Hydrualic Fracturing

Hydraulic Fracturing
Mohan Kelkar
Hydraulic Fracturing - 0 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Reservoirs
Well Productivity
For well production to be economical, it

has to produce at a rate which will be
sufficient to cover the operating costs
The rate at which well produces is a
function of many things including the
permeability, thickness, reservoir
pressure, etc.

Reservoirs
Pseudo-Steady State
 Rate 𝑞 = 𝑃𝐼 × ∆𝑚 𝑝
7.08 × 10−3 𝑘ℎ
𝐽= 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ∆𝑚 𝑝 = 𝑝𝑟 − 𝑝𝑤𝑓
 Oil Wells 𝑟𝑒
𝜇𝑜 𝐵𝑜 𝑙𝑛 𝑟 − 0.75 + 𝑆
𝑤
703×10−6 𝑘ℎ
 Gas wells 𝐽 = 𝑇ഥ𝜇𝑧ҧ 𝑙𝑛 𝑟𝑒
−0.75+𝑆
2
𝑎𝑛𝑑 ∆𝑚 𝑝 = 𝑝𝑟2 − 𝑝𝑤𝑓
𝑟𝑤
 As an approximation ln(re/rw)-.75 ≈ 7

Reservoirs
Example
Data Provided:
pr = 5,100 psia pwf = 3,000 psia
re = 2,100 ft. rw = 0.45 ft.
h = 30 ft., S = 0
For oil well: mo = 0.6 cp, Bo = 1.2 bbl/STB
For gas well: t = 200 F, m = 0.03 cp, z = 0.85

Reservoirs
Sensitivity to k
Oil Gas
1000000
100000
q0, STB/d, qg, MSCF/D
10000
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
k, md

Reservoirs
Observations
Economic cut-off is about 0.1 md for

many reservoirs
For unconventional reservoirs, where
the permeability is in nano-darcy range,
it is impossible to produce oil or gas
economically by simply drilling well
One way the production can be
improved is by increasing contact area
Reservoirs
Drill a bigger hole?
(k = 0.1 md)
Oil Gas
10000
1000
q0, STB/d, qg, MSCF/D
100
10
1
0.1 1 10 100 1000
rw, ft

Reservoirs
Better Ideas?

Reservoirs
Hydraulic Fracturing
The main purpose is to increase the

contact area
Create a fracture away from the
wellbore which has a high conductivity
so that fluid can flow in it and flow into
the wellbore without significant
additional resistance

Reservoirs
Schematic
http://www.corelab.com/ps/hydraulic-fracture-design
Reservoirs
Desirable Features
Containment (within zone)

Coverage (entire thickness)
Conductivity (little resistance within)
Conformance (symmetry)

Reservoirs
Terminology
Faults
Stresses – Overburden, horizontal
Closure or Fracturing Pressure
Net Pressure
Breakdown Pressure
Instantaneous Shut-in Pressure (ISIP)

Reservoirs
Recall
Young’s modulus (E): Stress vs. strain

relationship
Poisson Ratio (n): Horizontal vs. vertical
strain ratio
Brittleness related to E > 3.5x106 psi
and n small
Clay content preferably less than 40 %

Reservoirs
Recall
(Dynamic vs. Static E)
2.800 4.100
16.000 Clastics 2.400 4.700
4.085 4.600
Prospective Shales 3.100 4.900
Dynamic E, x 10^6 psi
14.000 6.100 6.600

Non-Prospective Shales 5.900 6.700
12.000 5.100 6.900
4.800 7.100
3.300 7.300
10.000 4.300 7.500
6.000 7.700
8.000 5.100 7.800
4.600 7.900
4.300 8.100
6.000 5.500 8.300
4.000
Rock Mechanics Is Very
5.300
4.900
8.500
8.700
Important As Water-Frac’s
7.000 8.900
5.700 9.100
2.000 Don’t Work In Ductile Shales!
5.100 9.300
4.900 9.500
0.000 5.100 9.700
5.700 9.900
0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.0005.900 10.000 12.000
10.100
8.300 10.300
Static E, x 10^6 psi 6.400 10.500

Reservoirs
The Rocks And Geomechanics
Un-Propped Crack Testing
Crack FLUID
FLUID
COLLECTION
COLLECTION
EXIT
EXIT
INLET
INLET
FILTER
FILTER
Crack Core Sample And

Apply Confining Pressure
While Flowing Wet N2
Through Core Plug!
“Built For Purpose”
After Britt Reservoirs
The Rocks And Geomechanics
Un-Propped Crack Testing
10.00000 .1824e-3.4197*x
3.2758e-3.3588*x
Best Shale Plays

1.00000
Normalized k
0.10000 Marginal Shale Plays
0.01000
0.00100
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
Normalized Stress
Normalized To Integrate Lab With Well Performance!

