FracCourse 2007

Hydraulic Fracturing
2007
Hydraulic Fracturing For

Production Enhancement
Worldwide massive application
90% of gas wells
70% of oil wells
Historically, for low-permeability

reservoirs
skin effect less than -6
No longer true - high perm. is common
High-Permeability
Fracturing
Stimulation
Skin effect from -4 to 0 or even slightly
positive
Originally an offshoot of sand

production control (with skins as high
as +30).
Prevents fines de-consolidation
Implementation
Complex operation
Requires knowledge and high
competence in a number of areas of
engineering and science
Large up-front investment in people,

equipment and capabilities
Massification is crucial
Basic Principles
Injection of fracturing fluids
Formation breaks down
Fracture propagates, perpendicular
to least resistance
Proppants are used to keep
fracture open
Principle of Least Resistance

Least Principal Stress
Horizontal fracture
Least Principal Stress
Vertical fracture
Production Stimulation
Long path of large permeability
contrast with the reservoir is created
Flow is from the reservoir into the
fracture and then along the fracture
into the well
There is virtually no flow into the well
from outside the fracture. If there is,
the fracture should be considered as
unsuccessful
A Road Analogy
Optimal Fracture Length and Conductivity

Low Permeability Case
When theres only one-lane roads, better build
at least one two-lane road as far as possible
Drivers will seek the better road
Assuming a fixed amount of paving material, do I build a long,

two-lane road or a short multi-lane road to the wellbore, I
mean, city?
Optimal Fracture Length and Conductivity

High Permeability Case
When theres already a network of two-lanes and lot of traffic,
Youd better focus many lanes near the hub
Length Vs. Width

Low-permeability reservoirs require
long fractures, width is secondary
High-permeability require wide
fracture, length is secondary. Tip
Screenout (TSO)
Length and width are interdependent
through fracture conductivity.
Optimization is warranted
1-
Tip Screenout (TSO) for HighPermeability Reservoirs

Arrest of lateral growth
Fracture inflation
Leakoff control is another major
benefit of TSO
Vertical Fracture - Vertical

Well
Bypass damage
Original skin disappears
Change streamlines
Radial flow disappears
Increased PI is the
result
p or q
q J post p
Complex Fracturing
Horizontal wells
Transverse vs. longitudinal
Multi-branched wells
Longitudinal Vertical
Fracture - Horizontal Well
H,min
H,min
xf
H,max
Transverse Vertical
Fractures - Horizontal Well
Hydraulic Fracture
H,max
Radial
converging
flow in frac
H,max
D
xf
H,min
Multibranch, Multiple-fracture
Configurations for Horizontal Wells
Multibranch Well with
Fractured Vertical Branches
(Horizontal "Parent" Well is
Drilled above the Reservoir)
Horizontal Well with Multiple

Transverse Fractures
Production or Injection
Enhancement
What are we doing?

Bypass formation damage
After a successful fracture any
damage skin is eliminated
Radically modify flow profile into
the wellbore
New pseudoskin; New
productivity index
Complementary Roles
Control of sand deconsolidation
Reduce fines migration and
asphaltene production
Reduce bottom water coning
Improve communication between
reservoir and wellbore
Fracturing Role Expanded

Permeability
Low
Moderate
High
Gas
Oil
k <0.5 md
k <5 md
0.5< k <5 md
5< k <50 md
k >5 md
k >50 md
Pseudosteady State
Productivity Index
q Jp
Production rate is proportional to drawdown, defined as average

pressure in the reservoir minus wellbore flowing pressure
Circular:
2kh
J D p
q
B
JD
1
re 3
s
ln
rw 4
Drawdown
Dimensionless
Productivity Index
Production Mechanism
Vertical Well, Fully Penetrating

Vertical Fracture: Performance
wp
2Vfp
2xf
Transient Flow Regimes

Vertical Fracture - Vertical
Well
Linear Fracture Flow
Elliptical or Transition Flow
Bilinear Flow
Linear Formation Flow
Pseudoradial Flow
Pseudoskin Factor, Radial Flow

q Jp
sf is pseudoskin factor used after the treatment

to describe the productivity for radial flow
2kh
2kh
1
J D
J

B ln[ re ] 0.75 s
B
f
rw
JD is a function of what?
half-length,
dimensionless fracture conductivity
Drainage radius, re
sf is a function of what?
half-length,
dimensionless fracture conductivity
wellbore radius, rw
Dimensionless Productivity Index,

s f and f and r w
JD
1
re
ln 0.472 s f
rw
or
JD
1
re
ln 0.472
r 'w
Prats
f (C fD )
1
1
JD
0.472re
xf
0.472re
ln
f
ln
s f ln
xf
xf
rw
Cinco-Ley
Dimensionless Fracture
Conductivity
2 xf
w
Dimensionless
fracture conductivity
C fD
kf w
kx f
fracture conductivity
no name
Cinco-Ley and Samaniego

4
1.65-0.328u+0.116u 2
f (C fD )
1+0.18u+0.064u 2+0.005u 3
where u ln C fD
1
use f = ln(2) for CfD > 1000
0
0.1
10
CfD
100
1000
The J D of a Hydraulically
Fractured Well
From Cinco-Ley and Samaniego
and simple re-arrangement
1
JD
ln re / x f 0.75 ln x f / rw s f
JD
1
k fVf
ln re 0.75 0.5 ln
kh
0.5 ln C fD ln x f / rw s f
sf + In(xf /rw), sf + In (xf /rw) + 0.5 In (CfD)
Pseudoskin Factor for a Finite

Conductivity Vertical Fracture
4
sf + In (xf /rw) + 0.5 In (CfD)
1
sf + In (xf /rw)
CfD, opt
0.1
10
CfD
100
1000
Penetration Ratio
Proppant Number
Ix
2x f
C fD
xe
y e = xe
kf w
2 xf
kx f
xe
N prop
4k f V f,prop,1 wing
kVres
2k f V f,prop,2 wing
kVres
(I x )2C fD
Proppant Number Various Ways to Look at it

N prop I C fD
2
x
Nprop= const means

fixed proppant
volume
N prop
4k f x f w
2
e
kx
4k f V1 wing , propped
2
e
kx h
2k f V2 wing , propped
kVreservoir
JD vs CfD (moderate Nprop)
J D vs C fD (large N prop)
Maximum Achievable PI
J D max N prop
1
0.990 0.5 ln N prop
2
0
.
423
0
.
311
N
0
.
089
(
N
)
6
prop
prop
exp
1 0.667 N prop 0.015( N prop )
if N prop 0.1
if N prop 0.1
Optimal Length and Width

Competition for propped volume: w and xf
2Vfp = 2h wp xf
V fp hw p x f
C fD
k f wp
kx f
2Vfp = 2h wp xf
V fp k f
1/ 2
C fDV fp k
1/ 2
xf
C hk
fD
wp
hk f
Tight Gas and Frac&Pack:

the Extremes
Tight Gas k << 1 md (hard rock)
V fp k f
x f
1.6hk
1/ 2
1/ 2
1.6V fp k
wp
hk f
High permeability k >> 1 md (soft formation)

V fp k f
x f
1.6hk
1/ 2
wp
1.6V fp k
1/ 2
hk f
PI in Irregular Shapes
Reservoir Volume now defined as
Vres x e y e h
Proppant Number becomes,
Np
2k f V p
kVres
4k f whx f
kxe y e h
x f xe
x f xe
I C fD
2
x
xe
ye
Results for Np <0.1

ye/xe=0.5
2xf
xe
ye
Results for Np <0.1

ye/xe=0.25
2xf
xe
ye
Results for Np <0.1

Example:
Np =Constant = 0.03
N
unadjusted
Conclusion:
CfD,opt = 1.6 maintained
`
Equivalent Proppant
Number
N pe
CA
Np
30.88
Np = Proppant Number
Npe = Equivalent Proppant Number
CA = Dietz Shape Factor
J D ,max
0.99 0.5 ln( N pe )
Shape Factors
Dietz shape factors have been used to relate the production rate
with the pressure distribution within a shaped drainage volume
Results for Np 0.1

