5.3 provides a location for entering
information about a simulation. Space is provided for entering the Company
Name, Well Name, Well Location and Simulation Date. In addition, a Comments
section is included so that descriptive information can be entered. All information
contained in this dialog is optional.
Formation Data
The Formation Data dialog box (see Figure 5.4) provides a location for entering
most of the reservoir properties needed to perform a simulation. As you become
familiar with this data screen, you will notice that many of the parameters will
appear or disappear as the program options are changed. For example, changing the
Fluid Type from oil to gas with the Internal PVT Table option enabled, will result
in the elimination of the variables related to the oil PVT (e.g., oil gravity, bubble
point pressure).
Each of the items found in the Formation Data dialog screen are explained below. If
necessary, the conditions for data entry are indicated.
The Reservoir Drainage Area and the Dimensionless Reservoir Aspect Ratios
are only required if the Reservoir is a Closed System. If the Well Orientation is
selected as Horizontal and the Solution is selected as Fracture - Multi-Case the Res-
ervoir Drainage and Reservoir Aspect Ratio are input in the Multi-Case (NPV)
Fracture Characteristics Stages/Cluster tab. This allow for greater flexibility when
comparing multiple transverse fracture solutions in a horizontal wellbore for closed
systems. The Dimensionless well location for the Multi-Case (NPV) Fracture Char-
acteristics when the Well Orientation is horizontal is assumed to be at the reservoir
center (i.e., Dimensionless Well Location (x=0,y=0)).
total reservoir dimension can be used to position the wellbore within the rectangu-
lar coordinate system used.
When a well has been produced for some period of time, enter the average reservoir
pressure as interpreted from a well measurement. In all instances, the value entered
for the Initial Reservoir Pressure should be less than the minimum horizontal
stress in the pay zone.
ct = So co + Sw cw + Sg cg + cr
where
cg = gas compressibility
co = oil compressibility
cr = bulk rock compressibility
ct = total formation compressibility
cw = water compressibility
Sg = gas saturation
So = oil saturation
Sw = water saturation
When the Fluid Type is gas, the compressibility is calculated internally using the
following relationship:
1 1 dZ
c g = --- – ---
p Zdp
where
cg = gas compressibility
p = initial reservoir pressure
Z = gas Z-factor
Please refer to SPE Monograph 5, “Advances in Well Test Analysis” and Appendix
D for typical oil, gas, water and rock compressibilities. This information is
extremely important in order to accurately characterize the reservoir diffusivity, D,
as illustrated in the following expression:
k
D = -----------
c t
where
k dp
v = – ---
dx
where
k ro k rg k rw
--k- = k ------- + ------- + -------
o g w
t
where
Provided the distribution and relative saturations of the fluid phases remain fairly
constant throughout the reservoir by entering appropriate “equivalent” values, the
mobility should be reasonably accurate for a multi-phase system.
Oil API
The oil API gravity is required when the Internal PVT Table is used and the fluid
type is oil. The definition of API is as follows:
141.5
API = ------------- – 131.5
o
where o is the specific gravity of the oil at 60F and atmospheric pressure.
Reservoir Temperature
The initial mean reservoir temperature is used to calculate the fluid properties. This
value is only required when the Internal PVT Table option is selected or the fluid
type is gas.
Fracture Characteristics
The Fracture Characteristic Data dialog box (see Figure 5.7) provides a location for
entering the propped fracture properties needed to perform a simulation when the
fracture option is selected. As you become familiar with this data screen, you will
notice that many of the parameters will appear or disappear depending on the
options selected. The Stages/Cluster tab will only be activated if the Well Orienta-
tion is selected as Horizontal.
Each of the items found in the Fracture Data dialog screen are explained below. If
necessary, the conditions for data entry are indicated
k f w f h p
C fD = --------- -----
kL h p
a value that represents the fracture half-length which is propped or conductive. The
fracture is assumed to have two symmetrically propped wings of equal half-length.
The Average Fracture Conductivity is used over the entire length.
Fracture Permeability
This is the average value for fracture conductivity (with damage).
Fracture Width
This the average value for the propped fracture width.
The average fracture conductivity for slightly varying conductivities may be esti-
mated using the following relationship for long term production
L
kf wf = 0 kf x wf x dx L
and for short term production or reduced conductivity near the wellbore the follow-
ing relationship may be more applicable
L 1
k f w f = L ------------------------- dx
0 k f x w f x
where
For a variable fracture conductivity with position, the User should consider using
the Variable Conductivity option for a fractured well. This option requires the
User to input fracture conductivity as a function of fracture position. The code will
then calculate the more rigorous Average Fracture Conductivity based on pseudos-
teady-state analyses (see Appendix L).
ductivity when modeling early time production. Effectively, this will more accu-
rately characterize a shorter, more conductive fracture. When simulating longer
production times (pseudosteady-state), the entire propped fracture length should be
used. If an analytical approach is unsatisfactory, a numerical simulator that allows
the fracture conductivity as a function of position to be specified, must be used.
Exodus, developed by T.T. & Associates, is such a simulator and is fully compati-
ble with MFrac output.
Dimensionless Conductivity
The effective dimensionless conductivity in the pay zone is calculated from
k f w f h p
C fD = --------- -----
kL h p
Beta Factor
The field will not be displayed if the Darcy-Only option is selected in the Fracture
Options tab. The non-Darcy beta factor is required input if input Beta has been
selected. If the option to calculate beta from a database correlation is selected, a
value will be present but dimmed since it will be a calculated value from the prop-
pant porosity and permeability.
ys k
S f = --- ---- ---- – 1
2 xf kl
where
kc t
c f = ---------------
k f f c tf
where
For more information on inverse fracture diffusivity refer to Lee and Brocken-
brough.
Stages/Cluster Tab
The Fracture Characteristics Stages/Cluster tab is shown in Figure 5.8. This dialog
will change depending on the Fracture Stage Option selected. The Reservoir Drain-
age Area, Aspect Ratio, and Reservoir Size will be shown (dimmed) if the Reser-
voir is a closed system. The Stages/Cluster Tab will only be present if the Well
Orientation is selected as Horizontal.
Number of Stages
This is the total number of fracture clusters per stages in the horizontal well. The
total number of multiple transverse fractures is simply the number of stages multi-
plied by the number of clusters per stage. Please refer to Appendix G.
User Specified
This is the most general case and allows the user to input the Stage spacing and
the Cluster spacing. This selection is also referred to as Multiple Stage/Cluster
Transverse Fractures option as defined in Appendix G.
Fracture Position
The Fracture Position is the location of the proppant in the fracture measured from
the wellbore (i.e., a fracture position of zero or a value equal to the well radius).
The final entry in the table is the propped fracture length from which the Dimen-
sionless Conductivity is calculated as discussed below.
Fracture Conductivity
The variable Fracture Conductivity is entered into the table as a function of fracture
position. As discussed earlier in this chapter, if the Fracture Conductivity is input
the equivalent spacial Dimensionless Conductivity will be calculated.
Dimensionless Conductivity
The Dimensionless Conductivity as a function of fracture position can be input and
the Fracture Conductivity as a function of fracture position will be calculated, The
Dimensionless Conductivity as a function of position is defined as
k f w f x h p
C fD x = ----------------- -----
kL hp
where the final Fracture Position in the table is the Propped Fracture Length ( L ).
Conductivity Gradient
An option is provided at the bottom of the dialog to select a Conductivity Gradi-
ent in the fracture. Selecting this option will model the conductivity as a linearly
varying value from fracture position to fracture position within the fracture. If Con-
ductivity Gradient is not selected the Fracture Conductivity (and Dimensionless
Conductivity) will be assumed to be piece-wise constant over a given fracture
position (see Appendix L for additional information and discussions).
The history matching process allows the user to history match on various parame-
ters depending on whether the well is unfractured or fractured. For an unfractured
well, the user has an option to history match on the following parameters: 1) reser-
voir drainage area (closed system), 2) permeability, 3) reservoir aspect ratio, and/or
4) wellbore skin. For the fractured well, the user has an option to history match on
one or all of the following parameters: 1) reservoir drainage area (closed system),
2) permeability, 3) reservoir aspect ratio, 4) fracture length, 5) beta factor and/or 6)
dimensionless fracture conductivity depending on the Fracture Options.
To history match on any given parameter the user must specify the minimum/maxi-
mum range and provide an estimate of a starting value. If the option Internal Esti-
mate is selected the user will not have to enter an estimate for any of the history
match parameters.
Any parameter (property) with the same minimum and maximum values will not be
a history parameter. That is, the code will keep this parameter at a constant value.
History matching by its very nature may result in a non-unique solutions. The code
may find parameter values that minimize the error in saddles but may not actually
represent the true history match values. To ensure a pleasant experience, it may be
advantages to history match on only a few parameters at a time.
Following is a partial list of history matching scenarios for which the differential
equations will provide a non-unique solution:
1. Short time well test. The simulator will not be able to history match (converge)
on the drainage area or reservoir aspect ratio unless the drainage area is
extremely small.
3. Fracture length. If the fracture length is chosen to be a value greater than the
maximum reservoir drainage dimensions.
4. Permeability. Calculations may not be unique for short term data. Once pseu-
dosteady state occurs the probability of solution uniqueness increases.
5. Beta. Calculations may not be unique for constant production data, since there
are an infinite combination of fracture conductivity and beta that will give the
same effective dimensionless conductivity.
6. Fluid properties. The uncertainty in fluid properties affects the reservoir mobil-
ity and history matching uniqueness.
7. No fracture case. The effective estimated wellbore skin may not be very accu-
rate if the flow has not reached pseudosteady state. A negative skin value
should also be increases if the effective wellbore radius is greater than the
drainage area.
Although some of the above items are error checked in the code, the user must be
responsible for reasonable input values to obtain a unique solution. History match-
ing is an engineering methodology not a trial and error exercise.
4. Skin Factor.
3. Fracture Length.
5. Beta factor.
When User Specified fracture data is selected for the NPV Fracture Data Source,
the NPV Fracture Data option is added to the Data menu. This sub-menu provides a
table for defining up to 25 different fracture cases for simultaneous production sim-
ulation as shown in Figure 5.10. If the Well Orientation is selected as Horizontal,
the Stages/Clusters tab will be present as shown in Figure 5.11.
Import
Use the Import button provided in the dialog to read the proppant transport data
from any MFrac file containing a proppant transport solution. Once the data is
imported it can be modified. This capability allows for preliminary viewing of
MFrac data and offers a method for editing and adding data prior to its use by the
program. To take advantage of this capability, Click on the Import button to browse
and select an MFrac file. Since data contained in the dialog box is over-written dur-
ing an import operation, caution should be used when using this facility. Normally,
prior to importing, we recommend starting with a blank data dialog, or using the
Export Spreadsheet function on the dialog tool bar to avoid loosing the original
data.
Calculate
A calculate radial option is available at the bottom of the dialog to calculate either
the fracture permeability, fracture width, or fracture conductivity. This gives the
user the flexibility to input two of the variables and have the third calculated. The
calculated value will then be dimmed. The Calculate option may not be available
depending on the Fracture options selected (i.e., if Input Conductivity or Calculate
fracture permeability is selected. The code will only display this feature if it is nec-
essary.
Propped Length
The Propped Length is the propped fracture half length for which the production
will be simulated.
Fracture Permeability
This is the average proppant permeability (with damage) as a function of position in
the fracture.
Fracture Width
This is the effective average propped fracture width in the fracture as a function of
position.
Dimensionless Conductivity
The effective dimensionless conductivity in the pay zone is calculated from
k f w f h p
C fD = --------- -----
kL h p
Beta
The field will not be displayed if the Darcy-Only option is selected in the Fracture
Options tab. The non-Darcy beta factor is required input if input Beta has been
selected. If the option to calculate beta from a database correlation is selected, a
value will be present but dimmed since it will be a calculated value from the prop-
pant porosity and permeability.
ys k
S f = --- ---- ---- – 1
2 xf kl
where
Maximum Power
This is the maximum power required to create the specified (multi-cluster for a hor-
izontal well) fracture geometry. These values are entered and included as output to
be used later by MNpv in the calculation of Net Present Value.
Slurry Volume
This is the total slurry volume required to create the specified (single cluster for a
horizontal well) fracture geometry. This quantity is only included to allow the
determination of Net Present Value for a design.
Liquid Volume
This is the total Liquid Volume (frac fluid) injected necessary to create the specified
(single cluster for a horizontal well) fracture geometry. This Liquid Volume is only
included to allow the determination of fracture Net Present Value based on the cost
of the fracturing fluid.
2. Next, open the NPV Fracture Data dialog from the Data menu. The dialog
boxes shown in Figure 5.10 will appear. Use the Import button provided in the
dialog to read the data from any MFrac “.FD*” file containing NPV data. Once
the data is imported it can be modified.
3. Complete as many rows as necessary by entering data in each of the six col-
umns. The Insert and Delete buttons can be used to edit the table as it is con-
structed.
4. When finished characterizing the fractures for evaluation, click OK or the Next
Page button to close the dialog box.
Stages/Cluster Tab
The Fracture Characteristics Stages/Cluster tab is shown in Figure 5.8. This dialog
will change depending on the Fracture Stage Option selected. The Reservoir Drain-
age Area, Aspect Ratio, and Reservoir Size will be shown (dimmed) if the Reser-
voir is a closed system. The Stages/Cluster Tab will only be present if the Well
Orientation is select as Horizontal.
The Reservoir Drainage Area and the Dimensionless Reservoir Aspect Ratios
are only required if the Reservoir is a Closed System. If the Well Orientation is
selected as Horizontal and the Solution is selected as Fracture - Multi-Case the Res-
ervoir Drainage and Reservoir Aspect Ratio are input in the Multi-Case (NPV)
Fracture Characteristics Stages/Cluster tab. This allows for greater flexibility when
comparing multiple transverse fracture solutions in a horizontal wellbore for closed
systems. The Dimensionless well location for the Multi-Case (NPV) Fracture Char-
acteristics when the Well Orientation is horizontal is assumed to be at the reservoir
center (i.e., Dimensionless Well Location (x=0,y=0)).
Number of Stages
This is the total number of fracture clusters per stages in the horizontal well. The
total number of multiple transverse fractures is simply the number of stages multi-
plied by the number of clusters per stage. Please refer to Appendix G.
User Specified
This is the most general case and allows the user to input the Stage spacing and
the Cluster spacing. This selection is also referred to as Multiple Stage/Cluster
Transverse Fractures option as defined in Appendix G.
The Gas PVT table must be constructed with increasing values of pressure and
cover the expected range of pressures for the simulation. The first entry should be
at standard pressure (14.696 psi) with a Z-factor equal to 1.0. The last entry should
be equal to or greater than the initial reservoir pressure.
Proppant Data
Proppant Data is required when the Fracture Optimization option is selected. The
data in this screen is used in the calculation of the optimum fracture characteristics
and proppant number. The reader is referred to Appendix L for additional informa-
tion.
The required proppant input data are: 1) permeability, 2) porosity, 3) specific grav-
ity and 4) the fracture permeability damage factor. These parameters are discussed
below:
Permeability
This is the fracture proppant pack permeability which is a function of concentration
per unit area and Closure Pressure. The effective propped fracture permeability is
calculated based on a damage factor as discussed below. The user is referred to the
MFrac proppant database for typical values.
Porosity
This is defined as the void fraction between sand grains (i.e., liquid volume to
slurry ratio of the settled bank). It is used to calculate the final propped fracture
width. Typical values of porosity for proppants are shown in Table 5.3.
Specific Gravity
This is the ratio of the proppant density to the density of water. The specific gravity
of a proppant is based on the grain density, not the bulk density of the proppant.
Typical values are shown in Table 5.4.
The proppant Specific Gravity is used in the calculation of the proppant settling
velocity, as well as the pipe frictional, gravitational and perforation pressure losses.
k f = k f0 1 – DF
where
The final permeability is used to determine the fracture conductivity and dimen-
sionless fracture conductivity.
The design optimization is based on the proppant mass in the pay zone or for a
given reservoir the Proppant Number. This table allows the user to input various
values for the Total Proppant Mass. The proppant mass placed in the pay zone
(Pay Zone Proppant) and the effective Proppant Number are also calculated based
on the other proppant and formation properties. Entering the Proppant Number
will result in the calculation of the Total and Pay Zone Proppant Masses. The user
is referred to Appendix L for additional details.
Proppant Number
The proppant number is defined as twice the ratio of the propped fracture volume in
the pay zone ( V prop frac ) to reservoir volume ( V reservoir ) multiplied by the fracture to
reservoir permeability ratio ( k f k ).
2V prop frac k f
N prop = ----------------------- ---- = C fD I x2
V reservoir k
where I x is the fracture penetration and is the reservoir aspect ratio. See Appen-
dix L for additional information.
Production Data
The Production Data dialog box provides a table for entering the production rate or
bottomhole flowing pressure schedules as a function of time. The appearance and
required data for the dialog box presented will depend upon the selection made for
the Production Specified option. When Rate is selected for this option, a table
containing the rates, durations (time) and time step for the calculations is required.
The time step determines the number of iterations calculated for each correspond-
ing time value. The data shown in Figure 5.13 would result in pressure calculations
performed using a rate of 300 bpd for 30 days with calculations made every day.
This would be followed by a rate of 200 bpd for the next 70 days to 100 days with
calculations performed every 10 days. The last entry corresponds to 100 bpd for
900 days calculated every 100 days up to a total of 1000 days.
2. Next, open the Production Data dialog from the Data menu. One of the dialog
boxes shown in either Figure 5.13 or Figure 5.14 will be displayed depending
on the selection in Item 1 above.
3. Fill in at least one (1), and up to five-hundred (500) rows of data making sure
to complete each row that is used. Use the Insert and Delete buttons to edit the
table as it is constructed.
4. When finished entering tabular data, click OK to close the dialog box.
When the Production Specified option is set to pressure, the data required is Bot-
tomhole Flowing Pressure, Time and Time Step. The example shown in Figure
5.14 would start with calculations using a flowing pressure of 2500 psi every day
for 30 days, followed by a flowing pressure of 1500 psi to 365 days with calcula-
tions performed every 3.65 days and finally a calculation every 36.5 days at 500 psi
to a total of 3650 days.
The principle of superposition is used to integrate the data input into a series of con-
stant rate or pressure changes. For hydraulically fractured wells, the model is appli-
cable for all flow regimes including linear, bilinear, trilinear and pseudo-radial.
Calculations are made both for real and dimensionless time and flow rate or pres-
sure. In addition, cumulative production and folds of increase (both instantaneous
and average) are calculated.
Measured Data
The measured data is input in a table very similar to the Production Data table
above. The difference is that measured data is input and not the boundary condition.
An overview of the measured input data is given below.
The Measured dialog box provides a table for entering the measured production
rate or bottomhole flowing pressure data as a function of time. The appearance and
required data for the dialog box presented will depend upon the selection made for
the Production Specified option. When Rate is selected for this option, a table
containing the time and time dependent bottomhole pressures is required.
1. Select Rate or Pressure for the Production Specified option by opening the
Options dialog box from the Main Menu and making a selection.
2. Next, open the Measured Data dialog from the Data menu. A dialog box will
be displayed requiring input for pressure or rate versus time depending on the
selection in Item 1 above.
3. Fill in and up to five-hundred (500) rows of data making sure to complete each
row that is used. Use the Insert and Delete buttons to edit the table as it is con-
structed.
4. When finished entering tabular data, click OK to close the dialog box.
When the Production Specified option is set to rate, the data required is Time and
Bottomhole Flowing Pressure,. When the Production Specified option is set to
pressure, the data required is Time and Rate.
Well Data
Production forecasting typically requires a minimum of data describing certain fea-
tures of the well in order to perform a simulation. For MProd, these features
include the Wellbore Radius and the permeability damage due to skin. The well
radius defines the contact area between the well and the reservoir. This value is par-
ticularly important for unfractured wells, or when performing multi-case (NPV)
analyses. The skin damage (Well Skin) characterizes the additional pressure drop
associated with the near well regime. This parameter may have a significant effect
on calculating the folds of increase.
No Fracture
The required and/or optional well information entered in the Well Data dialog box
for an unfractured well (Solution selected as No-Fracture) is shown in Figure 5.15.
The Wellbore Data for an unfractured well is given in the Vertical Tab. If the well
orientation is Horizontal and the No Fracture Solution is selected data must also be
input in the Horizontal - No Fracture Tab.
The parameters contained in the dialog are listed and described below.
Vertical Tab
The Wellbore Data for an unfractured well is given in the Vertical Tab dialog. If the
well orientation is Horizontal and production is from a an unfractured (No Fracture)
perforated horizontal or open hole, the general configuration of the horizontal
should be specified.
Wellbore Radius
The Wellbore Radius is the radius of the borehole. It is used as the base case for
radial flow from the reservoir to the well and in the calculation of wellbore storage
effects. When performing Multi-Case (NPV) analyses the productivity increase or
folds of increase is based on the production ratio of the fractured well to an unfrac-
tured well with a known borehole radius.
5.16146C
C D = -----------------------2-
2c t hr w
where
The parameters contained in the Horizontal - No Fracture dialog are listed and
described below.
Permeability Ratio
The Permeability Ratio is the ratio of the horizontal to vertical permeability of the
formation. The horizontal permeability is the permeability input into the Formation
Data dialog. The smaller this ratio the greater the productivity. As the formation
Permeability Ratio goes to zero, the unfractured wellbore produces as an infinite
conductivity vertical hydraulically fractured well with a total fracture length equal
to the Length of the Perforated Lateral (i.e. fracture half-length equal to one-half
the perforated interval). The reader is referred to Appendix G for the solution meth-
odology for unfractured horizontal wells.
Wellbore Skin
The dimensionless pressure drop at the horizontal wellbore face as a result of dam-
age (positive value) or stimulation (negative value) is commonly referred to as
Wellbore Skin.
Fractured Well
The well information required for a fractured well is shown in Figure 5.17.
Vertical Tab
The additional well data parameters required for a fractured well are listed and
described below.
To Perform Calculations:
1. Click Run from the main menu.
2. The RunOptions dialog can be used to specify options while the simulator is
running. See “Run Options” on page 69.
After clicking the Run menu item, a Simulation Data window will be displayed
and the menu bar will change to reflect that the simulation is running. To stop the
simulation, choose Stop! from the menu bar. Once the calculations are finished, the
menu bar will return to normal. Due to the nature of the MProd calculations, if the
simulator is stopped before the calculations are finished, none of the calculated data
will be saved.
5.5 Plots
MProd provides a vast selection of plots that can be produced to illustrate the simu-
lation results. These plots have all the characteristics of Meyer plots as described in
Chapter 1. This section describes the plotting facilities that are specific to MProd.
The MProd plots are grouped into different categories as described below. Plots
from any number of categories may be viewed at the same time. The plots contain
the results of the last simulation saved. It is important to note, that changing an
input parameter does not affect a plot until the simulation has been run again.
Plot Categories
The plots in MProd are grouped into different categories, each of which are accessi-
ble with the Plot menu.
• Net Cumulative Production: These plots are for net cumulative production.
• Flow Rate: These plots are of various flow rates versus time or propped
length.
• History Match: These plots are for history matching (e.g. flow rate versus
time, and flowing BHP versus time).
Viewing Plots
The plots that are contained in MProd are divided into categories that can be
accessed by different commands in the Plot menu. The specific plots available will
be directly controlled by the options selected for the last saved simulation. For
example, if NPV is disabled by “unselecting” it in the Options screen, these plots
will not be available in the Plot menu.
To View a Plot:
1. Select Plot from the main menu. The Plot menu appears listing the available
plot groups.
2. Choose from the list of groups. The associated group selection dialog appears
(See Figure 5.18). Groups that are unavailable due to the options selected will
appear dimmed. To obtain these plots, you must activate the option and then
re-run the simulation.
3. Select the desired plots by clicking the adjacent check boxes. Use the Select
All button to view all the plots for the group. To disable a plot, click Off the
check box or use the Clear All button.
4. Once the desired selections have been made, click OK to view the plots.
Viewing a Report
To see the results of a simulation select View Report from the Report menu.
Production Solution
These tables, one per case (fracture length), show the flow rate, production, pres-
sure and productivity ratio solutions indexed by time.
Non-Darcy Database
To enter the Non-Darcy Database select the Non-Darcy Database command from
the Database menu. The first screen presented is the Non-Darcy List dialog shown
in Figure 5.19. Just like in the Fluid database, a User Database can be built by copy-
ing non-Darcy beta correlations from the program’s System Database. The System
Database contains correlations for the beta factor as used in the petroleum industry.
Once beta correlations have been copied from the System Database, they can be
repositioned by using the Up and Down buttons. You can Edit a record, Delete a
record, Copy a record or Add a new record to the list by choosing the appropriate
button. To exit the non-Darcy database dialog box, click on the Done button.
The generalized correlation for the beta factor in terms of the fracture permeability
k f and porosity is of the form
a-
= ----------
kf c
b
where a , b , and c are the input constants. The a coefficient has units consistent
with the permeability power constant, b , and the units for permeability. The power
coefficients b , and c are dimensionless.
5.8 Tools
The Tools menu provides the user with options and analytical tools for calculating
or determining scientific parameters. Currently, all applications have a Tool
Spreadsheet option that allows the user to customize the spreadsheet. MFrac and
MProd also have a Proppant Calculator for determining the proppant permeability
and beta factor based on proppant properties.
Proppant Calculator
The Proppant Calculator allows the user to calculate the theoretical proppant per-
meability and non-Darcy beta factor. Please refer to the MFrac section labeled
“Proppant Calculator” on page 243 for more information.
5.9 References
1. Vazquez, M. and Beggs, H.D.: “Correlations for Fluid Physical Property Pre-
diction” JPT (June 1980) 32, 968-970.
2. Beggs, H.D. and Robinson, J.R.: “Estimating the Viscosity of Crude Oil Sys-
tems” JPT (Sept. 1975) 1140-1144.
3. Lee, A.L. Gonzalez, M.H. and Eakin, B.E.: “The Viscosity of Natural Gases”
Trans., AIME (1966) 997-1002.
4. Lee, S.T. and Brockenbrough, J.R: “A New Approximate Analytic Solution for
Finite-Conductivity Vertical Fractures,” SPEFE (Feb. 1986) 75-88.
MNpv
Economic Analysis
6.1 Introduction
This chapter is a user’s guide for MNpv, a fracturing design optimization simulator,
based on the concept of Net Present Value developed by Meyer & Associates, Inc.
MNpv is designed for use with MProd to automatically determine and compare the
NPV of various fracture scenarios in order to identify an optimal design. Using
MNpv, treatment advantages or disadvantages can be ascertained by evaluating pre-
dicted cash flow and future return on investment.
The integrated capability of MFrac, MProd, and MNpv provides the ability to opti-
mize the potential propped fracture length of a design based on the pumping sched-
ule, fracture geometry, treatment cost and production revenue. The NPV of various
fracture lengths can be calculated and displayed as a function of producing time.
Fracture characteristics, treatment cost, revenue and cumulative production plots as
a function of fracture length and producing time can also be created.
To perform an integrated NPV analysis, the simulators are run in sequence. First,
the pumping schedules and associated fracture geometries are automatically deter-
mined using MFrac’s NPV option. This step may be omitted if the data is entered
directly in the MProd program. Next, MProd is used to generate production fore-
casts for each of the different fracture geometries. Finally, the output generated by
MProd is used in MNpv to perform an economic analysis.
An outline of the basic steps for using MNpv is shown in Table 6.1
6.2 Options
This section outlines the available options and describes the parameters that define
the conditions for MNpv. The first step before performing calculations is to estab-
lish the options. This is accomplished by accessing the Options dialog box from the
main menu.
The option selections determine the scope of the MNpv simulation. They establish
the kind of input to be entered and specific nature of the calculations to be per-
formed. The selected options are stored in the current file.
The Options dialog box is typically the first input screen used in the MNpv pro-
gram. Its function is to establish the primary model options that will be employed.
There are four sections to this dialog. Each section deals with a different aspect of
the modeling approach.
To access the Options screen select Options from the main menu by clicking the
menu name. The dialog box in Figure 6.1 will then appear.
To select an option, click the radio button adjacent to the option preference. A black
diamond will appear in the center of the button when a choice is made. To move to
the next option, click on its radio button or use the TAB button to move sequentially
through the choices. Within a section the current selection for that option is high-
lighted with a dotted rectangle. The option choice may be changed by using either
the mouse or the arrow keys.
An explanation of the choices available for each of the Options are summarized in
the following section.
Fluid Type
MNpv uses the production predictions from MProd to forecast the potential future
revenue for each fracture geometry evaluated. The Fluid Type, as read in from the
MProd output file, is used internally in MNpv to specify the primary fluid produced
from the reservoir in order to direct the calculations through the appropriate algo-
rithms for the purpose of calculating incremental revenue. This informational head-
ing insures that the appropriate units are used and that the subsequent input screens
are oriented towards the correct fluid (i.e., oil or gas).
Either Oil or Gas will appear in this dialog depending on information from the
MProd output data file. The Fluid Type cannot be changed by the user.
Well Orientation
The Well Orientation, is read in from the MProd output file. MNpv plots can dis-
play transverse fractures for a horizontal well orientation.
Revenue/Unit Volume
This option specifies the type of production revenue schedule to use. There are two
choices available.
When Fixed is selected, the Unit Revenue per volume of oil or gas produced is
specified as a constant in the Economic Data section of the Data menu. For this
selection, a Unit Revenue Escalation Rate may also be specified.
The other choice for this option is Variable. This selection enables the Unit Reve-
nue Table found under the Data Menu to be used. The program will use the revenue
versus time data entered in this table for all calculations.
Unit Costs
This option is used to modify the fluid and proppant unit cost for each case. If it is
Fixed then it will use the same fluid and proppant unit cost for each case. If it is
Variable, you can enter a separate fluid and proppant unit cost for each table entry
of conductivity and length.
When Fixed is selected, the Frac Fluid Unit Cost and Proppant Unit Cost are
specified as constants in the Economic Data section of the Data menu.
The other choice for this option is Variable. This selection enables the Unit Cost
Table found under the Data Menu to be used. The program will use the cost versus
fracture length and conductivity (i.e., row specific) data entered in a table for all
calculations.
If Variable Percentage vs. Rate is chosen, the Share% Table is enabled. This table
allows the entry of share percentage as a function of net flow rate. It can be found
under the Data menu.
Attempting to select an MProd file that does not contain the necessary NPV data
will result in a message like the one shown in Figure 6.3. This indicates that the
data file was not created with the NPV option on within MProd. Either select
another data file or return to MProd and re-run the simulation with the NPV/Multi-
Case option checked as On.
The following sections pertain to the Data menu items found by selecting Data
from the main menu. Each Data menu item is explained and a description of the
associated variables given. When pertinent, the conditions or case sensitive options
for a data screen are noted and an example of the resulting dialog is shown. All of
the data screens available within MNpv and the variables contained within them are
presented.
Description
The Data Description screen shown in Figure 6.4 provides a location for entering
descriptive information about a simulation. Space is provided for entering the Com-
pany Name, Well Name, Well Location and Simulation Date. In addition, a Com-
ments section is included so that additional information can be entered. This
information can include items such as the specific fluids, program options or an
explanation of the data used. All of the information contained in this dialog is
optional.
Economic Data
When the Revenue/Unit Volume and Partner Share Option are both Fixed, the
Economic Data dialog box containing all of the necessary information to perform
the calculations appears as shown in Figure 6.5. Variations of this dialog may be
presented along with additional data screens when the Variable options are modi-
fied. The units displayed, along with the variables contained in this dialog, are con-
sistent with the Fluid Type selected and the preferences selected from the Units
menu. For example, if the Fluid Type changes from oil to gas, the unit revenue
parameter will change to currency per unit volume gas (e.g., $/Mscf).
Each of the items found in the Economic Data dialog screen are explained in the
next section. When necessary, the conditions for which the data is required are also
indicated.
240000
Treatment Cost vs Propped Length
Job cost
Fluid cost
200000 Proppant cost
120000
80000
40000
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Propped Length (ft)
Truck Mileage and Transportation - These are charges typically incurred for
mobilizing equipment and delivering materials.
Fixed Power Costs - This includes standby power and non-pumping service time.
Blending Charges - Other than mobilization and minimum charges, these costs are
sometimes based on the average injection rate.
Liquid Additive Equipment - These costs are related to liquid delivery systems
not covered by blending charges. Examples include LFC units, as well as other
ancillary upstream pumping equipment used for delivering fluids to the blender.
Nitrogen or CO2 Equipment - Special charges usually apply for the transport,
preparation and pumping of energized fluids. The costs associated with the equip-
ment should be included in this category.
Auxiliary Equipment - The cost of miscellaneous equipment such as, tree savers,
manifolds, flowmeters, data acquisition, transport units, treating connections, and
frac support units should also be considered in the fixed cost of equipment.
Miscellaneous Cost
Miscellaneous costs should also be entered to compute the total cost associated
with a treatment. This category should be used to represent potential expenditures
not related to hydraulic power, equipment or materials already included in the cate-
gories described above. This includes site preparation, workover costs, tubular rent-
als, specialized wellbore equipment (e.g., bridge plugs, etc....) and perforating.
Tank rentals, water hauling, license fees, logging or testing services, and consulting
fees can also be included. Basically, this is a general category where any fixed cost
related to the analysis can be included.
F
P = -----------------n-
1 + i
where
P = present worth
F = future worth
i = currency escalation rate or interest rate
n = number of periods
If Variable is selected for the Revenue/Unit Volume option, this parameter does
not appear in the Economic Data dialog. It is replaced by the Variable Revenue per
Unit Volume Table found in the Data menu.
When the Currency Escalation Rate for NPV calculations and the Unit Revenue
Escalation Rate are the same, the unit revenue is a constant in terms of present
value.
Share of Cost
When partnerships are involved, this is your percentage of the total cost of the treat-
ment for the NPV analysis. If you have no partners, your percentage or share of the
cost is 100%.
Share of Revenue
This data is only required when the Partner Share Option has been set to Fixed in
the Options dialog box. It represents your percent share of the total revenue. If you
have no partners your share of the revenue is 100%.
If Variable is selected for the Partner Share Option, this parameter is disabled and it
is replaced by the Share% Table located in the Data menu. This allows the entry of
your share percentage as a function of net flow rate.
be between two (2) and twenty-five (25). The table must be constructed with
increasing values of time to cover the total period of the simulation. The first entry
should be at zero producing time with a corresponding initial unit revenue. The last
time entry should be equal to or greater than the maximum time of the production
simulation.
2. Next, open the Variable Revenue/Unit volume Table screen from the Data
menu. The dialog boxes shown below will be displayed.
3. Fill in at least 2 and up to 25 rows of data making sure to complete each row
that is used. Use the Insert and Delete buttons to edit the table as it is con-
structed.
4. Click OK or Next Page to close the dialog box and save the changes you made.
The unit revenue of produced oil or gas is assumed to change linearly between con-
secutive times. Consequently, midway between two times (Time 1 and Time 2) the
unit revenue is equal to the average between the two entered values.
Assuming your net unit revenue for oil is $10.00/bbl today and will increase by
$1.00 per year, the table in Figure 6.7 would be input.
If your net unit revenue for oil is $10/bbl today and increases linearly to $50/bbl in
twenty years, you would enter the data shown in Figure 6.8.
Just as the unit revenue field in the Economic Data dialog is updated corresponding
to the Fluid Type selected, the unit and title for the variable revenue table also
change.
When using the Share% Table, the total number of entries must be between 2 and
25 and the table must be constructed with increasing values of net flow rate to cover
the expected range of production. The first entry should be for a net rate of zero.
The last time entry should be equal to or greater than the maximum expected rate. If
the actual net rate is lower than the first data entry value, the share percentage for
the first value will be used. If the calculated net rate is greater than the last value in
the table, the last entered share percentage will be used.
As in the Revenue/Unit Volume Table (see Figure 6.7), the percent share of revenue
of produced oil or gas is interpreted linearly between consecutive net rates. Conse-
quently, midway between two rates the share percentage is equal to the average
between the two values.
Assuming the share percentage of revenue for oil will increase linearly from 0% at
a rate of 0 bbls/day to 90% for 200 bbls/day of net flow rate increase, the data in
Figure 6.9 would be entered.
This corresponds to a Share versus Flow Rate relationship as shown in Figure 6.10.
The unit for the net flow rate column will automatically correspond to the Fluid
Type that is specified in the Options dialog.
When Fixed is selected, the Frac Fluid Unit Cost and Proppant Unit Cost are
specified as constants in the Economic Data section of the Data menu.
The Variable selection enables the Unit Cost Table found under the Data Menu to
be used. The program will use the cost versus fracture length and conductivity (i.e.,
row specific) data entered in this table for all calculations as shown in Figure 6.11.
This table provides the user with the capability to optimize the NPV based on dif-
ferent unit costs for the fluid and proppant types. The Frac Fluid Unit Cost and
Proppant Unit Cost can vary with either job sizes or for different proppants with
various conductivities at a given fracture length.
To start the calculations, select the Run command from the Run menu. If there are
any error checking messages, correct the errors and select Run again. The
RunOptions dialog is available for specifying options for when the simulator is
running. See “Run Options” on page 69.
After clicking the Run menu item, a Simulation Data window will be displayed
and the menu bar will change to reflect that the simulation is running. To stop the
simulation, choose Stop! from the menu bar. Once the calculations are finished, the
menu bar will return to normal. Due to the nature of the MNpv calculations, if the
simulator is stopped before the calculations are finished, none of the calculated data
will be saved.
The MNpv plots are grouped into different categories as described below. Only
plots from the same categories may be viewed at the same time. The plots contain
the results of the last simulation. It is important to note that changing an input
parameter does not affect a plot until the simulation has been run again.
Plot Categories
The plots in MNpv are grouped into different categories, each of which are accessi-
ble with the Plot menu. The Fracture Characteristics, Cumulative Production, Net
Cumulative Production, and Yearly Average Flow Rate categories have plots that
use MProd output data. Each category is summarized below:
Cumulative Production: These plots include the cumulative production and the
productivity ratio versus time or propped length.
Net Cumulative Production: These plots are for net cumulative production.
Yearly Average Flow Rate: These plots are of various flow rates versus time or
propped length.
Treatment Cost & NPV: These plots include the treatment cost versus propped
length plot and NPV; and DROI plots versus time or propped length.
Partner Share Treatment Cost & NPV: These plots are similar to those above.
Viewing Plots
The plots in MNpv are divided into categories that can be accessed by different
commands in the Plot menu. The specific plots that are available will be directly
controlled by the options selected for the last run simulation.
To View a Plot:
1. Select Plot from the main menu. The Plot menu appears listing the available
plot groups.
2. Choose from the list of groups. The associated group selection dialog appears
(see Figure 6.12). Groups that are unavailable due to the options selected will
appear dimmed. To obtain these plots you must activate the option and then re-
run the simulation.
3. Select the desired plots by clicking the adjacent check boxes. Chose the
Select All button to view all the plots for the group. To disable a plot, click off
the check box or use the Clear All button.
4. Once the desired selections have been made, click OK to view the plots.
Viewing a Report
To see the results of a simulation select View Report from the Report menu.
Treatment Cost
This table gives the proppant cost, the fluid cost, the total job cost and the share of
the job cost indexed by the propped length of the fracture.
6.7 Units
The Units dialog box (Figure 6.13) works the same as the other Meyer Unit dialog
boxes as described in Chapter 1. However, there is an option to specify the currency
name and currency symbol.
MFast
Analytical 2D Fracture Simulator
7.1 Introduction
MFast is an analytical two-dimensional hydraulic fracturing simulator for design-
ing 2D fractures. The simulator illustrates the importance of various parameters and
provides a fast first order solution to fracture geometry, net pressure, fracture effi-
ciency and treatment design. This simulator provides the capability to compare the
fracture geometries for Geerstma-deKlerk (GDK), Perkins-Kern (PKN) and ellip-
soidal type two dimensional models. Since MFast was developed from analytical
solutions it has the inherent limitations of steady state injection, constant mechani-
cal properties, time independent fluid rheology and single layer properties.
The governing equations of mass, momentum and energy conservation used in the
development of MFast are presented in full detail by Meyer1-4. Numerous coeffi-
cients are implemented from analytical relationships based on the limiting solutions
of numerical results obtained from MFrac.
MFast is a great tool for beginners to understand the parametric effects of the vari-
ous input data and their importance in fracturing. MFast is also a useful tool for the
more experienced user in providing a fast first order analysis and in performing
parametric studies based on field data. Utilizing this program to perform simple net
pressure history matching will provide a first order estimate of the fracture geome-
try, correct geometry model to use, fracture efficiency and proppant mass for a
specified inlet concentration.
An outline of the basic steps for using MFast is shown in Table 7.1.
Menu
The MFast menu bar is shown in Figure 7.1. Generally, the menus are accessed
from left to right as shown in Figure 7.1.
7.2 Data
This Data menu describes the various data options and input data required for
MFast. The Data options are shown in Figure 7.2. A complete description of the
required input data is presented in this section.
Options
To access the Options screen, select the DataOptions menu. The dialog box dis-
played in Figure 7.3 will then be presented.
The Options screen allows the user flexibility on which features to include for a
particular type of fracture design analysis. The specific data displayed in the base
data screen varies depending on the options selected. The selections made in the
Options screen set the scope for data used in MFast.
The Options provide choices for the fracture geometry model and constitutive rela-
tionships that affect the fracture solution methodology (Figure 7.3).
Input
This option determines whether the simulations will be based on specifying a fluid
(slurry) volume or entering the desired fracture length. If volume is selected, the
slurry volume is input and the fracture length will be calculated. If the fracture
length radio button is selected, the volume to create a fracture of this dimension
will be calculated.
f D = 24 Re
2
where Re is the Reynolds number ( Re = w and dp dx = – 1 2 f D w )
Deviations from laminar flow effect the frictional dissipation in the fracture and
therefore the fracture pressure predicted by a model. Turbulent flow in the fracture
may also occur when very low viscosity fluids (e.g., gas) at high rates are pumped.
To account for these phenomena and improve the ability to predict non-laminar
frictional pressure loss in a fracture, the following friction factor expression is used
when the Fracture Friction Model is turned On:
a
f D = --------b-
Re
Irregularities along the fracture face (e.g., tortuosity, bifuraction and wall rough-
ness) that interrupt and disturb fluid flow can also result in greater energy dissipa-
tion. These effects can be modeled by increasing the a coefficient or modifying the
wall roughness factor as discussed below.
Typical values for the a and b coefficients have been developed empirically in
accordance with Prandtl's Universal Law of the Wall5 as shown in Table 7.2.
Wall Roughness
When Wall Roughness is turned off (not checked), the Darcy friction factor inside
the fracture is used without modification as determined from the selections made in
the Fracture Friction Model option. This selection assumes that the fracture sur-
face is a smooth planar feature without roughness.
To include the effects of roughness (or waviness) on the frictional dissipation, turn
this option on. This will result in an increase in the frictional pressure drop and
fracture width, as well as, a decrease in fracture length. If this option is used, the
friction factor defined in the Fracture Friction Model option will be modified using
a Friction Factor Multiplier. The relationship used is defined in the expression
shown below:
= M f
fD f D
where
fD = modified Darcy friction factor
fD = Darcy friction factor
Mf = friction factor multiplier
Tip Effects
The observed field pressures for some treatments are at times much higher than the
simulated pressure. This discrepancy in measured pressure can be minimized in a
number of ways. Typically, the friction factor multiplier, fracture toughness, near
wellbore effects, confining stress or rock/reservoir properties are modified to obtain
a match. However, if the pressure discrepancy is due to excess pressure, an over-
pressure function can be applied at the tip. In MFast, excess pressure can be applied
using two mechanisms: 1) Fracture Toughness, and 2) Tip Over-pressure.
Tip effects, in general, remain an area of some controversy and considerable discus-
sion. Plausible explanations for these effects have been proposed. The possibilities
include tip friction due to flow resistance, rock properties effects (e.g., toughness as
a function of stress at the leading edge or poroelasticity), or it may be a conse-
quence of fracture geometry (e.g., complex geometry and/or multiple fractures).
In MFast, tip effects represent a flow resistance at the tip. Regardless of whether
you believe this flow resistance is due to viscosity effects or some other phenomena
related to the tip region (e.g., tip geometry) the general effect on pressure is typi-
cally the same (i.e., resistance is resistance). It is important to note, however, that
this type of resistance differs from fracture toughness in its classical application;
over-pressure varies with injection rate and time, fracture toughness does not.
The range of the over-pressure factor allowed by MFast is between 0 and 1.0. If
this option is disabled, a default value of zero is used. Usually, the Tip Effect option
is suggested when the measured injection pressures are well above the theoretical
values predicted by a classical model (i.e., Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics).
When reasonable values have been implemented for wall roughness, friction factor
multiplier, toughness and other formation properties, a value between 0.1 to 0.4
may be justifiable. The larger the over-pressure factor the greater the increase in
the net pressure. If you are having difficulty relating the over-pressure factor to
pressure, one approach is to use MinFrac to automatically regress on the tip factor
to determine an appropriate value. This best fit value from matching the net pres-
sure in a minifrac analysis is a good place to start.
Many engineers mistake near wellbore pressure loss for excess net pressure. Keep
in mind that when the injection rate changes suddenly, the near wellbore pressure
loss also changes instantly whereas the fracture net pressure cannot because of stor-
age (i.e., if the rate drops suddenly and the BHTP follows, this is not excess pres-
sure but frictional dissipation in the near wellbore region).
Figure 7.5: Fracture Tip Width Reduction due to Non-Linear Elastic Effects.
Proppant Type
A proppant type must be selected from the drop down list box. The proppant type is
used to determine the amount of proppant which can be placed in fracture without
screening-out the fracture. The physical properties of each proppant type included
in the list box are contained in an internal database.
Description
The Data Description screen shown in Figure 7.6 provides a location for entering
descriptive information about the specific analysis being performed.
Base Data
The MFast Base Data dialog box shown in Figure 7.7 provides the information
necessary to describe the rock properties, fluid rheology and fracture parameters.
Each of these data items are discussed below.
Young's Modulus
Young`s modulus or the modulus of elasticity is the slope (or derivative) of a stress-
strain curve over the elastic portion of the curve. For linear-elastic deformation,
Young’s modulus is a constant with a unique value for a particular material and in-
situ conditions. The modulus represents the materials ability to resist deformation
under load. It is therefore a measure of the materials stiffness. As the stiffness (E)
of the rock increases, the fracture width will decrease and the length will increase
for a given set of input parameters. See Appendix A for more information regarding
the sensitivity of this parameter.
A range of Young’s modulus values for various rock types is given in Table 7.3.