Faults
Hanging Wall-
Foot Wall
Does It
Matter?
Foot Wall Hanging Wall+

After Britt
Reservoirs
Faults
Normal
Death Valley California
Strike-Slip
Las Vegas, Nevada
Thrust
SW Wales, UK

Principal Stresses
v
Maximum Principal Stress = OB
hmin
Minimum Principal Stress = Pclosure
Hmax
Intermediate Principal Stress = Fracture Direction After Britt
Reservoirs
Stress Anisotropy
 Vertical or overburden stress can be

determined by integrating the density logs
 The minimum stress can be determined
from mini-fracture tests
 The intermediate stress is difficult to
determine
 The directions of minimum and
intermediate stresses are also difficult to
determine (Strain gauges, seismic, etc.)
Reservoirs
QUIZ TIME

Reservoirs
Pore Pressure (po)
Reservoir is not a solid rock.

The reservoir pressure represents the
pore pressure
This pressure does vary during
depletion

Reservoirs
Closure Pressure (pc)
Closure pressure or fracturing pressure

represents the minimum pressure
needed to crack the rock and initiate the
fracture
𝛾
𝑝𝑐 = 𝑝𝑜𝑏 − 𝛼𝑝𝑜 + 𝑝𝑜 + 𝜎𝑡
1−𝛾
 pob = Overburden pressure (typically 1 psi/ft)
 a = Biot’s constant, typically 1
 t = Regional tectonic stresses, normally zero

Reservoirs
Example
Assume a shale reservoir at a depth of

8,000 feet. The overburden gradient is
0.95 psi/ft and pore pressure gradient is
0.43 psi/ft. The Poisson ratio for shale is
0.3. Assume a =1 and t = 0. What is
the fracturing pressure?
0.3
𝑝𝑐 = × 8,000 0.95 − 0.43 + 8000 × 0.43
1 − 0.3
= 5,223 𝑝𝑠𝑖

Reservoirs
Sensitivity of pc
pc will decrease with decreased pore

pressure
pc will increase with increased
overburden pressure
pc will increase with increase in Poisson
ratio
pc will increase in the presence of
regional tectonic stresses
Reservoirs
Hydraulic Fractures
Part against minimum stress

Propagate in the directions of both
intermediate and maximum stress
If the formations above and below have
higher closure pressures, the fractures
would be vertically contained
Except for shallow formations (less than
1000 feet deep), fractures are vertical
(and not horizontal)
Reservoirs
Net Pressure
Net pressure is the pressure above the

closure pressure to sustain the
propagation of the fracture
pnet =pbh – pc
Where pbh represents bottom hole
conditions

Reservoirs
Breakdown Pressure
Breakdown pressure is the pressure

needed to initiate the fracture
This pressure, in most cases, is
significantly higher than pc. It is needed
to overcome the hoop stresses created
by the hole
More isotropic the formation (smaller
the anisotropy), higher will be the
breakdown pressure
Reservoirs
Breakdown Pressure
Rectangular to Radial Coordinates OB

a = zero in the direction of hmax q
b = zero for vertical well
q = zero for top of the well
b
Hmin
a
Hmax
Breakdown Pressure
v = 10,000 psi, Hmax = 7,500 psi, Hmin =6,000 psi
OB
q
b = 90o
Hmin
a
Hmax
a = 0o, BD = 4,000 psi

a = 30o, BD = 4,154 psi
a = 60o, BD = 5,574 psi
a = 90o, BD = 8,500 psi

Breakdown Pressure
Summary
1. Once Beyond The Wellbore Influence (Hoop

Stresses), The Fracture Propagates Normal To The
Minimum Horizontal Stress, Hmin.
2. Fractures Always Initiate at the Top and Bottom of
the Horizontal Wellbore (q = 0 & 180o)
3. Borehole Breakdown Pressure is Lowest When The
Well Is Drilled in the Direction of Hmax (I.e. Normal
To Hmin)
4. When The Ratio of Hmax/ Hmin Is Large (I.e. >> 1),
Breakdown Pressures Are Reduced But The Effect of
Azimuth, a, Is More Significant
Reservoirs
ISIP
(Instantaneous Shut-in Pressure)
 It is the pressure in hydraulic fracture

immediately after shut-in
 Can be several hundred psi above pc
because of loss of pressure drop across
perforations or viscous pressure drop in
the near well bore region.
 For very small treatments and low k rocks,
it will approach pc. Therefore, ISIP can be
used to determine pc. It is an upper bound
of pc.
Reservoirs
Breakdown and ISIP
(Mancos Shale)
Breakdown ISIP ≈pc

