Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FracproPT Short Course
FracproPT Short Course
By
Pinnacle Technologies
FracproPT System - Highlights
• Estimates fracture geometry and proppant placement in real-time
by net pressure history matching
• Provides unique tool to capture what is learned from direct fracture
diagnostics through calibrated model settings
• Performs near-wellbore tortuosity / perf friction analysis – allows
identification and remediation of potential premature screenout
problems
• Integrated reservoir simulator for production forecasting and
matching
• Optimizes fracture treatment economics
• Supports remote access via modem or internet
• Contains preloaded libraries of stimulation fluids, proppants,
and rock properties for many lithologies
FracproPT Module Interaction
DataAcqPT
Real-Time
Data Acquisition
Calibrated Model
Settings
Wellbore Information
Log/layer Information Treatment Data Production Data
FracproPT
Economic
Optimization
Motivation for Frac Engineering & Diagnostics
Hydraulic
fracturing is
done for well
stimulation
NOT
for proppant
disposal
Fracture Pressure
Analysis - Advantages
• Basic analysis data collected (in some sense) during every frac
treatment
• Relatively inexpensive and quick diagnostic technique to apply
• Provides a powerful tool for on-site diagnosis of fracture entry
problems
• Allows on-site design refinement based on observed fracture
behavior
Fracture Pressure
Analysis - Limitations
• Fracture Entry Friction Evaluation
– Using surface pressure increases results uncertainty
– Problematic near-wellbore friction level variable
• Net Pressure History Matching
– Indirect Diagnostic Technique - frac geometry inferred from
net pressure and leakoff behavior
– Solution non-unique – careful & consistent application
required for useful results
– Technique most useful when results are integrated or
calibrated with results of other diagnostics
• Production data & welltest analysis
• Direct fracture diagnostics
Example Application – “Pressure Out” on Pad
S/D#1: 1700
psi tortuosity;
small perf fric.
Increased max
prop conc
Example Application – Estimation of Realistic Fracture Half-
Length
Geometry inferred design Observed net pressure does not match design net pressure response
without real-data feedback
Example Application – Estimation of Realistic Fracture Half-
Length
Lower stress contrast (0.1 psi/ft) required to match observed net pressure
Confirmed with shale stress test in subsequent wells
Example Application -- Tip Screen-out Strategy To Obtain
Sufficient Conductivity
40.00
80.0 40.00
Pad fluid volume adjusted based 600.0
600.0 on leakoff behavior following
crosslink gel minifrac
Breakdown injection
30.00 30.00
60.0
450.0 450.0
Minifrac
20.00
20.00
40.0 300.0
300.0
10.00
20.0 10.00
150.0
150.0
0.00 0.00
0.0
0.0 0.0 60.0 120.0 180.0 240.0 300.0 0.0
Time (mins)
Net pressure match Pinnacle Technologies
Pad sizing for TSO design was done utilizing leakoff calibration with minifrac. The
net pressure match shows a significant increase in pressure due to tip screen-out
initiation
Example Application -- Tip Screen-out Strategy To Obtain
Sufficient Conductivity
• Early designs (pre-1980) did not incorporate feedback from real data
• Fractures at that time were still smart enough to stay in zone
W e llb o r e
U s e p r e d ic te d
n e t p re s s u re Pay Pay
P u m p ra te
N et
p re s s u re P r e d ic te d n e t p r e s s u r e
P u m p t im e
Fracture Design and Analysis Evolution
Modeling without Real-Data Feedback
• Early designs (pre-1980) did not incorporate feedback from real data
• Fractures at that time were still smart enough to stay in zone
• But measured net pressure was generally MUCH higher than model
net pressure
W e llb o r e
U s e p r e d ic te d
n e t p re s s u re
?
