Fracture/Treatment Optimization

Khalil Rahman (PhD)

Geomechanics Advisor

September 24, 2018 © 2017 Baker Hughes, a GE

Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior approval. company, LLC - All rights reserved.
Common Questions for Frac Job
• Is planned well good for fracture growth?
• What proppant?
• Which frac fluid?
o Gel fluid
o Hybrid (linear + X-link gel)
o Linear gel/slick water
• Pumping schedule?
o How much proppant?
o How much fluid?
o How much pad volume?
o Proppant ramping?
• How many frac stages to frac the target?
o Perf. interval, density and size
o Frac dimensions and conductivity
o Treatment pressure
• How much post-frac production?
• When is breakeven time?
• How much net present value (NPV)?

Slide 2
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
What is Treatment Optimization?
• Injecting optimum volume of fracturing fluid(s) mixing with
optimum amount of proppant mass to achieve maximum post-frac
production or economics indicators (e.g. NPV, DROI, etc.) while
addressing some or all of the following issues:
o Maximum allowable injection rate
o Maximum allowable wellhead pressure
o Maximum allowable bottomhole pressure
o Maximum pump capacity available
o Maximum volume of fluid storage available
o Maximum volume of proppant storage available
o Maximum allowable height growth (to avoid fracturing water or other
resource bearing formations)
o Maximum allowable fracture length (to avoid fracturing fault or other
surrounding resources).

Slide 3
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Optimizing for Maximum Post-frac
Production
• Assume no restrictions
• General equation for post-frac hydrocarbon flow rate can be written as
follows:
kh( pe  pwf )
q
C[ln(re rw )  s f ]
• Where C is a constant for hydrocarbon properties and Sf is a skin for
fracture (-ve; larger –ve means higher flow rate)
FCD (Cfd) is Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity:
K wf
Cinco-Ley and FCD 
kx f
Samaniego,
Kwf is fracture conductivity, k is matrix permeability and xf is
1981 fracture half-length.

Larger FCD with larger xf make larger –ve Sf.

Larger FCD with larger xf requires higher Kwf.
Fracture optimization is basically an effort to optimize xf and
Kwf so that the fracture can flow the fluid at the rate it comes
to the fracture through the matrix permeability (k).

Slide 4
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Optimizing for Maximum Post-frac
Production
• Fracture optimization is basically an effort to K wf
optimize x f and K wf so that the fracture can flow FCD 
the fluid at the rate it comes to the fracture kx f
through the matrix permeability (k).
• For high permeability reservoirs (higher k), FCD
becomes lower; shorter fracture with higher
conductivity (make higher FCD) to ensure that
the fracture can deliver the high fluid rate that
comes to the fracture through the matrix
permeability – no point of getting fluid at higher
rate by making the fracture longer if the fracture
can not deliver at the same rate to the well
through its low conductivity:
o Main effort to design short, high conductivity
fracture.
• The opposite is true for low permeability
reservoirs (lower k), FCD becomes higher;
longer fracture to collect fluid at a sufficient rate
through low permeability, and no point of having
very high fracture conductivity for low flow rate:
o Main effort to design long, low conductivity
(but sufficient) fracture.
Slide 5
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Compile Reservoir Properties
Table 1. Reservoir and hydrocarbon properties used for analysis.

Reservoir Properties Hydrocarbon Properties

Total Reservoir Extent Very large (infinite) Oil API 53˚
Drainage for a Vertical (Un-frac) Well 130 acres Bubble Point Pressure 220 psi
Gross Zone Thickness 14.9 m Gas-Specific Gravity 0.75
Net Pay Zone Thickness 5m Oil-Specific Gravity 0.78
Reservoir Permeability 0.5 mD Oil Viscosity 0.42 cp
Reservoir Porosity 15% Oil Formation Volume Factor 1.08 RB/STB
Initial Reservoir Pressure 1840 psi
Reservoir Temperature 191˚F

A target production plan is more helpful:

- Drawdown
- Production period

Slide 6
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Target Frac Length & Conductivity
• Fracture Design Optimization
o McGuire and Sikora Type Curves
o Valko and Economedes Unified Fracture Design Curves (Optimum Fracture
Performance curves)

