Hydraulic Fracturing Section 2

Types of Hydraulic Fracturing

2.

Types of Hydraulic Fracturing

There are various different types of hydraulic fracturing, which have evolved around the basic process of creating a fracture and then propping it open. The type of treatment selected depends upon the formation characteristics (permeability, skin damage, fluid sensitivity, formation strength), the objectives of the treatment (stimulation, sand control, skin bypass or a combination) and the constraints we have to work within (cost, logistics, equipment etc).

2.1

Low Permeability Fracturing

This type of fracturing is often carried out in tight gas formations, found in areas such as the Rocky Mountains, Algeria, Western Germany, parts of Australia and many other places worldwide. Permeabilities for such formations range 1 md right down to 1 d and less. This type of treatment is also applicable to low permeability oil formations, although permeabilities tend to 1 or 2 orders of magnitude greater. In order for hydrocarbons to flow down the fracture, rather than through the adjacent formation, the fracture must be more conductive than the formation. Given that the kp for 20/40 Colorado Silica frac sand is 275 darcies (provided closure pressure is below 3,000 psi), we can see that even a very narrow fracture will have a much higher conductivity than the formation itself. This does not allow for non-Darcy flow (see Section 7). Therefore, the limiting factor defining how much the reservoir production has increased is not how conductive the fracture is, but instead is how fast the formation can get the hydrocarbon to the fracture. Therefore, when treating low permeability reservoirs, fractures should be designed with a specified minimum fracture conductivity, but a large surface area. Because formation permeability is low, fluid leakoff also tends to be low. This has two consequences. First, pad volumes tend to be very low, relative to the rest of the job volumes. In some cases, a pad is hardly needed at all the proppant-laden fluid can be used to create the fracture. The second consequence is that fracture closure time the length of time taken for the fracture to close on the proppant after the treatment has finished tends to be long. This means that the fracturing fluid has to suspend the proppant for a relatively long period of time at bottom hole temperature. Therefore, hydraulic fracture treatments in low permeability formations tend to have fairly large fluid and proppant volumes, although the overall proppant concentration in the fluid is relatively low. Pad volumes are small. Treatment fluids are usually fairly robust, capable of maintaining viscosity for longer periods of time.

2.2

High Permeability Fracturing

High permeability fracturing is, not unexpectedly, the opposite of low permeability fracturing. In high permeability formations moving the fluid through the rock to the fracture is easy. The hardest part is creating a fracture that is more conductive than the formation in the near wellbore region. In equation 1.8, the concept of fracture conductivity was introduced. The next step is to define relative or dimensionless conductivity, Fcd:Fcd = Fc L kf ................................................................................. (2.1)

where L is the fracture half length and kf is the permeability of the formation. Fcd is a measure of how conductive a fracture is compared to the formation. An Fcd of greater than one means

Page 2.1

Rev 0

Hydraulic Fracturing Section 2

Types of Hydraulic Fracturing

that the fracture is more conductive than the formation, whereas an Fcd of less than one means that the fracture is less conductive than the formation and the reservoir fluids flow more easily through the formation. This does not account for the effects of the skin factor in reality all the fracture needs to be in order to increase production, is more conductive than the skin (see Section 2.4 Skin Bypass Fracturing). From equation 1.8, which stated that Fc = W .kp , we can see that two parts of the definition of Fcd are fixed; kf and kp (although kp can be increased to a certain extent by using a better quality proppant). Therefore, in order to increase dimensionless conductivity, we have to maximise W and minimise L. This means that we need a very short, wide fracture. In order to achieve this, a technique known as the Tip Screen Out (TSO) is used. This will be discussed in more detail later on. Because the formations have high permeability, fluid leakoff tends to be very high. Therefore, pad volumes tend to be a significant part of the treatment. This high leakoff is used by the technique of TSO fracturing. Youngs modulus tends to be very low, which means that creating fracture width is relatively easy. Formations with very high permeability also tend to have two other characteristics. First, they are often weak or unconsolidated, so that the fracturing process is often combined with gravel packing techniques to produce a frac pack treatment (see below, Section 2.3). Second, the formations also tend to have large skin factors, so that a significant production increase can be obtained simply by providing a conductive path through the skin (see Section 2.4, below).

2.3

Frac and Pack Treatments

The frac and pack (or simply frac-pack) treatment is a combination of a high permeability fracture treatment and a gravel pack treatment. Technically, the process of designing the actual treatment is the same as for a high permeability frac. Operationally, however, the process is much more complex, due the presence in the hole of the gravel pack completion. Figure 2.3a illustrates this.

