00 positive Bewertungen00 negative Bewertungen

118 Ansichten11 SeitenFRAC

Mar 14, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

FRAC

© All Rights Reserved

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

118 Ansichten

00 positive Bewertungen00 negative Bewertungen

FRAC

© All Rights Reserved

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

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

Operations Facilitates More Successful Completions

Richard C. Jannise, Halliburton, and William J. Edwards, Dune Energy

Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference

and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 30 October1 November 2007.

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, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract

Pressure limitations often prohibit engineers from placing

frac-pack sand-control treatments where they are needed the

most because of the collapse ratings of the bottomhole

assembly equipment. Often, these pressure limitations lead to

early abandonment of the well, or they create problems later in

the life of the well, because they do not allow for effective

sand-control, which inevitably will have a negative impact on

well economics. A new method, dynamic pMAX, used to

determine the amount of pressure exerted on the bottomhole

tools during the sand-control treatment, enables frac-pack

treatments that the industry once would have considered

impossible to achieve.

Introduction

Sand control methods were first implemented in order to

control the flow of fines during the production of

hydrocarbons. Initially, fines control was limited to standalone screens and consolidation treatments; however, as

technology progressed, new methods of sand control were

attained.1 The most notable of these new methods was the frac

pack, which became commonplace in the late 1980s and early

1990s for completing formations with high permeability. Fracpacks provide long-term stimulation similar to hard-rock

hydraulic fracturing treatments, and they control the

encroachment of small sand particles from soft formations.2

Although the frac pack could provide the capability to

stimulate the formation as well as control the formation fines,

high flow rates often induced proppant flow back. This

problem was best solved through the use of downhole tools.

Unfortunately, pressure limitations for the tools could impose

limits on the types of sand-control jobs that could be pumped,

and when modeling the maximum pressure for each job,

planned frac packs had to be cancelled due to the pressure

restrictions.

components, primarily with the lower casing extension and the

blank tubing. Engineers determined that the collapse ratings of

these components were exceeded when a hard pressure

screenout, which is one that occurs at fracturing rates and is

desirable in a soft rock environment, was achieved.3 The

hard screenout occurs after a tip screenout event and when

the fracture is completely full of sand or proppant. The

pressures seen during a hard screenout can rise excessively

above the anticipated treating pressure in a short period of

time, leading to unpredicted stress on the downhole assembly.

During this time, it was assumed that building more robust

equipment components was easier than attempting to predict

what was actually going to occur; however, the excessive

pressures could not always be anticipated.

With a new method that has recently been developed, it is

now possible to determine how much pressure can be

encountered before the job is run. This method, known as pMAX

prediction, allows the tool assembly to be designed with the

expected pressures in mind.

Bottomhole Assembly Review

To fully comprehend the effects of pressure on the bottomhole

tools necessitates an understanding of how the assembly for a

sand-control completion is arranged. This knowledge will help

the job designer not only recognize how pressures can be

detrimental to job placement, but also how this pressure, when

used in the proper manner, can help to put the frac-pack in

place. The completion can be broken into two segments for

easier understanding: the upper completion and the sand face

completion. This paper focuses on the sand-face completion.

The sump packer is below the screen at the lowest point of

the completion. The sump packer separates the zone of interest

from any lower zones or rathole using a seal assembly

attached to the screen. The screens, found in a variety of

meshes and designs, are sized to keep the gravel-pack sand

from flowing through it. Above the screen is the blank pipe,

which is nothing more than tubing and is used to ensure

enough sand/proppant is left above the screen to allow

adequate sand to fall out, should any voids be present across

the screen. Above the blank, a shear sub, which is used for

releasing the assembly from the blank and screen if fishing

becomes necessary, is typically found. Past the shear sub, the

fluid-loss device (FLD) is activated after the frac-pack is

performed to stop completion fluid from being lost to the

formation through the newly created fracture. Integral to the

SPE 109837

completion and above the FLD are the lower casing extension,

the closing sleeve, the upper casing extension, and the gravel

pack packer, through which the multi-position tool is situated.