Fracture Toughness
The definition of fracture toughness is obtained from the concept of stress intensity
factor, developed in linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM). Fracture toughness
is a measure of a material’s resistance to fracture propagation. It is proportional to
the amount of energy that can be absorbed by the material before propagation
occurs. The basis for this relationship involves the assumption that pre-existing
defects exist and induce high stress concentrations in their vicinity. These sites
become points for crack initiation and propagation. See the MFrac chapter for more
information.
If a c represents the area of the “largest” defect, it can be shown that the tensile
strength, T , of the rock can be approximated by
T = K IC a c
In hydraulic fractures, propagation is assumed to occur once the stress intensity fac-
tor reaches a critical value. This critical value, related to the propagation resistance
(or energy balance) is assumed to be a material property and is given the name frac-
ture toughness (or critical stress intensity factor). For a crack in the vicinity of a
uniform stress field, , the stress intensity is
K I = H
c = K IC H
Table 7.4 lists some measured values of fracture toughness. The values shown were
reported by van Eekelen9. Thiercelin10 reviewed the testing procedures for deter-
mining this parameter in his article, “Fracture Toughness and Hydraulic Fractur-
ing.”
Setting the values of fracture toughness to zero will result in the classical hydraulic
fracturing propagation solutions dominated by viscous pressure loss. For very low
viscosity fluids, fracture toughness may be the dominant parameter controlling
fracture growth.
Poisson’s Ratio
Poisson’s ratio is defined as the ratio of the transverse strain to the axial strain
resulting from an applied stress (see Figure 7.8).
The theoretical value for Poisson’s ratio is 1/4 for any isotropic body with strains
below the proportional (elastic) limit. For strains beyond the proportional limit, the
ratio increases and approaches the limiting plastic value of 1/2.
Typical Poisson's ratios for rock formations are 0.25. From parametric studies,
Poisson's ratio affects the fracture propagation characteristics to a very minor
extent. Therefore, if in doubt, use 0.25.
Poisson’s ratio
Lateral strain
Poisson’s ratio
Longitudinal strain
w 0
w
l
l
0
w w l l
w 0l 0
Poisson's ratio is also used by logging companies to infer in-situ stresses. This
method assumes the rock behaves elastically and that the tectonic stresses are
known or insignificant. The typical relationship is
Hmin = ------------ v – p 0 + p 0 + T
1–
where
Injection Rate
The injection rate is the total constant slurry injection rate for a two wing fracture.
n
w = k
where is the wall shear rate, w is the wall shear stress, k is the consistency
index, and n is the flow behavior index (dimensionless).
Consistency Index k
See the explanation of the flow behavior index above.
are: CI - fracture fluid leak-off viscosity and relative permeability effect; CII - reser-
voir fluid viscosity-compressibility effects; and CIII - wall-building effects.
The total leak-off coefficient is one of the most important parameters in determin-
ing the fluid efficiency and therefore the fracture geometry. Fluid loss is only
assumed to occur over the pay zone height.
V sp = 2AS p
where S p is the spurt loss coefficient and A is the leakoff area in the pay zone.
7.3 Output
The Calculations menu is shown in Figure 7.9. There are two main Output section
items, simulation results and viewing the report. There is also an option to display
2D Plots of the calculations.
Run
The calculations are accessible from the RunShow Calculations menu. This will
run the simulation for all the models using the Input Data. A summary of the simu-
lation results are displayed for the GDK, PKN and Ellipsoidal models as shown in
Figure 7.9.
Figure 7.9: Calculations for the GDK, PKN and Ellipsoidal 2D fracture
propagation models.
Plot
The MFast Plot dialog box is shown in Figure 7.10. It allows the user to select
which plots to display, and whether or not the plots are displayed versus time or
volume.
Reports
MFast can generate reports similar to the other Meyer Programs. Figure 7.11 shows
a typical MFast Report which includes a summary of the input data and calculated
results.
7.4 References
1. Meyer, B. R.: “Frac model in 3-D - 4 Parts,” Oil and Gas Journal, June 17,
July 1, July 22 and July 29, 1985.
2. Meyer, B. R.: “Design Formulae for 2-D and 3-D Vertical Hydraulic Fractures:
Model Comparison and Parametric Studies,” paper SPE 15240 presented at the
SPE Unconventional Gas Technology Symposium, Louisville, KY, May. 18-
21, 1986.
7. Huit, J.K.: “Fluid Flow in Simulated Fractures,” AIChE Journal, Vol. 2, p 259.
1956.
8. Louis, C.: “Etude des écoulements d'eau dans les roches fissurées et leurs
influence sur la stabilité des massifs rocheux,” Bull. de la Direction des Etudes
et Recherches, Series A, No. 3, p. 5-132, 1968.
10. Thiercelin, M.: “Fracture Toughness and Hydraulic Fracturing,” Int. J. Rock
Mech. & Geomechanics, vol 26, No3/4, pp 177-183, 1989.
MPwri
Produced Water ReInjection -
Fracturing Simulator
8.1 Introduction
This chapter is a User’s Guide for the three-dimensional (3-D) hydraulic fracturing
waterflood simulator MPwri. This simulator has many of the same features as
MFrac with the exception of proppant transport, acid, foam etc. Options are avail-
able for various fluid loss models, inclusion of thermal- and poro-elastic stresses
behaviors. Additional options are available for inputting internal and external frac-
ture skins and cakes. The solution methodology for our Produced Water Reinjection
(PWRI) hydraulic fracturing simulator is formulated in the Appendices. A sum-
mary of the governing water and thermal front equations, thermal- and poro-elastic
stresses and fluid loss equations are also provided.
MPwri is a highly specialized simulator for predicting the pressure and geometry of
hydraulic fractures associated with waterflooding1,2. The program was specifically
designed for evaluating the effects of injecting large fluid volumes over long peri-
ods and for fracture efficiencies approaching zero.
MPwri has options for conventional (1D Carter type leakoff) and ellipsoidal (2D)
fluid loss. At early times, fluid loss from the fracture is generally diffusion con-
trolled or 1D, but at large times the fluid loss is governed by ellipsoidal and pseu-
dosteady-state leakoff. The reservoir coupling with ellipsoidal fluid loss has a
marked effect on fracture geometry for high permeability large injection volumes
compared to 1D leakoff. Boundary conditions for the reservoir drainage area
include, closed system, constant pressure boundary condition and pseudo-steady
state behavior.
Options are available in MPwri to modified the vertical layer and lateral stresses to
account for thermal and poro-elastic effects.
Only features unique to MPwri will be presented in this chapter. Please refer to the
MFrac Chapter for a complete description of the fracture input data. An outline of
the basic steps for using MPwri is shown in Table 8.1.
Menu
The MPwri menu bar is shown in Figure 8.1. Generally, the menus are accessed
from left to right with the exception of the Units and Database menus.
A description of each of the menu items is described in the MFrac chapter. The
items unique to MPwri are described in the following sections:
• Treatment Schedule
The data sections are in the same order as in the MFrac Chapter for ease of refer-
ence.
8.2 Options
To access the Data Options screen, select Options from the Data menu by clicking
the menu name. The dialog box displayed in Figure 8.2 will then be presented.
The Data Options screen determines what information is needed for a particular
type of analysis. The specific data displayed in a screen or the existence of a data
screen itself varies depending on the options selected. The selections made in the
Data Options screen set the scope for all data entered in the MPwri program. These
options establish the input data required and specify the nature of the calculations to
be performed.
Figure 8.2 shows the data screen speed buttons at the top of the dialog box. All data
screens in MPwri now contain these speed buttons to make it easier to go from one
data screen to another without pressing OK or Cancel. Selecting a speed button has
the same effect as pressing OK when exiting a dialog.
General Options
The General Options screen allows the user to specify the type of analysis to be per-
formed. Figure 8.2 shows the MPwri General Options screen. The Filtration Law
and Thermal Stress options are features unique to MPwri.
Reservoir Coupling
This option provides control and flexibility for the fluid loss mechanisms. Conven-
tional is the standard diffusion type fluid loss model as used in MFrac. The Steady-
State option is useful for long injection times when the leakoff rate is no longer
controlled by diffusion but rather by steady-state injection and production.
Linear (Conventional)
The Linear or Conventional option is the standard type of fluid loss mechanism
where the rate of fluid loss to the formation is governed by the total leakoff coeffi-
cient C. This is referred to as diffusion type leakoff because the fluid loss mecha-
nism is diffusion controlled. See the MFrac chapter for additional information on
the conventional leakoff mechanisms.
This option should only be used if the leakoff distance perpendicular to the fracture
is much less than the fracture length
Ellipsoidal (Koning)
This option should be used for long periods of produced water reinjection or water-
flood injection. This model assumes an ellipsoidal (2D) fluid loss model based on
the work of Koning. Three reservoir boundary conditions are available for ellipsoi-
dal fluid loss: 1) Closed system - no flow boundaries, 2) Constant pressure
boundary condition (b.c.) at the initial reservoir pressure, and 3) Pseudo-Steady
State - where the average reservoir pressure is maintained at the initial reservoir
pressure. The pseudo-steady state solution is based on the assumption that the res-
ervoir is in a pseudosteady-state mode of injection and production. That is, the pro-
duction rate is equal to the injection rate resulting in a pseudo-steady state pressure
behavior of the reservoir.
Although the closed system, constant pressure b.c. and steady-state fluid loss are
not diffusion controlled at long injection periods, the leakoff velocity at early times
At large dimensionless times, the resulting leakoff velocity for the constant pres-
sure b.c. and steady-state behavior approaches an asymptotic value. This results in
a constant leakoff velocity since as time increases the fracture length asymptotes to
a constant value.
When the Ellipsoidal law is specified, either the Harmonic or Dynamic Fluid Loss
Model must be chosen. The Constant fluid loss option will be dimmed.
The governing equations for the ellipsoidal fluid loss model are given in
Appendix J.
Normally, the fluid injected is cooler than the reservoir temperature which for large
injection times and volumes, will result in a lowering of the minimum horizontal
stresses in zones that have fluid leakoff (if only thermal stresses are included). This
results is a lower BHTP and more contained fracture. If the thermal front is ahead
of the fracture leading edge, the modified minimum horizontal stresses due to ther-
mal effects are seen by the fracture.
However, if poro-elastic stresses are included this will increase the minimum hori-
zontal stress in layers with large leakoff volumes. Consequently, when thermal
stresses are included one should also include poro-elastic effects.
If you exclude thermal and poro-elastic stresses, they can in some special cases
(under pseudo-steady conditions when the thermal front is well ahead of the frac-
ture) be modelled using modified stresses in layers where thermal and poro-elastic
stresses become time independent.
Fluid Temperature
The fracture fluid temperature is specified in this dialog box. There is no option for
heat transfer in the wellbore or fracture because of the long injection periods that
result in the fluid temperature in the wellbore and fracture being equal to the injec-
tion temperature.
The thermal and water fronts are calculated based on the rate of creation of energy
and mass. The fluid ahead of the thermal front is assumed to be at the reservoir tem-
perature and the fluid behind the thermal front is at the fluid temperature specified
in this dialog box.
The injection fluid temperature is also used to calculate the induced thermoelastic
stresses.
If the Reservoir coupling is selected as linear, the rate of fluid loss to the formation
is governed by the total leakoff coefficient C. The three types of flow resistance
mechanisms making up C are: 1) CI - leakoff viscosity and relative permeability
effects, 2) CII - reservoir viscosity and compressibility effects, and 3) CIII - wall
building effects.
This option determines which fluid leakoff model is used. The fluid loss model
options include specifying the total leakoff coefficient (Constant Model) or the CIII
coefficient and the corresponding components which comprise CI and CII (Har-
monic or Dynamic Models). A detailed description of the components characteriz-
ing the Harmonic and Dynamic models is given in Appendix D and J and in the
Fluid Loss Data section of this chapter.
Constant
If Constant is selected, the total leakoff coefficient, C, is entered in the Fluid Loss
Data screen. The total leakoff and spurt loss coefficients are then input as a function
of depth to characterize fluid loss in the fracture at different intervals.
Dynamic Model
For the Harmonic model, the three additional options available are: 1) Input Filter
Cake, 2) Input Fracture Skin, and 3) Calculate Fracture Skin.
If Input Filter Cake is selected, the wall building coefficient must be input in the
table. If the Input Fracture Skin option is selected, the user will be asked to input an
Internal Skin and External Skin for each layer. If the Calculate Fracture skin option
is selected, the user must enter the particulate properties given in the Cake Proper-
ties dialog.
Fracture Options
This group of options is accessed by clicking the Fracture tab found on the Data
Options screen. The Fracture Options provide choices for the fracture geometry
model and constitutive relationships that affect the fracture solution methodology.
Figure 8.3 shows the Fracture Option choices.
Treatment Schedule
The input Treatment Design schedule for waterflood applications is given below.
Two tabs are listed under Treatment Schedule, the General tab and the Stages tab.
General Tab
The General tab for the Waterflood Treatment Schedule is shown in Figure 8.4.
The General tab contains dialog boxes for Schedule Type and Wellbore.
Schedule Type
In the Schedule Type dialog box, select Surface or Bottomhole to specify whether
the data entered (e.g., volumes, rates, etc.) represent surface or bottomhole condi-
tions. If pumping from Surface, specify a Wellbore Fluid Type. If pumping from
Bottomhole, specify the Flush Fluid Type.
Select Stage Friction Multipliers to enter friction multipliers for each stage.
Select Stage Recirculation to allow the selection of stages, whose rate will be used
to recirculate the fluid that is at bottomhole out of the wellbore.
Wellbore
The wellbore dialog box is related to the initial condition of the wellbore.
Along with the Wellbore Volume displayed from the wellbore hydraulics screen,
you can specify a Recirculation Volume. You can also specify whether the well is
filled or partially filled prior to injection. To indicate a partially filled wellbore,
enter a fraction (0-1) in the Fraction of Well Filled box. A value of one (1) indi-
cates the wellbore is 100% filled. A value of 0.5 means that the well is 50% filled.
If the Stage Friction Multiplier box is selected the Wellbore Fluid Friction Multi-
plier can be specified.
Stage Tab
The Stage tab for the Waterflood Treatment Schedule is shown in Figure 8.5. This
type of treatment schedule uses a spreadsheet type of interface as shown. Use the
toolbar located at the top of the screen to control functions such as cut, paste, copy,
insert, delete and fill down (see “Working with Spreadsheets and Dialogs” on
page 23). When pumping from Bottomhole, it is necessary to specify the Flush
Fluid Type. This is selected in the same way as the Wellbore Fluid Type as
described above. For reference, the Wellbore Fluid Type (surface) or Flush Fluid
Type (bottomhole) and Wellbore Volume are displayed.
To aid in defining the Treatment Schedule, the last column of the table has a Vari-
able Column list box, which displays either the Total Time or Total Volume
injected.
When the Stage Recirculation option is selected on the General tab, the Recircu-
late column will appear in the table to allow the selection of stages, whose rate will
be used to recirculate the fluid that is at bottomhole out of the wellbore. For bot-
tomhole schedules, the selected stage is the one that is recirculated out of the well-
bore. For surface schedules, it is the fluid that is bottomhole, while the selected
stage is injected at the surface, that is recirculated out of the wellbore.
When the option to calculate fracture skin is enabled in the General Options, col-
umns for particulate concentrations will appear in the table for the total suspended
solids (TSS) and oil-in-water (OIW) concentrations for each stage.
Thermal/Poro-elastic Stresses
The Thermal/Poro-elastic Stress Properties dialog box provides a table for entering
the Coefficient of Thermal Expansion, and formation Layer Temperature (only if
thermal stresses are included), and Biot’s constant (only if poro-elastic stresses are
included) as a function of depth. Figure 8.6 shows the dialog layout when both the
thermal and poro-elastic stress options are selected.
Ahead of the thermal front, the stresses are equal to the initial formation stresses
plus any poro-elastic effects. Behind the thermal front (and toward the wellbore),
the modified stresses as a result of thermal and poro-elastic effects are seen by the
fracture system.
Therefore, if the injection temperature is less than the reservoir temperature the
thermoelastic stresses will be negative.
The Thermal/Poro-elastic Stress data must be input after the Rock Properties
data.
Zone Depth
The zone depth is the TVD at the bottom of the zone. This data is taken from the
Rock Properties dialog box. This depth can only be changed in the Rock Properties
dialog.
Initial Stress
The Initial Stress is the stress value input as a function of depth in the Rock Proper-
ties dialog. This value can only be changed in the Rock Properties dialog.
Layer Temperature
This is the formation layer temperature. The temperature difference for thermal
stresses is calculated from T = T i – T f where T i is the injection temperature and
T f is the formation layer temperature.
Biot’s Constant
The change in the minimum horizontal stress is related to the change in the pore
pressure by Biot’s Constant, where 0 1 . The general form of the poro-elas-
tic equation (see Appendix J) is
1 – 2
3 = --------------- f k p f a 1 b 1 h
p 1–
where the Perkins factor, f a 1 b 1 h , is used to account for the magnitude of the
ellipsoidal pressure extent around the fracture.
Injected Fluid
The injected fluid represents the properties (thermal conductivity, heat capacity,
specific gravity, etc.) of the fracturing fluid. For waterflood applications, the user
should specify Water. The internal database associated with the injected fluid is
used in the calculation of the thermal front.
Reservoir Lithology
The Reservoir Lithology represents the primary rock type in the region to be frac-
tured.
In-situ Fluid
The In-situ Fluid is the formation fluid that occupies the pores. Typically, this fluid
is oil.
elastic and poro-elastic effects being simulated over a greater height. This results in
a smaller thermoelastic coefficient for small fluid penetration in the minor axis. The
minimum reservoir height input prevents the thermoelastic coefficient from being
unity for small laminated reservoir intervals with a small minor axis where the
minor axis to thickness ratio is large.
Reservoir Half-Length
The Reservoir Half-Length is used in the dimensionless pressure solution for fluid
leakoff. If the reservoir is of infinite extent simply put in a very large value. The
drainage half-length/area is only used if the Reservoir Coupling option is set to
Ellipsoidal. The reservoir is assumed to be a square.
Drainage Area
The Drainage Area, A , is used in the dimensionless pressure solution for fluid leak-
off. If the reservoir is of infinite extent simply put in a very large value. The drain-
age half-length/area is only used if the Reservoir Coupling option is set to
Ellipsoidal.
It is not necessary for these depths to correspond directly to the depths specified in
the Rock Properties screen, although they may. A maximum of 1000 layers is per-
mitted in both the Rock Properties and Fluid Loss data screens.
Please refer to Appendix D for a detailed description of the individual leakoff coef-
ficients which control fluid loss.
However, the reservoir porosity and fluid saturations are required to calculate the
water and thermal fronts. The mobile porosity is also displayed (non-editable) as
calculated from
m = 1 – S or – S iw
where S or is the residual oil saturation, and S iw is the irreducible water saturation.
Figure 8.8: Fluid Loss Data Dialog Box - Constant Fluid Loss Model.
The specific data required by the program when using a Constant Fluid Loss Coef-
ficient Model is as follows:
Zones
An optional zone name can be specified for each layer to help organize the fluid
loss data properties table.
Depth at Bottom
The TVD depth at the bottom of the zone (Depth at Bottom) is the next entry. By
convention, this is the true vertical depth (TVD) at the bottom of each zone or layer.
By convention, the depth entered is the true vertical depth TVD at the bottom of
the interval. The reservoir parameters are assumed to have constant properties
over this interval.
Total Porosity
The total reservoir porosity is the fraction of a rock’s bulk volume that is filled with
hydrocarbons, water, and gas.
Hydrocarbon Saturation
The hydrocarbon saturation is the fraction of the total porosity initially filled with
oil or gas.
Mobile Porosity
The mobile or equivalent reservoir porosity is the fraction of a rock’s bulk volume
that is filled with mobile hydrocarbons. This porosity is calculated from
m = 1 – S or – S iw and is not editable. The mobile porosity is used to calculate
the CI and CII leakoff coefficients used to simulate fluid loss during injection. This
value is also used to determine the extent of the water front (see Appendix J).
= C t–
where t is time and is the initial time of fluid leakoff. The total fluid loss volume
to the formation is
t A
Vl = 2 v dA dt
0 0
= CA t
where is a fluid loss parameter and A is the total leakoff area (one face) for both
wings. This equation illustrates that the fluid loss volume is proportional to the
leakoff coefficient and leakoff area product.
For multi-layer leakoff, spurt loss is calculated in each layer separately. Please refer
to Appendix D for additional information.
If Input Filter Cake is selected, the wall building coefficient must be input in the
table. If the Input Fracture Skin option is selected, the user will be asked to input an
Internal Skin and External Skin for each layer. If the Calculate Fracture skin option
is selected, the user must enter the particulate properties given in the Cake Proper-
ties dialog.
Figure 8.9 illustrates the input parameters when the internal and external skin are
input.
The parameters required for this option are described below. These properties, like
the Rock Properties, are input as a function of the TVD depth. Also like the Rock
Properties, an optional Zone name is permitted to assist in preparing and organizing
the data.
A detailed description of the Linear and Ellipsoidal fluid loss models are given in
Appendix J.
The specific data required for the Dynamic Fluid Loss Model for the various
options is as follows:
Zone
An optional zone name can be specified for each layer to help organize the rock
properties table.
Depth at Bottom
The TVD depth at the bottom of the zone (Depth at Bottom) is the next entry. By
convention, this is the true vertical depth (TVD) at the bottom of each zone or layer.
Reservoir Pressure
The reservoir or pore pressure is used in conjunction with the minimum horizontal
stress and fracture pressure to calculate the differential pressure for leakoff. The
leakoff pressure differential is
p loss = p f – p 0 = p f + Hmin – p 0
where
The pressure difference between the minimum horizontal stress and average pore
pressure is, therefore, a critical component in calculating the CI and CII leakoff
coefficients.
For new wells, enter the initial reservoir pore pressure for the productive interval.
This value is typically obtained from either a production log or well test. Variations
in pore pressure versus depth can be inferred and entered based on gradient mea-
surements and/or the fluid saturation changes within the interval (e.g., gas caps,
aquifers, etc.).
When a well has been produced for some period of time, enter the average reservoir
pressure as interpreted from a well test. In all cases, the value entered should be less
than the minimum horizontal stress.
Total Compressibility
The total reservoir compressibility is defined as the total change in the reservoir
volume per unit volume per unit pressure difference. It is the reciprocal of the un-
drained bulk modulus and is typically expressed as follows:
ct = So co + Sw cw + Sg cg + cr
where
cg = gas compressibility
co = oil compressibility
cr = bulk rock compressibility
ct = total formation compressibility
cw = water compressibility
Sg = gas saturation
So = oil saturation
Sw = water saturation
The compressibility is used to relate the permeability and porosity with pressure
and time using the expression
2
p k p
= ----------- 2
t c t
z
where
k = formation permeability
ct = total formation compressibility
= formation porosity
= reservoir fluid viscosity
z = distance
p = pressure
t = time
Permeability
The reservoir permeability is the formation property that characterizes its ability to
transfer a fluid through the pores when subjected to a pressure gradient. From
Darcy's law
k dp
q = – ---
dx
where
Total Porosity
The total reservoir porosity is the fraction of a rock’s bulk volume that is filled with
hydrocarbons, water, and gas.
Hydrocarbon Saturation
The hydrocarbon saturation is the fraction of the total porosity initially filled with
oil or gas.
placed by the water. This factor is directly related to the irreducible or residual oil
saturation (i.e., Oil Displacement Factor = 1- irreducible oil saturation).
Mobile Porosity
The mobile or equivalent reservoir porosity is the fraction of a rock’s bulk volume
that is filled with mobile hydrocarbons. This porosity is calculated from
m = 1 – S or – S iw and is not editable. The mobile porosity is used to calculate
the CI and CII leakoff coefficients used to simulate fluid loss during injection. This
value is also used to determine the extent of the water front (see Appendix J).
Reservoir Viscosity
The equivalent reservoir viscosity is the total effective viscosity of a multi-phase
fluid system at reservoir conditions. This value is used in calculating the CII leakoff
coefficient for modeling leakoff resistance due to the viscosity and compressibility
effects of the in-situ fluids.
Filtrate Viscosity
The filtrate viscosity is the effective leakoff viscosity of the fracturing fluid. This is
the fracturing fluid which leaks off through the fracture face. This viscosity has
been reduced from its original state due to the deposition of polymer on the fracture
face which forms a filter cake. This parameter is used to calculate the CI coefficient
for modeling viscosity and relative permeability effects caused by fracturing fluid
leakoff to the formation.
The effective fluid leakoff viscosity must also account for the relative permeability
effect of the leakoff fluid to that of the reservoir fluid. This is especially important
for a gas reservoir. The effective leakoff viscosity, e , in terms of the fluid leakoff
viscosity and relative permeability is
e = f kr
where f is the true fluid leakoff viscosity and k r is the relative permeability of the
leakoff to the reservoir fluid.
The wall building or filter cake coefficient is equivalent to the inverse of the frac-
turing fluid leakoff resistance. A value of zero (0) represents an infinite filter cake
resistance, whereas, a CIII value approaching infinity (e.g., >100 ft/min½) repre-
sents no wall building. This coefficient is used in calculating the total leakoff coef-
ficient C. It reduces the fluid loss rate by increasing the resistance due to leakoff at
the fracture face.
k ks – 1
1 x=0
sf = ----------------- -----------------------------------------
internal 2 Lt
The effective external skin based on the filter cake thickness at the wellbore from
Appendix J is
1 c t k
sf = --------------- ------------ --------------
external 2 L t k c c
The reader is referred to Appendix J for a detailed outline of the governing equa-
tions for ellipsoidal skin factors. the nomenclature is also presented in Appendix J.
For multi-layer leakoff, spurt loss is calculated in each layer separately. Refer to
Appendix D additional information.
time dependent fluid loss is to be modeled, simply check the ‘Enable Time Depen-
dent Fluid Loss’ check box as shown in Figure 8.10.
This feature allows you to increase or decrease the fluid loss multiplier as a func-
tion of time. This is helpful for modeling leakoff in naturally fractured reservoirs.
While fracturing a naturally fractured formation, the pressure in the fracture may
approach the critical pressure. When the critical pressure of the formation is
reached, natural fractures open and accelerated leakoff occurs. A zero slope on the
Nolte plot may characterize this period of accelerated leakoff.
Cake Properties
The internal and external cake properties screen shown in Figure 8.11 is available
when the Fluid Loss Model is set to Calculate Fracture Skin within the Data
Options screen. The three sections of the cake properties screen are described
below.
Model
The parameters on the cake properties screen are associated with a damage model.
Damage models are stored within the damage model database. To edit an existing
damage model, or to create a new damage model entry, select the Damage Model
DB button. Code and Description identify the damage model associated with the
current case.
Internal Deposition
The internal deposition input data allows for specifying the fraction of mobile and
deposition particulates. The fraction of particulates that are deposited internally and
externally for the DDM may also be specified. The FDM (Filtration Damage
Model) allows for non-deposition of particulates but once the external cake starts to
build the internal deposition stops as discussed in Appendix J.
Particulate Deposition
The fraction of total suspended solids (TSS) or oil/water injected into the formation
that are not included in the cake building process are defined to be Non-Deposi-
tion/Mobile.
Deposition Distribution
If the Displacement Damage Model (DDM) is selected, a deposition distribution is
required for both the internal and external cake. If the Filtration Damage Model
(FDM) is selected from the database the deposition distribution options are
dimmed.
External Deposition
The external deposition options are discussed below.
Cake Deposition
The fraction of external cake deposition on the fracture face and at the fracture tip
can be specified using the options of Face, Tip, or User Specified. If Face is spec-
ified the filter cake will build on the walls. If erosion of the filter cake takes place
(which may occur depending on the damage model database selected) the eroded
cake will be deposited at the tip. If Tip is specified all the cake will only be depos-
ited at the tip and no wall building will occur. If User Specified is selected, the user
can specify the fraction of TSS and OIW that are wall building with the remaining
fraction being deposited at the tip. The fraction of external cake at the wall or tip
can range from zero to unity.
To start the simulation, select the Run command from the Run menu. All open
Simulation Data windows and plots will be updated to show the current state of the
simulation. See “Run Options” on page 69 for information about the available run
options.
Waterflooding Plots
Figure 8.12 illustrates the water and thermal front profiles, and the fracture length
at the end of pumping. This plot only displays the zone with the greatest fluid loss
volume The minor to major axis aspect ratio is illustrated in Figure 8.13.
The thermal, water and fracture major fronts as a function of time are shown in Fig-
ure 8.14.
Figure 8.16: Volume Loss versus Depth - Two Limited Entry Fractures
Any damage model record contained in the User Database can be edited by select-
ing the record and clicking the Edit button or by double-clicking on the record. A
new blank record can be created with the Add button.
When either the Add button or the Edit button is used to create or edit a damage
model, the screen shown in Figure 8.29 appears permitting the data to be entered,
viewed or modified. For a new damage model, a blank screen is presented provid-
ing a template for the entry of data.
Saturation Model
The internal cake concentration and saturation distribution in the formation is
expressed in the following form
S D = S S * = f z
Table 8.2 lists a number of general relationships used in MPwri for the DDM and
FDM models where a is a user specified constant.
Table 8.2: Internal Saturation Distribution Functions
Correlation Model Dimensionless Saturation Average Dimensionless
DDM or FDM Saturation
SD = S S * SD = S S*
a
v DDM SD = 1 – SD = a 1 + a
Permeability Model
The internal permeability damage in the formation is expressed in the following
form
k D = k s k = f S D V V p
Table 8.3 lists a number of general relationships used in MPwri for the internal per-
meability damage for both the DDM and FDM models.
I DDM or FDM kD = a
1
IIi DDM or FDM k D = -------------------
1 + bS Da
Va DDM k D = a + b exp – V c d
Vb DDM k D = a + b exp – V p c d
Cake Porosity
This is the external cake porosity, c , of the filter cake. The greater the porosity the
faster the filter cake builds for a given concentration and fluid loss volume per unit
area.
1 – cs
V = c t ------------------ 1 – c
max cs
c
max
Rs = ---------------
max kc
Typically one assumes that the maximum filter cake thickness (one face) should be
less than 1/2 the fracture width. However, if filter cake embedment/compaction
occurs or if one assumes that the filter cake is outside the fracture control volume,
the filter cake thickness may be greater than the fracture half-width. The filter cake
thickness does not necessarily have to have a physical meaning with respect to the
fracture width but rather as a calculated parameter for mass conservation and a
mechanism for fluid leakoff resistance based on the user input cake properties.
c
min
Rs = --------------
min kc
c t V t
A more general form of this equation for non-linear building of the filter cake is
g
c t V t
where g is the cake build coefficient. For a linear build rate, g is equal to unity.
The filter cake grows at a faster rate for smaller build coefficients. If g 0 , the
filter cake will instantly grow to the maximum value and if g » 1 , the filter cake
will not grow until the volume loss is near the maximum value. Theoretically the
cake build coefficient should be near unity. See Appendix J for additional informa-
tion of the build coefficient.
V e
e = max – min ----------
V
e
where e is erosion rate power coefficient and the change in volume loss per unit
area after reaching the maximum filter cake thickness is
and V t max is the volume loss per unit area when the filter cake reached it’s
last maximum value.
c t = max – e
or
e
max – c t V
The erosion coefficient controls the erosion rate over the time or volume to erode.
If e is set to unity the filter cake erosion will be linear with the volume loss per
unit area. If e 0 , the filter cake will erode instantly and then remain at the
minimum value until the change in erosion volume is met. If e » 1 , the filter
cake thickness will remain at nearly the maximum value until the change in erosion
volume, V e , is obtained.
d d V b
= = -----------
d V e d V b V e
where the volume loss per unit area to build the filter cake form min to max is
V b = V max
– V min
and V e is the volume loss per unit area required to erode the filter cake from
max to min .
The larger the erosion rate ratio the less time it takes to erode the filter cake from
the maximum to the minimum thickness. If the time to erode the filter cake is the
same as the build ratio then should be set to unity. If the erosion process is very
fast then 1 or » 1
8.7 References
1. Morales, R.H., Abou-Sayed, A.S., Jones, A.H. and Al-Saffar, A.: “Detection of
a Formation Fracture in a Waterflooding Experiment,” Journal of Petroleum
Technology, October 1986, 1113-1121.
2. Detienne, J-L, Creusot, M., Kessler, N., Sahuquet, B., and Bergerot, J-L:
“Thermally Induced Fractures: A Field Proven Analytical Model,” SPE 30777,
October 1996.
MFrac-Lite
Three Dimensional Hydraulic
Fracturing Simulator - Lite Version
9.1 Introduction
MFrac-Lite is a three-dimensional hydraulic fracturing simulator similar to MFrac
but with a limited number of MFrac features and capabilities (i.e., a lite version).
This simplified three-dimensional simulator provides ease of use with less input
data and fewer options to choose from for applications which do not require some
of the advanced features in MFrac.
MFrac-Lite uses the same numerical routines as MFrac but without some of the
more advanced and user specified options. MFrac-Lite has similar real-time capa-
bilities as MFrac and is designed to be compatible with like features in MFrac.
MFrac-Lite can open *.mfrac files. Upon importing the MFrac data will be pro-
cessed to produce a compatible three-layer single layer fracture (not limited entry)
MFrac-Lite file (*.mfrac-lite). This MFrac file should be saved with the *.mfrac-lite
extension. MFrac can also open MFrac-Lite files which are fully compatible but
should be saved as a *.mfrac file. This simulator is designed for those who do not
need the full functionality of MFrac.
A summary of the major MFrac-Lite and MFrac feature comparisons are shown in
Table 9.1.
Since MFrac-Lite is a subset of MFrac, the MFrac chapter should be referred to for
a specific description of a given feature or data input parameter.
A detailed list of the MFrac-Lite features and differences between MFrac-Lite and
MFrac is provided.
General Options
To access the Options screen, select Options from the Data menu by clicking the
menu name. The dialog box displayed in Figure 9.1 will then be presented.
The Options screen determines what information is needed for a particular type of
analysis.
1. Reservoir Coupling. MFrac has options for Linear and Ellipsoidal. The
default in MFrac-Lite is Linear only.
2. Fluid Loss Model. MFrac-Lite does not support Fluid Type Dependent or the
option to Include Fluid Loss History.
Fracture Options
This group of options is accessed by clicking the Fracture tab found on the Data
Options screen. The Fracture Options provide choices for the fracture geometry
model and constitutive relationships that affect the fracture solution methodology
(see Figure 9.2). The choices are as follows:
Proppant Options
This group of options is accessed by clicking the Proppant tab found on the Data
Options screen. The proppant options specify the proppant transport methodology
to be employed. Figure 9.3 illustrates the proppant options available.
As illustrated, options for Proppant Flowback and Perforation Erosion are not
supported in MFrac-Lite.
Only Data menus that are different than the MFrac Data menus will be covered in
this section. The reader is referred to the MFrac chapter for Data Input menus not
covered in this chapter that are common to both simulators.
Zones
The Zones dialog box is used to specify the number and location of the perforated
intervals and corresponding Zone Data (Figure 9.4). Only one perforated interval
can be specified. Limited entry type fractures are not supported in MFrac-Lite.
Zone Data
Perforations
Figure 9.5 shows the Perforation tab screen. Perforation erosion is not supported in
MFrac-Lite.
Rock Properties
The Rock Properties dialog box provides a table for entering the mechanical prop-
erties of the reservoir and adjacent lithologies including in-situ stresses as a func-
tion of depth (see Figure 9.6).
MFrac-Lite does support an option to insert rock properties from our rock proper-
ties database (Insert from Database) but DOES NOT support an option to import
mechanical rock properties (Import Log) data as does MFrac.
MFrac-Lite only supports three fluid loss zones whereas MFrac supports up to a
maximum of one thousand (1000) layers. The specific data required by the program
depends on which fluid loss model is specified in the General Options Dialog.
MFrac-Lite only supports Constant, Harmonic or Dynamic Fluid loss.
Figure 9.7: Fluid Loss Data Dialog Box - Constant Fluid Loss Model.
The specific data required by the program when using a Constant Fluid Loss Coef-
ficient Model is discussed in the MFrac chapter.
MFrac-Lite only supports three layers while MFrac supports up to one thousand.
Figure 9.8: Fluid Loss Data Dialog Box - Harmonic/Dynamic Fluid Loss
Model.
See MFrac “Fluid Loss Data” on page 182 for more information.
MWell
A Wellbore Hydraulics Simulator
10.1 Introduction
MWell is a wellbore hydraulics simulator for calculating surface or bottomhole
pressures, gravitational head, restrictions, transport times and hydraulic power
requirements in the wellbore. Near wellbore and perforation pressure losses are
also calculated to determine the bottomhole treating pressure in the formation.
MWell was designed for real-time analysis to calculate BHTP’s, from surface con-
ditions but can also be used as a design tool for determining wellbore pressure char-
acteristics prior to performing the treatment. MWell is essentially a subset of the
MFrac simulator without the fracture simulation. MWell however does provide the
capability to simulate time dependent formation pressures with a user specified
table for inputting the minimum horizontal stress and a time dependent net pressure
(pressure above or below the reference minimum stress). If the formation is not
fractured the reference pressure should be the reservoir pressure.
MWell is structured in a manor similar to MFrac and uses the same databases. The
data files *.mwell and *.mfrac or *.mfrac-lite are compatible in that the common
data is shared.
This chapter covers the available menu options and basic procedures required to
run MWell.
An outline of the basic steps for using MWell is shown in Table 10.1.
Menu
The MWell menu bar is shown in Figure 10.1. Generally, the menus are accessed
from left to right with the exception of the Units and Database menus.
File - Chapter 10
• Wellbore Hydraulics
• Zones
10.2 Options
The Options screen is the first input dialog box under the Data menu in MWell. It is
used to establish the primary model options in the program. Each option relates to a
specific aspect of the fracture and proppant/acid modeling approach.
To access the Options screen, select Options from the Data menu by clicking the
menu name. The dialog box displayed in Figure 10.2 will then be presented.
The Options screen determines what information is needed for a particular type of
analysis. The specific data displayed in a screen or the existence of a data screen
itself varies depending on the options selected. This “smart-menu” approach, mini-
mizes data input and prevents unnecessary or misleading data entry. Simply decide
the relevant options for a specific simulation and the program will only display
those menus and input fields necessary. Any time the options are changed the input
data screens will be updated to enable new input or hide data that is not needed.
This hierarchy methodology is used throughout MWell.
The selections made in the Data Options screen set the scope for all data entered
into the MWell program. These options establish the input data required and specify
the nature of the calculations to be performed.
To select an option, click the radio button adjacent to the option preference. A black
diamond will then appear in the center of the button selected. Continuing, select a
radio button within the next option section or use the TAB button to move sequen-
tially through the choices. Once within a section, the current selection for that
option is highlighted with a dotted rectangle. The option choice may be changed by
using either the mouse or the arrow keys.
General Options
The General Options screen allows the user to specify the type of analysis to be per-
formed. The choices available for each of the General Options are summarized as
follows:
Simulation Method
Design Mode
This option is used for determining the pressure losses, hydrostatic head, perfora-
tion friction, wellbore pressures etc. for a specific design. The program flexibility
allows for running in standard mode based on a given input treatment schedule.
Depending on other options specified, the program uses the formation and treat-
ment data to calculate surface and bottomhole pressures. Design Mode refers to the
fact that the design engineer must design (and optimize) the fracture treatment
schedule.
Replay/Real-Time
The Replay/Real-Time option is required for replaying or performing real-time
fracture analysis using the data collected during a treatment. This procedure
requires the use of MView as the real-time or replay data handler. Please refer to
Chapter 3 for instructions on the use of MView.
With respect to MWell, there is essentially no difference in the procedures used for
performing real-time or replay simulations. The difference between these methods
only involves the source data input which is handled by MView.
Real-Time
The Real-Time options are only available if the Replay/Real-Time radio button is
clicked On in the Simulation Method dialog. If MView Concentration is selected
the proppant concentration will be taken from the replay/real-time data as sent to
MFrac from MView. If the Input Concentration button is selected the proppant
concentration used by MWell will be taken from the values specified in the Treat-
ment Schedule. Generally, the MView Concentration is desirable unless the actual
proppant concentration injected is not available.
The Synchronize Well Solution radio button is used to synchronize the numeri-
cally calculated time steps for wellbore events with the replay/real-time data.
Synchronizing the wellbore solution with the incoming real-time or replay data
enables for very refined calculations of the wellbore and near-wellbore frictional
pressure losses.
Treatment Type
This selection determines the type of fracture treatment. The Treatment Type can
be either a propped (Proppant) or acid (Acid) fracture. In addition, the treatment
can accommodate an optional foam schedule by checking the Foam box. When
Foam is checked, MWell will include compressibility effects. Since Mwell uses the
same treatment type as MFrac, the reader is referred to the MFrac chapter for more
detailed information not duplicated below
In MWell, either the pumping schedule can be input manually or determined auto-
matically. When Auto Design is chosen, the desired design fracture length or total
slurry volume is input in the treatment schedule dialog box. Depending on the
Proppant Transport Methodology selected, specific criteria for controlling the
proppant scheduling will also be required.
None
When this option is selected, wellbore hydraulics calculations are still performed;
however, the frictional pressure loss is assumed to be zero. The wellbore hydraulics
output data is also not displayed or written to file.
Empirical
The Empirical option is an internal correlation for calculating the frictional pres-
sure loss of Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids. This option provides a combined
correlation that is applicable for a variety of fluids ranging from linear systems to
highly non-Newtonian and viscoelastic fluids that exhibit drag reduction due to slip
or shear thinning during turbulent flow. Three distinct types of behavior are possi-
ble with the combined correlation used in MWell. These behaviors are illustrated in
Figure 10.3 and summarized in the explicit expressions for the Fanning friction fac-
tor outlined in Table 10.2
When a value for the Relative Pipe Roughness is entered into one of the Wellbore
Hydraulics dialog boxes, the expression for friction factor based on Prandtl’s “Uni-
versal” Law is modified. See Appendix E for additional information.
To include the effects of proppant concentration on friction, the program has a built
in correlation for slurry rheology. The relationship used, originally described by
Keck, et al., is also presented in Appendix E.
User Database
When User Database is selected, the information specified in the fluid database is
used for calculating the frictional pressure loss in the tubing, annulus, and casing.
This data can be edited and plotted by accessing the database. The information in
the database does not represent proppant-laden fluid. Consequently, if the proppant
concentration wellbore option is selected in the proppant option screen, the friction
factor will be adjusted for proppant concentration in a manner similar to the method
described in Appendix E for the Empirical option.
Wellbore Solution
These options provide control and flexibility for the time dependent discretization
methodology used in the program. To enable time step size control for capturing
various time dependent events, the user can specify the number of wellbore solu-
tion Iterations and the Maximum Time Step. For Replay/Real-Time analysis, the
data Restart Time can also be specified.
The base time step used for discretization in the numerical simulation will be the
minimum of the values calculated from either the number of Iterations or Max
Time Step input.
Iterations
The value for the number of Iterations determines the target number of time steps
to be used for the fracture propagation solution. The total or estimated simulation
time is then divided by the number of iterations to determine the time step size.
For example, if the number of iterations is 100 and the pump time is 100 minutes,
the average time step would be one (1) minute. The actual time step may vary
depending on other numerical considerations. For most simulations, a value of 20
to 30 iterations is sufficient.
Generally, the number of iterations is most effectively used in design mode. For
Replay/Real-Time, the Max Time Step constraint may be more applicable.
The number of time steps should be increased for cases with order-of-magnitude
changes in the injection rate or fluid rheology properties (e.g., pad/acid). It should
also be increased when the injection times are very large (e.g., years as in water
flooding). The maximum time step can also be specified to minimize the time step.
The larger this value is, the longer the program will take to run.
The Real-Time option of synchronizing the wellbore solution to the input data
enables time refinement for wellbore and near-wellbore pressure losses. This is
very useful for history matching pressure changes due to rate. This provides the
capability to accurately model wellbore friction.
Restart Time
The Restart Time is used to start or restart a simulation at a time other than the first
entry point in the data file for real-time or replay simulations. This option is nor-
mally used when earlier data is not relevant or multiple injection cycles (i.e., mini-
frac) are pumped and only the later time cycle data (i.e., main frac) is to be
analyzed. Consequently, this option provides the flexibility to restart a simulation at
the beginning or middle of any injection cycle. Enter the time in the replay/real-
time data at which the simulation should begin.
Fluid Temperature
This is the wellbore Fluid Temperature. The fluid rheological properties are then
calculated from the Fluid Database as a function of time based on this temperature.
Proppant Options
This group of options is accessed by clicking the Proppant tab found on the Data
Options screen. Figure 10.4 illustrates the proppant options available. These
options are discussed below.
Proppant Ramp
The ramp option controls the ability to ramp the proppant concentration between a
specified range. When this option is On, the concentration of proppant will be
ramped linearly from an initial value (From) to a final (To) value for each fluid
stage in the Treatment Schedule dialog box. This results in a linear proppant ramp
with liquid volume.
When this option is turned Off, a uniform proppant concentration is assumed for
each stage. The Treatment Schedule screen will then permit only one entry value
for concentration.
Wellbore-Proppant Effects
This option controls the methodology used to simulate the effects of proppant con-
centration on pipe friction. The options are as follows:
None
For this selection, proppant has no effect on the friction factors used in the wellbore
hydraulics calculations.
Empirical
This option includes the effects of proppant concentration on pipe friction as origi-
nally described by Keck, et al.2 This correlation uses an expression for relative
slurry viscosity to account for the effects of proppant on increased friction. The
relationship is shown below:
– 1 – n 1000 1.25 2
r = 1 + 0.75 e
1.5n
– 1 e -------------------
1 – 1.5
where
For laminar flow, the friction factor multiplier, M, for proppant-laden fluids is equal
to the value of r . For proppant-laden fluids in turbulent flow, the expression
shown below is used to estimate the effect of proppant on friction:
M f = r0.55 r0.45
and
fs = Mf fb
where
User Specified
For some slurry systems, adequate characterization of the frictional dissipation is
not possible with the empirical correlation contained in MWell. If this occurs, the
friction factor multiplier as a function of proppant concentration can be specified in
tabular form.
Only Data menus that are different than the MFrac Data menus will be covered in
this section. The reader is referred to the MFrac chapter for Data Input menus not
covered in this chapter that are common to both simulators.
Wellbore Hydraulics
MWell offers an integrated wellbore hydraulics module that couples the fracture or
formation with the wellbore to provide additional simulation capability. An energy
balance approach is used to calculate the pressure changes due to potential energy,
kinetic energy, frictional dissipation and restrictions in the wellbore.
This general solution permits calculations of surface pressure, BHP in the wellbore,
Frac-Pack screen pressure drop, hydrostatic head, frictional loss and hydraulic
power requirements for a treatment design. The flexibility of the model provides
the capability to history match measured pressures during real-time or replay treat-
ment analysis.