Pressure
After Warpinski et al., SPE 12142

Reservoirs
QUIZ TIME

Reservoirs
Fracture Design

Reservoirs
What do we desire?
 Length (xf = half length)

 Conductivity (kfw): kf = fracture
permeability; w = width
 Permeability of the formation, k, also
impacts the fracture design; dimensionless
parameter, FCD = kfw/xfk
 Higher FCD means better conductivity of
the fracture
 Fracture complexity
Reservoirs
Desired Lengths
E
cono
mic
al
ly
De
si
ra
ble
4 Fr
act
ur
e
Pen
etr
at
i
on
-
-
--
--
-
--
--
-
--
--
-
--
-
3 DOEStu
dy
2 L
o
w M
o
de
r
at
e H
i
gh
Xf(1,0'sfet)
1E
x
tr
em
el
yVe
r
y
"
T
ig
ht
""T
i
ght
" "
T
ig
ht
"
0
.
0010
.
01 0
.
1 1 1
0
P
e
rm
e
ab
i
l
it
y(
md)
After Britt
Reservoirs
How to maintain conductivity?
Once the fluid pressure in withdrawn,

the fracture will close
To keep the fracture open even after
fluid withdrawal, we add proppant
(mostly sand)
Proppant will prevent the closure of the
fracture and will keep it open

Reservoirs
Design In-Situ Parameters
Geometry/Height
(In Situ Stress/Stress Differences)
Modulus (Young’s modulus, PR)
Fluid Loss (formation, formation fluid)
Tip Effects

Reservoirs
Design Controllable Parameters
Fluid choice
Proppant choice
(In Situ Stress/Stress Differences)
Pump Rates
Volumes used/Treatment Size
Fracture Stages/Treatment Schedules

Reservoirs
Fracture Geometry
Width against minimum stress

Most likely vertical
Stress contrast crucial for containment
Ideal height and length
Tensile vs. shear fractures

Reservoirs
Fracture Geometry
“Desired”
Geometry
“Actual”
Geometry
Through Good Design & Execution,
Want to Make Desired/Actual Coincide !
After Britt
Reservoirs
Fracture Geometry - Actual
Actual Geometry Controlled By
Interaction of Bottomhole Injection Pressure
With In Situ Formation Properties/Stresses.
 In Situ Stresses
(Pay & Over-/Underlying Formations)
 Gross Formation Thickness
(HO, Fracture Height When Potential
Barriers First Penetrated)
 Modulus
(Rock Stiffness, or “Hard” vs. “Soft”)
After Britt
Reservoirs
Wellbore BHP
Near Well "Friction"
Pressure
Pressure to Push
Viscous Fluid to Tip Net
Pressure
Pressure
Fracture At Tip To
Propagate
Frac Closure Pressure/Frac Gradient
Geometry Reservoir Gas Pressure
---------
Net H/2
H
Pressure
Xf
Net Pressure, PNet, is pressure available to open

width and cause fracture propagation. Thus,
Pnet controls Fracture Geometry!
PNet – Net Pressure
1/ 4
 E '4  Q m x f  K Ic  App
4

PNet   4    2 
 H o  E '  Ho 
Viscous Tip
 PNet Controlled By
 Height, HO
Gross Zone Thickness,
Where Fracture
Encounters Barriers

1/ 4
 E '4  Q m x f  K Ic  App
4

PNet   4    2 
 H o  E '  Ho 
Viscous Tip
 E’, Modulus
(A Rock Property, “Stiffness” of the Rock,
Controlled by Rock Type, Porosity)