C fD,opt
100 y eD C fD ,0.1
100
Where,
y eD
1.6
N p 0.1 C fD , 0.1
ye
xe
If
1 yeD 0.25
If
0.1 yeD 0.25
and, C fD , 0.1
4.5 y 0.25
eD
Results for Np 0.1 (cont.)

ye/xe=1
2xf
ye
xe
JD,max = 1.9
at Np=100

ye/xe=0.25
2xf
ye
xe
JD,max = 5.81
at Np=100

Inverse behavior:
JD,max of a rectangle
(ye<xe) surpasses that
of
a square (ye=xe) at a
specific Proppant
Number
Linear behavior starts
to
dominate the flow
regime
Occurs at larger
Proppant Numbers
F -function at Opt. Values

New function needed since past solutions
are not valid after Np>0.1
Transition from pseudo-radial to linear
This function describes maximum
dimensionless productivity index (JD,max)
as a function of optimum conductivity
(CfD,opt)

(cont.)
ye/xe=1
2xf
Fopt Line
ye
xe
J D , max
1
0.63 0.5 ln( N p ) Fopt

(cont.)
ye/xe=0.1
2xf
ye
xe
J D ,max
Fopt Line
1
0.63 0.5 ln( N p ) Fopt

(cont.)
Example
Reservoir permeability, k
= 10 md
100,000 lb of 20/40 ceramic are

injected per treatment
kf = 150,000 md
Multiple fractures with same type of treatment

Reservoir is split, and calculations done in one of the division
JD is then multiplied by number of fractures for cumulative va
v
1 Fracture
2 Fractures
4 Fractures
Example (cont.)
Drainage area and Proppant Number
Fracture Dimensions
Example (cont.)
J D ,max
0.63 0.5 ln( N p ) Fopt
Stress and Stress Distribution
Stresses In Formations
H
v g dz
abs
v v p
h
v p p
eff
abs
0
Ground Surface
Critical Depth
-1000
-1500
ta
on
r iz
Ho
-2000
ss
tr e
lS
-2500
-3000
0
20x106
Tr
ue
Ve
rti
O
rig
in
al
ca
lS
tre
40x106
Stress, Pa
ss
-500
-1000
Ve
rti
-1500
ca
lS
tre
60x106
ss
-2000
-2500
80x106
Current Depth , m
-500
um
n im
Mi
Depth from original ground surface, m
Crossover of Minimum Stress
Influence of Lithology on In-Situ

Stress Distribution
Data from hydraulic fracturing
Stress Representation
z
zz
zy
y
yz
xz
zz
zx
xy
rz
zr
yy
rr
yx
xx
Fracture Initiation Pressure

For perfectly vertical well
pbd = 3H,min- H,max + To - p
Rock and Fracture

Mechanics
Linear Elasticity And Rock

Mechanics,
Stress and Strain Concept
Linear Elasticity
Material Properties,
Interrelation
Uniaxial Compression Test
Plane Stress - Plane strain

PKN-KGD-Radial
Uniaxial Loading Test to Obtain

Linear Elastic Parameters
F
A
Fl
E=
A l
l
l
v=-
lD
Dl
D/2
Interrelations Of Various Elastic

Constants Of An Isotropic Material
Ideal Crack Shapes
Pressurized Line Crack

Plane strain
Net Pressure - Superposition
How to apply?
Width equations
More complex models
Pressurized Line Crack
y
x
x
Tip
c
u(x)
r
p(x)
Line Crack
y
c
x
For constant pressure inside the frac the solution is:
4
2
2
w( x)
pn 0 c x
E'
E' is the plane strain modulus (almost same as Young's)
E' = E/(1-v2)
Plane Strain
y
x
All strains remain on

this plane
Notions of Plane Strain

Stress and resulting strain remain on a
plane which can be repeated infinite
times
Vertical and horizontal plane options
Vertical plane strain is for fractures
whose length is considerably larger than
the height
Horizontal plane strain, repeated many
times, is for fractures whose height is
much larger than their length
Plane strain views

Vertical Plane
Strain Condition
w0 (x=0
Horizontal Plane
Strain Condition
Application: Basic 2D Models

PKN
hf
qi
ww,0
w PKN ww, 0
xf
KGD
qi
hf
w KGD ww
ww
wellbore
tip
Stress Intensity Factor

weighted pressure at tip
Pa m1/2
psi - in.1/2
1
KI
2c
stress distribution
at tip
cx
c pn ( x) c x dx
Weighting function: the

nearer to tip, the more
important the pressure
value
1
cx
x
c
KI : proportionality const
Fracture toughness, KIC
Tip Propagation
Pressure
Fracture toughness, KIC
48 x f
ptip K Ic
x
c
Application:
Fracture Height Prediction
Height containment: why is it critical?
Fracturing to water or gas
Wasting proppant and fluid
Can it be controlled?
Passive: safety limit on injection pressure
Active: proppant (light and heavy)
Height and Width in Layered

Formation
Far-field Stress
Upper tip
Pinch point
Lower tip
Questions:
Contained?
Breakthrough?
Run-away?
Up or Down?
Width?
Hydrostatic
pressure?
Height
control?
What can be
measured?
Height Map
Tip
Location
[ft]
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
3000
Tip
Location
[m]
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
3100
3200
3300
3400
3500
3600
3700
3800 psi
26 MPa
21
Treating Pressure
Rheology, Fluid Flow in

Fractures, Proppant Transport
Stress - Shear Rate

Material Properties
Flow Geometries
Foam
Idealized Rheological
Behavior of Fluids
Shear Stress,
Plastic
Yield
Pseudoplastic
Pseudoplastic
Newtonian
Dilatant
Shear Rate,
Rheological Constitutive
Equations
Shear stress,
Apparent Viscosity
Shear rate, .
Parallel Plates (Slot Flow)

L
Flow
Limiting Elliptic Cross

Section
L
w
o
l
F
w0
Application:
Pressure drop in the fracture
Material Balance
Leakoff Delineation
Geometry Evolution (History)
During Pumping
During Shut-in
Bulk Fluid Loss, Detailed

Leakoff, Material Balance
Material Balance
Leakoff as Material
Property
Formal Material
Balance
Power-Law
Assumption
Filtercake, Invaded Zone, Reservoir

And Pressures For Fluid Leak-Off
Uninvaded
Reservoir
pf
Filtercake
pface
OpenFracture
Fracture
Open
pres
pi
Invaded Zone
Filtercak
e
Invaded zone
AL
C
vL L
t
" velocity" in m/s
Lost volume per unit surface, VL/AL (m)
Carter Leakoff
Model (Bulk Fluid Loss Concept)
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
y = 0.0024 + 0.000069x
0.001
0
2CL
Sp
10
20
30
40
Square root time, t1/2 (s1/2)
VLost
= CL 2 t + S p
AL
m m m
m
CL in
s
50
60
Material balance variables

2i
i
A
Formal Material Balance

for One Wing
Carter I Equation in lab:
Less than 2
qi te
VL = 2AL C L t + AL S p
Opening-Time Distribution Factor
Vi = V 2A C L t e 2 A S p
Vi
= w C L 2 te 2S p
A
w
w C L 2 te 2S p
here : AL = 2A
is about 1.5
Noltes Power Law

Assumption
AD t
AD A / Ae
t D t / te
1/
D
A
Ae t e
V Loffe = 2 C L
0
1
dtdA
t -

g 0
3 / 2
w
w g 0 ( ) C L 2 te 2 S p
VLoffe
2 Ae CL
Max 2
te
g0 Function
2.0
/2
1.5
4/3
g0
1.0
Nolte range
0.5
0.0
0
0.5
1.5
Apparent and "True"

Leakoff: rp
2qi
qL/2
hp
qi
Rf
qL/2
rp Factor for Radial Fracture

For rectangular :
rp
hp
hf
For circular
Rf
2
rp arcsin x x 1 x 2
hp
hp
2Rf
Coupling Of Elasticity,
Flow And Material Balance
Width
PK
KGD
No-Leakoff
Derivation of the Original

