Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SPE
fbdBtuof R3tramnm#n3are
SPE 19784
Interference Testing of Finite Conductivity
Fractured Wells
Hydraulically
D,N, Meehan, Union Pacific Resources/Stanford U,, and R.N. Home and H.J. Ramey Jr., Stanford U.
SPE Members
,
T
This paper presents techniques for the design and analysis of interference tests when both the active and observation well are intercepted by hydraulic fractures.
These
techrdques are based on new mathematical
solutions. The
solution is general for any values of dimensionless fracture
conductivity including infinite conductivity, The solution is
presented in Laplace spac~ fracture skin, wellbore storage,
naturally fissured matrix behavior, etc. are readily included,
Any rate or pressure schedule at the active well can be analyzed,
Compass orientation of the wells hydraulic fractures can
be determined from such an interfer
ce test. Relative fracture lengths, conductivities,
and azi
% uth significantly affect W+ performance, Reservoir heterogeneities may significantly alter interference response,
The value of knowing
hydraulic fracture azimuth can also be determined.
Performance of a hydraulically fractured well near a large natural
fracture or another hydraulically fractured well is also forecast, Values of fracture conductivity
and fracture length
fer each fracture can not be determined uniquely from the
interference response and must be determined separately,
Historical
Approach
GXapplication
of interference tests is the determination of fracture orientation in hydraulically fractured wells
(i.e., wells intersecting a vertical fracture). Pierce et al, [11
described a method for determining fracture rizimuth and
fracture length using pulse testing, Ttis method requires
pulse tests before and after the fracturing opeation, and is
not applicable for very low permeability systems or finite
conductivity fractures,
Uraiet et al, [2] developed a technique for azimuth determination
using pressures rccordcd
at an unfractured observation well, This work comidercd
Refererrcea and illuatrationa
at end of paper,
137
,
2
Interference
SPE 19784
4. The pressure
derivative
ofiacfure
flow equation8
Consider a fracture to LS a homogeneous slab of uniform porous media with height h, width b~ and half
length ZJ. Since fracture length is much longer than
fracture width, fluid intlux at the fracture ends m.y
be neglected, Fluid entem the fracture facea at a raw
g(z, t) per unit of fracture length. Unsteady-state
flow
in the fracture can be described as:
-x .=O =
cond~tiorm
. %@
2bfkjh
(5)
(6)
2. Addition
and:
pf(Xjt=O)=pi>
By neglecting
0< W<2!f
the fracture
LYpf
(1)
P.D=PD+S
an-
6. The Laplace space formulation allows immediate solution of transient pressure response for naturally fractured cases by substituting
the term s~(s) for s in
the wellbore pressure solution terms that result from
the reservoir flow model. Here, f(s) will be one of
the dual porosity models, typically either for transient
matrix flow or pseudo-steady state matrix flow. Cinco
and Meng [N presented a formulation that n~glected
compressible flow in the fracture (fracture linear flow).
demonstrated
the accuracy of this approxCinco [181
imation, The van Kruysdijk model [19] included consideration of compressible flow in the fracture.
alytically.
~-~
compressibility
/J !lf(~>tDzf)
bf h
(7)
term
(8)
variable as:
(9)
~,D(s)
%D(g)
(2)
1 + cD~2F,D(~)
(lo)
3. By solving in Lapktce space, constant pressure
tions for q~ and QD are easily obtained.
solu(11)
?Wf)($)
= s [1 +
cD&#D($)]
(3)
Cumulative production for constant pressure production is simply dimensionless flow rate divided by the
Laplace space variable (s), as integrating with respect
to time is synonymous to division by 8,
noting that:
pfD(*,
t) =
-PjD
(12)
(13)
Substitution
and cancellation
leads to
This equation can be integrated twice to yield the pressure drop between the wellbore and any point in the
fracture:
PwD(~Dzf)
PjD(~D,
~D.f)
Discretization
and
matrix
formulation
(16)
fl~?,D(z@)dzd==
(19)
ZTfLli(3)
1
i-=
1
j-1
(A~)2
{xD;[D~q,D(stl,t~=,)d~tt~.t}
&(ZDj
iAz)
+(Ax)2
~~fDj(~)
Subscripts for ZD imply that iocaticms ~Dj BIW mid~okts of the jth segment. Values for CD, and zDi+~
are at the beginning and end of the ith segment, respectively. This system of equations can be solved for
the single well problem and has been previously discussed for the real space solution,
In the following
section, the details of solution for interference with
two finite conductivity
hydraulically fkactured wells
is given.
