Horizontal Well Stimulation

R. D. Barree
Barree & Associates LLC
 Selecting Horizontal vs Vertical Wells

• Can vertical wells be stimulated effectively?

– What is the typical effective producing frac length?
• Can vertical wells drain the reservoir (contact the
required volume)?
– Is the limitation drainage area, aspect ratio, or multiple
stacked pay targets?
• Can vertical infill wells be drilled economically?
• Can field development economics be improved by
switching to horizontals?

© 2009
 Maximum Attainable
Effective Xf Depends on:
• Reservoir permeability
• Frac fluid cleanup
• Producing water-cut and condensate yield
• Applied drawdown
• Created fracture length
• Average proppant concentration
• Applied closure stress
• Reservoir rock “hardness”
Effective frac length is usually much
shorter than expected © 2009
Baseline Conductivity of Proppant
Types at 2 lb/ft2

© 2009
Mechanisms for Loss of Proppant Pack
Conductivity and Effective Length
• Increased closure stress from drawdown
• Proppant crushing and fines generation (in-situ)
• Stress cycling (pack re-arrangement)
• Formation embedment
• Formation fines invasion and spalling
• Long-term degradation (diagenesis?)
• Relative permeability
• Flow segregation (gravity and viscous fingering)
• Non-Darcy flow
• Filtercake and gel residue

© 2009
 Normalized Conductivity with Time at Stress for
40/70 PRC (Corrected Starting KfWf)
1 y = 0.0016Ln(x) + 1
T1 2000
y = -0.0099Ln(x) + 1 T2 2000
y = -0.0039Ln(x) + 1 T3 2000
y = -0.0088Ln(x) + 1 T1 4000
y = -0.0125Ln(x) + 1 T2 4000
0.95 y = -0.0061Ln(x) + 1 T3 4000
T1 6000
T2 6000
y = -0.0231Ln(x) + 1 T3 6000
Normalized Conductivity, Kfwf/KfWf(0)

y = -0.0238Ln(x) + 1 T1 8000
T2 8000
0.9 T3 8000
y = -0.0332Ln(x) + 1 T1 10000
T2 10000
T3 10000
Log. (T2 10000)
Log. (T3 10000)
0.85 y = -0.0462Ln(x) + 1 Log. (T1 10000)
Log. (T2 8000)
Log. (T3 8000)
y = -0.0536Ln(x) + 1 Log. (T1 8000)
Log. (T2 6000)
Log. (T3 6000)
0.8 Log. (T1 6000)
y = -0.0683Ln(x) + 1 Log. (T3 4000)
y = -0.0661Ln(x) + 1 Log. (T2 4000)
y = -0.0653Ln(x) + 1 Log. (T1 4000)
Log. (T3 2000)
Log. (T2 2000)
y = -0.0749Ln(x) + 1
0.75 Log. (T1 2000)

0.7
1 10 © 2009
100
Time, hours
Multiphase Flow Damage Factor for
Typical Proppant

Maximum Flow Restriction

At Fg=0.98

© 2009
 Loss of Gas Permeability with
Saturation in Non-Darcy Flow
1000
Sg
1 Expected baseline
perm (500D)
0.8
0.74 Sg=0.25
100 Sg=0.42
0.63
Sg=0.55
0.55
Sg=0.63
0.42 Sg=0.74
Sg=0.80
Kg

10 Kga_Sg1
Kga_Sg0.25
0.25
Kga_SG0.42
Kga_Sg0.55
Kga_Sg0.63
1 Kga_Sg0.74
0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 Kga_Sg0.8

Typical gas well

0.1
flowing at 1 MMCF/D
pv/u © 2009
 Effective Frac Length
Determination
• Calculate fracture conductivity (kfwf) including all
damage and dynamic effects
• Calculate flowing facture length (Xflow) based on
cleanup model (maximum projection of drawdown
and critical velocity)
• Calculate FCD from flowing length and damaged
conductivity k w
FCD =
f f

k r X flow
•Calculate effective infinite-conductivity
length from FCD to quantify stimulation © 2009
 Effective and Apparent
Dynamic Fracture Length
1
Effective Length Ratio,

