Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
I was quite pleased when my friend Joseph Ayoub at by managing the various chapters from the vast
Schlumberger Dowell approached me to write the array of contributors.
preface for the third edition of Reservoir Stimulation. A leading contributor, however, to this publica-
It is indeed a pleasure and a compliment to be tions success is Michael Economides, who, over
associated with the distinguished list of indi-viduals the last two decades, has contributed substantially
contributing to this volume. As an active member of to the integration of reservoir performance into
this close-knit community for the past 25 years, I have well stimu-lation technology and design. He has
enjoyed working with most of the proficiently filled this gap in practice with his
47 contributing authors. These outstanding scientists thorough work related to performance prediction
and engineers have carried the technology of and evaluation. Michael provides the continuous
hydraulic fracturing forward to its current high state. thread that gives the volume its integrated form.
This third edition is an updated classic reference The other leading contributor is Ken Nolte, who
for well stimulationor in todays lingo, well per- presents a compelling story that puts forward the
formance enhancement technologythat includes not history of hydraulic fracturing technology in the
only hydraulic fracturing but also an expanded Appendix to Chapter 5. He describes its evolution
treatment of well acidizing and chemical treatment as from the late 1940s from his vista, easily scoring a
well as formation damage migration. Reservoir true bulls-eye. His towering work since the mid-
Stimulation covers the topics necessary for under- 1970s affords him a unique view of the
standing the basis and practical aspects of treatment technological progress that he helped shape.
design and execution. It addresses the scientific fun- What further insight can I add to the views of these
damentals, engineering considerations and opera- two? I guess you can call it the mavericks view. I
tional procedures of a job. Pre- and post-treatment will be informal and hope my anecdotal style will not
analyses, job monitoring and economic elements of offend any serious student of the subject. What
the various injectivity and productivity enhancement follows is my view of this fascinating technol-ogy,
processes are well presented. which has renewed itself many times since its
Before I get into a technical discussion of the vol- inception and has contributed substantial financial
umes contents, let me share with the reader a bit of benefits to the oil and gas industry.
history and my personal point of view of the future. I During the late 1970s, considered the banner
am not trying to preempt the excellent contents years of fracturing technology advances, there was
compiled by the volumes editors, Michael Econo- a say-ing often used in jest by most of us working
mides and Ken Nolte. The two editors have suc- on frac-turing:
ceeded in bringing to the reader an integrated account
When everything else fails, frac it.
of the objectives, mechanics and implemen-tation of
the well and reservoir aspects of productiv-ity How true this has been; a lot of fraccing was
enhancement. Other significant contributions that done for well stimulation in those days and since. We
helped bring Reservoir Stimulation to the reader came now speak more appropriately about improved well
from Joseph Ayoub and Eric Nelson, who pro-vided performance, downhole flow integrity and enhanced
continual technical advice and reviewed the contents productivity or injectivity. How did we get here?
for technical accuracy, and Bob Thrasher, who with During the late 1940s, fracturing was a timid tech-
utter competence and, I must say, sheer patience and nique. In the 1950s, its proliferation took place. In the
persistence pulled this treatise together 1960s, we aimed at understanding what we were
P-2 Preface
technology, from mechanical stimulation (fracturing) the well tubulars, only to become viscous after turning
through chemical treatments (acidizing). the corner of well perforations into the formation.
The reader must view this volume as a confirma- What comes next in this ever-changing world of
tion and accurate account of the larger context of the well stimulation and performance enhancement?
exciting progress that has been made in the field of Current emphasis by the service industry in fluid
hydraulic fracturing and well stimulation. Recent development is on providing cleaner fluids to the
emphasis has focused on fluid and proppant develop- user community. Such fluids maintain the designed
ment, field equipment for mixing and pumping mate- frac-ture conductivity, improve the treatment
rials, highly sophisticated (but simple to use) inter- economics and extend fracturing applications to
pretation techniques or monitoring treatment higher perme-ability reservoirs.
parameters, and computers that monitor, provide Intermediate-density ceramic proppants are stronger
feedback and control the fracture. The available hard- and lighter, so they can be carried farther into the frac-
ware enables real-time redesign during pumping. ture at greater depths. Extensive efforts are directed at
Efforts also have been made, prior to job design and obtaining a more thorough understanding of proppant
execution, to thoroughly characterize reservoir transport mechanisms. Monitoring techniques and
qualities and properties for the optimization of stimu- proppant placement and distribution are conducted
lation treatment design and better economic results. using multiple-isotope radioactive tagging.
