Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ARTICLE
Abstract
A limited amount of published data is available which
presents results of hydraulic fracturing in waterflood operations. To add to this knowledge, this report presents
data resulting from frac programs performed in three different reservoirs. These programs were performed to effect both injectivity and productivity increases. The majority of applications were performed at a time during
flood life which affords valid and conclusive interpretation
of results.
Conclusions based upon results obtained from the frac
jobs mayor may not be indicative of benefits to be gained
in every field. Therefore, no panacea for lagging, negligible, or hesitant well performance is offered. However, it
is suggested that subpar well performance in waterflood
operations may be alleviated and improved by proper applications of the popular hydraulic fracturing technique.
A total of 20 producers and four injectors were treated
in the three fields. Only two applications can be termed
failures; these are believed to have been due to mechanical
features (sand-ou1t or improper frac technique).
Theoretically, the most beneficial fracture system for
flooding operations can be obtained by use of either low
injection volumes and high injection rates or medium injection volumes and low injection rates. A resultant multiple fracture system of limited radial distance from the
wellbore should occur.
Introduction
Requisite levels of well receptivity of productivity in
waterflood operations are not necessarily incurred in every operation. Several factors attributable to local wellbore
damage are possible causes.
Until quite recently, no method to improve individual
well performance, other than formation fracturing with
explosives (nitroglycerin) or acidization, was considered
safe enough to be used. Even these methods were unsure
and often created expensive cleanout work after the shot.
A new concept arose in 1953-54 utilizing the application of the hydraulic fracturing process to increase injecOriginal manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office March 19. 1959. Revised manuscript received June 17. 19p9. Pap~r
presented at the Oil Recovery Conference held by the PermIan Basm
Section. AIME. in Midland. Tex . May 7-8. 1959.
SEPTEMBER, 1959
SPE 1256-G
15
FARGO
PROD. CO.
TIDEWATER
J. C. MAXWELL
GULF
GAR-TEX. "AU
J. B. WALTON
HUMBLE
~\~-A
t2-A
~;"A
.,.A
~4
II
13
~'4A
.,3A
"
i~6A
~8A
~I1A
.-4
@lOS
SA
"'6A
O.
-----26
~IOA
.'7
,,7
'7A
12
160 AC.
10
14
'5A
15
4A
,., ,..
CLAPP
.8
f3
SA
2354
12
.,
.3
60 AC
O. CLAPP
10
RAY
'a'
...
2353
2
.2
if;
--
t
.'3
3C
20 AC.
,5
.4C
10C
.-10
I.
T.P.C.
3
O.
co
(!2
~:c
28
.5
80AC. 8C
WALTON 'A'
~I'C
WALTON '0'
~4
"3
15
CLAPP
'8
SINC.-PR.
.2
.7
F. S. VADEN
PROD. WELL
~oo
INJ. WELL
0,
500 .
;;;;;;;;;;;;1'
Fig. I-A. O. C.-Flood No.1, Clapp.Walton, Kermit field, Winkler County, Tex.
16
f
"ol
AMBASSADOR
AMBASSADOR
CORP.
01 L
"o3
G. A. FReeMAN
t./j. CI;ERRY 137AC.
@43
IIISASSAOO/l
e 41
@i2
@4D
FLORIDA
@33
e31
@14
e7
.12
@8
@9
PAYNe
e23
@17
@28
.20
Wsw
e5
H. HOBSON
e8
@4
TEX"
@8
e2
S ROYALTy
".IO
CO.
J. G
@7
203 AC.
.4
0' L
<:;7
. . SI;AWVE/I ',,'
UBANI<S
".9
200 AC.
A. SMITH
IGO AC.
NEWI.IOIVT OIL
COMPANY
e -
PROD. WELL
@ - INJ.
WELL
SOD
1000
Discussion of Parameters
General parameters utilized in selection of job size, injection rates, maximum injection pressures, type frac job
and results are carried below; however, considerations of
fracturing in water flooding must be precluded by a thorough analysis of all conditions in each reservoir prior to
application.
1. Based on sand thickness and 1O-20-acre/well density, a maximum fluid volume of 50 gal/ft of pay zone
treated should 'I1ot be exceeded. Average fluid volume ratio used in the three fields herein reported was 25-35
gal/ft.