1/ 4
 E '4  Q m x f  K Ic  App
4

PNet   4    2 
 H o  E '  Ho 
Viscous Tip
 KIC-App
Toughness or Tip Effects

1/ 4
 E '4  Q m x f  K Ic  App
4

PNet   4    2 
 H o  E '  Ho 
Viscous Tip
 Pump Rate, Q
 Frac Fluid Viscosity, m
Q & m are the ONLY things we control.
But, at ¼ power, impact could be small.
Fracture Geometry
Nolte-Smith PNet Plot
1
,
000
Mo
deII M
odeI
II
"
Un
it
"Sl
ope 1/4
5
0
0 "
0"
Sl
ope (
Res
t
ri
ct
edG
r
owt
h) 𝐸′3 𝑄𝜇𝑋𝐹
3
0
0
(
Cri
ti
cal
P r
es
sure -H
ei
ght 𝑝𝑛𝑒𝑡 ∝
2
0
0
G
F
r
l
o
u
w
i
d
t
h
L
,
o
N
s
a
s
t
u
,
.
r
.
.
a
.
.
.
l
F
.
r
)
ac
t
ure
𝐻4
1
0
0 Useful for Modes I, II and IV
Mode
I
M
od
eI
V 𝜕𝑉 𝜕𝑝
NetPresure
5
0
P
osi
ti
veS
l
ope
1
/
8<Slop
e<
1/
4 N
e
ga
t
i
veS
lop
e 𝑄= = 𝑐𝑡 𝑉
3
0
(
Goo
dHei
ght
Conf
in
eme
nt,
(
U
f
n
i
n
s
e
t
a
d
b
H
l
e
e
o
i
g
r
h
U
t
G
n
r
c
o
n
o
w
-
t
h)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡
2
0 Unr
es
tr
i
ct
edExt
ens
io
n)
Useful for Mode III
1
0
1 2 5 1
020 5
010
0
P
u
mpT
i
me(
min
)
(
Ti
me"
0"
Whe
nG
el
O n
Pe
r
fs
)
After Nolte and Smith, SPE 8297
Reservoirs
Fracture Geometry
Nolte-Smith PNet Plot - Field Cases
5,000 III
I II Case 1
Net Pressure (psi)
3,000
2,000 III
I
1,000 Case
2 IV
500 I II
Case
300 3
200 Nolte-Smith Plot
20 30 50 100 200 300 500

Pump Time (min)
After Nolte and Smith, SPE 8297
Reservoirs
Fracture Geometry
Nolte-Smith Mode II & IV - H Growth

Fracture Geometry
--------------------------
Nolte-Smith Mode II
Natural Fracture
Fluid Loss
(Leads to Mode III)

Fracture Geometry
Mode III Caused by Height Growth
2
,
000
1
,
000
6
0
0
4
0
0 N
o
l
te
-S
mi
t
h P
l
ot
U
n
i
tSl
ope
NetPrsure(psi)
B
ott
omhol
ePr
ess
ur
e
Fi
el
dDat
a
2
0
0 E
a
st
T
(
"
T
e
i
x
a
g
h
s
t
C
"
o
G
t
a
t
o
s
P
n
l
V
a
a
y
l
l
e
)
y Q
1
0
0
2
0406
010
020
040
06
0
0
P
u
mp
Ti
me(
mi
n)

Fluid Loss
Loss to formation and/or natural

fractures
Can determine pad volume (initial fluid
which initiates the fracture)
Can also determine proppant schedule
Can result in premature screen out of
fracture

Reservoirs
Fluid Loss
“C” determines the rate of fluid

loss at each point along fracture
Q-Loss (bpm/100 sq. ft)
0.40
C

0.30 Graph showing
FluidCloss
= 0.0005 ft/min
magnitude QLOSS
0.20
For 2 or 3 values of “C”
C = 0.01
time
0.10
C = 0.002
5 10 15 20 25
TIME (min)

Fluid Loss
“Matrix” Loss - 3 Mechanisms
Invaded Zone , CI Reservoir Control, C

II
Fluid Loss Closure Pressure
Fracturing Fluid Filtrate Plus Pnet
Pressure
Fracture
C I = 0.0015 krel j D pL D P Smallest of
mf
Reservoir
Reservoir Control Pressure CI, CII, & CIII
CII= 0.0012 D pL k Ct j Will Determine
m
“C”
Frac Pressure
Filter Cake Control

k c D pL
C III
m f fc
Filter Cake CIII

Fluid Loss
Matrix Fluid Loss “Behavior”
H = H L 150 ft qLoss at
25 C = 0.0005 ft/min
Total Q-Loss (bpm)
Q = 30 bpm “Any Point”

20
decreases
15
with time,
10 BUT
5 Total QLoss
Increases
30 60 90 120 150
with time.
TIME (min)

Fluid Loss
Matrix Fluid Loss “Behavior”
Fluid Loss Into Formation
0.15 Most of
C = 0.002 ft/min
Q-Loss (bpm/100 sq. ft)
t = 30 min Fluid Loss

Xf = 200 feet
0.10 Near
1/2 the Total Fracture
Fluid Loss
0.05 Tip
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

x (ft)

Fluid Loss
Nat Frac Loss - Field Example
2
,
000
1
/
4Sl
ope
Mini-Frac
1
,
000 (or Data Frac)
is a pre-frac test
5
0
0 where a volume
of frac fluid,
Pnet(psi)
3
0
0
C
ri
t
ica
l
2
0
0
M i
ni
-F
ra
c
P
r
es
sur
e
with NO proppant
N
O
LTE-S
MIT
HP
lo
t
(
Pcl
= 73
15
ps
i
) =
65
0 p
s
i is pumped to
1
0
0 imitate following
1 2 5 1
0 2
0
E
l
aps
e
dTi
me(
min
)
propped frac job.
(
Ti
me"
0
"-G
el
O n
Pe
r
fs
)

