Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Proppant selection in hydraulic fracturing is a critical
economic and technical decision that affects stimulation and
field development economics. In many cases the selection is
based on laboratory data from standardized API conductivity
tests on clean packs at specified stress and temperature. These
tests predict conductivities that are optimistic compared to
observed field performance. Often a laboratory measured
conductivity difference of only 5-10% is considered a
significant variance when applied to the producing life of a
well. The significance of these small differences, however, is
often overwhelmed by other factors affecting fracture
performance in the field.
The selection of a particular proppant should be based on
an identifiable difference in performance under field
conditions. This requires an accurate assessment of all the
damage mechanisms that can and do occur during fracturing
and their impact on final conductivity. This paper outlines the
primary damage mechanisms and their effect on conductivity,
fracture cleanup and ultimate stimulation response. The
expected variance in laboratory measurements of conductivity
is also quantified.
Introduction
In hydraulic fracture treatment design one of the most
important decisions is which proppant to use. The choice of
proppant also directly impacts overall job economics,
treatment size, and the ultimate productivity of the well. The
decision is commonly driven by balancing effective fracture
length and conductivity against reservoir flow capacity, as in
the McGuire-Sikora folds-of-increase curves, or through
estimates of dimensionless fracture flow capacity (FCD).1
Any of these methods require an accurate assessment of
proppant pack conductivity under reservoir flow conditions
along with knowledge of reservoir deliverability. Frequently
SPE 84306
0.220
0.210
0.200
0.190
0.180
0.170
0.160
0.150
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
0.228
0.001
0.003
1.139
0.225
0.235
13
2000 psi
0.224
0.001
0.003
1.139
0.222
0.23
13
4000 psi
0.217
0.001
0.003
1.393
0.211
0.223
13
6000 psi
0.205
0.001
0.003
1.561
0.202
0.213
11
8000 psi
0.195
0.001
0.002
1.051
0.194
0.201
11
SPE 84306
0.230
0.220
0.210
0.200
0.190
0.180
0.170
0.160
0.150
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Variation in permeability
As with the measurement of pack width, the variation in
initial packing conditions also influences the measurement of
pack permeability, but to a larger degree. Again, taking as
much care as possible to form a consistent initial pack, the
data in Figure 4 show a typical variation in permeability as a
function of closure stress for 16/30 mesh white sand.
Permeability of 16/30 White Sand
1000.0
Permeability, darcy
1000 psi 2000 psi 4000 psi 6000 psi 8000 psi
Mean
0.226
0.222
0.215
0.205
0.195
Standard Error
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
Standard Deviation
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.003
St Dev (% of Mean)
0.561
0.491
0.783
1.503
1.313
Minimum
0.224
0.221
0.211
0.199
0.191
Maximum
0.228
0.225
0.217
0.208
0.199
Count
13
13
13
11
11
100.0
10.0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
SPE 84306
510.54
12.79
46.13
9.04
2128.13
422.92
585.28
13
2000 psi
450.08
8.34
30.09
6.68
905.11
395.24
505.91
13
4000 psi
279.69
9.30
33.52
11.98
1123.50
242.26
338.57
13
6000 psi
123.73
7.14
23.67
19.13
560.42
88.79
150.00
11
8000 psi
46.62
3.60
11.93
25.59
142.27
26.04
63.94
11
Similar data for the 20/40 mesh white sand tests are shown
in Figure 5 and Table 4. The variations in measured
permeability are very similar for these, and other, proppant
types. Changes in pack concentration have little apparent
affect on the error in permeability measurement.