.
Interference
Between
Two FYnite Cond ~ctivity
Hydraulically
Fractured
Wells
jlo w equations
In this section, a solution is generated for the combined interference problem of finite conductivity y fractures intersecting both active and observation wells.
Formulation is for different length fractures with different values of (kjbj)D.
Semi-Analytic
Solution
+-(:(?,dz,d~d==
+
For a single well in an infinite reservoir, the fracture is
symmetric, ~~D(XD, .$) = T~D(-zD,
s); the integration
limits of Equation 18 for the reservoir term may be
,c~D+l/A@)
~ ~mD-l/A,Ao,
129
jDo(x
a)KO (fi~~)
dz
I
SimiIarly, for the observation
.,
pwD(.)
well,
-1 JmD+AAo
qfDo(z, S)lic,(l
x~ - x
I #i)fzz
2 =n8D-1/~AO]
+-fl(~,D(.!$)d.d.=
11
~ * 7J,~A(z, 8)Ko(fi&
L
(21)
Zy + djj)dz
well:
klo
i=l
for Different
Fracture
fracture
permeability
width product
I
I
as:
(25)
The ratio of the values of (klbj) q for the two wells is
Effects
of Azimuth
and
Spacing
Typically, a group of curves is displayed showing varying fracture azimuths which range from 15-90. As active well responses show small variations due to fracture azimuth, only the 15 and 90 degree cases are displayed. C)bservation well figures show responses for
each 15 degree increment, except for cases when all
of the responses are spaced very close together.
For
the graphsof pD at the active well, the infinite acting
Lengths,
Distances require scaling when fracture lengths or conductivities are not equal. The mtio of the active wells
hydraulic fracture length to that of the observation
well is given as:
zf,4
(24)
AIAo] = ~
In this section, a series of figures are used to summarize solution results. A series of &mea will give the
dimensionless pressure (pD) and dimensionless p&ssure derivatives (p~) at the active and observation
wells. Dimemionless
pressure derivative groups are
useful for evaluating more subtle characteristics
and
as a diagnostic tool. These derivativare calculated
from the Laplace space solutions directly and do not
require numerical differentiation.
(23)
D. N. Meehan,
5PE 19784
Anisotropy
PermeabWy
anisotropy can be handled in the semianaiytic solution by appropriate
geometric substitutions. Approximations
for the dimensionless fracture
conductivity y are only approximate for very low values
of conductivity y and very early times. However, substitutions
of the values of ~ and x) into the definitions
of pD and tD=f are, for essentially exact. Solutions for
closed boundaries and interference tests require only
the adjusted geometries. By resealing axes for ~ ancl
x!, identicai wellbore dimensionless pressures are obtained,
Effects
of Different
ductivities
Jkacture
Lengths
and Con-
AIAo]
azimuth
dimensionless
loom
Interference
With
Two
Active
Wells
The effect of the fracture length ratio AIAO1is investigated by keeping the active well at unit length and
varying the length of the observation well. Predicted
responses for
Interference
Well
With
a Constant
Pressure
Active
were evaluated. For each of these examples, the relative fracture conductivities [kfbt]~o are held constant;
this implies changing values for the fracture permeabllity width product. However, this makea no practical
difference over the range of interest because sensitivity to [k@J]Ao is negligible. Values of AIAo] for O = O
and rLI 5 1 + A(AOIwere not considered because the
two fractures would physically overlay each other, Low
fracture angles in which the two fractures were in close
proximity often required increased numbers of fracture
blocks for stabiiity. Uniform flux over a given fracture
block is assumed; fracture blocks were given a maximum size equal to one tenth the distance to the other
well, dD.
Verification
Comparisons,
Example
Problem
A series of verifaction runs were used to ensure the applicability o! these new solutions over a wide range of
values. Comparisons with published results for simpler cases and with simulation respomes were used,
Numericai simulations cordlrmed the semi-anaiytic solution presented here.