Perkins-Kern Width Equation
Assumptions
Height is constant
Elasticity: Vertical plane strain (but decoupled)
Flow in limiting ellipsoid cross section
Newtonian fluid
Net pressure is zero at tip
No leakoff
Perkins-Kern Width Equation

Elasticity: w0 x
2h f pn
Rheology:
E'
3
32
E
'
ix f
4
4
pn ,w 0
4
h f
dpn
8iE '3
4 3
dx
h f pn
ww,0
512
p 64 q
L
w30 h f
ix f
E'
w0 x ww,0 x f x
ix f
3.57
E'
4

0.628
45 5
PKN Constant Injection No Leakoff

512
it w x f h f
625
xf
625
512 3
i E'
4
h
f
4
f
E'
ww,0
80
pn ,w
ix h
5
f
ix h
2.24
E'
5
f
2560
E ' i
h
f
E' h
f
4
f
KGD
ww
p 12 q
3
L
w hf
4 x f pn
E'
336
ww
w ww
ix
2
f
E' h
f
ix
3.22
2
f
E' h
f
0.785
4
Comparison Of Width
Equations
For 2xf<hf the horizontal plane strain assumption
(KGD) is more appropriate
For 2xf>hf the vertical plane strain assumption (PK)
is physically more acceptable
w GK 21 625
w PK 32 512
1/ 4
2x f
1/ 4
hf
2x f
0.95
hf
1/ 4
Design Procedure
Pumping Time, Fluid Volume, Proppant

Schedule: Design of Frac Treatments
Pumping time and fluid volume:
Injected = contained in frac + lost
length reached, width created
Proppant schedule:
End-of-pumping concentration is uniform,
mass is the required
Given:
Mass of proppant, target length, frac height, inj rate,
rheology, elasticity modulus, leakoff coeff, max-possibleproppant-added-conc
Pumping Time, Fluid Volume

1 Calculate the wellbore width at the end of pumping from the
PKN (Power Law version)
n
ww, 0 = 9.15
1
2 n 2
3.98
n
2n2
1 2.14n
2 n 2
2 Convert max wellbore width into average width
q h xf
n 1 n
i
f
1
2n2
E'
1
2n2
we 0.628ww, 0
3 Assume a = 1. 5 and solve the material balance for injection

time, (selecting sqrt time as the new unknown)
qi
h x
f f
t 2 C
t (we 2S p ) 0
Vi qi te
4 Calculate injected volume

5 Calculate fluid efficiency
e =
V fe
Vi
h f x f we
Vi
Adjustment for
Several wayssee page 111 in UFD
One way, according to Nolte
= 1.33e + 1.57 (1 - e )
Noltes Power Law Proppant

Schedule:
C/C e
1
0 x dx 1
y =
Area (1 f pad )
fpad
0
1
1
Nolte's proposition:
select fpad=
slurry
1
1
V/Vi
Area
1
1
M ce Vi
1
M ce Vi
1
Proppant schedule
1 Calculate the Nolte exponent of the proppant
concentration curve
2 Calculate the pad volume and the time needed to
pump it
3 The required max proppant concentration, ce
should be (mass/slurry-volume)
4 The required proppant concentration
(mass/slurry-volume) curve
5 Convert it to added proppant mass to volume of
clean fluid (mass/clean-fluid-volume)
1 e
1 e
V pad Vi
t pad te
ce
M
eVi
t t pad
c ce
t t
pad
e
cadded
c
1
propp
Design Logic
Specify available proppant, volume and kf
Know your k and h
Assume frac height and fraction of proppant reaching
the pay layer
Determine proppant number
Determine optimum CfD
Determine optimum length and propped width
Given the target length, find pumping time and slurry
efficiency
Create proppant schedule providing uniform
distribution of proppant in the fracture at the moment
of shut-in
If necessary, iterate on frac height
Introducing
HF2DPKN
Input Parameters
Proppant mass for (two wings), lbm
This is the single most important decision variable of the
design procedure
Sp gravity of proppant material (from 2.6 to 3.5)

Porosity of proppant pack (e.g. 0.35)
Proppant pack permeability, md
One of the most important design parameters. Retained
permeability including fluid residue and closure stress
effects, might be reduced by a factor as large as 10 in case
of non-Darcy flow in the frac Realistic proppant pack
permeability would be in the range from 10,000 to 100,000
md for in-situ flow conditions. Values provided by
manufacturers such, as 500,000 md for a high strength
proppant should be considered with caution.
Max prop diameter, Dpmax, inch

From mesh size, for 20/40 mesh sand it is 0.035 in.
Input Parameters (cont.)
Formation permeability, md
Permeable (leakoff) thickness, ft
Wellbore Radius, ft
Well drainage radius, ft
Needed for optimum design. (Do not underestimate the
importance of this parameter!)
Pre-treatment skin factor

Can be set zero, it does not influence the design. It affects
only the "folds of increase" in productivity, because it is
used as basis.
Fracture height, ft
Usually greater than the permeable height. One of the
most critical design parameters. Might come from lithology
information, or can be adjusted iteratively related to the
frac length.
Plane strain modulus, E' (psi)

Hard rock: about 106psi, soft rock 105 psi or less.
Slurry injection rate (two wings, liq+ prop), bpm

Rheology, K' (lbf - secn'/ft2)
Rheology, n'
Leakoff coefficient in permeable layer, ft/min0.5
The leakoff coefficient outside the permeable layer is
considered zero. If the frac height to permeable layer ratio
is high, the apparent leakoff coefficient calculated from this
input will be much lower than the input for this parameter.
If the leakoff is significant outside the net pay, you may
want to adjust this parameter when you adjust fracture
height.
Spurt loss coefficient, Sp, gal/ft2

The spurt loss in the permeable layer. Outside the
permeable layer the spurt loss is considered zero. See the
remark above.

Max possible added proppant concentration, lb m/gallon fluid
(ppga)
The most important equipment constraint. Some current mixers can
provide more than 15 lbm/gal neat fluid. Often it is not necessary to
go up to the maximum technically possible concentration.
Multiply optimum length by factor

This design parameter can be used for sub-optimal design. Play!
Multiply pad by factor

Play (if necessary)!
(More input for TSO, Continuum Damage Mechanics)
Computer Exercise: Medium

Perm Design Example
Computer Exercise: Tight

Gas Design Example
Computer Exercise: HighPerm (Frac&Pack) Example
3D (Finite Element
Modeling)
y
wellbore element
tip element
Data Need for Both P3D

and 3D:
Layer data
Permeability, porosity, pressure
Youngs modulus, Poisson ratio, Fracture
toughness
Minimum stress
Fluid data
Proppant data
Leakoff calculated from fluid and layer data
The Value of Information

The available data are never enough (data
hunger)
Input accuracy is always in question
The models may behave strange
Sensitivity
the value of
information
What is the uncertainty?
How much difference does it make at the
bottomline? (We do not do fracs for Poisson
ratio)
What is the cost to improve accuracy of the
data?
High-Permeability Fracturing
Advent Of High Permeability

Fracturing (HPF)
Early frac packs viewed primarily as an
extension to gravel packing
Sand exclusion
Sand deconsolidation control
HPF has replaced gravel packs in many

petroleum producing areas
New PI (bpd/psi) allocated to larger rate or
drawdown, or any combination
lower
Transition towards hydraulic fracturing

40/60 gravel --> 20/40 or larger proppant
HEC fluid --> Crosslinked fracturing fluids
HPF In View Of
Gravel Packing
Progressive deterioration of gravelpack permeability (increased skin)
Leads to decline in well production
Counteracting decline with increased
pressure drawdown
Results in accelerated pore-level
deconsolidation and additional sand
production
The Gravel Pack Scenario

q
J
pe pwf
141.2 B
kh
0.472re
ln
s
rw
Assume k=50 md, h=100 ft, B=1.1, =0.75

cp and ln re /rw=8.5
Calculate PI and q for 1000 psi drawdown
Ideal (undamaged)
Some damage (s=10)
Gravel pack (s=30)
5 bpd/psi or 5,000 bpd