Fluid Loss
Nat Frac Loss - Field Example
2
,
000 P
r
op
pa
nt
Natural fractures
D
a
ta O
nPe
r
fs cause increase in
1
,
000
NEAR WELL
5
0
0 fluid loss, leading
Pnet(psi)
P
r
ed
ic
t
ed to screenout (at
2
0
0
same time &
1
0
0 M
a
i
n-F
r
ac
pressure as seen in
5
0
1 2 51
020 5 01
0
0
mini-frac).
E
l
aps
e
dTi
me(
min
)
(
Ti
me"
0
"-G
el
O n
Pe
r
fs
)

Fluid Viscosity
(High or Low?)
High Low
 Proppant transport  Costs
» Deeper » Lower pumping and fluid
» Bigger size costs
 Fluid Loss  Limited proppant
» Filter cake formation transport
 Conductivity Damage  Higher pump rates
» Loss in kf due to » Lower energy costs
precipitation  Shear fractures (?)
 Costs

Reservoirs
Pump Rate
(High or Low?)
High Low
 Proppant transport  Costs
» Deeper » Lower pumping costs
» Bigger size  Limited proppant
 Fluid Loss transport
» Prevention of tip screenout  Better Control of growth
 Costs
» HP α WHPxQ ≈ Q3
» Equipment Failure (?)
 Shear Fractures

Reservoirs
Fracturing
“Perfect Support Fluid” Scheduling
TWO Requirements
for Pad Volume
Open Width to
Allow Proppant
Entrance
Create Length in
Permeable Zones

Fracturing
Fluid Loss
“Schedule”
Driven By
Fluid Loss

Fracturing
1 PPG PAD
Concentration
Final PPG @ Shut In
Proppant
E
3 PPG
2 PPG 1 PPG
to 3 PPG conc to PAD PPG
Pad
3 PPG As Pumped
Volume
Proppant
Settling
Slurry Volume Pumped

5 PPG
3 to 5 1 PPG
2 to 5
PPG conc to
PPG
5 PPG

Fracturing
What Proppant Concentration Needed ?

1
.
0 Typical field
0
.
8 San
d
maximum ranges
S
.
G.2
.6
5
0
.
6 from 6 to 8 PPG
ISP
S
.
G.3
.2 in lower “k” and
%Fil-'f
0
.
4
12 to 14 PPG in
0
.
2 %
o
fF
ra
P
c
a
F
c
i
l
l
k
e
P
d
b
o
r
o
y
P
s
it
y
r
op
=
p
0
.
a
n
4
t
Pac
khigher “k”, “soft”
rock cases.
481
2162
0
P
r
op
pa
n
tC
on
c
.(
PPG
)

Stages
Single Multiple
 Cheaper  Complex in design
 Simpler to design  Expensive
 Less time  Logistically difficult
 Completion strategy is
more complex

Reservoirs
Multi-stage Fracturing
Cased hole fracturing

» Perf and plug method
» Expensive but with better control
Open hole fracturing
» Ball drop method
» Cheaper but less control
» Limited number of stages

Reservoirs
Perf-n-plug Completion
After King, SPE 170952

Reservoirs
Cased Hole Fracturing
 About 85 % of the wells in the U.S.

 Advantages: maximum access, high
reliability, high pump rate, simple
operation, ability to recover from screen
outs; unlimited number of stages
 Drawbacks: non-productive time between
stages; post op of drilling plugs; expensive
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY34P
QUiwOQ
Reservoirs
Perforation Clusters
Within each stage, several perforation

clusters are used (4 to 6)
Accomplished by oriented perforation
guns (0o or 180o phasing is better)
Not every cluster will take equal amount
of fluid
Potential interference exists if the
clusters are too close to each other
Reservoirs
Interference

Reservoirs
Open Hole Fracturing

Reservoirs
Open Hole Fracturing
 Advantages: Minimized time between stages;

slightly less water usage; elimination of
wireline, and coil; shorter time
 Disadvantages: specialized equipment;
limited number of stages; lack of isolation;
less flexibility in changing stages on the “fly”
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU1BnEG
GsqY

Reservoirs
How important are
shear fractures?
For extremely tight rocks, better

connectivity is very important
To create that connectivity, more stages
and more perforation clusters are added
To add more complexity, bigger
volumes, higher rates are employed
Is it important to have shear fractures?

