Sie sind auf Seite 1von 27

GOHFER Variable Sensitivity

GOHFER Variable Sensitivity

BASE MATCH OF SIMULATED DATA

Actual Data – Dashed Lines Simulated Data – Solid Lines 35# HPG w/ 20/40 Badger
Actual Data – Dashed Lines
Simulated Data – Solid Lines
35# HPG w/ 20/40 Badger Sand

BASE FRACTURE GEOMETRY

BASE FRACTURE GEOMETRY

PRESSURE COMPARISON - WIDTH EXPONENT = 2.8

Actual Data – Dashed Lines Simulated Data – Solid Lines Less pressure gain because of
Actual Data – Dashed Lines
Simulated Data – Solid Lines
Less pressure gain because of higher flow capacity in fracture.
Lower pressure drop down the fracture makes the final ISIP lower
than the base case. (appropriate for gelled treatments)

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON DECREASE IN WIDTH EXPONENT

Base Fracture Geometry The created fracture geometry has less width because of the lower net
Base Fracture Geometry
The created fracture geometry has less width because of the lower net pressure, and
generates longer length as the fluid can move more easily.

PRESSURE COMPARISON - WIDTH EXPONENT = 3.2

Actual Data – Dashed Lines Simulated Data – Solid Lines Increased pressure drop down the
Actual Data – Dashed Lines
Simulated Data – Solid Lines
Increased pressure drop down the fracture makes the
pressure trend upward through the job and results in a
higher ISIP. (appropriate for slickwater treatments)

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON INCREASE IN WIDTH EXPONENT

Base Fracture Geometry The higher net pressure increases the fracture width and reduces length.
Base Fracture Geometry
The higher net pressure increases the fracture width and reduces length.

PRESSURE COMPARISON TORTUOSITY = 100

Actual Data – Dashed Lines Simulated Data – Solid Lines Increase in observed treating pressure
Actual Data – Dashed Lines
Simulated Data – Solid Lines
Increase in observed treating pressure due to high near wellbore
pressure loss. Tortuosity erodes linearly with the mass of proppant
pumped. Early time treating pressure is more affected. ISIP has no
change as the tortuosity pressure drop disappears on shut-in.

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON INCREASE IN TORTUOSITY

Base Fracture Geometry No impact on fracture geometry
Base Fracture Geometry
No impact on fracture geometry

PRESSURE COMPARISON CD = 0.5

Actual Data – Dashed Lines Simulated Data – Solid Lines Lower perforation entry coefficients (less
Actual Data – Dashed Lines
Simulated Data – Solid Lines
Lower perforation entry coefficients (less efficient perforations)
leads to early increase in observed treating pressure. Addition of
proppant through perfs will increase coefficient. No change in ISIP.
A much lower CD will generate a more rapid and almost exponential
decrease in treating pressure.

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON DECREASE IN COEFFICIENT OF DISCHARGE

Base Fracture Geometry No impact on fracture geometry
Base Fracture Geometry
No impact on fracture geometry

PRESSURE COMPARISON CD = 0.9

Actual Data – Dashed Lines Simulated Data – Solid Lines Higher perforation entry coefficients (more
Actual Data – Dashed Lines
Simulated Data – Solid Lines
Higher perforation entry coefficients (more efficient perforations)
leads to early decrease in observed treating pressure. Addition of
proppant through perfs will increase coefficient. No change in ISIP.

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON INCREASE IN COEFFICIENT OF DISCHARGE

Base Fracture Geometry No impact on fracture geometry
Base Fracture Geometry
No impact on fracture geometry

PRESSURE COMPARISON MODULUS STIFFNESS = 0.001

Actual Data – Dashed Lines Simulated Data – Solid Lines Increase in the rate of
Actual Data – Dashed Lines
Simulated Data – Solid Lines
Increase in the rate of modulus change when the rock yields non-
linearly results in an increase in the slope of the treating
pressure with time, once CFOP is

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON INCREASE IN MODULUS STIFFNESS

Base Fracture Geometry Higher modulus leads to higher stress and fracture pressure. Fracture may grow
Base Fracture Geometry
Higher modulus leads to higher stress and fracture pressure. Fracture may grow out of
zone resulting in lower average width and proppant concentration.