Logging tools are used for lithology, permeability, More sophisticated logging tools and interpretation
stress and natural fracture detection. Detection of the algorithms are adding the ability to track the location
created fracture azimuth and length received attention of several pumped stages. This development has
with the development of techniques such as passive improved the understanding of how to design more
borehole seismic methods, crosswell tomography, tilt- effective fracture treatments and has prompted an
meters and hydraulic impedance tests. emphasis on fracture containment.
The myriad techniques available for in-situ Pumping and surface handling equipment have
stress magnitude and azimuth determination progressed substantially ahead of the other technolo-
include core relaxation, differential strain curve gies, and more advances are under way. The avail-
analysis, micro-fracturing and wellbore breakouts. ability of new-generation blenders, offshore gelling
Results of well tests and mini-fracture treatments and crosslinking of fluids on the fly, and high-pres-
are used readily in fracture treatment designs. surehigh-flow-rate pumps and intensifiers provides
The development of accurate downhole pressure the industry with the capacity to execute and control
gauges with digital memory provides a detailed the most complicated fracture. Emphasis must also
account of fluid pressure at the fracture inlet and be directed toward zone isolation techniques and the
assists on-site redesign and post-treatment analysis. hardware to conduct large stimulation jobs in long,
Recent efforts are directed at the development of complex wells.
downhole gauges that transmit pressure, flow rate and As the hardware side of the technology (materials
fluid rheology data in real time. Such gauges are now and equipment) developed at a rapid pace over the
in service in well monitoring and testing applications. last two decades, the software side (modeling, moni-
Simpler techniques, such as using the annulus or a toring and interpretation) also moved forward. The
tubing-based manometer, have been highly success- U.S. government, Gas Research Institute (GRI) and
ful. These applications are limited operationally to academic communities with consulting company
wells with large-diameter casing and tubing and by sup-port are delivering design codes with varying
rig cost. Coiled tubing operations may reduce this degrees of sophistication to the industry. Some of
limitation and expand the application of real-time the codes are field based and used extensively for
downhole pressure monitoring. the optimiza-tion and redesign of fracture
Fluids now are available with excellent shear sensi- treatments. Computer hardware advances and
tivity and high-proppant carrying capacities for use at experience-based intelligence software must provide
high temperatures and flow rates. Additives such as a window of opportunity for broader and more
borates make it possible to design fluids that have low effective use of modeling develop-ments.
frictional or viscosity properties while traveling down
P-4 Preface
Economides present the well testing methodology control materials, crosslinking agents, breakers,
and pressure transient analysis used to characterize sur-factants, clay stabilizers and bactericides, and
formations and describe the status of well damage. describe their appropriate uses.
The well-recognized rock mechanics engineers The performance of fracturing materials, a subject
Mark Thiercelin and Jean-Claude Roegiers (known that has seen tremendous advances in the last 20
as JC) authored Chapter 3. They present a well- years, is presented in Chapter 8 by Vern Constien,
thought-out treatment of rock mechanicsthe char- George Hawkins, Bob Prudhomme and Reinaldo
acterization of the box containing recoverable Navarrete. The chapter outlines techniques for mea-
hydrocarbons. Their work details the theoretical suring and designing the necessary rheology for frac-
com-ponents describing rock behavior and reactions turing fluids and treatment chemicals. The authors
under the loads and stresses generated by E&P also discuss the important topic of propped fracture
operations. The presentation is thorough and on a conductivity and proppant flowback and the impact of
high funda-mental level, while providing insight fluid rheology on both. Damage resulting from
into the practi-cal application of this specialty in a polymer loading is also covered in this chapter.
useful and tractable fashion. Sunil Gulrajani and Ken Nolte discuss the latters
Jean Desroches and Tom Bratton describe in Chapter favorite topic of fracture evaluation using pressure
4 how to use well logs and other geophysical diagnostics in Chapter 9. These techniques, when first
information to obtain pertinent properties of the rock introduced in 1978, provided quantitative tools for
formation for effective treatment design. In addition to assessing the nature, extent and containment of the
the conventional, routine properties such as poros-ity, hydraulic fracture. They subsequently established the
permeability and saturation, they cover the esti-mation basis for efforts toward real-time diagnostics and con-
of pore pressure, formation tests, skin effect and trol of the well treatment progress. The authors exam-
damage extent, in-situ stress and other mechani-cal ine the mathematical foundation of the diagnostic
properties. An interesting treatment of predicting in- technique, including an accompanying Appendix,
situ rock stress and strength from logs is presented. provide field verification examples and present means
In Chapter 5, Mike Smith (the pipe-smoking half of of integrating this approach with other evaluation tools,
the well-known Nolte-Smith duo) and my dear late well measurements and field observations.