Pay Pay
M e a s u re d n e t p re s s u re
P u m p ra te
N et
p re s s u re P r e d ic te d n e t p r e s s u r e
P u m p t im e
Fracture Design and Analysis Evolution
Modeling with Net Pressure Feedback
W e llb o r e
U s e m e a s u re d
n e t p re s s u re
Pay
M a tc h in g m e a s u r e d n e t p r e s s u r e
N et w ith m o d e l n e t p r e s s u r e
p re s s u re
P u m p t im e
FracproPT Development Philosophy
• After development of pseudo-3D models (early 1980’s) the industry was jubilant as
it was now known how fractures really behaved -- or not ?
• Observed net pressures were consistently far higher than net pressures predicted
by these models (discovered in early 1980’s) -- parameter sensitivity also
inconsistent
• Development of Fracpro started in 1980’s with the aim to honor the “message”
contained in real-data
– Capturing the physics of details is not as important as honoring large-scale elasticity
and mass balance
– Calibrated simplified approximation with full 3D growth model, lab tests and field
observations
– Model calibration is now a continuous effort
Fracture Modeling in FracproPT
Net pressure ?
16.00 160.0
2400
12.00
1800 Friction ? 120.0
8.00
1200 80.0
Closure ?
4.00 40.0
600
Leak-off ?
0.00
0.0
0 50.00 58.00 66.00 74.00 82.00 90.00
Time (mins)
Purpose Of Diagnostic Injections
• Provide “anchor points” for real-data (net pressure) analysis
• Obtain accurate measurement of the true net pressure in the
fracture
• On site diagnosis and remediation of proppant placement
– Near-wellbore tortuosity
– Perforation friction
– fluid leakoff
• Bottom line: provide accurate estimates of the fracture geometry
Recommended Diagnostic Injection Procedures
T p +Tc
Tc
B o t to m h o le p r e s s u r e
E ffic ie n c y ~
TcT c+ Tp
IS IP
Pnet C lo s u r e
R a te
Tp Tc
T im e
Pressure Decline Analysis – Square-root Time
Plot
0
8500
Pressure Decline Analysis – G-function Plot
200.0
800.0
Pressure Decline Analysis – Log-log Delta
Pressure Plot
10000
Steprate/Flowback test
FB induced
" wellbore pinch”
~ 30 psi
SI-Rebound < p c
" near-well independent of
pinch " " tortuosity"
SPE PF Feb '97
~ 15 min
Tortuosity Can Be Measured: Stepdown
Test
• Instantaneous rate changes, e.g. 30, 20, 10 and 0 BPM --
exact rates are unimportant, but changes should be abrupt
• Implemented easiest by taking pumps off line
• Each rate step takes about 20 seconds -- just enough to
equilibrate the pressure
• Fracture geometry should not change during stepdown -- total
stepdown test volume small compared to test injection volume
(note: pfrac not proportional to Q1/4 during stepdown test)
• Use differences in behavior of the different friction components
with flow rate
What Is Tortuosity? Width Restriction Close To
Wellbore
Width Restriction Increases Necessary Wellbore
Pressure
Tortuosity Leads To Large Pressure Drop In
Fracture Close To Well
Net fracturing
pressure
High
Near-wellbore friction
Low
Fracture tip
50.00
Tortuosity Can Be Measured: Stepdown Test
• Perforation friction dominated regime
25.00
125.0
FracproPT Net Pressure Matching Parameters
• “Decline Slope” parameters
– Permeability
– Wallbuilding coefficient (Cw)
– Pressure-dependent leakoff (Multiple fracture leakoff factor)
• “Level” parameters
– (Sand-shale) Closure stress contrast
– Fracture complexity (Multiple fracture opening/volume factor)
– Tip effects coefficient
– Proppant drag exponent
– Tip screen-out backfill coefficient
– (Young’s modulus)
• “Geometry” parameters
– Composite layering effect
– Crack opening / width coupling coefficient
Net Pressure Matching Strategy
• B/D Injection
– Level: Tip effects, Fracture complexity
– Decline slope: permeability
• Minifrac
– Level: Tip effects, Fracture complexity
– Decline slope: Wallbuilding coefficient Cw
• Prop frac:
– Level (low perm): stress contrast, proppant drag
– Level (high perm): TSO backfill, Young’s modulus, stress contrast,
proppant drag
– Decline slope: Pressure-dependent leakoff
– Geometry: composite layering effect, width decoupling
FracproPT Net Pressure Matching Parameters
Response with Parameter Increase +
Efficiency
Pressure
Length
Height
Slurry
Width
Half-
Net
Parameter Range Unit Mainly Affects When
Lf
Lf
Tip Effects -- Increased Fracture Growth
Resistance
Process Zone Around
Fracture Tip
• Experiments by Shlyapobersky
reveal fracture process zone
• Process zone is scale dependent,
and results in multiple fractures
ahead of hydraulic fracture tip
• Can result in higher net pressures
to propagate fracture
Main Matching Parameter – Multiple Fractures
• How does it work?