0.1
Xfeff /Xfcreated

X eff 1
=
1 +  π 
X flowing

 2 FCD 
0.01

0.001
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Fracture Conductivity, FCD
© 2009
Infinite-Conductivity Length for a
Created Length of 1000 ft

© 2009
 Wellbore Drawdown or Gravity
Segregation Determines Flow Path
Free gas flows in segregated channel(?)

Sg=Sgc in zone

Sw=100% below pay

© 2009
 Vertical Downward Dewatering of 40/70 Sand:
All Valves Open, Top Valve Open
Water + 2 gpt Surfactant
16 1200

14
1000
Gas Rate (L/min), dP (psi)

12

Water Produced (gm)

91 md-ft 65 md-ft

800
10

8 600

6
400

Open Only Upper Valve 200

2

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0806 T8 water x bottom.xls
Elapsed Time (min)
© 2009
Slot dP Inlet Pressure Flowmeter Water Produced
Vertical Downward Dewatering of 40/70 Sand:
All Valves Open, Top Valve Open
Water + 2 gpt Surfactant

Test Continued after Shut in for 12 Days

12 1260
1167 gm
11 Previously 1240
Produced
10 1220
Gas Rate (L/min), dP (psi)

Water Produced (gm)

9 1200

8 1180

7 508 md-ft 1160

1072 md-ft
6 1140

5 1120

4 1100

3 Open Only Upper Valve 1080

2 1060

1 1040

0 1020
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0906 T5B water x bottom.xls
Elapsed Time (min)
© 2009
Slot dP Inlet Pressure Flowmeter Water Produced
 Growth of Fractures
in a Layered Medium
Overburden Stress, Smax

Shmin
Frac Ports: 1” x 3”
Wellbore diam: 8”

80 feet

Shmax

© 2009
2000 feet
 Factors Affecting Horizontal versus
Vertical Well Performance
• Flow path in proppant pack
• Near-well tortuosity and flow restrictions
• Vertical formation permeability
• Vertical fracture continuity
• Reservoir drainage area
• Interference of multiple transverse fractures
• Drainage aspect ratio

© 2009
 Assumed Fracture Geometry
for Productivity Estimates: Vertical Well

Gross Fracture Height Open to Flow Constant Conductivity

with Length and Height

© 2009
 Assumed Fracture Geometry for Productivity
Estimates: Horizontal Transverse

Gross Fracture Height Open to Flow Constant Conductivity

with Length and Height

© 2009
Choked Fracture Skin Effect for
Horizontal Transverse Case
S cf =
kh  h  −π 
  2r 
ln 
k f wf   w 2 

35

30

25 Pay H

Choked Skin 20 Scf(10)

Scf(30)
15
Scf(50)
10
Scf(100)
5 Scf(200)
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Effective Perm, md

© 2009
Multiple Transverse Fractures
• Thick reservoirs
SIDE VIEW
• Long Xf possible
– Low perm
– Efficient stimulations
• Compartmentalized
HYDRAULIC
FRACTURE reservoirs
• Linear reservoir flow
“channels”
Lf
• Difficult and expensive
to place in desired
locations
© 2009
Assumed Fracture Geometry for Productivity
Estimates: Horizontal Longitudinal

Gross Fracture Height Open to Flow Constant Conductivity

with Length and Height

© 2009
Longitudinal Fractures
• Thin reservoir sections
• Low kv/kh in thick
reservoirs
H O R IZ O N TA L S E G M E N • Better when effective Xf
PA R A L L E L
TO L E A S T S T R E S S
is low
• Better in continuous
reservoirs
• Large volume
treatments
Lf • Easy to place and pump
effectively
© 2009
 Complex Longitudinal with “Hair”