PRESSURE COMPARISON MODULUS STIFFNESS = -0.001

Actual Data – Dashed Lines Simulated Data – Solid Lines Decrease in the rate of
Actual Data – Dashed Lines
Simulated Data – Solid Lines
Decrease in the rate of modulus change when the rock yields
non-linearly results in an decrease in the slope of the treating
pressure with time, once CFOP is exceeded.

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON DECREASE IN MODULUS STIFFNESS

Base Fracture Geometry Lower modulus leads to lower stress and fracture pressure. Fracture width grows
Base Fracture Geometry
Lower modulus leads to lower stress and fracture pressure. Fracture width grows larger
and possibly shorter resulting in higher average proppant concentration.

PRESSURE COMPARISON CXSP = 4 (DEFAULT - 2)

Actual Data – Dashed Lines Simulated Data – Solid Lines Higher pipe friction associated with
Actual Data – Dashed Lines
Simulated Data – Solid Lines
Higher pipe friction associated with the addition of proppant in
the pipe leads to increase in observed treating pressure. No
change in ISIP.

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON INCREASE IN SAND EXPONENT

Base Fracture Geometry No impact on fracture geometry
Base Fracture Geometry
No impact on fracture geometry

PRESSURE COMPARISON PHOLD = 1.7 (DEFAULT 1.2)

Actual Data – Dashed Lines Simulated Data – Solid Lines Increase in proppant holdup proppant
Actual Data – Dashed Lines
Simulated Data – Solid Lines
Increase in proppant holdup proppant results in additional proppant
being held-up by interference with the fracture walls. Proppant is
traveling at a slower velocity compared to the fluid. Increase in
observed treating pressure but no screenout in this case.

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON INCREASE IN PHOLD

Base Fracture Geometry Higher PHOLD results in shorter fracture and higher average proppant concentration due
Base Fracture Geometry
Higher PHOLD results in shorter fracture and higher average proppant concentration due to
more proppant being deposited near the wellbore.

PRESSURE COMPARISON PHOLD = 2.2

Actual Data – Dashed Lines Simulated Data – Solid Lines Additional increase in proppant holdup
Actual Data – Dashed Lines
Simulated Data – Solid Lines
Additional increase in proppant holdup proppant results in
earlier pressure increase and premature screenout (all
perforations blocked with proppant).

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON LARGER INCREASE IN PHOLD

Base Fracture Geometry Larger increase in PHOLD results in shorter fracture and higher average proppant
Base Fracture Geometry
Larger increase in PHOLD results in shorter fracture and higher average proppant
concentration due to more proppant being deposited near the wellbore and a screenout.

PRESSURE COMPARISON PHOLD V/H FACTOR = 1.5

Actual Data – Dashed Lines Simulated Data – Solid Lines Increase in PHOLD vertical to
Actual Data – Dashed Lines
Simulated Data – Solid Lines
Increase in PHOLD vertical to horizontal anisotropy (V/H)
increases the proppant holdup vertically across layers resulting
in early pressure increase and premature screenout.

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON INCREASE IN PHOLD V/H FACTOR

Base Fracture Geometry Increase in PHOLD V/H Factor results in shorter fracture and higher average
Base Fracture Geometry
Increase in PHOLD V/H Factor results in shorter fracture and higher average proppant
concentration due to more proppant being deposited (and distributed vertically) near the
wellbore and a screenout.

PRESSURE COMPARISON PZS V/H FACTOR = 1.2

Actual Data – Dashed Lines Simulated Data – Solid Lines Increase in PZS vertical to
Actual Data – Dashed Lines
Simulated Data – Solid Lines
Increase in PZS vertical to horizontal anisotropy increases the net
fluid pressure over the PZS to grow vertically compared to
horizontally. May result in increased observed treating pressure
due to higher fracture pressure.

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON INCREASE IN PZS V/H FACTOR

Base Fracture Geometry Increase in PZS V/H Factor may result in longer more contained fracture.
Base Fracture Geometry
Increase in PZS V/H Factor may result in longer more contained fracture. Negligible affect
on this example.