2. Multiple fracture systems can be more easily obtained by use of high fluid loss frac fluids and/or selective plugging agents (marbles, moth balls, resinous polymers, and sand fill-up).
3. A formula derived from the Darcy equation for
flow relating fracture length to injection rates, frac fluid
viscosity, formation permeability and fracture time can
be used in job planning.
4. Injection rates apparently are critical to fracture
length alo'l1g with items in (3); therefore, 0.5-1.0 BPM/ft
of net pay have proved sage in most cases (provided volumes are maintained at the level stated above, permeabilities average 30 to 100 md, and a true frac fluid is used).
5. Low injection rates (just above sand out) and
medium volumes or high injection rates a'l1d very low injection volumes give desired results.
6. More beneficial results were noted when using water
or a water-based gel in injection wells and a refined crude
or lease crude in producers (except i'l1 the high salinity
sands of West Texas where fresh water is best for both
type wells).
7. The injection pressures necessary to create formation fracturing normally do not exceed 1 Ib/ft of depth.
Published data gives typical "breakdown pressures" on
most producing horizo'ns.
8. Evaluation of frac jobs must allow sufficient postjob history.
r
r;
200
DAilY PRODUCTION
BB;;;lS.lDA~Y
CUM. Oil
'"
fii
Ul",~1
RECOVERY-
100 I - - - - - - + - - - . - +r---_c::p,..
_
50
~~~=~-::-'_,I/'-"-----~~-___l
OIL-
301-----+--- f
)HJ:--~------~------~
20
--,---,j
.-
j}
LOlL
---4------~---------
~----~~-+~~r_+--------+_------~W~iCR
I-:--------+t----++---'-q+----/,-..'!'~-.......
c--4--c':;"";'-R.-"-----~RATI 0
t--------~t---~~----~~/------+_--------~2
1957
r
'V
200
Sl------~:-:\+-,~;+:~!-.=%~~--~-------~-------~
'I
WATER
Oil
3 1 - - - . - + - t - . - - - - - - - -----.----f----------j RATIO
2r---~~t_------+_------,L/~~~/----~2
jj~j /;.:::-,~.O.R.
1957
1958
~_
"jl
:.-:-r-.,.-.~=-"--
~~V=:-_~\VATER
50
~~~
--
CUM. Oil
RECOVERYBBlS.
---
40~------.-..--".~--------~-~~----4~--r----4
30
/ - l-------- f---- ~
20
r------=-'-/-+------+-w----I------
~-~
..!..u
WATER
4 IL-~~----+_--------+_--------4---, / - Oil
3 I--;.-.----f--
; .. ;
2 1--'------+-------1-'
RATIO
. /'
/-1 -\
. ,,/
..<--W.OR
,/
1955
1956
f------+---I?------~~~
10
1958
100
10t------~+,I-!~:-[-~!L-~*g--~--------~-------~
1955
~. ::,...:::-;---~.~."
/-WATER
--.--+........,..-----i
40t------+----+~~~-~~~
CUM. Oil
RECOVERY
BBlS.
~~
~-
200
I
1956
1957
1958
..
~
..
ffi
~:8
CUM.
OIL
RECOVERY'
?
1:;0.;)
w
B8LS.
200 ~------~~--~--~----~--~----~,--~
100
~--------+-----~----+--~,-....-..-....-.--~.. --'~7-~-U-E-R--~
50~====~=+==~~~:=~~==~
40~
mL30~-------}~~---7~------~~~----~
20~--------~----~~+---------~------
__~
IO~------~+-~~/~~/---+~------~--------~
~a
'0
J
~E
5~------~+-+-------~~------~--------~WATER
4
~L
RATIO
.~./
.......,
2~--------~--------+----------b~------~2
1955
1956
1957
1958
8 856
1113-56
11-2756
121856
12-2756
Job Size
All 1#
Sand/gal
10,000
12,000
10,000
10,000
12,000
21457
20,000
32
32
30
221-57
51457
530-58
20,000
10,000
5,000
36
18
22
47
42
42
121
24
92
Frae
SEPTEMBER, 1959
Date
Frae
Inj.
Rote
34
33
32
36
37
Cum. Wtr.
Inj. Ard.
