0 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

48 Aufrufe8 SeitenSep 12, 2013

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

48 Aufrufe

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Midnight in Chernobyl: The Untold Story of the World's Greatest Nuclear Disaster
- WomanCode: Perfect Your Cycle, Amplify Your Fertility, Supercharge Your Sex Drive, and Become a Power Source
- The Hormone Reset Diet: The 21-day Diet That Resets Your Metabolism
- The Final Day: A John Matherson Novel
- Bloody Sunday: A Thriller
- Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich
- HBR's 10 Must Reads on Managing Yourself (with bonus article "How Will You Measure Your Life?" by Clayton M. Christensen)
- The Making of the Atomic Bomb
- Amity and Prosperity: One Family and the Fracturing of America
- Vermilion Drift: A Novel
- King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine
- Chernobyl 01:23:40: The Incredible True Story of the World's Worst Nuclear Disaster
- Midnight in Chernobyl: The Story of the World's Greatest Nuclear Disaster
- The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind: Creating Currents of Electricity and Hope
- Free to Focus: A Total Productivity System to Achieve More by Doing Less
- Multipliers, Revised and Updated: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter
- Lost in the Solar System
- The Energy Bus: 10 Rules to Fuel Your Life, Work, and Team With Positive Energy
- The Subtle Body: An Encyclopedia of Your Energetic Anatomy
- University Physics

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

H.H. Abass, SPE, A.H. Habbtar, SPE, A. Shebatalhamd, SPE, Saudi Aramco

Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE 13 th Middle East Oil Show & Conference to be held in Bahrain, 9-12 June 2003. This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Examples from a field in Saudi Arabia will be used to validate the application of controlling sand production using screenless FracPack completion. In these wells a FracPack treatment alone controls sand production. The multirate test used in these wells and the FracPack design for fracturing treatments will be presented. Introduction Sand production has historically been a problem associated with soft or poorly consolidated formations. The result is usually lost production due to formation sand and fines plugging gravel packs, screens, perforations, tubular, and surface flow lines or separators. In addition to damaging pumps or other downhole equipment, erosion of casing and surface facilities may also occur. Sanding problems may actually cause loss or recompletion of a well due to casing and/or hole collapse. The methods applied to minimize the effect of sand production include critical production rate, gravel packing, sand consolidation, FracPacking, oriented and/or selective Perforation, expandable sand screen, or a combination of these methods. Completion methods are selected based on sand characterization and failure mechanism. Laboratory testing and mathematical models used for sand prediction are selected based on sand characterization. FracPac completion has been replacing gravel packing in many petroleum reservoirs. However FracPack with a screen in hole, is also widely applied. This paper will discuss the process of sand control from the time a given formation is exposed to mans disturbance and will sicuss sand control during drilling, completion, and production. Sand Control during Drilling Sand formations are categorized into consolidated, poorly consolidated, and unconsolidated, based on their elastic properties, mechanical strength and cementation materials. Sand formations can fail due to mechanical or chemical effects. The mechanical properties relevant to sand production are: Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS), cohesive strength, and tensile strength. However, mechanical properties such as Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio are also used to characterize sand formations. A reasonable trend was obtained for porosity vs. Youngs modulus for a given sandstone formations in Saudi Arabia1. The following properties and

Abstract Sand control has been a challenge to the petroleum industry since oil and gas was produced from weakly cemented sandstone formations. Several techniques have been applied; 1) restricted (critical) production rate, 2) screen and/or gravel packing, 3) sand consolidation, 4) FracPacking, 5) oriented and/or selective perforation, and 6) combination of any of the above. Sand formations may fail in compression, tension, and cohesion that trigger sand production. The compressive failure occurs during drilling where the rock cannot withstand the new stress field and/or the cementation materials have deteriorated from mud filtrate exposure. The calculation of mud weight to prevent compressive failure will be presented in this paper. Additionally the failed zone is usually oriented in the direction of minimum horizontal stress which can be avoided during perforation by orienting the perforation tunnels in the direction of maximum horizontal stress. During completion the cementation materials should be protected from completion fluids. During production a pressure drawdown is established for a given production rate. This pressure drawdown may cause rock failure in tension or cohesion (erosion) leading to sand production. The nearwellbore pressure is caused by skin damage due to reduced permeability, stressed region, convergence flow, and partial penetration. This paper presents a model to determine the critical pressure drawdown based on relating the near-wellbore pressure drawdown to the tensile and cohesive strengths of the formation. Hydraulic fracturing, referred to as FracPack, may be applied to alleviate the near-wellbore pressure drawdown below the critical value that causes sand failure. Two fracture parameters are designed to achieve this goal; fracture length and fracture conductivity. This paper presents a design criterion to determine these parameters to optimize a FracPack design for sand control.