2.3 bpd/psi or 2,300 bpd
vs. The HPF Scenario

From CfD vs. sf graph, sf = -3
Fracture conductivity, CfD = 1
Fracture length, xf = 50 ft
Calculate PI and q for 1000 psi drawdown
Ideal (undamaged)
Some damage (s=10)
Gravel pack (s=30)
HPF (s=-3) 7.7 bpd/psi
HPF (s=-1) 5.6 bpd/psi
5 bpd/psi or 5,000 bpd

or 7,000 bpd
or 5,600 bpd
HPF In View Of Competing

Technologies
Skin Values Reported by Tiner et al. (1996)
Gravel Pack
High-Rate Water Pack
HPF
+5 to +10 excellent
+2 to +5 reported
0 to +2 normally
+40 and higher reported
0 to -3 in some reports
Production from high-rate water packs

reported to deteriorate with time.
Production may progressively improve during
the first several months following a HPF job.
Key Issues In HPF

Tip screenout concept
Net pressure and fluid leakoff
Soft formations, low elastic modulus values
Fluid volumes relatively small, potential for
high leakoff rates
Fundamentals of leakoff in HPF

Carter leakoff (modified)
Mayerhofer (filtercake based)
Fan and Economides (series resistance)
Width Inflation With the TipScreenout Technique

Tip-Screenout
Fracture Inflation
Packed Fracture
Comparison of Conventional
and HPF Design Concepts
Tip-Screenout
BHP
Injection Rate
Injected Slurry
Concentration
Fracture Creation
(Conventional)
TSO
Fracture Inflation
and Packing
Time
Fracturing Fluid and Proppant Concentrations in Fracture:

Pad Injection
Slurry Injection
At TSO
After FIP
- End of Job for Conventional Design -
B-5-X.52
Fracturing a High-Permeability
Well in Venezuela
C + FRACTURA
Fracturing Pressure Record and Match
GEOMETRIA DE LA FRACTURA REALIZADA
Fracturing Fluids and Proppants
Fracturing Fluids
Oil-based
Water-based
Mixtures of oil and water called emulsions
Water-based containing nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide gas
Oil-based containing nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide gas
Exclusively oil-based in the 1950s
More than 90% water-based in the 1990s
Nitrogen and carbon dioxide systems in water-based fluids
are used in about 50% of treatments
CMHPG
Guar
HPG
Crosslinked Fracturing
Fluids
Crosslinker
B, non-delayed
B, delayed
Zr, delayed
Zr, delayed
Zr, delayed
Zr-a, delayed
Ti, non-delayed
Ti, delayed
Gelling Agent
pH range
guar, HPG
guar, HPG
guar
guar
CMHPG, HPG
CMHPG
guar, HPG,
CMHPG
G, HPG, CMHPG
8-12
8-12
7-10
5-8
9-11
3-6
7-9
Application
Temp. Deg. F
70-300
70-300
150-300
70-250
200-400
70-275
100-325
7-9
100-325
LIQUID DELAYED BORATE
LIQUID FAST BORATE
SOLID FAST
BORATE
40# gel not crosslinked

With 4#per gal sand
40# crosslinked gel

With 4#per gal sand
KEROSENE
DIESEL
BLACK OIL
Phosphate
Ester
Phosphonate
Ester
Phosphinic
Acid
Iron
Activator
Aluminum
activator
Additives
Breakers
Causas de dao:
Flido, overdisplac., start
pdn
Proppant Transport Drives

Breaker Packages and Schedules
Added Breakers and
Imperfect Delay
Mechanisms Necessitate
Extra Fluid Viscosity
Viscosity
Minimum Proppant
Transport Threshold
Total Pump
Time
Time
Fluid Testing
Plot Viscos vs T
Compatibility
Rheology
Fluid Loss
Proppant carrying capacity
Residue in the proppant pack
Filter-cake residue
Breaking
Proppant Selection
Strength
Size
Sphericity
Quality
Brady 12/20
Ottawa 20/40
Oglebay 30/50
Ceramic 1
20/40
Ceramic 2
20/40
Ceramic 3
20/40
Resin Coated Proppants

16/20
16/20
20/40
Types of Proppant
Stress on Proppant and

Fatigue
Injection Test Interpretation
Injection rate
Bottomhole pressure
Step rate test
Time
Bottomhole pressure
Step rate test
Propagation pressure
Two straight lines
Injection rate
Fall-off (minifrac)
3 ISIP
4 Closure
5 Reopening
6 Forced closure
7 Pseudo steady state

8 Rebound
6
2nD injection
cycle
Injection rate
shut-in
flow-back
Time
Injection rate
1st
injection
cycle
Bottomhole pressure
Pressure Fall-off Analysis (Nolte)

t D t / te
Vte t = Vi 2Ae S p g t D , 2Ae C L te
wte t
Vi
- 2 S p g t D , 2C L te
Ae
g-function
1
1 t D
A1D/
g t D ,
dimensionless
shut-in time
1
t D AD1 /
dt D dAD
area-growth
exponent
4 t D 2 1 t D F 1 / 2, ;1 ;1 t D
g t D ,
1 2
where F[a, b; c; z] is the Hypergeometric function,

available in the form of tables and computing algorithms
g-function
Pressure Fall-off
t D t / te
Vte t = Vi 2Ae S p g t D , 2Ae C L te

wte t
Vi
- 2S p 2C L te g t D ,
Ae
Fracture stiffness
pnet S f w
pw pC S f Vi / Ae - 2 S f S p - 2 S f C L te g t D ,
pw bN mN g t D ,
Fracture Stiffness
(Reciprocal Compliance)
pnet S f w
Pa/m
Table 5.5 Proportionality constant, Sf and suggested for basic fracture geometries
PKN
KGD
Radial
4/5
2/3
8/9
Sf
2E '
h f
E'
x f
3E '
16 R f
Shlyapobersky Assumption
No spurt-loss
Vi
pw pC S f
- 2 S f S p - 2 S f C L te g t D ,
Ae
Ae from intercept
bN
mN
pw
g
Nolte-Shlyapobersky
Leakoff
coefficient,
CL
Fracture
Extent
Fracture
Width
Fluid
Efficiency
PKN
KGD
Radial
h f
mN
4 te E '
x f
mN
2 te E '
8R f
mN
3 te E '
xf
2 E Vi
h 2f bN pC
xf
E Vi
h f bN pC
V
we i
x f hf
V
we i
x f hf
2.830C L t e
2.956C L t e
we x f h f
Vi
we x f h f
Vi
Vi: injected into one wing
Rf 3
we
3E Vi
8bN pC
Vi
R
2
2.754C L t e
2
f
we R 2f
Vi
Example
In a minifrac test 39.75 m3 (10,500 gal) fluid was injected
into one fracture wing during 20minutes. Estimate the
leakoff coefficient, if E=16.9 GPa, the closure pressure is
pC= 22.1MPa (3200 psi), the permeable height is 9.75 m
(32 ft)
Use the Radial model for analysis.
1 plot
2 get slope and intercept
p 32.54 MPa - 1.4 MPa g t D ,8/9
Analysis of Injection Test Example

3
Calculate Rf
(fracture extent -radius)
4
Calculate CLAPP
(apparent leakoff coeff)
5
Calculate wL
(leakoff width)
6
Calculate we
(end-of pumping width)
7
Calculate
(fluid efficiency)
Rf 3
CLAPP
3E Vi
8 bN pC
8R f
3 t e
E'
N
8
wL g (0, )2CLAPP t e
9
we
Vi
wL
2
Rf / 2
we
we wL
Created Fracture Radius,