Well at
Since froe
Initial Prod.
Test After Froe
Following
Cum Oil Cum. Water
90 days Recovered Recovered
frae
30 days
60 days
Oil Water Oil Water Oil Water Oil Water
to 7-158
*117
57 118
61 115
57
48,313
52,307
91 131
52,720
* 20
24,411
95
60 120
64
83
37
65
43 197
90 226 108 224 104 162
47,501 131,280
17,229
*163
61
28
54
20
20,981
33
26
53
24,346 126,690
10 214 *83 263
87 247 III 216
Water
2,600
400
8,200
800
8,800
Frae Time
19,800
5,800
914,000
95
154
72
69
81
75
57
77
26,437
43,474
68,100
27,964
25,740
48,000
7,893
41,490
1,183,000
1,026,373
966,353
136
190
80
155
20
60
77
105
49
163
79
105
85
108
83
158
87
149
77
95
163
84
89,200
33,944
2,595
139,294
40,475
6,830
Oil Water
Oil
24
15
6,800
13
2,300
12
41
3,300
18
1,800
3
34
37 11,500
870,000
448,000
520,000
590,000
816,000
19
Waterflood History
BB L S.I DAY
300
...
.;
200
~
"-',.,-
0>
CUM. OIL
RECOVER
BBLS.
20
10
\~
40 - . - - 30
I
--j_.
fw
~~
~~
WATER
OIL
RATiO
2
1956
1958
1957
300
INJECTION
BBLS.lDAY
.,
!!l
<D
i'.:
,,;
.,;
,'\ 1"-:.
\:/
'.:'
~I
~n
c;
0>
o:r,,' "
'i
,.
......,
CUM. WATERI
INJ.
"
I-
.-
'"
~~
l-W. D.R.
1958
10 ~-------4----~"~""-+---------+--------~IOOO
"-
/)\ /./
1957
20
V\
. . ~=~=t-------+-----------l
50
40
30
/\
1956
I':"'W.D.R.
.i-WAT R INJ.
1~1I
~~
-t-.
OIL
1955
vYrf-.:
-1)\/
,1
CUM.'Oll
RECOVERY
BelS.
....;._.,.
~r
5
4
~DIL
.-
10- .....
10
... :"
i- WATER
20
!t-
. ....
-"0'
0>
50
100
WATER
OIL
RATIO
_, __ ,
._ . . . -.
5~______-+____~-L~T-~~~!~=-~~~~:~..~PR~ES~S~~~;_______~
4
/
T
SURFACE
3
~--------t-----i/~-+--.-------1-------~ PRESSURE
INJECTION
20
2r-----~--~!~-~;-------+------~2oo
Io
r-~1~95~5~-i---1~9~56~--+i!--~19~5~7----~--19-5-8--~100
'"
r i
100
."
1955
;<;
r...
'"
200
200
WATER-;
r'
50
40
30
0>
0>
N.
/'..
100
.,
.-
..
300
r;;!
...- ._._._._.i~
.' ..' ".-.-
or
Type
Leose and Well N~.
T. H. Cherryhornes
No. 15
Frac Dote
**T. H. Chetryhomes
No.2
.... T. H. Ch.rryhomes
No. 37
T. H. Cherryhomes
No. 21
,,,"
Job Size
AIIIW
Sand/gal
Inj.
Rale
Test Before
Frcsc
Oil
Water
Froe
011
Water
10
T,.
60 Days
Water
011
T,.
T,.
T,.
2,500
4.7
50 BWPD@
700 psig
300 BWPD @
700 psig
312 BWPD @
500 psig
200 aWPD @
600 psig
200 aWPD @
600 psig
13.4,029
827.56 WltMCA
Hel
2,700
5.
.52 8WPD @
480 psig
8 BWPD@
450 psig
9 BWPO@
600 psig
100 BWPD @
700 psig
134 BWPD@
740 psig
73,466
9 356 "'Sd
2,000
0.5
922
Tr.
129,011
.4.4.3
3.5
9.3
5.8
133
C.I
20.3
T. H. Cherryhomes
No.13
9 356
r. H. Cherryhomes
No. 3.4 {Inj. weill
8.09
1.00
400
50
193,489
2.02
2.32
1,.568
700
82,360
2,000
122756 Wtr-MCA
He!