SPE 81492

tests are needed to evaluate the sanding tendency in a given reservoir. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Uniaxial compressive strength Cohesive strength Tensile strength Internal friction angle Porosity and Permeability XRD SEM

r = p w p r

(3)

If we consider two cases where = 0 (H, max) and = 90 (H, min), we get

(4) (5)

The results from the above tests will be used to determine the possible failure analyses applied to a given formation as it will be discussed below. Failure Mechanisms Shear Failure Shear strength consists of two components; the physical bonds between adjoining grains or cohesion, and friction. Shear failure may cause reduction in hole size due to plastic failure near the perforation tunnel. Around any perforation tunnel there is a stress concentration field established. The rock will either respond elastically (strong formation) or yield (weak formation), in which case a plastic zone is developed around a perforation tunnel. Once shear failure occurs, large and small size solids are generated and the formation starts deteriorating at the failure plane. This shear failure can be predicted by Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. This criterion postulates that failure occurs when the shear stress at a given plane within the rock reaches a critical value given by:

The most critical stress of the above two locations is the one in the direction of minimum horizontal stress. It is necessary to provide enough confinement during drilling to prevent sand failure. The wellbore pressure needed to provide enough confinement before shear failure occurs, can be determined by

r' and ' =90 from equations (3) ' ' and (4) replacing 3 and 1 of eq. (2), respectively:

substituting the values of

Pw Pr =

(6)

= c + n tan

(1)

Equation 1 shows two components; cohesion (c), and friction (n tan ). Shear failure breaks the rock along shear planes; however, cohesive failure will produce sand particles. Equation (1) may be described in terms of the principal stresses as follows:

Example: Assume the gradients for maximum horizontal stress, minimum horizontal stress, and reservoir pressure to be 0.8, 0.65, and 0.433 respectively, for a 10000 ft sandstone formation. Additionally, assume = 30, anc Co=3000 psi. What is the overbalanced pressure needed to prevent shear failure during drilling? Apply equation 6, we calculate that the overbalance needed is 1460 psi. This suggests that this sand will fail for normal overbalance being used during drilling (usually <1000 psi). If sand fails during drilling, a plastic zone will be created around the wellbore, especially in the direction of minimum horizontal stress. The plastic zone will maintain a residual strength that needs to be preserved during completion. And the above methods should be considered to achieve this objective. If no sanding control measure is undertaken, the pressure drawdown that triggers sanding will be related to tensile and cohesive failure rather than shear failure. However, the dilated zone will progress into the reservoir due to progressive shear failure. It is for that reason many of the models based on compressive strength suffer from matching field data unless it is corrected using a fudge factor. Therefore, it is necessary to follow the failure modes that cause sand production. The shear failure is most likely to happen during drilling leaving a dilated zone with residual strength. Tensile Failure Tensile failure mechanism occurs around a perforation tunnel where the radial stress is controlled by the wellbore pressure and reservoir pressure. The abrupt change in pressure can exceed the tensile strength of formation, therefore causing sand production and perforation-tunnel enlargement. This type of failure is described as follows:

1 =

1 + sin + Co 1 sin 3

(2)

The factors C and are coefficients for the linearization and should be determined experimentally. A deviation from a straight line is very common when attempting to interpret failure mechanisms with this criterion, which is solely based on shear failure. Therefore, this criterion should be applied only to situations for which it is valid. The failure envelope is determined from many Mohr circles. Each circle represents a triaxial test where a sample is subjected to lateral confinement (2 = 3), and axial stress (1) is increased until failure. The envelope of Mohr circles represents the basis of this failure criterion. This criterion can be applied to determine whether or not sand will fail during drilling. Two stresses are relevant in a vertical wellbore; r and . If we use the concept of effective stresses, these two components are given below,

SPE 81492

approaches the tensile strength, this equation reduces to:

S r = Pw Pr

(8)

The effective stress at the wellbore exceeds the tensile strength of the formation and causes tensile failure if,