– Opening and volume factor control the degree of fracture complexity using
the amount of overlapping “equivalent” (equal sized) fractures
– Leakoff factor can mimic increase leakoff or pressure-dependent leakoff
• When do you change it?
– When observed net pressure with default Gamma 2 (0.0001) is significantly
higher than model net pressure
– Use specific starting points for distributed limited entry and point source
perforation strategies
– Use strict rules
• Only change during injections
• Tie opening and volume factors for “point source” perfs
• Tie leakoff and volume factors for “distributed limited entry” perfs
Multiple Hydraulic Fractures In FracproPT
Modeling Approach for Multiple Hydraulic Fractures
Situation Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent
number of number of number of
growing fractures fracs
multiple with leakoff competing
fracs (MV) (ML) for width
(MO)
Equivalent number of 3 3 1
spaced identical fractures
without interference
3 2 2
Equivalent number of 3 1 3
fractures competing
For width
Evidence for the Simultaneous Propagation of
Multiple Hydraulic Fractures
• Core through and mineback experiments
• Direct observations of multi-planar fracture propagation
• Fracture growth outside plane of wellbore
• Observation of high net fracturing pressures
• Continuous increases in ISIPs for subsequent injections
C o n c e p tu a l s im p lif ic a tio n o f
n e a r - w e llb o r e t o r tu o s ity
a n d m u lt ip le f r a c tu r e s
M o d e l in g s t r a t e g y f o r
n e a r - w e llb o r e t o r tu o s ity
a n d m u lt ip le f r a c tu r e s
Main Matching Parameters – Proppant Drag
Exponent
• How does it work?
– Mimics the increase in frictional pressure drop along the fracture as proppant is
introduced
– Controls how much the proppant in the fracture slows the fracture length and height
growth.
– Separate terms for Upper and Lower height growth calculated. Length effect is based
on average of upper and lower terms.
– Once a stage has become packed with sand (“immobile proppant bank”), there is no
more growth in that direction
– If both an upper and lower stage are dehydrated, quadratic backfill model takes over
(if enabled)
• When do you change it?
– Significant proppant induced observed net pressure increase during proppant stages
(that is not due to TSO)
Main Matching Parameter – Quadratic Backfill
Exponent
• How does it work
– When fracture height and length growth are stopped due to
dehydration of an upper and lower stage, quadratic backfill model
starts working (if enabled)
– Quadratic backfill is based on the idea the the fracture dimension
controlling fracture stiffness will decrease as the fracture fills with
immobile packed proppant from the tip back to the wellbore.
• When do you change it?
– Increase it when the TSO-induced observed net pressure rise is
steeper than model predicts
New Matching Parameter – Width Coupling
Coefficient
• How does it work ?
– Multiplier for Gamma 1 representing how fracture width is decoupled along
fracture height
– We will provide automatic correlation as a function of composite layering
effect
• When do you change it ?
– Decrease it to trade fracture width for half-length
– Decrease it to mimic reduced coupling “shear-decoupling” over fracture
height (also associated with use of composite layering effect)
= WcpnetR/ E
pnet
R
Main Matching Parameters – Composite Layering
Effect
• How does it work ?