friend Jacob Shlyapobersky collaborated to lay down Jack Elbel and Larry Britt collaborated in Chapter
for the reader the basics of hydraulic fracturing. This is 10 to present the art and science of fracture treatment
a pragmatic chapter that serves well as a primer for design. The inclusion of economic analysis as the first
new engineers searching for a quick appreciation of the step in the design optimization process, along with the
factors with an impact on fracture design. Its value is authors vast experience with treatment design and
further enhanced by the historical perspective writ-ten field implementation, offers a unique glimpse of this
as the aforementioned Appendix by Ken Nolte. essential process. Staff from the operating divisions (or
Mark Mack joins Norm Warpinski of Sandia asset teams, in todays lingo) will find this material
National Laboratories in Chapter 6 to provide a com- readily applicable for both hydraulic fracturing and
prehensive treatment of the mechanics of hydraulic acidizing treatments. The subject matter is well orga-
fracturing and discuss the science behind the technol- nized with simple recommendations that can be fol-
ogy. The chapter reflects their massive contributions to lowed without great effort.
the understanding, through extensive field observa-tion Ernie Brown, Bob Thrasher and Larry Behrmann
efforts, of the phenomena and processes involved in use Chapter 11 to introduce the reader to the opera-
hydraulic fracturing. The theoretical and practical tional procedures and completion considerations nec-
knowledge collected throughout their illustrative essary for successful field execution of well stimula-
careers is well represented. tion treatments. Their discussion includes vertical,
Chapter 7 exposes the reader to the materials deviated and S-shaped wells, in addition to wells with
pumped in the well during stimulation treatments. more complex geometries. Factors that have an impact
Janet Gulbis and Richard Hodge have written a rigor- on quality assurance, technologies for treat-ment
ous, but easily read, discussion of the chemical and monitoring and operational integrity during job
rheological aspects of stimulation fluids and prop- execution are all addressed in detail. Field instrumen-
pants. They cover fluid additives, including fluid-loss tation, real-time analysis and recommended remedi-
P-6 Preface
I had in reading through the vast amount of knowl-
edge imbedded in the 20 chapters more than makes
up for the strange hour at which I am working on
these final thoughts. I hope the reader will find this
volume as stimulating (no pun intended), educational
and useful as I believe it to be and will recognize and
utilize the contributions and know-how of its authors
to achieve his or her goals.
Good reading.
Reservoir Stimulation 1-
1
q k p. (1-2) The skin effect s, which is analogous to the film
The fluid viscosity also enters the coefficient in heat transmission, was introduced by
Van Everdingen and Hurst (1949) to account for
relationship, and for radial flow through an area
these phenomena. Fundamentally a dimensionless
2 rh, Eq. 1-2 becomes
number, it describes a zone of infinitesimal extent
p pwf = q ln r , (1-3) that causes a steady-state pressure difference,
2 kh r conve-niently defined as
w
ps = q s. (1-5)
where pwf and rw are the bottomhole flowing
pressure and wellbore radius, respectively. 2 kh
Equation 1-3 is also well known and forms the
basis to quantify the production (or injection) of flu- Adding Eqs. 1-3 and 1-5 results in
ids through vertical wells from porous media. It is = q r
+
wf
5000
by reducing the skin effect and/or the required
bottomhole flowing pressure to lift the fluids to the top.
Maximizing the productivity index by reducing the
skin effect is central to the purpose of this vol-ume and eBottomhol flowing pressure, p 4000
constitutes the notion of stimulation; reduc-ing the 3000
bottomhole flowing pressure leads to artificial lift (both
gas and pump assisted). Finally, the bot-tomhole
2000
flowing pressure may have an allowable lower limit to
prevent or retard undesirable phenom-ena such as sand
production and gas or water coning. 1000
0
1-1.2. Units
The traditional petroleum engineering oilfield units 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
are not consistent, and thus, most equations that are Flow rate, q
cast in these units require conversion constants. For
example, 1/(2) in Eq. 1-3 is appropriate if SI units Figure 1-1. The inflow performance relationship relates
are used, but must be replaced by the familiar value the production rate to the bottomhole flowing pressure.
of 141.2 if q is in STB/D (which must be multiplied
also by the formation volume factor B in RB/STB);
is in cp; h, r and rw are in ft; and p and pwf are in 1-2. Inflow performance
psi. Table 1-1 contains unit conversion factors for The well production or injection rate is related to the
the typical production engineering variables. bottomhole flowing pressure by the inflow perfor-
For unit conversions there are two possibilities. mance relationship (IPR). A standard in petroleum
Either all variables are converted and then two ver- production, IPR is plotted always as shown in Fig. 1-1.