If a sand formation has cohesion of 200 psi and perforation tunnel is 0.7 in diameter, the pressure drawdown that causes cohesive failures is 571 psi. This pressure drop should happen in the perforation tunnel to trigger cohesive failure (erosion). Obviously, this is a high pressure drop and cohesive failure can occur only in formations with low cohesive strength. In unconsolidated sandstone (oil sand), the cohesive strength is close to zero; therefore cohesive failure is the main failure mechanism for sand production in those formations. Chemical Effect Rock strength is derived from two components; the contact forces between the grains (friction), and the physical bond adjoining grains (cohesion). Depending on the cementation materials, chemical interaction may cause weakening effect due to deterioration of the cementation materials. The softening factor, F, is defined as the ratio of compressive strength of sample divided by the compressive strength of the same sample after introducing the sample to a given fluid. The fluid could be fresh water, brine, acid, etc. It is important to observe the following when studying any formation for sanding tendency: 1. 2. If clay particles are part of the cementation material, a given formation should be treated as potentially water sensitive. Hydrochloric acid (HCl) used in completion fluids may adversely affect the strength of the formation.

Pw = Pr + + T

(9)

If breakout occurs and a plastic zone is created, the dilated (plastic) area will reduce to zero and the nearby formation will carry the earth stress. Therefore, if the drawdown in the plastic zone exceeds the tensile strength of the dilated formation, tensile failure will result and sand production is the result from that zone:

Pw Pr = T

(10)

The negative sign indicates tension for rock failure and production wellbore loading. The tensile failure may occur at the perforation tip or the perforation wall which is usually penetrating within the plastic zone. Cohesive Failure This mechanism is especially important for the case of poorly consolidated sand. The cohesive strength (c) is the controlling factor of erosion which occurs at any free surface within the formation which include; perforation tunnel, wellbore surface for openhole completion, hydraulic fracture surface or surface of induced shear planes, and other boundary surfaces. Shear strength of a formation consists of two components: 1. Contact forces and friction between the grains. 2. Physical bonds between adjoining grains or cohesion. Cohesion is due to two factors; (1) cementing material and (2) capillary forces. Sand production may also occur when the drag force due to fluid velocity exceeds the cohesive strength of formation. The shear stress at the perforation wall is given by:

If the cementation material is carbonate and formation is exposed to acid, the rock structure will collapse causing sand production2. Figure 1 shows a single calcite crystal cements a large number of detrital clastic grains. It is obvious that few carbonate grains are providing a fabric structure to the sand grains. If these few cementing crystals are destroyed, a massive failure will result leading to sand production. Figure 2 shows a qualitative evaluation of the effect of different fluids on sand production. Equivalent pieces of sandstone formations were saturated in different fluids; 15% Hcl, fresh water, 7% Kcl, and mineral oil. The amount of loose sand generated for the mineral-oil sample was the least. Figure 3 shows a quantitative effect of drilling fluids on the compressive strength of poorly consolidated core samples. Sand Control during Completion Although many sandstone reservoirs in Saudi Arabia with sanding tendency are still completed with screens and gravel packs, a new screenless completion is being implemented3. The completion strategy that is envisioned to all reservoirs with sanding tendency in Saudi Arabia will be; applying selective and oriented perforation followed by screenless fracturing application. Figure 4 shows a schematic representation of including the three technologies to establish an execlusive method for sand control. The sand characterization of all sanding-tendency formations does not suggest any oil-sand type formations that require a screen in hole. Therefore it is intended to provide sound research and field support to implement the following:

D p dP dP = rp dl 2 dl

(9)

Combining equations 1 and 9, and substituting zero for n because of the non-confined condition at the perforation wall, one obtains:

dP c = dl rp

(10)

SPE 81492

Oriented Perforation Introducing a wellbore into a given formation will disturb the in-situ stress field creating a higher stress concentration that may cause failure (Breakout) in the direction of the minimum horizontal stress. This zone is created due to shear failure and the dilation accompanied the failure process. It is necessary to evaluate whether or not the well underwent a breakout failure mode during drilling. The following scenarios must be evaluated for an efficient completion strategy for sand control: 1. 2. If a breakout zone is distinguished a 180-degree phasing oriented perforation in the direction of the maximum horizontal stress is recommended4. If a breakout is not distinguished, and the UCS is less than 1000 psi, a 180-degree phasing may be considered in any direction.

away from the wellbore and alleviates the fluid convergence of radial flow, ultimately decreasing drawdown pressure for a given flow rate. Two parameters control the production increase of a hydraulically fractured well, specifically, fracture conductivity ( K f W f ) and fracture half length ( L f ). The design of a FracPac treatment should optimize these parameters by maximizing the dimensionless fracture conductivity in order to control sans production. The dimensionless fracture conductivity, FCD , is given by:

FCD =

K f Wf Kr Lf

(13)

controlling sand production. The reservoir permeability is the portion of rock that the fracture is in contact with; i.e. the damaged zone. For example, if we have a reservoir with 300 md, and we created a 200 ft fracture of 5000 md-ft, the FCD will be 0.08 which is far below 1 and the fracturing treatment is inefficient in controlling sand. A different FracPack design in which a 100 ft fracture with 10000 md-ft is placed in a near wellbore permeability of 100 md, will yield an FCD of 1. When designing a FracPac for sand control, the following should be considered: 1. A fracture length should be considered for sand control and not for stimulation. The maximum fracture conductivity must be designed such that a fracture length is determined to obtain FCD 1 . In calculating fracture width it is important to consider the non-linear characteristics of poorly consolidated formations2. The proppant permeability should be maximized by using large size and concentration. Resin coated proppant is necessary to prevent proppant flowback.

Selective Perforation This technique consists of evaluating perforation of sand intervals based on their potential for sand production. This method is applied when hydraulic fracturing is being considered as part of well completion. This technique is based on the fact that not all the sand body is potentially sand producing in these formations. Sand B in Figure 5 is a sandstone reservoir with no sandstone production while sand A exhibits sand production. The sonic velocity in sand A is from 70-91 sec/ft while it is about 60 sec/ft for sand B. Within sand A selective perforation can be be determined based on sonic velocity to determine the selective interval for fracture initiation. Additional criterion for selecting a perforated interval is to establish a correlation for the unconfined compressive strength for a given formation. Figure 6 presents a correlation between UCS and porosity and Figure 7 shows a correlation for UCS vs Youngs modulus for a given sandstone formation. The correlation presented in Figures 6 and 7 summarize a methodology for selective perforation as it will be discussed further in the completion section. FracPac Application A high production rate from a permeable reservoir causes high pressure drawdown across the formation proximate the wellbore. This pressure drawdown places increased deviatoric stress on the formation, and, if it exceeds the formation strength for a given failure criterion, failure will occur leading to sand production from the well. In addition to the energy loss due to Darcian flow, the pressure drawdown must overcome the following flow impairments. 1. 2. 3. Radial flow convergence, momentum effects, and permeability damage due to near-wellbore stress field. Wellbore flow impairment, such as partial penetration, perforation, and skin damage. Damage existing away from the wellbore due to fluid and fines invasion (i.e., damage from production).

2. 3. 4.

Sand Control During Production Experience has shown that there is a critical production rate below which sand production is manageably decreased. The critical production rate could possibly be at a non-economic production level. Therefore it is worthwhile to determine what this rate will be before designing a completion strategy for a given formation. Figure 8 presents a field correlation between the wellhead pressure and the amount of sand produced in one of the reservoirs in Saudi Arabia5. Several models using empirical or analytical solutions have been presented in the literature. Many models used the Mohr-Coulomb criterion to predict the critical drawdown pressure based on shear failure and using the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS). The value of UCS was calculated using conventional samples and hollow cylinder samples.

All these factors cause additional pressure drawdown near the wellbore that causes sand production. Creating a short conductive fracture transforms the radial flow into linear flow

SPE 81492

To predict sanding tendency during production, one must answer two relavant questions: 1. 2. What failure mechanism is responsible for sand production. Whar pressure drawdown is relavant to this failure mechanism.

otherwise an effective completion strategy should be considered to bring the well production to its potential limit. To prevent this type of failure, a conductive fracture should be placed in the damaged area to reduce skin and bring local pressure drawdown below the tensile strength of the formation. Equation (12) must be used with care as it goes through a singularity when s = 0 . It should only be used when Ps calculated from equation (11) is greater than or equal to the tensile strength of the formation. A typical FracPac treatment will yield a negative skin factor, which will remove the restriction of creating tensile failure near the wellbore for most formations. Case Histories Well A: A screenless completion was applied to control sand production in this well, as it exhibited high sanding tendencies during an open-hole DST. Wellbore breakouts indicated a minimum stress orientation of N10W. Oriented perforation was used to place the perforations along the anticipated fracture plane (N80E) in a relatively competent interval (14070-14100), using 2-7/8 guns @ 6 SPF. The data frac treatment showed an efficiency of 31-39%, with a bottom-hole closure pressure of 11600 psi, giving a 0.83 psi/ft fracture gradient. Time-laps temperature logs showed fracture height extension above and below the perforation interval. The treatment utilized fibers for Proppant flow-back control, where the job was designed for 118000 lbs of 20/40ISP tailed-in by 283000 lbs of 20/40 ISP/Fiber. Net pressure calculations during the job were taken from surface readout only. Based solely on the closure pressure of 11600 psi the treatment generated 2800 psi of net pressure with an ISIP of 14385 psi. Tip screenout occurred at the 8 ppa stage, and upon shut-down the well was force-closed by flowing back till closure + 30 Bbls (Figure 9) The well-bore was cleaned out with coiled tubing, and then the well was flowed back through a Sand Management System (SMS). The SMS uses a hydrocyclone to knock out produced solids without flow interruption. The well produced a total of 4400 lbs of solids before cleaning up to 35 MMSCFD solidsfree rate (<0.03 lbs solids/MMSCFD.) The well was put on-line in September, 2001 with an initial rate of 35 MMSCFD solid-free @ 4800 psi WHP. After producing for a year, neither of the wells choke nor its downstream sand probe showed any signs of sand production. The flow rate has steadily declined to 22 MMSCFD @ 3300 psi due to reservoir depletion, confirmed by a recent PBU showing 2000 psi of reservoir pressure decline. The wells performance shows the screenless pack holding after the onset of multi-phase flow in the reservoir, and the increase in stress caused by the pressure depletion.

