You are on page 1of 56

Hydraulic Fracturing

Short Course,
Texas A&M University
College Station
2005

Modeling, Monitoring, Post-Job
Evaluation, Improvements

Hydraulic
Fracture

3D

Fracture
Modeling+
2

P3D and 3D Models
 FracPro (RES, Pinnacle Technologies)
 FracCADE (Dowell)
 Stimwin (Halliburton) and PredK (Stim-Lab)
 TerraFrac
 StimPlan
 MFrac

Fracture
Modeling+
3

Dimensionless Form of Nordgren
Model

 w
x
2

4
0D
2
D

1
w0 D
+
t D
tD - D

D(xfD) : inverse of xfD(tD)
xD = 0

(wellbore)

w04D
i

x D
i0
Fracture
Modeling+
4

xD = xfD (tip)
dx fD
4 w03D

dt D
3 x D

w0 D  0

Propagation Criterion of the Nordgren
Model
 Net pressure zero at tip
 Once the fluid reaches the location, it
opens up immediately
 Propagation rate is determined by “how
fast the fluid can flow

Fracture
Modeling+
5

Other Propagation Criteria  (Apparent) Fracture Toughness  Dilatancy  Statistical Fracture mechanics  Continuum Damage mechanics Fracture Modeling+ 6 .

Fracture Toughness Criterion Stress Intensity Factor KI =pnxf1/2 hf KI pn xf (Rf) Fracture Modeling+ 7 KIC .

D  dt Fracture Modeling+ 8  What is the time needed for D to start at D = 0 and grow to D = 1 ? .D dD  = C n dt dD    = C   1.CDM  n  1.

CDM Propagation Criterion  x Cl  uf =   H.min  l + x f 2 Combined Kachanov parameter: Fracture Modeling+ 9  2 1/ 2 f  w2x=x f  Cl 2 .

P3D  Pseudo 3 D Models: Extension of Nordgren’s differential model with height growth  Height criterion  Equilibrium height theory  or Assymptotic approach to equilibrium  Plus some “tip” effect Fracture Modeling+ 10 .

3D (Finite Element Modeling) y wellbore element tip element x Fracture Modeling+ 11 .

Fracture Toughness Criterion Fluid flow in 2 D Fluid loss according to local opening time Propagation: Jumps Stress Intensity Factor KI > KIC ? KIC pn Fracture Modeling+ 12 .

Data Need for both P3D and 3D:  Layer data  Permeability. porosity. Fracture toughness  Minimum stress  Fluid data  Proppant data Fracture Modeling+ 13  Leakoff calculated from fluid and layer data . pressure  Young’s modulus. Poisson ratio.

Design Tuning Steps  Step Rate test  Minifrac (Datafrac. Calibration Test)  Run design with obtained min (if needed) and leakoff coefficient  Adjust pad  Adjust proppant schedule Fracture Modeling+ 14 .

Fracture Modeling+ 15 Injection rate Bottomhole pressure Step rate test Time .

Bottomhole pressure Step rate test Propagation pressure Two straight lines Fracture Modeling+ 16 Injection rate .

3 ISIP Fall-off (minifrac) 4 Closure 5 Reopening 6 Forced closure 1 5 2 7 Pseudo steady state 8 Rebound 3 2nD injection cycle 7 shut-in Fracture Modeling+ 17 flow-back Time 8 Injection rate 6 Injection rate 1st injection cycle Bottomhole pressure 4 .

2 S p  g  t D .   2Ae C L te wte  t Fracture Modeling+ 18 Vi  .Pressure fall-off analysis (Nolte) Ae t D  t / te Vte  t = Vi  2Ae S p  g  t D .  2C L te Ae .

 . c.g-function 1  1 t D 0  A1D/  g  t D . available in the form of tables and computing algorithms 1  . b.1  t D  g  t D .1   .    1  2 Fracture Modeling+ 19 where F[a.     dimensionless shut-in time  1 t D  AD1 /   dt D  dAD  area-growth exponent  4 t D  2 1  t D  F 1 / 2. z] is the Hypergeometric function.

g-function Fracture Modeling+ 20 .