Since the MWell and MFrac wellbore hydraulics dialog’s are identical, the reader
is referred to the MFrac chapter section on Wellbore Hydraulics for a detailed
description of the required input data and features.
Zones
The Zones dialog box is used to specify the number and location of the perforated
intervals and corresponding Zone Data (Figure 10.5). Only one perforated interval
can be specified.
The type of data required to define an interval depends on whether the well and/or
the fracture is horizontal or vertical. A well is assumed to be a “vertical well”
unless the Horizontal check box in the General Wellbore Hydraulics screen is
checked.
Zone Name
To assist in keeping track of the data depth intervals, an optional Zone name can be
entered in the second column of the table. This name is only used to help organize
the input and output data.
If a horizontal well is specified in the General Wellbore Hydraulics screen, the cen-
ter of the perforated measured depth (Center of Perfs MD) is input and the true
vertical center of the perforated depth (Center of Perfs TVD) is calculated. The
Center of Perfs TVD is dimmed and cannot be edited.
Zone Data
After entering the Zones perforated depth information, open the Zone Data screen
for each interval by clicking the Edit button found in the far right column. The
Zones Data screen shown in Figure 10.6 has tabs for Perforations, Near Wellbore,
and Fracture Pressure.
Perforations
Figure 10.6 shows the perforation tab screen. The perforation data requirements are
discussed below.
To include the near wellbore pressure drop as a function of time, fill in the spread-
sheet located on the right side of the Zone Data screen. Up to fifty rows can be
specified to define the near wellbore pressure drop as a function of time and rate.
Import RT Button
When performing real-time or replay analysis using MView, MWell automatically
records “significant rate and pressure changes” and generates a near wellbore pres-
sure loss relationship. After running the acquired data through MWell, open the
Zone Data dialog box and choose the Import RT Button. The program will then
load the corresponding data file to fill in the Near Wellbore Pressure Table. If no
significant rate/BHTP changes were encountered or if the data was not run through
MWell, a message like the one shown in Figure 10.8 will be displayed.
The imported near wellbore pressure table includes the total near wellbore pressure
loss. This table can be manually changed to incorporate small rate/pressure changes
not considered significant or indeterminate by MWell.
Once a Near Wellbore Pressure Table has been created, choose how it will be
applied by clicking one of the radio buttons located below the spreadsheet. The
options are: to ignore the table completely, use the pressure drop as the total near
wellbore effects (including perforations), or to add the resulting effects to the calcu-
lated perforation pressure losses (near well effects only).
The program performs a linear interpolation between successive data points for
K t (where p t = K t Q t ). If the job duration is longer than the maximum
time entered in the table, the last (final) K t value will be used.
The time dependent bottomhole formation or fracture pressure ( BHFP ) can either
be input as function of time and the net pressure or delta pressure ( p ) above the
reference minimum horizontal stress ( ) for a fractured system calculated or the
delta pressure can be calculated based on a given BHFP . The general formulation
for the bottomhole formation or fracture pressure is
BHFP = + p t
If the formation is not fractured the minimum stress reference is the reservoir pres-
sure and the delta pressure (negative for production and positive for injection) is the
deviant form this value.
Minimum Stress
This is the minimum horizontal stress ( ) in the formation for a hydraulically frac-
tured system. If the formation is not fractured during injection, the minimum stress
represents the reservoir pressure.
Delta Pressure
The Delta Pressure ( p ) or net pressure is the pressure above (positive) or below
(negative) the reference Minimum Stress.
BHFP
The bottomhole formation or fracture pressure ( BHFP ) is the pressure in the for-
mation or fracture. The bottomhole treating pressure is then calculated by adding
the near wellbore and perforation pressure loss to this value.
MShale
A Three Dimensional Discrete Fracture
Network Simulator
11.1 Introduction
MShale is a Discrete Fracture Network (DFN) simulator designed for simulating
three-dimensional (x-z, y-z, and x-y planes) hydraulic fracture propagation in dis-
crete fracture networks. MShale accounts for the coupled parameters affecting frac-
ture propagation (and proppant transport) in multiple planes. MShale is not a fully
3-D model. It is however formulated between a pseudo-3D and full 3-D type model
with an applicable half-length to half-height aspect ratio greater than about 1/3
(Meyer15). MShale also has options for 2-D type fracture models.
The solution methodology for our discrete fracture network hydraulic fracturing
simulator is formulated in Appendix M. The fundamental first-order mass, continu-
ity, and momentum conservation equations for DFN are provided in detail.
The majority of the menu options and basic procedures required to run MShale are
discussed in the MFrac Chapter. The only input dialog unique to MShale is the
Zones Data dialog which will be presented in this chapter. Please refer to the MFrac
Chapter for a complete description of the other fracture input data.
Please refer to the Meyer Appendices and listed references for specific details
regarding the governing equations, modeling techniques, methodology and numeri-
cal procedures. Example files are provided with the software to demonstrate some
of the MShale features, utility and general data entry procedures.
An outline of the basic steps for using MShale is shown in Table 11.1.
The type of data required to define an interval depends on whether the well and/or
the fracture is horizontal or vertical. A well is assumed to be a “vertical well”
unless the Horizontal check box in the General Wellbore Hydraulics screen is
checked.
Active
Any zone that is defined in the program can be enabled or disabled for use in simu-
lation of multilayer fractures by double-clicking the left column to display or clear
a check mark. A zone is Active when the check mark is displayed. Each Active
zone represents the possibility of creating a multilayer fracture in that zone. If only
one zone is active, the fracture will initiate in that zone.
Zone Name
To assist in keeping track of the data depth intervals, an optional Zone name can be
entered in the second column of the table. This name is only used to help organize
the input and output data.
Perfs TVD, Bottom of Perfs TVD) or measured depths (i.e., Top of Perfs MD, Bot-
tom of Perfs MD).
If a horizontal well is specified in the General Wellbore Hydraulics screen, the cen-
ter of the perforated measured depth (Center of Perfs MD) is input and the true ver-
tical center of the perforated depth (Center of Perfs TVD) is calculated. The Center
of Perfs TVD is dimmed and cannot be edited. This same convention is used when
the Horizontal Ellipsoidal fracture model is specified, even if the well is vertical.
When either the Vertical Ellipsoidal or 3-D geometry options are used in combina-
tion with a horizontal well, it is also necessary to enter the TVD for the top and bot-
tom of fracture initiation.
When any of the two-dimensional fracture geometry models are chosen from the
General Options screen, additional columns of data are required. For the PKN or
GDK models, the Zones spreadsheet will contain two additional columns. In these
columns you must enter the top true vertical depth of the fracture (2-D Top of Frac
TVD) and the bottom true vertical depth of the fracture (2-D Bottom of Frac TVD).
This data is used to characterize the total gross height of the fracture. If an Ellipsoi-
dal fracture geometry model is chosen, the Ellipsoidal Aspect Ratio must also be
specified. This is the ratio of the major and minor ellipse axes (i.e., the ratio of the
total length (tip to tip) to the total height of the fracture (2L/H)).
Zone Data
After entering the Zones perforated depth information, open the Zone Data screen
for each interval by clicking the Edit button found in the far right column. The
Zones Data screen shown in Figure 11.2 has tabs for Perforations, Pay Zone,
Fracture Network Options, and Near Wellbore. A feature to include perforation
erosion is also available. To activate the perforation erosion folder you must have
Perforation Erosion selected to User Specified in the Proppant Option Dialog
(see Figure 11.2).
Figure 11.2 shows a dimmed perforation erosion table illustrating that Perforation
Erosion was selected to None.
Perforations
Figure 11.3 shows the perforation tab screen. Perforation erosion has been set to
User Specified. This activates the screen for inputting perforation erosion data. The
perforation data requirements are discussed below.
Perforation Erosion
The perforation erosion feature is based on the work of Shah12, Cramer17, and El-
Rabaa, Shah, and Lord18. This option allows for perforation erosion during the
treatment.
Limited entry designs require a certain differential pressure across the perforations
to ensure that each zone accepts a proportionate amount of fluid and proppant. Dur-
ing the limited entry treatment, perforations are exposed to a slurry of proppant and
fluid. The effect of the proppant is to increase the discharge coefficient, C D , and
the hydraulic diameter of the perforation ( C D1 / 2 D ). The increase in CD can be
described as a rounding of the perforation.
Figure 11.4 shows the data required to model perforation erosion. To calculate Per-
foration Erosion for limited entry fracturing treatments, select Intercept or Final
Discharge Coefficient from the Perforation Erosion dialog box. When Intercept is
selected, the intercept is calculated. Enter an Initial Discharge Coefficient, Final
Discharge Coefficient, Perforation Erosion Rate, and Critical Proppant Mass.
When Final Discharge Coefficient is chosen enter an Intercept along with the Initial
Discharge Coefficient, Perforation Erosion Rate, and Critical Proppant Mass. The
final discharge coefficient is then calculated.
Typical values for the Perforation Erosion Rate and Critical Proppant Mass are
0.004 in./1000 lbm and 6000 lbm.
To view a plot of the Perforation Erosion correlation, select the Plot icon. Figure
11.5 shows a plot of the hydraulic perforation diameter ( CD1 / 2 D ) and pressure loss
ratio as a function of proppant mass through each perforation. The pressure loss
ratio is the ratio of the perforation pressure loss after proppant has gone through
compared to the base case of no perforation erosion. As the amount of proppant
mass passes through a perforation, the hydraulic diameter increases and the pres-
sure loss ratio decreases. After 6000 lbm of proppant has passed through the perfo-
ration, the pressure loss ratio has dropped to less than 60% of its original value.
Figure 11.5: Hydraulic Diameter (CD1/2D) & Pressure Loss vs. Mass.
The upper and lower dashed lines are the theoretical limits for the initial and final
hydraulic perforation diameters. These limits are based on Initial and Final Dis-
charge Coefficients of 0.60 and 0.83, respectively.
Pay Zone
Figure 11.6 shows the Pay Zone data screen. To determine the fracture conductiv-
ity in a pay zone, a productive interval (pay zone) and average zone permeability
must be assigned. These values are used to determine an integrated (average) con-
ductivity ( k f w f ) and a dimensionless conductivity over the pay interval.
kf wf
F CD = ---------
kr L
L
kf wf = 0 kf x wf x dx L
and for short term production or reduced conductivity near the wellbore the follow-
ing relationship may be more applicable
L 1
k f w f = L ------------------------- dx
0 k f x w f x
where
If the Proppant Transport Plots show a conductive fracture (propped width and
conductivity contours) and the pay zone does not appear on the screen or the
pay zone plots show zero conductivity, it indicates that the fracture is not within
the pay zone.
The Fracture Network Options menu allows the user to specify the type of discrete
fractures to be modeled, their extent, numerical solution methodology, characteris-
tics, interaction, and proppant distribution in the dominant or primary fracture.
Depending on the Fracture Network option chosen different Options and Character-
istic dialogs will be presented.
Fracture Options
The Fracture Options allows the user to specify the type of discrete fractures to be
modeled. The Fracture Options are discussed below:
Multiple Fractures
Multiple fractures refer to fractures in the far field (not near wellbore) which may
or may not be interacting. These fractures may also be parallel or dendritic (tree
like). Multiple fractures are fractures that have the same fracture characteristics.
That is the fracture length, height, and width are the same. Under the Characteris-
tics and Interaction drop down menus the user can specify the number of multiple
fractures, their spacing and degree of interaction in the specific multilayer zone.
This is not the same as multilayer or limited entry fracturing. Figure 11.8 shows the
Fracture Network Options screen for Multiple Fractures.
Cluster Fractures
Cluster fractures, unlike Multiple fractures, allow fractures to propagate in all three
principle planes. Cluster fractures are assumed to be self similar, but can be of finite
extent. Under the Characteristics section, the user can specify the number of frac-
tures, fracture spacing, fracture aperture ratios, and aspect ratio. Figure 11.9 shows
the Fracture Network Options screen for Cluster Fractures.
A discrete fracture network is a set of discrete fractures in the principle planes. Dis-
crete referring to the condition that each fracture has discrete characteristics. If the
User Specified option is selected the users specifies the secondary fracture charac-
teristics relative to the primary fracture under Characteristics. If Deterministic is
specified, the formation properties in the principle planes is input and the code will
calculate the discrete fracture network extent and propagation of secondary frac-
tures. If the confining stress contrast is unknown, select this option (User Specified)
and enter the fracture aperture ratios and propagation aspect ratio in the y-z and x-y
planes within the Characteristics screen. This is convenient if the engineer has an
idea of the network extent.
The deterministic fracture network option requires the user to input the confining
stress contrast in the y-z and x-y planes. The code will then calculate the discrete
fracture network apertures extent and propagation of secondary fractures by solving
a set of mass, momentum, and fracture propagation equations in each plane. If the
confining stress difference in the y-z and x-y planes are unknown, parametric stud-
ies can be used to determine which properties give the best stimulated reservoir vol-
ume based on experience. This a more rigorous solution that requires additional
input in the Characteristics screen.
Infinite
If Infinite is selected, the secondary fractures are assume to have no limiting or
finite extent.
Finite
If Finite is selected, a limiting fracture extent in each plane can be specified in the
Characteristics screen. This will limit the extent of the secondary fractures in the x-
z, y-z, and x-y planes as input by the user.
Continuum Theory
Continuum Theory can best be explained by its definition “Continuum (theory), is
anything that goes through a gradual transition from one condition, to a different
condition, without any abrupt changes or “discontinuities””. This allows for model-
ling of discrete fractures that are randomly spaced with some mean spacing. Conse-
quently if this option is selected the number of newly created discrete fractures will
not increase by an integer but rather gradually from say 2 to 3. Thus the creation of
the secondary fractures are more gradual or continuous. This is analogous to the
movement necessary to climb a stairs. Your feet move horizontal and vertical where
as your body has a more continuous motion.
Continuum theory is also based on a grid system but assumes a gradual intersection
of secondary fractures.
Discontinuous Theory
Discontinuous theory assumes that the fracture propagation process is not continu-
ous and only initiates secondary fractures when the fracture extent (propagation) in
the different planes reaches a secondary fracture at a precise grid location. Thus the
number of created fractures with time is discontinuous.
Characteristics
The fracture characteristics data input screen is dependent on the Fracture Network
Options selected. The discrete fracture characteristics are input for each principle
plane. The minimum horizontal stresses 2 and 3 are in the x and y directions
(axes). The vertical stress 1 is in the z-direction (axis). The primary fracture is
assumed to propagate in the x-z plane which is perpendicular to the minimum hori-
zontal stress 3 and parallel to 2 . Secondary fractures can initiate (depending on
the boundary conditions and rock properties) in each of the three principle planes.
The x-z plane is perpendicular to 3 and parallel to 2 . The fracture aperture or
opening (width) is in the direction of 2 or y axis. The y-z plane is perpendicular
to 2 and parallel to 3 . The fracture aperture or opening (width) in the y-z plane
is in the 3 or x axis direction. The x-y plane is perpendicular to 1 and in the z-
direction. The fracture aperture or opening (width) is in the direction of 1 or z
axis. Fractures in the x-z and y-z planes are vertical and fractures in the x-y plane
are horizontal.
Table 11.2 presents the nomenclature used within the application to describe the
different fractures and axes.
The Characteristic input data will be discussed for each of the Fracture Options.
Multiple Fractures
Figure 11.11 shows the Fracture Network Characteristics screen for Multiple Frac-
tures.
Multiple fractures are assumed to be in the primary or dominant fracture x-z plane.
which is perpendicular to the minimum horizontal stress, 3 . The number of multi-
ple fractures and the fracture spacing are the only required input. The fracture spac-
ing is used in the calculation of the empirical stiffness influence factor and for
plotting.
This is the number of multiple fractures (two wings) to be modeled in a given zone.
The default is a single two wing fracture (Number of Major Vertical Fractures
equal to one).
This is the distance between the multiple fractures in the x-z plane. The closer the
spacing of multiple fractures the greater the fracture interaction factors and degrees
of interaction will be as discussed in Appendix C and Appendix M.
Complex fractures can be in each of the principle planes. The required input data is
the Number of Fractures, the Spacing, Aperture Ratio in each plane and the net-
work fracture Aspect Ratio. The fracture spacing is used for determining the empir-
ical stiffness influence factor and for plotting.
Number of Fractures
The Number of Fractures in the x-y, y-z, and x-z are input. If secondary fractures
can not propagate in a given plane, enter zero. At least one fracture in the x-z plane
must be specified. If only one fracture is specified it is the primary fracture.
Spacing
The spacing or distance of the cluster fractures in the x-y, y-z, and x-z planes are
input. The closer the fractures in any given plane the greater the fracture interaction
factors and degrees of interaction will be as discussed in Appendix C and
Appendix M. Only fractures in the same plane are assumed to interact. Dilatancy at
the interface is ignored.
Maximum Extent
The maximum extent of secondary fractures in the x-y, y-z, and x-z planes is only
required input data if the Fracture Network Extent option of Finite is selected. This
input data allows the user to account for a finite region of natural fractures. The pri-
mary fracture in the x-z plane is not limited by the Maximum Extent.
Aperture Ratio
The Aperture ratio is the ratio of the secondary fracture widths in the various planes
relative to the primary fracture width. The fractures in each plane are assumed to be
identical with each having the same length, height, and width. The primary fracture
extent and width profile however can be different than the secondary fractures in
the x-z plane.
Aspect Ratio
The Aspect Ratio is defined as the fracture network minor (y-z plane) to major axis
(x-z plane) fracture extensions. A fracture network with an aspect ratio of 0.5
describes a fracture network extension in the y-z plane of 1/2 that in the x-z plane.
The aspect ratio has ranges from zero to one. An aspect ratio of zero means no sec-
ondary fractures can open. An aspect ratio of unity implies the secondary and pri-
mary fractures are of equal length at the origin.
The Discrete Fracture Network Characteristics is specified for each of the principle
planes. The required input data is the Dimensionless Well Location, Fracture, Spac-
ing, Maximum Extent, Aperture Ratio in each plane and the network fracture
Aspect Ratio. Secondary fractures do not all propagate simultaneously as Multiple
or Cluster type fracture. Secondary fractures only initiate and begin to propagate
when a fracture propagating in a given plane reaches a fracture grid in the adjacent
plane. That is a fracture in the x-z plane can not initiate unless a fracture in the y-z
plane reaches extents to the next grid location in the x-z plane.
The location of the perforations in the well or origin grid block can be positioned in
space (x, y, z) by the dimensionless well location. The primary fracture in the x-z
plane is oriented with respect to this location. The discrete fractures are assumed to
be located symmetrically about the well grid block center (0,0,0). The location of
the primary fracture relative to the secondary fracture (grid) is specified by the
dimensionless well location with values ranging from -1.0 to 1.0 in each axis.
As an example, if the wellbore is drilled through a natural fracture in the x-z plane,
the dimensionless well location, x Dw y Dw z Dw , in the y-direction can be specified
as either x Dw 1 z Dw or x Dw – 1 z Dw . If the fracture initiates at the intersection
of natural fractures in each plane the dimensionless well location could be specified
as x Dw = – 1 or 1 y Dw = – 1 or 1 z Dw = – 1 or 1 (e.g., 1 – 1 1 . If the primary frac-
ture is located at the center of the natural fracture system the dimensionless well
location would be 0 0 0 . The reader is referred to Appendix M for additional
information regarding the dimensionless well location.
Spacing
The spacing or distance of the discrete fractures in the x-y, y-z, and x-z planes are
input. The closer the fractures in any given plane the greater the fracture interaction
factors and degrees of interaction will be as discussed in Appendix C and Appendix
M. Only fractures in the same plane are assumed to interact. Dilatancy at the inter-
face is ignored.
Maximum Extent
The maximum extent of secondary fractures in the x-y, y-z, and x-z planes is only
required input data if the Fracture Network Extent option of Finite is selected. This
input data allows the user to account for a finite region of natural fractures. The pri-
mary fracture in the x-z plane is not limited by the Maximum Extent.
Aperture Ratios
The Aperture ratio is the ratio of the secondary fracture widths in the each plane rel-
ative to the primary fracture width. This is the maximum plane width ratio. The
fracture aperture is assumed to decrease as an elliptical function of position from
the center of the primary fracture. See Appendix M for addition information regard-
ing aperture as a function of position.
Aspect Ratio
The Aspect Ratio is defined as the fracture network minor (y-z plane) to major axis
(x-z plane) fracture extensions. A fracture network with an aspect ratio of 0.5
describes a fracture network extension in the y-z plane of 1/2 that in the x-z plane.
The aspect ratio has ranges from zero to one. An aspect ratio of zero means no sec-
ondary fractures can open. An aspect ratio of unity implies the secondary and pri-
mary fractures are of equal length at the origin.
The Discrete Fracture Network Characteristics are specified for each of the princi-
ple planes. The required input data is the Dimensionless Well Location, Fracture
Spacing, Maximum Extent, Stress Difference, and in-situ Aperture after initiation.
As above, the secondary fractures do not all propagate simultaneously like the Mul-
tiple or Cluster type fracture. The secondary fractures only initiate and begin to
propagate when a fracture propagating in a given plane reaches a fracture grid in
the adjacent plane. That is a fracture in the x-z plane can not initiate unless a frac-
ture in the y-z plane reaches extents to the next grid location in the x-z plane.
The location of the perforations in the well or origin grid block can be positioned in
space (x, y, z) by the dimensionless well location. The primary fracture in the x-z
plane is oriented with respect to this location. The discrete fractures are assumed to
be located symmetrically about the well grid block center (0,0,0). The location of
the primary fracture relative to the secondary fracture (grid) is specified by the
dimensionless well location with values ranging from -1.0 to 1.0 in each axis.
As an example, if the wellbore is drilled through a natural fracture in the x-z plane,
the dimensionless well location, x Dw y Dw z Dw , in the y-direction can be specified
as either x Dw 1 z Dw or x Dw – 1 z Dw . If the fracture initiates at the intersection
of natural fractures in each plane the dimensionless well location could be specified
as x Dw = – 1 or 1 y Dw = – 1 or 1 z Dw = – 1 or 1 (e.g., 1 – 1 1 . If the primary frac-
ture is located at the center of the natural fracture system the dimensionless well
location would be 0 0 0 . The reader is referred to Appendix M for additional
information regarding the dimensionless well location.
Spacing
The spacing or distance of the discrete fractures in the x-y, y-z, and x-z planes are
input. The closer the fractures in any given plane the greater the fracture interaction
factors and degrees of interaction will be as discussed in Appendix C and Appendix
M. Only fractures in the same plane are assumed to interact. Dilatancy at the inter-
face is ignored.
Maximum Extent
The maximum extent of secondary fractures in the x-y, y-z, and x-z planes is only
required input data if the Fracture Network Extent option of Finite is selected. This
input data allows the user to account for a finite region of natural fractures. The pri-
mary fracture in the x-z plane is not limited by the Maximum Extent.
Stress Difference
The stress differences in the x-y and y-z planes are defined as 13 = 1 – 3 and
13 = 1 – 3 , respectively. The fracture pressure must be greater than 1 to ini-
tiate a horizontal fracture in the x-y plane and greater than 2 to initiate a vertical
fracture in the y-z plane. The stress difference for secondary fractures in the x-z
plane is assumed to be zero (i.e., 33 = 0 ). The fracture aperture is assumed to
decrease as an elliptical function of position from the center of the primary fracture
as a result of pressure dissipation in the different planes. The discrete fracture net-
work aspect ratio is then calculated from the governing mass and momentum equa-
tions controlling fracture propagation as given in Appendix M.
Aperture (in-situ)
An in-situ Aperture is a residual natural fracture width that may exist after a dis-
crete secondary fracture is initiated. The residual or in-situ apertures are natural
fractures that are open under in-situ conditions. Normally, natural fractures are
closed under in-situ conditions.
Interaction
The Interaction dialog for User Specified Fracture Interaction is shown in Figure
11.15. The stiffness and fluid loss interaction of discrete fractures is calculated
based on the input data in this dialog. Stiffness interaction is only assumed to occur
between fractures in the same plane. Fluid loss interaction can occur between
planes. Depending on the Fracture Interaction options various input data fields will
be dimmed.
Depending on the degree of fracture interaction, the fracture net pressure can be
lower for multiple fractures than for a single fracture.
Fracture Interaction
Fracture interaction can be None, Full, User Specified or Empirical. None repre-
sents no stiffness or fluid loss interaction between fractures and Full represents
100% interaction. If User Specified is selected, the User can input the specific lev-
els of interaction for both Stiffness and Fluid Loss. Selecting Empirical allows for
the stiffness interaction to be calculated from an internal correlation and a user
specified fluid loss interaction.
Stiffness interaction occurs when fractures are close enough to be affected by the
stress field from adjacent fractures. The stiffness factor for each plane is defined as
E = N – 1 E
where E is the stiffness or elastic interaction factor and N is the number of paral-
lel fractures in that plane that interact. If E = 0 there is no interaction and the
stiffness factor is zero E = 0 , and for l = 1 the fractures fully interact and the
stiffness factor is, E = N – 1 . A maximum stiffness factor, E , can also be
max
specified such that E E .
max
= E + 1
E = E
h 2 32
ij = 1 – 1 1 + ---------
2d ij
where h is the fracture height and d ij is the distance between parallel fractures i
and j .
N N
E
= ij N
i = 1j = 1
Stiffness Characteristics
This represents the percentage of stiffness interaction between the multiple fracture
system. This parameter can range from 0 to 100%. The interaction values for no
interaction and full interaction are zero and 100%, respectively. The closer the frac-
tures are together, the greater the stiffness. For multiple parallel fractures within a
fraction of their characteristic height, the stiffness increases by a factor equal to the
number of fractures (i.e., full interaction). For tree like (dendritic) fractures the
stiffness interaction may be negligible (no interaction).
If User Specified or Empirical is selected, the Maximum Stiffness Factor for In-
Zone and Multi-Layer can be specified.
This represents the percent of fluid loss interaction between the multiple fracture
system. This parameter can have a value from 0 to 100%. The interaction values for
no interaction and full interaction are zero and 100%, respectively. Depending on
the reservoir properties and vicinity of the fracture system, this value may not be
the same as the degree of the stiffness interaction.
plier would be 0.1. However, if we specified a minimum multiplier of 0.5, the total
leakoff coefficient for each fracture would be multiplied by a factor of 0.5. If a mul-
tiplier of one is input, this would be the same as no interaction.
Proppant Distribution
The proppant distribution allocation is defined as
p = M f M DFN = M f M t
where M f is the proppant mass in the primary fracture and M t is the total proppant
mass injected (or mass in DFN system).
This proppant distribution solution is a methodology for determining fluid loss and
proppant loss (distribution) from the primary or dominant fracture based on fluid
efficiency. That is, even with no fluid leakoff the proppant can screen-out if the sec-
ondary fractures do not allow proppant transport.
The Proppant Distribution dialog is shown in Figure 11.16. Options are available
for Uniform, Dominant, and User Specified distribution.
The Uniform Proppant Distribution option assumes that the proppant can be trans-
ported uniformly (i.e., concentrating only due to fluid loss not flow dispersion in
the secondary fractures or bridging at DFN interfaces.) throughout the fracture net-
work. That is both proppant and fluid are transported into the fracture network from
the dominant fracture as a slurry.
p = M f M DFN V f V DFN
where M f is the proppant mass in the primary fracture and M DFN is the total prop-
pant mass injected (or mass in DFN system). Thus the mass (and volume) of prop-
pant is assumed to be distributed based on network fracture volume.
The Dominant Fracture Proppant Distribution option assumes that all the proppant
remains in the primary fracture and no proppant enters the secondary DFN. Conse-
quently the secondary fractures act primarily as fluid loss conduits from the pri-
mary fracture.
The proppant distribution allocation for all the proppant in the primary or dominant
fracture is
p = M f M DFN = M f M t = 1
where M f is the proppant mass in the primary fracture and M t is the total proppant
mass injected (or mass in DFN system).
The User Specified Proppant Distribution Style allows the user to specify the Mini-
mum Dominant Fracture proppant allocation, p , that remains in the primary
min
fracture with the remaining proppant entering the secondary DFN. Consequently,
the secondary fractures will have a maximum fraction of ( 1 – p ) of the total
min
proppant. If the minimum proppant allocation specified is less than a uniform dis-
tribution by discrete network fracture volumes, the minimum allocation will be set
to the primary fracture to DFN volume ratio. That is
p V f V DFN
min
p = M f M DFN = M f M t
where M f is the proppant mass in the primary fracture and M t is the total proppant
mass injected (or mass in DFN system). The mass in the secondary fractures, M s , is
Ms = Mt – Mf = Mt 1 – p
To include the near wellbore pressure drop as a function of time, fill in the spread-
sheet located on the right side of the Zone Data screen. Up to fifty rows can be
specified to define the near wellbore pressure drop as a function of time and rate.
Import RT Button
When performing real-time or replay analysis using MView, MShale automatically
records “significant rate and pressure changes” and generates a near wellbore pres-
sure loss relationship. After running the acquired data through MShale, open the
Zone Data dialog box and choose the Import RT Button. The program will then
load the corresponding data file to fill in the Near Wellbore Pressure Table. If no
significant rate/BHTP changes were encountered or if the data was not run through
MShale, a message like the one shown in Figure 11.18 will be displayed.
The imported near wellbore pressure table includes the total near wellbore pressure
loss. This table can be manually changed to incorporate small rate/pressure changes
not considered significant or indeterminate by MShale.
Once a Near Wellbore Pressure Table has been created, choose how it will be
applied by clicking one of the radio buttons located below the spreadsheet. The
options are: to ignore the table completely, use the pressure drop as the total near
wellbore effects (including perforations), or to add the resulting effects to the calcu-
lated perforation pressure losses (near well effects only).
The program performs a linear interpolation between successive data points for
K t where p t = K t q t . If the job duration is longer than the maximum time
entered in the table, the last (final) K t value will be used
Note: for limited entry the imported table must be modified to account for the
fractional flow rate going into each fracture.
the midfield region turn and twist, then re-orient in the direction perpendicular to
the principal stress planes. This creates a high fracture pressure that does not dimin-
ish instantly as does the near-well or perforation pressure loss at shut-in. The frac-
ture gradient during pumping can be much larger than the over-burden stress
gradient without creating horizontal fractures in the far-field. The MFC methodol-
ogy is explained in Appendix M.
If you have pressure decline data that exhibits mid-field fracture excess pressure
loss as a function of time, fill in the spreadsheet located on the right side of the
screen. Up to fifty rows can be specified to define the near wellbore pressure drop
as a function of time and rate. The curve fit to this data can be achieved by using a
form of the Arps equation
p t = ISIP – ISIP – f t
where
1
f t = 1 – 1 1 + t – t p
G dP
f = ----------------------- ------- for G G c
ISIP – dG
1 dp –1
The pressure Decline Time Constant ( = ------- ------ ) represents the initial pres-
p dt
sure decline slope. This constant can be obtained by placing a straight line on the
initial pressure decline and extrapolating to an excess pressure of zero. This inter-
section on the time axis represents .
Decline Exponent
1 dp –1
The Build Time Constant (i.e., = ------- ------ ) represents the excess pressure
p dt
build rate. The greater this time constant the longer it will take for the mid-field
fracture complexity to develop. Since the excess fracture pressure normally builds
rather quickly, this time constant should be approximately equal to or less than the
Decline Time Constant.
Build Exponent
A.1 Introduction
This appendix describes the solution methodology for our hydraulic fracturing sim-
ulator. The coupled rock and fluid mechanics equations governing fracture propa-
gation are presented. These non-linear partial differential equations are then
transformed and solved using integral methods.
The hydraulic fracturing simulator accounts for the coupled parameters affecting
fracture propagation and pressure-decline. The major fracture, rock and fluid
mechanics phenomena included are: (1) multilayer unsymmetrical confining stress
contrast, (2) multilayer leakoff, (3) fracture toughness and dilatancy (tip effects),
(4) variable injection rate and time dependent fluid rheology, (5) vertical and lateral
rock deformation, (6) wall roughness and (7) coupled proppant transport, heat
transfer and fracture propagation.
A list of parametric relationships which affect the fracture characteristics and frac-
ture net pressure is also given.
Mass Conservation
The governing mass conservation equation for an incompressible slurry in a frac-
ture is
t
q ( ) d
0
V f ( t ) V l ( t ) V sp ( t ) 0 (A -1)
where
t A C ( A, t )
Vl ( t ) 2 t ( A )
dAdt
0 0
(A-2)
V sp ( t ) 2 S p A ( t )
( A) t A A(t )
a
The above mass conservation equations are solved numerically in MFrac by ele-
mentally descritizing a fracture grid and then integrating over each element.
The above equations for performing minifrac analysis can be simplified for 2-D
type models for fluid loss due to leakoff during and after pumping:
During Pumping
Vl ( t ) C ( t ) A( t ) t ( a c ) (A-3)
After Pumping
Vl ( ) 2C (t p ) A(t p ) t p G ( a c2 , ) (A-4)
where t t p .
Continuity
The mass continuity equation in terms of the flow rate per unit length q = v W is
W
q 2qL 0 (A-5)
t
Momentum Conservation
The momentum equation (equation of motion) for steady flow is
P 1 2 f q 2 w 3 (A-6)
where
f = 24 Re ; laminar flow
f = fR e ; turbulent flow
f is the Darcy friction factor, Re is the Reynolds Number and is the relative wall
roughness.
2 (1 )
W ( x , z , t ) W ( x , y , z , t ) H P ( x ,0 , t ) (A-7)
G
The governing differential equations for fracture propagation are differentiated with
respect to time and then simplified by the transformations
t dL(t ) t dA(t )
L ; a
L(t ) dt A(t ) dt
t dWw (t ) t dHw (t )
w ; H (A-8)
Ww (t ) dt Hw (t ) dt
t dP(t ) t dC (t )
p ; c
P(t ) dt C (t ) dt
1 ( ca 1 2 )(1 ) term
L (A-9)
(1 H (3 n )
1
( n 1)(1 )
where accounts for the time dependent gamma parameters, non-steady injection
rates and fluid rheology, spurt loss, fracture toughness, etc. The fracture efficiency
is given by and H = H L . The geometric factor is equal to unity for the
PKN and 3-D type fracture models and equal to zero for the GDK model. Addi-
tional alpha parameters for 2-D type fractures are also given by Meyer3.
Equation (A-9) and the formulated constitutive relationships control the time
dependent length propagation solution:
L (t )
t (A-10)
L(t ) L(tn )
tn
Table A.1 shows the effect of various parameters on fracture length, width and net
pressure for PKN, GDK and Penny type 2-D fracture models for viscous and tough-
ness dominated fracture propagation. The viscous equations are for laminar flow
with negligible toughness and no spurt loss. The toughness equations are for negli-
gible viscous dissipation. The penny shape model is referred to as the Sneddon
model for toughness controlled propagation.
Parameters with the largest exponents have the greatest influence on the specific
fracture characteristic. Therefore, more emphasis should be put on refining these
critical parameters. A systematic approach is a good method of determining param-
eters which best match the fracture characteristics and response.
The proportionality equations in Table A.1 can be used to refine input data and to
determine parameter sensitivity for 2-D type models. The parameters which affect
net pressure the most are: Young's modulus, fracture height and viscosity for the
PKN model. To match the net pressure in a GDK model only the fluid rheology or
Young's modulus can be varied to get a match assuming negligible toughness. The
net pressures for the GDK and Penny models are shown not to be a function of frac-
ture height.
Table A.1 illustrates that the fracture net pressure decreases with volume (time) for
the GDK and Penny models for both viscous and toughness dominated fractures.
The PKN model is the only 2-D model where the net pressure increases with time
(volume). Replacing the injected volume ( V ) by fracture volume ( V f ) demonstrates
the approximate effect on fluid efficiency.
Table A.1 shows that for fracture propagation controlled by toughness, as tough-
ness increases the net pressure and width increase, and the length decreases. The
fracture characteristics are shown to be only a function of the critical energy release
rate ( G cr = K IC 1 – G ).
Table A.2 summarizes the parametric equations for the total leakoff coefficient
based on satisfying the governing equations of mass and momentum. Since the clo-
sure time for a minifrac analysis is a constant and known, the fracture efficiency
and fluid loss volume ( CA ) are also constant for a specific model. The proportion-
ality relationships given in Table A.1 are for negligible spurt loss.
Table A.2 also shows that the total leakoff coefficient is inversely proportional to
the pay zone height. Changing the fracture height and injection rate has a major
effect on the predicted leakoff coefficient. The penny shape equations assume leak-
off over the entire fracture area.
Table A.3 lists the relationships for the fracture length, width and leakoff coeffi-
cient as a function of net pressure. As illustrated, the leakoff coefficient and width
increase and the length (radius) decreases as the net pressure increases. Table A.3
also demonstrates that if the simulated net pressure is different than the measured
net pressure, a significant error in the leakoff coefficient and fracture characteristics
can occur. Compatibility in net pressure is far more important for mass conserva-
tion than the fracture model used. For the PKN, GDK and Penny shape models the
leakoff coefficient is proportional to net pressure raised to the 1, 1/2 and 2/3 pow-
ers, respectively.
Table A.3 also illustrates the problem with assuming the measured net pressure
applies to all three models. This is evident by the fact that if momentum is satisfied,
each model will predict different values for the net pressure. Therefore, the mini-
frac net pressure results should also be applied to the correct model. The fracture
efficiency is approximately equal for all models, since it is only a function of the
pressure decline slope and closure time (see Appendix F).
Table A.5 lists a qualitative representation of the effect various parameters have on
the fracture geometry for 2-D and 3-D type models. This table is useful in deter-
mining what happens if a given parameter is increased or decreased. Since these
equations do not account for coupled effects and assume no parameter interaction,
they should only be used as general guidelines. Exceptions can be found in non-
homogeneous formations and for treatments with time dependent parameters.
The utility of Table A.1 through Table A.4 is in providing the engineer with a quick
and qualitative method of establishing the effect various parameters have on frac-
ture characteristics without running numerous simulations. For example, Table A.4
illustrates that increasing fracture toughness generally increases fracture width and
net pressure, and decreases height growth. Whereas, increasing dilatancy, viscosity
or wall roughness will tend to increase the fracture width, height and net pressure
(generally), and result in a shorter length.
Generally, many of the parameters listed in Table A.1 through Table A.4 are not
constant but vary with time and space. To accurately model such variations it is
necessary to use a fracture simulator which accounts for these complex interac-
tions. For well contained fractures, a 2-D model will provide acceptable results.
However, for fractures which exhibit height growth the importance of a 3-D model
is realized to correctly simulate height, net pressure and compliance (width).
• Multilayer leakoff.
Table A.5 lists the major elements used in the numerical simulator to calculate the
fracture pressure and pressure decline. They are divided into three sub-groups; res-
ervoir, geomechanical and fracture fluid. Each element has been rated according to
its relative influence on the pressure solution. The engineer is encouraged to make
an effort to obtain the best possible values as the final accuracy of the analysis will
be affected. The items which have received a rating of minor, need only be approx-
imated within a range of 25 percent.
1 1 1
-----------------
----------------- -----------------
EQ – n V 2n + 2 2n + 3 1 – v 2 kQ n V- 2n + 3 E 2n + 2 kQ n V 2n + 3
L ---------------------------------------
- W ------------------- ---------------- P ---------------------------------------------------
-
1 – v 2 kH n + 2 E Hn 1 – v 2 2n + 2 H 3n + 3
1 1 1 -
-------------
----------------- -----------------
EQ – n V 2n + 2 - 2n + 4 1 – v 2 kQ n V- 2n + 4 E n + 1 kQ n n + 2
L --------------------------------------- W ------------------- ---------------- P --------------------------------------
1 – v 2 kH n + 2 E Hn + 2 1 – v2 n + 1Vn
1 2 -
2 – n ---------------- 1 -
-------------
-----------------
EQ – n V 2n + 2 3n + 6 1 – v2 -------------
3n + 6 E n + 1 kQ n n + 2
R --------------------------------
- W ------------------- kQ n V 2 P --------------------------------------
1 – v 2 k E 1 – v2 n + 1Vn
Toughness Dominated
Radial Model GDK Model PKN Model
E V 1 – v2 K IC
L ------------------
- --------------------- W ------------------- K IC H 1 / 2 P ----------
-
1 – v 2 K IC H 3 / 2 E H1 / 2
2
--- 2 V 1- 1---
K IC -- 4
L ------------------
V
E - ------------- 3 1 – v 2 2 ------------ 3 1 – v 2 K IC H 3
W --------------------- - P ------------------- --------------
1 – v 2 K IC H E2 H E V
2
--- 1- 4 1---
--
E - V
L ------------------ --------- 5 1 – v2 4 4
W --------------------- 5 1 – v 2 K IC 5
K IC V P ------------------- ---------
1 – v 2 K IC E4 E V
+ 1-
n-------------
1
-----------------
1 – Q n + 2- H ----------- ------------------
1 / 2 1 – v2
2n + 4
GDK Model C ----------------- ----------------- - K
----------------- H p
n E
V 2n + 4
2n -
1--- ----------------
+ 2
-----------------
1 – Q 2 3n + 6- ------------------ 1 – v 2 - 3n + 6
Radial Model C ----------------- ------------------------- K
2n -
1--- ----------------
– E
V 2 3n + 6
Toughness Dominated
1 – Q 1 / 2- H ----------- ------------------
3 / 2 1 – v2
PKN Model C ------------ ---------- - K IC
V1 / 2 Hp E
2---
GDK Model 1 – Q1 / 2 H2 / 3 1 – v2 3
C ------------ ----------
- ----------- ------------------- K IC
V1 / 6 Hp E
4---
Sneddon Model 1 – Q1 / 2 1 – v2 5
C ------------ ------------
- ------------------- K IC
V 3 / 10 E
V 1 – Q 1 / 2- H ------ P ---------------
2 2 1 – v 2 -
PKN Model
L ----------------------------
- 1–v C ------------ ----------
2 W P -------------- H V1 / 2 Hp E
1 – v 2 E
P -------------- H
E
1 1 1
--- --- ---
1 – - 1 / 2 H 1/2 1 –v 2
Sneddon Model GDK Model
2 2 2 2
V V 1 – v C ----------- Q ----------- P ----------------
L -------------------------------
- W ------- P -------------- 1 / 2 Hp E
2 H E
------------------
1 – v -
P H
E
1
--- 2--- 2---
1--- 1 – Q1 / 2 H2
- ----------- ------ P ---------------
3 2 3 1 – v 2 - 3
V 1–v
3 C -----------
R -------------------------------
- W V P -------------- 2 / 3 V Hp1 / 6 E
2 E
------------------
1 – v -
P H
E
A.5 Nomenclature
A = Leakoff area (one face of the fracture)
E = Young's modulus
H = Fracture half-height
k = Permeability
k = Consistency index
L = Fracture half-length
P = Pressure
t = Time
Vf = Fracture volume
W = Fracture width
z = Vertical Coordinate
Greek
f f = Friction coefficients
= Fracture efficiency
= Dimensionless time,
Subscripts
A.6 References
1. Meyer, B. R.: “Frac model in 3-D - 4 Parts,” Oil and Gas Journal, June 17, July
1, July 22 and July 29, 1985.
2. Meyer, B. R.: “Design Formulae for 2-D and 3-D Vertical Hydraulic Fractures:
Model Comparison and Parametric Studies,” paper SPE 15240 presented at the
SPE Unconventional Gas Technology Symposium, Louisville, KY, May. 18-
21, 1986.
Multilayer Fracturing
B.1 Introduction
Multilayer or limited entry fracturing is a process whereby multiple zones are stim-
ulated simultaneously. The initiation and propagation of multilayer fractures is gov-
erned by conservation of mass and momentum for the system of fractures. This
process is controlled by the limited entry techniques employed which include the
number of perforations, perforation spacing, near wellbore effects, fracture pres-
sures, stresses, etc.
The methodology for limited entry fracturing was first presented by Elbel1 et al.
where an analytical PKN fracture model was linked to an analytical wellbore
model. Elbel developed his formulation based on an analogy of Kirchoff's current
and voltage laws to those of mass and momentum conservation.
Although the solution techniques presented here are similar for solving a non-linear
system of equations, the implementation is not limited by the fracture model, well-
bore restrictions or time dependent dissipation losses. Our formulation is based on
conservation of mass and momentum (formulation based on “Transport
Phenomena2 “).
Mass Conservation
Mass conservation is based on an overall mass balance for fluid flow into the casing
and fracture system:
V n
t
Qin - Q
i=1
i i (B-1)
Eqn. (B-1) states that the rate of mass accumulation in the casing (below the refer-
ence point) is equal to the rate of mass injected into the system minus the sum of
the rates of mass out of the control volume into the individual fracture intervals. For
positive flow Q i is into the fracture and for negative flow (flowback) Q i is out of
the fracture.
Assuming a constant fluid density in the control volume (i.e., same density in the
casing and at the entrance to each fracture layer) Eqn. (B-1) simplifies to
n
Qt = Qi (B-2)
i=1
where
V
Qt = Qin (B-3)
t
Eqn. (B-2) also applies to compressible and changing density slurries with time so
long as the fluid density to each fracture layer is constant for a given time step. Eqn.
(B-3) allows for wellbore storage (filling the wellbore and re-circulation).
Momentum Conservation
This equation is based on an overall momentum balance for fluid flow in the casing
and into the fracture layers. From the steady-state macroscopic mechanical energy
balance2:
3
1 v P2 1
2 v
P1
dp W E v 0 (B-4)
where
v = cross-sectional velocity
= change in potential energy
= mechanical work
)
W
= frictional loss
)
Ev
For fluid flow of a constant density , Eqn. (B-4) simplifies to the “extended” Ber-
noulli's Equation:
P2 v22 P v2
gz2 1 1 gz1 W Ev (B-5)
2 2
where
Ph g ( z2 z1 )
(v 2 v12 )
Pl W E v 2
2
From Eqn. (B-6) for each of the fracture layers (i=1,…,n) we have
i i
P0 Pf ,i PNW ,i P
j 1
l, j P
j 1
h, j
(B -7 )
where
Pf,i i Pf ,i
Ph , j g ( z j z j 1 )
j 1
n n
Pl , j c j Q
j i
j Q ji
j
NW ,i 1
PNW ,i c NW ,i Qi Qi
and c j and j are time dependent energy dissipation coefficients calculated numer-
ically from losses in the casing. This also includes restrictions, velocity head
changes, etc. The terms c NW , i and NW , i are the dissipation coefficients calculated
for the total near wellbore effects (multiple parallel fractures, tortuosity, perforation
losses, etc.).