As it has been explained above, shear failure may occur near a wellbore during drilling where a plastic zone is established. During production, however, we will establish a sever pressure drawdown near the wellborewhich will exert tensile and cohesive forces within the plastic region. Therefore if the pressure drawdown approaches tensile and/or cohesive strength, sand pieces and/or sand partices will be generated. Mobilization of these solids will depend on dragging force of the produced hydrocarbon. Lets examine the tensile failure occurring in the damaged zone as the pressure drops abruptly. The perforation wall separates the two pressures; Pw and Pr . The abrupt change across the perforation wall can occur due to physical or mechanical damage. This abrupt change in pressure can be evaluated as a pressure loss due to skin. Skin represents many factors related to physical, mechanical, turbulent flow, partial penetration, etc. The skin factor is best determined from pressure transient tests. The pressure drawdown for oil well, near the wellbore and due to skin is given by:

Ps = (

q sc B0 0.00708 K h

)s

(11)

If this pressure drawdown approaches the tensile strength of the formation, sand will fail and sand production is triggered. The critical production rate can be calculated as follows:

q critical =

0.00708 K h T , Bo s

for Ps T (12)

For example, if K=200 md, h=100ft, T=150psi, =2.2cp, s=7, Re=1489ft, Rw=0.5ft, Pav=1850psi, Bo=1.1, Pw=1230psi. The potential production rate is determined from the following equation:

From Equation (11) Ps is calculated as 303.35 psi, which is higher than the tensile strength. Therefore we can use equation (12) to determine the critical production rate to be 1253.8 STB/d. Therefore, for the given drawdown, the well potentially produces 2546 STB/d; however, it must be restricted to 1253.8 STB/d for sand control. If this is an economical rate, no sand control measure is necessary,

SPE 81492

Well B This well showed very good reservoir development with two distinct porosity lobes separated by a 20 barrier @ 13840. The decision was taken to stimulate the well in two stages due to that barrier. Oriented perforating was used to perforate the bottom zone along the same plane as Well A in a relatively competent zone (13882-13910) using 3-3/8 guns @6 SPF guns. Gauges were run during the data frac/calibration treatment showing near-wellbore pressure losses in the order of 250 psi, a closure pressure of 11780 psi with an efficiency of 39%, and a fracture gradient of 0.84 psi/ft. To provide greater Proppant flow-back control RCP with fiber was used. The main job was designed to place 118000 Ibs of 20/40 ISP, 84000 Ibs of 20/40 ISP/Fiber, & 198000 Ibs 16/20 RCP/Fiber using 12000 gals of pad. A tip screenout occurred earlier than expected, at the 8 ppa stage, with 115000 Ibs of 20/40 ISP in the formation. At this point the treatment was accelerated to 1012 PPA stage to get the 16/20 RCP/fiber (10% fiber by volume) into the formation. 117000 Ibs of the RCP/ fiber stage were placed into the formation before the maximum BHTP was reached (Figure 10). The final net pressure at the end of the job reached 4100 psi. The wellbore was cleanedout with coiled tubing, after which the well was flowed back through the SMS to a solid-free rate of 45 MMSCFD. The well produced only 2 kgs of Proppant during the cleanup, higher flowrates were not attainable due to surface temperature limitations on the SMS. The well was put on-line in September, 2001 with the initial rate of 45 MMSCFD @ 4800 psi. The well continues to produce 40 MMSCFD solids-free @ 3100 psi. 1500 psi of reservoir depletion has been observed in a recent PBU, which demonstrates the screenless packs integrity under multi-phase flow conditions and increased stress. Conclusions 1. Sand control should be considered from the time a given formation is being exposed to drilling fluids. Sand control methods during drilling, completion, and production have been presented. 2. The chemical and mechanical effect must be considered to design for fluids selection and completion methods tailored toward sand control. 3. The pressure drawdown relavent to sanding tendency is skin dominated and can be calculated from well testing. This will eliminate the need to assume that all the pressure drawdown from the drainage radius to the area near the wellbore to be zero, hence conservative critical production rate is determined. 4. Models that calculate critical pressure drawdown based on shear failure will not provide reasonable simulation of in-situ conditions. The pressure drawdown is the dragging force that causes sand production. This dragging force is best related to the tensile and cohesive failures. A critical production rate calculation is presented based on skin damage and tensile strength/cohesive strength.