– This parameter controls the near-tip pressure drop in each individual
layer
• When do you change it ?
– Increase in layer adjacent to pay zone if no other confining
mechanism can explain actual level of fracture confinement
– Keep unity in pay zone
Estimating Frac Dimensions Using Real Data
And Radial Frac Assumption:
“Back-of-the-Envelop Model”
1
2 3 eVE 3
2 pnet R 6 eVpnet 2 3
• Two radial fracture model solutions for the same treatment (no
barriers):
Predicted net Predicted fracture
pressure dimensions
R = 650 feet
Pnet = 50 psi
w = 0.25 in
R = 260 feet
Pnet = 800 psi
w = 1.6 in
Fracture Geometry Changes With
Net Pressure
• Two modeling solutions for the same
treatment; if 500 psi stress contrast exists
around payzone
Predicted net Predicted frac
pressure dimensions
Simple Approach:
• Evaluate performance based on EUR’s or other indicators such
as IP’s, 6-month and 12-month cumulative, best 3-month of
production etc.
• Finite-Difference
• Numerical Solution to Diffusivity Equation
• Reservoir As Grid System
• Single Well Within Rectangular Grid System
• Single Flowing Phase
• 2-D
• Unfractured and Hydraulically Fractured Wells
• Fracture Input From FracproPT
• Proppant Crushing
• Non-Darcy and Multi-Phase Flow Effects in Fracture
• Fracture Face Clean-up
Log-Log Rate versus Time Plot
Transient & Boundary Influenced
Flow High Conductivity Fracture
1000
Transient Flow
100
2300 ac
Oil Rate (bbl/day)
360 ac
Boundary Influenced Flow
10
200 ac
100 ac
1
10 100 1000 10000
Time (days)
Semi-Log Rate versus Time Plot
Transient & Boundary Influenced
Flow High Conductivity Fracture
1000
100
2300 ac
Oil Rate (bpd)
360 ac
10
200 ac
100 ac
1
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Time (days)
Log-Log Rate versus Time Plot
Transient & Boundary Influenced Flow
High & Low Conductivity Fracture & Un-fractured Case
1000
No Fracture
10
360 acres
1
10 100 1000 10000
Time (days)
Semi-Log Rate versus Time Plot
Transient & Boundary Influenced Flow
High & Low Conductivity Fracture & Un-fractured Case
1000
10
1
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Time (days)
360 acres
Important Parameter Is Relative Fracture
Conductivity At Reservoir Conditions
• Fracture Conductivity, wkf
wkf = fracture width x fracture permeability
k = Formation Permeability, md
Lf = Fracture Half-Length, ft
1.000
R w '/X f
0.100
0.010
0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
Fc d
Need Length Or Conductivity? (After
McGuire&Sikora)
Frac design
change with
same amount of
Productivity increase
proppant
Increase in
frac length
Increase in
conductivity
Design In Low-permeability Formation
• Treatment design
– Moderate pad size (avoid long closure times on proppant)
– Relatively low maximum proppant concentrations
– Poor quality proppant can be OK (if closure stress is relatively low)
– Pump rate not very critical
Design In High-permeability Formation
TREATMENT COST
L f= 500 Optimal
CUM. GAS
L f= 300
NPV
L f= 100
Unstimulated
1 2 3
Fracture Diagnostic Tools
Will Determine ABILITY TO ESTIMATE
May Determine
Can Not Determine
Borehole Image Logging Run only in open hole – information at wellbore only
Downhole Video Mostly cased hole – info about which perfs contribute
Treatment Well Tiltmeters Frac length must be calculated from height and width
Example Application - Model Results Are Not Always
Consistent with Directly Measured Geometry
GR log
1600
Initial fracture modeling
1700 (no confinement
mechanism)
1800
Depth (ft)
Calibrated fracture
modeling (composite
layering effect)
1900
2000
HYDRAULIC FRACTURE
MINEBACK
Fracture Height Confinement Mechanisms
Characterize
friction from rate Match net pressure
S/D tests for propped frac