Non-dimensionalizing Eqns. (B-2) and (B-7), and rewriting in the form of a zero
contour function we have:
i i
f i P0 / 0 Pf ,i PNW ,i
j 1
Pl , j P
j 1
h, j
/
0
(B-8)
Mass Conservation
n
f n +1 = Qt / Q0 - Qi / Q0 (B-9)
i =1
where Q 0 and 0 are normalizing reference values for rate and stress.
The governing equations are non-dimensionalized to ensure that fi and fn+1 are of
the same order. This is extremely beneficial and necessary for solving non-linear
sets of equations. This follows from the statement: “There are no good, general
methods for solving systems of more than one non-linear equation3.”
The general solution methodology utilizes the Newton-Raphson Method for non-
linear system of Equations3.
i
f
f i ( X X ) f i ( X ) i x j ( X 2 ) (B-11)
j 1 x j
By neglecting terms of order X 2 and higher, we obtain a set of linear equations for
the corrections X that move each function closer to zero simultaneously, namely
j 1
ij xj i (B-12)
where
fi
ij ; fi
xj i
where
x i Qi / Q0 , i = 1,..., n
x n+1 P0 / 0
B.4 Nomenclature
= Viscous dissipation term
)
Ev
f = Equations to minimize
g = Gravitational acceleration
j = Interval number
n = Number of layers
P0 = Reference pressure at z 0
Q0 = Reference rate
v = cross-sectional velocity
= mechanical work
)
xi = Variables
z0 = Reference depth
Greek
ij = Matrix coefficients, f i x j
i = Matrix function, – f i
P = Pressure difference
x = Variable correction
0 = Reference pressure/stress
= Density
Superscripts
Subscripts
1 = Reference point 1
2 = Reference point 2
f = Fracture
i = Fracture layer number
j = Interval number
l = Loss
h = Gravitational head
NW = Total near wellbore
perf = Perforations
B.5 References
1. Elbel, J. L., Piggott, A. R., and Mack, M.G.: “Numerical Modeling of Multi-
layer Fracture Treatments,” paper SPE 23982 presented at the 1992 SPE Perm-
ian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, March 18-20,
1992.
Multiple Fractures
C.1 Introduction
Multiple fractures refers to the condition when more than one fracture is created in
the same zone. This is not the same as multilayer or limited entry fracturing which
initiate fractures in different zones. Consequently, multiple zones can create multi-
layer fractures with each having their own system of multiple fractures. Also, mul-
tiple fractures may or may not be parallel to one another.
Near wellbore multiple parallel fractures occur near the wellbore. They have been
referred to as tortuosity (or a result of tortuosity), multiple fractures, initiation frac-
tures non-perpendicular to the minimum horizontal stress, etc. Many times the
cause of “excess Net Pressure” is postulated to be multiple fractures.
Only the far field multiple fractures are modeled as a fracture system in MFrac.
These fractures may propagate parallel to one another or spread out in a dendritic
(tree like or radial) pattern from the wellbore. These multiple far field fractures may
or may not interact.
For completeness, the governing equations for far field and near wellbore multiple
fractures are presented.
Governing Equations
Following are a set of governing momentum, conservation and constitutive equa-
tions to model multiple fractures in the far field (and near wellbore region). These
constitutive relationships have been integrated into our general fracture simulator
MFrac.
Interaction Factors
The governing constitutive relationships for the interaction factors and degree of
interactions used in modeling multiple fractures are given below.
Flow Rate
Qi q QT (C-1)
where
q 1/ N
Stiffness
Ei E E0 (C-2)
where
E ( N 1) E 1
Fluid Loss
Vi VT / N (C-3)
where
VT lV0
l (1 N ) l N
The interaction functions and degrees of interaction are given by and , respec-
tively. The degrees of interaction are the values input into the program. The indi-
vidual fracture properties and parameters are identified by the subscript i . The total
value for N fractures is given by the subscript T .
The degrees of interaction for stiffness and fluid loss are functions of the formation
properties and relative position of the multiple fracture system. For non-interacting
fractures, the degrees of interaction for stiffness and fluid loss are zero. If the
fractures are fully interacting (competing for the same space and leakoff area), the
values are equal to unity.
Momentum Conservation
The generalized momentum equation for N multiple fractures in laminar or turbu-
lent flow is
P 1 / 2 f q / W 3 (C-4)
where
f is the Darcy friction factor, Re is the Reynolds number and q is the flux per unit
length.
Width-Opening Pressure
The crack-opening and opening pressure relationship is
2(1 )
W W H P (C-5)
E G
where
C.3 Discussion
Multiple parallel fractures have been used as a mechanism in the industry to
increase fracture net pressure. The paradox here is: why would mother nature create
multiple far field fractures at an energy level (pressure) that is higher than what a
single fracture requires? This, of course, assumes that multiple fractures always
interact to be at a higher pressure state (which certainly is not always true).
Although multiple fractures surely exist in nature, they are not the norm for general
hydraulic fracturing treatments.
The above set of equations have been fully integrated into MFrac which account for
the coupled effects of stiffness, fluid loss and flow rate interactions.
The net pressure for a single fracture from conservation of mass and momentum
can be expressed in the form:
q
P E E Q (C-6)
Viscous Dominated
2n ' 2 n' 1
1: E , q ' ;
PKN: 2n 3
'
2n 3
2n ' 1 1
0: E ' , q ;
2n 2 2
n' 1
1: E , q 0;
GDK & Penny: n' 2
2n ' 1 n'
0: E ' , q ' ;
2n 2 2n 2
Toughness Dominated
PKN: E 0 , q 0;
GDK: E 1 / 3 , q 1 / 3;
Penny: E 1 / 5 , q 1 / 5;
q (C-7)
PN ( E E ) E ( q Q)
where
E ( N 1) E 1
q 1/ N
PN
p
P (C-8)
E
( N 1) E 1
q
N
The condition for equivalent multiple and single fracture net pressures ( p ) is
N 1
E ( p 1) (C-9)
N 1
where
q / E
Viscous Dominated
PKN: 1: 1 / 2;
n' 1
0: ;
2n ' 1
GDK & Penny: 1: 0;
n'
0: ;
2n ' 2
Toughness Dominated
PKN: 0 , E 0 1
GDK: 1, E 1;
Figure C.1 shows p as a function of the degree of interaction and number of frac-
tures for the PKN model ( = 1 and n = 0.5 ). As illustrated, for interacting frac-
tures the net pressure ratio increases. However, for non-interacting fractures the net
pressure decreases. The required degree of stiffness interaction to maintain the
same net pressure as a single fracture is given by Eqn. (C-9) and represented by a
horizontal line with a value of unity.
Figure C.1: Net Pressure Ratio for Multiple Fractures (PKN Model).
The above analytical analysis can also be extended to include the degree of fluid
loss interaction. This presentation illustrates that multiple fractures do not necessar-
ily always increase fracture net pressure.
Figure C.2 shows a schematic of the near wellbore multiple fracture network. Here
L T is the length, H is the height, and W is the width of each near wellbore fracture
Governing Equations
A set of governing momentum conservation and constitutive equations are pre-
sented to model multiple fractures in the near wellbore region. This formulation is
based on a simplistic analysis to illustrate the general form of dissipation.
Momentum Conservation
The momentum equation for N multiple fractures in the near wellbore region from
Eqn. (C-4) is
Laminar Flow
n'
q Q '
(C-10)
PT W ( 2 n 1) LT
H
Turbulent Flow
2
q Q
PT 1 / 2 f W 3 LT (C-11)
H
where
n
= 2 6 ka f
q = 1N
Q = flow rate into one-wing
N = number of multiple fractures
P T = – PL T
Width-Opening Pressure
The crack-opening and opening pressure relationships from Eqn. (C-6) for the
GDK and PKN type two-dimensional models are
LT P
GDK: W (C-12)
E E '
HP
PKN: W (C-13)
2 E E '
where
G E
E'
2(1- ) 4(1- 2 )
it will also be assumed that the near wellbore fractures are fully interacting (com-
peting for the same space):
GDK Model
n' ( 2 n ' 1)
Laminar Q / N NE '
Flow: PT 2 (C-14)
LT H P
2 3
Turbulent Q / N NE '
Flow: PT 1 / 2 f 2 (C-15)
LT H P
PKN Model
n' ( 2 n ' 1)
L am inar Q/ N 2 NE ' LT
PT (C -16)
F low : H3 P H
T urbulent 2 3 (C -17)
Q / N 2 NE
'
LT
F low : PT 1 / 2 f 3
H P H
t
P t = K t Q t (C-18)
This formulation for near wellbore pressure loss can be used for perforation fric-
tion, tortuosity, near wellbore multiple fractures or any other near wellbore effect
that is a result of friction dissipation.
The coefficients for the near wellbore pressure loss are usually based on analyzing
the measured BHP and rate data. This technique works best if a number of substan-
tial rate and BHP changes occur during the job. MFrac has a built in automatic fea-
Since K t is a coefficient that is not readily associated with pressure loss, it is con-
venient to transform Eqn. (C-18) so that it can be easily represented in tabular data.
The pressure loss as a function of flow rate for a given time is
Q i
P = P i ----- (C-19)
Q i
where
The near wellbore pressure loss methodology is summarized in Figure C.3 and Fig-
ure C.4
C.5 Conclusions
1. Far field multiple fractures can be modeled using the interaction factors given
in Eqns. (C-1) through (C-3). These fractures can be parallel or dendritic and
may or may not be interacting.
2. Far field multiple fractures may not result in a net pressure increase, depending
on their degree of interaction (see Figure C.1).
3. Near wellbore pressure loss is some function of rate and the total number of
t
near wellbore multiple fractures ( P t = K t Q t ). This resulting rela-
tionship clearly matches observed field measurements and intuition. The t
power coefficient can range from less than unity for laminar flow to a value of
about two for turbulent flow.
4. Clearly, Eqns. (C-14) to (C-17) cannot describe near wellbore tortuosity quan-
titatively. Certainly, the number of multiple fractures or tortuous path length
cannot be inferred.
Fluid Loss
D.1 Introduction
Fluid loss from the fracture to the formation is modeled by two mechanisms 1)
leakoff and 2) spurt loss. These leakoff and spurt loss coefficients are discussed
below.
D.2 Leakoff
The rate of fluid loss to the formation is governed by the total leakoff coefficient,
C . The three types of flow resistance mechanisms making up C are: 1) C I - Leak-
off viscosity and relative permeability effects, 2) C II - reservoir viscosity and com-
pressibility effects and 3) CIII - wall building effects.
The fluid loss model options include specifying the total leakoff coefficient (Con-
stant Model) or the C III coefficient and the components which comprise CI and CII
(Harmonic or Dynamic Models). A detailed description of the components charac-
terizing the Harmonic and Dynamic models is given below.
When either the Harmonic or Dynamic models are chosen, the filter cake coeffi-
cient ( C III ) and reservoir diffusivity parameters must be input in the Fluid Loss
Data screen for each layer. The CI and C II coefficients are then calculated from the
input reservoir data and fracture propagation characteristics. The total leakoff coef-
ficient is calculated internally from the individual components as a function of dif-
ferential pressure.
Harmonic: C
C C
I II CIII
(D-1)
C C
I II CII CIII CI CIII
CI - Coefficient
The CI or Cv coefficient is used to simulate the effects of the fracturing fluid fil-
trate viscosity and relative permeability. It is calculated from the following relation-
ship:
Kf p
C I Cv 0.0469 (D-3)
f
where
CII - Coefficient
The reservoir fluid viscosity and compressibility effects are modeled using the CII
or C c coefficient:
k r ct
CII Cc 0.0374 p (D-4)
r
where
CIII - Coefficient
The wall building or filter cake coefficient C III ( C w ) represent the inverse of frac
fluid leakoff resistance through the filter cake. A value of zero (0.0) represents an
12
infinite filter cake resistance while a C III value of infinity (i.e., C III 100 ft/min )
represents no wall building effect. The wall building mechanism is calculated from
laboratory data as follows:
0.0164 m
C III Cw (D-5)
A
where
For more information about the fluid leakoff models refer to SPE Monograph
Volume 12, Chapter 8.
Vsp 2 S p A (D-6)
where
For multilayer leakoff the spurt loss is calculated separately in each layer.
The value of the spurt loss coefficient is usually determined from the same labora-
tory procedures used to measure the Wall Building Coefficient (see Figure D.1).
The spurt in units of volume per unit area is equal to the vertical intercept from the
projection of the final slope, shown in Figure D.2, divided by the cross-sectional
area of the core or filter paper used
E.1 Introduction
The wellbore friction factor is used to determine the energy dissipation (pressure
loss) in the wellbore when the Empirical option is specified. The Empirical option
is an internal correlation for calculating the frictional pressure loss of Newtonian
and non-Newtonian fluids. This option provides a combined correlation that is
applicable for a variety of fluids ranging from linear systems to highly non-Newto-
nian and viscoelastic fluids that exhibit drag reduction due to slip or shear thinning
during turbulent flow.
When pipe roughness is included, by entering a value for the Relative Pipe Rough-
ness in one of the Wellbore Hydraulics dialog boxes, the expression for friction fac-
tor based on Prandtl's “Universal” Law is modified. An example of the modified
correlation containing this additional parameter is shown below:
1
----- = 4 log Re s f – 0.4 – A log 0.2 e Re s f + 1 (E-1)
f
where
A = – 1.6 0.13
14.9n' d
B = – 1.9 0.27
– 53.9 n' d
d = hydraulic diameter
f = fanning friction factor
n' = flow behavior index
Res = Reynolds number of solvent (e.g., water)
= absolute pipe roughness
The effect of pipe wall roughness is not applicable for Virk’s or Keck’s correla-
tions because, by definition, they assume slip at the boundary.
To include the effects of proppant concentration on friction, the program also has a
built in correlation for slurry rheology. The relationship used, originally described
by Keck, et al., is
– 1 – n 1000 1.25 2
r = 1 + 0.75 e
1.5n
– 1 e ------------------- (E-2)
1 – 1.5
where
For laminar flow the Friction Factor Multiplier, M , for proppant-laden fluids is
equal to the value of r . For proppant-laden fluids in turbulent flow, the expression
shown below is used to estimate the effect of proppant on pipe friction:
and
fs = Mf fb (E-4)
where
E.3 References
1. Virk, P.S.: “Drag Reduction Fundamentals”, AIChE Journal, Vol. 21, No. 4,
July 1975.
2. Keck, R. et al.: “A New Method for Predicting Friction Pressures and Rheol-
ogy of Proppant Laden Fracturing Fluids”, SPE Production Engineering, Feb.
1992.
Minifrac Methodology
F.1 Introduction
Minifrac analysis provides a method of estimating fracture efficiency, closure pres-
sure, dimensions and leakoff coefficients prior to designing a full scale fracture
treatment. These type of analyses, as originally formulated by Nolte1-5 quantify the
fracturing process as estimated from the measured pressure decline data.
Most minifrac analyses are based on Nolte's equations and do not account for the
effects of fluid rheology or the conservation of momentum. The measured pressure
decline data is simply used in place of solving the momentum equation. Neglecting
momentum can result in unrealistic estimations of fracture characteristics and fluid
leakoff coefficients that are critical to the design of the main fracture treatment.
Up until 1987, only the width-opening pressure relationship and pressure decline
data were used to estimate minifrac characteristics. Lee6 has recently improved
upon this by including Biot's energy balance equation for two-dimensional type
fractures geometry models.
The energy balance method does eliminate some of the anomalies in minifrac anal-
ysis. However, this method does not fully account for viscous driven fractures.
A new minifrac methodology was reported by Meyer and Hagel7-8 which solves the
conservation of mass and momentum equations for power law type fluids. The
methodology utilizes 2-D fracture propagation equations-of-state. The solution
technique does not assume the fracture width is proportional to the measured pres-
sure. Instead, the governing mass and momentum equations are coupled with the
measured closure time to predict fracture propagation characteristics. From the
numerically simulated fracture geometry's, pressures, efficiencies and leakoff coef-
ficients, you can determine which fracture model more closely represents the mea-
sure pressure response and formation permeability.
The main advantage of this technique is that mass and momentum are both satis-
fied. In addition, the important effects of flowback, interference closure, time
dependent leakoff and fluid rheology are simulated.
The numerical results are used in conjunction with the measured pressure decline
data to history match a number of fracture characteristics such as fracture height,
pay zone height, Young's modulus and spurt loss. Closure time can also be more
accurately estimated from these parametric studies.
Conservation of Momentum
The momentum equations for power law fluids in 2-D and 3-D type fracture geom-
etries simplified by order-of-magnitude analysis are shown below:
x-component:
P 2 K a 6q ( 2 n 1)
W ( x ,0, t ) (F-1)
x f Hx
z-component:
P 2 Ka 6q
W (0, z , t ) ( 2 n1) (F-2)
z f Hz
The z-component of the momentum equation is required for 3-D type fractures. For
radial or ellipsoidal fractures an equation similar to Eqn. (F-1) in radial coordinates
is used.
Equations (F-1) and (F-2) are generalized momentum equations used in the mini-
frac analysis. The minifrac solution methodology, however, is applicable with any
set of fracture propagation relationships.
Width-Opening Pressure
The width-opening pressure and width profile for GDK, PKN and radial type frac-
tures are
GDK:
2 W 0 (1 )
W (0, t ) L(t ) P (0, t )
G
and
W ( , t ) W (0, t )(1 2 )
1
2
PKN:
2W 0 (1 )
W ( x ,0, t ) HP ( x , t )
G (F-4)
and
W ( ,0, t ) W (0,0, t )(1 ) W
Radial:
2 W 0 (1 )
W (0, t ) R (t ) P(0, t )
G (F-5)
and
W ( , t ) W (0, t )(1 2 )
1
2
t dL(t ) t dW (0, t )
L ; w
L(t ) dt W (0, t ) dt
(F-6)
t dA(t ) t dC (t )
a ; c
A(t ) dt C (t ) dt
t dP (0, t )
p
P (0, t ) dt
to form a set of equations in terms of the alpha parameters. The transformed equa-
tions are then solved simultaneously to determine the fracture propagation charac-
teristics.
The length, width, pressure and area propagation alpha parameters for a constant
injection rate and no spurt are
GDK:
(n 1)(1 2 c (1 ))
L
2( n 1 )
w L (n 1)
p w - L n (n 1) L (F-7)
a L
where 1 2 L 2 3 for c 0.
PKN:
(n 1)(1 2 c (1 ))
L
2n 2
w L ( 2n 2)
p w (F-8)
a L
where 1 2 L 4 5 for c 0.
Radial:
( n 1)(1 2 c (1 ))
L
2 n 2 ( n 4) r ( 2 n 2)(1 )
w ( 2 ) ( 2n 2) L
p w L 3n ( 2 n 2) L
a (1 r ) L
(F-9)
r 1 ; R H p 2
r 0 ; R H p 2
where (for c 0):
1 4 L 4 9 and a 2 L ; R H p 2
1 3 L 1 2 and a L ; R H p 2
The leakoff coefficient alpha parameter c is a measure of the time dependent fluid
loss. If the total leakoff coefficient is only a function of the fluid loss, then
c p p (F-10)
where p is a constant which ranges from zero (0) to unity (1). If the net fracturing
pressure, P , is much less than the difference between the minimum horizontal
stress and the reservoir pressure P l , is equal to zero. If the net pressure is much
greater than P l , is equal to 1/2 and 1 for dominant CI and CII resistance, respec-
tively.
Mass Conservation
The total system mass balance for an incompressible slurry requires that the total
volume of slurry injected minus the volume of slurry in the fracture and the volume
of fluid loss to the formation by leakoff and spurt loss be equal to zero:
t
q( )d V
0
f (t ) Vl (t ) Vsp (t ) 0 (F-11)
where
t A C
Vl (t ) 2 t (eA) dAdt
0 0
(F-12)
Vsp (t ) 2 S p A(t )
( A) t A A(t )
1 a
and is equal to 1/2 for square-root fluid loss. The equivalent leakoff coefficient
is given by C e .
Equation (F-11) is applicable throughout the fracturing process and from shut-in to
closure. Since spurt is an instantaneous loss of fluid occurring when an element of
fracture leakoff area is initially created, spurt loss will not occur during closure, as
long as the fracture stops propagating.
The total leakoff area, A t , (one face of the fracture only) for the 2-D and radial
shaped fractures is
2-D:
Radial:
A(t ) R( t ) 2 ; R( t ) H p 2
2 (F-14)
t Ce A( ) 1 d
Vl (t ) 2 1 d (F-16)
0 0 1 a
C (t ) A(t ) t ( a , c )
where
1 2 c
Ce C (t )(t ) c c C (t p )(t p ) c c
C (t ) C (t p )(t t p ) c
c (c 1) ( 12 ) (c 12 )
(a ,c ) (a ,c ) c
(a ,c ) 2 (a ,c ) (a c 12 )
1 d
(a ,c )
0
1 1 a
The total leakoff coefficient C t is the instantaneous time dependent value. For a
constant leakoff coefficient independent of time and pressure, c is equal to zero.
PKN: 0.9008 a 0 1
1 a 0 1.0713 ;R t H p 2
Radial:
0.8760 a 0 1 ;R t » H p 2
t A C e2
Vl (t ) 2 t ( A) dAdt1
0 0 2
(F-17)
2C (t p ) A(t p ) t p G ( a , c2 , ) c2
where
a d
G ( a , c2 , ) c2 a c 1 d
1
2
1 0 1 a
(F-18)
c2
Ce2 C (t p )(t t p ) c 2
The effective leakoff coefficient Ce2 is the time dependent value during shut-in.
C e is equal to C t p c at the end of pumping where c is a constant. The
2 2 2
t tp (F-19)
tD 1
Eqn. (F-18) is a function of the incomplete beta function and, therefore, is only ana-
lytically integratable for specific values of a and c2 . functions for various val-
ues of a and c2 are given below.
G (0, 12 , ) Log e
1 2 c2
G (0, c2 , ) ( 1) (1 2 c2 )
G ( 12 , 12 , ) 2 1 2 Arcsin 1 2 2 Log e ( 1 2 1)
G ( 12 ,0, ) Arcsin 1 2 ( 1)1 2 2
1
G ( 12 , 12 , )
3
2 3 2 Arcsin 1 2 Log e ( 1 2 1) ( 2 1 2
G (1, 12 , ) 2 1 Log e ( 1 2 1) ( 2 )1 2
4 32
G (1,0, ) ( 1 ( 1) 3 2 )
3 (F-20)
G (1, 12 , ) 2 1 2 Log e ( 1 2 1) ( 2 )1 2 ( 1 2)
G ( 2, 12 , )
4 2
3
1 3 2 Log e ( 1 2 1 ) ( 2 )1 2 ( 1 2)
G ( 2,0, ) 5 2 1 (3 2 )( 1) 3 2
16
15
8 1 3 8 Log e ( 1)
3 12
G ( 2, 12 , )
9 3 16 Log e ( 2 2( ) 1) ( ) ( 2 3 2)
2 12 2 12
G ( a ,0, ) G Nolte (F-21)
4
G (a , c2 , ) G (1, c2 , ) G ( 1 2 , c2 , ) 2a 1 (F-22)
G ( 1 2 , c2 , )
c = 0 . Generally,
2
G ( 1 2 ,0, ) and G (1,0, ) bound the range of expected
G ( a ,0, ) values. The bounds of G are shown to differ by less than about ten
percent (see also Nolte13). Figure F.1 also illustrates that G ( a ,0, ) is approxi-
a
1
mately a linear function of 2 for all values. This result can be used by plot-
1
ting pressure decline data as a function of 2
for estimating closure time as
discussed below.
the fluid loss rate decreases. Consequently, the effect of a pressure dependent leak-
off coefficient can be a major factor in modeling fluid loss during shut-in.
Figure F.2, also illustrates that the fluid loss volume function G ( a , c2 , ) is
not a linear function of if is not zero. This non-linear effect can result in errone-
ous estimation of the closure time and minimization of an inflection point at clo-
sure.
V f (t ) V f (t p ) Vl (t ) V fb (t ) (F-23)
t
V fb (t ) q fb ( )d (F-24)
t fb
where q fb is the flowback rate and t fb is the time when flowback is initiated
(t p t fb tc ) . For a constant flowback rate:
V fb (t ) 0 ; t t fb (F-25)
q fb (t t fb ) ; t t fb
V f ( t p ) q o t p (F-26)
where is the fracture efficiency at the end of pumping and qo is the average
pumping rate.
From mass conservation the total fluid loss by leakoff (excluding spurt loss) at the
end of pumping is
Vl (t p ) (1 ) q o t p Vsp ( t p ) (F-27)
The ratio of fluid loss by leakoff to the fracture volume at the end of pumping from
Eqns. (F-27) and (F-26) is
Vl ( t p ) 1
(F-28)
V f (t p )
where is the fracture efficiency after spurt loss. This efficiency is defined as
1 Vsp (t p ) q o t p (F-29)
The ratio of fluid loss during shut-in and fluid loss volume at the end of pumping
from Eqns. (F-17) and (F-16) is
Vl (t ) G ( a , c , )
(F-30)
2
Vl (t p ) 2 ( a , c )
c
c2
The fracture volume ratio during shut-in as a function of time is found by substitut-
ing Eqns. (F-25), (F-26), (F-28) and (F-30) into Eqn. (F-23):
Vf (t ) 1 q fb G( a , c2 , )(1 )
1 ( fb ) (F-31)
Vf ( t p ) qo 2 c
where c c c ( a , c ) and fb t fb t p
2
.
V f (t c ) pV f (t p ) (F-32)
Substituting Eqn. (F-32) into (F-31) and rearranging results in the closure condi-
tion:
1 q fb
G ( a , c , c ) c
1 p ( c fb ) (F-33)
2
2 1 qo
Equation (F-33) is the governing closure equation which couples closure time to the
fracture propagation solution.
The Nolte G function at closure for no flow back or propped width from Eqn. (F-
33) and (F-21) is
G Nolte c
* = ----------------------------------------
2 c + G Nolte c
Assuming the fracture closes in a self similar manner, pressure decline during shut-
in can be calculated from Eqn. (F-31) with
P ( t ) V f (t )
(F-34)
P ( t p ) V f ( t p )
If the fracture does not close in a self similar manner, the net wellbore pressure at
the end of pumping, P (t p ) in Eqn. (F-34), should be replaced by an average net
fracture pressure. For non-similar closure, the bottomhole pressure may initially
decrease faster than Eqn. (F-34) would predict; however, as time progresses pres-
sure decline will follow Eqn. (F-31). Therefore, minifrac analyses based on only
measured pressure decline data may not satisfy Eqn. (F-31), if Eqn. (F-34) does not
apply.
t dP(t )
p (t )
P(t ) dt
1 q( t )
(1 )( a c 1 2 )
q (t )
(F-35)
Vsp
( c 1 2 )
V
(1 ) H ( 2 ) L
v w
A specialized case of Eqn. (F-35) is pressure decline during closure. If the fracture
is assumed to stop propagation (with alpha parameters L , H , a , c , 0 ),
the dimensionless pressure slope for no spurt loss is
(1 )
p (t ) ( 12 ) (F-36)
where
V l V l
( ) =
C (t ) A(t ) t
( a , c ) 4 G ( a , c , ) 2
1
2
d ( )
( ) d ( )
G ( ) ( a , c ) 2 G ( ) 2
1 1
2 2 2
( a , c ) 2 G ( )
Assuming the fracture closes in a self similar manner, the dimensionless net pres-
sure decline PD is
2 1 (t p )
PD ( ) 1 G ( a , c , (F-37)
( a , c ) (t p ) 2
wheree P ( ) P ( ) P ( 1) .
D
From Eqn. (F-37), the pressure decline is shown to be proportional to the G func-
tion:
Pf ( 1) Pf ( ) G( a , c , )
2
(F-38)
dPD
P (F-39)
d 2
1
D
2 p PD 2
1
Substituting p into Eqn. (F-39) and neglecting second order effects, the rate of
1
pressure decline slope as a function of 2 is
4 1 ( t p )
P (F-40)
D
( a , c ) ( t p )
Equation (F-40) illustrates that if the fracture decline pressure during closure is
plotted as a function of the square root of time or on a semi-log axis a straight line
will result with a constant slope equal to Eqn. (F-40). Equation (F-40) can also be
1
derived by differentiating Eqn. (F-37) with respect to 2 where
7
G ( a , c2 , ) 2( 2 1) (see Meyer et al.).
1
Pressure Decline
Figure F.3 and Figure F.4 show that for a decreasing fluid loss coefficient during
shut-in ( c2 1 2 ) , the pressure declines at a slower rate than for an increasing
coefficient, ( c2 1 2 ) , as expected. This illustrates that the effect of a time
dependent fluid loss coefficient can have a significant impact on determining the
closure time based on an inflection point or deviation from square-root pressure
decline. This is generally true for a decreasing pressure decline profile, since a
unique straight line may not fit the data.
1
It is also observed that the pressure plotted as a function of 2 is approximately
1
2 will generally yield a more prominent inflection point at closure than if the
1
data is plotted versus the square-root of shut-in time ( t D 2
). This is especially true
if closure is relatively fast (i.e., t D 1 ; see Figure F.4).
f ( C ) ( cm cp ) cm (F-41)
where cm is the measured closure time and cp is the predicted closure time.
Step (1)
Set i 2
Step (2)
f (Ci 1 )(Ci 1 Ci 2 )
Ci Ci 1
f (Ci 1 ) f (Ci 2 )
A Bisection Algorithm in logarithmic C space is used for the first few iterations
with f (C0 ) and f (C1 ) having opposite signs.
Step (3)
Solve the governing mass and momentum equations during fracture propagation
based on C1 to determine:
Step (4)
Solve the minifrac closure Eqn. (F-33) with Eqn. (F-18) for G ( a , c2 , ) to
determine the predicted closure time cp (Ci ) .
Step (5)
Calculate the error, f (Ci ) , between the predicted and measured closure times
from Eqn. (F-41)
f (Ci ) ( cm cp (Ci )) cm
If f (Ci ) is less than a specified tolerance go to Step (6). Otherwise, add one to i
and go to Step (2).
Step (6)
When the measured and predicted closure times are within the specified tolerance,
the procedure is complete. The numerical procedure outlined above usually con-
verges in less than ten iterations for initial values of C0 10 8 and
C1 1.0 ft min .
After convergence, the formation permeability is calculated from the total leakoff
coefficient at the end of pumping using the following relationship:
1 1 1 1
C (t p ) CI CII CIII (F-42)
where
C I 0.0469 kPl e
C II 0.0374Pl kCt r
C III a constant
In the formulation above Pl is the leakoff pressure differential expressed in psi, k
in darcies, Ct is the formation compressibility in 1/psi. The reservoir viscosity,
r , is in centipoise. The equivalent leakoff viscosity, e , is equal to zero if the
frac fluid leakoff viscosity, l is equal to r (if l >> r , e = l ).
Formation permeability is solved directly from Eqn. (F-41) since it is the only
unknown. A dynamic weighting of the individual leakoff coefficients, in place of
the harmonic weighting shown in Eqn. (F-41) can also be used to calculate permea-
bility.
F.4 Conclusions
Pressure analysis during and after a fracture treatment is primarily performed to
establish fracture characteristics and critical parameters governing fracture propa-
gation. Minifrac analysis is a first step in providing an estimate of fracture geome-
try, efficiency, leakoff and possibly height growth prior to designing the fracture
treatment.
cient from measured data, a consistent method must be used to design the fracture
treatment using this data. The fracture efficiency should match the minifrac and
main treatment design at the end of the minifrac.
Due to the large number of uncertainties, history matching field data may not result
in a unique solution if only part of the data is used. Often the problem with history
matching is that unverifiable and unrealistic data is used to force the solution to
match at some point in the pressure response. History matching throughout the
stimulation thereby eliminates many of the erroneous matches and conclusions
encountered by only using a few selected measured data points. Using logs to ver-
ify fracture height and fracture characteristics are very useful in establishing realis-
tic input parameters.
F.5 Nomenclature
A = Leakoff area (one face of the fracture)
E = Young's modulus
H = Fracture half-height
k = Permeability
L = Fracture half-length
P = Pressure
q fb = Flowback rate
r = Radial coordinate
R = Fracture radius
t = Time
tc = Closure time,
t fb = Flowback time,
Vf = Fracture volume
W = Fracture width
z = Vertical Coordinate
Greek
f f = Friction coefficients
= Fracture efficiency
= Dimensionless time,
= Integration indices
Subscripts
2 = Shut-in
c = Closure, leakoff parameter
D = Dimensionless
f = Fracture
fb = Flowback
l = Fluid loss
p = Pay zone, end of pumping
sp = Spurt loss
F.6 References
1. Nolte, K.G., Smith, M.B.: “Interpretation of Fracturing Pressures”, SPE 8297,
Sept. 1979.
6. Lee, W.S.: “Study of the Effects of Fluid Rheology on Minifrac Analysis,” SPE
16916, Sept. 1987.
9. Meyer, B. R.: “Frac model in 3-D - 4 Parts,” Oil and Gas Journal, June 17,
July 1, July 22 and July 29, 1985.
10. Meyer, B. R.: “Design Formulae for 2-D and 3-D Vertical Hydraulic Frac-
tures: Model Comparison and Parametric Studies,” paper SPE 15240 presented
at the SPE Unconventional Gas Technology Symposium, Louisville, KY, May.
18-21, 1986.
G.1 Introduction
This appendix provides a brief overview of the computational methods used in
MProd and highlights some of the program's capabilities. The equations and
relationships employed are listed and the variables used are defined. In addition, a
list of references is furnished at the end of this Appendix with additional information
regarding the simulation methodologies used in MProd.
Three distinct analytical models are contained in MProd for performing production
simulations on different types of reservoirs. The basic reservoir production model
(i.e., No Fracture) is based on the transient behavior of a well in a closed (finite)
reservoir. The method of images is used to generate rectangular drainage shapes in
closed formations. Drainage area aspect ratios can be as large as 100.
All of the models used in MProd allow either a rate or pressure boundary condition
at the well. Using the principle of superposition, a series of rates or pressures may
be specified. For closed systems, the concept of desuperposition has been
incorporated to simulate the effects of wellbore and fracture skin on the production.
Available for use with either gas or liquid, the numerical solutions have been
improved over earlier versions (version 3.0 or before) for low conductivity fractures.
The transition from trilinear to pseudo-radial flow has increased accuracy for very
low values of C fD ( CfD 0.001 ). The transition is now calculated in Laplace space
eliminating the need to specify time steps that are sufficiently small at the match
point. Additional information concerning the analytical techniques used is contained
in the following sections of this appendix.
Dimensionless Parameters
The following dimensionless parameters are used throughout this paper. The
dimensionless pressure ( p D ) for a constant production rate ( q ) is defined as
2 kh
p D = ------------- p (G-1)
q
where k is the formation permeability, h is the formation height, is the reservoir
viscosity, and p = p i – p wf is the differential pressure (the initial reservoir pressure
( p i ) minus the flowing pressure ( p wf )).
The dimensionless times based on the drainage area, A , wellbore radius, r w , and
fracture half-length, x f , are defined as
kt kt kt
t DA = --------------- , t D = ----------------2- , and t Dxf = ----------------2- (G-2)
c t A c t r w c t x f
where is the formation porosity and c t is the formation compressibility.
q D = -------------------- q t (G-3)
2 kh p
The flow rate as a function of the dimensionless rate is
2 kh p
q t = -------------------- q D (G-4)
where p = p i – p wf is the constant draw down pressure.
q 2 kh
J = ---------------- = ------------- J D (G-5)
p – p wf
where q is the flow rate, p is the average reservoir pressure, and p wf is the flowing
pressure. The dimensionless productivity index, J D , is defined as
q
J D = ------------- J = ------------- ---------------- (G-6)
2 kh 2 kh p – p wf
The dimensionless and Laplace parameters used in the production model are
kf wf C C
C fD = --------- , C D = -----------------------2- , C Df = ----------------------2- ,
kx f 2 c t hr w 2 c t hx f
C 1 = f , = k c t , f = k f c t f ,
ys k
S f = --- ---- ---- – 1 , (G-7)
2 xf ks
2 –
a = --------- , b = ---------
C fD C fD
The Laplacian operator used in the production models is given by s . The fracture
skin is given by S f .
Pseudopressure
The real gas potential or pseudopressure is defined as
p p
m p = 2 ----------------------- dp (G-8)
pb p Zp
where p b is an arbitrary base pressure and Z is the real gas deviation factor.
The real gas pseudopressure equation can be simplified for certain pressure ranges.
At low pressures Z is essentially constant, while at higher pressures it is directly
proportional to pressure (Earlougher, 1977).
At low pressure (p < 2000 psi), the real gas pseudopressure based on a constant Z
product is
2
p – p b2 p i2 – p wf 2
m p = ---------------------- or m p i = ------------------------ (G-9)
Z i Zi
where i and Z i are initial condition gas properties at p i .
At high pressures (p > 3000 psi), the real gas pseudopressure based on a constant
p Z product is
2p p – pb 2p i p i – p wf
m p = -------------------------- or m p i = ------------------------------- (G-10)
Z i Zi
When the fluid type is gas and the Internal PVT correlations are not used, the model
requires that a table of and Z be entered as a function of pressure. The
pseudopressure function is then automatically used to calculate the dimensionless
pressure.
Trilinear Solution
The trilinear solution given by Lee and Brockenbrough (1983, 1986) for a finite-
conductivity fracture in Laplace space is
Constant Pressure
1 -
q D s = ------------------ = – ----- tanh (G-12)
s pD s
2 sb
12 12
as + s
= --------------------------------------------
- + C1 s (G-13)
12 12
1 + s + s Sf
This analytical solution is based on transforming the equations above from Laplace
space to real time using the Stehfest inversion algorithm (1970).
p D = 2 t DA + 1 J D (G-14)
where the inverse productivity index is given by
4A
1 J D = 1 2 ln -------------------2- (G-15)
e C A r w
1 x
------ = ln x ----e + f (G-16)
JD e xf
where the pseudo-skin function, f , is
f = ln -------------------- + (G-17)
C fD g
The above set of equations are solved to generate the production solution for a single
fracture in a closed rectangular reservoir for all times (i.e., linear, bilinear, trilinear,
and pseudosteady-state). These generated fundamental solutions for constant rate
and constant pressure boundary conditions are then used to calculate the composite
kh h h 1 h
S ch = --------- ln -------- – --- = ---- --------- ln -------- – --- (G-18)
k f w f 2r w 2 x f C fD 2r w 2
where the above equation has been placed in terms of the dimensionless fracture
conductivity.
Eq. G-18 illustrates that as the height interval to wellbore radius ratio or height to
propped length ratio decreases (i.e., radial to linear flow in the fracture) or the
dimensionless fracture conductivity increases, the skin due to convergence becomes
smaller. Soliman et al. (1988) concluded that a high conductivity tail-in could be
incorporated to reduce the additional pressure drop because of flow convergence
around the wellbore.
1 1
p D = – --- Ei – ----------- (G-19)
2 4t Dw
–
e
Ei – x = – ------- d (G-20)
x
This solution is also used for the pseudo-radial solution of the fractured well by
matching the pseudo-radial and trilinear solutions.
2 kh h p
q t = ---------------------- q D (G-21)
where p = p i – p wf is the constant draw down pressure. The dimensionless rate
( q D ) for a constant flowing pressure ( p wf ) is
1
q D = ---------------------- q t = ------------------------ (G-22)
2 kh h p ln r e r w
re lh
r w = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
h l h
- (G-23)
2 h
a 1 + 1 – l h 2a -----------------------
+ 1 rw
where
lh 1 1 2r e 4 kh
a = ---- --- + --- + ------- and = ----- (G-24)
2 2 4 lh kv
The above set of equations will now be transformed into a general solution based on
the pseudosteady-state analysis for finite conductivity vertical fractures as presented
by Meyer and Jacot (2005). The transformed solution for the effective wellbore
radius is
xf
r w = --------------------------------------------------------------
h 2x f
(G-25)
h
I x -----------------------
+ 1 rw
or
x h 2x f
h -
-----f = I x ---------------------- (G-26)
rw + 1 rw
where the following parameters have been introduced
2
Ix = aD 1 + 1 – Ix aD
xf = lh 2 , Ix = xf xe (G-27)
aD = a xe = I x2 2 + 1 + I x4 4
r w rw
- ---- -
----- = -------- --------
C fD x f + 1 C fD + 2
- (G-28)
xf
Thus an unfractured horizontal wellbore can be represented by a finite conductivity
vertical fracture with a dimensionless conductivity given by
x f r w
1 – ----- -----
r w x f
C fD = -----------------------------
- (G-29)
x f r w – 2
where x f is the half-length of the perforated lateral (Eq. G-27) and x f r w is given
by Eq. G-26.
Productivity Increase
The productivity increase as defined by the ratio of the productivity indices for the
fractured and unfractured wells as given by Meyer (1985) are given below.
Instantaneous
J Jo t = p Do p Df
Average
J Jo
V
= pD dt pD dt
o f
(G-30)
Constant Pressure
The instantaneous (rate) and average (volume) productivity indices are:
Instantaneous
J Jo t = q Df q Do
Average
J Jo
V
= qD dt qD dt
f o
(G-31)
where f refers to the fractured well and o to the unfractured case. For unfractured
reservoirs the subscript f refers to the well with no skin. When considering a series
of constant rate or pressure changes, the productivity parameters outlined above are
equal to the equivalent values calculated by superposition.
Desuperposition
The concept of desuperposition has been illustrated by Gringarten, Ramey and
Raghavan (1974) for modifying known values of p D to dimensionless pressures
describing somewhat different systems. This method is used to calculate the effect
of skin and fractures in closed systems. For closed systems, the dimensionless
pressure, p D , is found from the following relationship:
p D C D S = p D C D = 0 S = 0 – p D C D = 0 S = 0 – p D C D S (G-32)
In the above equation p D is the dimension pressure for a closed system and p D is
the dimensionless pressure for an infinite (unbounded) reservoir. The first term on
the right side of the equation is for the closed system with zero skin and zero
wellbore storage. p D for a single well in an infinite system with zero skin and
1 x i2 + y i2
p D t DA = – --- Ei – ---------------------- (G-33)
2 4At DA
i=1
where x i2 + y i2 = r w2 . Here it is assumed that the response of each well is given by the
line source solution and x i y i is the location of the ith image well for i 2 .
The number of image wells to approximate the infinite series simulation is based on
the analytical and numerical studies of Larsen (1985).
12 12
n c = 2 1 + 4 t DA F and n r = 2 1 + 4 Ft DA (G-34)
The well location at position X 1 Y 1 within the closed rectangle is shown in Figure
G.1
For long periods of production, the closed system will reach a pseudo-steady
condition. The dimensionless pressure at times greater than the pseudo-steady state
time t DASS is given by the following:
No Fracture:
A 2.2456
p D = 2 t DA + 0.5 ln -----2 + 0.5 ln ---------------- (G-35)
r CA
w
Fracture:
p D = 2 t DA + f A xf C A C fD .... (G-36)
where t DA is the dimensionless time, A is the drainage area and C A is the shape factor
used.
Constant Rate
2 kh q
p D t D = ------------- p t , where p t = ------------- p D t D (G-37)
q 2 kh
Constant Pressure
2 kh p
q D t D = -------------------- q t , where q t = -------------------- q D t D (G-38)
2 kh p
Multiply Fractures
The system configuration for multiple vertical fractures equally spaced in a closed
rectangular reservoir with aspect ratio ( = x e y e ) is shown Figure G.4.
The no flow boundary conditions are identified by dashed lines. The individual
fractured reservoir aspect ratio is given by c = x e y c or c = N where
y c = y e N , = x e y e , and N is the number of fractures. The total flow
rate is found by multiplying the single well fracture solution with an aspect ratio of
c by N .
The fundamental dimensionless pressure and rate solutions for N multiple fractures
are
Constant Rate
p D = p D t D c N (G-39)
Constant Pressure
q D = q D t D c N (G-40)
This solution is referred to as Multiply Fractures since the total rate for a constant
draw down pressure is simply the single fracture production solution multiplied by
the total number of transverse fractures (see also Guo and Evans (1993)). This is an
exact solution methodology.
The no flow boundary conditions are identified by dashed lines. The individual
fractured reservoir aspect ratios for the cluster and end fractures are given by
Clusters
c = xe yc
End or Exterior
e = xe ye (G-41)
The cluster spacing is found from y c = l h N – 1 . The spacing from the exterior
fracture to the boundary is given by y e 2 where y e = y e – l h .
The fundamental dimensionless pressure and rate solutions for N multiple equally
spaced fractures over a given lateral length are
Constant Rate
p D t D c p D t D e
p D = --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (G-42)
p D t D e N – 1 + p D t D c
Constant Pressure
q D = q D t D c N – 1 + q D t D e (G-43)
These are not exact solutions but very good first-order approximations. The above
equations simplify to the Multiply Fractures solution for equally spaced fractures
(i.e., e = c ).
The no flow boundaries for each cluster set are identified by dashed lines. The
reservoir and no flow boundary aspect ratios for the clusters, interior, and exterior
transverse fractures are
Clusters
c = xe yc
Interior
i = xe yi (G-44)
End or Exterior
e = xe ye
where the cluster spacing is given by y c , the interior spacing between cluster
stages is given by y i , and the spacing from the exterior fracture to the boundary is
given by y e 2 . The total number of transverse fractures is N = n c n s .
The fundamental dimensionless pressure and rate solutions for multiple stage/cluster
transverse fractures are
Constant Rate
p t p t p t
D D c D D i D D e
p
D
= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
p D t D i p t D e n c – 1 n s + p D t D c p t D e n s – 1 + p D t D c p t D i
(G-45)
D D D
Constant Pressure
q D = q D t D c n c – 1 n s + q D t D i n s – 1 + q D t D e (G-46)
These are not exact solutions but very good first-order approximations for various
complicated stage/cluster configurations. For equally spaced inner and cluster
fractures (i.e., i = c ), the above equations simplify to the Multiple Equally
Spaced Transverse Fractures solution
Constant Rate
p D t D c p D t D e
p D = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
p D t D e n c – 1 n s + p D t D e n s – 1 + p D t D c
(G-47)
p D t D c p D t D e
= ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
p D t D e n c n s – 1 + p D t D c
Constant Pressure
q D = q D t D c n c n s – 1 + q D t D e (G-48)
where N = nc ns .
Constant Rate
p D t D c p D t D c p D t D c
p D = ----------------------------------------------------------- = ------------------------- = ------------------------- (G-49)
nc – 1 ns + ns – 1 + 1 nc ns N
Constant Pressure
q D = q D t D c n c – 1 n s + n s – 1 + 1
(G-50)
= q D t D c n c n s = q D t D c N
The subject of well interference is not a new concept. Stevens and Thodos (1959)
presented one of the first papers on “Prediction of Approximate Time of Interference
Between Adjacent Wells” based on a point-source function. Warren and Hartsock
(1960) also published a paper entitled “Well Interference”. Other notable
contributors to this area of study include Vela and Mckinley (1969), Mousli et al.