The multi-position tool is illustrated in Fig. 2. The

purpose of this tool is to direct fluid and proppant from the

tubing to the formation without disturbing the screen.

Fluid moves out of the tubing by means of a cross-over

placed across the closing sleeve in the assembly. The multiposition tool has three positions the circulating position, the

squeeze position, and the reverse circulating position. The

circulating position (shown in Fig. 2) allows fluid to flow out

of the tubing, into the screen, and up the annulus with minimal

fluid flowing into the perforation unless the annulus is closed

at surface. If the annulus is closed, then the fluid will be

forced into the perforations. Squeeze position, which is shown

in Fig. 3, closes the port to the annulus at the service tool and

forces the fluid into the formation.

Reverse position allows for the fluid on the annulus to be

circulated to the tubing, thereby removing any excess proppant

or under-balanced fluids, as seen in Fig. 4.

By understanding the path of the fluid, it is much easier to

comprehend the components upon which the pressure is

acting, since the pressures affecting the tools take the same

path as the fluid.

Original Formula

Researchers have determined that five parameters affect

collapse of the components below the crossover ports:

Tubing pressure exerted from the surface

Collapse rating of the components in the assembly

The safety factor applied to the components

Reservoir pressure, otherwise known as bottomhole

pressure

Hydrostatic pressure in the workstring.4

From these parameters, engineers developed a

mathematical formula to determine the maximum surface

pump pressure allowed, or pMAX. Eq. 1 represents the

maximum pressure:

This formula fits for components run below the crossover

ports on the packer tool assembly, but it does not accurately

calculate the pressures affecting the packer itself. A different

set of parameters are needed to calculate the pressure

differential on the packer:

Tubing pressure exerted from the surface

Packer differential rating with the safety factor

included

Hydrostatic pressure in the tubing

Hydrostatic pressure in the annulus

Applied surface annulus pressure.5

PMAXP= pPackerDifferenti

c

alRating ptub_ hydrostat

+ pAnn_ hydrostati

c + pannulus

. . . . . . . . . . (2)

downhole components. The first formula has shown that the

lower the reservoir pressure is, the lower the pMAX number will

be. The low pMAX number makes obtaining an effective fracpack in wells with low bottomhole pressure (BHP) difficult

unless the equipment run is extremely robust. The highpressure rating on this equipment is not necessary for the

differential pressures seen during production, shut-in, or even,

post completion stimulation scenarios; the pressures that are

seen during the initial stimulation treatments are the primary

concern. The frac-pack scenario can lead to eliminating the

safety factor on frac-pack jobs in reservoirs with low BHP to

place a fracture. At first glance, this seems like a risky solution

to a complex problem, but to date, there are no documented

cases of downhole components collapsing when this technique

has been used. Since a safety factor has not been incorporated

into the equation, at least one failure should have occurred

over that amount of time, and none have. So, what is the

reason for the lack of a failure?

PMAX Generation Two

During the initial study, engineers believed applied surface

pressure was not transmitted to the bottomhole components

because of losses from friction pressure. Looking at the

bottomhole gauge data from various jobs, the friction issue

appears true except during the instance of a hard screenout.

In Fig. 5, which illustrates the mini-frac operation, the applied

surface pressure is not reaching bottom because of friction

losses. When the pump shuts down, the surface pressure

immediately drops by an amount equal to the friction-pressure

loss. This is true even in the presence of a water-hammer

effect, which is the pressure surge that will travel in the tubing

after shut down when the fluid attempts to compensate for the

sudden halt of movement.

Hard screenouts are illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7. The rate

at which pressure bled off after shutting down the pumps

during the hard screenout was slower than the rate of bleed

off when shutting down during the mini-frac. This indicates

that much more of the surface pressure is getting to the

bottomhole components during a hard screenout than during a

mini-frac.