GPS-2 Tool

Crossover Ports

Blank Pipe

Screens

Sump Packer

Figure 2.3a Diagram Illustrating the Components of the Frac-Pack Completion

Page 2.2

Rev 0

Hydraulic Fracturing Section 2

Types of Hydraulic Fracturing

The treatment is normally pumped with the GPS-2 tool in the squeeze position, although sometimes the tool is in the lower circulating position. In either case, fracturing fluids are pumped down the tubing, through the GPS-2 tools, through the crossover, out into the annulus and into the perforations. As stated before, the pumping schedule a designed as if the completion did not exist, and a normal high permeability fracture treatment was being performed. With one exception extra proppant (or gravel) is pumped on the final stage, in order to fill up the annulus space between the screen and the casing, producing the gravel pack

2.4

Skin Bypass Treatments

Skin bypass treatments are designed to do exactly what the name describes bypass skin damage. These treatments are not necessarily designed to be the absolute optimum stimulation treatment for the well. Instead, these treatments are designed to be small, cost effective and easy to run operationally. Often these treatments are pumped in places where space or equipment weight is a limiting factor such as offshore. In many cases, if the frac engineer was given a free reign to design the optimum treatment, the job itself would be much larger. However, given the restraints of cost and space that are often placed upon frac engineers, the skin bypass frac is an attempt (often highly successful) to produce effective stimulation. The skin bypass frac can also be considered as an alternative to matrix acidizing, when factors such as mineralogy, temperature, logistics and cost prevent the use of acid.

Figure 2.4a Diagram Illustrating hoe the Skin Bypass Fracture Penetrates the Skin to allow Undamaged Communication between the Reservoir and the Wellbore.

Figure 2.4a shows the basic concept behind the skin bypass frac. Although the formation has considerable damage (dark-shaded area), this is effectively bypassed by the more conductive path created by the fracture. In order for the fracture to produce a production increase, it does not have to be more conductive than the formation (i.e. Fcd > 1.0). It merely has to be more conductive than the damaged area. Of course, usually we are aiming for considerably more than just an increase in production. Given that Skin Bypass Fracs are normally carried out on

Page 2.3

Rev 0

Hydraulic Fracturing Section 2

Types of Hydraulic Fracturing

marginal wells (wells that cannot justify the expense of a major stimulation treatment), often the economics dictates that significant production increase must be obtained. Equation 2.1 gave the definition of dimensionless conductivity, which has to be greater than 1.0 for the fracture to provide stimulation of the formation. Equation 2.2 shows the condition, for a fracture which has HD 1.0, under which the skin bypass fracture is more conductive than the formation:-

Fc > H kf

ln (re/rw) ................................................................. (2.2) ln(re/rw + S)

where Fc is the fracture conductivity (mdft), H is the fracture height (ft), re is the radial extent (ft), rw is the wellbore radius and S is the skin factor. So if S = 0, the RHS of equation 2.2 goes to 1, so that then Fc has to be greater than H.kf , which is another way of saying that the Fcd has to be greater than one. This equation takes into account the fact that the fracture does not cover the entire zone vertically. However, it is an approximation, as it does not account for vertical flow or non-Darcy effects (Section 7).

2.5

Coal Bed Methane Fracturing

It is estimated that for every tonne of coal that is generated underground - by the process of coalification - up to 45 mscf of gas (mostly methane) is generated. In areas such as the Southern North Sea, this gas migrates upwards until it reaches an impermeable layer, so that the coal itself contains very little gas. In other cases, nearly all the gas remains in place, waiting to be produced. Coal itself usually has very low matrix permeability, with the gas being produced through natural fractures (called cleats) and through desorbtion from the coal itself. The objective of coal bed methane fracturing is to connect up the cleats with a propped fracture, allowing the gas to be produced both from the cleats and from the coal CBM fracturing is more of an art than a science. Because of the unusual characteristics of the formations, most fracture simulators are unable to accurately model these treatments. Engineers usually have to rely on experience and trial and error. These treatments usually consist of large volumes of proppant, pumped at low concentrations, at high rates. Various fluid systems have been used, but recent work has demonstrated that crosslinked fluids, especially guar-based gels, can be very damaging to the formation. The trend has been towards HEC, foams and even just water as the carrier fluid. Recent advances like visco-elastic surfactants and Liquid Proppant could also find a application in this area, although cost would be a big issue with visco-elastic surfactants. Proppant concentrations tend to be in the 3 to 4 ppg range. Because wells are relatively low rate, large fracture conductivities are not required what is needed is a conductive path from cleat to cleat. As formations are usually shallow, sand is generally selected as the proppant. CBM wells often tend to be marginal. They will not produce economically without a frac treatment, but even after a frac can be very low rate. Therefore, fracturing treatments tend to be fairly low tech, no frills operations, using minimal fluids technology and often eliminating the need for modern, sophisticated, computerised blending and pumping equipment.