(1982), Cooper and Collins (1989), Meehan et al. (1989), and Malekzadeh and Tiab
(1991).
kt 12
r i = -------------------- (G-51)
948 c t
4kt 12 t 1 2
y = -------------------- = --------- (G-52)
948 c t 237
Thus, the approximate time for transverse fracture interaction (i.e., time to reach the
no flow boundary) is
2
y
t = 237 ---------
Figure G.7 shows the interference spacing as a function of diffusivity for various
selected times. This figure illustrates that as diffusivity increases the time for
transverse fracture interference decreases.
Figure G.8 shows the interference spacing as a function of time for selected
diffusivities. Figure G.8 illustrates that as the formation diffusivity increases, the
transverse fracture spacing increases for a given time to interference.
Figure G.8: Interference spacing versus time for selected diffusivity values.
G.3 Nomenclature
A = Reservoir drainage area, ft2
J = Productivity index
rw = Wellbore radius, ft
t = Time, hours
T = Reservoir temperature, R
Superscripts
- = Time averaged
Subscripts
D = Dimensionless
f = Fracture
I = Initial conditions
o = Unfractured
w = Wellbore
G.4 References
1. Beggs, H.D. and Robinson, J.R.: “Estimating the Viscosity of Crude Oil Sys-
tems” JPT (Sept. 1975) 1140-1144.
3. Earlougher, R.C., Jr. and Ramey, H.J., Jr.: “Interference Analysis in Bounded
Systems,” JCPT October-December 1973, 33-45.
4. Earlougher, R.C., Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Monograph Vol. 5, SPE,
1977.
8. Lee, A.L. Gonzales, M.H. and Eakin, B.E.: “The Viscosity of Natural Gases”
Trans., AIME (1966) 997-1002.
10. Lee, J., Rollins, J.B., and Spivey, J.P.: Pressure Transient Testing, SPE Text-
Book Series Vol. 9, 2003.
11. Lee, S.T. and Brockenbrough, J.R.: “A New Analytical Solution for Finite
Conductivity Vertical Fractures with Real Time and Laplace Space Parameter
Estimation,” SPE 12013, October 1983.
12. Lee, S.T. and Brockenbrough, J.R.: “A New Approximate Analytical Solution
for Finite-Conductivity Vertical Fractures,” SPE Formation Evaluation, Febru-
ary 1986.
13. Malekzadeh, D. and Tiab, D.: “Interference testing of Horizontal Wells”, SPE
22733, October 1991.
14. McGuire, W.J. and Sikora, V.J.: “The Effect of Vertical Fractures on Well Pro-
ductivity,” SPEJ Vol. 219 401-403, 1960.
15. Meehan, D.N., Horne, R.N., and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: “Interference Testing of
Finite Conductivity Hydraulically Fractured Wells,” SPE 19784, October
1989.
16. Meyer, B.R., “Frac Model in 3D”- Parts 1-4, Oil and Gas Journal, June 17, July
1, July 22 and July 29, 1985.
17. Meyer, B.R.: “Design Formulae for 2-D and 3-D Vertical Hydraulic Fractures:
Model Comparison and Parametric Studies,” SPE 15240, May 1986.
18. Meyer, B.R. and Jacot, R.H.: “Pseudosteady-state Analysis of Finite Conduc-
tivity Vertical Fractures,” SPE 95941, October 2005.
19. Meyer, B.R., Bazan, L.W., Jacot, R.H., and Lattibeaudiere, M.G.: “Optimiza-
tion of Multiple Transverse Hydraulic Fractures in Horizontal Wellbores”, SPE
131732, February 2010.
20. Mousli, N.A., Raghavan, R., Cinco-Ley, H., and Samaniego-V, F.: “The Influ-
ence of Vertical Fractures Intercepting Active and Observation Wells on Inter-
ference Tests,” SPEJ, December 1982, 933-944.
22. Ramey, H.J. and Cobb, W.M: “A General Pressure Buildup Theory for a Well
in a Close Drainage Area,” JPT December, 1971, 1493-1505.
23. Soliman, M.Y., Hunt, J.L., and El Rabaa, W.: “On Fracturing Horizontal
Wells,” SPE 18542, November 1988.
25. Stevens, W.F. and Thodos, G.: “Prediction of Approximate Time of Interfer-
ence Between Adjacent Wells,” Trans. AIME, 1959, 216, 77.
26. Vazquez, M. and Beggs, H.D.: “Correlations for Fluid Physical Property Pre-
diction” JPT (June 1980) 32, 968-970.
27. Vela, S. and McKinley, R.M.: “How Areal Heterogeneities Affect Pulse-Test
Results”, SPE 2569, July 1969.
28. Warren, J.E. and Hartsock, J.H.: “Well Interference,” JPT, September 1960,
89-91.
H.1 Introduction
This appendix provides a brief overview of the methods used for conducting eco-
nomic analyses of fracture treatments as applied in the MFrac, MProd and MNpv
programs. The basic methodology is outlined and the pertinent economic equations
are presented. The purpose of employing these methods is to maximizing well prof-
itability by accelerating production, reducing operating costs and perhaps even
increasing ultimate recovery.
ated from this procedure can then be imported directly into MProd to perform a
group of production simulations.
With fracture data entered in MProd and all of the remaining reservoir parameters
described, production simulations can be performed to predict the relationship
between cumulative production, fracture contact area (e.g., frac length) and fracture
deliverability (e.g., conductivity). These results will normally show that for reason-
able conductivity, the greater the fracture length, the more substantial the produc-
tivity improvement. To determine whether or not the benefit of creating additional
reservoir contact area is worth the cost, the economic value of each treatment must
be considered.
To include the time value of money in the economic evaluation of fracture treat-
ments, the preferred methods of either Net Present Value (NPV) or Discounted
Return On Investment (DROI) are used. The primary difference between the two
approaches is that DROI is sensitive to the rate of change in NPV and, therefore,
can be thought of as an indicator of capital efficiency. In other words, the incremen-
tal DROI decreases when the cost associated with an increase in production
increases at a greater rate than the NPV. When capital is strictly limited, DROI indi-
cates the more conservative optimization criteria. A decreasing DROI suggests that
your limited capital may receive a higher rate of return if invested in another man-
ner (i.e., one with a higher DROI).
F
P = -----------------n- (H-1)
1 + i
where
P = present worth
F = future worth
i = currency escalation rate or interest rate
n = number of periods
This simple formula is the basis for calculating the Net Present Value of an invest-
ment. Fracture Net Present Value, NPV , is defined as the revenue from a hydrauli-
cally fractured reservoir less the production from the same reservoir without a
hydraulic fracture and the cost of the treatment in current dollars. This relationship
is expressed as follows:
NPV = R F – R 0 – C F (H-2)
or
n n
VF j V0 j
NPV = -----------------j –
1 + i
-----------------j – C F
1 + i
j=1 j=1
where
n n
VF j V0 j
DWR = -----------------j –
1 + i
-----------------j
1 + i
(H-3)
j=1 j=1
or
n
NCF j
DWR = -----------------
1 + i
-
j
j=1
From these expressions it is shown that the Fracture NPV is a function of time,
propped fracture length, conductivity, drainage area, reservoir properties, etc. This
methodology, therefore, is an excellent criteria for basing the optimization strategy.
DWR
DROI = ------------- (H-5)
CF
The decision on which optimization criteria to use rests with your companies busi-
ness philosophy and financial position. DROI is the approach used by many opera-
tors to evaluate new prospects. Typically, this involves considering the total cost of
drilling and completing a well. When estimating the value of a hydraulic fracture
treatment you can identify a design which may result in the highest NPV; however,
this does not mean that you have identified a design which makes the most financial
sense relative to other investments. For that we recommend the use of DROI with
“realistic” estimates of the future hydrocarbon revenue per unit volume and cur-
rency escalation trends.
I.1 Introduction
Tip Screen-out (TSO) and Frac-Pack designs are generally performed in moderate
to high-permeability reservoirs that require greater conductivity than achieved with
conventional hydraulic fracturing. The implementation of TSO and Frac-Packs,
over the past few years, has resulted in substantially greater fracture conductivities
and improved proppant placement. As a consequence, these applications have
gained popularity in the industry, especially in high permeability wells in the Gulf
of Mexico where inadequate conductivity and formation damage have been prob-
lems. Fundamentally, these techniques are similar up to the step of fully packing the
fracture.
The TSO methodology as presented by Smith1 et al. and applied to the Ravensurn
South gas field2 is used to deliberately create a proppant screen-out or bridging
condition around the perimeter of the fracture to prevent further propagation and
height growth. Continued pumping results in “ballooning” or an increase in the
fracture aperture with continued increasing fracture pressure. The increased aper-
ture results in a greater propped width and increased fracture conductivity. Typi-
cally, only the perimeter of the fracture is packed.
Frac-Packs differ from TSO's by packing the entire fracture with proppant from the
tip to the wellbore at the settled bank concentration which greatly increases the
fracture conductivity. This technique is typically performed in higher permeability
formations that require large average conductivities to increase productivity.
The relative popularity and success of the so-called Frac-Pack technique for
hydraulic fracturing has resulted in many misconceptions regarding the objectives
and procedures used for these non-conventional treatments. The Frac-Pack method-
ology presented here (and compared to the classical TSO methodology) was origi-
nally developed and implemented into MFrac-IIä ver. 7.1 July of 1994. An
analytical form of this methodology was presented at the 1995 SPE annual
meeting3.
This appendix presents in a concise manner a summary of Meyer & Associates, Inc.
1994 tech notes for design of TSO's and Frac-Packs. A clear definition of the
design objectives and a step-by-step procedure that can be used as an engineering
guide for implementation are also included. A comparison is made between the
classical TSO and Frac-Pack methodologies with a presentation of results achiev-
able with Frac-Packs. The following discussions will help reduce the confusion sur-
rounding the design of fractures in high permeability reservoirs and offer
alternatives to increase productivity.
I.2 Methodology
MFrac uses numerical, state-of-the-art, Frac-Pack and TSO methodologies to
design “fully packed” or TSO type proppant distributions. The modeling tech-
niques used require that the fracture propagation and proppant transport solution be
linked in such a way that each can influence the other. Normally, this means that for
each time step in the fracture propagation calculation, the proppant transport simu-
lation must be assessed and coupled. This methodology differs substantially from a
conventional fracture stimulation approach which by design tries to prevent prop-
pant screen-outs or bridging.
For a Frac-Pack or TSO design the slurry treatment must be scheduled such that as
the earlier stages concentrate, due to slurry dehydration or leakoff, the later stages
fill the void created by a continuous and declining rate of fluid loss. The only oper-
ational alternatives to fully pack a fracture is to either decrease the injection rate or
increase the proppant concentration to offset the decreased leakoff rate during the
Frac-Pack process. Increasing the leakoff velocity (rate) during the Frac-Pack pro-
cess will also enable the fracture to be fully packed. However, accomplishing this
in a diffusion controlled environment may be unrealistic. In practice, the maximum
pumped concentration is normally limited by an upper constrained value far below
the packed concentration needed for Frac-Packs. Therefore, the only practical way
to accomplish a Frac-Pack reliably is to decrease the injection rate after a pre-spec-
ified design criteria is satisfied to offset the decline in fluid loss once screen-out
occurs and fracture growth has stopped. The advantage of decreasing the injection
rate also minimizes excess “ballooning” by maintaining a constant fracture pres-
sure. This methodology is easily implemented in the field (by controlling pressure
and decreasing rate) and can help force a TSO or enhance the rate of Frac-Packing.
Design Criteria
The criteria for automatic TSO and Frac-Pack designs include:
Procedures
In terms of procedures, operations should design for a target fracture length. After a
perimeter tip screen-out is achieved, fracture extension (length and height growth)
will stop and the fracture width and pressure will begin to increase. The rate of fluid
leakoff begins to decrease.
For a TSO, the fracture pressure is allowed to continue increasing until the mini-
mum concentration per unit area is satisfied or the pressure rises to the maximum
allowable value. The TSO methodology assumes a constant injection rate during
the entire pumping schedule.
For a Frac-Pack once the fracture width (or pressure) reaches a value to satisfy the
minimum concentration per unit area at the bank concentration, the fracture pres-
sure (compliance) is held constant by decreasing the injection rate to match the
leakoff rate.
Figure I.1 illustrates the methodologies for tip screen-out and frac-pack designs. As
shown, the behavior of the fracture length (extension) is similar for both methods
with arresting of fracture propagation after the time of tip screen-out (TSO). The
inlet proppant concentration for a TSO is shown to continually increase with time
(after the initial TSO stage) until it reaches a maximum pre-specified inlet concen-
tration.
The Frac-Pack schedule shows a similar behavior up to the time of the maximum
inlet concentration. After reaching maximum concentration, the injection rate is
decreased to match the leakoff rate while maintaining a constant inlet concentra-
tion. The leakoff rate decreases as a result of the decreased fracture propagation
rate. Since no new fracture area is being created during the packing process, the
leakoff velocity will decrease with time as a result of diffusion. If leakoff is not
controlled by diffusion or is time dependent, the leakoff rate will decline at a differ-
ent slope.
For a Frac-Pack, once the injection rate is cut to the leakoff rate, the fracture pres-
sure will remain essentially constant. This mitigates the pressure dependence effect
on fluid loss. If leakoff is a strong function of fracture pressure, the leakoff coeffi-
cient would change more drastically for a TSO than a Frac-Pack because of the
continued increasing net fracture pressure with time after a TSO.
Figure I.1 shows that the fracture net pressure and width both increase with time
after a TSO. However, the Frac-Pack net pressure and width remain constant after
the time the maximum concentration is reached. Since our 3-D model is not a
lumped model, the spatial compliance factors may change during the declining
injection rate period resulting in slight variations in the pressure and aperture. The
fracture volume will, however, remain constant during this period. Figure I.1 also
shows the final concentration at the end of the job (eoj). This clearly illustrates that
the main advantage of packing a fracture all the way back to the wellbore is to
increase the propped width and minimize excess pressure
fracture efficiencies (typically less than forty percent). The lower the efficiency the
easier and quicker it is to achieve a TSO or Frac-Pack. For fracture efficiencies
greater than fifty per cent it is difficult to perform a classical “fully packed” frac-
ture. Other important considerations are the minimum allowable flow rate, prop-
pant settling, time/pressure dependent leakoff, spurt loss and changing fracture
compliance. The numerical procedure developed here for 3-D (and 2-D) TSO's and
Frac-Pack's automatically accounts for these effects and other time dependent
parameters generally ignored in analytical solutions.
Figure I.2 shows the inlet slurry, liquid and resulting leakoff rate as a function of
time which satisfy the pre-specified Frac-Pack criteria. Figure I.3 illustrates the
simulated automated inlet proppant concentration schedule.
Once the design fracture length is achieved at about 13 minutes fracture extension
(length and height) stops as a result of the tip screen-out condition (Figure I.4). The
fracture continues to balloon from 13 to 17.5 minutes to a width of about 1.3 in.
(Figure I.5) to meet the design concentration/area of 9 lbm/ft2 for a fully packed
fracture.
Once the fracture stops propagating the pressure and width continue increasing
(Figure I.5). After the optimum design width is achieved the injection rate is cut to
the leakoff rate and the inlet concentration is maintained at the maximum value.
This stops the fracture from ballooning, resulting in an approximate constant pres-
sure throughout the remainder of the job.
Figure I.2 shows that once the fracture stops propagating the leakoff rate decreases.
Also, the liquid rate decreases with increasing inlet sand concentration. After the
slurry rate decreases to the leakoff rate at tcmax the liquid injection rate falls below
the leakoff rate. The higher the maximum allowable inlet concentration the lower
the liquid rate will be. Consequently, during this decreasing injection period, the
rate of fracture packing is equal to q s – q l 1 – where is the settled bank
porosity.
Figure I.6 shows the behavior of fracture efficiency as a function of time. After the
propagation rate diminishes at 13 minutes the efficiency rises as a result of the
decreased leakoff rate. However, once the injection rate decreases to the leakoff
rate the fracture volume remains approximately constant (i.e., the compliance fac-
tor may, however, change slightly with time) and the efficiency will continue
decreasing until the fracture is fully packed. The fracture efficiency at closure rep-
resents the fraction of propped volume to total injected slurry volume.
Figure I.7 shows the final fully packed fracture concentration per unit area con-
tours. This profile is shown to match the desired final value of 9 lbm/ft2. The two
maximum concentration variations in the contours are a result of the two low con-
fining stresses layers in each of the pay intervals.
Figure I.2 through Figure I.7 illustrate the Frac-Pack methodology as implemented
in our 3-D hydraulic fracturing simulator. The advantage of using a numerical sim-
ulator is that the leakoff rate, compliance factors, spurt loss, height growth and
other typical simplifying analytical assumptions made by 2-D models are not nec-
essary to solve the governing equations.
odology. Excessive leakoff control for both the TSO and Frac-Pack may be a strong
disadvantage resulting in higher fracture efficiency jobs.
High permeability reservoirs require high conductivity fractures, hence the term
“packed” is applied since the fracture must be fully packed with proppant to accom-
plish an optimum conductivity. To approach a truly “packed” condition it is neces-
sary to control the injection rate and inlet proppant concentration once a TSO has
occurred and throughout the Frac-Pack process.
When classical TSO methods are applied to small scale treatments undesirable or
less desirable effects may occur due to the resulting proppant distribution. Nor-
mally, Frac-Packs are performed in high permeability reservoirs that require a more
aggressive approach to achieve the optimum proppant placement for full develop-
ment of short high conductivity fractures.
I.5 References
1. Smith, M. B., Miller, W.K. and Haga, J.: “Tip Screenout Fracturing: A Tech-
nique for Soft Unstable Formations,” SPEPE, May 1987, 95-103.
2. Martins, J.P. and Stewart, D.R.: “Tip Screenout Fracturing Applied to the
Ravenspurn South Gas Field Development,” SPE Prod. Eng., Aug. 1992, 252-
258.
J.1 Introduction
The solution methodology for our Produced Water Reinjection (PWRI) hydraulic
fracturing simulator is formulated in this report. A summary of the governing water
and thermal front equations, thermo- and poro-elastic stresses and fluid loss equa-
tions are presented.
where
The governing energy equation with a reference temperature equal to the initial res-
ervoir temperature of T r (i.e., E out = 0 ), and a fluid injection temperature of
T f is
V i c w T f – T r = V c c r 1 – + c w 1 – S or + c o S or T f – T r (J-2)
The volume of the cooled region is
c w Vi
V c = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (J-3)
c r 1 – + c w 1 – S or + c o S or
exp 0 + exp – 0
a 0 = L f cosh 0 = L f -------------------------------------------------
2
(J-4)
exp 0 – exp – 0
b 0 = L f sin h 0 = L f -------------------------------------------------
2
and
V c = a 0 b 0 h = L f2 h sin h 0 cos h 0
or
L f2 h
V c = ------------- exp 2 0 – exp – 2 0 . (J-5)
4
4V c
F 02 – ------------
-F – 1 = 0 (J-6)
L f2 h 0
The solution to F 0 is
2
F0 = 0 + 0 + 4 2 (J-7)
where
4V c
0 = ------------
-
L f2 h
a0 = Lf F0 + 1 F0 2 (J-8)
and
b0 = Lf F0 – 1 F0 2 . (J-9)
Vi
V w = -------------------------------------- (J-10)
1 – S or – S iw
4V w
F 12 – ------------
-F – 1 = 0 (J-11)
L f2 h 1
where F 1 is
2
F1 = 1 + 1 + 4 2 (J-12)
and
4V w
1 = ------------
-
L f2 h
The major and minor water front axes are then given by
a1 = Lf F1 + 1 F1 (J-13)
and
b1 = Lf F1 – 1 F1 . (J-14)
Thermoelastic Stresses
The thermoelastic stresses are generated if the inject fluid is at a temperature differ-
ent than that of the formation. The region of changed rock temperature has a sharp
boundary interface which progresses outward in an ellipsoidal shape.
1 – 3 T
-------------------------------- = f a0 b 0 h (J-15)
E T
or
E T
3 = --------------- f a 0 b 0 h (J-16)
T 1–
where the thermoelastic coefficient is
b0 a0 1
f a 0 b 0 h = ------------------------ + ------------------------
1 + b0 a0 1 + b0 a0
(J-17)
1 h 0.9 h 2 b0 0.774
1 1 + --- 1.45 -------- + 0.35 -------- 1 + -----
a 0
2 2b 0 2b 0
Figure J.1 shows the thermoelastic coefficient for various thermal front ellipsoidal
shapes.
Poroelastic Stresses
The change in horizontal stress ( 3 )as a result of a change in pore pressure
p
( p ) is analogous to the thermal stresses equations. To accomplish this transfor-
mation, the following linear coefficient of pore pressure expansion is introduced
1 – 2 c gr
J = --------------- – ------- (J-18)
E 3
which is analogous to the linear coefficient of thermal expansion. The change in the
minimum horizontal stress as a result of pore pressure changes from Eq. (J-15) is
1 – 3 p
-------------------------------- = f a 1 b 1 h (J-19)
EJ p
Introducing Biot’s constant
c gr kb
= 1 – ------- = 1 – ------- (J-20)
cb k gr
where k b is the bulk modulus of the material and k gr is the bulk modulus of the
solid constituents. The bulk modulus of the material, k b , is defined as
E
k b = ----------------------- (J-21)
31 – 2
Rearranging Eq. (5), the grain compressibility in terms of Biot’s constant and the
bulk modulus of the material is
Ec gr
EJ = 1 – 2 – ----------- = 1 – 2 (J-23)
3
Placing Eq. (4) in terms of Biot’s constant we have
1 – -
-------------- 3
-------------p-
1 – 2 p = f a 1 b 1 h (J-24)
or
1 – 2
3 = --------------- p f a 1 b 1 h (J-25)
p 1–
where p = Pf – pi .
Perkins and Gonzales used the same approach for calculating the poro-elastic stress
as the thermal stress (i.e., they assumed the elliptical area of constant pressure vari-
ations surround the fracture). Since Koning (1985) realized that this assumption
was “clearly unrealistic”, he developed a different approach following the method-
ology of Muskat. Koning’s ellipsoidal pressure distribution around the fracture for
plane strain yields a limiting factor on the effective pressure differential. This factor
which we will call the Koning factor, f k , is equal to 0.5 as derived by Koning.
1 – 2
3 = --------------- f k p f a 1 b 1 h (J-26)
p 1–
where the Perkins factor, f a 1 b 1 h , is used to account for the magnitude of the
ellipsoidal pressure extent around the fracture.
external filter cakes based on the total suspended solids in the injected fluid which
is based on the work of Pang and Sharma (1994) concludes the fluid loss section.
A t C -
q t = 4 ---------------------- dA (J-27)
0 t – A
where q t is the fluid loss rate at time t , A t is the fracture area (one face), C
is the total leakoff coefficient, A is the time of fracture area creation. Carter’s
1D equation assumes that the fluid loss to the formation is linear and perpendicular
to the fracture face (see Howard and Fast (1970, page 33)).
Meyer and Hagel (1988) presented a general equation to replace the leakoff rate of
Eq. (J-27)
4CA t 1 1
q t = ------------------ ----------------------- d
t 0 1 – f
(J-28)
4CA t
= ------------------
t
where
1 1
= 0 ----------------------
1 – f
- d (J-30)
Meyer and Hagel also showed that for a constant leakoff area propagation parame-
ter, a , Eq. (J-29) simplifies to
1 a
A
f = ----------- = -----------
t At (J-31)
1 a
=
and
1 1
= 0 -------------------------
1
- d
1– a (J-32)
a + 1 1 2
= -------------------------------------------
a + 1 2
1/2 2
1 2
2 8/3
10 5.675463855...
2 kh
p D = ------------- p (J-33)
q
Gringarten (1974), as report by Earlougher (1977), presented two dimensionless
pressure solutions for a static vertical fracture in an infinite-acting system. The two
general solutions for elliptical leakoff are presented below.
1 1 –1
p D t Dxf = t Dxf erf ---------------- – --- Ei ------------ (J-34)
2 t 2 4t Dxf
Dxf
where the dimensionless time based on the fracture half-length is defined as
t
t Dxf = -----2 (J-35)
L
and
k
= --------- (J-36)
c
The dimensionless pressure solution at early times (i.e., t Dxf 0.1 , linear or 1D
leakoff) for a static (non-propagating) uniform flux fracture in an infinite system is
given by
p D t Dxf (J-37)
1
p D = --- ln t Dxf + 2.80907 (J-38)
2
with less than 1% error.
1 0.134 0.866
p D t Dxf = --- t Dxf erf ------------- + erf -------------
2 t t
Dxf Dxf
(J-39)
– 0.018 – 0.750
– 0.067Ei ---------------- – 0.433Ei ----------------
t Dxf t Dxf
The dimensionless pressure solution at early times (i.e., t Dxf 0.01 ) for an infi-
nite conductivity fracture in an infinite system is given by
p D t Dxf (J-40)
1
p D = --- ln t Dxf + 2.2000 (J-41)
2
with less than 1% error.
2 kh p
q t = -------------------- q D t (J-42)
where k is the formation permeability, h is the formation height, is the reser-
voir viscosity, and p is the differential pressure (fracture pressure minus the ini-
tial reservoir pressure).
Linear Solution
The differential equation for the pressure distribution p x t in the formation
assuming one-dimensional (linear) fluid loss from a fracture is
2
k p
--------- p
2 = (J-43)
c y t
The boundary and initial conditions, assuming that the reservoir is infinite and that
a constant pressure exists in the fracture between the fracture and the reservoir, are
p y 0 = p i
(J-44)
p 0 t = p f for t 0
The solution to Eq. (J-43) as given by Holman (1977, page 102) is
p y t – p f y
-------------------------- = erf ------------ (J-45)
pi – pf 2 t
where
k
= --------- (J-46)
c
The velocity at any position y in the formation from Darcy’s law is
k p
v = – --- (J-47)
y
Performing the partial differentiation of Eq. (J-45) gives
pi – pf 2
p y
= -------------- exp – -------- (J-48)
y t 4 t
At the fracture face, the leakoff velocity is
k p k p C II
v = – --- = --- ------------- = ------- (J-49)
y y=0
t t
where the leakoff coefficient is given by
k p c-
C II = --- ----------- = p k-------- (J-50)
and p = pf – pi .
This is the same linear velocity formulation as presented by Howard and Fast
(1970, page 35).
Equating Eq. (J-42) to Eq. (J-28) for 1D flow and substituting Eq. (J-50) for reser-
voir dominated fluid loss ( C C II ), we find
2 kh p 4CA t
q t = -------------------- q D t = ------------------
t
or
2 L t 1
q D t = --- --------------- = ------------- (J-51)
t tD
where the dimensionless time is given by
t 1 2
t D = -----2 --------------- (J-52)
L 2
The dimensionless rate can be calculated from the dimensionless pressure solution
based on the following well known relationship in Laplace space (see Lee and Bro-
chenbrough (1983, Appendix A)
1 -
q D s = ------------------
2
(J-53)
s pD s
Then for linear fluid loss
p D t Dxf = --- 2 t Dxf (J-54)
2
or
1
p D s = --- ---------
2s s
1 - 2
q D s = ------------------
2
= ---------- (J-55)
s pD s s
Inverting Eq. (J-55), we find the dimensionless rate solution for a static fracture
with linear leakoff to the formation to be
2 1
q D t = --- ---------------- (J-56)
t
Dxf
Consequently, if we make the following substitution for a propagating fracture
1 - 2
------------ ---------------- (J-57)
tD t Dxf
then the dimensionless rate solution as a function of dimensionless pressure for lin-
ear fluid loss is
1
q D t D = ---------------- (J-58)
pD tD
1
q D t Dxf -------------------- (J-59)
p D t Dxf
Our first reaction to this substitution is that it’s too simple to be correct. However,
Koning goes on to explain that this assumption is based partially on the work of
Haggort et al. who “observed that in an infinite reservoir the fracture length is
always proportional to the square root of time, even in the region intermediate
between (16) and (17)”. Koning defines these conditions as follows: “Condition
(16) means that the velocity of fracture propagation is much greater than the veloc-
ity with which the pressure disturbance travels into the reservoir” (i.e., t Dxf « 1 )
and condition (17) is “if the fracture propagates much slower than the pressure dis-
turbance” (i.e., t Dxf » 1 ) and Carter’s model is certainly not valid”. Koning fur-
ther goes on to state that (his) “2-D ellipsoidal solution is compared with the graph
in Hagoort’s thesis on p. 132. The agreement is everywhere within 10%.”
The correctness of Koning’s substitution for a constant injection rate (at low frac-
ture efficiencies) becomes clear from Eq. (J-57). If the fracture propagates propor-
tional to the square root of time, a = 1 2 , then the fluid loss integral
parameter is given by = 2 . Eq. (J-57) then can be written as
1 - 2 1
------------ ---------------- = ---------------- (J-60)
tD t Dxf t Dxf
a 1 2
or
t D t Dxf (J-61)
Therefore, Eq. (J-58) simplifies to the Koning solution (Eq. (J-59)) for a fracture
propagating proportional to the square of time for 1-D and 2-D ellipsoidal flow.
van den Hoek (2000) “proceeded along the lines of Koning in order to come up
with an elliptical leak-off rate for the general fracture case”. His substitution, based
on our nomenclature, was
1- 2
-------- ------------- ---- (J-62)
tD t Dxf f
where f is given by
1 1
f = 0 ------------------------------
1 t
- d (J-63)
1– a
This equation is similar to Eq. (J-32) for a time dependent propagation rate. van den
Hoek justifies this equation by the correctness of the asymptotic behavior for 1) a
constant propagation parameter (i.e., a is a constant) and 2) for linear fluid loss
(i.e. Carter’s Solution). Clearly, van den Hoek’s substitution does not simplify to
Carter’s 1-D solution for a general propagating fracture (i.e., only for a = 1 2
does it simplify to the Carter solution).
Therefore, again following along the lines of Koning, a general ellipsoidal solution
for non-constant fracture propagation rates (from Eq. (J-57) and Eq. (J-58)) is
obtained by making the substitution,
1 2
--------- --------------- (J-64)
tD t Dxf
This is the same as van den Hoek’s Eq. (J-62) with f set equal to unity.
1
q D t D = ---------------- (J-65)
pD tD
q
p s = ------------- s (J-66)
2 kh
External Skin
The leakoff velocity through the filter cake as a function of the cake permeability
( k c ), cake thickness ( c ), and pressure drop across the cake ( p s ) from Darcy’s
law can be written as
kc ps
v = ----- --------- (J-67)
c c
The total leakoff rate over the fracture face is
kc ps
q = 4hL ----- --------- (J-68)
c c
The pressure drop across the cake in terms of the flow rate is
q c c 1
p s = --------- ----- ----
4h L k c
(J-69)
q c k
= ------------- --- ----- --------------
2 kh 2 L k c c
The fracture skin for an external filter cake from Eq. (J-66) is
c k
sf = --- ----- -------------- (J-70)
external 2 L k c c
Eq. (J-70) is for a static (non-propagating) fracture. For a propagating fracture, the
cake thickness varies as function of exposure time ( t – ). From conservation of
mass (volume) and Eq. (J-67) we have
c
v 1 c (J-71)
t
The cake thickness as a function of time from Eq. (J-71) is
c t t (J-72)
c t – = c t 1 – t (J-73)
kc ps 1 1
q = 4hL ----- ------------ ----------------------- d
c c t 0 1 – f
(J-74)
kc ps
= 4hL ----- ------------
c c t
where f = t and c t is understood to be the filter cake thickness at the
wellbore. Please refer to Eq. (J-28) for additional details.
The effective skin based on the filter cake thickness at the wellbore with
c c t from Eq. (J-70) is
1 c t k
sf = --------------- ------------ -------------- (J-75)
external 2 L t k c c
Internal Skin
General Formulation
The pressure drop of the leakoff fluid in the formation for linear fluid loss as result
of mobility effects (see Eq. (J-69)) can be written as
q s
p s = ------ ---- --- – ---
4h L k s k
(J-76)
q s k
= ------------- --- ---- -------------- – 1
2 kh 2 L k s s
where the subscript s refers to the leakoff fluid properties, s is the extent of the
damage region into the formation normal to the fracture face, and k s s is the
leakoff fluid mobility.
k
M = -------------- (J-77)
ks s
The internal fracture skin from Eq. (J-66) for a static fracture is
s k
sf = --- ---- -------------- – 1 (J-78)
internal 2 L ks s
The internal skin for a propagating fracture based on the same methodology for the
external skin (i.e., s s t ) is
1 s t k
sf = --------------- ----------- -------------- – 1 (J-79)
internal 2 L t k s s
k
sf = -------------- – 1 f D (J-80)
internal ks s
where
s t
= ----------- (J-81)
L t
and for linear fluid loss
1
f D = --------------- (J-82)
2
It is also observed that for linear fluid loss f D is related to the dimensionless
1
t D --------------- (J-83)
2
Since the above equations were developed for linear resistance or s L « 1 , we
now will develop an approximate solution for an ellipsoidal internal skin
s L » 1 .
The skin for a radial system (see Economides and Nolte (1987, pp. 1-11, eq 1-77))
is
k
s = -------------- – 1 ln ------s (J-84)
ks s r
w
where r w is the effective wellbore radius. The effective wellbore radius for an
infinite conductivity fracture is
rw = L 2 (J-85)
Substituting Eq. (J-85) into Eq. (J-84) and rearranging we find
k
s = -------------- – 1 f D (J-86)
ks s
where
f D = ln 2
p D = 1 2 ln t D + 2.2
12
(J-87)
= ln 9t D
Therefore, if we make the following substitution
9t D 2 (J-88)
or
2
t D ---------- (J-89)
3
Then for a non-propagating fracture, we have f D = p D t D when
s L » 1 . Similar to the methodology above we can postulate that for a propagat-
ing fracture with ellipsoidal fluid loss that Eq. (J-89) becomes
2 1
t D ---------- --------------- (J-90)
3 2
2
Since the constant ---------- 1.181635 is near unity, an approximate solution for
3
the internal fracture skin with f D p D t D is
k
s = -------------- – 1 f D (J-91)
ks s
where
1
t D --------------- (J-92)
2
2 2
---------- – ---------- – 1 e
– a
(J-93)
3 3
where a is a constant.
An approximate solution for the internal skin function based on Gringarten’s (1974)
infinite-conductivity fracture solution is
--- 1 – x D 1 + x D
f D = erf --------------- + erf ---------------
2 ------ 2- 2-
------
(J-94)
1 – x D – 1 – x D 1 + x D – 1 + x D
2 2
– -------------------- Ei ------------------------- – -------------------- Ei --------------------------
4 4 2 4
--- --4- 2
where x D = 0.51475 for a = 1 2 .
fD (J-95)
f D = ln 2 (J-96)
Figure J.2 shows the dimensionless internal skin function (Eq. (J-94)) as a function
of the extent of the ellipsoidal damage region in the formation normal to the frac-
ture face divided by the fracture length (i.e., = s t L t = b x f ). The
linear ( f D = ) and radial ( f D = ln 2 ) solutions are shown for comparison.
Closed System
The mechanical skin pressure drop due to variable spacial mobility in a closed sys-
tem for steady-state behavior from Eq. (J-66) is given by
q
p s = ------------- s dV dV (J-97)
2 kh
where dV is the elemental volume. The spacial varying total skin s is given by
k
s = -------------
ks s D
- – 1 df (J-98)
q
s = p s ------------- = s dV dV (J-99)
2 kh
Implementation
Normally the internal mechanical skin is assumed to be at or near the wellbore.
However for produced water reinjection the internal damage may extend some dis-
tance into the formation. The above equations are required for variable internal
mobility in finite reservoirs.
To illustrate the utility of the above equations for a spacial variable mobility in the
reservoir a general steady-state solution for radial flow will be presented
q
p r – p wf = ------------- ln r r w (J-100)
2 kh
The average reservoir pressure is given by
p = p dV dV (J-101)
2 re
p = ----------------
r e2 – r w2 rw
p r r dr (J-102)
q - re
2 ------------
r e2 – r w2 2 kh rw
p – p wf = ---------------- ln r r w r dr
q 2 r e2 r e2 – r w2
= ------------- ---------------- ----- ln r e r w – ---------------- (J-103)
2 kh r e2 – r w2 2 2
q 1
= ------------- ln r e r w – ---
2 kh 2
where r e » r w has been substituted.
q 1
p – p wf = ------------- ln r e r w – --- + p s
2 kh 2
(J-104)
q 1
= ------------- ln r e r w – --- + s
2 kh 2
To illustrate the use of the above equations for mechanical skin we will assume that
the entire formation is damaged with a mobility of k s s . The damaged skin pres-
sure drop from Eq. (J-97) to Eq. (J-99) is
q k
p s = ------------- -------------- – 1 df D dV dV
2 kh k s s
q k
= ------------- -------------- – 1 df D dV dV (J-105)
2 kh k s s
q k 1
= ------------- -------------- – 1 ln r e r w – ---
2 kh k s s 2
q k 1
s = p s ------------- = -------------- – 1 ln r e r w – --- (J-106)
2 kh ks s 2
The resulting inflow pressure equation for a damaged reservoir with a mobility of
k s s is found by substituting Eq. (J-106) into Eq. (J-104) and rearranging
q 1 k
p – p wf = ------------- ln r e r w – --- 1 + -------------- – 1
2 kh 2 ks s
(J-107)
q s 1
= --------------- ln r e r w – ---
2 ks h 2
This (of course) is the exact solution illustrating the utility of the above methodol-
ogy. If we did not use this integral methodology for finding the mechanical skin, the
increase in the average reservoir pressure due to the damage (i.e., the integral con-
stant of – 1 2 in Eq. (J-106) would have been missing).
Pang and Sharma (1994) best summarized their development of a model which
accounts for both internal and external filter cakes (skin) and the concept of transi-
tion time. The foundation of their model is stated as “In developing filtration mod-
els, both internal and external filter cakes need to be accounted for since both are
generally present in the filtration process. We postulate that during some initial
period an internal filter cake is formed. As more particles are trapped on the surface
of the rock a point is reached where very few particles can invade the rock and an
external filter cake begins to build. We refer to the time at which no more particles
invade the rock, i.e., the time at which the initial layer of external filter cake is com-
pletely formed, as the transition time ( t * ). If we can determine the conditions
under which particles will form internal and external filter cakes and the time
required to form the initial layer of external filter cake (transition time), then the
entire filtration process can be approximated by applying an internal cake filtration
model before the transition time and an external cake filtration model after the tran-
sition time. Purely external filtration can be obtained in the limit as t * 0 , and
pure internal filtration can be obtained in the limit as t * .”
vc + c + = 0 (J-108)
y s t s
and
= 0 – (J-110)
v
– vc s + c s + = 0 (J-111)
y y t
where from Eq. (J-110)
= –
t t
Noting that the quantity between the brackets in Eq. (J-111) is the particulate mass
balance equation which is equal to zero, we now substitute the particulate mass bal-
ance Eq. (J-108) into Eq. (J-111) and find
v
= 0 (J-112)
y
Substituting Eq. (J-112) into Eq. (J-108) and rearranging, the particle mass conser-
vation equation is simplified to
c s
v + cs + = 0 (J-113)
y t
or
c + v c + c s = 0 (J-114)
s s t
t
This is the same basic mass conservation equation as reported by Wennberg and
Sharma (1987). However, the particle concentration here is that of the slurry and
not of the liquid. The liquid and slurry concentrations are related by
Vl cl = Vs cs = Vl + Vp cs
cl = 1 + Vp Vl cs
= 1 + cl cs
or
cl cs
c s = ------------- and c l = ------------- (J-115)
1 + cl 1 – cs
= vc s (J-116)
t
where is the filtration coefficient with units of L –1 (i.e., ft –1 ). For dilute solu-
tions, the filtration coefficient is assumed to be independent of c s .
Eq. (J-113) can be simplified by substituting Eq. (J-116) and noting that » cs
for all practical purposes except at very early times.
c s
= – cs (J-117)
y
The solution to Eq. (J-117) is
– y
cs y = cs 0 e for t (J-118)
t
y t = vcs y dt (J-119)
– y
= V t – c s 0 e
where V is the volume loss per unit area as given by
t
V t – = v dt (J-120)
– y
y t = 0 t e (J-121)
where
0 t = V t c s 0 (J-122)
From Eq. (J-118), it is shown that for t the suspended concentration is time
independent and only a function of position. The average distance a particle travels
into the formation, d , can be found from Eq. (J-118)
– d
cs d = cs 0 e = cs 0 2
or
d = ln 2 (J-123)
* = 0 – * (J-124)
Inserting the critical deposition porosity, * , into Eq. (J-119), we find the transi-
tion volume loss per unit area to be
*
V * = ---------------- (J-125)
cs 0
Wennberg and Sharma (1987) report that a reasonable guess for the critical poros-
ity, * , at which transition occurs from a theoretical standpoint is when the pore
space is about 50% filled, or * = 0 2 .
* 0 1 2
*
------ = 1 – p (J-126)
0
max
ks 1
---- = ----------------- (J-127)
k 1 +
where is a constant.
A more general form of Eq. (J-127) is
ks 1
---- = ---------------------------------
- (J-128)
k
1 + *
where represent the damage factor and the power coefficient.
The pressure drop across the internal cake (assuming linear flow for now) from
Darcy’s law is
dp -
------ = – ---------------- v
dy k s y t
or
t
p = 0 – ----------------- v dy
k s y t
(J-129)
where t is the leakoff distance in the formation and k s y t is the local dam-
aged permeability.
The average or equivalent formation permeability ratio in the internal cake from
Eq. (J-128) and Eq. (J-129) is
k t 1
---- = ----------- dy t
ks 0 ks k
(J-130)
t
= 0 1 + * dy t
y t -
--------------- 0 t - –y
= --------------- e (J-131)
* *
Substituting Eq. (J-131) into Eq. (J-130) and integrating, we find an expression for
the average internal cake permeability
t
k- 0 t – y
---
ks
= 1 + ---------------
*
- 0 e dy t
(J-132)
0 t 1 – e –
= 1 + ---------------
*
- ---------------------------
t
The limiting formation to damage permeability ratios for small and large values of
, are
k ks 1+
0
and
k ks 1
t * , can be approximated
The characteristic leakoff distance at transition,
from mass conservation of the particles when a large fraction of the particles are
deposited in the internal cake
* * * – y
V*c s0 = 0 + cs dy 0 dy = * 0 e dy
(J-133)
* – *
V * c s 0 ------ 1 – e
From Eq. (J-125) we find
– *
= 1–e
or
– ln 1 –
* = ------------------------- (J-134)
The characteristic distance at transition in terms of the average distance a particle
travels from Eq. (J-123) is
– ln 1 –
* d = ------------------------- (J-135)
ln 2
Consequently, the characteristic distance at transition (where most of the particles
are deposited) is within an order of magnitude of the average distance a particle
travels in the formation, (e.g., if = 0.9 , * d 3.322 and if = 0.99 ,
* d 4.605 ).
–
0 t 1 – e
k - ---------------------------
t ---- – 1 = --------------- (J-136)
k
*
s
1 1 L –
--------------------------------------
- = ---------------------------------------- x 0 dx L t
k ks – 1 k ks – 1 0
frac x=0
= ----------------------------------------
k ks – 1
x=0
or
0 1 – e – 1
k ks – 1 = -----------
*
--------------------------- ------
frac
(J-138)
1-
= k ks – 1 -----
x = 0
where
1 1
= 0 ------------------------------- d (J-139)
1 – f
with the limits
: 1
1 : 0
The internal fracture skin for linear leakoff from Eq. (J-79) is
k ks – 1
1 x=0
s f = ----------------- ---------------------------------------- (J-140)
2 L t
Internal Cake Build and Erosion
It is common practice to assume once the internal cake is fully developed it remains
a constant. However, once the external cake begins to developed the continued
fluid loss through the external cake may erode the deposited particulate material.
– y
y t = V t – c s 0 e (J-141)
Assuming erosion can occur immediately after transition, the form of the deposited
porosity can be written as
------ = ------ – ------ – 1 exp – e V V * (J-142)
* * min
* min
V t – = V – V * for V V *
0 –
= 0 – and S = ----- = ------------------- (J-143)
0 0
where 0 is the original (mobile) formation porosity and is the current mobile
porosity.
* 0 – *
* = 0 – * and S * = ------ = ---------------------- (J-144)
0 0
- S- 0 –
----- = ---- = ----------------
- (J-145)
* S* 0 – *
*
------ = S* = 1 – p (J-146)
0 max
max
cs = 0 – (J-147)
c s* = 0 – * = * = S * 0 (J-148)
S D = S S * = f z or c s c s* = f z (J-149)
Table J.2 lists a number of general relationships used in MPwri for the DDM and
FDM models where a is a user specified constant.
Table J.2: Internal Saturation Distribution Functions
Correlation Model Dimensionless Saturation Average Dimensionless
DDM or FDM Saturation
SD = S S* SD = S S *
a
v DDM SD = 1 – SD = a 1 + a
k D = k s k = f S D V V p (J-150)
Table J.3 lists a number of general relationships used in MPwri for the internal per-
meability damage for both the DDM and FDM models.
I DDM or FDM kD = a
1
IIi DDM or FDM k D = ------------------a-
1 + bS D
Va DDM k D = a + b exp – V c d
Vb DDM k D = a + b exp – V p c d
t
c t 1 – c = c s v s dt (J-151)
0
where c t is the cake thickness, c is the filter cake porosity, c s is the particu-
late concentration available for deposition in the cake, and v s is the time dependent
velocity at the leading edge of the filter cake.
From mass conservation of liquid, at the leading edge of the external cake we have
vs 1 – cs = vl
where v s is the incident velocity at the face of the external cake and v l is the inci-
dent velocity of the fluid at the cake/formation interface (note: v s c s = v l c l , see
also Eq. (J-113)). Therefore, the filter cake thickness as a function of the leakoff
velocity is
1 cs t
c t = ------------------- ------------- v l dt
1 – c 1 – cs 0
(J-152)
1 cs
= ------------------- ------------- V t
1 – c 1 – cs
where the volume loss per unit area V t is
t
V t = 0 vl dt (J-153)
Since the external filter cake does not start to develop until after transition for the
FDM, V t V * , Eq. (J-152) must be written as
1 cs
c t = ------------------- ------------- V t – V * (J-154)
1 – c 1 – cs
c
p s = ----- c v
kc
(J-155)
c 1 cs
= ----- ------------------- ------------- V t – V * v
kc 1 – c 1 – cs
Eq. (J-155) is identical to the pressure drop equation given by Tongchun (1994) for
a Newtonian fluid flowing through an external filter cake.