In theory, the fluid on the bottom stops or slows

considerably at the point of screenout. Since fluids are nearly

incompressible, the stoppage moves rapidly up-hole. Once the

fluid has stopped moving, the majority of the friction-loss

effect dissipates. The surface pressure during the mini-frac

bleeds freely into the reservoir. During screenout, the fluid

pressure must move through the proppant bed laid out around

the screen before it can get to the reservoir, slowing its

movement considerably.

On many frac-pack jobs, pressure and temperature

memory gauges are run at or near the reservoir to track which

area of the reservoir is seeing fluid, and therefore, fracture

growth. Most commonly, engineers run these gauges in the

washpipe of the gravel-pack assembly inside the screen. When

reviewing job charts where this memory gauge data was

plotted along with surface pressures, the authors have noticed

that the pressure at the memory gauges increased significantly

when pumping at rates exceeding the fracture gradient. In

SPE 109837

of net pressure gain.

Fig. 8 illustrates the net pressure gain. The static BHP

recorded by the memory gauges in Fig. 8 is approximately

7,500 psi. As the fracturing rate of 25 bbls/min is reached, the

pressure increases to 9,100 psi initially and grows to 10,050

psi when we achieve the final screenout.

Using the gauge data from Fig. 8 and following pMAX

calculations, two assumptions for these calculations were

used:

The collapse pressure of the weak link below the sand

crossover port is 11,000 psi.

The hydrostatic pressure in the workstring is 8,000 psi.

The first calculation uses the static BHP:

ptub _ hydrostati c

The results show that 8,300 psi is allowed at surface before

the tool assembly would see failure. In the second calculation,

the effective BHP, as fracturing rates are achieved, is put into

the formula. The pMAX increases by 1,600 psi to 9,900 psi. This

is the exact amount of the difference in BHP. In the third

calculation, the final effective BHP seen at screenout is used.

This time, the PMAX is increase to 10,850 psi, an increase of

2,550 psi over the original calculation.

All of these pMAX pressures appear to be adequate, but what

will happen in wells with low BHPs? To determine this, the

same calculations should be made, but the original BHP of the

reservoir is changed to 1,800 psi. PMAX is now 2,600 psi. To

place a frac pack in a maximum working pressure of 2,600 psi

would be very difficult. If the BHP is raised by 1,600 psi to

3,400 psi, the effective BHP increases as we reach fracturing

rates (the pMAX becomes 4,200 psi), which allows a much

better possibility of achieving an effective frac-pack. It is no

longer necessary to increase the collapse rating of the

downhole equipment to achieve the frac-pack required for the

formation.

In the last calculation, the reservoir pressure was increased

by 2,550 psi to 4,350 psi, the same increase as seen in the

previous third calculation. This pressure is the effective BHP

at screenout. This pMAX, 5,150 psi, provides the best

opportunity for an effective frac-pack without the need to use

expensive higher-collapse components. These examples prove

that the pMAX varies with BHP but can be overcome in wells

with low BHP by use of the effective BHP.

Dynamic PMAX

The next step in the evolution of the PMAX equation is

comprehension of how hydrostatic pressure in the tubing

changes as the job progresses. A typical frac-pack will either

increase the sand concentration in a ramp or step fashion to fill

the fracture as the job progresses while using less fluid. This

progression normally starts out at 1 lb of sand/proppant per

gallon of fluid and runs through a 12-ppg stage. As the

sand/proppant concentration increases, so does the hydrostatic

pressure of the fluid. In a sample problem using the previous

pressure on the maximum allowable pressure.

For this example, the depth is 10,000 ft TVD with

seawater (8.65 ppg) as the base fluid, an effective bottomhole

treating pressure (BHTP) of 5,000 psi, and the weak link of

the bottomhole assembly is set at 7,500 psi. The first

calculation is for a clean volume of fluid, which is

conventionally termed the pad.

p hydrostati

= (. 052 )( )( D )

p tub

_ hydrostati

p tub

_ hydrostati

= 4 , 498

hydrostatic pressure of 4,498 psi found above.