sions of the equation exist (one in oilfield and a sec- Depending on the boundary effects of the well
ond in SI units), or one equation is provided and the drainage, IPR values for steady-state, pseudosteady-
result is converted. In this volume the second option state and transient conditions can be developed
is adopted. Generally, the equations are in the tradi- read-ily. In the following sections, the relationships
tional oilfield units predominant in the literature. for the three main flow mechanisms are presented
first for vertical and then for horizontal wells. The
wf wf
Equation 1-6 can be converted readily to a steady- ko hpe 1 0.2 0.8
state expression by simply substituting p with pe and pe pe
r with re. Thus, in oilfield units and with simple qo = . (1-14)
254.2 Bo
rearrangements, the IPR for oil is
o ln(re rw ) + s [ ]
q=
(
kh pe pwf ) The subscript o is added here to emphasize the
. (1-9)
141.2 B [ ln(r e / rw ) + s ] point that oil properties are used. The subscript is
frequently omitted, although it is implied. Although
A plot of pwf versus q forms a straight line, the ver- neither Eq. 1-11 (for gas) nor Eq. 1-14 (for two-
tical intercept is pe, and the flow rate at the horizontal phase flow) provides a straight-line IPR, all steady-
intercept (i.e., at pwf = 0) is known as the absolute state IPRs provide a stationary picture of well
open-flow potential. The slope is, of course, constant deliv-erability. An interesting group of IPR curves
throughout the production history of the well, assum- for oil is derived from a parametric study for
ing single-phase flow, and its value is exactly equal to different skin effects, as shown in Fig. 1-2.
the reciprocal of the productivity index.
For gas, the analogous expression is approximately
6000
q=
kh pe2 pwf2 ( ) 5000
,
1424 ZT ln(re / rw ) + s [ (1-10)
]
Bottomhole flowing pressure, p wf
where Z is the average gas deviation factor (from 4000
ideality), T is the absolute temperature in R, and
is the average viscosity.
3000
Equation 1-10 has a more appropriate form using
the Al-Hussainy and Ramey (1966) real-gas pseudo-
2000
pressure function, which eliminates the need to
aver-age and Z: [ ]
1000
q = kh m( pe ) m ( p ) . (1-11)
wf s = 5
0 s = 20 s = 10 s=0
[
1424T ln(re / rw ) + s ]
For two-phase flow, production engineers have 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
used several approximations, one of which is the Flow rate, q
Vogel (1968) correlation, which generally can be
written as Figure 1-2. Variation of the steady-state IPR of an oil
q o p pwf 2 well for different skin effects.
wf
= 1 0.2 0.8 (1-12)
q p p Example of steady-state IPR: skin effect variation
o,max
q = AOFP , (1-13)
Suppose that k = 5 md, h = 75 ft, pe = 5000 psi, B
o,max
= 1.1 RB/STB, = 0.7 cp, re = 1500 ft and rw =
1.8 0.328 ft. Develop a family of IPR curves for an
where qo is the oil production rate, qo,max is the undersaturated oil reservoir for skin
maxi-mum possible oil rate with two-phase flow, effects from 5 to 20.
and AOFP is the absolute open-flow potential of
single-phase oil flow.
wf
5000
variables:
q= 5000 p
3.45
wf .
flowing pressure,p
8.43 + s 4000
3000
Figure 1-2 is a plot of the family of IPR curves.
For a reasonable pwf = 2000, the flow rates at s = p
=
p
=
p
=
p
=
p
=
eBottomhol
20, 0 and 5 are approximately 365, 1230 and 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
0
1-2.2. IPR for pseudosteady state
At first glance, the expression for pseudosteady-state 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
flow for oil, Flow rate, q
p
q=
( kh p ) wf
, Figure 1-3. Variation of the pseudosteady-state IPR
(1-15) for an oil well for declining reservoir pressure.
141.2 B [ ln(0.472r r ) + ]
s w
e
appears to have little difference from the expression Example of pseudosteady-state IPR: effect
for steady state (Eq. 1-9). However, the difference of average reservoir pressure
is significant. Equation 1-15 is given in terms of the This example repeats the preceding Example of
average reservoir pressure p, which is not steady-state IPR: skin effect variation (page
constant but, instead, integrally connected with 1-4) for s = 0 but allows p to vary from 5000 to
reservoir depletion. 3000 in increments of 500 psi.