Reservoirs
Optimum Fracture Spacing
(Tensile Fractures only)
Sierra et al., SPE 163833

Reservoirs
Need for Shear Fractures
The benefits are strongly dependent on

permeability of the formation
For gas reservoirs, k <100 nd, shear
fractures are important
For oil reservoirs, k < 500 nd, shear
fractures are important
Sierra and Mayerofer, SPE 168976

Reservoirs
Modifications
Simo-Frac
» Fracturing multiple wells before production
starts
» Logistically difficult; the results are mixed
Zipper Frac
» Offset fractures in adjacent wells to break
open more formations
» Logistically difficult; results are mixed
Reservoirs
Zipper Fracture

Reservoirs
Benefits based on Simulation

Reservoirs
Controllable Parameters
Fluid
» Volume
» Type
» Rate
Proppant
» Type
» Concentration
» Size
Reservoirs
Materials -- Fluids
Multiple, Conflicting Desires
 Breaking  Easy to Mix

 Cheap » Additive Sensitivity
 Cleanliness  Environmentally
 Compatibility Friendly
» Formation  Fluid Loss
» Formation Fluid  Low Pump Pressure
» Reservoir Pressure  Safety
 Viscosity ???

Example Fluid Comparison
Borate XL Gel Treated Water
Cleanliness 4 5
Low Pump Pressure 3 1
Viscosity-Transport 4 1
Viscosity-Stability 3 5
Viscosity-Life 5 5
Breaking 5 5
Compatibility
w/Formation & Fluid 3 5
w/Reservoir Pressure 3 5
Fluid Loss Control 4 1*
Cheap 4 5
------ ------
38 38
Materials -- Fluids
Basic Fluid Quality
 Quality & Execution

is of No. 1 Importance
to Fracturing
 Particularly True for
Viscous Fluid Quality
» Fracturing is a chemical
process, and frac fluids are
complex chemical mixtures
» Easy for things to go wrong with
devastating consequences

Proppant Selection
 Drivers
» In Situ Stress (Proppant Stress)
» Formation Permeability
» ECONOMICS
(basically a purely economic decision)
 Choices to be made
» Type
(better is better but costs more !)
» Size
(bigger is better, if can put it in place!)
» Concentration (PPG)
Choose Proppant Type
Basic Data
C
o
nd
uc
t
iv
it
yof
20/
40M
e
sh
Pr
opp
a
nt
s
(
API
,Sh
or
tTe
r
m T
e
st
D a
t
a)
Cer
amic
2
0,
000
I
nte
rne
dia
te
St
re
ng
t
h
Bau
xit
e
Res
inCoa
te
dSa
nd
1
0,
000 Jor
danSa
nd
5
,
000
3
,
000
Conductivy(md-ft)
2
T
e
stA
t2
l
b/f
t
2
,
000F
l
owi
ngK
ClW
a
t
er
2
1
0i
n L
i
nea
rF
lo
wCe
l
l
2
50d
e
gF
2
00
040
006
00
080
001
00
001
20
00
P
r
opp
a
nt
Str
es
s(
psi
)

Proppant Types
Major Grain
Proppant Supplier Mesh Sizes
Constituent Density (s.g.)
SAND
Ottawa Sand Minnesota Mining, 12/20, 16/30, 20/40,
Quartz 2.65
(Northern Sand, Ottawa Sand) Unimin, Others 40/70
Texas Sand 8/14, 12/20, 16/30,
Texas Mining Quartz 2.65
(Brady Sand, Hickory Sand) 20/40, 40/70
Arizona Sand ( Quartz 2.65 12/20
RESIN COATED SAND
Quartz + 12/20, 16/30, 20/40,
Curable RC Borden, Santrol 2.55 – 2.60
Phenolic Resin 100 mesh
Quartz +
Pre-Cured RC Borden, Santrol 2.55 – 2.60 12/20, 16/30, 20/40
Phenolic Resin
CERAMIC (Man Made)
Carbo Ceramics, Mullite, 12/18, 16/20, 20/40,
Ceramic 2.60 - 2.70
Norton Celarobilite 30/50
Intermediate Strength
Carbo Ceramics, Corundum,
ISP 3.15 16/30, 20/40, 30/60
Norton Mullite
Bauxite
Carbo Ceramics, 12/18, 16/20, 16/30,
High Strength Proppant Corundum 3.70
Norton, Mineracao 20/40, 30/60

