Hydraulic Fracture Complexity and Treatment Design in Horizontal Wells

Craig Cipolla VP of Stimulation Technology Carbo Ceramics/StrataGen Engineering

Outline
Fracture complexity Proppant distribution Reservoir simulation (horizontal wells with complex fractures growth) Effect of fracture conductivity
How much conductivity is needed? Effect of modulus on network fracture conductivity

Effect of staging Effect of network fracture complexity (i.e. spacing) Effect of permeability Summary & conclusions

Simple Planar Fracture Growth

Simple Fracture Complex Fracture

Complex Fracture With Fissure Opening

Complex Fracture Network

Predictable Proppant Distribution

Complex Planar Fracture Growth

Complex Fracture

Complex Fracture Network

Complex Growth, Fissure Opening

Complex Fracture With Fissure Opening

Complex Fracture Network

Network Fracture Growth Unpredictable Proppant Transport?

Complex Fracture Network

Fracture Complexity & Natural Fractures

Hydraulic Fractures

Natural Fractures

Grasshopper, Now You Must Choose! Simple or Complex?

Proppant Distribution
(network fracture growth)

Proppant volumes probably insufficient to effectively prop large networks Network fracture conductivity likely dominated by un-propped fractures

Proppant may not be effectively transported into complex networks Un-propped fracture conductivity a key factor in well productivity reference SPE 115769

Proppant Distribution
Vertical Proppant Distribution

Arch dimensions and stress on proppant based on SPE 119350 (Warpinski)

Proppant Distribution
Vertical Proppant Distribution in Primary Fracture

C*fD-vertical = kfwf/khf-unpropped?

CfD= kfwf/kxf

C*fD-vertical = kfwf/khf-propped?

*reference Britt SPE 102227 and SPE DL presentation 2007-2008 Series

Production Modeling in Shale-Gas Reservoirs

Comparison Wells
Well A

Barnett Horizontal Completions

2,600 ft lateral Four frac stages

o 670 klbs (40/70-sand), 120,000 bbls o 700 ft between perforation clusters

SRV = 1,880x106 ft3 (Microseismic fracture mapping)

Well B
2,600 ft lateral Two frac stages
o 830 klbs (40/70-sand), 117,000 bbls o 500 ft between perforation clusters

SRV = 2,017x106 ft3 (Microseismic fracture mapping)

Stimulating Horizontal Wells

Symmetry for Reservoir Simulation

Impact of Fracture Conductivity

Pressure distribution after 3 months Pressure distribution after 1 yr

100 mD-ft primary fracture conductivity

Pressure (psi) Pressure (psi)

400 ft

Insufficient fracture conductivity

2 mD-ft primary fracture conductivity
Pressure (psi) Pressure (psi)

400 ft main fracture spacing, 100 ft network fracture spacing, 2 mD-ft network conductivity

Impact of Primary Fracture Conductivity

400 ft main fracture spacing and 100 ft network fracture spacing

Barnett HZ well

Impact of Network Fracture Conductivity

Well A

Well B

300 ft primary fracture spacing, 100 ft network fracture spacing

How Much Fracture Conductivity is Needed?

Network Conductivity Required to Achieve of 1 -year Production Network conductivity required to achieve 90% of90% maximum 1st production
st

1000 0.0001 mD 0.01 mD

Fracture Conductivity (mD-ft)

212
100

224 71

25
10

22

3.5

2.8

0.4

0.1

Small Network Small Network Large Network Large Network Uniform Network Infinite Uniform Network Infinite Conductivity Conductivity Conductivity Conductivity Primary Fracture Primary Fracture

Results for 50 ft fracture spacing

How Much Conductivity can be Achieved?

Un-Propped & Partially Propped Fracture Conductivity
10000

Reference Conductivity, md-ft

1000

0.1 lb/sq ft bauxite

100

Uniform Network Conductivity Infinite Conductivity Primary Fracture 0.1 lb/sq ft Jordan sand, or displaced un-propped

10

0.1 0
Adapted from SPE 60236, 74138

2000

4000 Closure Stress, psi

6000

8000

Un-Propped Fracture Conductivity Effect of Modulus

1000 E=6E+6 psi E=4E+6 psi 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 E=2E+6 psi E=1E+6 psi

Conductivity (mD-ft)

Stress (psi)

Optimizing Proppant Selection

Too big or Too small?

Not strong enough?

More proppant?

Impact of Primary Fracture Spacing

Pressure distribution after 3 months Pressure distribution after 1 yr

600 ft main fracture spacing

Pressure (psi) Pressure (psi)

200 ft main fracture spacing

Pressure (psi) Pressure (psi)

200 mD-ft primary frac and 2 mD-ft network, 100 ft network fracture spacing

Impact of Primary Fracture Spacing

Well A

Well B
100 ft network fracture spacing

Impact of Network Fracture Spacing

Pressure distribution after 1 month Pressure distribution after 1 yr

300 ft network fracture spacing

Pressure (psi) Pressure (psi)

600 ft

50 ft network fracture spacing

Pressure (psi) Pressure (psi)

600 ft

200 mD-ft primary frac and 2 mD-ft network, 600 ft primary fracture spacing

Impact of Network Fracture Spacing

Well A

Well B

2 mD-ft network fracture conductivity

Impact of Network Fracture Spacing

Well A

Well B

2 mD-ft network fracture conductivity

Impact of Matrix Permeability (1 x 10-5 mD)

50 ft spacing, k = 1 e-4 md 100 ft spacing, k = 1 e-4 md

Well B Well A

2 mD-ft network fracture conductivity

Conclusions
Characterizing Fracture Growth leads to:
Better understanding well & fracture performance
More reliable reservoir modeling and better reservoir characterization Resolution of created and effective fracture length Better estimates of In situ fracture conductivity

Improved completion & stimulation strategies

Stimulation fluid & proppant selection Well placement and spacing Number of stages (both vertical & horizontal wells) Optimized designs (volume, rate) Optimum Fracture Treatment Designs and Field Development

Strategies Tailored to Specific Geologic Environments

Are we applying the right combination of technologies?