Material-balance calculations such as the ones Solution
introduced by Havlena and Odeh (1963) are
Using Eq. 1-15 and substituting for the
required to relate the average reservoir pressure with
given variables (including s = 0):
time and the underground withdrawal of fluids.
Interestingly, the productivity index for a given q = 0.45( p pwf).
skin effect is constant although the production rate
In the Fig. 1-3 family of IPR curves for differ-
declines because p declines. To stem the decline, the
(
]
infinite-acting) flow
)
kh m ( p ) m
p
q= wf (1-16) The convection-diffusion partial differential equa-
1424T ln(0.472re rw ) + s
[ ] tion, describing radial flow in a porous medium, is
1 0.2 pwf p
wf
2
2 p +1 p
=
ct p , (1-18)
khp 0.8
p p r2 rr k t
q= . (1-17)
[
254.2 B ln(0.472re rw ) + s ]
Reservoir Stimulation 1-5
where ct is the total system compressibility, p is pres- Transient IPR curves can be generated for
sure, t is time, and r is radial distance. This equation, in each instant in time as shown in Fig. 1-4.
wide use in many other engineering fields, pro-vides a Example of transient IPR
well-known solution for an infinite-acting reservoir
Using the variables of the previous two exam-
producing at constant rate at the well. 5 1
Using dimensionless variables (for oil, in ples and = 0.25, ct = 10 psi and pi = 5000
oilfield units) for pressure and time, respectively: psi, develop transient IPR curves for t = 3, 6
and 36 months. The time in Eq. 1-22 must be
pD = kh p (1-19) entered in hours. Assume s = 0.
141.2qB Solution
tD = 0.000264kt (1-20) Using Eq. 1-22 and substituting for the
given variables:
. 3 5000 p )
ct rw2 ( wf
Although Eq. 1-21 describes the pressure transients Thus, a pseudosteady-state IPR with a p
under constant rate, an exact analog for constant pres- inter-section at a point below pi is most likely
sure exists. In that solution, pD is replaced simply by in effect at that time.
the reciprocal of the dimensionless rate 1qD.
The dimensioned and rearranged form of Eq. 1- 1-2.4. Horizontal well production
21, after substitution of the natural log by the log
base 10, is Since the mid-1980s horizontal wells have prolifer-
( )
1
k ated, and although estimates vary, their share in the
kh pi pwf
q= log t + log 2 3.23 ,
162.6B ct rw 6000
t = 36 months
t = 6 months
(1-22) 5000 t = 3 months
2000
m pwf 2
q= [ ]
log t + log 3.23
1638T cr 1000
t w
(1-23) 0
2
p p
khpi 1 p
i
i
p
wf wf 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
. (1-24) Flow rate, q
q= k
254.2 B log t + log 2 3.23
Figure 1-4. Transient IPR curves for an oil well.
ct rw
eH
Figure 1-5. Generalized well model for production from
a= 0.5+ 0.25+ , (1-27)
an arbitrarily oriented well in an arbitrarily shaped
2 L2 reservoir (Economides et al., 1996).
x
3
reservoir thickness (causing a distortion of the flow
lines) and the additional effects from vertical
s
eccentricity in the case that the well is not positioned
at the vertical middle of the reservoir.
2
The vertical effects skin effect sx is (after
Kuchuk et al., 1988)
1
sx = h h + se (1-30) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
ln , h (ft)
6L
2 rw
Figure 1-6. Vertical effects skin effect for a horizontal
where se is the vertical eccentricity skin: well (Economides et al., 1996).
s = h 2z 1 2zw 2 1 lnsin zw ,
w 1.2
e
2 h 1.0
L h 2 h
zw/h = 0.1
0.8
(1-31) s
h
L /xe C C
H H
xe = ye 0.25 2.77
0.5 1.47
0.75 0.81
1 0.46
xe = ye 0.25 2.66
0.5 1.36
0.75 0.69
1 0.32
xe = ye 0 1.49
L /xe = 0.75 30 1.48
45 1.48
75 1.49
90 1.49
erable reduction in the productivity index, The productivity index of a vertical well in
as shown in the next section. the same formation, under pseudosteady-state
Solution condi-tions and assuming that the well is in the
From the Example calculation of sx for two center of the square reservoir, is
thicknesses (page 1-8), sx = 4.6, and from JV = kh
.