3,200
32557 Sd.-MC,6,.
2,200
4.7
0.59
2,500
5.5
New Weil
2,000
5.5
1.5
Newmont No.2
tTNewmon! No .5
n. H. Cherryhomes
2,000
1127-56 "'Sd
No. 18
tT. H. Cherryhomes
Since Frac
Cum. Oil Cum. Water
Recovered Recovered
to 71-58
82756 WtrMe:
3.49
22.0
90 Days
Water
Oil
3,200
Tr,
16.4,017
30 days
Oil
Water
"2.456 SdHCI
1.69
1,000
E.st.
Initial Prod.
Following
12-27-57 *Sd
N. 5
3.7
Now Well
T<.
T,.
1,232
1,512
'0
11.04
6.
0.50
10.75
1.5
7.5
1.50
33.12
I.
40.97
8.
2.
10.4
2.0
193 8WPD @
680 psig
65 BWPD@
700 psig
21 BWPO@
720 psig
.42 BWPD@
740 psig
21 8WPD @
750 pslg
10
30
160
61.7
47.462
212 8WPD@
1.40 psig
34.6
.5,
17.5
155,071
15,490
9,256
4.4,637
26.761
7,911
10,758
81,126
159 BWPD@
760 psig
159 BWPD @
620 psig
71,693
3,
53,587
5.4.3
33.4
17,361
13,935
60,177
.45,312
221.338
2.r
~~i
CUM. OIL
RECOVERY-
"'
N'"
02
,.,
BBLS,
200~-------+------~m1---~--~~____~__~
w
IOOr---------~--------~~~~--------_+--------~
mu
.,
r
! ..
50~=========~~=========Nt'
~~~:~'-S. .....::~+=:L~====~
40
30r----~-----_++----_+----~
20~--------~------- ~4+i-~WA~T~ER~--_+--------~
i\ I!1\ j'._\
'\ r\: T7 \1'/
IO~--------+-------~~~~~~+-~~----~
51------+--...;/-'\~.
4
OIL
.-,y.:.
.,:
~-
il/Y,-\,:
: ~ ':f/
3
2
i/
1955
1956
\\
I.OIL
'-W.O.R.
II
1957
Froe
TABLE 3-PECOS VALLEY HIGH GRAVITY AND LOW GRAVITY FIELD, PECOS COUNTY, TEX.
Since froe
Wtr. Flood Cum. Cum. Wtr. Initial Prod.
Yest After Frae
Test Before
Job Size
Oi I Recovery
Inj. Ard.
Following
Cum. Oil Cum. Water
Type
Inj.
Frae
Before Frae
Frae
30 days
90 days Recovered Recovered
All 1#
Well at
60 days
Frae
Sand/gal Rate Oil Water Oil
Water
Froe Time
Oil Water Oil Water Oil Water Oil Water to 7158 to 7158
7,500
32
1
Riverfrae
206
131,859
3,624
5,817
2
93
2 64
13
5.5
8
4.6 8.2 4.1
10,000
42
0.5
Sandoil
1.5
571
430
185,333
2 83
22
4.5 34
6.2 15.2 3.1
4,396
588
10,000
2.5 3
Sandoil
33
861 1,258
176,416
24,480
3 56
19
43
12.5 42.9
9.7 49.1
2,997
Petrofroc
35 14
991
174,848
14
1.0 2,008
2.8 14,556
12,520
0.7 61.4 2.8 61.6 1.4 58.2
The prime factors to be considered in frac job applications are frac job size and injection rates, net pay thickness, and type of frac job.
References
Conclusions
The success ratio of the application of hydraulic fracturing in waterfiood operations. should encourage others to
evaluate its merit.
The use of the hydraulic fracture process has begun to
be more widely accepted and utilized in waterfiood operations.
Injectivity and productivity stimulation on wells in
waterfiood operations can frequently be obtained by properly applied hydraulic fracture treatment.
No classic factors of job size or injection rates have
evolved; rather, correlative analysis appears more appropriate.
~'"
'"
~--l
_
200 r-----+-----'U>=t---...~----f------'-'---J
CUM. OIL
RECOVERYBBLS.