• Generated in near-isotropic stress states

• Usually results from intended longitudinal
fracs
• More of an accident or “gift” than an
intentional result
© 2009
Fracture to Wellbore Connection is Controlled
by Well Azimuth and Stress Contrast

© 2009
 Radial Coordinate System
of Stresses around a Wellbore
σv
σv
σt

σx
σr

σy

© 2009
 Stresses Around a Borehole:
The Kirsch Equations
σh +σ H  rw2  σ h − σ H  rw2 rw4  rw2
σr = 1 − 2  + 1 − 4 2 + 3 4  cos 2θ + 2 ( Pw − αPo )
2  r  2  r r  r
σh +σ H  rw2  σ h − σ H  rw4  rw2
σt = 1 + 2  − 1 + 3 4  cos 2θ − 2 ( Pw − αPo )
2  r  2  r  r
σ v = Pob − αPo
Po = far field pore pressure
Pw = wellbore fluid pressure
Pob = overburden pressure
r = distance from wellbore
σH σH = maximum horizontal stress
σh = minimum horizontal stress
θ = angle from direction
of minimum stress

σh
© 2009
Fracture Initiation at Point of Minimum
Tangential Stress

σh max
well pressure

+ =

σh min Failure when

tangential stress
reaches zero

© 2009
Tangential Stress Distribution
Around a Horizontal Well
The wellbore acts as
a tunnel arch:
Vertical stress is
transmitted to the
sides of the hole

S1=6000

S1=6000
S2=6000
S3=4200

IncS1=0
AzSH=70

Azi=70
Dev=90
© 2009
Longitudinal and Transverse Failure of
a Borehole
Internal pressure acts on
the wellbore walls to
generate tangential stress.

This causes axial rupture or

longitudinal fractures.

No axial stress can be

generated to create
transverse fractures unless
the pore space or an
existing transverse fracture
can be invaded.

© 2009
 Near-Well Stresses In
Rotated 3D Space
Vertical far-field Stress

Max Horizontal far-field Stress

Axial Stress

Radial Stress

Tangential Near-Well Stress

Min Horizontal far-field Stress

© 2009
 Kirsch Equations in Rotated Space
Well Deviation Well Azimuth

σH N
Pore Press (Pp) at each: Pp=Dtvγp

Dtv
Vertical net (intergranular) stress (σv): σv=Dtvγob-αPp β
Minimum horizontal net stress (σh): σh=σvν/(1−ν)
Maximum horizontal net stress (σH): σH=σh+εxE+σtect α

Transformed x-direction stress (Sx): Sx=σHsin(β)2+σhcos(β)2

Transformed y-direction stress (Sy): Sy=cos (α)2 (σHcos (β)2+σhsin (β)2)+ σvsin (α)2
Transformed z-direction stress (Sz): Sz=sin (α)2(σHcos (β)2+σhsin (β)2)+σvcos (α)2
Shear stress in x-y plane (Sxy): Sxy=cos (α) sin(β) cos(β)(σH-σh)
Shear Stress in y-z plane (Syz): Syz=sin (α) cos(α)(σv-σHcos (β)2-σhsin (β)2)
Shear Stress in z-x plane (Szx): Szx=sin (α) sin(β) cos(β)(σh-σH)
Radial well stress (Sradm): Sradm=Pw-Pp
Tangential well stress (Stm): Stm=Sx+Sy-2(Sx-Sy)cos(2λ)-4Sxysin(2λ)-Sradm
Axial well stress (Szm): Szm=Sz-2ν((Sx-Sy)cos(2λ)+2Sxysin(2λ))
© 2009
 High Breakdown Pressures can be
Caused by Well Deviation