141
hhrferencc
T~ting
of Fifite
= 1. Figure 17 M the result of matchingthe simulated interference data to the line source solution. This
is the typical method of analyzing interference well
tests. The data match reasonably well at late times,
but do not match well at early times. Estimated reservoir parameters are in error by 10~o for permeability
and 18% for the qtcJJ product. No information is obtained about fracture azimuth from this type of analysis. In Mousli et td, u [221solution, the active well is
a uniform flux fracture, while the observation well has
an infinite conductivity hydraulic fiwture, For a similar analysis with Mousli et td. Usolution, the estimated
error associated with the non-linear regression is small
( < 5% for k,d, and q$cth); however, these parameters
are in error by 470, 9Y0, and 21 respectively. The estimates for permeability and dc~h are fairly good. The
fracture azimuth estimate by this techrique is poor.
Varying the initial estimated fracture azimuth did not
alter the non-linear digression estimate.
Figures 18
and 19 illustrate the results for the model developed
in this dissertation.
Agreement is good, with the estimated values of k, dc~h, and O in error by S1% for all
three caaea. Estimated fracture azimuth was 44.6 and
was independent of the initial parameter estimatea.
rLI
Early
Behavior
Observation well responses have been plotted as a function of tD=f/r~ where rD is the dktance between the,
wellbores of the active and observation well scaled by
the active well fracture length. Other plot ting functions were investigated for the time and preesure axea.
None of them were completely succesful in collapsing
all of the responsea. Approximate reductions are obtained for either early or late times,
Figure 20 is the observation well response for r~ = 0.8
for 15<8
~ 90 with the dimensionless pressure (pD)
and dimensionless pressure derivative group (p~) plotted as a function of tD.f/r&
The curves tend to collapse at late times; none of the curves matches the Ei
solution exactly. All derivativea reach a value of 0,5
(corresponding
with pseudo radial flow) at approximately the same value of tD=f/r&
Figure 21 shows
shifted and scaled pressure and time data.
Dimensionless pressure is resealed as:
where dD is the vertical distance (normal to the fracture direction) as defined in Figure 1. Dimensionless
time tDr/ is divided by dD rather than by rD,
This resealing and reshifting also works for different
values of ( kjbi )0 and AIAO1. Unfortunately,
it is impractical for test analysis since the desired parameter,
fracture azimuth (4) appears in both axes, However,
Figure 21 illustrates how this shift is relevant for test
design and understanding,
If an estimated azimuth
can be obtained a priori by another method, the type
Cmductivity
HYd~ulically
Fnactured
Wew
(a)
SPE 197S4
teat
(b) 1[t is pozsible to simultaneously solve for flux distributions at the active and observation wells to
generate both active and observation well respo-.
The active wel pressure response is not sensitive
to the presence of the observation well for rD 22.
At late times, the presence of either a large natural fracture (or joint ), or hydraulically fractured
well can be approximated
by an additional negative skin at the active well,
(c)
(d) Nothing in the shape of the observation well response indicates that <ither the active weU or observation well is hydraulically fractured.
Thus,
fracture length and conductivity can not be determined by interference teats. Since both fracture lengths are r&-@ad for design or analysis,
both wells must be tested independently.
(e) Different fracture lengths at observation wells and
active wells alter theduration
and magnitude of
fracture interference. Limiting responses for large
and small values of A[~ol can be obtained from
the line source, finite conductivity fracture pairs
as active and observation wells.
(f) For a fixed value of rD, observation well re9ponsebecomes insensitive tQ azimuth for @ 2 50.
Sensitivity to fracture azimuth is independent of
fracture conductivity,
(g) Constant pressure responses at the observation
well can be approximated
by neglecting the effect of the observation well fracture on the active
well. The Laplace space formulation of the solution presented simplifies the required calculations.
D. N, Meehnn, R, N, Home, ~d
SPE 19784
Integrating
and noting
dz=-%
~iKo(fi,.Dj-.,)=.=
@bD,-d
fi=D,
Bessel
ZD~+] -
[I
Di+l
]/
(31)
~o(U)du
77
l-=iti%d
The second integral is simpler as the term to be integrated is ] ~~j + z I V and the relative ~itiom
of the xDj ad ~Di ~ not critical to the fornndation.