Apparent Leakoff Coefficient
3E 'Vi
3 1.69 1010 39.75
Rf 3
3
28.9 m 94.7 ft
7
7
8 bN pC
8 3.254 10 2.2110
C L , APP
8R f
8 28.8 (1.4 106 )
(mN )
3 te E '
3 1200 1.69 1010
5.85 10 5 m/s 0.5 0.0015 ft/min 0.5
Since only hp = 9.75 m is permeable ,

the ratio of permeable to total surface
rp is less than 1
From Apparent" to Real"

x
hp
2R f
0.1687
2
rp x(1 x 2 ) 0.5 arcsin( x) 0.214
5.85 10 5
0.0015
0.5
CL
m/s
ft/min 0.5
0.214
0.214
C L 2.7 10 4 m/s 0.5 0.0070 ft/min 0.5
Computer Exercise
Minifrac Analysis
Redesign
Run the design with new leakoff
coefficient
(That is why we do minifrac analysis)
Treatment Execution
Pump schedule
Proppant schedule
Treatment flowback and forced
closure
Fracture Propagation
Fracture Propagation
Elasticity
Friction
Material balance
Propagation
criterion
Elementary Material
Balance
Ac w0h f
4
w(x)
q(x+ x)
w0
h(x)
Ac(x)
x+x
q(x)
x
Differential Models:
Nordgren
Pressure Loss in
Limiting3Ellipsoid Flow
w0 h f pn
q=
64 x
Material Balance
Linear Elasticity
vertical plane strain
pn
E ' w0
x
2h f x
2h f C L
h f w0
q
+
+
=0
x
4t
t - x
8h f C L
E ' 2 w04
w0
+ hf
2
t
128 x
t -
+Wellbore Boundary
+Tip Boundary
Dimensionless Variables
Of The Nordgren Model
x c1 x D
t c2 t D
w0 c3 w0 D
pn c4 w0 D
i
c1
8
4
128
C
E
'
hf
L
32i
c3 2
CL E'h f
2
1/ 3
1/ 3
i
c2
5
16
E
'
CL h f
4E' i
c4
2 4
CL h f
2 2
1/ 3
2/ 3
Other Propagation Criteria

Fracture toughness
Dilatancy
Statistical fracture
mechanics
Continuum damage
mechanics
CDM
n
1- D
dD
= C n
dt
dD

= C
1- D
dt
What is the time needed for D

to start at D = 0
and grow to D = 1 ?
CDM Propagation Criterion

x
Cl
uf =
H,min l + x f
2
1/ 2
f
Combined Kachanov parameter:
w2x=x f
Cl
CDM
Fracture Propagation With CDM

103
C l
D D
102
0.0001
10
xfD
0.001
100
0.01
10-1
10-2
0.1
10-3
10-4
10-3
10-1
101
103
tD
105
107

102
C l
D
0.0001
2
D
0.001
wD , pD
10
C l
D
2
D
0.01
0.1
10
10-1
10-3
10-1
101
tD
103
105
107

100
C l
D
10-1
2
D
0.0001
0.001
10-2
0.1
0.01
1
10-2
10-3
10-1
101
103
tD
105
107
Real-Time Monitoring
Calculate proppant concentration at
bottom (shift)
Calculate bottomhole injection pressure,
net pressure
Calculate proppant in formation, proppant
in well
Later: Add and synchronize gauge
pressure
Nolte-Smith Plot
Log net
pressure
Tip
screenout
Wellbore
screenout
Normal frac
propagation
Unconfined
height growth
Log injection
time
Fracture Height Measurements

Evaluating the effectiveness of the
treatment
Estimating the subsequent production
behavior of the well, and
Checking the accuracy of fracture
design and fracture height models
used to predict fracture geometry
Available Techniques
Measured Directly
n
o
ti
a
r
Borehole Televiewer et
n
e
Based on Inference
p
f
TemperatureoLogging
s
u
Isotopes
(fluid, proppant)
i
d
a
Seismic
Methods, Noise Logging
R
Tiltmeter techniques
Formation Micro Scanner
Spinner survey
Sc
Sb
Ir
Tracer
log
Tiltmeter Results
after Economides at al. Petroleum Well Construction
Pressure Match with P3D

Simulation
Texaco E&P
OCS-G 10752 #D-12
Actual
05-23-1997
FracCADE
EOJ Fracture Profile and Proppant Concentration

7300
< 0.0
0.0
0.0 - 2.0
2.0 - 4.0
4.0 - 6.0
6.0 - 8.0
8.0 - 10.0
10.0 - 12.0
12.0 - 14.0
> 14.0
7350
7400
7450
7500
5600
6400
Stress(psi)
*Mark of Schlumberger
7200 -0.45 -0.30 -0.15
0.15 0.30 0.45 0
Wellbore Hydraulic Width(in)
100
200
Fracture Half-Length (ft)
300
400
P3D Simulation
Texaco E&P
OCS-G 10752 #D-12
Actual
05-23-1997
FracCADE
Flow Capacity Profiles
5000
0.20
4000
0.15
3000
Conductivity (Kfw) - md.ft
Propped Width - in
0.25
0.10
2000
Propped Width (ACL)
Conductivity - Kfw
0.05
*Mark of Schlumberger
1000
50
100
150
Fracture Half-Length - ft
200
0
250
3D (Finite Element)
y
wellbore element
tip element
Execution of High-Permeability
Fractures
Generalized Job Sequence

For HPF
Perforate
Run the gravel-pack screen assembly
Spot/soak acid to clean up perforations
Perform and interpret pre-treatment
diagnostic tests
Design TSO pumping schedule based
on design variables from diagnostic
tests
(cont.)
Perforations For HPF

12 shots per foot with big hole charges
Limited number of 0o or 180o phased
perforations in heart of pay interval
Clean formation breakdown
Near-well tortuosity
Prevent unpacked perforations
Arguments for and against overbalanced

and underbalanced perforating
Screenless And Rigless

HPF Completions
Reduces $$ and simplifies treatments
Paves the way for multiple-zone HPF
completions and thru-tubing recompletions
Resin-coated tails to control proppant
flowback; success reported (Kirby et al.,
1996)
Rigless coiled tubing completions
Treatment Flowback and

Forced Closure
Flow fracture fluids back out of well
immediately after end of pumping at 10 gpm
to 2-3 bpm (requires flowback manifold)
Think of as reverse gravel packing
rather than causing rapid fracture closure
Supercharged fluids assist fracture/well
cleanup
Reduces proppant settling
Reduces proppant flowback, a
counter-intuitive result
Fracturing Equipment and

Field Practices
Fracturing Equipment
Hydration unit
Blender
Chemical additives system
Proppant transport
Frac pumps
Hi/Lo Pressure manifold
Monitoring and control van
QA/QC van
Hydration Unit
Blender
100 bpm-35,000 lbpm sand

2 dry/3 liquid chemical feeders
Chemical Additives System
Proppant Transport
Frac Pump
2400 bhp frac pump
Hi/LO Pressure Manifold
Monitoring And Control

Van
pressure relief line
mps
frac p
u
frac tanks
blender
Batch Mixed
pop-off valve
treating line
valve
well
pressure transducers
check valve
plug valve
conveyor belt
proppant
transports
QA/QC
van
control van
mps
frac p
u
blender
hydration unit
pit suction
manifold
Real Time Mixing With Pit

Suction Manifold
pop-off valve
treating line
valve
well
check valve
conveyor belt
proppant
transports
plug valve
QA/QC
van
control van
pop-off valve
valve
well
check valve
plug valves
conveyor belt
QA/QC
van

treating line
frac pumps
blender
frac tanks
hydration unit
Real Time Mixing
HI/LO pressure
manifold
proppant
transports
control van
Quality Control Philosophy

Start of quality control (QC) was motivated
20 years ago by poor service quality
Producing companies began to exercise
various forms of quality control
Today QA/QC represents a broad swath of
self-policing quality control schemes
Checklist, filled out in the field
Incentive-ized marketing strategy
Latest avante garde business psychology
Quality Control
Fracture treatment should, and can,
be carried out as it was designed
Pre-treatment planning
Well maintained and functioning equipment
Trained, conscientious and well-informed
personnel
Intense tracking of each fracturing material
and critical treatment parameters
Post-treatment evaluation
Quality Control For HPF