2S p  2C L te g  t D .  Ae Fracture stiffness pnet  S f w   pw   pC  S f Vi / Ae .2 S f S p  .   2Ae C L te wte  t Vi  .2 S f C L te  g  t D .   Fracture Modeling+ 21 pw  bN  mN  g t D .   .Pressure fall-off t D  t / te Vte  t = Vi  2Ae S p  g  t D .

5 Proportionality constant.Fracture Stiffness (reciprocal compliance) pnet  S f w Pa/m Table 5. Sf and suggested  for basic fracture geometries Fracture Modeling+ 22 PKN KGD Radial  4/5 2/3 8/9 Sf 2E ' h f E' x f 3E ' 16 R f .

2 S f C L te  g  t D .   Ae   bN Ae from intercept mN pw g=0 Fracture Modeling+ 23 g .Shlyapobersky assumption  No spurt-loss     Vi pw   pC  S f .2 S f S p  .

Nolte-Shlyapobersky Leakoff coefficient.956C L t e e  Rf  3 we  Vi: injected into one wing Vi   R 2f 2  2.830C L t e Fluid Efficiency Fracture Modeling+ 24 e  we x f h f Vi xf  E Vi h f bN  pC  we  Vi  x f hf  2.754C L t e we x f h f Vi 3E Vi 8bN  pC  e  we R 2f Vi  2 . PKN  KGD  h f x f 4 te E '  mN  2 te E '  mN  Radial  8R f 3 te E '  m N  CL Fracture Extent Fracture Width xf  2 E Vi h 2f bN  pC  we  Vi  x f hf  2.

)2CLAPP t e 9 6 Calculate we (end-of pumping width) Fracture Modeling+ 25 Rf  3 3E Vi 7 Calculate  (fluid efficiency) 3 t e m   E' Vi we  2  wL Rf  / 2 we  we  wL N .1: g-function plot of pressure 2: get parameters bN and mN 3 Calculate Rf (fracture extent -radius) 8 bN  pC  8R f 4 Calculate CLAPP (apparent leakoff coeff) CLAPP  5 Calculate wL (leakoff width) 8 wL  g (0.

Computer Exercise 3-1 Minifrac analysis Fracture Modeling+ 26 .

psi Include into inj volume Include into g-func fit 0. bpm BH Pressure.9 0. ft.Example Permeable (leakoff) thickness. E' (psi). 5850 Fracture Modeling+ 27 Time. 2. psi.0 9.9 0.0 9.15 0.0E+6 Closure Pressure.95 0.8 9.0 1 0 21.0 1 0 1.59 0 0 .0 1 0 21.9 0. min BH Injection rate.62 0 0 22.0 7550. 42 Plane strain modulus.0 7330.

4920 5 Fluid efficiency 0.Output Slope.5 2 Leakoff coefficient in permeable layer.60 Average width.1670 8 Apparent leakoff coefficient (for total area). gallon 9044 Frac radius. inch 0.0247 9 . psi -4417 Intercept.5 Fracture Modeling+ 28 0.0159 ft/min^0. ft 39. 0. ft/min^0. psi 13151 Injected volume.

From "apparent" to "real“ (radial) hp 42 x   0.64 . App  5.5  0.64  CL.5  0.015  m/s0.024 ft/min 0.85  105 0.015 ft/min 0.5  arcsin( x )  0.6   2 rp  x (1  x 2 )0.214 0.5 CL.85  105 m/s0.5 0.53 2 R f 2 * 39.True Fracture Modeling+ 29 5.5  ft/min 0.

Redesign  Run the design with new leakoff coefficient (That is why we do minifrac analysis) Fracture Modeling+ 30 .

proppant in well  Later: Add and synchronize gauge pressure Fracture Modeling+ 31 .Monitoring  Calculate proppant concentration at bottom (shift)  Calculate bottomhole injection pressure. net pressure  Calculate proppant in formation.

Nolte-Smith plot Log net pressure Tip screenout Wellbore screenout Normal frac propagation Unconfined height growth Log injection time Fracture Modeling+ 32 .

Post-Job Logging  Tracer Log  Temperature Log  Production Log Fracture Modeling+ 33 .

proppant) i d a  Seismic Methods.Available Techniques for Width and Height Measured Directly n o ti a r  Borehole Televiewer et n e Based on Inference p f  TemperatureoLogging s u  Isotopes (fluid. Noise Logging R  Tiltmeter techniques  Formation Micro Scanner  Spinner survey Fracture Modeling+ 34 .