So, the final expression is:
(32)
kDj+rDi+ll_
. ~
i
J
o
K@)du
Function
Handling cases for the relative positions of xDi and
z Dj was simplified as more general expressions were
introduced.
hversion
to be integrated
Pr ocedure
11*1.9
,S.+Ko(filzDj-Z1l)dz,
@dZ=
bj-~Di+ll*
xDj
~Djl
-[,:::::;,]
form:
du
~i+O(I Dj-@l
Equation
-Ko(u)
-J
Modified
(30)
l/s
the integration limits can be altered accordingly. Regardless of relative magnit udea of @Dj and ZDi, the
resultant integral can be expressed as follows:
the
(29)
u=fiI~Dj-~l
Acknowledgements
Appendix
H. J. Rarney, Jr.
is of the
(28)
aDl
143
Interference
Appendix
Improvements
Improving
Fractured
Wells
Solution
Performance
Matrix
Reducing
re-
q~,
qz .
qs
p
$Dl
%Dz
(33)
L?D3
The n x n matrix components which require integral evaluation actually have only 2n -1 different
integrals. The tlret column and row contain all
the required values.
Values of [kjbf]~o
..- = 1 or AIAol = 1 reduce the
required number of calculatio-oa because many interference terms becomee identical.
equations
(34)
arises directly
:*,=1
from
(35)
i=l
= 1 q(1)
Requirements
Building
entirely.
Order
Matrix
Depending of the value ofs, the time required to calculate all of the matrix components in a matrix such
as ~ven in Table 1. may take 20-40 Yo of the total
computation
time if done in a brute force manner.
Numerous simplifications accelerate matrix Ming, including
solution.
Hydraulically
Calculation
q(2)
Early
and
Late
Time
Approximation
At very early times, interference terms are negligible, For the interference case with Ilnite conductivity
wells, the matrix of Table 1 may be reduced in size by
75%. At such early times the active and observation
wells behave independently
and infinite acting solutions apply. Duration of this time may be observed
from Figures 3-9 to depend on@ and rD. Typicai vrdues for the end of the infde
acting period range from
tDzj= 0.01-0.1.
(36)
i= 1
Substituting
into the equations
neous nomenclature,
Allql
+ A12q2+
A13(1 gl
and removing
92)
extra-
+ P = 01
(37)
(A12 - A13)
(A22 - A23)
(A32 - 433)
1
1
1
q,
q,
P
~ol - A13
Z~2 A13
ZD3 - A13
(39 1
144
!
References
[1] A. E. Pierce, S, Vela, and K, T. Koonce, Determination of the Compass Orientation and Length
of Hydraulic Fractures by Pulse Testing. Jowmal
of Petroleum Techfiologg, 1433-1438, December
1975,
[2] A. Uraiet, R. Raghavan, and G. W, Thomas. Determination of the Compass Orientation of a Vertical Fracture by Interference Tests. Journal of
Petroleum Technology, 73-80, January 1977.
[5] S. Eldest N. Hednoto, and R. Raghavan, PulseTesting of Vertically Fractured Wells!. SPE 6751,
presented at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Denver, CO.
1977,
[17] H. Cinco-L. and F. Samaniego-V, Transient Pressure Behavior for a Well with a Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture. Society of Petroleum Engi.
neera Journal, 253-264, August 1978.
[18] H. Cinco-Ley and H, Z. Meng. Pressure Transient Analysis of Wells WMh Finite Conductivity
Vertical Fractures in Double Porosity Reservoirs.
SPE 18172, presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineem held in
Houston, TX. October, 1988.
[19] C. P. J. W. van Kr~ysdijk. Sernianalytical Modeling of Pressure Tra@~ents in Fractured Reservoirs. SPE 18169, presented at the 63rd Annual
Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineera
held in Houston, TX. October, 1988.
[21] M, Abramowitz
and L A. Stegun.
Handbook
of Mathematical Functions. Dover Publications,
ninth edition, 1970.
and W, G, Lambert.
Factors that Predict Fracture Orientation
in a Gas Storage Reservoir.
57(5):546-550,
Journal ofPetroleun@chnology,
1971,
[11] C. A. Komar et al, Delineating a Subsurface
Fracture System in a Petroleum ReservoirAn
Journal of Petroleum Technology,
Experiment.
531-37, May 1973,
. .Mu
Matrix formulation
AII
A21
A~,l
Ax
Cll
C21
cm,l
000
A,z
Azz
0,.
...