Many early treatments failed because of
equipment problems and lack of QC on
fluids and proppants
Adoption of intense quality control
measures common to MHF was slow for HPF
Slowed introduction of HPF
Now common for producing company to
supply consultant or in-house specialist to
oversee quality control
Standard Fracturing QA
Procedures
Pre-job Testing
Prior to pumping, each frac tank is strapped and
tested for specific gravity, pH and temperature. A
sample is taken from each tank and tested with
gelling agent for viscosity and crosslink time. A
composite fluid sample is tested with chemicals from
location.
Proppant Validation
Proppant sieve analysis is provided on location. If
proppant does not meet acceptable standards, each
compartment is tested individually.
Procedures
Pre-job Inventory
Prior to the start of the job, the Stimulation Treatment
Check List is filled out with beginning volumes of all
chemicals and frac fluid on location. Proppant storage
is visually inspected and compared to weight tickets.
Job Testing and Recording

Fluids and chemicals are physically strapped every
5,000 gallons or as often as possible. Samples of the
pad and 2-3 slurry stages are taken along with
corresponding proppant samples.
Procedures
Real-Time QA
In addition to normal treatment displays of rate,
pressure, net pressure and sand concentration, the
following parameters will be displayed and recorded:
pH, fluid temperature, viscosity and all additive rates.
Post-job Reports
In addition to the standard treatment outputs, the
treatment report includes the following: Proppant
Sieve Analysis and QC Form, Water Quality Control
Form, Frac Fluid Blending and QC Form, and
Stimulation Real Time Report.
Evaluation Techniques
Fracture Treatment
Evaluation
Real-time analysis
Fracture height and orientation
Well testing
Evaluation of HPF treatments-a unified approach
Production results
Evaluation of real-time HPF treatment data
Post-treatment PTA in HPF
Decision-Making On Site
ct
Vs
po or CDM
ct
Big 3 fracturing variables: ct, po, h

Prepare crossplots before going to field:
F.E.
po or CDM
Read Vs directly; %Pad = (1-F.E.) / (1+F.E.)

Sensitivity runs on q, E, fluid properties
Type IV
Type III
Log p
Real time pressure

response types,
indicating increasing
risk of screenout
(Nolte-Smith Plot)
Type II
Type I
Log t
Start Job
Prepad
Pad
1 2 3
4
Flush
Sand-laden 20/40
Fracture Geometry and Height

Growth
v
Shale
2
H,min
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
H,max
Shale
pnet /
hf /h
hf h
Pnet
C
B
Fracture Height And

Fracture Orientation
Temperature log
R/A tracer survey
Seismic imaging, active and passive
Tiltmeter arrays, surface and downhole
Borehole elongation caliper
Oriented core (anelastic strain
relaxation)
Empirical observations
Well Testing
Pre-fracture well tests are not possible in
low permeability formations
Post-fracture well test intended to obtain
permeability and fracture extent,
simultaneously
Different combinations of the unknown
parameters can give a good fit
In HPF, the permeability is usually known
and the primary goal is to evaluate the
created fracture
Know What The Analysis

Plot Should Look Like
fracture linear
bilinear
formation linear
pseudo-radial
boundary dominated
Dimensionless Pressure and Pressure LogDerivative for a Fractured Vertical Well
Dimensionless Pressure, pD
10
Dimensionless
Fracture
Conductivity
CfD
Region of
Bilinear Flow
Region of
Linear Flow
0.1
2 kh p
pD = qB Oil
0.5
1
10-1
10-2
10-5
5
10
pD =
50
100
500
CfD =
10-4
10-3
2 khTsc [ m(p)]
k fw
kxf
10-2
Dimensionless Time, tDxf
qTpsc
tDxf =
Gas
kt
ctxf2
10-1
Well Testing: The Quest for

Flow Regimes
Bilinear Flow Analysis

Equations
44.1q B
wk f
h
m
B
c k
t
0.5
Drawdown
0.00708kh
pi p0
sf
qB
Buildup
0.00708kh
sf
p0 pwf
qB
Bilinear Flow Analysis

2800
pws, psi
2750
m=63.8 psi/hr1/4
2700
2650
2600
0
0.5
teqB1/4, hrs 1/4
1.5
Limitations of Bilinear
Flow Analysis
Applicable only to finite-conductivity fractures
Bilinear flow may be hidden by wellbore
storage
Requires independent estimate of k
To estimate xf there is a need for pseudoradial
flow regime
Linear Flow Analysis

Equations
4.064q B
xf
mL h k ct
12
Drawdown
0.00708kh
sf
pi p0
qB
Buildup
0.00708kh
sf
p0 pwf
qB

6000
5000
paws, psi
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
10
taLeq1/2, hrs1/2
12
14
16
18
Limitations of
Applicable only to wells with high-conductivity
fractures
Wellbore storage may hide linear flow period
Long transition period between end of linear flow
(tLfD < 0.016) and beginning of pseudoradial flow
(tLfD > 3)
Requires independent estimate of k
To estimate wkf there is need for pseudoradial flow
regime
Evaluation Of HPF Treatments-A Unified Approach

Evaluation of real-time HPF treatment data
Step-wise approach for evaluation of bottomhole
treating pressures outlined by Valk et al. (1996):
Leakoff coefficient from minifrac using minimum assumptions
(e.g. radial geometry and Nolte-Shlyapobersky method)
Almost automatic procedure to estimate created fracture
dimensions (slopes analysis)
Convert results to equivalent fracture extent and conductivity
Conduct for large number of treatments from various
operators to build data bank
Slopes Analysis
HPF treatments often exhibit numerous
increasing pressure intervals which are
interrupted by anomalous pressure decreases
Slopes analysis provides a simple tool for
examining such behavior
Design parameters
Minimum user input beyond real treatment data

Relatively independent of fracture propagation model
Not be a history matching procedure
Screening tool based on well-defined (reconstructible)
algorithm
HPF Radial Fracture

Geometry
2i
qL /2
qL /2
A = (/2)R2
i
R
qL /2
qL /2
Slopes Analysis
Assumptions
Created fracture is vertical with a radial geometry
Fluid leakoff can be described by the Carter leakoff
model plus Nolte power-law type area growth
Fracture packing radius may vary with time, being
allowed to increase or decrease
Hydraulic fracture radius (which defines leakoff
area) cannot decrease, and is the maximum of the
packing radius that has occurred up to a given time
(cont.)
Slopes Analysis
Assumptions (cont.)
During regular width-inflation periods, the
pressure slope is defined by linear elastic rock
behavior and fluid material balance with
friction effects being negligible
Injected proppant is distributed evenly along
the actual packing area during each
incremental period of arrested extension/width
growth
Slopes Analysis:
Restricted Growth Theory
dw 1
i qL
dt A
R 2
and
A
2
dp 3E
dt 16 R
3E
pn
w
16 R
2
i qL
2
R
Slopes Analysis: Restricted

Growth Theory (cont.)
q L ,t
1
2 AC L
t
g t D ,
t D
g t D ,8 / 9
dt D
q L ,t
t D 0
= 1.91
t D 0
1
2 AC L
1.91
t
Bottomhole Pressure From HPF

Treatment
Bottomhole Pressure, psi
3700
3500
3300
19:00:00
19:20:00
Clock Time, hh:mm:ss
19:40:00
Bottomhole Pressures Corresponding to

Width Inflation Intervals
Filtered BHP, psi
3700
3500
3300
19:00:00
19:20:00
Clock Time, hh:mm:ss
19:40:00
Determining Packing Radius

For A Width Inflation Period
Combining the newly developed
basic equations:
3E
m
16 R
2
R
R 2
1
C L
1.91
i 2
t
2
Or:
2.25E C L 0.375 E i
R R

0
m
m t
Estimated Packing Radius

With Interpolation
Hydraulic Radius
50
40
R, ft
30
Packing Radius
20
10
0
10
20
30
t, min
40
50
Determining The Final Areal

Proppant Concentration
For every time interval, t, determine the mass of
proppant entering the fracture.
Assume this mass to be uniformly distributed inside
the packing radius corresponding to the given time
step.
Obtain the mass of proppant in a ring between radius
R1 and R2 by summing up (accumulating) the mass of
proppant placed during the whole treatment.
Repeat Step 3 for all rings to obtain the areal proppant
concentration as a function of radial location R.
Final Areal Proppant Concentration as a