2.6

Fracturing Through Coiled Tubing

Fracturing through coiled tubing has been around since the early 1990s, and was first carried out through a string of coiled tubing that was left in the well after the treatment, becoming the production tubing. However, as the industry began to perceive the advantages of this process and as Engineers began to leave their preconceived coiled tubing ideas behind the concept has become widely accepted.

Page 2.4

Rev 0

Hydraulic Fracturing Section 2

Types of Hydraulic Fracturing

The advantage of coiled tubing fracturing does not lie with the design or type of fracture that is placed in the ground, as most types of fracture can be performed this way. The benefits of CT fracturing lie in the operational aspects of how the treatments are placed. The obvious limitation for coiled tubing fracturing is the diameter of the coil and the maximum pressure it can be taken to. However, this restriction is not nearly as bad as it initially seems. With modern fluid systems, friction pressure down the coiled tubing can be dramatically reduced, allowing treatments to be pumped at quite high rates. Also, as the coiled tubing is static during the treatment (i.e. the tubing is not being plastically deformed on a continuous basis), the maximum allowable pressure is far higher than is normal for CT operations.

Advantages
1. The coiled tubing can be used to isolate the completion from the fracturing process. By setting a squeeze packer at the end of the tubing, the hole tubing string is protected from the pressure and temperature changes normally experienced by the completion. This means that completions that are pressure-limited (due to sliding sleeves, packer ratings, poor quality tubing, wellhead size etc) can be fractured. Completions which cannot be cooled down too much (due to risk of stinging the tubing out if the PBR on the packer), can also be fractured. Coiled tubing fracturing is particularly effective when working on monobore completions, or on wells that have not yet been completed. By using an opposing cup tool, the coiled tubing can be used to easily isolate one zone from another. An extension of this, is that the tool can be very easily moved from one zone to another, allowing multiple fracs to be performed in rapid succession. If required, the coiled tubing can be used to gas lift the well on to production after the treatment(s). Coiled tubing can often be used as an alternative to a workover. This can mean significant cost saving, especially offshore.

2.

3. 4.

Disadvantages
1. The extra cost of the coiled tubing unit, over and above the cost of the frac spread. However, often this extra cost can produce savings in other areas (rig time, frac crew time etc). The operating company must also be prepared to pay for some or all of the cost of the coiled tubing string. The extra space needed, due to the extra equipment required as compared to the frac spread by itself. Of course, if the CT unit is being used as an alternative to a workover rig, this may not be as significant. Rate limitations. In general, for a given fluid system, higher rates can be achieved through completions than through coiled tubing. However, it should be remembered that it is usually possible to take the static coiled tubing to higher pressures than the completion/wellhead assembly. Although it is possible to frac through coiled tubing with standard fluid systems, as the depth increases and/or the coiled tubing diameter decreases, it may be necessary to use more exotic and expensive fluid systems.

2.

3.

4.

References
Product Catalogue, Colorado Silica Sand, 1994 Economides, M.J., and Nolte, K.G.: Reservoir Stimulation, Schlumberger Educational Services, 1987. Gidley, J.L., et al: Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, Monograph Series Vol 12, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1989). Bradley, H.B. (Ed): Petroleum Engineers Handbook, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1987)

Page 2.5

Rev 0

Hydraulic Fracturing Section 2

Types of Hydraulic Fracturing

Rae, P., Martin, A.N., and Sinanan, B.: Skin Bypass Fracs: Proof that Size is Not Important, SPE 56473, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, October 1999. ODriscoll, K.: Middle-East Region Coal Bed Methane Fracturing Manual, BJ Services, 1995. Gavin, W.G.: Fracturing Through Coiled Tubing Recent Developments and Case Histories, SPE 60690, presented at the 2000 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Houston, April 2000.

Page 2.6

Rev 0