1.1

1
Breakdown Gradient, psi/ft

90

0.9
45

0.8
0
0.7
a = 90
0.6
a = 45
0.5 a=0

0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
© 2009
Borehole Deviation Angle, degrees
Examination of Breakdown Pressures:
Case I – Increasing stress anisotropy
• Well at 12,000 ft TVD
• Overburden gradient: 1.0 psi/ft
• Pore pressure gradient: 0.5 psi/ft
– Net vertical stress: 6000 psi
• Poisson’s Ratio: 0.24
• Increasing horizontal stress anisotropy from 0
(isotropic) to 4200 psi (strike-slip, SH-Sv)

© 2009
Effect of Increasing Stress Anisotropy
(Normal Pressure)

© 2009
Effect of Increasing Stress Anisotropy
(Normal Pressure)

© 2009
Effect of Increasing Stress Anisotropy
(Normal Pressure)

© 2009
Effect of Increasing Stress Anisotropy
(Normal Pressure)

© 2009
Effect of Increasing Stress Anisotropy
(Normal Pressure)

© 2009
Effect of Increasing Stress Anisotropy
(Normal Pressure)

© 2009
Examination of Breakdown Pressures:
Case II – Increasing pore pressure
• Well at 12,000 ft TVD
• Overburden gradient: 1.0 psi/ft
• Pore pressure gradient varies
– Pp = 0.3 to 0.98 psi/ft
• Poisson’s Ratio: 0.24
• Horizontal net stress = vertical net stress
– All strike-slip conditions

© 2009
Effect of Varying Pore Pressure
(SH=Sv or Strike-Slip)

© 2009
Effect of Varying Pore Pressure
(SH=Sv or Strike-Slip)

© 2009
Effect of Varying Pore Pressure
(SH=Sv or Strike-Slip)

© 2009
Effect of Varying Pore Pressure
(SH=Sv or Strike-Slip)

© 2009
Examination of Breakdown Pressures:
Case III – Normal pressure, varying PR
• Well at 12,000 ft TVD
• Overburden gradient: 1.0 psi/ft
• Pore pressure gradient: 0.5 psi/ft
• Poisson’s Ratio:
– Varies from 0.15 to 0.48
• Horizontal stress anisotropy
– Constant 1200 psi for all cases

© 2009
 Effect of Poisson's Ratio
(Normal Pp, Const. Anisotropy )

© 2009
 Effect of Poisson's Ratio
(Normal Pp, Const. Anisotropy )

© 2009
 Effect of Poisson's Ratio
(Normal Pp, Const. Anisotropy )

© 2009
 Effect of Poisson's Ratio
(Normal Pp, Const. Anisotropy )

© 2009
 Summary of Breakdown Concerns
• High pore pressure leads to breakdown pressures
greater than overburden
• High PR causes breakdown pressure to exceed
overburden
• Transverse well and fracture geometries lead to
higher breakdown pressures and more potential for
complex fracture geometries
• Undrained deformation leads to locally high pore
pressure and PR approaching 0.5 in shale
• Fractures may initiate at the sides of horizontal wells
and propagate as horizontal fractures, lifting
overburden at constant pressure
© 2009
“Pressure-out” In Horizontal
Shale-Gas Well

WHP

Est. Overburden

Rate

© 2009
Example of “Pressure-Out” Caused by
Injection Rate

Est. Overburden

© 2009
 How to Avoid “Pressure Outs”
• Design completion to minimize breakdown pressure
– Well azimuth, if possible
– Minimum perforation damage
• Small charge size
• 0 or 180 degree phasing
• oriented holes in minimum tangential stress direction
– Consider uncemented liners or soluble cement
• Pump at low rate to “condition” formation and fracture
system
– Allow pressure to decline and stabilize before each rate step
– Do not start proppant (other than ¼ ppa 100-mesh) until rate and
pressure are stabilized
– Be patient!!!!