Table 1-2 for xe = ye and L /xe = 2000/2700 141.2 B ln(0.472re / rw )
0.75, CH = 1.49. The drainage area is 2700 2700 ft, resulting
Using Eq. 1-29: in re = 1520 ft. Thus,
pD = (2700)(1.49) + (2700)(4.6) = 2.59 , ( )( )
JV = 10 200
(4)(3.14)(200) (2)(3.14)(2000)
[ ]
k=kH= k x ky , (1-32) z = z x y
(1-40)
where k is the average permeability, which for a ver-
tical well is equal to the average horizontal perme- k = 3 k x k y kz .
ability kH, and kx and ky are the permeabilities in the
x and y directions, respectively. Example of horizontal well productivity index
Although the average permeability in Eq. 1-32 in an anisotropic reservoir
could equal 10 md, this value could result because Repeat the calculations in Example
the permeabilities in the x direction and y direction calculation of horizontal well productivity
index: compari-son with a vertical well (page
are both equal to 10 md or because kx = 100 md and
1-8) but with kx = 20 md, ky = 5 md (the
ky = 1 md. Horizontal-to-horizontal permeability average horizontal permeability is still 10 md)
anisotropy of such magnitude is rare. However, per- and kz = 1 md. Assume that the well is parallel
meability anisotropies in the horizontal plane of 3:1
and higher are common (Warpinski, 1991). Logi- to the xe bound-ary; i.e., the angle = 0.
cally, a horizontal well drilled normal to the maxi- Solution
mum rather than the minimum permeability should From Eqs. 1-35 and 1-36, = 3.16 and =
be a better producer. 0.707, respectively. The horizontal well length is
Suppose all permeabilities are known. Then the then adjusted using Eq. 1-33 and becomes 964
horizontal well length, wellbore radius and reservoir ft. The wellbore radius is adjusted using Eq. 1-
dimensions can be adjusted. These adjusted vari- 34 and becomes 0.511 ft. The reservoir
ables, presented by Besson (1990), can be used dimensions xe, ye and h are adjusted using Eqs.
instead of the true variables in predicting well per- 1-37 through 1-39 and become 1304, 2608
formance with the model in Section 1-2.4: and 432 ft, respectively.
The vertical effect skin effect from Eq. 1-30 is
1/3
Length: L = L (1-33) 4.85. The adjusted reservoir dimensions
2 /3 become 2xe = ye. The adjusted penetration ratio
rw= 1 +
L / xe remains the same (0.75). Thus, from
Table 1-2 the shape factor is 2.53.
Wellbore radius: rw 1 , (1-34) Using Eq. 1-29 for dimensionless pressure and
2 substituting with the adjusted variables:
( 1304 )( ) ( 1304 )( )
where pD = 2.53 + 4.85 = 1.65 ,
(4)(3.14)(432) (2)(3.14)(964)
Figure 1-9. Geometry for partial and off-centered completions and slant skin effects (Cinco-Ley et al., 1975a).
r kV
a well test in a highly deviated well may mean con- perf
siderable damage. Removal of this damage with r
pD = 1+ ,
(1-56)
appropriate stimulation could increase the deviated 2h k
well production (or injection) considerably. H
where rperf is the perforation radius; and
r = rw . (1-57)
wD
1-3.4. Perforation skin effect lp +
rw
Karakas and Tariq (1988) developed a procedure to
calculate the skin effect caused by perforations. The vertical pseudoskin effect is then
This skin effect is a composite involving the plane- sV = 10a hDb 1rpDb , (1-58)
flow effect sH, vertical converging effect sV and
where a and b are
wellbore effect swb:
a = a1 log rpD+ a2 (1-59)
s p = s H + sV+ swb . (1-52)
b = b1 rpD+ b2 . (1-60)
The pseudoskin factor sH is given by
sH = rw (1-53)
ln rw() , The values of the constants a1, a2, b1 and b2 are
where r () is the effective wellbore radius and is a given in Table 1-5 as functions of the phasing angle .
w
function of the perforation phasing angle : Finally, the wellbore skin effect swb can be
approx-imated by
rw() = lp 4 when = 0
when 0 , (1-54) s wb = c1ec2rwD . (1-61)
(
rw + lp )
The constants c1 and c2 can be obtained
where lp is the length of the perforation and is a
from Table 1-6.
phase-dependent variable and can be obtained
from Table 1-4. As an example, assume rw = 0.406 ft, lp = 0.667 ft, h
The vertical pseudoskin factor sV can be calculated = 0.333 ft (3 shots per foot [spf]), kH/kv = 3, rperf =
after certain dimensionless variables are determined: 0.0208 ft [0.25 in.] and = 90.