A~;2
Ax
C12
, .,
Ax
, ,,
C22
,.,
Cm,z ,..
Table 1
for interference
Al,m 1 B,,
/.@m 1 Bz]
B,z
Bzz
::
,,
::
,.
,.,
,,,
B1,~
B2,m
solution,
O
O
TjDAl
x/)1
?fDA2
Bm,m
o
~jDAm
Xl)n
00
JWDA($)
D2
,,
1 Bm,l
m,m
Ax
00
C,,m 0 DII
Cz,m O Dzl
L+,m
D2,m
.:: .
::
. .
c m,m 1 D~,l
o
01
1
1
~jDol
t7jD02
D;
?jDOm
10
~wDo($
m,m
1
0
0
0
0
...
10
0,1
Anslylic Soluti4in
1S Degrees
. . . . . . . 90 Degrees
0.01
().(f)l
0.01
0,1
10
100
DimensionlessTime, tDxf
t
146
1000
0,001
0.01
JI
0.1
Figure 3: observation
Dimrosionk
15,,,90
10
100
1000
TMC, tDxf/rfY2
well solutions
for
rD
1 and JcD = n
10
Analytic SoIuli{n
lst)ef?ecs
. . . . . . . 90 Dcglce$
0,01
0,001
0.01
0,1
10
100
1000
DimensionlessTime, tOxf
10
0,01
0,001
0,01
0,1
10
100
fxmaluionless
Tree, lDxf/rfY2
1000
*E
19784
10
j
L!
31
j
j
0,1 ,
Analytic Sohuk n
15 Dcgrccs
. . . . . . .
0,01
0,001
0,01
0,1
90 Degrees
10
100
DimensionlessTmc, tDxf
1000
Observation
10 [
0,1
100
1000
Lme Some
&
0,01
O.o111
0,01
0.1
10
DimensionlessTime, tDxf/rlY2
10
001
*
. . . . . . .
0,01
0,001
0,01
0,1
Sohuif n
Analytic
IS Degrees
90 Degrees
10
100
DimensionlessTime, lDxf
148
1000
.,,
SPE 19?84
10 I
0,1
n ni
U$U
0.001
0,01
0.1
10
1000
100
.-
. . . ..-
IDxf=0!1
ActiveWeU
. . .
Ots6ervNionWell I
-2
. ..-
. . . . . . . .
. .
II
$
-1
1
Dimensionless Distance, XD= x/xf
I
2,
= 0.1,FcI.I= n, 6 = 15,
Figure lo: Ac.tivc and obscrvatim well fluxes at tlj,,.j
iill(l t~ s 1
2
~
*. . . .
. . . . . . . . . .. w..- . . . . . .
_
. . .
-2
.1
lDXI = 0,1
Active Well
Obwwlion Well I
140
spE
lvl~~
.
;
iVellFluxes, rD = 1.0, FcD = pi, Theta= 90
Active, Obser@on
2
~
J
.
. . . . ----
L
_
-2
--
-1
-. ,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------
tDxf= 10.0
Active Well
Obsewntion Well
TLJ
0
-0.5
0.5
Dimensionless Distance, XD= x/xf
Figure 12: Active and observation well fluxes at tDsj = 10,Fc~ = z, O = !30,
and ?D= 1
Active, Observation Well Fluxes, rD = 1.0, FcD = pi, Theta=
.2A . ....
0
-2
. ..- . . . .
-..
lDxf= 10.0
Aclive Well
Obsefvmion Well 1
-1
...
2
t~
L_.J
.. .
()
_
..,,
-2
-1
tl)xf = 10,0
Active Well
observation Wctl
-.. .
..
... . . . . . . . . .
. . .
0
1
Dimensionless Distance, XD= x/xf
rl) = 1
150
1000 i
10
0.1
I
10
!__._.
-------
.--..J._..
100
10
. . ..
1=10
1000
n ill
..
Delt.st, hrs
semi-analytic
plot
Of nonlinear
regression
0.01
match
of simukttcd
test
0.1
10
1
Dimensionless Time, tDxfhDA2
t~
100
1000
FCD = T
solution
sN
10
:cd = 2000, A
Ie=l 5--90
15 Degree:
10 Degrees
&
1
0.1
h Line Source
(W?44U8
lDxurtY2)
0.01
0.1
10
103
1000
1