© 2009
 Cemented vs. Uncemented Liners
and Open-hole Completions
• Cemented liners and/or casing
– Only recommended for matrix dominated systems
– Maybe needed when borehole stability is questionable
– When zonal isolation for stimulation is absolutely necessary
• Uncemented liners (with limited or pre-drilled perfs)
– Low breakdown for longitudinal fracs
– Allows re-entering or re-activating existing transverse fractures
• Open-hole completions
– Only in hard, competent rock
– Good for surface acid-wash completions
– Acid and water-fracs for opening existing natural fractures
• Poor control of fluid entry
• Difficult to ensure multiple fractures treated

© 2009
 Achieving Diversion and
Fracturing the Entire Lateral
• Cemented liner with limited-entry perforating
– Limit number and size of perforations
– Difficult to manage if low-rate conditioning is required
• Multiple plug and perf stages
• Open-hole with liner and external packers
– Chemical “swell” packers (Halliburton)
– Hydraulic-set packers
– Inflatable OH packers
• Sliding sleeve and frac-ports for individual stages
• Dynamic diversion with uncemented liners
© 2009
 Perforation Placement for Cemented
Liner Lateral Completions
• Shot density and phasing
– Conventional transverse frac idea requires lots of holes in one spot
• Can cause stress cage formation
• Frac may initiate away from perfs
• Can cause high tortuosity and skin
– If limited-entry is planned, this controls the total holes per stage
• Designing for 2 bpm/hole appears to be common and successful (absent
other issues)
• Spacing of perf clusters
– How many frac initiation points can you get?
• 1, 2, 3, 4 clusters per stage?
– Distance between clusters and stages?
• 100-200 feet is common (Why?)
• Are we really growing multiple parallel fractures or increasing
the chance of getting a clean breakdown somewhere?
© 2009
Variations in Breakdown Pressure:
BHP Gauge Data

Top Active Bottom

© 2009
Typical Example of Erosion in Horizontal
Cemented Liner Completion

First sand on bottom

© 2009
 Comparison of Treating Pressures for
18 Cemented Plug+Perf Stages
8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
04:00 04:10 04:20 04:30 04:40 04:50 05:00 05:10 05:20 05:30
6/5/2008 6/5/2008
Time © 2009
 5-1/2" 20 ppf P-110 Casing Shoe

5-1/2" Packer Plus Perma-Plus Liner Hanger Packer

4.625" open hole

2-7/8" 6.5 ppf 8rd liner box x pin connections

Packers Plus 4-1/2" x 2-7/8" RockSeal II open hole packer system

2-7/8" 6.5 ppf 8rd liner box x pin connections

Packers Plus 2-7/8" Drillable FracPort

2-7/8" 6.5 ppf 8rd liner box x pin connections

Packers Plus 4-1/2" x 2-7/8" RockSeal II open hole packer system

2-7/8" 6.5 ppf 8rd liner box x pin connections

Sliding-Sleeve Frac Ports

Packers Plus 2-7/8" Drillable FracPort

2-7/8" 6.5 ppf 8rd liner box x pin connections

Packers Plus 4-1/2" x 2-7/8" RockSeal II open hole packer system

2-7/8" 6.5 ppf 8rd liner box x pin connections

Packers Plus 4-1/2" x 2-7/8" RockSeal IIS open hole packer system
for Fracture Isolation

RockSeal Centralizer

2 7/8" 6.5ppf 8rd linner box x pin connections

RockSeal Centralizer
2-7/8" Hydraulic FracPort with a +/-3,720 psi opening pressure

RockSeal Centralizer
© 2009

2-7/8" 6.5 ppf 8rd liner box x pin connections

Open-Hole hydraulic-Set Packers
External Hydraulic-Mechanical Packers

2-7/8" Toe Circulating Sub

2-7/8" Float Collar

0

2-7/8" Float Shoe

Wellbore Tangential Stress Exerted
by Packer Setting Pressure

50 psi

2000 psi

6000 psi

© 2009
 Possible Impact of Packer Setting
Stress on Fracture Initiation
Hydraulic Packers
Swellable Packer Set at 1900 psi
Above Hydrostatic