From Eq. 1-54 and Table 1-4, r () = 0.779 ft,
w
hD = h kH , (1-55) and thus from Eq. 1-53, sH = 0.65. From Eqs. 1-55,
l k 1-56 and 1-57, the dimensionless variables hD, rpD
p V and rwD are equal to 0.86, 0.05 and 0.38, respect-
where h is the distance between perforations and is ively. From Eq. 1-59 and Table 1-5, a = 2.58, and
exactly inversely proportional to the shot density; from Eq. 1-60 and Table 1-5, b = 1.73. Then, from
Table 1-4. Dependence of on phasing. Table 1-5. Vertical skin correlation coefficients.
Perforating Phasing () Perforating
Phasing () a1 a2 b1 b2
0 (360) 0.250
180 0.500 0 (360) 2.091 0.0453 5.1313 1.8672
180 2.025 0.0943 3.0373 1.8115
120 0.648
120 2.018 0.0634 1.6136 1.7770
90 0.726
90 1.905 0.1038 1.5674 1.6935
60 0.813
60 1.898 0.1023 1.3654 1.6490
45 0.860
45 1.788 0.2398 1.1915 1.6392
0.1
)
0.01 2.0
wellboreradius,
s f+ ln(x f/r w
1.5
r
0.001
1
0.01 0.1 k fw 10 100 1000
1.0
CRelativefD= capacity parameter, a
kfx
Figure 1-10. Dimensionless effective wellbore radius of
0.5
a hydraulically fractured well (Prats, 1961).
Sales line
p8 = ptf psep
p p =p p
tf Gas
6 dsc sep
Separator
p p
dsc sep Liquid
Surface choke
Stock
p5 = ptf pdsc tank
p4 = pusv p p
dsv
dsv
p
p p1 = p wfs = Loss in porous medium
p7 = pwf ptf usv p =p p
2 wfs wf = Loss across completion
Bottomhole
restriction p p3 = pur pdr = Loss across restriction
dr p4 = pusv pdsv = Loss across safety valve
p5 = ptf pdsc = Loss across surface choke
p =p p = Loss in flowline
p3 = pur pdr 6 dsc sep
p7 = pwf ptf = Total loss in tubing
p =p p
p 8 tf sep = Total loss in flowline
ur
p p
p wfs pe
wf
p2 = pwfs pwf p1 = p
wfs
p
Figure 1-12. Well hydraulic system. pdr = downstream restriction pressure, pdsc = pressure downstream of the surface
choke, pdsv = pressure downstream of the safety valve, psep = separator pressure, ptf = tubing flowing pressure,
pur = upstream restriction pressure, pusv = pressure upstream of the safety valve, pwfs = wellbore sandface pressure.
Reservoir Stimulation 1-
19
(psi) 6000 6000
5000
wf
5000
flowing epressur
4000
flowing pressure,p
p wh = 800 psi
4000
3000 pwh = 1200 psi
VLP
Bottomhole
2000
3000 p
Bottomhole
1000 wf
2000 q
0
IPR
4000
Bottomhole flowingpressure, p wf
IPR
3000
VLP
d
q1 tbg,1
d
q2
tbg,3
d
2000 tbg,2
1000
q
3
flowing pressure, p wf
3000 VLP 3000
2000 VLP
2000
Bottomhole
1000
Bottomhole
q1 q2 q3
q
q q2 3
1000 1
N N N
IPR1 IPR2 IPR3 perf,1 perf,2 perf,3
q
0 0 actual
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Flow rate, q Flow rate, q
1-5.1. Stimulation economics or the net value (profit) for the operator; rather, it
is a measure of liquidity or how fast the
Because the whole purpose of stimulation is to investment will be recovered.
increase the value of the producing property
The indicator can be adjusted to show the time
through an accelerated production rate or increased
value of money (discounted payout), the hurdle
recovery, economics should be the driver in
rate necessary for the company to invest or both
deciding whether to conduct the stimulation, what
factors. The hurdle rate is the annualized
type of stimulation to do and which various aspects
percentage of return that must be achieved to make
of the treatment to include.
the project as good an investment as the average
Several economic indicators can be used to show company invest-ment. The discounted payout is
the value of stimulation. Because of the wide
n
variety of operating conditions, companies may not $n
have a single indicator for the answer in all (1 + n
cost= 0 . (1-71)
n= 1 i)
stimulation investments. Although the common
ground in eco-nomics is profit, in many petroleum The interest (hurdle) rate i is the indicator that sug-
activities liquid-ity, risk and corporate goals may gests when the investment will be returned without
make it necessary to choose investments that differ lowering the corporate investment returns and
from the ultimate maximum value of a project. accounting for inflation (time value of money).