Proppant Size --Bigger is Better
But, Perforation Bridging

(need minimum perf diameter =
6X proppant particle diameter)
But, Bridging in Fracture
(average w > 2 to 3 x Proppant
diameter)
But, Proppant Transport
Vel Fall µ D2 / m
So for Water Frac’s Smaller Is
Better?
Horizontal Well Fracturing
Most commonly used fluid is slick water

Rates are significantly higher compared
to normal fracture rates
Volumes are significantly higher than
conventional fracturing volumes

Water fracturing
Why does it work?
Residual permeability (Unpropped

permeability)
Shear fractures
Extended lengths due to high volumes
Dissolution of solids in pre-existing
fractures

Reservoirs
QUIZ TIME

Reservoirs
Fracture Monitoring
Net pressure data (BHP as a function of

time)
Micro-seismic Data
DTS – Downhole Temperature System
Tracer tests
Interference at adjacent wells
Logging while drilling
Reservoirs
Why monitor?
Need to understand the complexity and

the extent of fractures (SRV)
Need to monitor interference between
stages
Need to ensure that fractures from
adjacent wells are independent of each
other

Reservoirs
Microseismic Imaging
 Placement of receivers (geophones) in

advantageous positions from which small
earthquakes (microseisms) induced by
downhole process can be detected and
located to provide geometric and behavioral
information about the process
 Microseisms are shear events (small
slippages) induced by changes in stress and
pressure caused by injection process
Warpinski, SPE 118537
Reservoirs

Reservoirs
Monitoring of Horizontal Wells
Woodford Shale

Waters et al., SPE 119635
Reservoirs
Complex vs.
Planer Fracture

Reservoirs
what is desirable?
Geophones in the same zone as the

event to minimize velocity uncertainty
Number of receivers in double digits;
quality α √n where n is the number of
receivers
Minimize noise
» Shut-in nearby production
» Drilling or artificial lift activities
Reservoirs
what is desirable?
Good information about horizontal velocity;

small uncertainty can result in large error
As large as possible aperture (distance
between two extreme receivers)
Distance from source; closer the better
Number of monitoring locations; some
benefit with bigger area like horizontal well
Reservoirs
Microseismic Amplitude

Reservoirs
Use of Seismic
King et al., SPE 119896

Reservoirs
Use of Seismic
King et al., SPE 119896

Reservoirs
Benefit of Simo-Frac

Waters et al., SPE 119635
Reservoirs
Complexity of Fractures
Width vs. Length

Warpinski, SPEReservoirs
125239
Limitations of Micro-Seismic
Propped vs. Unpropped ?

Rassenfoss, JPT,Reservoirs
May 2015
Limitations of Micro-Seismic
Connectivity?

Rassenfoss, JPT,Reservoirs
May 2015
Distributed Temperature Sensing
Ability to measure the temperature in

the near vicinity of wellbore across the
fractured zone in real time
Information about distribution of fluids,
overall fracture geometry and
effectiveness of fracturing can be
gathered
Can be open hole or cased hole
Reservoirs
Lowe et al., SPEReservoirs
166295
Fiber Optic DTS measurements
Blue – low temp

Zone 3: 40 %
No coverage
Zone 2: leak from
Zone 2
See surface
Pressure jump

Holly et al., SPEReservoirs
153131
Multi-Stage: Perf and Plug
Ugueto et al., SPE 173348

Reservoirs
Importance of Diversion
Ugueto et al., SPE 173348

Reservoirs
Warm-back Analysis

Holly et al., SPEReservoirs
153131
Tracers
Radioactive or chemical
Part of the fracturing fluid but non-
reacting
Can provide information about
» Fracture fluid recovery of various steps
» Interference between stages
» Interference with surrounding wells
» Efficacy of different stages
Reservoirs
Frac Fluid Tracer
Asadi et al., SPE 101604

Reservoirs
Frac Fluid Tracer
Asadi et al., SPE 101604

Reservoirs
Oil Production
from each stage
Spencer et al., SPE 163846

Reservoirs
Bashing (Interference)
from adjacent wells
As infill wells are drilled, the fracturing

fluid will appear at adjacent infill wells
This can have either positive or
negative impact
» New fractures connected to existing wells
» Existing fractures filled with frac fluid
impeding hydrocarbon flow
» Sharing of hydrocarbon within a network
Reservoirs
Increase in Water Production
PRO-70
500
WATER PRODUCTION RATES, STB/D
450
400
I-84 @ 11,172
I-157 @ 642 ft
350 ft
I-158 @2,588 ft
I-85 @ 11,931
I-159 @ 2,408
ft
300 I-86 @ 12,546
ft
I-123 @ 7,336 I-160 @ 1,907
ft ft
250 ft
[P-1] I-126 @ 6.709 I-161 @ 1,345
ft ft
200 I-129 @ 8,691 [P-3]
ft
150 I-130 @ 8,013
ft
[P-2]
100
50
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
PRODUCTION DAYS
Ajani and Kelkar., SPE 151045