The effective external skin based on the filter cake thickness at the wellbore with
c c t from Eq. (J-70) is
1 c t k
sf = --------------- ------------ -------------- (J-156)
external 2 L t k c c
cs
1 - ------------
d t = ------------------ -v (J-157)
dt c 1 – c 1 – cs l
Substituting Darcy’s law (Eq. (J-67)) into Eq. (J-157), we find
cs kc
2 - ------------
d 2 t = ------------------ - ----- p (J-158)
dt c 1 – c 1 – cs c c
Integrating Eq. (J-158) over time, the filter cake thickness as a function of time is
found to be
c s 2k c p c
1 - ------------
------------------
c t = - ----------------- t (J-159)
1 – c 1 – c s c
where we have assumed that the differential pressure, mobility, porosity and partic-
ulate concentration are constant.
Eq. (J-159) illustrates, that for the above simplifying assumptions, the filter cake
thickness grows proportional to the square root of time. Consequently, with the aid
of Darcy’s law we have
k c p c C III
v l = ----- ------------ = --------- (J-160)
c c t t
where C III is the wall building coefficient and is given by
1 – cs kc pc
C III = 1 – c ------------- -------------- (J-161)
cs 2 c
The filter cake thickness in terms of the filter cake coefficient from Eq. (J-157) and
Eq. (J-160) is
c s C III
1 - ------------
d t = ------------------
c - ---------
dt 1 – c 1 – cs t
or
1 cs
c t = ------------------- ------------- 2C III t (J-162)
1 – c 1 – cs
Inversely, the filter cake coefficient as a function of the cake thickness is
c t 1 – cs
C III = ------------ ------------- 1 – c (J-163)
2 t cs
ps
R s ---------
v c
where p s is pressure loss across the cake, v is the leakoff velocity, and c is the
fluid leakoff viscosity.
The pressure loss across the filter cake from Darcy’s law (Eq. (J-67)) is
c
p s = v ----- = v R s (J-164)
kc
where the flow resistance term, R s , is shown to be a function of filter cake thick-
ness and permeability. The external cake resistance can also be written as
c
R s = ----- (J-165)
kc
Consequently, from Eq. (J-152) the filter cake resistance as a function of the partic-
ulate concentration and volume loss per unit area is
c 1 1 cs
R s = ----- = ---- ------------------- ------------- V t (J-166)
kc kc 1 – c 1 – cs
The total leakoff rate over the fracture face is
ps 1
q = 4hL --------- ----- (J-167)
c Rs
The pressure drop across the cake in terms of the flow rate and flow resistance is
q c Rs
p s = --------- -----
4h L
(J-168)
q c Rs k
= ------------- --- ----- --------
2 kh 2 L
The fracture skin in terms of external filter cake resistance from Eq. (J-66) and Eq.
(J-168) is
c Rs k
sf = --- ----- -------- (J-169)
external 2 L
The external skin for a propagating fracture from Eq. (J-75) is
1 c Rs k
sf = --------------- ----- -------- (J-170)
external 2 L
where R s is the flow resistance at the wellbore.
g
c t V t (J-171)
V t - g
c t = max ----------------
(J-172)
V max
where
1 cs
max = ------------------- ------------- V max (J-173)
1 – c 1 – cs
The filter cake resistance for a constant cake permeability, k c , is also of the form
V t - g
R s t = R max ----------------
(J-174)
V max
In general, both the cake thickness and permeability may be non-linear functions of
the volume loss as described by Eq. (J-174).
d d V b
= = ---------
- (J-175)
dV e dV b V e
where the volume loss per unit area to build the filter cake form min to max is
V b = V max
– V min (J-176)
and V e is the volume loss per unit area required to erode the filter cake from
max to min . The volume loss at the minimum filter cake thickness from Eq. (J-
172) is
min 1 g
V min ----------
= V max - (J-177)
max
The change in the filter cake thickness during the erosion process is
V e
e = max – min ---------- (J-178)
V
e
where e is erosion rate power coefficient and the change in volume loss per unit
area after reaching the maximum filter cake thickness is
V = V t – V t max (J-179)
and V t max is the volume loss per unit area when the filter cake reached it’s
last maximum value.
c t = max – e (J-180)
or
e
max – c t V
The filter cake thickness during the build cycle after the first erosion cycle is
g
V t + V min
c t = max --------------------------------------
(J-181)
V max
where
V = V t – V t min (J-182)
and V t min is the volume loss per unit area when the filter cake reached it’s
last minimum value.
J.1 References
1. Perkins, T.K. and Gonzalez, J.A.: “The Effect of Thermoelastic Stresses on the
Injection Well Fracturing,” SPE Journal, February 1985, 78-88.
3. Howard, G.C. and Fast, C.R.: Hydraulic Fracturing, Monograph Vol. 2, SPE,
1970, 33.
8. Lee, S.T., and Brockenbrough, J.R.: “A New Analytical Solution for Finite
Conductivity Vertical Fractures with Real Time and Laplace Space Parameter
Estimation,” SPE 12013, 1983.
9. van den Hoek, P.J.: “A Simple and Accurate Description of Non-Linear Fluid
Leak-off in High-Permeability Fracturing,” SPE 63239, October 2000.
10. Economides, M.J., and Nolte, K.G.: Reservoir Simulation, Schlumberger Edu-
cational Services, 1987, 1-10.
11. Wennberg, K.E. and Sharma, M.M.: “Determination of the Filtration Coeffi-
cient and the Transition Time for Water Injection Wells,” SPE 38181, June
1987.
12. Pang, Shutong and Sharma, M.M.: “A Model for Predicting Injectivity Decline
in Water Injection Wells,”, SPE 28489, September 1994.
13. Bachman, R.C., Harding, T.G., Settari, A., and Walters, D.A.: “Coupled Simu-
lation of Reservoir Flow, Geomechanics, and Formation Plugging with Appli-
cation to High-Rate Produced Water Reinjection,” SPE 79695, February 2003.
14. Mayerhofer, M.J., Economides, M.J. and Nolte, K.G.: “An Experimental and
Fundamental Interpretation of Fracturing Filter-Cake Fluid Loss,” SPE 22873,
October, 1991.
After-Closure Analysis
K.1 Introduction
The solution methodology for determining formation permeability after hydraulic
fracturing is formulated in this report. A summary of the governing linear and
radial flow equations are presented along with the graphical method to determine
permeability and reservoir pressure from the infinite-acting time period.
The purpose of this report is to set forth the methodology and documentation of the
governing equations for after-closure analysis as originally presented by Gu et al.
(1993) and Nolte (1997). The formulation is developed for linear and then radial
flow. Although, the main focus is on the asymptotic solution for large times (i.e.,
radial flow) from which the formation permeability can be determined, the linear
solution is important since it sets forth the frame work Nolte used to derive the
effective or an apparent closure time used in his radial time function.
Since Nolte (1997) provided a background formulation for his after closure analy-
sis, the only intent of this report is to supplement Nolte’s original work and provide
a framework of understanding (possibly only for my benefit and enjoyment) of the
underlaying formulation, boundary conditions, assumptions, etc. This is of course
in lieu of just using Nolte’s equations and skipping directly to the implementation
section of the after closure analysis found in Section 6.
3. Impulse Injection: Classic impulse injection solution by Gu et. al. (1993) from
which all pressure responses (unfractured and fractured wells) must asymptote
to at infinite-acting times.
4. Linear Solution: Presents the formulation of Nolte’s (1997) linear fluid loss
time function F L t· t c and apparent closure time, t c .
5. Radial Solution: Presents the formulation of the pressure response for the infi-
nite acting time period. Solutions are presented for the Horner, F h t t , and
Nolte, F R t t c , time functions.
N
u x = = 0 U x – F d + U x – j Fj (K-1)
j=1
where N is the number of finite discontinuities between = 0 and = , or by
u x = = 0 F U x – d (K-2)
Myers also addresses the ability of Duhamels’s method to handle one non-homoge-
neous boundary condition.
kh-
2------------
p i – p wf = p D t D + S (K-3)
q
where k is the formation permeability, h is the formation height, is the forma-
tion viscosity, p i is initial reservoir pressure, p is the pressure at any dimensionless
position r D = r r w , S is the well skin, t D is the dimensionless time given by
kt
t D = ----------------2- (K-4)
c t r w
where t is time, c t is the formation compressibility, and rw is the wellbore radius.
N
kh-
2------------ qj – qj – 1
q
p i – p r t = pD rD tD – tD j–1
+ S ---------------------
q
(K-5)
j=1
j j–1 q –q
where the system input boundary condition F j = ---------------------
- has been substituted
q
and q is an arbitrary constant reference flow rate.
The general form of the net draw-down pressure for multiple constant injection
rates from Eq. (K-5) is
N
p i – p r t = ------------- p D r D t D – t Dj – 1 + S q j – q j – 1 (K-6)
2 kh
j=1
The reader is also referred to Earlougher (1977) and Drake (1990) for similar repre-
sentations of the multi-rate drawdown pressure response at the wellbore.
whether the formation is fractured or not during the injection.” The importance of
Gu’s analysis is that the pressure response at late time is independent of the fracture
geometry. Consequently, any late time fracture solution must asymptote to the
instantaneous line source solution.
2
cr
V0 – --------------
4kt
p r t = ------------------- e (K-7)
4 kh t
where t is the elapsed time since shut-in and V is the injection or produced vol-
ume. In late time, when t is large, the exponent in Eq. (K-7) approaches zero and
the pressure at the wellbore simplifies to
V 1
p t = ------------- ----- (K-8)
4 kh t
Eq. (K-7) can be derived using Duhamel’s theorem.
The boundary conditions for a well flowed or produced at a constant injection rate
q for a total time t p and then a shut-in are
t tp ; q1 = q
(K-9)
t tp ; q2 = 0
The pressure solution using Duhamel’s method of superposition from Eq. (K-6)
with the above boundary conditions is
q
p r t = ------------- p D r D t D – p D r t – t p D (K-10)
2 kh
where p = p – p i and q is assumed positive for injection an negative for produc-
tion.
1 r D2 1 r D2
p D = – --- Ei – -------- = --- E 1 -------- (K-11)
2 4t D 2 4t D
1 r D2 1 r D2
– --
- Ei
2 4t 2 – -------- + --
- Ei – ----------------------
-
qt p D 4 t – t p D
p r t = ------------
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
2 kh tp
(K-12)
r D2 r D2
E 1 -------- – E 1 -----------------------
4t D 4 t – t p D
V
= ------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
4 kh tp
The pressure response for an impulse injection (i.e., as t p 0 or t p « t ) is found by
differentiating the numerator and denominator of the second term in Eq. (K-12)
d – E ----------------------
r D2
1 4 t – t -
d tp p D
V - ----------------------------------------------------
p r t = ------------ -
2 kh dt p dt p
– r D2 4 t – t p
V e D
(K-13)
= ------------- -----------------------------
4 kh t – tp
2
cr
– --------------
4kt
V e
= ------------- ----------------
4 kh t
The pressure response at large times is
V 1
p t = ------------- ----- (K-14)
4 kh t
Eq. (K-14) can also be derived from the late time approximation of Eq. (K-11)
given by
1
p D = --- ln t D r D2 + 0.80907 (K-15)
2
Substituting Eq. (K-15) into Eq. (K-10), the infinite-acting period solution becomes
1 2 + 0.80907 – 1 2 + 0.80907
--2- ln t D r D --- ln t – t p r D
2 D
V
p r t = ------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2kh tp (K-16)
V ln t t – t p V ln 1 + t p t
= ------------- -------------------------------- = ------------- ---------------------------------
4kh tp 4kh tp
V 1 1
p t = ------------- ----- = m ----- (K-17)
4 kh t t
where m is the slope of p vs 1 t .
V
k = -------------- (K-18)
4 hm
The apparent reservoir pressure p* ( p = p – p* )can be found from the intercept
of the extension of the straight line with the 1 t = 0 axis.”
Gu also states that if one takes the derivative of pressure in Eq. (K-17) with respect
to ln t , we have
– dp V 1 1
------------------- = ------------- ----- = m ----- (K-19)
d ln t 4 kh t t
Consequently, a plot in Cartesian coordinates of p and – dp d ln t should coin-
cide with the pressure curve at late time. This property can be used as a diagnostic
plot to help determine p* and the late time slope from which the permeability can
be calculated.
2
k p
--------- p
2 = (K-20)
c y t
p y 0 = p i
k p (K-21)
v 0 t = v 0 = – --- for t 0
y y=0
The solution for this case as given by Holman (1977, page 104) is
v0 y
2 v0 y y
p y t – p i = 2 -------- t exp – -------- – ----------- 1 – erf ------------ (K-22)
k 4 t k 2 t
where
k
= --------- (K-23)
c
At the fracture face ( y = 0 ) the pressure is
2 v0
p 0 t – p i = --- -------- t (K-24)
k
The velocity in terms of the changing net leakoff pressure differential is
k p C II
v 0 = --- --- ------------- = --- ------- (K-25)
2 t 2 t
k p
where p = p 0 t – p i and CII = --- ----------- .
C II t p
V l t c = 4Av 0 t p = 4A --- ----------------
2 tp (K-26)
= 2 C II t p A t p
where the fracture area A = Lh , L is the fracture half-length, and h is the forma-
tion height.
2
Placing Eq. (K-24) in terms of rate q = Vl t p and dimensionless time t D = t L ,
we find
q
p 0 t – p i = ------------- t D (K-27)
2 kh
Defining the net differential pressure p = p 0 t – p i in terms of a dimensionless
pressure function, p D , we have
q
p = ------------- p D t (K-28)
2 kh
The dimensionless pressure for linear fluid loss from Eq. (K-27) is found to be
pD = tD (K-29)
p y 0 = p i
(K-30)
p 0 t = p f for t 0
The solution to Eq. (K-20) as given by Holman (1977, page 102) is
p y t – p f y
-------------------------- = erf ------------ (K-31)
pi – pf 2 t
k p
v = – --- (K-32)
y
Performing the partial differentiation of Eq. (K-31) gives
pi – pf 2
p y
= -------------- exp – -------- (K-33)
y t 4 t
The leakoff velocity at the fracture face from Eq. (K-32) and Eq. (K-33) is
k p k p C II
v = – --- = --- ------------- = ------- (K-34)
y y=0
t t
where the leakoff coefficient is given by
k p c-
C II = --- ----------- = p k-------- (K-35)
and p = pf – pi .
This is the same linear velocity formulation as presented by Howard and Fast
(1970, pg 35).
The total volume loss for a static (non-propagating) fracture with a constant pres-
sure boundary condition at time t p is
tp tp
1
V l t c = 4A v dt = 4AC II ----- dt
0 0 t (K-36)
= 8C II A t p
Rearranging Eq. (K-34) in terms of flow rate, q = 4vA , we have
4kA p 2 kh 2
q t = ---------- ------------- = ------------- p ------------- (K-37)
t t D
Defining the fluid loss rate in terms of a dimensionless rate function, q D , we have
2 kh p
q t = -------------------- q D t (K-38)
where
qD = 2 tD (K-39)
2
q D t D = ---------------- (K-40)
pD tD
2 –1 2
F = --- arcsin (K-42)
Following is a more detailed formulation of Nolte’s linear time function and how it
can be derived using Duhamel’s superposition method.
---------
2
p – p i = --- v c t kc (K-43)
or
p – pi
--------- = ---
2
U = ------------- kc (K-44)
v c t c
The boundary condition for a typical fracture from initiation to closure is one of
essentially a constant pressure in the fracture during propagation up to closure and
then a zero leakoff velocity at the fracture face during shut-in.
To obtain a constant pressure in the fracture to the time of closure t c , the velocity at
the fracture face from Eq. (K-34) must be of the form
1 v t 1
v ----- or ---- = ---c = ------- (K-45)
t v c t
where v c is the leakoff velocity at t c .
v –1 2 –3 2
F = ---- = and F = – 1 2 ; 1
vc (K-46)
F = 0 and F = 0 ; 1
where = t t c .
The response of the system to the input F (in place of the unit step) is given by
2
1
u = = 0 +
U – F d + U – j Fj
j=1 (K-47)
1 –
= – --1- --------------- +
d + U F 0 – U – 1 F 1
=0
+ 3 2
where F 1 = – 1 .
2
Substituting the change of variable = into Eq. (K-47), we find
2
2 1 – +
u = --- – ------------------ d + F 0 – – 1
0+ 2
1
2 2 –1 2 + (K-48)
= --- – + arcsin + F 0 – – 1
0
+
2 + –1 2 +
= --- – 1 – F 0 + arcsin + F 0 – – 1
Simplifying, we find
–1 2
u = 2 arcsin (K-49)
The unsteady pressure solution from Eq. (K-44) is
p – p i kc
------------- --------- = 2 arcsin –1 2 (K-50)
v c t c
or
Placing Eq. (K-51) in terms of the dimensionless pressure ratio at closure, we have
p – pi –1 2
F = ---------------------- = 2 arcsin (K-52)
p tc – pi
where the pressure at closure ( = 1 ) from Eq. (K-51) is
p t c – p i = C T ---------- (K-53)
kc t
Eq. (K-51) is the closed-form solution initially given by Nolte (1997a, Eq. (K-5),
pg.5) for the constant-pressure condition for pre-closure and a zero-flux condition
after closure.
q1 = q ; t tc
(K-54)
q2 = 0 ; t tc
The general form of the pressure solution for multiple injection rates using the prin-
ciple of superposition from Eq. (K-6) is
q
p f – p i = ------------- p D t D – p D t – t c D (K-55)
2 kh
The dimensionless pressure solution for linear fluid loss from Eq. (K-29) is
kt
pD = tD = ----------------- (K-56)
2
c t L
Substituting Eq. (K-56) into Eq. (K-55) we find
q
p f – p i = ------------- kt - –
----------------
k t – tc
----------------------
-
2 kh c t L
2
c t L
2
q - t – t – t
= ------------- --------- (K-57)
2 hL kc t c
4v t c
- – – 1
= -------------- ---------
2 kc t
Placing Eq. (K-57) in terms of the dimensionless pressure ratio at closure we have
p – pi
F L = ---------------------- = – –1 (K-58)
p tc – pi
where the pressure at closure ( = 1 ) from Eq. (K-58) is
4v t c
p t c – p i = -------------- ---------
- (K-59)
2 kc t
The dimensionless fluid loss time function F L in Eq. (K-58) can also be written in
the form
F L t t c = 1 + t – tc tc – t – tc tc
(K-60)
= 1 + t tc – t tc
where t = t – t c is the shut-in time.
Eq. (K-52). Nolte also used this apparent closure time in the radial solution formu-
lation based on a constant injection rate followed by a shut-in.
FL = 1 + t – tc tc – t – tc tc (K-61)
FL + 1 – 1 1 + 2 – 1
or
1
F L ---
2
Equating Eq. () to Eq. (K-52) for » 1 , a value of that fits the infinite-acting time
period can be found
1--- –1 2
= 2 arcsin = 2 1 (K-62)
2
Solving for we find
2
= 16 . (K-63)
2
The maximum error between Eq. (K-61) and Eq. (K-52) with = 16 is 3.5% at
= 1.35 . The error diminishes toward zero as increases with an error less of
than 1% for 7 .
p – p i = m L F L t t c
where
m L = C T ----------
kc t
F L t t c = 1 + t – tc tc – t – tc tc
2
= 16 .
2
F L t t c F t t c = --- arcsin t c t
N
p ws – p i = ------------- p D t D – t Dj – 1 + S q j – q j – 1
2 kh
j=1 (K-64)
= ------------- q p D t D – p D t – t p D
2 kh
During the infinite-acting time period, if there are no fractures or storage effects,
the exponential integral for p D could be replace by the logarithmic approximation
for t D 100
1
p D = --- ln t D + 0.80907 (K-65)
2
where t D = t rw2 .
Substituting Eq. (K-65) into Eq. (K-64), the bottom-hole pressure response is found
to be
tp + t
p ws – p i = – m ln ---------------- (K-66)
t
where the shut-in time is given by t = t – t p . Horner noted that Eq. (K-66)
describes a straight line with intercept p* which will be equal to the initial reser-
voir pressure p i for an infinite acting system and slope – m , where
q
m = ------------- (K-67)
4 kh
The reservoir permeability can then be estimated from the slope
q
k = -------------- (K-68)
4 mh
This is the proposed methodology by Horner for determining formation permeabil-
ity. Thus a plot of p vs. ln 1 + t p t is commonly called the Horner plot.
To distinguish between closure and pump time, the nomenclature for Horner time
will be
F h t t = ln 1 + t t (K-69)
q t V 1 1
p t = ------------- ----- = ------------- ----- = m ----- (K-70)
4 kh t 4 kh t t
where V = qt is the total produced or injected volume. This equation is identical
to the impulse solution given by Eq. (K-14).
Following is the after closure analysis for fractured systems based on Horner’s time
and the methodology of Nolte.
Horner Time
The general form of dimensionless pressure solutions for a static (non-propagating)
fracture in an infinite system is
1
p D = --- ln t Dxf + (K-71)
2
where is a constant (i.e., for a uniform flux = 2.80907 and for an infinite con-
ductivity fracture = 2.2000 ). Eq. (K-71) is with less than 1% error of the exact
2
solution when t Dxf 10 ( t Dxf = t L ).
The pressure response for a constant injection period followed by a shut-in from
Eq. (K-6) is
p f – p i = ------------- q p D t D – p D t – t c D (K-72)
2 kh
Substituting Eq. (K-71) into Eq. (K-72) and rearranging
V t D
p f – p i = ------------- --- ln -------------------
4 kh t c t – t c D
(K-73)
V t
= ------------- --- ln -----------
4 kh t c t – t c
Eq. (K-73) can also be written in terms of a Horner slope, mh , and time, F h ,
p f – p i = m h F h(t t c) (K-74)
t
F h(t t c) = ln ----------- = ln 1 + t c t (K-75)
t – t c
V
m h = ------------- --- (K-76)
4 kh t c
For large times Eq. (K-75) becomes
F h(t t c) = ln 1 + t c t t c t (K-77)
V 1
p f – p i = ------------- ----- (K-78)
4 kh t
Eq. (K-78) illustrates that at long times the radial solution for a fractured system
also asymptotes to the impulse solution given by Eq. (K-14).
ln 1 + t c t t c t
and
--1- ln 1 + t c t t c t (K-79)
The Nolte pressure response from Eq. (K-73) with the aid of Eq. () is
V 1
p f – p i = ------------- --- --- ln 1 + t c t
4 kh t c
(K-80)
V1 1
= --------- --- --- --- ln 1 + t c t
kh t c 4
Simplifying Eq. (K-79), we find
p – p i = m R F R t t c (K-81)
1
F R t t c = --- ln 1 + t c t (K-82)
4
and the slope
V1 V
m R = --------- --- --- = ------------ --- (K-83)
kh t c 16kh t c
2
where = 16 has been substituted.
The choice for F R t t c (i.e., the 1/4 constant) was based on the asymptotic behav-
ior of F L at large times. That is
1 t 1 tc
F L --- ------c- and F R --- ------- (K-84)
2 t 4 t
or
F R t t c F L2 t t c (K-85)
for t » t c .
The good fortune is that Eq. (K-85) is a very good approximation to F R t tc at all
times.
The governing pressure response equations for the radial or infinite-acting time
period t » t c of Section 5.0 are presented below for the Impulse Injection, Horner
and Nolte Analyses.
Impulse Injection
The pressure response for a pulse injection, from Eq. (K-14)
V 1 1
p – p i = ------------- ----- = m ----- (K-86)
4 kh t t
where m is the slope of p vs 1 t and t = t – t p .
The permeability k can be calculated from the slope m of the straight line from the
following expression:
V
k = -------------- (K-87)
4 hm
The apparent reservoir pressure p* ( p = p – p* ) can be found from the intercept
of the extension of the straight line with the 1 t = 0 axis.”
Horner Time
The pressure response from Eq. (K-73) for an injection followed by a shut-in period
in terms of a Horner slope m h and time F h is
p f – p i = m h F h(t t ) (K-88)
F h(t t ) = ln 1 + t t (K-89)
V
m h = ------------- ---- (K-90)
4 kh t
where t = t – t
The permeability k can be calculated from the slope m h of the straight line from
the following expression:
V 1
k = ---------- ---- ------ (K-91)
4 h t mh
The apparent reservoir pressure p* can be found from the intercept of the extension
of the straight line with the F h(t t ) = 0 axis.
p – p i = m R F R t t c (K-92)
1
F R t t c = --- ln 1 + t c t (K-93)
4
and
V1 V
m R = --------- --- --- = ------------ --- (K-94)
kh t c 16kh t c
2
where = 16 .
The Nolte after closure function can also be represented as a function of the follow-
ing linear time functions
F R t t c F L2 t t c F 2 t t c (K-95)
where
F L t t c = 1 + t – tc tc – t – tc tc (K-96)
and
2
F t t c = --- arcsin t c t (K-97)
The permeability k can be calculated from the slope m R of the straight line from
the following expression:
V 1
k = --------- --- ------- (K-98)
16h t c m R
The apparent reservoir pressure p* can be found from the intercept of the extension
of the straight line with the F h(t t ) = 0 axis.
Graphical Method
General Equation
The general form of the after closure pressure response is
p – p* = m F (K-99)
where m is slope, F is a time function and p* is the straight line intercept at
F = 0.
Taking the derivative of Eq. (K-99) with respect to the time function, we find
dp dF = m (K-100)
or
dp
p = p* + F ------- (K-101)
dF
Therefore at late time (small values of F ) the measured pressure data should over-
lay Eq. (K-101) in Cartesian coordinates. Figure K.1 illustrates the use of Eq. (K-
101) by overlaying the derivative function to help identify the intercept (reservoir
pressure) and late time slope (permeability).
Figure K.1: After Closure Analysis - Surface Pressure vs. Nolte - FR Linear
Plot.
If a plot (see Figure K.2)of net pressure p = p – p* vs. F is generated, the pres-
sure should overlay the following equation
dp
p = p – p* = F ------- (K-102)
dF
Figure K.2: After Closure Analysis - Delta Pressure vs. Nolte - FR Linear
Plot.
dp
ln p = ln F ------- (K-103)
dF
Therefore, the net pressure curve in log space should also overlay the derivative
function for radial flow.
Another important derivative is the log slope. Taking the natural log of Eq. (K-99)
we find
ln p – p* = ln m + ln F (K-104)
where for F = 1 the slope is equal to the net pressure (i.e., ln p – p* = ln m ).
Eq. (K-104) also illustrates that if ln p is plotted versus ln F , the log-log slope
will approach unity for large times. That is
d ln p
-------------------- 1 as F 0
d ln F
Figure K.3: After Closure Analysis - Delta Surface Pressure vs. Nolte- FR
Log-Log Plot
K.7 References
1. Abousieiman, Y, Cheng, A.A-D., and Gu, H: “Formation Permeability Deter-
mination from Micro or Mini-Hydraulic Fracturing.” ASME, Vol. 116, pg.
104-114, June, 1994.
2. Benelkadi, S., Belhaouas, R., and Sonatrach, M.S.: “Use of After Closure
Analysis to Improve Hydraulic Fracturing designs, Application on Algeria’s
In-Adaoi Gas Field,” SPE 80936, March 2003.
5. Gu, Hongren, Elbel, J.L, Nolte, K.G., Cheng A.H-D., and Abousieiman, Y.:
“Formation permeability Determination Using Impulse-Fracture Injection,
“SPE 25425, March 1993.
7. Howard, G.C. and Fast, C.R.: Hydraulic Fracturing, Monograph Vol. 2, SPE,
1970, 33.
8. Horner, D.R.: “Pressure Build-Up in Wells,” Proc., Third World Pet. Cong.,
The Hague (1951) Sec. II, 503-523. Also Reprint Series No. 9 - Pressure Anal-
ysis Methods, SPE AIME, Dallas (1967), 25-43.
11. Nolte, K.G., Maniere, J.L., and Owens, K.A.: “After-Closure Analysis of Frac-
ture Calibration Tests,” SPE 38676, October 1997.
L.1 Introduction
The solution methodology for pseudosteady behavior of a well with a finite con-
ductivity vertical fracture is formulated based on a new reservoir/fracture domain
resistivity concept. The formulation encompasses a transformed resistivity domain
based on an equivalent or effective wellbore radius. The resulting pseudosteady
solution is presented in the form of the dimensionless productivity index ( J D ).
Some of the major advantages of this pseudosteady solution for finite conductivity
vertical fractures are 1) the methodology is based on fundamental principles, 2) the
solution is analytical, 3) the equations are formulated for rectangular shaped reser-
voirs, and 4) the solution and concepts are easily understood and implemented. The
methodology accounts for a piece wise continuous linearly varying fracture con-
ductivity including: proppant tail-ins, over-flushing, pinch zones, choked flow
(external skin, fracture), and internal skin mechanisms (reservoir).
singularities and anomalies with the assumption of constant value for x D . An ana-
lytical expression for the formation shape factor ( C A ) is presented for rectangular
shaped reservoirs. A formulation for internal and external fracture skins is then pre-
sented.
Dimensionless Parameters
The following dimensionless parameters will be used throughout this report. The
dimensionless pressure ( p D ) for a constant production rate ( q ) is defined as
2 kh
p D = ------------- p (L-1)
q
where k is the formation permeability, h is the formation height, is the reservoir
viscosity, and p = p i – p wf is the differential pressure (the initial reservoir pres-
sure ( p i ) minus the flowing pressure ( p wf )).
kt
t DA = ------------- (L-2)
c A
where is the formation porosity and c is the formation compressibility.
q D = -------------------- q t (L-3)
2 kh p
The flow rate as a function of the dimensionless rate is
2 kh p
q t = -------------------- q D
where p = p i – p wf is the constant draw down pressure (the initial reservoir pres-
sure ( p i ) minus the flowing pressure ( p wf )).
q 2 kh
J = ---------------- = ------------- J D (L-4)
p – p wf
where q is the flow rate, p is the average reservoir pressure, and p wf is the flowing
pressure. The dimensionless productivity index, J D , is defined as
q
J D = ------------- J = ------------- ---------------- (L-5)
2 kh 2 kh p – p wf
Dimensionless Pressure
Ramey (1971), Earlougher and Ramey (1973), and Gringarten (1974) showed that
at sufficiently large producing times the system (unfractured or fractured) eventu-
ally reaches pseudosteady state and the dimensionless pressure may be evaluated
from
2 kh 4A
p D t DA = ------------- p i – p wf = 2 t DA + 1 2 ln -------------------2- (L-6)
q e C r A w
where C A is the shape factor and r w is the effective wellbore radius as originally
proposed by Prats (1961). Ramey (1971) showed that for pseudosteady flow
2 kh
2 t DA = ------------- p i – p
q
and
4A kh-
- = 2------------
1 2 ln ----------------- p – p wf
e C A r w q
The dimensionless pressure solution can be written in the form (see e.g.,
Ramey(1971) and Valko (1998)):
p D = 2 t DA + 1 J D (L-7)
where
4A
1 J D = 1 2 ln -------------------2-
e C A r w
or
4A –1
J D = 1 2 ln -------------------2- (L-8)
e C A r w
1- 4 - ----- re 4 x
----- = ln ------------------- = ln ------------------- -----e
JD
e CA rw e C r w
A
1- 4 - --- re x 4 xe x
----- = ln ------------------- - + ln -----f = ln ------------------- ---- + ln -----f (L-9)
JD e CA xf
r w x r w
e CA f
where the reservoir area for a rectangular reservoir A = re2 = 4x e y e = 4x e2 has
been incorporated.
The effective wellbore radius, r w , concept was first introduced by Prats (1961,
1962) as a means to define an equivalent reservoir with wellbore radius, r w , that
would have a production behavior similar to that of a fractured reservoir. Prats
showed that for high conductivity fractures ( CfD ) and low fracture penetration
ratios ( x f x e 0 ), the effective wellbore radius was given by
r w x f 2 (L-10)
The effective wellbore radius concept is discussed in greater detail below as it per-
tains to finite and infinite conductivity vertical fractures in closed systems.
Pseudo-Skin Relationships
The dimensionless productivity index as formulated by Cinco-Ley is of the form
1- 4 - ---re
----- = ln ----------- -+f (L-11)
JD
e CA f x
x
f = ln -----f
r w
1- re
4 - ----
----- = ln ----------- - + Sf
JD
e CA r w
x r x
f = ln -----f = S f – ln ----w- = S f + ln -----f
rw xf rw
rw rw x rw
S f = ln ----- + f = ln ----- + ln -----f = ln ----- (L-12)
xf xf r w r w
and
x x S
-----f = e f = -----f e f
r w rw
or
–Sf –f
r w = r w e = xf e
k dp
v = – --- (L-13)
d
where is a reference dimension. The pseudosteady flow rate from Eq. (L-13) is
k dp
q = vA = A – --- (L-14)
d
Resistivity
Eq. (L-14) can be rearranged and placed in terms of a resistivity, , such that
2 kh dp
– ------------- (L-15)
q d
The resistivity from Eq. (L-14) and Eq. (L-15) is
= --------------------- (L-16)
A - k----------
---------
2h k
Reservoir Resistivity
The reservoir resistivity, r , for radial flow from Eq. (L-16) is
k
r = 1 ---------- (L-17)
k
where the flow rate for pseudosteady radial flow is a constant
= q q 0 = 1 and the flow area given by A = 2h at any position
has been substituted.
Fracture Resistivity
Substituting the fracture flow area A = w f h (i.e., flow rate q through area A ,
where q is the single wing fracture flow rate) into Eq. (L-15), we find
f = ------------------- (L-18)
w kf
------f -----------
-
2 k
where k f is the permeability as a function of position in the fracture ( ) and k is
the reference or far field reservoir permeability. The fracture flow rate as a function
of position is given by = q q 0 .
q
= q q 0 = 1 – xf (L-19)
where for slot flow, q = 0 , and for a uniform flux, q = 1 . The average fracture
resistivity, f , from the wellbore to any position for a constant width fracture is
found by integrating Eq. (L-19)
+1
1 – 1 – q
f f 0 = d = -------------------------------------
0 1 + q
where = x x f . The average fracture resistivity over the entire fracture length is
1
f f 0 = --------------- (L-20)
1 + q
As illustrated, the average resistivity for slot flow is twice that of the uniform flux
solution.
kf wf 1 + q
= ------------------ = ------------------------------------
q + 1
- (L-21)
kf wf 1 – 1 –
where
kf wf 0 kf wf 1
0 = ------------------ = 1 and 1 = ------------------ = 1 + q
kf wf kf wf
2
= ---------------------------2-
1 – 1 –
1-
-----
JD
= d + c
0
(L-22)
No Fracture
The formation resistivity for an unfractured homogeneous reservoir ( k k = 1 )
from Eq. (L-16) is r = 1 .
1- re re
1--- d + c = ln ----
-----
JD
= rw - +c
r w
(L-23)
1- 4A r
----- - = ln ----e- + c
= 1 2 ln ----------------- (L-24)
JD
e C r2 r w
A w
or
4 -
c = ln ------------------- (L-25)
e CA
where r e A .
1- re
4 - ----
1--- d + c = ln ------------------- re
-----
JD
= rw e CA rw
- (L-26)
xe -
---- = ----- (L-27)
re 4
where the reservoir aspect ratio is given by = x e y e .
Rearranging Eq. (L-8) or Eq. (L-26) in terms of the rectangular reservoir coordi-
nate, x e , with A = 4x e2 , we have
1- re
4 - ----
1--- d + c = ln ------------------- re 4 x
----- = r - = ln ------------------- ----e- (L-28)
JD w
e CA rw
e C r w
A
1- re xe
----- = ln re ----- = ln xe ----- (L-29)
JD rw rw
where
re = 4 - ; = -------------------
-------------------
4
xe
e CA e CA
and
4 .
xe = re ------
The constant of integration in Eq. (L-28) can also be represented by
4 - ---- re re 4 x re
c = ln ------------------- - – --1- d = ln ------------------- ----e- – 1--- d (L-30)
e C A r w rw e C r w rw
A
Circular Reservoir
The beta integration constants for a well located at the center of a circular drainage
area = 1 are
re = 0.47237097
(L-31)
xe = 0.53301379
where C A = 1 = 31.62 .
The pseudosteady inverse productivity solution for a well located at the center of a
closed circular homogeneous reservoir from Eq. (L-29) and Eq. (L-31) is
1- re re
1--- d + c = ln 0.472 ---- x
----- = r - = ln 0.533 ----e- (L-32)
JD r w r w
w
re re
c = ln 0.472 ----- – 1--- d (L-33)
r w rw
The dimensionless productivity index for a well of radius r w located at the center
of a closed circular drainage area from Eq. (L-32) is
1 1
J D = ------------------------------ = ------------------------------ (L-34)
re xe
ln 0.472 ----- ln 0.533 -----
r w r w
Square Reservoir
The beta integration constants for a well located at the center of a square = 1 are
re = 0.47797569
(L-35)
xe = 0.53933781
where C A = 1 = 30.8828 .
The pseudosteady inverse productivity solution for a well located at the center of a
closed square homogeneous reservoir from Eq. (L-29) and Eq. (L-31) is
1- re re
1--- d + c = ln 0.478 ---- x
----- = r - = ln 0.539 ----e- (L-36)
JD r w r w
w
re re
c = ln 0.478 ----- – 1--- d (L-37)
rw r w
1 1
J D = ------------------------------ = ------------------------------ (L-38)
re xe
ln 0.478 ----- ln 0.539 -----
rw rw
The total system resistivity within the fracture domain r w r w or radial fracture
domain r w (where r w is some reference (still to be determined) apparent or
effective domain radius) for the formation and fracture acting in parallel is
--1- = ----
1- ---1
+ -
r f
where
k
r = 1 ----------
k
f = -------------------------------------------------
w f k f k
------------- ------------ – ----------
2 k k
The average net inverse fracture resistivity integrated from the wellbore to some
position is
f = f d
0
The total inverse resistivity (reservoir and fracture) within the fracture domain zone
is then
1 k 1
----------------------- = ---------- + ---- (L-39)
r w k f
To illustrate this methodology we will first develop the equations for a square reser-
voir and then extend the analysis to a rectangular shaped reservoir.
Square Reservoir
The inverse dimensionless productivity for a two wing fracture in a square reservoir
with a fracture domain of r w r w from Eq. (L-22) is
r w r
1- 1 e
1 - d + c
-----
JD
= r ------------------------- d + -------------
k
w ---------- + ----
1 r k
w ----------
(L-40)
k f k
re xf re r
1- 1--- ----------
k 1
d + w -------------------------
-----
JD
= ln r ---- -----
e x r
f w
+ r
w
k
– 1 r k 1
w ---------- + ----
d (L-41)
k f
where the constant of integration has been implemented with the aid of Eq. (L-30).
For an infinite conductivity fracture with a uniform formation permeability Eq. (L-
41) becomes
1- re x re x
----- = ln re ---- + ln -----f = ln re ---- + ln -----f (L-42)
JD xf r w xf r w
C fD
As illustrated, the apparent domain radius to satisfy Eq. (L-42) must be the effec-
tive wellbore radius for an infinite conductivity fracture as given by r w = r w .
C fD
To prevent confusion, the dimensionless fracture half-length ratio with respect to
the effective wellbore radius (i.e., reciprocal effective wellbore radius) for an infi-
nite conductivity fracture will be defined as
x f r w (L-43)
C fD
= r w (L-44)
C fD
where
w = r w r w = r w x f
C fD
and
e = r e r w = r e x f .
C fD
Eq. (L-41) can now be written in terms of the dimensionless domain parameter as
re 1 e
1- 1 k
----- = ln re ---- + --1- d + --- ---------- – 1 d (L-45)
JD xf w
1 k
where
k 1
= ---------- + ---- ------
k f xf
x – rw –
- = --------------w-
-------------- (L-46)
xf – rw 1 – w
The dimensionless position as a function of fracture position x from Eq. (L-46)
is
x – rw
= 1 – w --------------- + w (L-47)
xf – rw
Eq. (L-46) can be approximated by
x xf
re e
1- 1 k
----- = ln re ---- + f + --- ---------- – 1 d (L-48)
JD xf 1 k
f = ln + S f (L-49)
1
1
Sf = w
--- d
(L-50)
For a piece wise continuous fracture conductivity, Eq. (L-50) can be represented by
N
i
1
1 1- d – i – 1 ---
1
Sf = w --- d = w i w -i d
--- (L-51)
i=1
where N is the number of fracture intervals and the integrand is represented by
k
i = ---------- + C i i
k
and
w fi 1 k fi k
C i = ------- ---- ----- – ----------
2 xf k k
Rectangular Reservoir
The inverse dimensionless productivity for a two wing fracture in a rectangular res-
ervoir with a fracture domain of r w r w from Eq. (L-22) is
re xf r w re
1- 1 1--- ----------
k
----- = ln r ---- ----- + -------------------------------
- d + – 1 d (L-52)
JD e x r
f w r k g r k
w ---------- + ----------- w
k f
Eq. (L-41) can now be written in terms of the dimensionless domain parameter as
re 1 e
1- 1 k
----- = ln re ---- + --1- d + --- ---------- – 1 d (L-53)
JD xf w 1 k
where
k g
= ---------- + ----------- ------ (L-54)
k f xf
To determine the formulation of the geometric parameter g , Eq. (L-54) can be
simplified with the aid of the mean value theorem for a homogeneous reservoir and
constant fracture conductivity as
+ C
where
kf wf 1 + q
= ------------------ = ------------------------------------
q + 1
-
kf wf 1 – 1 –
g
C = C fD ------------------
2
wf kf
C fD = ----- ---- – 1
xf k
The geometric shape parameter g is obtained from the definition of the dimen-
sionless domain conductivity C where
r = 1
C = C ------------------------ = C g
=1 r =1
This geometric parameter for high and low conductivity fractures for aspect ratios
greater than or equal to unity ( 1 ) is given by
A = 1 2
g ---------------------- = -------------------
C fD A 1+1
and
A = 1 2
g ---------------------- = -------------------
C fD 0 A 1+1
respectively. The geometric parameter for aspect ratios less than one is equal to
unity (i.e., g 1 = 1 ).
There are actually two parts to the g function. Part one is the transformation of
variable in Eq. (L-52) (i.e., integration from r w to r w for high conductivity frac-
tures and straight mapping to r w for low conductivity fractures) and a reservoir
area resistivity factor A = 1 A .
This follows since for low conductivity fractures the fracture domain is not a func-
tion of fracture length (i.e., the domain is r w r w not r w r w ).
g C fD I x = g C fD 0
+ 1 – g C fD
where
– 2 C fD I x2
e
1- re
----- = ln re ---- + ln + S f (L-55)
JD xf
or
1- re
----- = ln re ---- + f
JD xf
where
f = ln + S f
N
1
S f = --1- d = Sfi (L-56)
w
i=1
S fi = S f w i – S f w i – 1
+ C
S f w = --1- d = ln ---------------------------- (L-57)
w + C
w
where
1 + q
= ------------------------------------
q + 1
-
1 – 1 –
and 0 = 1 .
wf kf g C fD I x
C = ----- ---- – 1 -------------------------------------
xf k 2
g C fD I x
= C fD -------------------------------------
2
Slot Flow
A fundamental solution to Eq. (L-57) can be obtained if we assume slot flow in the
fracture ( = 1 ). Although, slot flow is not a very realistic assumption for most
fractured systems (i.e., assuming all the flow enters at the tip of the fracture and
flows with a constant rate in fracture) it will provide a limiting solution for the max-
imum pressure in the fracture/reservoir domain. That is, slot flow results in the
maximum value for the pseudo-skin function (minimum value for J D ).
+C
Sf = --1- d = ln ---------------- (L-58)
w
w + C
The inverse fracture productivity index for slot flow in a fracture with a constant
conductivity from Eq. (L-58) is
1- re 1+C
----- = ln re ---- + ln + ln ----------------
JD xf w + C
------ + (L-59)
re C
= ln re ---- + ln -------------------
xf w
-----
C- + 1
Placing Eq. (L-59) in terms of the dimensionless fracture conductivity for a con-
g
stant conductivity fracture C = CfD ------------------ , the productivity index for slot flow can
2
be written as
2
-------------------- +
1 re C fD g
------ = ln r ---- + ln ------------------------------------- (L-60)
JD e xf 2 w-
--------------------
C g -----
+ 1
fD
Uniform Flux
The uniform flux assumption is a more realistic solution for high conductivity ver-
tical fracture systems. Since the fracture flux is a function of the fracture conductiv-
ity as illustrated by Cinco-Ley (1981), the flux (flow rate in the fracture) must be
known prior to solving Eq. (L-55).
To obtain a more realistic solution to this domain problem, we will assume a con-
stant flux into the fracture (at least for high conductivity fractures). As illustrated
above, the resistivity for a uniform fracture flux is one-half that of slot flow (i.e.,
1
f = --- f 0 ). This makes the effective conductivity look like it is two times higher
2
since the full flow rate is not seen over the entire length of the fracture. Conse-
quently, one may without much more thought make the following incorrect analogy
f 1 C fD
------------ --------------- --------- 1 + q
f 0 1 + q C fD
f 1 C fD
------------ --- --------- 2
f 0 2 C fD
The above analogy of course is false for all positions in the fracture. This is easily
illustrated by noting that at or near the wellbore, the fracture flow rate is at the max-
imum value (like slot flow) from which ( C 0 C ). However, at the fracture
tip, the flow rate is less than the value at the well C 1 » C .
Thus, from Eq. (L-55) we would find (see below) that for a uniform flux
+ 2C
Sf = --1- d ln ------------------- (L-61)
w
w + 2C
However, applying this analogy to the entire fracture domain is approximately true,
as will be illustrated. Thus, integration over the entire fracture domain for a high
constant conductivity fracture, we find
1 1 + 2C
Sf = --1- d ln ------------------- (L-62)
w + 2C
w
and
1 r 1 + 2C
------ ln r ---e- + ln ------------------- (L-63)
JD e xf w + 2C
The resulting pseudo-skin function from Eq. (L-63) is shown to be in excellent
agreement with the numerical results of Cinco-Ley as discussed in the main body of
the report.
Summary
The inverse dimensionless productivity index and related equations for a piece wise
continuous linearly varying fracture conductivity in a homogeneous reservoir is
1 r
------ = ln r ---e- + f (L-64)
JD ex
f
where
f = ln + S f (L-65)
and
N
1 i
S f = --1- d =
1- d
--- (L-66)
w i–1
i
i=1
The delta pseudo-skin function (i.e., skin of a finite conductivity fracture) for a
piece wise continuous varying fracture conductivity in a homogeneous reservoir for
slot and a uniform fracture flux are
+ C
Sf = --1- d = ln ----------------------------
w
w + C
where
1 + q
= ------------------------------------
+1
- (L-67)
1 – 1 – q
and 0 = 1 .