Sliding-Sleeve Frac Ports © 2009

 Dynamic Diversion in
Uncemented-Liner Fracs
• Use the difference between viscous pressure drop in the annulus and
tubing or liner to control frac placement
– Similar to a concentric annular path or shunt-tube system for frac-packing
– Note that a small annular gap generates very high pressure drop at frac rate
• Are packers really needed?
• Space perfs or pre-drilled holes along liner
– Few holes
– Large perf spacing (150-200 ft per set)
• Sand slugs or induced screenouts to cause diversion
– Fracture screenouts increase net pressure
– Fluid finds a new flow path of lesser resistance
– Sand pack in annulus is effectively a packer
• Perf Balls divert fluid to other sections of liner
– Only plug perfs
– Only diversion in annulus in increased pressure drop from added flow path
length
– Works when screenouts are hard to control
© 2009
 Estimation of Annular Friction
Hole Diam= 8.75 6.125 6.125 8.75 6.125 6.125 3.992
Liner OD= 7 4.5 3.5 5.5 2.675 0 0
Area(sqin)= 21.6475369 13.5603902 19.8435755 36.3737524 23.8446882 29.464703 12.5161554
Perim(in)= 30.8975637 20.8994451 19.0773214 28.1643781 17.5740693 19.242255 12.5412379
HydDiam(in)= 2.8024911 2.59535889 4.16066282 5.16592303 5.42724348 6.125 3.992

© 2009
Annular Friction Pressure Results
1000
6.125x4.5
6.125x3.5
8.75x5.5
6.125x2.675
6.125 hole
8.75x7
100 4.5 liner
psi/100 ft

10

1
1 10 100
© 2009
Rate, bpm
 Benefits of Uncemented Liners

Fluid flow down liner

Fluid flow in annulus is always toward fluid exit (open fracture).

High dP in annulus allows diversion of fluid from different perfs.
Screenout of first-open fracs builds flow resistance.
Later slurry diverted to new fractures.
Short effective flow path and low conductivity needed.

© 2009
 Treating Pressure for 4000’ Lateral
Frac with Balls with Dynamic Diversion

© 2009
 Shear Domain Stimulation
• Different ideas about when and where it can work
– Nearly isotropic horizontal stresses
• Open and extend fractures in all directions
• Pumped at high frac rate to maintain injection above leakoff rate
– High horizontal stress anisotropy
• Elevate pore pressure and relieve net stress causing massive shear
failure over large area
• Requires injection “below frac pressure” and access to large
reservoir volume for pore pressure change
• Simul-frac designs
– Enhance shear stimulated volume by pumping into parallel
wells simultaneously

© 2009
 General Guidelines for
Horizontal Well Design
• If the reservoir has moderate matrix kh and low anisotropy
– Longitudinal fracs may offer many advantages
– Well azimuth is not critical
– Breakdown pressure and skin are reduced
• With pre-existing natural fractures and high perm anisotropy
– Drill across fractures and attempt to re-open or communicate to the
existing flow system
– Try to avoid excess damage in the fractures from cementing and
overbalance drilling
– Use cemented liners only when formation “natural” fracture
contribution is small or microfractures are uniformly distributed
• Low matrix kh or low kv/kh
– Must design for propped frac to drive height growth and remain
conductive over the formation height
– Evaluate well azimuth based on economics (IP and EUR)
• Longitudinal fracs where vertical well Xf is poor
• Transverse fracs only when Xfeff is acceptable © 2009
 Summary and Conclusions
• The selection of a stimulation/completion
design cannot be made without an accurate
reservoir description
• Reservoir geometry and drainage pattern may
control well performance
• Reservoir response to stimulation in vertical
wells should be understood
• In almost all cases, maximizing productive
lateral length is the primary goal

© 2009