Reservoirs
Loss of Production
O-59
2500
GAS PRODUCTION RATES, SCF/D
2000
I-157 @ 3,154 ft
1500 I-158 @1,208 ft
I-159 @ 1,388 ft
I-160 @ 1,890 ft
1000
500
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
PRODUCTION DAYS

Reservoirs
IP of Infill Wells vs. Surrounding
Wells
120
INFILL'S 60 DAYS IP/ GPI (SCF/FT) 100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
AVERAGE 60 DAYS IP/GPI OF
SURROUNDING WELLS (SCF/FT)

Reservoirs
Probability vs. Age
(for Different Distances)
0 - 1000ft 1000 - 2000ft 2000 - 3000ft 3000 - 4000ft
120
PROBABILITY OF BEING IMPACTED (%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
AVERAGE AGE OF WELLS IN AGE CLASS INTERVAL (DAYS)
Reservoirs
IP/GPI & Lateral Length vs.
Binned Data
100 100
AVERAGE 60 DAYS IP OF WELLS WITHIN
AVERAGE 60 DAYS IP OF WELLS WITHIN
INTERVAL/LATERAL LENGTH (SCF/FT)

EACH SPACING CLASS INTERVAL/GPI
90 90
R² = 0.6604
80 80 R² = 0.5739
EACH SPACING CLASS

70 70
60 60
(SCF/FT)
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 0 2000 4000 6000
AVERAGE OF EQUIVALENT SPACING AVERAGE OF EQUIVALENT SPACING
OF WELLS WITHIN EACH SPACING OF WELLS WITHIN EACH SPACING
CLASS INTERVAL (FT) CLASS INTERVAL (FT)

Reservoirs

Hydrualic Fracturing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydrualic Fracturing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydraulic Fracturing

Hydraulic Fracturing - 0 Evaluation of Shale Gas

For well production to be economical, it

Hydraulic Fracturing - 1 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Hydraulic Fracturing - 2 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Hydraulic Fracturing - 3 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Hydraulic Fracturing - 4 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Economic cut-off is about 0.1 md for

Hydraulic Fracturing - 6 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Hydraulic Fracturing - 7 Evaluation of Shale Gas

The main purpose is to increase the

Hydraulic Fracturing - 8 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Containment (within zone)

Hydraulic Fracturing - 10 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Hydraulic Fracturing - 11 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Young’s modulus (E): Stress vs. strain

Hydraulic Fracturing - 12 Evaluation of Shale Gas

14.000 6.100 6.600

Hydraulic Fracturing - 13 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Crack Core Sample And

Best Shale Plays

0.10000 Marginal Shale Plays

Normalized To Integrate Lab With Well Performance!

Foot Wall Hanging Wall+

Hydraulic Fracturing - 17 Evaluation of Shale Gas

 Vertical or overburden stress can be

Hydraulic Fracturing - 20 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Reservoir is not a solid rock.

Hydraulic Fracturing - 21 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Closure pressure or fracturing pressure

Hydraulic Fracturing - 22 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Assume a shale reservoir at a depth of

Hydraulic Fracturing - 23 Evaluation of Shale Gas

pc will decrease with decreased pore

Part against minimum stress

Net pressure is the pressure above the

Hydraulic Fracturing - 26 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Breakdown pressure is the pressure

Rectangular to Radial Coordinates OB

a = 0o, BD = 4,000 psi

Hydraulic Fracturing - 29 Evaluation of Shale Gas

1. Once Beyond The Wellbore Influence (Hoop

 It is the pressure in hydraulic fracture

Breakdown ISIP ≈pc

After Warpinski et al., SPE 12142

Hydraulic Fracturing - 33 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Hydraulic Fracturing - 34 Evaluation of Shale Gas

 Length (xf = half length)

Once the fluid pressure in withdrawn,

Hydraulic Fracturing - 37 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Hydraulic Fracturing - 38 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Hydraulic Fracturing - 39 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Width against minimum stress

Hydraulic Fracturing - 40 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Near Well "Friction"

Geometry Reservoir Gas Pressure

Net Pressure, PNet, is pressure available to open

Hydraulic Fracturing - 44 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Hydraulic Fracturing - 45 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Hydraulic Fracturing - 46 Evaluation of Shale Gas

20 30 50 100 200 300 500

Hydraulic Fracturing - 50 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Hydraulic Fracturing - 51 Evaluation of Shale Gas