5.

Screenless Fracturing completion with oriented and selective perforation can eliminate all failure modes in a given formations. A FracPack design must yield a dimensionless fracture conductivity of at least 1 to be efficient in controlling sand production.

Nomenclature Bo c Cb Co FCD G H Kr Kf Lf Pr Pw qsc rp rw s T Wf = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB Cohesive strength (cohesion), psi Bulk compressibility, psi-1 Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), psi Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity Shear modulus, psi Pay-zone thickness, ft Reservoir permeability, md Fracture permeability, md Fracture length, ft Reservoir pressure, psi Wellbore pressure, psi Rate, STB/day Radius of perforation tunnel, ft Wellbore radius, ft Skin Tensile strength, psi Fracture width, in Poroelastic constant Drawdown pressure, psi Critical Drawdown pressure, psi Viscosity, cp Poissons ratio Effective stress, psi Stress, psi Maximum horizontal stress, psi

Stress

p pcc

H ,max

n r

Radial stress, psi Effective tangential stress, with being the angle measured counterclockwise relative to the maximum horizontal stress, psi Porosity, % or fraction Internal friction angle, degrees Shear strength, psi

= = =

Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the Saudi Arabian Oil Company for granting permission to publish this paper.

SPE 81492

References 1. Al-Qahtani, M. and Rahim, Z.:A Mathematical Algorithm for Modeling Geomechanical Rock Properties of the Khuff and Pre-Khuff Reservoirs in Ghawar Field, Paper SPE 68194 presented at the 2001 SPE Middle East 2. Abass, H.H., Wilson, J.M., Venditto, J.J., and Voss, R.E.: Stimulating Weak Formations Using New Hydraulic Fracturing and Sand Control Approaches, paper SPE 25494 presented at the Production Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, OK, USA, March 21-23, 1993 3. Tixier, M.P., Loveless, G.W., and Anderson, R.A.:Estimation of Formation Strength From the Mechanical Properties Log, JPT (March 1975) 283-293. 4. Solares, J.R., Bartko, K.M., and Habbtar, A.H.:Pushing the Envelope: Successful Hydraulic Fracturing for Sand Control Strategy in High Gas Rate Screenless Completion in the Jauf Reservoir, Saudi Arabia, Paper SPE 73724 presented at the SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayatte, Louisiana, Feb 20-21, 2002. 5. Bazanti, M.S. and Desai, S.: Sand Production Model for Safania Field, paper SPE 19035, Unsolicited. 6. Abass, H.H., Meadows, D.L., Bruumley, J.L., Hedayati, S., and Venditto, J.J.:Oriented Perforation A Rock Mechanics View, SPE paper 28555 presented at the 1994 Annual Technical Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 25-28.Oil Show, Bahrain, 17-20 March. SI Metric Conversion Factors = mm2 in2 645.16 F (F 32)1.8 = C ft 3.048* E-01 = m psi 6.894757 E+00 = kPa in 2.54* E+00 = cm lbm 4.535924 E-02 = kg *Conversion Factor is Exact

*

Effect of Drilling Fluids on Compressive strength at 5 Mpa Cnfining

50 40 30 20 10 0 Dry WB OB 1st loading 2nd loading

FracPack FracPack

Plastic Zone

EC06W11

Figure 4: Selective-oriented Perf. and FracPack application. Figure 1: A single calcite crystal cements a large number of detrital clastic grains. Such fabrics are most common in clastic sediments where a few carbonate grains may act as nuclei for very large cement crystals.