Permeability of 20/40 Whie Sand
Permeability, darcy
1000.0
100.0
10.0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
223.77
6.33
20.99
9.38
440.71
186.83
264.58
11
2000 psi
191.65
4.77
15.81
8.25
249.94
168.60
226.01
11
4000 psi
135.86
4.36
14.48
10.66
209.58
114.13
157.23
11
6000 psi
68.73
4.09
12.26
17.83
150.22
50.73
84.81
9
8000 psi
29.98
2.48
7.44
24.82
55.38
20.47
39.59
9
SPE 84306
100
90
80
% Regained Permeability
70
60
4#/ft2 Pack
50
40
2#/ft2 Pack
30
20
10
1#/ft2 Pack
0
0.01
0.1
10
100
dP
dL
+ v 2 (1)
SPE 84306
0.1
fg=0.939
0.09
0.005
0.0045
0.004
0.0035
Beta, atm-sec 2/g
0.003
0.0025
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
0.92
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.98
0.99
dP
= 1 + k v dP
...(2)
dL Darcy
dL total
0.08
fg=0.970
0.07
0.06
0.05
fg=0.988
0.04
fg=0.994
0.03
0.02
0.01
fg=1.0
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
SPE 84306
0.7
0.6
0.5
g
.(4)
=
fg
0.4
krw
0.3
krg
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Gas Saturation
fg =
kw g
1+
k
g w
.(3)
Relative Permeability
0.8
k +k
Fmp = g w w g
0.1
0.01
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
SPE 84306
60
50
Initial
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
40
30
20
10
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
SPE 84306
FCD =
k f wf
(5)
kXf
In general, an FCD of 30 and above is taken to represent
an infinite conductivity fracture, where the effective length is
equal to the physically propped length. For any value of FCD
the infinite conductivity half-length can be determined from
equation (6) or the plot in Figure 12. The equation presented
here is based on data originally published by Prats and CincoLey.15,16 It has been adapted to give a consistent representation
of effective fracture half-length compared to created or
propped half-length.
X eff
X created
1 + FCD
1.01
1 .7
..........(6)
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
10
SPE 84306
X eff
30
1+
1.7 FCD
crit
1.01
... (7)
6000
X app =
Actual Rate
Rate-1000 WHP
WHP
Rate-3000 WHP
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
350.00
Days on Production
The model was run for two cases of WHP, 3000 psi and
1000 psi, while the actual well produced for the first 70 days
with a variable wellhead pressure. In Figure 15 the red line is
the actual WHP over the producing time and the magenta
squares are the actual well flow rate. The dark blue line is the
model predicted flow rate assuming a constant WHP of 1000
psi and the dashed light-blue line is the calculated well rate for
3000 psi WHP. In general the model accurately matches the
observed flow rate.
Even with a created fracture half length of almost 1500
feet, using an average concentration of 1.3 lb/ft2, the model
matches the performance with an effective infiniteconductivity fracture half-length of 140 feet. While the
undamaged baseline conductivity of this proppant was
calculated to be almost 2000 md-ft, the effective conductivity
after accounting for all damage mechanisms in this simulation
was less than 60 md-ft, giving an FCD of 0.578. The overall
final conductivity is computed from equation (8), where the
SPE 84306
11
FCD =
.(8)
k X created
Note that most of the damage factors are dependent on the
flow velocity in the fracture, and its influence on Rep. The final
conductivity determination, therefore, requires an iterative
solution. The initial damage conditions are estimated and the
reservoir deliverability is determined for the given effective
fracture length and conductivity. The new estimate of
deliverability is used to re-calculate Rep and the various
damage factors. The iteration proceeds until the system
converges at a balanced reservoir deliverability and fracture
clean-up state.
The resulting FCD gives the dimensionless fracture
conductivity in the created frac. The effective fracture halflength, Xeff, is calculated from equation (6). The final
adjustment for gel plugging is made by application of equation
(7) and a fluid-dependent value of FCDcrit, here assumed to
be 30.
The relative magnitude of the damage factors for the
example case is shown in Table 5. Each of these damage
mechanisms results from the combined influence of the
selected
proppant,
fluid,
reservoir,
and
well
operating conditions.
fg
Ffc
Fmp
Frp
Fnd
k
kw
kg
L
P
Rep
v
w
Xapp
Xcreated
Xeff
Xf
References
1.
2.
Damage Factor
Conductivity
Multiplier
Remaining
Conductivity
Ffc
0.63
0.63
Fmp
0.85
0.54
Frp
Fnd
0.69
0.37
0.08
0.03
3.
4.
5.
Conclusions
Clean pack baseline data for proppant pack conductivity are
optimistic. Small variations in proppant properties (less than
15 to 20% difference in conductivity) may not be statistically
significant when applied to field measurements of
performance. Proppant conductivity should be considered with
all damage effects included. Multiple damage mechanisms
affect the actual fracture conductivity under field conditions
and these various damage mechanisms are cumulative.
Effective fracture conductivity is generated from the coupling
of reservoir flow to fracture cleanup, in conjunction with
proppant characteristics. Field conductivity is much lower
than generally believed or expected.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the
member companies of the Stim-Lab proppant conductivity
6.
7.
8.
12
SPE 84306
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.