2
= ---------------------------2- (L-68)
1 – 1 –
The conductivity variable is given by
wf kf g C fD
C = ----- ---- – 1 ------------------------------
xf k 2
(L-69)
g C fD
= C fD ------------------------------
2
and g CfD is a function of aspect ratio, penetration, and conductivity as given
below by the following limits
2
g C fD = -------------------
C fD » 1 1+1
and
2
g C fD = -------------------
C fD « 1 1+1
where
– 2 C fD I x2
e
+ 1 C 1 C +
x f r w = ----------------------------------- = --------------------------------------- (L-71)
w + 1 C w 1 C + 1
or
2 1 2 1 w
x f r w = ---------------------- + ---------------------- ------ + 1 (L-72)
C fD g C fD g
x f r w = -------------------- + (L-73)
C fD g
Consequently, for large and small fracture conductivities with aspect ratios greater
than or equal to unity ( 1 ), we have
x f r w = ---------------------------------- + (L-74)
C fD » 1 2
C fD -------------------
1+1
and
x f r w = ---------------------------------- + (L-75)
C fD « 1 2
C fD -------------------
1 + 1
where in Eq. (L-75) we have assumed that --------------------- -----w- « 1 .
C fD g
Eq. (L-75) illustrates that the effective wellbore radius at low fracture conductivi-
ties is not a function of the fracture length
1 2 wf kf
r w --- ------------------- ---------
C fD « 1 1 + 1 kr
Then from the above equation for low conductivity vertical fractures in a square
reservoir ( = 1 ), we have
1 wf kf
r w --- ---------
C fD « 1 kr
The remainder of this section is devoted to finding solutions to the above set of
equations for special cases of interest.
k = k w e
kf = kf w 1 (L-76)
w = wf w 1
or
C fD w 1 = C fD (L-77)
1- re
----- = ln re ---- + S f (L-78)
JD xf
where
1 1 + 1C
Sf = --1- d = ln ----------------------------
w
w + 1 C
and
g
C = C fD ------------------
2
Placing Eq. (L-78) in terms of the dimensionless fracture conductivity and assum-
ing a uniform flux ( 1 = 2 ), we have
--------------------------- + 1
C fD g
S f = ln ------------------------------------- (L-79)
-------------------- w
C g - + 1 -----
fD
Eq. (L-78) can be simplified if the fracture permeability is much greater than the
formation permeability and the wellbore radius is much less than the width permea-
bility ratio, as given by
kf k » 1
wf kf g kf g
w « ----- ---- – 1 ------------------ or r w « w f ---- – 1 ------------------
xf k k
The resulting simplification of Eq. (L-78) with the above assumptions can be writ-
ten as
1- re
----- = ln re ---- + ln -------------------- + (L-80)
JD xf C fD g
wf kf
C fD = --------- (L-81)
xf k
The pseudo-skin function, f , from Eq. (L-65) and Eq. (L-80) is
f = ln -------------------- + (L-82)
C fD g
The reciprocal effective wellbore radius, x f r w , from Eq. (L-12) and Eq. (L-80) for
a uniform finite conductivity fracture in a square homogeneous reservoir ( = 1
and g = 1 ) is
x f r w = --------- + (L-83)
C fD
Figure L.1 shows the effective dimensionless wellbore radius (Eq. (L-83)) as a
function of fracture conductivity. A comparison with the work of Cinco-Ley and
Ramey illustrates the excellent agreement.
Figure L.2 shows the dimensionless pseudo-skin (Eq. (L-82)) as a function of frac-
ture conductivity. A comparison with the work of Cinco-Ley and Ramey is also
shown.
k = k w e
C fD = C fD1 w 1
C fD = C fD2 1 2 (L-84)
......
C fD = C fDN N – 1 1
These boundary conditions are typical for propped fractures with a pinch zone, a
tail-in, over flushing, choked flow, etc.
The incremental pseudo-skin from Eq. (L-78) for the above boundary conditions is
Sf = Sfi
i=1
where
i + i Ci i – 1 + i – 1 Ci
S fi = ln ------------------------------- – ln ------------------------------------------- (L-85)
w + i C i w + i – 1 Ci
and from Eq. (L-67)
1 + q
= ------------------------------------
+1
-
1 – 1 – q
g
C i = C fD ------------------
i 2
and 0 = w .
The general productivity solution for N uniform fracture conductivity zones from
and Eq. (L-78) is
N
1- re
----- = ln re ---- + Sfi (L-86)
JD xf
i=1
Then for three zones we have
Sf = Sfi
i=1
1 + 1 C i
S f 1 = ln --------------------------------
w + 1 C i
2 + 2 C 2 1 + 1 C 2
S f 2 = ln --------------------------------- – ln ---------------------------------
w + 2 C 2 w + 1 C 2
and
1 + 1 C 3 2 + 2 C 3
S f 3 = ln ------------------------------- – ln ---------------------------------
w + 1 C 3 w + 2 C 3
C fD1 = C fD w 1
C fD2 = 0 1 2 (L-87)
C fD3 = C fD 2 1
The reciprocal productivity index from Eq. (L-86) with the boundary conditions of
Eq. (L-87) is
Sf = Sfi
i=1
1 + 1 C
S f 1 = ln -------------------------------
w + 1 C
2
S f 2 = ln -----
1
and
1 + 1 C 2 + 2 C
S f 3 = ln ---------------------------- – ln -------------------------------
w + 1 C w + 2 C
1 + 1 C 2 1 + 1 C 2 + 2 C
S f = ln ------------------------------- + ln ----- + ln ---------------------------- – ln -------------------------------
w + 1 C 1 w + 1 C w + 2 C
1 2 2 1
= ln ------------------ + 1 – ln ------------------ + 1 + ln ----- + ln --------------- + 1
1 C 2 C 1 1 C
Placing Eq. (L-86) in terms of a pinch point or zone skin, S pp , for a uniform flux
fracture, we have
1- re
----- = ln re ---- + ln -------------------- + + S pp (L-88)
JD x f C fD g
where
1 2 2
S pp = ln ------------------ + 1 – ln ------------------ + 1 + ln ----- (L-89)
1 C 2 C 1
and
g
C = C fD ------------------
2
2
S pp = ln -----
1
Tail-in
The boundary conditions for a two zone conductivity fracture is
C fD = C fD1 w 1
C fD = C fD2 1 1
i + i Ci i – 1 + i – 1 Ci
S fi = ln ------------------------------- – ln -------------------------------------------
w + i C i w + i – 1 Ci
1 + 1 C 1
S f 1 = ln ---------------------------------
w + 1 C 1
and
1 + 1 C 2 1 + 1 C 2
S f 2 = ln ------------------------------- – ln ---------------------------------
w + 1 C 2 w + 1 C 2
1 + 1 C 1 1 + 1 C 2 1 + 1 C 2
S f = ln --------------------------------- + ln ------------------------------- – ln ---------------------------------
w + 1 C 1 w + 1 C 2 w + 1 C 2
1 1 1
S f = ln -------------------- + 1 – ln -------------------- + 1 + ln ------------------ + 1
1 C 1 1 C 2 1 C 2
1
S f = ln -------------------- + 1 (L-90)
1 C 1
Over Flush
Over flushing or over displacing the proppant near the wellbore is a special case of
a pinched fracture where the pinch zone is at the wellbore. The boundary conditions
for this case are:
C fD = 0 w 1
C fD = C fD 1 1
Sf = Sfi
i=1
1
S f 1 = ln ------
w
1 1 + 1 C 1 + 1 C
S f = ln ------ + ln ---------------------------- – ln -------------------------------
w w + 1 C w + 1 C
1 1 + 1 C 1
= ln ------ + ln ------------------------------ – ln --------------
w 1 + 1 C 1
The total skin for an infinite conductivity fracture in the main body is
1
S f = ln ------
w
where
w = r w r w = r w x f
C fD
and
x1 – rw
1 = 1 – w ---------------- + w
xf – rw
Choked Fracture
Cinco-Ley defined a choked fracture as an infinite conductivity fracture with a flow
restriction near the wellbore as a result of reduced fracture permeability. A choked
fracture is therefore a special case of a tail-in with an otherwise infinite conductiv-
ity fracture.
The total the pseudo-skin S f , (which Cinco-Ley called a choked skin ( S fs ch ) and
we will later identify as S ch ) from Eq. (L-85) with C fD ,
1 = 1 – w x 1 x f + w and x 1 x f » w is
1 + 1 C 1
S f = ln ---------------------------------
w + 1 C 1
1
S f = ln -------------------- + 1 (L-91)
1 C 1
where
wf kf 1 g
C 1 = ----- ------ – 1 ------------------
xf k 2
1- re
----- = ln re ---- + ln + S ch (L-92)
JD x f
Eq. (L-92) simplifies to Eq. (L-80) as 1 1 and illustrates the correct asymptotic
behavior for a finite conductivity fracture. That is checking the limits of as x 1 x f ,
we find
1- re
----- = ln re ---- + ln --------- + (L-93)
JD xf C fD
where
w f k f1
C fD = ------------
xf k
x1 k 2
S ch = ln ------------ -------------------------------- + 1
w
f f1 k g 1
x1 k
S fs ch = ------------ (L-94)
w f k f1
Placing our choked fracture skin S ch in terms of S fs ch , we find
2
S ch = ln S fs ch -------------------------------- + 1 (L-95)
g 1
2
S ch = S fs ch -------------------------------- (L-96)
g 1
2 1
1 = ------------------------------2
1 – 1 – 1
Eq. (L-96) simplifies to the Cinco-Ley choked skin for small choked distances (i.e.,
x 1 x f « 1 , 1 1 ) and low penetration values ( I x 0 and 2 ) in a square
reservoir with g = 1 as shown below
S ch S fs ch (L-97)
Ix 0
Slot Solution
If one considers that for an infinite conductivity fracture with only a small near
wellbore choked region, most of the fluid enters the tip of the choked region and
flows through the choked fracture region with little flowing through the formation
wk
f f1
for small values of x 1 (i.e., x 1 x f « 1 and -----------
- » 1 ).
xf k
Cinco-Ley assumed that all of the fluid entered the choked fracture near the tip of
the choked region with the full flow rate going through the choked part of the frac-
ture. This pressure loss in the choked fracture region (for all flow in the choked part
of fracture) is
q q
p ch = --- ------ x 1 – r w = ------------ ------ x 1 – r w
A k f1 2hw f k f1
Thus, the choked skin for all flow through the choked fracture in the near well
region can be calculated from
2 kh k
S ch = ------------- p ch = ------------ x 1 – r w
q w f k f1
This result can also be obtained form Eq. (L-25) and Eq. (L-18)
x1 x1 k
1 - d = S = -----------
S ch = rw wf kf1
----------------- ch w f k f1
- 1 – rw x1
----- ------
k
2 kh
p D = ------------- p (L-98)
q
Gringarten (1974), as report by Earlougher (1977), presented two dimensionless
pressure solutions for a infinite conductivity vertical fracture in an infinite-acting
system.
1 1 – xD 1 + xD
p D t Dxf = --- t Dxf erf ---------------- + erf ----------------
2 2 t 2 t
Dxf Dxf
(L-99)
2 2
1 – xD – 1 – xD 1 + xD – 1 + xD
– -------------------- Ei ------------------------- – -------------------- Ei --------------------------
4 4t Dxf 4 4t Dxf
where the dimensionless fracture position is given by x D = x x f and the dimen-
sionless time based on the fracture half-length is defined as
t
t Dxf = -----2 (L-100)
L
and
k
= --------- (L-101)
c
The dimensionless pressure at the well x D = 0 for the uniform-flux vertical frac-
ture in an infinite-acting system is
1 1 –1
p D t Dxf = t Dxf erf ---------------- – --- Ei ------------ (L-102)
2 t 2 4t Dxf
Dxf
The dimensionless pressure solution at early times (i.e., t Dxf 0.1 , linear or 1D
flow) for a static (non-propagating) uniform flux fracture in an infinite system is
given by
p D t Dxf (L-103)
1
p D = --- ln t Dxf + 2.80907 (L-104)
2
with less than 1% error.
1
p D = --- ln t Dxf + 2.2000 (L-105)
2
Gringarten observed that the same result could be obtained in the uniform-flux frac-
ture case by measuring the pressure drop at x D = 0.732 in the fracture. Therefore,
Gringarten concluded that “This suggests that the pressure drop in the fracture for
the infinite-conductivity fracture can be obtained from that for the uniform flux
fracture, Eq. (L-102), with x D = 0.732 .” The resulting approximate solution for an
infinite-conductivity fracture as given by Gringarten (1974) is
1 0.134 0.866
p D t Dxf = --- t Dxf erf ------------- + erf -------------
2 t t
Dxf Dxf
(L-106)
– 0.018 – 0.750
– 0.067Ei ---------------- – 0.433Ei ----------------
t Dxf t Dxf
Gringarten noted that Eq. (L-106) “yields the correct value of the wellbore pressure
for a well with an infinite-conductivity vertical fracture, at early and long times. It
can be assumed that it also yields the correct pressure values during the transition
period.” Gringarten also points out that “a similar result ( x D = 0.75 ) has been
obtained by Muskat for a well with partial penetration at steady state.”
The dimensionless pressure solution at early times (i.e., t Dxf 0.01 ) for an infinite
conductivity fracture in an infinite system is given by
p D t Dxf (L-107)
1
p D = --- ln t Dxf + 2.2000 (L-108)
2
with less than 1% error.
t DA 2 2
2 n
cos ------
– n
p D x D t DA = 2 1+2 e
0
2
n=1
sin n ------ I
–n
2 2 2 x n n
1+2 e ------------------------ cos ------ cos ------ 1 + x D I x
n ------ I x 2 2
n=1 2
or
t DA 2 2
– 4 n
p D x D t DA = 2 1+2 e
0
n=1
(L-109)
sin nI x
2 2
–4 n
1+2 e ------------------------ cos nI x x
nI x D
n=1
Gringarten stated that “The pressure drops on the fracture for a uniform flux frac-
ture and for an infinite-conductivity fracture are obtained by evaluating Eq. (L-109)
at x D = 0 and x D = 0.732 , respectively. The choice of the same point as the infi-
nite case leads to reasonable results and can be justified a posteriori by the method
of desuperposition...” Gringarten also states that “it was found that desuperposition
of the analytical solution for a closed square yields a very good approximation of
the analytical solution for an infinite reservoir, for x e x f values of 2, 5, and 10/3.
This justifies a posteriori the choice of x D = 0.732 for representing the wellbore
pressure for an infinite-conductivity fracture in the finite reservoir case.”.
1 J D = 2 t DA – p D
where p D is calculated from Eq. (L-109) once pseudosteady behavior has been
reached.
Gringarten in 1978 presented a closed form analytical expression for the pseudo-
steady state form of Eq. (L-109). The inverse dimensionless productivity index for
a well located at the center of a rectangular reservoir based on Gringarten’s pseudo-
steady solution is
2+ 1 2 + 1
1 J D = --- – --- I x 1 + x D --- I x2 --- + x D --- -------
6 4 4 3 6 I x
– n I x 1 – x D (L-110)
1 1 e – 2 n 1 – I x – 2 n I x x D
– ------ -------
2 I x -1 – e
-----------------------------------
2
n 1 – e
– 2 n
1 + e
n=1
where Gringarten obtained the solutions for a uniform flux and an infinite-conduc-
tivity fracture by evaluating Eq. (L-110) at x D = 0 and x D = 0.732 , respectively.
From Eq. (L-110) for a fully penetrating fracture I x = 1 , the dimensionless produc-
6
tivity index is J D = --- .
Ix = 1
The problem with assuming a constant value for x D at all values of I x and aspect
ratios is that J D will not be a monotonically increasing function of I x . In fact
Gringarten’s solution predicts a greater value for J D at values of I x 1 then at
I x = 1 . At all aspect ratios Eq. (L-110) exhibits similarities and anomalies as illus-
trated in Figure L.3.
dJ D
--------- 0 (L-111)
dI x
or
d 1 JD
J D2 --------------------- 0
dI x
Differentiating Eq. (L-110) with respect to I x for large aspect ratios » 1 , we find
d 1 JD 1 1
--------------------- – --- 1 + x D2 + --- I x --- + x D2 – --- -------2- 0 (L-112)
dI x 4 2 3 6 Ix
»1
Therefore for large aspect ratios when the fracture penetration approaches the
extent of the reservoir I x 1 , the value for x D must be less than 0.732, i.e.,
x D 1 3 0.577350269 . As the aspect ratio approaches zero 0 , the maximum
value for x D is about 2/3 for dJ D dI x = 0 . Figure L.4 shows the maximum value
for x D at I x 1 such that dJ D dI x = 0 as a function of aspect ratio.
This illustrates that assuming a constant value of x D = 0.732 for the infinite con-
ductivity case to be used in the uniform flux solution is not correct.
Eq. (L-112) also illustrates that the singularity at large aspect ratios » 1 occurs
when
1
– --- 1 + x D2 + --- I x --- + x D2 = 0
4 2 3
or at
1 + x D2
Ix = ------------------------
1
2 --- + x D2
3
Thus using x D = 0.732 , we find the singularity for large aspect ratios at I x 0.8835 .
At an aspect ratio of ten ( = 10 ), the singularity position increases to I x 0.93 .
x D I x = x D – xD – x D 1 I x (L-113)
Ix 0 Ix 0
dx D I x
-------------- 0 (L-114)
dI x
Differentiating Eq. (L-114) with respect to I x we find
dx D – x D
--------- --------- (L-115)
dI x Ix
Now differentiating Eq. (L-113) and substituting the results into Eq. (L-115), we
find
–1 x D I x
– xD – x D 1 I x – ---------------------
Ix 0 Ix
or
x D I x
---------------------------------------------------------------
-
Ix xD – x D 1
Ix 0
Then as I x 1 we have
x D 1
----------------------------------------------
xD – x D 1
Ix 0
Noting that dJ D dx D cons tan t for a given aspect ratio near full penetration,
Ix 1
x D I x = x D – xD – x D 1 I x
Ix 0 Ix 0
where
x D 1
= ----------------------------------------------
xD – x D 1
Ix 0
The values for x D 1 as a function of aspect ratio are illustrated in Figure L.4.
Figure L.5 shows the modified dimensionless productivity index solution J D for an
infinite conductivity fracture as a function of penetration and aspect ratio. As illus-
trated J D increases with penetration distance for all aspect ratios.
Figure L.6 illustrates the performance of an infinite conductivity fracture for rect-
angular shaped reservoirs versus a square reservoir. As illustrated, these results
match those presented by Valko and Economides.
Figure L.7 shows the dimensionless pressure versus dimensionless time ( t DA ) and
penetration ( x e x f ) for a well located at the center of a square reservoir with an
infinity conductivity fracture. Figure L.8 shows the dimensionless pressure versus
dimensionless time ( t Dxf ) and penetration ( x e x f ) for a well located at the center of
a square reservoir with an infinity conductivity fracture. Figure L.9 shows the
dimensionless pressure versus dimensionless time ( t Dxf ) and penetration ( x e x f )
for a well located at the center of a square reservoir for a uniform-flux fracture.
Figure L.7: Dimensionless pressure for a vertically fractured well in the center
of a closed square system, infinite conductivity.
Figure L.8: Dimensionless pressure for a vertically fractured well in the center
of a closed square system, infinite conductivity.
Figure L.9: Dimensionless pressure for a vertically fractured well in the center
of a closed square system, uniform-flux fracture
x 1 JD
-----f = e I x xe (L-116)
r w
C fD
where
xe = 16 -
-----------------------
e CA
In Eq. (L-116) the dimensionless productivity index J D is given by Eq. (L-110) and
x D by Eq. (L-113).
x f r w
C fD
Figure L.10 shows the inverse dimensionless effective wellbore radius, x f r w , for
an infinite conductivity vertical fracture for various aspect ratios as a function of
penetration.
I x 2 –2 J D 16
C A = ---------------------- e --------
Ix e
– ------
3 16-
CA = 2 Ix = 1
e -------
(L-117)
e
6
where J D I x = 1 = --- from Eq. (L-110) has been substituted.
The shape factor ratio of a rectangular reservoir to a square reservoir from Eq. (L-
117) is
16
– ------ --------
CA 2
Ix = 1 e
3 Ix = 1 – --3- 1 – 1 1
2
------------------------- = ---------------------------------------- e -
- ---------- ------- = ----------------------------------------
- e ---
CA = 1 = 1 2 I = 1 – --- 16 = 1 2 I = 1
x 3 -----
- x
e e
Eq. (L-117) can be simplified for aspect ratios less than unity since
1 = 1 . Using this result the shape factor can be approximated by
C A 1 – --3- 1 – 1 1
------------------------- e --- 1 + f c (L-118)
CA = 1
where f c is a slight correction for 1 = 1 .
From symmetry for an unfractured reservoir with the well in the center of a rectan-
gular reservoir we can Eq. (L-118) as
C A 1 – --3- – 1
------------------------- e 1 + f c
CA = 1
–b – 1
fc = a 1 – e
dC A
---------- = 0
d =1
3–1
a = -------------------
b
where from numerical simulations using Larson’s method of images the coeffi-
3–1
cients are found to be b 2 and a = ------------------- 0.00751 .
2
The complete analytical implicit solution for the shape factor from the above equa-
tions is
C A 1 – --3- – 1
------------------------- e 1 + f c (L-119)
CA = 1
where
3–1 – 2 – 1
f c = ------------------- 1 – e
2
To calculate the shape factor for aspect ratios less then unity we can use the symme-
try identity
CA = CA 1
Figure L.11 and Figure L.12 show comparisons of the shape factor as a function of
aspect ratio for the numerical simulation results based on the method of Larson and
the analytical solution of Eq. (L-119). Comparison with the published values of
shape factors from Earlougher are also presented.
Figure L.11: Shape Factor versus Aspect Ratio (1-6) - Numerical and
Analytical Comparisons.
Figure L.12: Shape Factor versus Aspect Ratio (6-20) - Numerical and
Analytical Comparisons.
q
p s = ------------- S (L-120)
2 kh
External Skin
The velocity through the filter cake as a function of the cake permeability ( k c ),
cake thickness ( c ), and pressure drop across the cake ( p s ) from Darcy’s law
can be written as
kc ps
v = ----- --------- (L-121)
c c
The total flow rate over the fracture face is
kc ps
q = 4hL ----- --------- (L-122)
c c
The pressure drop across the cake in terms of the flow rate is
q c c 1
p s = --------- ----- ----
4h L k c
(L-123)
q c k
= ------------- --- ----- --------------
2 kh 2 L k c c
The fracture skin for an external filter cake from Eq. (L-120) is
c k
sf = --- ----- --------------
external 2 L k c c
Internal Skin
The pressure drop of the fluid in the formation for linear flow adjacent to the frac-
ture as result of mobility effects (see Eq. (L-123)) can be written as
q s 1
p s = ------ ---- ---- --- – ---
4h L k c k s k
(L-124)
q s k
= ------------- --- ---- -------------- – 1
2 kh 2 L k s s
where the subscript s refers to the leakoff fluid properties, s is the extent of the
damage region into the formation normal to the fracture face, and k s s is the
leakoff fluid mobility.
k
M = -------------- (L-125)
ks s
The internal fracture skin from Eq. (L-120) is
s k
sf = --- ---- -------------- – 1 (L-126)
internal 2 L ks s
2. The flow is fully developed radial flow, The well is therefore produced over
the entire pay thickness.
2rhr = 2rhr
.
t t
The continuity equation for radial flow through an imaginary volume fixed in posi-
tion or control volume is
r r 2 h – r 2 h = 2 rh r
r + r t
Upon simplification for a constant formation height, we have
1
– --- r = (L-129)
r r t
This is the continuity equation which describes the rate of change of density with
respect to time as a function of the changes in the mass velocity vector at a fixed
point.
The radial flux is now placed in terms of the pressure gradient by using Darcy’s law
for radial flow
k p
= – --- (L-130)
r
Substituting Eq. (L-130) into Eq. (L-129), we find
1
c p = --- or c = (L-132)
p T
p
Substituting Eq. (L-132) into Eq. (L-131) and rearranging we find
Al-Hussainy (1966 see lee ref 7 pg 167) et. al. linearized the above equation in
space by replacing pressure with a pseudopressure to account for the change in vis-
cosity and density with pressure. Al-Hussainy defined real gas pseudopressure as
p p
m p = 2 ---------------------- dp
pb p z p
Undersaturated Oil
Drake (pg 138, 295) shows that for liquid flow, the above equation can be partially
linearized if 1) the viscosity is independent of pressure constant , 2) the fluid is
2
p
slightly compressible, cp « 1 and 3) the term 0 .
r
Real Gas
Partial linearization using the integral transformation
p p
m p = 2 ---------------------- dp
pb p zp
Gas-Oil
Partial linearization using the integral transformation
p k ro S o
mp = p ----------------------------
b o p Bo p
dp
p k ro S o o p
mp = pb -------------------------------
o p
- dp
Drake illustrates that the substitution of these transformations leads to the following
re-formulation of Eq. (L-133)
Agarwal(1979, SPE 8279) developed a new time function which considered varia-
tions in gas viscosity and compressibility as a function of pressure to linearize the
above equation. Agarwal’s pseudo-time was defined as
t 1
ta = 0 ----------------------
pc p
dt
t 1
t a = c ---------------------- dt
0 p cp
c
dt a = ---------------------- dt
pcp
Carter (SPE 12917) developed a set of pseudo-steady decline curves which used a
lamda parameter to represent variations in the decline curve from real gas proper-
ties. Carter’s correction to the dimensionless time was
t D = t D
where
c i m p i – m p wf
= ------------ ------------------------------------------
2 p p
--- – ---
z i z wf
kt
t D = ----------------
cr w2
t q t Qt
0 ----------------------
p c p
dt = -------------
c t
2p i Q t
c = -------------------------- (L-135)
zi Gi m p
where
pi
p
m p = 2 ---------------------- dp
p pzp
This equation can be simplified based on the following simple mass balance rela-
tionship
zi pi p
Q t G i = ---- ---- – ---------- (L-136)
p i z i z p
where G i is the original gas in place.
pi p
c = 2 ---- – ---------- m p
z i z p
c i m pi – m p
= ------------ ------------------------------------- (L-137)
2 p --- – p---
z i z p
The dimensionless form of Eq. (L-134) can be expressed as
----- r D
1
=
rD rD rD tD
where r D = r r w and
kt kt
t D = ---------------- = ---------------------2-
cr w2 c i rw
The lamda factor given by Eq. (L-137) will be shown as the correct formulation
which satisfies the mass balance equations.
a--- f p = D t D + S
q
a
--------- 1
f p = ------
q t JD
or
1 qt
J D = --- ---------
a fp
For the above equation, the various parameters for the specific type of flows are
given in Table L.1.
2kh T sc
a ------------- ----------
- kh 2kh
o Bo p sc T
fp p = p i – p wf m = m p i – m p wf m = m p i – m p wf
fp p = p – p wf m p = m p – m p wf m p = m p – m p wf
D tD pD tD mD tD = pD tD m D t D = p D t D
p
p = p --- dp
b
(L-139)
where the fluid density and viscosity are assumed to be functions of only pressure.
Differentiating Eq. (L-139), we find a relationship between the differential pseudo-
pressure function and pressure
p
= --- (L-140)
Substituting Eq. (L-140) into Eq. (L-138), the diffusivity equation in terms of the
pseudopressure is
1---
kr = c (L-141)
r r r t
A partial dimensionless form of Eq. (L-141) can be expressed as
cr w2
----- r D
1
= ---------------- (L-142)
r D r D r D k t
where r D = r r w and the permeability is assumed constant. Modification of to
account for relative permeability effects can also be handled as described above by
Drake.
t k
D = 0 ---------------
cr w2
- dt
kt t c (L-143)
= ---------------------2- ------------ dt t
i
c i rw 0 c
= tD t
where
t c i pi c pi
t = 0 c
------------ dt t = -------------------------
c
1
-----
r = (L-144)
r D r D D r D D
Dimensionless Parameters
A new set of dimensionless parameters will now be defined that are independent of
the fluid. The dimensionless pressure function for slightly compressible fluids was
defined as
2 kh
p D t DA = ------------- p i – p wf
q
From the definition of the pseudopressure function, we have
d = --- dp or p = ---
2 kh
D = ------------- (L-145)
q
where k is the formation permeability, h is the formation height, is the reservoir
fluid density, and = p i – p wf is the differential pseudopressure.
kt
DA = -------------------- = t DA (L-146)
c i A
where is the formation porosity and c i is the initial formation compressibil-
ity-viscosity product.
q t m· t
q D = ---------------------- = ---------------------- (L-147)
2 kh 2 kh
where = p i – p wf and the mass flow rate m· t = q t (i.e., mass flow
rate per unit time). Therefore, Eq. (L-147) represents the dimensionless mass flow
rate
m· t
m· D = q D = ----------------------
2 kh
The mass flow rate as a function of the dimensionless mass rate is
m· t = 2 kh p i m· D (L-148)
m· D
q sc t = 2 kh p i -------
sc
1 m·
J D = ------------- ------------------------------------
2 kh p – p wf
(L-149)
1 m· 1 sc q sc
= ------------- ----------------- = ------------- -----------------
2 kh p 2 kh p
where p = p – p wf .
2 kh m· i
J = ------------- J D = ------------------------------------
i p – p wf
(L-150)
m· i sc q sc i
= ----------------
- = ----------------------------
p p
where m· is the mass flow rate, q sc is the flow rate at standard conditions, p is the
average reservoir pressure, and p wf is the flowing pressure.
p
p = p --- dp
b
Undersaturated Oil
If we assume the viscosity for undersaturated oil is independent of pressure
constant , and that the fluid is slightly compressible, cp « 1 Eq. (L-139) can be
represented by
p o
p = p --- dp
b
= ----- p – p b
o
The dimensionless pseudopressure for a constant flow rate from Eq. (L-145) is
2 kh 2 kh o
D = ------------- = ------------- ----- p i – p wf
o q o q o
(L-151)
2 kh
= ------------- p i – p wf
o q
The ratio of the stock tank rate (volume) to the reservoir rate (volume) as defined
by the formation volume factor, B o is
q
B o = ----- or q = q o B o
q0
Placing Eq. (L-151) in terms of the stock tank flow rate, we have
2 kh
D = ------------------ p i – p wf (L-152)
o qo Bo
Real Gas
The constitutive relationship for the density of a real gas is
sc T sc p
= --------------- ---
p sc T Z
p - sc T sc p p
p = p b
-- dp =
p sc T pb p Z p
- dp
- --------------------------
--------------
or
sc T sc p p 1 sc T sc p p
p = --------------- ------- dp = --- --------------- 2 ------- dp
p sc T pb Z 2 p sc T pb Z
(L-153)
1 sc T sc
= --- --------------- m p
2 p sc T
where the real gas pseudopressure integral transformation by Drake for a real gas is
p p
m p = 2 --------------------------- dp
pb p Z p
The dimensionless pseudopressure for a constant flow rate (mass rate) from Eq. (L-
145) is
2 kh 2 kh
D = ------------- = ------------- p i – p wf
q s qs
2 kh 2 kh 1 sc T sc
D = ------------- = ------------- --- --------------- m p i – m p wf
s qs s q s 2 p sc T
kh T sc
= --------- ---------- m p i – m p wf
q s p sc T
Gas-Oil
For a gas oil mixture the density is replaced by the relative permeability density
product (i.e., k ro o ) and the pseudopressure function is
p k ro o
p = pb ------------
o
- dp (L-154)
or
p = mp
where the pseudo pressure transformation given by Drake for an oil-gas mixture is
p k ro S o o p
mp = p ---------------------------------
b
o p
- dp
The above equations are applicable above and below the bubble point (i.e., produc-
tion above and below the bubble point pressure).
1 d o 1 dB o
c = ----- --------- = – ------ ---------
o dp B o dp
The relationship between density and formation factor for undersaturated oil is
d o dB o p Bo pi
--------- = – --------o- or --------------
- = --------------- (L-155)
o Bo o pi Bo p
or
B o p i o p i B o p r o p r
o p = ------------------------------- = --------------------------------
Bo p Bo p
where p i is the initial reservoir pressure and p r is any reference pressure above the
saturation pressure (bubble point).
The pseudopressure for undersaturated oil in terms of the formation factor is found
by substituting Eq. (L-155) into Eq. (L-154)
p k ro o p k ro p
p = p b o
------------
- dp = o i o i p B p - dp
p B p -------------------------------
pb o o
(L-156)
The dimensionless pseudopressure for a constant flow rate (mass rate) from Eq. (L-
145) in terms of Drake’s pseudopressure m p is
2 kh 2 kh
D = ------------- = ---------------------------- o p i B o p i m
q o pi q pi
2 kh
= ------------- m p i – m p wf
qo
p k ro S o
mp = pb o p Bo p dp
----------------------------
Solutions are presented for undersaturated oil (liquid), real gas, and two phase gas-
oil flow in a homogeneous formation. The solutions are applicable for fractured and
unfractured reservoirs.
The general dimensionless pressure p D and rate q D solutions are applicable for
flow of oil, gas and two phase gas-oil flows as illustrated in Table L.1. The dimen-
sionless times will be defined in terms of a lamda parameter to account for the time
dependent behavior of viscosity and compressibility effects as illustrated below
t k kt
D = 0 ---------------
cr w2
- dt = ---------------------2- = t D
c i rw
t k kt
Dxf = 0 --------------
cx f2
- dt = ---------------------2- = t Dxf
c i xf
(L-157)
and
t k kt
DA = 0 -------------
cA
dt = -------------------- = t DA
c i A
The time average lamda factor for a real gas in a closed system will be shown to be
c i m pi – m p
p = ------------ -------------------------------------
2 p --- p---
z i – z p
This lamda formulation for closed systems with pseudosteady state behavior is
based on mass conservation (i.e., evaluated at the average reservoir pressure).
The lamda factor for an infinite acting system should be evaluated at some reason-
able average pressure in the flow domain. A good starting point for flow in infinite
or infinite acting systems (unbounded radial flow) is
p i + p wf
p = ------------------
2
D = tD
p i + p wf
p ------------------
2
Constant Rate
The general dimensionless pressure solution for pseudo-radial flow in an infinite
acting system producing at a constant rate is of the form
1
D = --- ln D + C
2
No Fracture
The dimensionless pressure solution for an infinite-acting system as given by Drake
(pg 157) is
1 r D2 r D2
D = – --- Ei – --------- = E 1 --------- (L-158)
2 4 D 4 D
where the exponential integral Ei x is given by
e–s
Ei – x = – ------- ds
x s
The exponential integral of the first kind can be approximated by (see mathematical
hand book pg 229)
n n
–1 z -
E 1 z – – ln z – -----------------
nn!
( arg z )
n=1
when D 10 is
1 4 1
D --- ln ---- D --- ln D + 0.80907 (L-159)
2 e 2
where
D = tD
The constant in Eq. (L-159) is actually ln 4 e = 0.809078697 . However, this infi-
nite series is usually reported as 0.80907 . The constant ln 4 e is also used in the
closed system formulation rather than the equivalent numeric value (i.e.,
1
--- ln 4 e 0.40453934 ).
2
2
p D = --- t D = 2 t D
Vertical Fracture
The dimensionless pressure solution for a vertical fracture from Eq. (L-159) and the
effective wellbore radius concept in an infinite-acting system when Dxf 10 is
1 4
D = --- ln ---- D + S f
2 e
1 4
= --- ln ---- Dxf + f
2 e
where
rw rw x rw
S f = ln ----- + f = ln ----- + ln -----f = ln -----
xf xf r w r w
or
1 4 rw 2
D = --- ln ---- D -----
2 e rw
1 4 xf
= --- ln ---- Dxf + ln -----
2 e rw
1 4
= --- ln ---- Dxf + f
2 e
1
= --- ln Dxf + 0.80907 + f
2
where
Dxf = t Dxf
f = ln x f r w = ln --------- + 2
C fD
1 2
m· D -------- = ---------------------- (L-160)
D ln D + C
where D is a dimensionless time and C is a constant. The corresponding equation
for a slightly compressible fluid is given by q D 1 p D . The constant for an unfrac-
tured well (with no skin) is C = 0.80907 .
tD
Q pD = 0 qD dtD
and for t D 200 , Q pD can be approximated by
– 4.29881 + 2.02566t D
Q pD -------------------------------------------------------
ln t D
dQ pD – Q pD t D + 2.02566
q D = ------------- = ------------------------------------------------
dt D ln t D
This solution is with 6% of Eq. (L-160) for C = 0.80907 at t D = 200 . The differ-
ence in these two solutions decreases to zero as t D .
The dimensionless rate solution at very early times ( t D 0.01 ) as given by the
2 1
Everdingen-Hurst or Laplace solution ( q D = --- ------ ) is
pD
qD = tD
The general dimensionless mass rate solution for pseudo-radial flow in an infinite
acting system producing at a constant flowing bottomhole pressure is
1
m· D = ----------------------------
D tD + S
The general mass and flow rate equations in terms of the dimensionless mass rate
for an infinite acting systems are
m· t = 2 kh m· D
and
m· D
q = 2 kh -------
The resulting mass and flow rates are summarized below for undersaturated oil,
real gas and two phase fluids.
Undersaturated Oil
If we assume that for undersaturated oil that the viscosity is independent of pressure
constant , and that the fluid is slightly compressible, cp « 1 Eq. (L-139) can be
represented by
p o
p = p --- dp
b
= ----- p – p b
o
The dimensionless pseudopressure for a constant flow rate from Eq. (L-145) is
m· D o m· D
q = 2 kh ------- = 2 kh p i – p wf -------
-----
o o o (L-161)
2 kh
= ------------- p i – p wf m· D
o
The ratio of the stock tank rate (volume) to the reservoir rate (volume) as defined
by the formation volume factor, B o is
q
B o = ----- or q = q o B o
q0
Placing Eq. (L-161) in terms of the stock tank flow rate we have
2 kh
q o = ------------- p i – p wf m· D
o Bo
(L-162)
2 kh p
= -------------------- q D
o Bo
where q D m· D and p = p i – p wf .
Real Gas
The constitutive relationship for the density of a real gas is
sc T sc p
= --------------- ---
p sc T Z
1 sc T sc
p = --- --------------- m p (L-163)
2 p sc T
The mass and flow rates in terms of the dimensionless flow rate m· D is
·
m t = 2 kh m· D
and
m· D
q sc t = 2 kh -------
sc
1 sc T sc
m· = 2 kh m· D = 2 kh --- --------------- m p i – m p wf m· D
2 p sc T
sc T sc
= kh --------------- m p i – m p wf m· D
p sc T
or
T sc
q sc t = ----------- kh m p wf q D
p sc T
where m p wf = m p i – m p wf and q D m· D
The above result is identical to Drake’s dimensionless pressure and rate function as
given in Table L.1.
Gas-Oil
The mass flow rate for gas-oil two phase flow is
m· t = 2 kh m· D = 2 kh m m· D (L-164)
where for a gas oil mixture, the density the pseudopressure function is
k ro o
p
p = mp = pb ------------
o
- dp (L-165)
m· D
q p i = 2 kh ---------------
o pi
m· D
q o = 2 kh -------------------------------
B o p i o p i
where q p i = q o B pi .
The above equations are applicable above and below the bubble point (i.e., produc-
tion above and below the bubble point pressure).
Above the bubble point (undersaturated oil), the pseudopressure in terms of the for-
mation factor from Eq. (L-165) is
p k ro o p k ro p
p = p b o
------------
- dp = o i o i
p B p - dp
-------------------------------
pb o p B o p (L-166)
= o p i B o p i m B o p
where the Drake pseudotime function in terms of the formation volume factor is
p k ro p
m B o p = p -------------------------------
o p Bo p
b
- dp
The mass flow rate for a constant producing pressure in terms of the Drake pseudo-
pressure m B o p is
· ·
m· = 2 kh m D = 2 kh o p i B o p i m B o p wf m D
m· D
q o = 2 kh -------------------------------
B o p i o p i
or
·
q o = 2 kh m B o p wf m D
Closed System
The analysis for closed systems producing at a constant flowing pressure must also
account for mass conservation. That is the initial mass of the hydrocarbon system
must be equal to the mass of system at any time plus the mass of hydrocarbons pro-
duced. As we shall see this the underlying basic formulation for a pseudo-time
function in variable compressible systems.
D = 2 DA + 1 J D (L-167)
DA = t DA
1- 4 - ---re
----- = ln ----------- -+f
JD
e CA f x
pi – p
p = c i ---------------------------------
pi – p
The lamda factor for a gas formation will be shown to be of the form
c i m pi – m p
p = ------------ -------------------------------------
2 p --- – p---
z i z p
The above equations are applicable for undersaturated oil, gas, and two phase flow.
in fractured and unfractured wells.
1
m· D s = --------------------
2
(L-168)
s D s
The dimensionless pressure solution Eq. (L-167) in Laplace space is
2
D s = -----2- + s J D (L-169)
s
The dimensionless mass flow rate solution in Laplace space from Eq. (L-168) and
Eq. (L-169) is
1 JD
m· D s = -------------------- = ---------------------
2
s D s 2 JD + s
– 2J D DA
m· D DA = J D e (L-170)
The mass and reservoir flow rate as a function of dimensionless rate are given by
m· t = 2 kh p i m· D (L-171)
or
– 2J D DA
m· t = 2 kh p i J D e
and
q t = 2 kh p i m· D
or
2 kh p i – 2J D DA
q t = ------------------------------- J D e
where = p i – p wf .
1 m· 1 m·
J D = ------------- ------------------------------------ = ------------- ----------------- (L-172)
2 kh p – p wf 2 kh p
where p = p – p wf
The mass flow in terms of the inverse productivity from rate from Eq. (L-172) is
m· = 2 kh p J D (L-173)
m· = 2 kh p J D = 2 kh p i m· D
The dimensionless pressure ratio as a function of dimensionless time from Eq. (L-
170) is
p - m· D – 2J D DA
----------------- = ------- = e (L-174)
p i JD
or
p - p – p wf – 2J D DA
----------------- = -------------------------------------- = e (L-175)
p i p i – p wf
The above equation relates the change in dimensionless pressure as a function of
pseudotime. The only remaining parameter to be formalized in the above set of
equations is the dimensionless pseudotime lamda factor.
Alternate Method
The mass flow in terms of the inverse productivity from rate from Eq. (L-172) is
m· = 2 kh p J D
The total mass of fluid produced M must be equal to the decrease of the fluid
mass in the formation. That is
M = – M system
= hA p i – p . (L-176)
The mass flow rate is found by differentiating Eq. (L-176) with respect to time
dp
m· t = d – M = – hA -------------- (L-177)
dt system dt
Now from the compressibility and pseudopressure equations, we find
1 dp dp
c p = ----------- -------------- or -------------- = c p p (L-178)
p dp dp
and
p d p p
p = p --- dp or ---------------
b
dp
- = -----------
p
(L-179)
Then from Eq. (L-177), Eq. (L-178), and Eq. (L-179), we find
d p d p d p dp
m· t = – hA -------------- = – hA ---------------- -------------- ----------------
dt dt dp d p
d p p
= – hA ---------------- c p p ----------- (L-180)
dt p
d p
= – hAc p p ----------------
dt
Equating Eq. (L-173) with Eq. (L-180), we have
d p
– hAc p p ---------------- = 2 kh p J D (L-181)
dt
or
p 1 t 2 kJ D
– ----------------- d p = 0 p c p A- dt
----------------------------- (L-182)
pi p
Integrating Eq. (L-182), we find an expression for pseudo pressure as a function of
the dimensionless pseudotime
2 kJ D
p - = – t -----------------------------
ln -----------------
p i 0 p c p A- dt = –2 JD DA
or
p -
-----------------
– 2J D DA
= e
p i
where
t k kt t ct
DA = 0 p c p A
-----------------------------
- dt = -------------------- ----------------------
c t A 0 p c p
dt
kt
= --------------------
c t A
kt c i kt
= -------------------- ------------- = -------------------- t
c i A c t c i A
1 t 1
------------- = ---------------------- dt t
c t 0 pcp
and
c i
t = -------------
c t
– 2J D DA
m· t = 2 kh p i J D e (L-183)
t
M = 0 m· dt (L-184)
Recalling that the dimensionless pseudotime from Eq. (L-143) based on drainage
area is
t k
DA = 0 -------------
cA
dt
kt t c i
= -------------------- ---------------------- dt t
c i A 0 p c p
kt
= -------------------- t
c i A
or
k
d DA = -------------------- dt
c i A
where is a constant over the time interval and will be represented as p to pre-
vent confusion.
t k c i A
M =
c i A
- p --------------------
0 m· dt ------------------- kp
DA c i A
= 0 m· d --------------------
kp
(L-185)
DA c i A
= 0 2 kh p i m· D d --------------------
kp
p i DA
= ------------------ c i hA 2 m· D d
p 0
p i DA – 2J D
M = ------------------ c i hA 2 J D e d (L-186)
p 0
Integrating Eq. (L-186), we find
p i – 2J D t DA
M = ------------------ c i hA 1 – e
p
p i p
M = ------------------ c i hA 1 – ------------------
p p i
p i p i – p
= ------------------ c i hA ----------------------------------------- (L-187)
p p i
1
= ----------- c i hA p i – p
p
The total mass of fluid produced M must be equal to the decrease of the fluid
mass in the formation. That is,
M = – M system
= hA p i – p . (L-188)
Then substituting Eq. (L-188) into Eq. (L-187) and rearranging, we find that the
value of lamda to satisfy mass conservation is
c i hA p i – p
p = -------------------------------------------------------------------
hA p i – p
or
pi – p
p = c i --------------------------------- (L-189)
pi – p
Simplifying Eq. (L-189) for a slightly compressible fluids and a real gas is pre-
sented below.
1 d
c = --- ------
dp
or
d------
= cdp (L-190)
Integrating Eq. (L-190) from the initial pressure to the average reservoir pressure
for a constant compressibility ( c = c i ), we find
d p
i ------ = p cdp i
or
- = c p – p
ln --- (L-191)
i i
i
Now if the fluid is slightly compressible ( c i p – p i « 1 ), we can rewrite Eq. (L-191)
as
- c p – pi
--- = ei 1 + ci p – pi
i
or
i – i ci pi – p .
p i
p = p --- dp ----
b
i
p – pb
----i p i – p
p i – p i
p = c i --------------------------------- c i ---------------------------
i – i c i p i – p
or
1.