• Open and understand: Fracture Design

Optimization.mprod

Slide 7
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Frac Half-length & Conductivity from McGuire and
Sikora Type Curves
xf

• I x = xL/xf
• For 250 acre square reservoir; x L = 1650 ft
• If we target to fracture half of x L (xf = 825 ft), I x = 0.5
• Target dimensionless fracture conductivity (C fd) = 20 = K wf/(k.xf)
• Optimum fracture conductivity, K wf = 20kxf = 20x0.5x825 = 8,250 mD-ft
• Considering geomechanical and injection issues, is 825 ft fracture half-length achievable? If
so, how much proppant mass is necessary in the fracture?
• These curves do not answer or help in this matter
• Target a more reasonable I x (0.4), C fd = 7; then your target xf = 660 ft and K wf = 2310 mD-ft

Slide 8
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Frac Half-length & Conductivity from Unified
Fracture Design Curves
• Main input here is proppant mass of a selected proppant
• For a given proppant mass, these curves provide guidance of optimum
frac half-length, conductivity and productivity ratio.

Slide 9
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Frac Half-length & Conductivity from Unified Fracture
Design Curves

Slide 10
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Are These Methods Good for Frac Length &
Conductivity Optimization?
• Correct interpretations of both inputs and outputs are confusing

• Hard to be convinced that above 5 productivity ratio can be achieved from

800 ft fracture half-length of 700 mD-ft by pumping only 40,000 lbm proppant!

• Both method relies on first day flow rate only, i.e. no cumulative production

• No consideration of practical fracture growth:

o How long a fracture can be created with feasible treatment
o Where the fracture will go along height

• No consideration of any logistical, geomechanical or geological constraints

• No consideration of economics:
o Does the optimum from these methods yield maximum economic index (e.g.
NPV, DROI, etc.)?

• Sometimes, they can be completely misguiding

• We will see an example later.

Slide 11
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Frac Length & Conductivity from
Production Prediction

• Easy to understand, consider cumulative production, but involves lot of

calculations and plotting
• Optimum frac half-length ~ 600 – 1,200 ft depending on how much
conductivity we can/should achieve by pumping how much proppant mass.
• Target ~ 600 ft frac-half length; optimum frac conductivity ~ 2,500 md-ft
o Why not target 1,300 ft frac half-length with 3,500 mD-ft Conductivity?

Slide 12
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Optimize Treatment (Pumping Schedule) for
~600 ft Frac Half-length & 2,500 mD-ft
Conductivity
• Proppant type & size selected

• Optimizing treatment for 600 ft frac half-length & 2,500 mD-ft

conductivity
o Which fluid and how much to inject at the pad
o How much proppant to add with how much proppant pumping fluid
o How to schedule the proppant concentration in the job
o How much flush volume should be pumped

• Start with a treatment, create the fracture and see what you have got
and change as necessary

Slide 13
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Some More Steps Before You can Create &
See Fracture
• Rock Properties
o Stress (shmin)
o Young’s modulus
o Poisson’s ratio
o Fracture toughness
o Critical stress

• Fluid loss data

o Leak-off coefficient
o Spurt loss

• Proppant criteria
o Minimum number of proppant layers to prevent bridging
o Min. concentration/ area (coverage) for propped fracture
o Embedded concentration/area
o Closure pressure on proppant

• Flow type during fracturing

o Darcy, or
o Non-darcy

Slide 14
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Optimum Treatment for Optimum Fracture

During injection

After closure

Slide 15
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Optimum

• Optimum is never a unique solution

• Optimization must be qualified by the target(s) of the designer

• The same target could be achieved by various combinations of the

influencing parameters – some combinations are acceptable,
others are not

• Optimum solutions may be different from different designers

• The major challenge is how to convince others and yourself about

your optimum.