Function of Distance From the Perforations
14
12
10
cp, lb/ft2
8
6
4
2
0
10
20
30
R, ft
40
50
Design Improvement in a
Field Program
Sizing
Pad volume for generic design
More aggressive or defensive proppant schedule
Proppant change (resin coated, high strength)
Fluid system modification (crosslinked, foam)
Proppant carrying capacity
Leakoff
Perforation strategy changes

Forced closure
Fiber reinforcement
Field Analysis of Fractured

Wells
Case Study of 1000 wells analyzed in
Western Siberia
Evaluation of field-derived
productivity indexes with the ones
designed
Improvement in design
JD; JDtarget and the JDAttainable vs.

reservoir permeability, all wells
2003 and 2004 fracture designs vs.

the presumed reservoir
permeability
PI vs. presumed
permeability
Comparison of JDDesign vs. JD from Nprop

field-derived JD wells fractured in 2003
Comparison of JDDesign vs. JD from Nprop

field-derived JD wells fractured in 2004
Comparison of JD based on Nprop from

pressure matched frac geometry 2003
Comparison of JD based on Nprop from

pressure matched frac geometry
2004
JD based on Nprop from pressure

matched geometry for 2003
JD based on Nprop from pressure

matched geometry for 2004
Deviations from Ideality

Advanced Concepts
Fracturing High-Rate Gas Wells

Non-Darcy flow reduces fracture flow
capacity substantially
However, fracturing is a major way
to reduce non-Darcy effects in an
unfractured wells and provide well
stimulation
(Ref. Economides et al. World Oil, Oct.,
2002)
Reduction of Fracture Conductivity

k f ,e
N Re
k f ,n
Effective Fracture
Permeability
1 N Re
k f , n v
(1x10 )
8
Reynolds Number
b
( k f ,n ) a
a and b are constants

of the proppant
Example of Fracture
Design for Gas Well
Proppant mass for (two wings), lbm
150,000
Sp grav of proppant material
2.65
Porosity of the proppant pack
0.3
Formation permeability, md
0.5
Permeable (leakoff) thickness, ft
150
Well Radius, ft
0.30
Well drainage radius, ft
800
Pre-treatment skin factor
10.0
Fracture height (gross) , ft
400.0
Nominal (Darcy) proppant pack permeability, md
200,000
Additional Information Needed

for Non-Darcy Calculations
Gas Specific Gravity (air=1)
0.71
p avg (psia)
4000
pwf (psia)
1500
(cp)
0.015
T (R)
580
0.91
Coefficients for the Cooke

correlation ( 20/40 mesh sand)
a
1.54
110,4
70
Design Procedure in UFD

Assume a Reynolds number
Calculate the effective proppant permeability
Calculate the Proppant Number. Obtain the
maximum possible productivity index JD,max
and the optimum dimensionless fracture
conductivity, CfD,opt . Determine fracture
dimensions.
From the productivity index and drawdown
determine the actual production rate, which
in turn is used to obtain the Reynolds
number.
Design Iteration 1
Assume NRe = 0, thus kf,e = 200,000 md
Proppant Number, Nprop
1.288
Dimensionless PI, JD, opt
1.06
Optimal dimensionless fracture cond,

CfD,opt
3.0
Optimal half length, xf,opt, ft
464
Optimal propped width, wopt, inch
0.042
Post treatment pseudo skin factor, sf
-6.20
Design Iteration 1
q
2
kh( pave
pwf2 )
1424 ZT
(0.5 md)(150 ft)[(4000 psi) 2 (1500 psi) 2 )

JD
(1.06) 96,960 MSCF/d
1424(0.015 cp)(0.91)(580 R)
Bg = 0.0283 (ZT / pfrac) = 0.0283 (0.91) (580) / 1500 = 0.00997 res ft3/SCF
= 0.076 g/Bg lbm/ft3 = 1.22 g/Bg kg/m3 = 86.9 kg/m3
v = (0.00997)(96,960)(1000)/(24)(3600)(400)(0.042/12)(2) = 4 ft/sec = 1.22 m/s
Design Iteration 1
10
b
(k f )
75,800 1/m
NRe = (75,800) (1.97 X 10-10) (1.22)(86.9) / (0.015 X10-3) = 106
Design Iteration 2
0.1288
0.50

CfD,opt
1.6
200
0.097
q = 45,740 MSCF/d, v = 0.25 m/s, NRe = 22
Design Iteration 3
0.0756
0.444

CfD,opt
1.6
157
0.124
q = 41,000 MSCF/d, v = 0.174 m/s, NRe = 15
Design Pumped
Efficiency, , %
44.9
Pumping time, te, min
47.7
Pad pumping time, tpad, min
18.1
Max added proppant concentration,

lb per gal clean fluid
10.0
Design Pumped
Constants a and b in Cookes

correlation
Prop Size
8 to 12
10 to 20
20 to 40
40 to 60
a
1.24
1.34
1.54
1.60
b
17,423
27,539
110,470
69,405
Applying The Firoozabadi And Katz

Correlation for Non-Darcy Flow
k app
c v
k
1 0. 2
k
cqa ca g
q c0q
2 h
2 h
k app
c0q
1
wk 0f .2
Tortuous Flow Path

Analysis of the injection rate dependent
element of the treating pressure
Does proppant slug help?
Does limited entry help?
Does oriented perforation help?
Extreme: reconsidering well orientation:
e.g. S shaped
Misalignment
Proppant Slugs
Well Orientation
S - shaped
Fracture Orientation: Perforation

Strategy (After Dees, SPE 30342)
max
From
overbalanced perforation
max
From
underbalanced perforation
Fracture Face Skin Effect

Damaged
Zone
ks
ws
kf
xf
Effect of Fracture Face Skin

1 1 1 B q ws
psf

ks k ks h 4x f
JD
1
1
JD
s 0
s ff
psff
1 B q
s ff
2 k h
ws k
s ff
1
2 x f ks
Dimensionless Productivity Index

Including Fracture Face Skin Effect
Fracture Choke Skin

Damage
d Zone
kf
kck
xf
xs
Damage
d Zone
w
ws
xs
kf
kck
xf
Effect of Choke Skin
Production Impairment in GasCondensate Reservoirs (SPE 64749)

Weighted average of immiscible and miscible relative permeability curves:
k rg fk rgI (1 f )k rgM
1
f
N c 1/ b
1 ( )
a
here a and b are parameters which are 1.6E-3 and 0.324,
respectively, and Nc, is the capillary number which is defined by
kp
Nc
Acid Fracturing
Acid Fracturing
Acid is injected at a rate high enough to generate the
pressure
required to fracture the formation.
Differential etching occurs as the acid chemically
reacts with
the formation face.
Areas where the rock has been removed and kept
open are highly conductive to hydrocarbon flow after
the fracture closes.
In general: no proppant
(Fracture Acidizing)
As a general guideline, it is used on formations
with >80% hydrochloric acid solubility. (??)
Low permeability carbonates (< 20 md) are the
best candidates for these treatments because
of the differential permeabilities between the
"fracture conductivity" and the matrix of the
rock.
Fluid loss to the matrix and natural fractures
can be better controlled in lower permeability
formations.
The Closed Fracture

Acidizing (CFA)
Existing fractures in the formation. The
fractures can be natural, previously created
fractures, or fractures hydraulically induced
just prior to the CFA treatment.
Pumping acid at low rates below fracturing
pressure into a fractured well. The acid
preferentially flows into areas of higher
conductivity (fractures) at low rates for
extended contact times, resulting in
enhanced flow capacity.
Performance Prediction
Fracture conductivity, created
dynamic width, created dissolved
width
Width from stochiometry and
material balance
Etched pattern
Stress and strength (Nierode
and Kruk)
limit: 5000 psi
Newtonian Flow of Fluid

(Slot Flow) Darcys Law
p
u Darcy
L
k
12 u avg
p
2
L
w
Equivalent Permeability of Empty Fracture