Sc Sb Ir Trace r log Fracture Modeling+ 35 .

Petroleum Well Construction .Tiltmeter Results Fracture Modeling+ 36 after Economides at al.

6.Pressure Match with 3D Simulation Texaco E&P OCS-G 10752 #D-12 Actual 05-23-1997 FracCADE EOJ Fracture Profile and Proppant Concentration 7300 < 0.0 .0 .30 0.14.0 .15 0.0 4.0 10.0 0.0 2.2.30 -0.0 8.0 .8.15 0 0.45 0 Wellbore Hydraulic Width(in) 100 200 Fracture Half-Length (ft) 300 400 .0 .10.0 0.0 .0 6.0 12.0 > 14.45 -0.4.0 7350 7400 7450 7500 5600 6400 Stress(psi) Fracture Modeling+ 37 *Mark of Schlumberger 7200 -0.12.0 .

10 2000 Conductivity (Kfw) .25 5000 0.05 0 0 Conductivity .Kfw 50 1000 100 150 Fracture Half-Length .ft Fracture Modeling+ 38 *Mark of Schlumberger 200 0 250 .in FracCADE Flow Capacity Profiles Propped Width (ACL) 0.3D Simulation Texaco E&P OCS-G 10752 #D-12 Actual 05-23-1997 0.15 3000 0.md.ft Propped Width .20 4000 0.

Well Testing: The quest for flow regimes Fracture Modeling+ 39 .

)  Fluid system modification (crosslinked. Resin coating. Fiber reinforcement. foam)  Proppant carrying capacity  Leakoff  Perforation strategy changes Fracture Modeling+ 40  Forced closure. Deformable particle . high strength etc.Design Improvement in a Field Program  Sizing  Pad volume for “generic” design  More aggressive or defensive proppant schedule  Proppant change (resin coated.

g. S shaped Fracture Modeling+ 41 .Example: Tortuous Flow Path  Analysis of the injection rate dependent element of the treating pressure  Does proppant slug help?  Does limited entry help?  Does oriented perforation help?  Extreme: reconsidering well orientation: e.

Misalignment Fracture Modeling+ 42 .

SPE 30342 max From overbalanced perforation Fracture Modeling+ 43 max From underbalanced perforation .Fracture Orientation: Perforation Strategy after Dees J M.

High Viscosity slugs Fracture Modeling+ 44 .

Proppant Slugs Fracture Modeling+ 45 .

Case Study: Effect of Non-Darcy Flow  Forcheimer Equation p v   av 2 L k  Cornell & Katz p v 2   v L k Fracture Modeling+ 46 .

Non-Darcy Flow  Dimensionless Proppant Number is the most important parameter in UFD Effective Proppant Pack Permeability N prop  Fracture Modeling+ 47 2k f V prop k Vres .

Non-Darcy Flow  Effective Permeability keff knom  1  N Re  Reynolds Number N Re Fracture Modeling+ 48 knom v   keff is determined through an iterative process Drawdown is needed to calculate velocity .

Non-Darcy Flow Coefficient   Several equations have been developed mostly from lab measurements (empirical equations)  General form of  equation  8 1x10 a kf  b c where  is 1/m and k is md Fracture Modeling+ 49 .

P. Valko.SPE 90195 Optimum FractureTreatment Design Minimizes the Impact of Non-Darcy Flow Effects Henry D. Texas A&M University. Thai T. Peter. El Paso Production Fracture Modeling+ 50 . Texas A&M University. SPE. Lopez-Hernandez. SPE. SPE. Pham.

Case Study: Reynolds number Fracture Modeling+ 51 .

Case Study: Proppant number Fracture Modeling+ 52 .

Case Study: Max possible JD Fracture Modeling+ 53 .

Case Study: Optimum frac length Fracture Modeling+ 54 .

Case Study: Optimum frac width Fracture Modeling+ 55 .

production engineering and treatment information  Cost matters  Expensive 3D model does not substitute thinking  Still what we want to do is increasing JD Fracture Modeling+ 56 .Summary  Increasing role of evaluation  Integration of reservoir engineering.