SPE 81492

Sand A

SAND PROD.(Ib/1000bbls) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 FLOW RATE(bbI/day)

94 84 74 64 54 44 15000

Sand B

15200

15400

15600

15800

16000

Depth, (ft)

Figure 9: Field correlation between production rate and amount of sand produced.

Net Press. (JobData) - psi Net Press. (PropFRAC) - psi Slurry Rate - bbl/min Prop Conc - PPA Saudi Aramco Hawiyah 200 Frac_Revised_Schedule 15/12/00

FracCADE*

16000 14000

Net Pressure Match 5000

50

14

UCS, psi

N e t P re s s . - p s i

12

y = 12213e

-0.0629x

4000

40 10 S lu r r y R a t e - b b l/ m in P ro p C o n c - P P A

3000

30

2000

20

4 1000 10 2

Porosity, %

Figure 6: UCS vs Porosity Correlation.

16000

*Mark of Schlumberger

10

20

40

50

60

14000 12000

UCS, psi

Surface Pressure [psi] Injection Rate [bbl/min] 20000 Calculated BHP [psi] Proppant_Conc [PPA] Annulus Pressure [psi] Prop_Conc_BH [PPA] 50

18000

45

y = 1409.7e

0.2828x

16000 40

14000

35

Figure 7: UCS vs. Youngs Modulus Correlation.

Pressure [psi]

12000

30

10000

25

8000

20

6000

15

4000

10

2000

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

- How Well Do We ...IWLSC 2013Hochgeladen vonrazvanfcs
- QAQC MANUAL - Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing Manual_V1_Jul04Hochgeladen vonSatori Grant
- SPECIMEN LONG QUIZ 1 (2).docxHochgeladen vonNikki Albios
- Fracturing Engineering Manual-Data FRAC ServiceHochgeladen vonCalota Constantin
- Li Qui Faction 1Hochgeladen vonAngela Briggs
- C3 - Frac Model Input DataHochgeladen vonAli Zareeforoush
- Chapter 09 - FracturePressureHochgeladen vondwiokkysaputra
- 3d Finiter Element Analysis of Pipe Soil InteractionHochgeladen vonaraqued
- Soil Behaviors - Bahan Kuliah TSA ESA USA and Shanseep - Dr Endra SusilaHochgeladen vonviqri
- Tutorial 11 Geogrid Embankment (No Slip)Hochgeladen vonMarcos Ma
- HF2D06.docHochgeladen vonjuangar1992
- Reservoir GeomechanicsHochgeladen vonzztannguyenzz
- Simplified Numerical Method for Evaluation OfHochgeladen vonAhmad Mahmoud Ahmad
- Ch.2 LiquefactionHochgeladen vonMuhammad Abubakar
- Landslides.pdfHochgeladen vonlohitsn
- Effects of Random Fibre Inclusion on Consolidation, k, Swelling EtcHochgeladen vonsravyasai13
- Shallows FoundationHochgeladen vonMaria Vencentcia
- Peak Andresidualstrengthcharacteristicsofcement TreatedsoilcuredunderHochgeladen vonHayder Hasan
- 471-482_StefanussenHochgeladen vonbufalote
- Stress Strain Analysis of SoilsHochgeladen vonAlexandru Hernest
- ASTM D 4767_CU TestHochgeladen vonKaram Jaradat
- Li_Xiaojun_2015 Skirted Foundation ReportHochgeladen vonRahul Kolate
- Strength of Materials - Mechanical Engineering Questions and Answers Page 8Hochgeladen vonviswamanoj
- F2018Hochgeladen vonHernando Andrés Ramírez Gil
- Bolting Course Day 1-1Hochgeladen vonmarcelo
- Mohr-coulomb Criterion December 2016 v0Hochgeladen vonHernán
- 1-s2.0-S0266352X15000944-mainHochgeladen vonanar
- Use...FRPGridReinforcedSlabs[1]Hochgeladen vonrtoutlaw32
- Thesis Akanshu Final OnlineHochgeladen vonkamalsharma2014