Now, if one supposes that a full column of 2 lbm of

proppant-added (ppa) fluid goes into the workstring, Eq. 4

will determine the fluid density where CS is the sand/proppant

concentration, and VABS is the absolute volume of the

sand/proppant.

slurry =

bf + CS

(Cs * VABS ) + 1

(4)

volume of 0.0456 gal/lbm, the density of the slurry would be

9.76 ppg. Plugging this density into Eq. 3 gives a hydrostatic

pressure of 5,075 psi. Applying this new hydrostatic pressure

to the pMAX equation shows a decrease in the amount of

allowable pressure from 6,502 to 5,925.

This concept is extremely important to understand, since

slurries typically can be made up of up to 12 ppa of fluid,

which is equivalent to a 13.35 ppg fluid. With a 12-ppa fluid,

the increase in fluid density would give a hydrostatic pressure

in the tubing of 6,942 psi, decreasing the pMAX to 4,058 psi for

the case above. Very rarely is an entire workstring volume of a

single sand/proppant loading seen; therefore, it is important to

remember that hydrostatic pressures are an additive to

determining the variable volumes effect on pMAX.

Also, even though the pMAX is decreasing as the job is

pumped because of the increase in hydrostatic pressure; the

surface treating pressure is decreasing for the exact same

reason. Eq. 5 represents the effects of hydrostatic pressure on

the surface treating pressure.

This equation shows how an increased hydrostatic pressure

would decrease the surface treating pressure, which in turn,

can help with any pMAX concerns during the job.

Determination of PMAX Pre-Job

The estimation of pMAX prior to the job is necessary, as stated

previously, to determine the effect on the BHA, which will

ensure that the job can be placed properly. The importance of

this property makes it a good idea to formulate estimates of

certain parameters, which will lead to estimating pMAX. The

SPE 109837

since leading manufacturers have conducted years of testing

on various tubular products within the assembly.5 The

hydrostatic pressure in the tubing can be calculated simply

enough by looking at the proposed pumping schedule and

determining how the fluid and sand concentrations affect the

density over the course of the job. The hardest parameter to

predict is the BHTP; however, with a few simple assumptions,

it is possible to estimate this parameter!

To determine the BHTP over the course of the frac-pack,

estimation of the frac gradient is necessary. Eatons equation6

can be used to give an approximation of the fracture gradient

through the use of the vertical overburden gradient and the

minimum matrix stress. This approximation gives very

reliable results and has been checked against actual formation

fracture gradients for correlation.

Once the fracture pressure is determined, only two more

barriers standing in the way of modeling PMAX remain:

1. The first is to determine the amount of pressure increase

to expect throughout the job once the tip screenout event has

occurred. This will vary by formation and is completely

determined by the strength of the rock or the Youngs

modulus. Since this is a very complex calculation, a worst

case assumption should be developed, and the model should

be based on that assumption. A rule of thumb used in soft-rock

frac-packs is to attempt to gain 1,000 psi of net pressure

once the tip screenout event has been witnessed. Taking this

into account, the net pressure to the treating pressure

calculated from Eatons equation should be added to give the

maximum treating pressure throughout the job.

2. The second barrier, the difference between surface and

BHP, only requires the user to make any hydrostatic

adjustments necessary.

One important factor to remember is that the PMAX should

be recalculated once the actual effective treating pressure has

been determined from the mini-frac. This will give the actual

pressures being applied to the tools.

Determination of PMAX During the Job

The annular area between the workstring and the casing can

provide a huge advantage when pumping and analyzing fracpacks on a real-time basis. Since the annular area is devoid

of the majority of friction effects while the job is being

pumped, it can give a clear understanding of the pressures

being seen at the formation. Taking into account the

hydrostatic pressure of the fluid in the annulus area, calculate

the effective BHTP during the job.