100~-----1------~----_1----~
I r-/
~-----+--------r'-f--~\~-+'-------
I'--/~-----l~'=:~-:--1--
1---0-----1------+-1
!:~1
OIL-;)
~:
!-WAT R
f - - - - - - - WATER
:\ ;--I--~/-'-
:/ ___' \ "
1-_____-+-__-//_-+-+""'.;-"-00'__':'_
\ 1\"
1956
j-W.O.R.
OIL
RATIO
2
/y
1957
1958
22
1. Clark, Roscoe c., Jr., and Reynolds, Jack J.: "Increasing Oil
and Gas Production by Vertical Hydraulic Fracturing", What
the Oil and Gas Journal Has Published on Hydraulic Frac
turing, Mid-Continent District Meeting of API, Oklahoma
City (1954) 10.
2. Crawford, Paul B.: "Fracturing Report", Loc cit.
3. McHugh, Jerome P.: "112,000 Extra Barrels of Oil in 11
Months", Oil and Gas Jour. (March 7, 1955) 53, No. 44,
104.
4. Roark, Gene E., and Lindner, J. D.: "Effects of Extensive
Well Fracturing on a Waterflood Operation in the North
Texas Strawn Sand", Trans. AIME (1955) 204, 16.
5. Parkinson, H. R.: "Water Injection Well Fracture Treatments, Benton Field, Franklin County, Ill.", Paper 753-G,
Presented at Second Biennial Secondary Recovery Symposium,
North Tex. Section Society of Petroleum Engineers, Wichita
Falls, Tex. (Nov. 19.20, 1956).
6. Walters, J. D. : "Waterflooding Pays Off on Prolific Dora
Roberts Lease", Paper 752-G, Loc cit.
7. Martinez, S. J., and Hurst, R. E.: "Fresh Water Fracturing
in the Permian Basin", Pet. Engr. (Dec., 1956) 28, No. 13,
B68.
8. Hurst, R. E.: "Fresh-Water Fracturing~Bane or Boon?" Oil
and Gas Jour. (Sept. 3, 1956) 54, 160.
9. Stengelman, Arthur, Jr.: "Considerations and Results of Hydraulic Fracturing in Water Flood Areas", Prod. Monthly
(Jan., 1956) 28.
10. Crawford, Paul B. and Collins, R. E.: "Estimated Effect of
Vertical Fractures on Secondary Recovery", Trans. AI ME
(1954) 201, 297.
11. Davis, J. G., Reynolds J. J. and Coffer, H. F.: "The Effect of Fluid Loss on Fracture Extension", Paper 496G presented at annual meeting, Rocky Mountain Petroleum 'Sections, Denver, Colo. (May 2627, 1955).
12. "Why Should I Fracture My Well-and How?", Oil and
Gas Jour., special feature reprint.
13. Fast, C. R.: "Multiple Fractures Can Increase Recovery and
So Can Deeper Fractures", presented AIME Symposium,
Ponca City, Okla. (Dec. 14, 1953).
14. Clark, J. B., Fast, C. R. and Howard, G. c.: "A Multiple
Frac Process for Increasing the Productivity of W'ells", Paper
No. 85126F, API (March 22, 1952).
15. Riley, E. A.: "Cherrykirk Field - A Successful Strawn Sand
Water Flood", Jour. Pet. Tech. (Oct., 1958) X, No. 10,20.
16. Garlanq" T. M., Elliott, W. c., Jr., Dolan, Pat and Dobyns,
R. P.: "Effects of Hydraulic Fracturing Upon Oil Recovery
from the Strawn and Cisco Formations in North Texas", RI
5371, USBM (Nov., 1957).
17. Company Records and Reports, Ambassador Oil Corporation.
18. Paul, James R. and Noble, Charles W.: "Waterflood Project
Performance Following Formation Fracturing in Eastern Kansas", Prod. Monthly (April, 1955) XIX, No.6, 56.
19. Hurst, R. E., Moore, J. M. and Ramsey, D. E.: "Development
and Application of Frac Treatments in the Permian Basin",
Trans. AI ME (1955) 204, 58.
20. Metzger, Herbert A.: "A Preliminary Report on the Results of VibroFrac", Jour. Pet. Tech. (Nov., 1958) X, No.
11, 13.
***