Slide 16
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Is it Really Optimum?
• Note that our optimized treatment required ~105 klbm 20/40 CarboLite
proppant

• Consider two more treatments: one pumping ~50 klbm and the other
pumping ~145 klbm proppant:

SUMMARIZE KEY PARAMETERS OF THREE

TREATMENTS
Proppant Mass Injected (lbm) 50,000 lbm 105,000 lbm 145,000 lbm
Frac Fluid Volume (1000 US gal) 33.4 57.32 67.83
Slurry Volume (1000 US Gal) 35.64 62 74.26
Avg. Fracture Half-Length (m/ft) 100/328 194/635 204/670
Avg. Fracture Height (m/ft) 17/56 17/56 17/56
Effective Fracture Height (Net Pay, m) 5/16.4 5/16.4 5/16.4
Avg. Fracture Width (mm/in) 2.4/0.09 2.8/0.11 3.6/0.14
Avg. Fracture Conductivity (mD-ft) 2110 2397 3000
Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity 12.8 7.5 9.0

Slide 17
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Compare Productions from Three Treatments

250 acre reservoir

FBHP = 840 psi
Production Period = 4 years

Case 3 (our “Optimum”) seems to be more sensible than Case 4

when added cost of Case 4 is considered for little incremental
production. Slide 18
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Compare Productions from Three
Treatments (Contd..)
Infinite reservoir
FBHP = 840 psi
Production Period = 20
years

• Sensible completion scenario is a long horizontal well with multiple

transverse fractures to accelerate production.
Slide 19
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Multistage Transverse Fracturing Optimization
for a Horizontal Well
• Horizontal well length = 1,500 m
• How many transverse fractures?
• Which treatment?
• Well spacing (i.e. how much drainage for each well)?

• Let us allocate 1,500 acre for one well

• 1,500 m horizontal well will drain ~ 1,500 m along the well
direction; 2,000 m along the fracture direction on each side
of the well.
• Let us proceed with our optimum fracture (i.e. 105 klbm
treatment)
o How many transverse fractures?
o Let us try to understand:

Slide 20
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Cumulative Production vs Transverse
Fractures

• Cumulative Production Increases with increasing number of transverse

fractures on 1,500 m horizontal;
• Diminishing trend line indicates 14/15 fractures are optimum
• Minimum flow rate per day may help
• Try NPV analysis.
Slide 21
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Decide Number of Fractures from Minimum
Flow Rate

• If your acceptable minimum flow rate per day after 8 years is ~ 40

bbl/day, then optimum number of transverse fractures is ~14

Slide 22
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Try NPV to Decide Optimum Number of
Fractures
• Calculation of NPV will require
more data:
o Well drilling & completion cost
o Fracturing cost:

o Fluid cost ($/gal)

o Proppant cost ($/lbm)

o Fixed cost ($)

o Oil price ($/bbl)
o Discount (bank interest) rate (%)
o Price escalation rate (%)
o Any government tax (%)

• MFrac NPV is not NPV of the

fractured well, it is incremental
NPV (INPV) over a reference
case:

Slide 23
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Economic Analysis to Decide Number of
Fractures

Another consideration to determine

fracture spacing is flow interference.

Let us take 14 fractures as optimum,

which will give about $12 m NPV in 8
years, make breakeven just before
three years.
Slide 24
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Breakeven, NPV (not INPV) and Cashflow from
the Fracture Well

Slide 25
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
How We Decided 1,500 acre Drainage
Allocation

• Flat trend in cumulative production indicates that the

pressure decline has made the average reservoir
pressure equal to FBHP (hence no further production);
• This pressure decline seems to just reach the boundary
of 1,500 acre drainage after 8 years of production,
• A minimum 40 bbl/d rate after 8 years also requires
1,500 acre drainage.

Slide 26
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Compare Productions from the Three
Treatments – 1,500 m Horizontal Well, 14
Transverse Fractures, 1,500 acre Drainage

Slide 27
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.
Compare Productions from the Three
Treatments – 1,500 m Horizontal Well, 14
Transverse Fractures, 1,500 acre Drainage

• Now so easy to convince anybody

105,000 lbm treatment is the best
from cost-benefit trade-off.

Slide 28
Confidential. Not to be copied, distributed, or reproduced without prior
approval.