2
w
k
12
Equivalent Conductivity of Empty Fracture

3
w
kw
12
Acid Fracturing
Ideal width
wi
Volume of rock dissolved

Fracture area
Ideal permeability (in consistent units)

w2
k id
12
Realistic kfw from Nierode and Kruk (rock

embedment stress)
Nierode and Kruk

Input
ideal width wi (in.)
rock embedment stress Srock (psi)
closure stress (psi)
k f w C1e C2
C1 1.47 10 7 wi2.47
C2 (13.9 1.3 ln S rock ) 10 3 if Srock 20,000 psi
C2 (3.8 0.28 ln S rock ) 10 3 if Srock 20,000 psi
Output kfw in md-ft
Controlling Fluid Loss

Pumping a high viscosity preflush ahead of
the acid solution, or controlling the
densities of the preflush, acid, and
overflush fluids used in the treatment.
One technique uses nonacid phases
containing fluid-loss control additives
pumped at intervals during the treatment
to re-establish fluid loss control.
Another technique uses a high viscosity
preflush ahead of the acid solution.
ACIDS
Hydrochloric (HCl)
Acetic (CH3COOH)
Formic (HCOOH)
Hydrofluoric (HF)
Fracturing Horizontal Wells

Longitudinal
Similar to vertical well but with multiple
stages potential increases
Transverse
Multiple transverse treatments
Basis of Design
The PI of a fractured vertical well is used
to evaluate the attractiveness of the
multiple transverse fracture
Unified Fracture Design is adapted with
shape factors to account for elongated
drainage shapes
Traditional perforating methods if applied
will lead to failure. New methods using
abrasive jets are preferred
Necessary isolation methods can impact
execution time and cost
Design Procedure for Vertical

Well, Vertical Fracture
Determine the amount of proppant

reaching the target layer
Determine the proppant number and
the optimum fracture conductivity
Determine appropriate fracture
dimensions
Calculate injection time and proppant
schedule to deliver the optimum
fracture dimensions.
Np for Elongated Drainage

I C fD
2
x
4k f x f w
Square Drainage
N prop I C fD
2
x
Const
kxe2
4k f x f w
kxe2
4k f x f wh p
kxe2 h p
2k f V p
kVr
Vres xe y e h
Elongated Drainage
Np
2k f V p
kVres
4k f whx f
kxe y e h
N pe N p
CA
30.88
x f xe
x f xe
I x2 C fD
xe
ye
Fluid Flow For Transversely

Fractured Horizontal Well
rw
rw
2xf
w
Fluid flow from reservoir into fracture
2xf
Fluid flow from fracture into wellbore
PI of Transversely Fractured
Horizontal Well
kh
h
sc
[ln(
) ]
kf w
2rw
2
J DTH
1
(
1
J DV
) sc
Multiple Transverse Fractures

Intersecting a Horizontal Well
min
max
rw
Vertical vs Horizontal
Performance Comparison
Proppant
x e (ft) y e (ft)
Mass, lbs
Vertical Well
x f (ft)
JD
1640
1640
0.0696
1.60
171
0.43
200,000
1640
1640
0.1391
1.64
239
0.50
300,000
1640
1640
0.2087
1.71
287
0.55
Np
C fD
x f (ft) J DTH
1640
820
0.1391
1.62
170
0.65
1640
410
0.2782
1.42
182
1.17
1640
328
0.3478
1.20
198
1.34
Np
C fD
Number of
x e (ft) y e (ft)
Fracs
Horizontal Well
300,000 lbs
C fD
100,000
Number of
x e (ft) y e (ft)
Fracs
Horizontal Well
100,000 lbs
Np
x f (ft) J DTH
1640
820
0.4173
1.75
283
0.94
1640
410
0.8347
1.55
301
1.73
1640
328
1.0434
1.33
325
2.02
Production Forecast
Artificial lift required
Planning and Execution

Considerations
The notion of fracturing a horizontal well transversely
has to be considered BEFORE the well is drilled
Horizontal section must be drilled along the minimum

horizontal stress;
Casing, completion and all mechanical elements that go

into the well must be able to sustain the pressures and
injection rates required for the treatment(s);
Two major decisions need to be taken:

a) Method of perforation
b) Method of isolation between individual treatments
Method of Perforation
The only suitable method for perforation is by
abrasive jet cutting tools
It is the only tool that offers large, clean and deep
holes and in close spacing.
Traditional guns will require as much as 3 ft to place
the required number of perforations for the fracture
treatment; this length, in turn, may cause tortuosity or
even multiple fracture initiations.
Tortuosity will result in extra fracturing pressure that,
many times, might not be available, and the fracture
may not initiate.
Abrasive Jet Cutter

Example of jet cutter tool with 4 holes radially disposed,
90 phased
Example of jet cutter tool with 6 holes longitudinally

disposed, 180 phased in a 4 section
Method of Isolation Between

Individual Treatments
Choices: drillable (composite) coiled tubing
conveyed electrically set, or pump-through,
hydraulically set bridge plugs. The selection will
impact both the operations schedule and the cost.
Using an e-line CT would require first to switch CT
reel from the previous pumping operation to an eline reel. This is the major reason that a pumpthrough, hydraulically set bridge plug might be
preferred.
On the other hand, using an e-line coil tubing allows
the operator to also run a CCL locator for greater
accuracy for the exact location of the bridge plug.
Execution Procedure
Four sets of operations to be executed

1.
2.
3.
4.
Fracture Isolation
Fracture Placement
Fracture Clean-Up
Post Fracture Flow-Back and Testing
The first three sets are repeated for each additional

fracture treatment; the fourth is to be performed after all
fracture treatments have been placed.
The isolation method selected will impact both the
operations schedule and the cost.
Execution Procedure
(Pump through hydraulically set bridge plug)
Execution Procedure
(Electrically set bridge plug)
Summary
Increasing role of evaluation
Integration of reservoir engineering,
production engineering and treatment
information
Cost matters
Expensive 3D and P3D models do not
substitute thinking
Still what we want to do is increasing JD

FracCourse 2007

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FracCourse 2007

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Hydraulic Fracturing

Hydraulic Fracturing For

Historically, for low-permeability

No longer true - high perm. is common

Originally an offshoot of sand

Large up-front investment in people,

Principle of Least Resistance

Least Principal Stress

Optimal Fracture Length and Conductivity

Assuming a fixed amount of paving material, do I build a long,

Optimal Fracture Length and Conductivity

Length Vs. Width

Tip Screenout (TSO) for HighPermeability Reservoirs

Vertical Fracture - Vertical

Original skin disappears

Horizontal Well with Multiple

What are we doing?

Fracturing Role Expanded

Production rate is proportional to drawdown, defined as average

Vertical Well, Fully Penetrating

Transient Flow Regimes

Linear Formation Flow

Pseudoskin Factor, Radial Flow

sf is pseudoskin factor used after the treatment

Dimensionless Productivity Index,

Cinco-Ley and Samaniego

sf + In(xf /rw), sf + In (xf /rw) + 0.5 In (CfD)

Pseudoskin Factor for a Finite

Proppant Number Various Ways to Look at it

Nprop= const means

JD vs CfD (moderate Nprop)

1 0.667 N prop 0.015( N prop )

Optimal Length and Width

Tight Gas and Frac&Pack:

High permeability k >> 1 md (soft formation)

Results for Np <0.1

Results for Np <0.1

Results for Np <0.1

0.99 0.5 ln( N pe )

Results for Np 0.1

0.1 yeD 0.25

Results for Np 0.1 (cont.)

Results for Np 0.1 (cont.)

Results for Np 0.1 (cont.)

F -function at Opt. Values

F -function at Opt. Values

F -function at Opt. Values

F -function at Opt. Values

100,000 lb of 20/40 ceramic are

Multiple fractures with same type of treatment

0.63 0.5 ln( N p ) Fopt

Stress and Stress Distribution

Depth from original ground surface, m

Crossover of Minimum Stress

Influence of Lithology on In-Situ

Data from hydraulic fracturing

Fracture Initiation Pressure

Rock and Fracture

Linear Elasticity And Rock

Plane Stress - Plane strain

Uniaxial Loading Test to Obtain

Interrelations Of Various Elastic