Eq. 6 shows how to take the annulus pressure into account.

+ pAnn

. . . (6)

added to the static BHP. This equation is similar to previous

equations but has been simplified to explain how to use the

variables during an actual job.

When using the method described in Eq. 6, an accurate

pressure reading from the annulus is very important. Pressure

is transferred to the annulus from the formation by moving

described. The pressure then exits into the annulus through the

circulation ports above the packer. Since pressure is traveling

through the service tool, any sort of blockage would distort the

pressure reading and could have severe implications.

Therefore, the service tool must be completely open to flow

internally to alleviate any concern.

Several jobs have been recorded where the annulus

appeared higher than the actual pressure seen from bottomhole

gauges.7 The pressure on the annulus is not allowed to leak off

to the formation because of the presence of a check valve in

the service tool. Using a higher annulus pressure or BHP than

is actually present can cause an engineer to feel overconfident

in the pMAX.

Case Study

Table 1 shows two wells that are nearly identical, except for

the BHP, and therefore, the completion fluid weight differs.

Using only the static BHP in the pMAX formula, the authors

obtained two different numbers. In well B, more robust,

expensive completion equipment was necessary to place an

effective frac-pack. Note that during the frac-pack, the

effective BHP increased by 2,500 psi. This pressure advantage

was not used to predict PMAX. In well A, a similar

circumstance occurred except that the higher BHP allowed for

a PMAX that was adequate to put the job in the ground.

Taking the same comparison, but using the effective BHP

instead of using the static BHP, different numbers were

achieved. The dynamic method increases the pMAX numbers in

both wells. The dynamic method is especially useful in the

low BHP well. Whereas the pMAX was 4,922 psi prior to the

implementation of the dynamic method, it increased to 7,422,

an improvement of 2,500 psi. Table 2 shows the difference in

the pMAX numbers. The likelihood of achieving an effective

stimulation in both wells A and B is now greatly improved.

The increased pMAX numbers accurately represent what is

occurring during a frac-pack job. This is evidenced by the

downhole gauge data. In the preceding two scenarios, using

the static BHP to calculate pMAX would be equivalent to

applying only a 56% safety factor to the weak link rather than

the 80% factor used in the equations.

Case History

Figures 9 and 10 are a graphical representation of actual

pressure calculations and recordings taken during the pumping

of two separate frac packs on the same zone in the same well

bore. In Figure 9 the calculated value for PMAX is plotted as

well as the recorded values for Surface Pressure, Backside

Pressure, and Slurry Rate, Proppant Concentration both

Surface and Bottom Hole. The PMAX curve calculation was

based on the changing hydrostatic pressure in the work string

and the static Bottom Hole Pressure.

A PMAX curve

calculation based on the Bottom Hole Treating Pressure was

not used. The pump rate had to be reduced several times

during the pumping of the job because the surface pump

pressure was approaching the PMAX limit. One could conclude

that this caused the frac pack to screen-out prematurely, or

before the proppant concentration at the perforations reached

the design maximum of 12 ppg.

SPE 109837

Annulus PMAX are plotted as well as Surface Pressure,

Backside Pressure, and Slurry Rate, Proppant Concentration

both Surface and Bottom Hole. The Live Annulus PMAX curve

calculation was based on the changing hydrostatic pressure in

the work string as well as the Bottom Hole Treating Pressure.

Note that the surface pressure crosses above the PMAX line, but

remains below the Live Annulus PMAX line. It was not

necessary to reduce the pump rate. Due to the knowledge of

the additional support provided by the Bottom Hole Treating

Pressure the job was allowed to continue to a successful

conclusion with the bottom hole proppant concentration

reaching the design maximum of 12 ppg before screen-out.

Conclusions

All future frac-packs in which bottomhole tools are present

should be placed while using a dynamic PMAX. This method

leads to several key advantages, which include the following:

The use of static BHP to predict the maximum pressure

on the downhole tools gives drastic differences when

compared to using the effective BHTP to determine the

maximum allowable pressure.