The oldest indicator used in oil production is When the full stream of cash flows for the pro-
pay-out time, which is the amount of time jected relative life of the project is used, an indicator
necessary to recoup the money invested. If the called net present value (NPV) is defined as
actual time is less than the required time, the n
$n
investment is considered attractive: NPV = n
cost . (1-72)
n
n= 1 ( 1 + i)
$ n cost= 0 , (1-70)
NPV gives a dollar value added to the property at
n= 1
present time. If it is positive, the investment is
where $n is the incremental revenue (minus the attrac-tive; if it is negative, it means an undesirable
incremental expenses and taxes that are due to opera- invest-ment. NPV is the most widely used indicator
tions), n is the time period increments (e.g., years) in show-ing a dollar amount of net return.
which it is received, and cost consists of the total To get an indicator on relative profitability against
expenses associated with the stimulation. This indi- more global investments such as stocks, bonds and
cator does not provide for the time value of money corporate profits, the rate of return (ROR) is used.
150
A ROR = 14% stimulating, reperforating and recompleting existing
100 B
wells are all widely used methods with proven results
50
in increasing the NPV of old fields. Now reentry
ROR = 18%
0
drilling is generating high interest for the potential it
50 offers to improve recovery from damaged or depleted
100 zones or to tap into new zones at a gen-erally low cost.
Applied to mature reservoirs, all these strategies have
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
i
the advantage of starting with a fair to good reservoir
description as well as a working trajectory to the target
Figure 1-18. Determination of the rate of return for formation. Even when a new well is drilled, the
pro-jects A and B. decision whether to drill a vertical, slanted or
horizontal well and how to complete the productive
interval can profoundly effect the wells productivity
and the size of the vol-ume drained by the well.
1-5.2. Physical limits to
Todays technology also entertains multiple branches
stimulation treatments from a main trunk, which may be a newly drilled or
Physical limits are dominant aspects for stimulation existing well.
treatment decisions as often as economic indicators.
For the well, these include the following:
Maximum allowable treating pressure limits
injec-tion rates and the type of treating fluids.
Tubular size limits rates and pipe erosion.
This section by Christine Ehlig-Economides, Schlumberger GeoQuest.
(a) Isolated vertical well (b) Isolated horizontal or hydraulically fractured well
Figure 1-19. Drainage areas for single and multiple vertical and horizontal wells.
Figure 1-20. Drainage areas resulting from (a) longer horizontal wells draining more area per well and (b)
hydraulically fractured wells in a square pattern that is not in line with the direction of maximum stress.
hydraulically fracturing the wells may result an option in this case because the productivity
in unplanned drainage geometries. would be severely penalized by the low vertical
permeabil-ity, and in a thick formation, a horizontal
well may not even produce the entire formation
1-6.2. Well drainage volume thickness. A vertical wellbarefoot, perforated and
characterizations and production gravel packed, or gravel packedcan provide
optimization strategies excellent productivity in formations with moderate
Figures 1-19 and 1-20 assume that the reservoir is mobility. A slanted well can produce a marginal
homogeneous and isotropic over vast areas. In reali- increase in pro-ductivity over a vertical well.
ty, typical reservoir geology is much more complex. In very high mobility laminated reservoirs (such as
Formation flow characteristics may favor one well turbidites), a frac and pack may provide sand control
geometry over others. The chart in Fig. 1-21 and the means to bypass near-wellbore damage.
summa-rizes production optimization strategies for a However, in a low-mobility reservoir, hydraulically
series of 10 common well drainage volume fracturing the well is preferred over any other
characteriza-tions. The chart addresses five potential option because it provides an effective planar sink,
well paths: conventional vertical, hydraulically greatly increasing the well productivity. For thin
fractured verti-cal, slanted, horizontal and and lami-nated reservoirs, hydraulic fractures in a
hydraulically fractured horizontal. For any one of horizontal well may be the optimal choice because
the drainage volume char-acterizations, well path the longer well provides greater reach that increases
options are shown in block diagrams. the drain-age volume of the well and the hydraulic
Laminated reservoirs (chart row 4 on Fig. 1-21) are fractures enable horizontal flow to the well through
a good starting point to understanding the infor- the entire formation thickness. Hydraulic fractures
mation in the chart. The chart distinguishes layered in a hori-zontal well can be planned either as
from laminated by defining a reservoir as layered if longitudinal, by drilling the well in the direction of
the recognized sands are thick enough to be targeted maximum hori-zontal stress, or as transverse, by
by a horizontal well. If not, the reservoir is classed as drilling the well in the direction of minimum stress.
laminated. In general, laminated reservoirs have poor Horizontal wells offer particular advantages in nat-
vertical permeability. A horizontal well is not urally fractured reservoirs (chart row 5 on Fig. 1-21)