The reservoir flow rate as a function of the dimensionless rate is
2 kh p 2 kh p – 2J D t DA
q t = -------------------- q D = -------------------- J D e
where p = p i – p wf is the constant draw down pressure (the initial reservoir pres-
sure ( p i ) minus the flowing pressure ( p wf )). The stock tank flow rate is related to
the reservoir rate by the formation volume factor o (i.e., q stb = q B o ).
t t kh p-
2------------------- – 2J D k cA
Qt = 0 q d = 0 J D e d
2 kh p cA – 2J D t DA (L-192)
= -------------------- ------------- 1 – e
2k
– 2J D t DA
= Q max 1 – e
where the maximum produced reservoir volume for an undersaturated oil (liquid)
formation is given by
The average reservoir pressure for a slightly compressible fluid producing at a con-
stant bottomhole flowing pressure is
pi – p Q t - – 2J D t DA
- = -----------
----------------- = 1 – e
p i – p wf Q max
or
p – p wf – 2J D t DA
-----------------
- = e (L-194)
p i – p wf
Now from Eq. (L-5) with the definition of the dimensionless productivity index
q t
J D = ------------- ----------------
2 kh p – p wf
2 kh p – 2J D t DA
q t = -------------------- J D e
The above analysis follows from the assumptions that the formation fluid is slightly
compressible and has a constant compressibility.
Real Gas
The constitutive relationship for the density of a real gas is
sc T sc p
= --------------- ---
p sc T z
pi – p
p = c i ---------------------------------
pi – p
1 sc T sc
p = --- --------------- m p (L-195)
2 p sc T
c i m p i – m p
p = ------------ --------------------------------
2 pi p-
----------- - – ---------
z pi z p
Ideal Gas
The constitutive relationship for the density of an ideal gas is
sc T sc
= --------------- p (L-196)
p sc T
The compressibility for an ideal gas is found from
1 d 1 sc T sc 1
c = --- ------ = --- --------------- = --- (L-197)
dp p sc T p
The pseudopressure for an ideal gas with a constant viscosity is
p - i 2
p = pb
-- dp - p – p b2
--------
pi i
(L-198)
The lamda factor for an ideal gas is found by substituting Eq. (L-196), Eq. (L-197),
and Eq. (L-198) into Eq. (L-189)
i
-------- 2
p - p i – p
2
p i2 – p 2
p = c i -------------------------------- = c i ----------------------
i i
p pi – p
i 1 – ----
pi
or
1
p = --- 1 + p p i (L-199)
2
The lamda factor for an ideal gas (with a constant viscosity) is shown to range from
1 to 1/2.
p i – p wf
p wf = c i -------------------------------------- (L-200)
p i – p wf
The mass rate is then calculated from
– 2J D DA
m· t = 2 kh p i J D e
where
DA = t DA p wf
t
M t = 0 m· t dt
DA – 2J D d DA
= 0 2 kh p i J D e d ------------
dt
where
d DA k p wf
------------ = -------------------
-
dt c i A
DA – 2J D
M t = M p wf 2 JD e d
0 (L-201)
– 2J D DA
= M p wf 1 – e
where
M p wf = hA p i – p wf
It is easy to illustrate that Eq. (L-200) is the correct choice for lamda. From Eqn we
have
DA – 2J D k p wf
M t = 0 2 kh p i J D e d --------------------
c i A
c i p i DA – 2J D
= hA ------------------------------- 2 J D e d
p wf 0
c i p i – 2J D DA
= hA ------------------------------- 1 – e
p wf
M t M p wf
or
c i p i
hA ------------------------------- hA p i – p wf
p wf
Rearranging, we find
p i
p wf c i -----------------------------------
p i – p wf
Eq. (L-201) can also be written in terms of the total mass in place
M t = M p i – p wf
- 1 – e
----------------------------------
– 2J D DA
total pi
M total
= hA p i
The above equations can be solved using a non-iterative numerical procedure for a
constant lamda value and a given average reservoir pressure:
Step 1
Given: p
Step 2
Find: M max
, p i , p , p , p , and t
where
p
p = p --- dp
b
p
d
i ------ = p cdpi
p i – p wf
p wf = c i --------------------------------------
p i – p wf
M max
= hA p i – p wf
M p = hA p i – p
Step 3
Find: M p , DA , t DA , t
M p = – M system
= hA p i – p
– 2 J D DA
M p = M p wf 1 – e
or
1 M p
DA = ------------- ln 1 – ----------------------
2J D M p wf
t DA = DA p wf
and
c i A
t = DA --------------------
k
Step 4
Find: m· t
– 2 J D DA
m· t = 2kh p i J D e
As stated above, since c t and t are time average values, the total mass pro-
duction as a function of time can be determined, but the mass rate can not be
directly found from
– 2J D DA
m· t = 2 kh p i J D e (L-202)
since DA was defined with an average viscosity compressibility product over the
total time. That is, we need an instantaneous value for lamda to evaluate the above
equation. However, all is not lost.
The numerical procedure to find the total mass and mass rate as a function of time
for a non-constant lamda t is outlined below:
Step 1
Given: p
Step 2
Find: p i , p , p , p , and t
where
p
p = p --- dp
b
d p
i ------ = p cdpi
pi – p
p = c i ---------------------------------
pi – p
Step 3
Find: M p , DA , t DA , t
M p = – M system
= hA p i – p
p – 2 J D DA
The dimensionless pseudotime DA is then calculated from ------------------ = e
p i
1 p i
DA = ------------- ln ------------------
2J D p
t DA = DA p
and
c i A
t = DA -------------------------
k
Step 4
Find: m· t
M t n – M tn – 1
m· t = -------------------------------------------------
tn – tn – 1
t DA
1 m pi – m p
QD p = 0 q D dt DA = ------------------ -------------------------------------
2 p m p i – m p wf
(L-203)
pi zi – p z
Q D p = Q D p wf ------------------------------------- (L-204)
p i z i – p wf z wf
where
1
Q D p wf = -----------------------
2 p wf
The dimensionless flow (or mass) rate as a function of average reservoir pressure
from Eq. (L-174) is
p mp
q D p = m· D p = J D ------------------ = J D ------------------ (L-205)
p i m pi
where m p = m p – m p wf .
The numerical procedure to find the total mass and mass rate as a function of
dimensionless time for a non-constant lamda t is outlined below:
Step 1
Given: p n , p n – 1 , q D p n – 1 , Q D p n – 1 , p z n – 1 , m p n – 1 , and t DA p n – 1
Step 2
Find: q D p n , Q D p n , p z n , and m p n .
Step 3
Find: q D , Q D
avg
qD pn – 1 – qD pn – 1
qD = --------------------------------------------------------------
avg ln q D p n – 1 q D p n – 1
QD = QD pn – QD pn – 1
Step 3
Find: t DA p n
p – 2 J D DA
The dimensionless pseudotime DA is then calculated from ------------------ = e
p i
1 p i
DA = ------------- ln ------------------
2J D p
The dimensionless time t DA p n and real time are then calculated from mass bal-
ance
t DA p n = t DA p n – 1 + Q D q D
avg
and
c i A
t n p n = t DA p n -------------------------
k
Agarwal Pseudopressure
To handle this non-linear behavior problem, a real gas potential (or real gas pseudo-
pressure or pseudopressure) was defined by Agarwal (1978), Al-Hussainy (1996)
(see also Earlougher (1977, pp 17) and Economides and Nolte (1987, 1-5))
p p
m p = 2 ---------------------- dp (L-206)
pb p z p
2p
m p = m p p = ------- p (L-207)
p Z
and
2p- p
m p = ------ (L-208)
t Zt
Earlougher [1977] reports that as a rule of thumb, at low pressures ( p 2000 psi )
Z is essentially constant and at high pressures ( p 3000 psi ) p Z is essentially
constant.
dm p
--------------- 2p
= -------
dp Z
The dimensionless real gas potential is obtained from the identity mD = p D . Now
from Eq. (L-1), we have
dp D kh-
- = 2------------
--------------
d p q
and
dm D dm D d p dp D d p
---------------
- = --------------
- ---------------- = --------------- ----------------
d m dp dm dp dm
(L-209)
2 kh Z kh- Z
= ------------- ------- = -------- ---
q 2p q p
nM nM Mp
= -------- = --------------------- = ----------- (L-210)
V ZnRT p ZRT
where n is the number of moles, M is the molecular weight, V is the gas volume
and Z is the non-ideal gas or Z-factor. Eq. (L-210) can be arranged as
ZRT sc RT sc
M = -------------- = ------------------- (L-211)
p p sc
or
Z sc T sc
--- = ---------- ------- (L-212)
p p sc T
Substituting Eq. (L-212) into Eq. (L-209), we find
dm D sc T sc
kh- ---------- T sc kh
- = --------
--------------- - ----------
------- = ----------
d m q p sc T p sc q sc T
or
T sc kh
m D = ----------- ---------- m (L-213)
p sc q sc T
General Pseudopressure
The general pseudopressure to linearize the radial diffusivity equation is
p p
p = p ----------
p
b
- dp (L-214)
p = p = --- p (L-215)
p
and
p
= --- (L-216)
t t
Another useful relationship from Eq. (L-217) is
d p -
---------------
= ---
dp
The dimensionless real gas potential is obtained from the identity D = p D . Now
from Eq. (L-1), we have
dp D kh-
- = 2------------
--------------
d p q
and
d D d D d p
----------------
- = --------------- -----------------
d d p d
dp D d p 2 kh
= --------------- ----------------- = ------------- --- (L-217)
d p d q
2 kh
= -------------
q
Rearranging Eq. (L-217), for a constant mass flux ( q ), we find
2 kh
D = ------------- (L-218)
q
where = p i – p
dp k f
= ---- + = ---- 1 + ---------------
2
–
dx kf kf
(L-219)
= ---- 1 + Re x
kf
where the non-Darcy Reynolds number is defined as
k f x kf qf kf qt
Re x = ----------------------- = ---------------- = ----------------
Af 2 Af
where k is the fracture permeability in the fracture, is the fluid density, is the
fluid velocity (i.e., is the superficial or average velocity), and q t is the total flow
rate (2-wings) at the wellbore.
Since gas is a compressible fluid, the gas density and velocity are functions of the
pressure in the fracture. From mass conservation, the mass flux per unit area in the
fracture is related to the gas density and velocity at standard conditions by
Multiplying Eq. L-219 by the gas density and placing in terms at standard condi-
tions, we have
dp
– ------ = ---- sc sc + sc sc
2
(L-221)
dx kf
or
1- k f sc sc
--- – dp
------ = sc sc --- 1 + -----------------------
dx kf (L-222)
1
= sc sc ---- 1 + Re x
kf
where the non-Darcy gas Reynolds number which may be a function of position is
defined as
k f k f sc sc k f sc q sc
Re x = --------------- = ----------------------- = ----------------------- (L-223)
2 Af
2
d 1 sc sc
– -------- = sc sc ---- + --------------------------
dx kf
or
2
d 1 sc sc
– -------- = sc sc ---- + --------------------------
dx kf
1 k f sc sc
= sc sc ---- 1 + ----------------------------
kf
1
= sc sc ---- 1 + Re x
kf
dm sc sc dm k f sc sc
– ------- = -------------------- ------- ---- 1 + ----------------------------
dx dp k f
(L-224)
2p sc T sc k f sc sc
= -------------- ------- 1 + ----------------------------
T sc k f
In the above equations, the mass flux ( m· = v = v sc ) is a function of position
and therefore, the non-Darcy Reynolds number is also a function of position (i.e.,
Re x ). Assuming a mass flux distribution of the form
·
m x D = m· 0 1 – x D q
where the alpha power coefficient is a function of fracture conductivity. The flux is
approximately uniform for large conductivity fractures ( q 1 ) and for low con-
ductivity fractures the flux power coefficient is much greater than unity ( q » 1 ).
2
1 1 – x D q m· 0 1 – x D q
-------------------
x f m· 0
= 0 -----------------------
kf
- + ---------------------------------------------- dx D
1 1 1 m· 0
= --------------- ---- + ------------------- -------------------
1 + q k f 1 + 2 q
·
1 1 1 + q k f m 0
= --------------- ---- 1 + ------------------- -----------------------
1 + q k f 1 + 2 q
or
1 1 1 + q
-------------------
· = --------------- ---- 1 + ------------------- Re
xf m 0 1 + q kf 1 + 2 q
(L-225)
1 1
= --------------- ---- 1 + q Re
1 + q kf
The beta Reynolds number is defined as
·
k f m· 0 kf mt
Re = ----------------------- = ---------------- (L-226)
2
and
1 + q
q = ------------------- (L-227)
1 + 2 q
where the gamma coefficient q for slot flow ( q = 0 ) is unity ( q = 1 ), for large
conductivity fractures or a uniform flux fracture ( q 1 ) the gamma coefficient is
about 2/3 ( q 0.67 ) and for low conductivities fractures ( q » 1 ) the gamma coef-
ficient is about 1/2 ( q 0.5 ).
The single wing mass flux at the wellbore is m· 0 . The total mass flux at the well-
·
bore (two-wings) is mt = 2m· 0 . It is important to note that the Reynolds number
as define above is based on single wing fracture mass rate. Some authors use a
Reynolds number based on the total 2 wing mass rate.
Effective Conductivity
The effective permeability and dimensionless conductivity for non-Darcy flow
from Eq. (L-225) are given by
kf
1 -
-------e- = ----------------------- (L-228)
kf 1 + q Re
and
C fD
1 -
------------e- = ----------------------- (L-229)
C fD 1 + q Re
Rearranging Eq. (L-229), and placing the effective conductivity in terms of a Darcy
and non-Darcy dimensionless conductivities, we have
1
C fD = ----------------------------- (L-230)
e 1 - ------------
-------- 1 -
+
C fD C fD
where the non-darcy dimensionless conductivity is
C fD 2 2
hw 2 hw
C fD = -------------- = ----------------------- = ----------------- ---------
q Re q qkx f q q t kx f
2 2
2 hw 2 hw
C fD = ----------- --------- = ------------------------- ---------
q t kx f sc q sc t kxf
Eq. (L-230) also illustrates that for an infinite conductivity fracture ( C fD ), the
effective conductivity will be equal to non-darcy value C fD CfD .
e
L.13 References
1. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J., and Raghavan, R.: “Unsteady-State Pressure
Distributions Created by a Well with a Single Infinite-Conductivity Fracture,”
SPEJ, August 1974, 347-360.
2. Gringarten, A.C.: “Reservoir Limit Testing for Fractured Wells,” SPE 7452,
October, 1978.
4. Lee, S.T., and Brockenbrough, J.R.: “A New Analytical Solution for Finite
Conductivity Vertical Fractures with Real Time and Laplace Space Parameter
Estimation,” SPE 12013, 1983.
5. Ramey, H.J. and Cobb, W.M: “A General Pressure Buildup Theory for a Well
in a Close Drainage Area,” JPT December, 1971, 1493-1505
7. Valko, P.P. and Economides, M.J.: “Heavy Crude Production from Shallow
Formations: Long Horizontal Wells Versus Horizontal Fractures,” SPE 50421,
November, 1998.
10. Riley, M.F., Brigham, W.E., and Horne, R.N.: “Analytical Solutions for Ellipti-
cal Finite-Conductivity Fractures,” October 1991, SPE 22656.
14. McGuire, W.J. and Sikora, V.J.: “The Effect of Vertical Fractures on Well Pro-
ductivity,” SPEJ Vol. 219 401-403, 1960.
15. Fetkovich, M.J. et.al: “Decline-Curve Analysis Using Type Curves-Case His-
tories,” SPE Formation Evaluation Journal, 637-656, Dec. 1987.
16. Lee, J., and Wattenbarger, R.A.: Gas Reservoir Engineering, SPE Textbook
Series Vol. 5, SPE, 1996.
18. Economides, M., Oligney, R., and Valko, P.: Unified Fracture Design, Orsa
Press, Alvin, Texas, 2002.
19. Fraim, M.L. and Wattenbarger, R.A.: Gas Reservoir Decline Analysis using
Type Curves with Real gas Pseudo-Pressure and Pseudo-Time,” SPE 14238,
September, 1985.
20. Gardner, D.C., Hager, C.J., and Agarwal, R.G.: “Incorporating Rate-Time
Superposition into Decline type Curve Analysis,” SPE 62475, March 2000.
21. Meyer, B.R. and Jacot, R.H.: “Pseudosteady-State Analysis of Finite Conduc-
tivity Vertical Fracture,” SPE 95941, October, 2005.
M.1 Introduction
The solution methodology for our Discrete Fracture Network (DFN) Simulator
(MShale) is formulated in this Appendix. The fractures are assumed to be discrete
and may or may not interact.
The fundamental first-order DFN mass and momentum conservation equations are
based on a self-similar solution methodology. The formulation utilizes a pseudo-
three-dimensional ellipsoidal approach. The major assumptions are:
1. The dominant fracture or main fracture is in the x-z plane and propagates per-
pendicular to the minimum horizontal stress, 3 . The y-z and x-y plane frac-
tures propagate perpendicular to 2 and 1 , respectively.
2. The discrete fracture network may composed of secondary fractures in all three
principle planes. The spacing in the x-z, y-z, and x-y planes are y , x , and
z , respectively.
3. The boundary conditions are such that the natural fracture system can initiate
multiple hydraulic fractures. This is similar to creating multiple fractures from
a highly deviated vertical wellbore with a large perforated interval. This forces
4. Fractures will only propagate in the y-z and x-y planes if the fracture pressure
is greater than the corresponding minimum horizontal stress in that plane.
5. Fractures in the x-z plane (other than the dominant fracture) can not open
unless a fracture network in the y-z plane is established for the fracture to prop-
agate (i.e., in the DFN the fractures must be connected.). These assumptions
are not applicable for multiple or cluster type fractures which may be dis-
jointed.
8. The fracture height at the joints in the x-z, and y-z planes will be assumed to be
the same. This summation is true for 2-D and penny shape fractures but may
not be for well contained fractures. This assumption will not have a great effect
on the solution unless there is considerable fracture volume and/or fluid loss in
the regions of high confining stress contrast at the upper and lower fracture
height extensions.
10. The fracture net work extension (with the except of the dominant fracture) can
be limited to a finite fracture extent in each plane.
The discrete fractures created in the x-y plane is assumed to be horizontal with the
same aspect ratio as the y-z plane fracture.
The governing mass, momentum, and energy equations and constitutive relation-
ships are presented.
Laminar Flow
Fundamental solutions for laminar flow in slots are presented below for Newtonian
and non-Newtonian (power-law) fluids. The solution for turbulent flow is then pre-
sented.
Slot Flow
Consider steady laminar flow in a channel with parallel flat straight walls. The dis-
tance between the two walls is 2b and the channel height is 2a
Newtonian Fluid
The pressure gradient in terms of the average stream velocity is
dp 3 -
= – --------------- (M-1)
dx b
2
This equation corresponds to Reynolds observation that the pressure drop for lami-
nar flow is proportional to the average flow velocity.
4 2a2b
d h 4A P f = --------------------------- 4b (M-2)
2 2a + 2b
where 2a is the slot height and a b » 1 . Rearranging Eq. M-1 in terms of the
hydraulic diameter, we obtain
dp 48 -
= – ------------------ (M-3)
dx d h2
The Reynolds number for flow of a Newtonian fluid in a slot is
d h
Re = ------------------ (M-4)
The pressure gradient in terms of the Darcy friction factor based on the average
flow velocity is
2
dp f
= – --- --------------- (M-5)
dx 2 dh
The Darcy friction factor in terms of the Reynolds number (Eq. M-4) is found by
equating Eq. M-3 to Eq. M-5 and solving for f
96 96
f = ------------------ = ------ (M-6)
d h Re
Power-Law Fluid
The pressure gradient in terms of the average velocity and hydraulic diameter for a
power-law fluid is
n
dp 2n + 1 n k
= – ----------------- -----------------
dx n n + 1
b
(M-7)
n + 1 2n n k n
+ 1- -----------------
= –4 ----------------
n d n + 1
h
The pressure loss in terns of the Darcy friction factor (Eq. M-5) is
2
dp f
= – --- --------------- (M-8)
dx 2 dh
where from Eq. M-6 f is
96
f = ------ (M-9)
Re
The power law Reynolds number from the above equations is therefore defined as
2 – n n
dh
Re = ------------------------------------------------ (M-10)
n – 1 2n + 1 n
12 ----------------- k
3n
The above power law equations simplify to the Newtonian equations for n = 1 .
Newtonian Fluid
The pressure gradient is in terms of the average stream velocity is
dp 3 16 a 2 + b 2 2 + b 2
- = – 4 a----------------
= – 4 ---------------- ---------------- - (M-11)
dx a2 b2 a2 b2
where
1 1 1 2 5 2 3
2 32
= 0 1 – z dz = --- -------------------------------------- = ------
2 3 16
(M-12)
accounts for the integration of the velocity profile in the z-direction. This parameter,
, represents the ratio of the average velocity profile over the channel height to the
average velocity at the mid-section. The general form of the integral in Eq. M-12 is
given by
1 2 –1 1 1 1 2
0 1 – z dz = --- B 1 2 = --- -------------------------------
2 2 + 1 2
(M-13)
dp 3 a 2 + b 2 4 a 2 + b 2
- = – --- q -----------------
= – ------- q ----------------
4 3 3
(M-14)
dx a b a3 b3
dp 3 q 4 q
= – ------- --------3 = – --- --------3 (M-15)
dx 4 ab ab
4 ab
d h 4A P f ------------------ = b (M-16)
2 2a
The pressure loss in terms of the Darcy friction factor is
2
dp f
= – --- --------------- (M-17)
dx 2 dh
where from Eq. M-6 f is
2
8
f = --------- (M-18)
Re
Power-Law Fluid
The pressure gradient in terms of the average velocity at any position z for a very
narrow slit based on the order of magnitude discussion above from Eq. M-7 is
n
dp 2n + 1 n k z
= – ----------------- ------------------------
- (M-19)
dx n bz
n + 1
Since the pressure gradient at any vertical section must be constant, we find
n + 1-
-------------
bz n
z = z = 0 --------------------
bz = 0 (M-20)
n + 1-
-------------
2 2n
= z = 0 1 – z
The cross-sectional average velocity over the entire slot is
a a
= 0 z b z dz b z dz
0
2n + 1-
1 ----------------
4 2 2n (M-21)
= --- z = 0 1 – z dz
0
4n
= ----------------- z = 0
where
1 1 1 2
2 –1 1
n = 0 1 – z dz = --- B 1 2 = --- -------------------------------
2 2 + 1 2
(M-22)
2n + 1 4n + 1
and – 1 = ----------------- or = ----------------- .
2n 2n
n
dp 2n + 1 n k z = 0 -
= – ----------------- ----------------------------------
dx n n + 1
bz = 0
4 n n
k -----------------
2n + 1 n
= – ----------------- --------------------------------------------
(M-23)
-
n b
n + 1
n
2n + 1 n k -
= – ----------------- -------------------------------
4n n n + 1
n b
The pressure gradient in terms of the flow rate, q = ab , is
n
dp 2n + 1 n k q a -
= – ----------------- ---------------------------------- (M-24)
dx 4n n 2n + 1
n b
n
The pressure drop in an ellipsoidal slot is shown to be 1 times that of flow
between parallel plates (see Eq. M-7). Perkins and Kern1 [1961] in their paper enti-
n
tled “Width of Hydraulic Fractures” assumed 1 held the same relationship for
n
both Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids (i.e., that 1 16 3 ).
The pressure gradient in terms of the average velocity and hydraulic diameter is
n
dp 2n + 1 n k -
= – ----------------- -------------------------------
dx 4n n n + 1
n b
(M-25)
2n + 1 n n
- 2n + 1- k----------------
-
= – ----------------- ----------------
n 4n n + 1
n dh
The pressure loss in terms of the Darcy friction factor (Eq. M-5) is
2
dp f
= – --- --------------- (M-26)
dx 2 dh
where from Eq. M-18 f is
2
8
f = --------- (M-27)
Re
The power law Reynolds number for flow in an ellipsoidal slot from the above
equations is therefore defined as
3 n
---------- 2 – n n
16 dh
Re = -----------------------------------------------------
- (M-28)
n – 1 2n + 1 n
4 ----------------- k
3n
The above power law equations simplify to the Newtonian equations for n = 1 .
Turbulent Flow
The pressure gradient in a closed conduit as a function of the mean or average wall
shear stress is
dp 4 w
= – --------- (M-29)
dx dh
where d h is the hydraulic diameter, d h 4A Pf .
2
dp f
= – --- --------------- (M-30)
dx 2 dh
where the Darcy friction factor, f , for a non-circular duct can be written as
8 w 2d h – dp dx
f = --------------2- = --------------------------------
2
- (M-31)
where f is a function of the Reynold’s Number ( Re ).
Laminar Flow
The pressure gradient in terms of the flow rate in an elliptical slot, q = ab , is
n
dp 2n + 1 n k q a -
= – ----------------- ---------------------------------- (M-32)
dx 4n n 2n + 1
n b
Rearranging Eq. M-32 we find
1
2 + 1 n ----
4n n ab -------p-
n
q = ----------------- ------------------------------------ L (M-33)
2n + 1 k
1 n
From mass conservation the ellipsoidal slot volume in terms of the slot dimensions
is
V = abL (M-34)
where L is the length of the fluid front in the elliptical slot.
L
q = ab ------- (M-35)
t
1
1 + 1 n ----
L 4n n b p n
------- = ----------------- ---------------------------------- ------- (M-36)
t 2n + 1 1 n L
k
where L is the change in the fluid front position over the time step t .
The governing fluid front relation in terms of the slot width ( 2b ) and pressure dif-
ferential (pressure loss) is
1
----
4n n t - 1 + 1 n n
= ----------------- -------------- -----------------
1 n
L L b p (M-37)
2n + 1 k 1 n
Fluid front positions for different slot widths and pressure drops from Eq. M-37 is
L 2 L 21 n = L 1 L 11 n (M-38)
where
1
----
b 2 1 + n p 2 n
= ----- --------- (M-39)
b 1 p1
Turbulent Flow
The pressure loss in terms of the Darcy friction factor is
2 2
dp f f q -
= – --- --------------- = – --- ---------------- (M-40)
dx 2 dh 2 3a2b3
where = q ab and d h = b .
23a2b3 p 1 2
q = --------------------- ------- (M-41)
f L
Substituting the slot flow rate from Eq. M-35 into Eq. M-41, we find
2 12
= ------ b p t
12
L L (M-42)
f
Fluid front positions for different slot widths and pressure drops from Eq. M-42 is
L 2 L 21 2 = L 1 L 11 2 (M-43)
where
1---
b2 p2 2
= ----- --------- (M-44)
b 1 p 1
t L t a t b
L t = L -- a t = a -- b t = b -- (M-45)
where
a = a L and b = b L (M-46)
The flow rate for a time/length dependent cross sectional area is
L
q = ab ------- 1 + a + b (M-47)
t
Thus Eq. M-39 and Eq. (M-43) are still valid for given aperture ( 2b ) and pressure
drop ( p ) at time t .
Fracture Network
The number of network fractures, total network fracture length, area, fluid loss, and
fracture network volume will be presented below.
The location of the well and perforations in a given grid block is defined by the
dimensionless coordinates ( x Dw y Dw z Dw ) where
2x w 2y w 2z w
x Dw = --------- y Dw = --------- z Dw = -------- (M-48)
x y z
The well and perforation location from the center of the DFN grid are given by
x w y w z w . The dimensional well location values range from -1 to +1. The location
at the center of the block is (0,0,0).
The maximum stimulated fracture extent in the y-direction (y-z plane) from
momentum is given by
b = a (M-49)
where = f is the stimulated reservoir volume aspect ratio, b is the minor axis
in the y-direction and a is the fracture extent (dominant fracture length) in the x-
direction.
D+ i D+ D- i D-
max max
n = + (M-50)
D+ i = 0 D- i = 0
where the dimensionless position, D , in the positive and negative coordinate
directions, D+ and D- , are given by
D+ i = 0 = 1 – Dw 2
D- i = 0 = 1 + Dw 2
and is the maximum fracture network extent (half-length) in the direction. The
dimensionless position is given by
D i = D i = 0 + i
where 0 D 1 .
The total number of integer fractures in the x-z, y-z, and x-y planes are
Nx = nx
Ny = 1 + ny (M-51)
Nz = nz
To illustrate the use of the above equations lets consider a DFN system with a dis-
crete fracture spacing in the x-z and y-z planes of x = 100 and y = 50 with a x-
y plane aspect ratio of = b a = 1 2 where a = x f = 1000 is the dominant frac-
ture half-length. Let’s also assume there are no discrete horizontal fractures in the
x-y plane. It is noted that all length units are consistent. Let’s also assume that the
wellbore and perforated interval are located at the center of the network grid
( x Dw = 0 y Dw = 0 z Dw = 0 ).
b – y 2 b – y 2
n y = --------------------------- + 1 + --------------------------- + 1
y y
n y = 10 + 10 = 20
or
N y = 1 + n y = 21
a – x 2 a – x 2
n x = --------------------------- + 1 + --------------------------- + 1
x x
n x = 10 + 10 = 20
or
N x = n x = 20
N
L DFN = L j
= x y z j = 1
N
(M-52)
A DFN = A j
= x y z j = 1
N
V DFN = V j
= x y z j = 1
where
L = d
A = h d (M-53)
V = w h d
w = V A
The fracture length and width distribution for each network fracture perpendicular
to the direction is given by
12
L D = 1 – D2
(M-54)
12
w D = 1 – D2
where L D = L L and w D = w w .
hD = f D (M-55)
12
where h D = h h and for an elliptical profile h D = 1 – D2 .
The x-y plane fracture is horizontal with an ellipsoidal shape and width profile.
This configuration allows for a “T” shaped fracture geometry.
DFN Ratios
The ratios of the DFN characteristics to the dominant or primary fracture are
defined in this section. The ratios for length, area, and volume are
L = L DFN L
A = A DFN A (M-56)
V = V DFN V
where L , A , and V are the length, area, and volume of the dominant or primary
fracture.
V SR = h d = abh (M-57)
A
where h is the stimulated average fracture height and ab is the ellipsoidal area of
the fracture network. The major or dominant fracture half-length (x direction) is a
and the network extension in the y-direction or minor axis is b . The stimulated pro-
jected area is the area in the x-y plane as observed in the z-direction (note:
2
ab = a where is the ellipsoidal DFN aspect ratio).
L = L DFN V SRV
A = A DFN V SRV
(M-58)
V = V DFN V SRV
Vt = V t V SRV
where V t is total injected volume.
L = L DFN V SRV = 1 L
A = A DFN V SRV = 1 A
(M-59)
V = V DFN V SRV = 1 V
Vt = V t V SRV = 1 V t
The stimulated reservoir volume ratios are the inverse of the specific reservoir char-
acteristics.
t
0 q d – Vl t – Vsp t = Vf t (M-60)
where
t A DFN
Vl t = 2 v a da d
0 0
A DFN
V sp t = 2 S p a da (M-61)
0
L DFN
V f t = V DFN = 0 w h d
t
DFN = V DFN q d
0
(M-62)
1
= -------------------------------------------
1 + V l + V sp V f
The fracture efficiency for a single dominant fracture with constant leakoff and
spurt loss coefficients from Eq. (M-61) and Eq. (M-62) is
1
= -------------------------------------------------------------------------- (M-63)
1 + cA l t + 2S p A l wA
where A l is the leakoff area, A is the fracture area, and w is the average fracture
width.
c = A A DFN – 1 l + 1 (M-64)
t A DFN
Vl t = 2 c v a da d (M-65)
0 0
This equation must be solved numerically since c = A A DFN is in general time
dependent for a DFN if l 0 .
t A
Vl t = 2 v a da d (M-66)
0 0
This equation represents the fluid loss from the main or dominant fracture only.
Stiffness Interaction
Stiffness interaction occurs when fractures are close enough to be affected by the
stress field from adjacent fractures. The stiffness factor for each plane is defined as
E = N – 1 E (M-67)
where E is the stiffness or elastic interaction factor and N is the number of paral-
lel fractures in that plane that interact. If E = 0 there is no interaction and the
stiffness factor is zero E = 0 , and for l = 1 the fractures fully interact and the
stiffness factor is, E = N – 1 . A maximum stiffness factor, E , can also be
max
specified such that E E .
max
= E + 1 (M-68)
The effective modulus in the direction is then defined as
E = E (M-69)
Empirical Correlation
The stiffness interaction factor is also referred to as an elastic influence factor and
is dependent on the fracture spacing and fracture height. An empirical correlation
for the 3D influence factor, ij , is
h 2 32
ij = 1 – 1 1 + --------- (M-70)
2d ij
where h is the fracture height and d ij is the distance between parallel fractures i
and j .
N N
E
= ij N (M-71)
i = 1j = 1
To simplify the theory (and calculations) while preserving the limiting solutions, a
Proppant Style Distribution for Uniform, dominant, and User Specified proppant
allocation will be presented. The limiting solutions of a uniform distribution of
proppant in the fracture network and all the proppant remains in the main or domi-
nant fracture will be discussed first followed by the User Specified proppant alloca-
tion option.
p = M f M DFN = M f M t (M-72)
where M f is the proppant mass in the primary fracture and M t is the total proppant
mass injected (or mass in DFN system).
This proppant distribution solution is a methodology for determining fluid loss and
proppant loss (distribution) from the primary or dominant fracture based on fluid
efficiency. That is even with no fluid leakoff the proppant can screen-out if the sec-
ondary fractures do not allow proppant transport. Again the full set of equations are
solved for the DFN and this solution technique provides a solution methodology for
proppant distribution and proppant concentrating in the primary and secondary
fractures.
The mass conservation equation from Eq. (M-60) and Eq. (M-61) is
t
0 q d – Vl t – Vsp t = V DFN (M-73)
where
t A DFN
Vl t = 2 v a da d
0 0
A DFN
V sp t = 2 S p a da (M-74)
0
L DFN
V DFN = 0 w h d
where M f is the proppant mass in the primary fracture and M DFN is the total prop-
pant mass injected (or mass in DFN system). Thus the mass (and volume) of prop-
pant is assumed to be distributed based on network fracture volume.
This option also assumes that the DFN system efficiency ( DFN ) is a representative
value that can be used throughout the fracture network for proppant transport and
proppant concentrating in the fracture network and dominant fracture. The uniform
proppant distribution efficiency is calculated from Eq. (M-62)
t
DFN = V DFN q d (M-76)
0
To examine the limits of this assumption consider two fractures initiated at the
same time with each having the same leakoff and spurt coefficients and fracture
leakoff area to fracture area ratios but with different apertures (widths). The effi-
ciency relationship for fractures a and b from Eq. (M-63) is
a
b = ----------------------------------------------------- (M-77)
a + 1 – a wa wb
or
a
b = ---------------------------------------------------------------- (M-78)
1 – 1 – a 1 – wa wb
where the width and efficiency for fractures a and b are ( wa a ) and ( wb b ),
respectively. This equation illustrates that at high efficiencies the assumption of
equivalent efficiencies ( a 1 ) is a reasonable first-order approximation. How-
ever, for low DFN efficiencies a more rigorous model is needed. Also note that in a
DFN network not all fractures are created at the same time and thus the efficiency
correlation above is not applicable. This assumption works well as long as the sec-
ondary fractures do not screen-out before the primary fracture. If the secondary
fractures do screen-out they will create a smaller stimulated reservoir volume.
The proppant distribution allocation for all the proppant in the primary or dominant
fracture is
p = M f M DFN = M f M t = 1 (M-79)
where M f is the proppant mass in the primary fracture and M t is the total proppant
mass injected (or mass in DFN system).
The mass conservation equation from Eq. (M-60) and Eq. (M-61) in terms of the
primary fracture is
t
0 q d – Vl t – Vsp t – VDFN – Vf = Vf (M-80)
where
t A DFN
Vl t = 2 v a da d
0 0
A DFN
V sp t = 2 S p a da
0
(M-81)
L DFN
V DFN = 0 w h d
L
Vf t = 0 w h d
The above mass conservation equation can also be written as
t t
q d – q s d – V l t – V sp t = V f (M-82)
0 0
where for the primary fracture we have
t A
Vl t = 2 v a da d
0 0
A
V sp t = 2 S p a da (M-83)
0
L
Vf t = 0 w h d
and q s is the fluid loss rate to the secondary fractures (i.e., DFN less the primary or
dominant fracture). The fluid loss volume to the secondary fractures, V ls , is given
by
t
V ls = 0 qs d (M-84)
= Vl + V DFN
DFN
where V l is the fluid loss and V DFN is the fracture volume of the secondary
DFN
fractures (i.e., DFN less the dominant fracture).
The dominantdominant fracture efficiency, , for all proppant remaining in the pri-
mary fracture is
t
= V f q d
0 (M-85)
= DFN V f V DFN
The total effective fluid loss volume, V loss , from the primary fracture is
t
V loss t = 1 – t q d (M-86)
0
p V f V DFN
min
p = M f M DFN = M f M t (M-87)
where M f is the proppant mass in the primary fracture and M t is the total proppant
mass injected (or mass in DFN system). The mass in the secondary fractures, M s , is
Ms = Mt – Mf = Mt 1 – p (M-88)
The average slurry concentration in the primary fracture and secondary network
system is
cf = Mf Vf = p Mt Vf (M-89)
and
c s = M s V s = 1 – p M t V DFN – V f (M-90)
Eq. (M-87) can be written as
cf Vf c in V f DFN V f
p = ---------------- = ------------------------------------------ = ------------- ------------- (M-91)
cV DFN c in V DFN DFN V DFN
We now define an effective proppant allocation volume as
V pD = V t = V f p (M-92)
The mass conservation equation from Eq. (M-60) and Eq. (M-61) in terms of the
effective proppant allocation DFN volume, V pD , is
t
0 q d – Vl t – Vsp t – VDFN – VpD = V pD (M-93)
or
t
q d – V l t – V sp t – V DFN – V pD p = V f (M-94)
0
where
t A DFN
Vl t = 2 v a da d
0 0
A DFN
V sp t = 2 S p a da
0 (M-95)
L DFN
V DFN = 0 w h d
V pD = V f p
and V pD is effective discrete DFN volume containing proppant. The effective dis-
crete DFN volume is then used to determine the fluid loss and proppant allocation
in the secondary fractures. The proppant distribution fraction of 1 – p is then dis-
tributed through the secondary fractures.
t t
q d – q s d – V l t – V sp t = V pD (M-96)
0 0
where for the primary fracture we have
t A pD
Vl t = 2 v a da d
0 0
A pD (M-97)
V sp t = 2 S p a da
0
V pD = V f p
and q s is an equivalent distributed fluid loss rate to the secondary fractures.
t
= V pD q d
0
= DFN V pD V DFN (M-98)
= Vf p Vt
where p V t is the equivalent slurry volume injected into the primary fracture. The
effective discrete DFN volume containing proppant can also be approximated by
t t
V pD DFN t q d – q s d (M-99)
0 0
The effective distributed secondary injected volume is approximated by
t t
0 qs d = 0 q d – VpD DFN
(M-100)
t
= 0
q d 1 – V pD V DFN
The numerical results for the Eq. (M-100) and Eq. (M-93) solutions are very close.
Slight differences in the uniform and dominant fracture proppant solutions may
occur because of the different fracture network flow rate distribution as the bound-
ary condition.
Weijers et al. (2002) discussed three regions within the fracture: the near-well, mid-
field and far-field, with complex, tortuous and simple fracture characteristics each
having unique pressure signatures. Muthukumarappan et al. (2007, 2009) states
that screen-outs during shale and coal hydraulic fracturing treatments can be attrib-
utabled to high pressure dependent leakoff (PDL), high process zone stress (PZ), or
both.
It has been observed (e.g., Weijers et al. (2002), Weng (1993), and Jacot et al.
(2010)) that complex fracture behavior may occur when fracturing highly deviated
and horizontal wellbores. Complex fractures in the midfield region turn and twist,
then re-orientate in the direction perpendicular to the principal stress planes. This
creates a high fracture pressure that does not diminish instantly when the fracture is
shut-in. The fracture gradient during pumping can be much greater than the over-
burden stress gradient without creating horizontal fractures in the far-field.
Figure M.1 and Figure M.2 illustrate the conceptual complex fracture behavior in
the midfield and the far-field discrete fracture network (DFN) as shown by Weng
(1993) and Weijers et al. (2002). Figure M.2 shows a conceptual picture of mid-
field tortuosity. Weijers et al. states that “Mid-field tortuosity is recognized by a
high apparent ISIP and rapidly declining pressures during the first few minutes of
shut-in. This is caused by a pressure choke beyond the near-wellbore area in the
fracture.”
t A
Vl t = 2 v dA dt
0 0 (M-101)
= C t A DFN + A MFC t a c
where is formulated from incomplete gamma functions as given by Meyer and
Hagel (1989). The total leakoff coefficient C t is the instantaneous time depen-
dent value. For a constant leakoff coefficient independent of time and pressure, c
is equal to zero. The fracture area for the extended wellbore storage or midfield
fracture complexity contributing to fluid loss is given by A MFC , and the fracture
leakoff area of the discrete fracture network is given by A DFN .
t A
Vl t = 2 v dA dt
tp 0
(M-102)
= C t p A DFN + A MFC t p G a 2
= Vl tp G 2
The solution for time dependent fluid loss is presented in Appendix F.
The fracture volume ratio in the EWS or MFC region is found by substituting Eq.
(M-102) into Eq. (M-103)
or
Assuming the fracture compliance remains constant during closure, the resulting
net pressure ratio at any time during closure of the midfield fractures is
dP
ISIP – p t = G ------- (M-106)
dG
where
The corresponding relationship for pressure dependent fluid loss and compliance as
presented by Meyer et. al. (2010) is
cp
dP- dP p t – p
------ p = ------- ----------------------- (M-108)
dG dG p t p – p
The complex fracture geometry and pressure behavior (decline) in the MFC or
EWS region can be a very complicated phenomenon to mathematically represent
for all cases (e.g., pressure dependent compliance, pressure dependent fluid loss
and dissipation of energy in the EWS region). To mathematically model this pres-
sure behavior, we propose a very general solution using a form of the Arps equa-
tion:
1
f t = 1 1 + t – t p (M-110)
G dP
f = ----------------------- ------- for G G c (M-111)
ISIP – dG
M.9 References
1. Perkins, T.K. and Kern, L.R.: “Widths of Hydraulic Fractures,” JPT, Sept.
1961.
2. Meyer, B. R.: “Design Formulae for 2-D and 3-D Vertical Hydraulic Fractures:
Model Comparison and Parametric Studies,” paper SPE 15240 presented at the
SPE Unconventional Gas Technology Symposium, Louisville, KY, May. 18-
21, 1986.
6. Meyer, B.R. and Bazan, L.W.: “A Discrete Fracture Network Model for
Hydraulically Induced Fractures: Theory, Parametric and Case Studies,” SPE
140514, February 2010.
7. Weijers, L.G., Sugiyama, H., Shimamoto, T., Takada, S., Chong, J.M., and
Wright, C.A.: “The First Successful Fracture Treatment Campaign Conducted
in Japan: Stimulation Challenges in a Deep, Naturally Fractured Volcanic
Rock,” SPE 77678, Oct. 2002.
9. Muthukumarappan, R., Barree, R.D., Broacha, E., Barett, B., Longwell, J.D.,
Kundert, D.P, and Tamayo, C.: “Effects of High-Process-Zone Stress in Shale
Stimulation Treatments,” SPE 123581, April 2009.
10. Weng, X.: “Fracture Initiation and Propagation from Deviated Wellbores,”
SPE 26597, Oct. 1993.
11. Jacot, R.H., Bazan, L.W., and Meyer, B.R.: “Technology Integration – A
Methodology to Enhance Production and Maximize Economics in Horizontal
Marcellus Shale Wells,” SPE 135262, September 2010.
13. Nolte, K.G.: “A General Analysis of Fracturing Pressure Decline with Applica-
tion to Three Models,” (SPE 12941) JPT (Dec. 1986), 571-582.
17. Nolte, K.G.: “Fracture Pressure Analysis for Non-Ideal Behavior,” (SPE
20704) JPT (Feb. 1991), 210-218.
18. Nolte, K.G., Mack, M.G. and Lie, W.L.: “A Systematic Method of Applying
Fracture Pressure Decline: Part I,” SPE 25845 presented at the SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Symposium held in Denver, CO, April
12-14, 1993.
19. Castillo, J.L.: “Modified Fracture Pressure Decline Analysis Including Pres-
sure-Dependent Leakoff,” SPE 16417, May 1987.
pore pressure 186, 529 Revenue/unit volume 472, 479, 481, 484
porosity 188, 336, 435, 526, 530 Reynolds number 95, 322, 494
pressure 186, 335, 432, 891 Rheology data 221
resistivity 813 Rheology model 333, 504
square 817 Rock database 171, 242
temperature 423, 436 Rock embedment strength 199
viscosity 188, 336, 435, 531 Rock layers 93
Reservoir Coupling 81 Rock properties 163
Reservoir coupling Rock specific gravity 200
ellipsoidal 81 Rock symbols 164
linear 81 Rock/acid system 153
Reservoir models 421 Root delta time 311, 388
closed system Root Nolte time 311, 388
infinite reservoir 420 Root theta' time 311, 388
fractured well/closed system 421 Row selection 260
no fracture 421 Run options 69
Reservoir pressure 528
Reservoir solutions S
fractured - multi-case 421
Residual hydrocarbon saturation 530 Saturated liquid volume ratio 161
Residual oil saturation 525 Saturation 530
Resistivity 812 irreducible 531
average fracture 813 residual 530
formation 814 Saturations 435
fracture 813 Save data as a text file 264
net fracture 818 Screen-out 102, 149
reservoir 813, 814 criteria 149, 150
square reservoir 819 Secondary fractures 594, 932
system 818 fluid loss 935
total 818 Section length 115
Resistivity solution 693 Security key 9
Restart time 87, 156, 570 MKey 11
Restore default layout 30 updating 11
Results and conclusions 731 Select information lines 391
Revenue as a function of time 481 Select points
Revenue escalation rate 472 automatically find points menu 357
Revenue share 480 Select points in MinFrac 356
reference 462
stimulated 459
Wellbore solution
synchronize 82, 87, 566, 570
Wellbore specific gravity 334
Wellbore storage 459
Wellbore storage factor 459
Wellbore survey method 113
Wellbore volume 112, 146, 519
Width
average at well 507
average in fracture 507
maximum at well 507
Width-opening pressure 663
Width-opening pressure elasticity condi-
tion 613
Windows fundamentals 11
Y
Young’s modulus 166, 329, 500
typical values 329, 500
Z
Z-factor 451, 902
Zone data 124, 574, 582
Zones 122, 179, 559, 573, 580
active 123, 581
dialog screen 123, 560, 574, 581
name 123, 574, 581
Zooming 36
zoom 100% 36
zoom out 36