Fracture & Completion Strategy

(horizontal gas wells, network fracture growth)
Conductivity of the primary fracture is likely a critical parameter (~50-100 mD-ft required) Fracture complexity/network fracture spacing key to well productivity and gas recovery
If network fracture spacing is on order 50 ft, then the effect of matrix permeability on production is significantly reduced High relative conductivity primary fracture reduces the impact of network fracture spacing

Fracture & Completion Strategy

(horizontal gas wells, network fracture growth)
Actual production profiles suggests that primary fracture conductivity is low? Understanding matrix permeability and un-propped fracture conductivity is important when optimizing treatment designs in unconventional gas reservoirs Un-cemented horizontal completions, more difficult to create a high relative conductivity primary fracture?

General Guidelines
In low modulus rock, it may not be possible to exploit complexity. (Haynesville?) In reservoirs that are prone to fracture complexity, design goals should target:
Large networks for k~0.0001 md (E>4e6 psi)
Supplemented with infinite conductivity primary fractures

Small networks for k~0.01 md (E>4e6 psi)

Supplemented with infinite conductivity primary fractures

Simple fractures for k~1.0 md (E<2e6 psi)

Strategy
Evaluate the impact of operational changes upon fracture complexity
o Low viscosity fluids generally promote fracture complexity and minimize damage o High viscosity fluids reduce fracture complexity (Haynesville?) o Pump rates, completion strategy, diversion, 100mesh, etc.

Evaluate hybrid treatments to promote small networks with infinite conductivity primary fractures

Strategy
Evaluate higher strength, smaller mesh, and lower density propping agents that can significantly improve the conductivity of partially propped network fractures
Deeper penetration, better proppant transport Possibly enter and prop secondary network fractures

Evaluate larger proppant volumes

Increased primary fracture conductivity Increase network fracture conductivity

Questions?

Backup Slides

Reservoir Simulation Study

Goal: Evaluate the relationship between fracture complexity, fracture conductivity, and proppant distribution on well productivity Cases: Single fracture, complex planar growth, small networks, and large networks
This presentation focuses on Small and Large Networks

Reservoirs: Gas with permeability of 0.0001, 0.01, and 1 md Proppant distribution: Two limiting cases
Proppant is concentrated in a single primary fracture with infinite conductivity (case 2) Proppant is evenly distributed within the fracture network (cases 1 & 3) Evaluate the effect of network fracture conductivity on well productivity for the two limiting cases

Example Fracture Treatments

Barnett Shale (SPE 95568)
k = 0.0001 mD (est.) hf = 300 ft xf = 1500 ft xn = 2000 ft xs = 50-300 ft (est.)

Treatment
60,000 bbl 385,000 lbs
Note: Fracture dimensions and complexity from microseismic mapping

 Cased and cemented wellbore

Important Assumptions

Primary fracture spacing controlled by distance between perforation clusters Gas flow into wellbore at perforation clusters only

Fracture complexity (network fracture spacing) is not affected by primary fracture spacing (distance between perforation clusters)
Pre-existing natural fracture system or rock fabric is present and can be equally stimulated for the range of primary fracture spacings evaluated

Network fracture conductivity is not affected by primary fracture spacing Stimulated Reservoir Volume (SRV) is equal for all cases (2000 x 106 ft3)

Barnett Example
3000 2500

2000

South-North (ft)

1500

1000

500

-500

-1000 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

West-East (ft)

Proppant Distribution, 150 ft Network Fracture Spacing: Barnett Shale Example (385,000 lbs prop)
150 ft

150 ft

0.015 lb/ft2

2000 ft

Evenly Distributed (Case 1)

3000 ft

Note: Dimensions not to scale

Proppant Distribution, 150 ft Network Fracture Spacing: Barnett Shale Example (385,000 lbs prop)
150 ft

150 ft

0.43 lb/ft2

Concentrated in a dominant fracture (Case 2)

2000 ft

3000 ft

Note: Dimensions not to scale

Proppant Distribution & Network Fracture Growth Summary

If proppant is evenly distributed in network fractures, concentrations are probably too small to materially affect conductivity

If proppant is concentrated in a primary fracture, concentrations may provide adequate conductivity for k<0.01 md
Un-propped fracture conductivity will likely be a key factor in exploiting fracture complexity

Effect of Modulus & Stress on Embedment

1.60

Embedment (grain diameters)

1E+6 psi

1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0

2E+6 psi 4E+6 psi 6E+6 psi

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Stress (psi)

Findings
Fracture complexity can be estimated by integrating microseismic mapping, reservoir & fracture modeling, core data, and well performance In some reservoirs, fracture complexity has been shown to improve production. In other reservoirs, complex growth has been shown to damage productivity.

Findings
If proppant is evenly distributed throughout large fracture networks, the resulting concentrations are inadequate to materially affect conductivity To capitalize on the potential of unpropped and partially propped regions, these networks should be contacted by infinite conductivity primary fractures