Calculating the PMAX in a dynamic manner provides the

possibility of effective frac-pack stimulation without the risk

of collapse, assuming realistic values are applied to the

parameters in the formula.

The dynamic PMAX calculation can be applied to future

jobs when using predicted downhole fracture pressures and an

estimated tip screen-out pressure.

When using the dynamic PMAX technique, it is imperative

to have an accurate pressure reading from the annular area.

Avoid the use of a check valve, even a weeping check, since

the check valve could mask any loss of effective BHTP during

the job.

treatments to be placed in circumstances where frac-packs

were once deemed impossible. This opens the opportunity for

greater production from these wells.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the management of Dune Energy

and Halliburton for their help and encouragement in

developing this analytical calculation and their permission to

publish this paper.

References

1. Duhon, P., Holley, A., Gardiner, N., Grigsby, T.: New

Completion Techniques Applied to a Deepwater Gulf of Mexico

TLP Completion Successfully Gravel Pack an Openhole

Horizontal Interval of 2400 Feet, SPE Paper 50146 presented

at the 1998 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and

Exhibition held in Perth, Australia, 12-14 October 1998.

2. Halliburton Internal Investigation beginning in 2000.

3. Tiner, R.L., Ely, J.W., Schrafnagel, R.: Frac-packs State of the

Art, paper SPE 36456 presented at 1996 Annual Technical

Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, 6-9 October.

4. Halliburton Internal Investigation beginning in 2000 involving tool

collapse on frac-pack treatments.

5. Bulletin. 5C3, Halliburton Cementing Tables, sixth edition, API,

Houston, TX (October 1994).

6. Bourgoyne Jr. A.T., et al.: Applied Drilling Engineering, Textbook

Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1991), 291.

7. Hale, C.L. et al: Is Live Annulus Data Interpretation During

Frac Pack Operations Viable Information?, Paper SPE 86461

presented at the 2004 International Symposium and Exhibition

on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18-20

February.

SPE 109837

Table 1 Shows the parameters used and the Pmax obtained for well A and well B in

the case-study example. The lower the BHP, the lower the Pmax.

Well A

Well B

TVD

10,000

ft

TVD

10,000

ft

BHT

150

F

BHT

150

F

BHP

6,500

psi

BHP

3,500

psi

Fluid Wt.

13.00

ppg

Fluid Wt.

8.60

ppg

Packer Rating

8,000

psi

Packer Rating

8,000

psi

Slurry Density

13.42

ppg

Slurry Density

13.42

ppg

Weaklink

10,500

psi

Weaklink

10,500

psi

7,961

psi

4,961

psi

pMAX

pMAX

Applied BHP

2,500

psi

Applied BHP

2,500

psi

Table 2 Well A and well B after the implementation of the dynamic method. The Pmax has been

increased on each well by 2,500 psi, which is equivalent to the effective BHP.

Well A

Well B

TVD

10,000

ft

TVD

10,000

ft

BHT

150

F

BHT

150

F

BHP

6,500

psi

BHP

3,500

psi

Fluid Wt.

13.00

ppg

Fluid Wt.

8.60

ppg

Packer Rating

8,000

psi

Packer Rating

8,000

psi

Slurry Density

13.42

ppg

Slurry Density

13.42

ppg

Weaklink

10,500

psi

Weaklink

10,500

psi

10,461

psi

7,422

psi

pMAX

pMAX

Applied BHP

2,500

psi

Applied BHP

2,500

psi

SPE 109837

MULTI-POSITION TOOL

GRAVEL PACK PACKER

FLOW SUB

CLOSING SLEEVE

INDICATOR COUPLING

POSITIONING COLLET

SHEAR JOINT

SCREENS

SUMP PACKER

packers separated by tubulars and screen.

SPE 109837

annulus at the service tool and forces the fluid into

the formation.

annulus to be circulated to the tubing, removing any

excess proppant or under-balanced fluids.