- Using Microfossils in Petroleum ExplorationHochgeladen vonGeorge Georgiadis
- 138318054 Hunter J May 2013 Extending the Viper USAF F 16 Upgrades in Detail Combat Aircraft Vol 14 No 5Hochgeladen vonLuiz Alves
- Notas de Canto de Pagina Do Sea WolfHochgeladen vonAntonio Jose da Costa
- An_Air_Force_Strat.pdfHochgeladen vonAntonio Jose da Costa
- Glossary of Oilfield Production Terminology 050322Hochgeladen vondoynov
- Well Logging BasicsHochgeladen vonANDY ABANUM
- 93442540-V2HPHT-Course-Handout.pdfHochgeladen vonAntonio Jose da Costa
- GLOSSARY drill tube.pdfHochgeladen vonAntonio Jose da Costa
- Well testHochgeladen vongo25101992
- MWD GlossaryHochgeladen vonAntonio Jose da Costa
- Drilling Rig Components (Illustrated Glossary)Hochgeladen vonJ Paolo Villarroel
- Dictionar de Petrol Si GazeHochgeladen vonLaPoupee
- The Language of DrillingHochgeladen vonAntonio Jose da Costa
- North Sea GeologyHochgeladen vonoturens
- Geology Middle EastHochgeladen vonElena Belocosov
- 50092652-Notes-Geology-of-Ghana.pdfHochgeladen vonAntonio Jose da Costa
- Campos Basin - Rig PositionsHochgeladen vonAntonio Jose da Costa
- q921-re1-20lec5-20v1-131102221039-phpapp02Hochgeladen vonAntonio Jose da Costa
- CharacterHochgeladen vonVasundhara Singh
- MdtHochgeladen vonAbraham Montes Humanez
- MDT Job Plan InterpretationHochgeladen vonAntonio Jose da Costa
- JPSE 13992162-Optimal-determination-HerschelBulkley-rheol-paramaterskelessidis.pdfHochgeladen vonAntonio Jose da Costa
- SPE 62731 - 61140450-10-Reasons-to-Rethink-Hydraulics-and-Rheology.pdfHochgeladen vonAntonio Jose da Costa
- Well Log Response Chart-hires.pdfHochgeladen vonAntonio Jose da Costa
- Well Log Response ChartHochgeladen vonAntonio Jose da Costa

- 10.1.1.80.2723Hochgeladen vonAbraham2211
- Model for the Lateral Behavior of RCC Columns- Setzler and sezen.pdfHochgeladen vonSaurabh Bansal Bansal
- 23. Earthquake Response and Design Criteria of Prestressed cHochgeladen vonankursonicivil
- Oldroyd B FluidHochgeladen vonAslıhan örüm
- structural systemsHochgeladen vontejaswini
- Prediction of Punching Shear Failure Behaviour With Varying Opening and Column ParametersHochgeladen vonboubress
- Nazmy a.S. Three Dimensional Nonlinear Static Analysis of Cable Stayed Bridges 1990Hochgeladen vonbipinsh01
- 7-Nominal (Engineering) Stress and True StressHochgeladen voncena3135
- Strength of Material 1 - Hooke s Law Tensile Test EdHochgeladen vonDanielRao
- 800Hochgeladen vonMuruganantham Muthuvelu
- Module 02 Physics(1)Hochgeladen vonSabeeka Batoul
- Engineers Edge - Reference Data for EngineersHochgeladen vonKeith Admin
- R6_Design of RC Columns and Walls p.13Hochgeladen vonkongl
- Landing GearHochgeladen vonacar1
- IJETT-V26P230Hochgeladen vonperules
- Measurements of the Reduction Due to Proof Loads of Residual Stresses in Simulated Pressure Vessel WeldsHochgeladen vonSteve Hornsey
- Chapter 1Hochgeladen vonAmmara Waheed
- Hilti - Fastening Technology Manual - FTM_2011_001 Web With CoverHochgeladen vonHafiz Kamal
- 5_5. Elastic Constitutive ModelsHochgeladen vonsaxlamag
- 1786Hochgeladen vonbappadasju
- cap plate trial calculationHochgeladen vonStar
- mud facts (2)Hochgeladen vonShamia Essam
- Moment Baseplate DesignHochgeladen vonNeil Jones
- Finite Element Modeling and Cutting Simulation of Inconel 718Hochgeladen vonAnonymous AjEedIk81
- ELASTOMEROS.pdfHochgeladen vonBeatriz Bautista Gutierrez
- Debonding of Circular Second Phase ParticlesHochgeladen vonJorge Luis
- 2005-SDEE_Response of Three Athens Metro Underground Structures in the 1999 Parnitha EarthquakeHochgeladen vonNanna Shivu
- Bauschinger EffectHochgeladen vonBishowkumar Shrestha
- On the Behavior of Fiberglass Epoxy Composites under Low Velocity Impact LoadingHochgeladen vonMustafa Yiğitaslan
- D2094-00(2014) Standard Practice for Preparation of Bar and Rod Specimens for Adhesion TestsHochgeladen vonjose flores

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.