SPE 109837

Minifrac

A

12000

BH Gauge Pressure (psi)

A BH Gauge Temperature (F)

F

B

50

F

140

135

10000

40

130

8000

30

6000

125

120

(F)

20

Friction

115

4000

110

10

2000

105

0

23:35

0

23:40

23:45

23:50

23:55

3/3/2003

00:00

00:05

3/4/2003

3/4/2003

100

Time

Fig. 5 Illustrates the mini-frac operation. The applied surface pressure is not reaching bottom because of friction

losses. When the pump shuts down, surface pressure drops by an amount equal to friction-pressure loss.

Prop p ant Conc (lb/gal)

BH Gauge Temp erature (F)

C BH Prop p ant Conc (lb/gal)

D

C BH Gauge Pressure (p si)

B

A

Hard Screen-out

10000

12

200

10

190

180

170

160

150

140

20

At 15 BPM

8000

6000

4000

15

10

2000

5

Difference is

friction pressure

loss increase

-2000

0

08:40

08:45

08:50

08:55

09:00

4 /2 9 /2 0 0 2

09:05

09:10

4 /2 9 / 2 0 0 2

Time

Fig. 6 Illustrates a hard screenout.

10

SPE 109837

A

10000

T u b in g P ress u re (p s i)

BH P ro p p an t Co n c (lb /gal)

BH G au ge P res s u re (p s i)

A

B

A

P ro p p an t Co n c (lb /gal)

BH G au ge P res s u re (p s i)

Slu rry T em p eratu re (F )

B

A

J

Slu rry T emp eratu re (F )

C

J

14

9000

8000

7000

10

6000

4000

3000

14

12

At 10

BPM

2000

4

2

0 6 :4 0

4 /3 /2 0 0 3

0 6 :5 0

0 7 :0 0

160

150

140

130

1000

170

16

10

J

180

(F)

5000

18

Hard

Screen out

12

C

20

0 7 :1 0

0 7 :2 0

Tim

Time

0 7 :3 0

0 7 :4 0

120

110

100

4 /3 /2 0 0 3

(hrs)

A

12000

B

30

10000

25

Slurry Rate (bpm)

BH Proppant C onc (lb/gal)

BHT Top Gauge (F)

BHT Middle Gauge (F)

BHT Bottom Gauge (F)

BHT Tubing Gauge (F)

BHT Annulus Gauge (F)

A

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

Proppant C onc (lb/gal)

BHP Top Gauge (psi)

BHP Middle Gauge (psi)

BHP Bottom Gauge (psi)

BHP Tubing Gauge (psi)

BHP Annulus Gauge (psi)

A

C

E

E

E

E

E

6000

20

16

4000

10

2000

14

15

D

200

18

10,050 psi

8000

C

20

180

160

12

Static

10

BHP

7,500 psi

6

4

0

22:30

1/8/2003

22:50

23:10

23:30

23:50

Time (hrs)

00:10

00:30

0

00:50

1/9/2003

Fig. 8 This graph shows the net pressure gain. The static BHP recorded by the memory

gauges is approximately 7,500 psi. As the fracturing rate of 25 bbls/min is reached, the

pressure increases to 9,100 psi initially and grows to 10,050 psi at final screenout.

11000

10000

9000

140

8000

120

100

2

0

E

12000

80

7000

6000

5000

SPE 109837

Fig. 9 Graphical representation of actual pressure calculations and recordings taken during the pumping of a frac

pack using only pMAX calculations based on static bottom hole pressure and the changing hydrostatic

pressure in the work string.

Fig. 10 Graphical representation of actual pressure calculations and recordings taken during the pumping of

a frac pack using pMAX calculations based on static bottom hole pressure and the changing

hydrostatic pressure in the work string as well as live annulus pMAX calculations based on bottom

hole treating pressure and the changing hydrostatic pressure in the work string.

11

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

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

Jederzeit kündbar.