Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ii
Unified Fracture
Design
Bridging the Gap Between Theory and
Practice
Michael Economides
Ronald Oligney
Peter Valk
Orsa Press
Alvin, Texas
, .
Translation:
M. Uglov
PetroAlliance Services Company Limited
Moscow
2004
:
.
2004 .
iii
iv
Contents
CHAPTER 1
Hydraulic Fracturing for Production
or Injection Enhancement
6
8
10
12
12
Candidate Selection
15
13
17
Design Logic
Fracture Design Spreadsheet
CHAPTER 2
How To Use This Book
STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK
WHICH SECTIONS ARE FOR YOU
PRODUCTIVITY INDEX
THE WELL-FRACTURE-RESERVOIR SYSTEM
PROPPANT NUMBER
25
28
30
36
--
44
48
52
53
55
55
39
42
44
19
25
CHAPTER 4
Fracturing Theory
CHAPTER 3
Well Stimulation as a Means to
Increase the Productivity Index
21
17
18
19
21
Fracturing Crew
:
(
II)
56
57
58
60
61
CHAPTER 5
Fracturing of High Permeability
Formations
64
64
Gravel Pack
High-Rate Water Packs
67
67
70
71
72
72
75
Fracture Propagation
76
75
76
77
78
81
83
85
88
88
92
CHAPTER 6
Fracturing Materials
95
FRACTURING FLUIDS
FLUID ADDITIVES
PROPPANTS
95
97
100
103
105
105
107
108
vi
-
--
( )
:
.
-
6
,
CHAPTER 7
Fracture Treatment Design
116
MICROFRACTURE TESTS
116
MINIFRACS
TREATMENT DESIGN BASED ON THE UNIFIED
APPROACH
116
124
Pump Time
Proppant Schedule
Departure from the Theoretical Optimum
TSO Design
125
128
135
135
138
139
139
140
Step-Rate Tests
141
Minifracs
Pressure Falloff Tests
Bottomhole Pressure Measurements
143
145
146
CHAPTER 8
Fracture Design and Complications
148
FRACTURE HEIGHT
148
151
152
TIP EFFECTS
NON-DARCY FLOW IN THE FRACTURE
COMPENSATING FOR FRACTURE FACE SKIN
153
155
157
156
157
163
166
169
175
CHAPTER 9
Quality Control and Execution
179
185
187
FRACTURING EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT LIST
187
190
190
191
192
194
197
199
201
202
203
vii
- ()
- ()
: MPF01
:
MPF02
: MPF03
: HPF01
: HPF02
: LPF01
Proppant Supply
Frac Pumps
Manifold-to-Well
Monitoring/Control Equipment and Support Personnel
204
204
204
205
207
FORCED CLOSURE
QUALITY CONTROL FOR HPF
CHAPTER 10
Treatment Evaluation
REAL-TIME ANALYSIS
HEIGHT CONTAINMENT
LOGGING METHODS AND TRACERS
A WORD ON FRACTURE MAPPING
209
210
212
212
213
215
216
WELL TESTING
EVALUATION OF HPF TREATMENTSA UNIFIED
APPROACH
218
221
Production Results
Evaluation of Real-Time HPF Treatment Data
221
222
223
226
SLOPES ANALYSIS
226
Assumptions
Restricted Growth Theory
Slopes Analysis Algorithms
227
229
231
C: BIBLIOGRAPHY
D: FRACTURE DESIGN SPREADSHEET
237
242
245
250
259
E: MINIFRAC SPREADSHEET
265
271
291
Index
10
Appendices
A: NOMENCLATURE
B: GLOSSARY
301
304
viii
B:
C:
D:
E:
F:
G:
Preface
()
,
.
, , .
,
,
,
,
.
-,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
, -
,
, ,
,
-,
-
-
. ,
ix
. 1
1
Hydraulic Fracturing for
Production or Injection
Enhancement
-,
:
,
,
,
/
.
,
.
1940-
(. 1-1).
1950-
1980- ,
,
. 1993 40
70
.
,
,
- (
),
, (.
. 1-2).
. 1
FIGURE 1-1. An early hydraulic fracture treatment, circa 1949. (Source: Halliburton.)
.1.1. , 1949 . (: Halliburton.)
.
,
,
,
[Mullen et al.,
1996; Martins et al., 1992].
1993 . [Martins et al., 1992; Grubert,
1991; Ayoub et al., 1992] 300
1996 . [Tiner et al., 1996]
,
.
.
,
. ,
, ()
,
,
, ,
. ,
2
. 1
,
. ,
.
FIGURE 1-2. Fracturing as completion of choice in U.S. oil and gas wells. (Source: Schlumberger.)
. 1-2. . (:
Schlumberger.)
,
, .
, ,
, .
. 1
,
,
(
), ,
,
.
,
,
.
,
2.
,
,
,
,
,
,
. ,
, ,
, .
,
,
,
.
60
4
. 1
85 ,
. , :
100
100 . . ,
, ,
,
1 ,
.
,
.
,
(60%),
25%
.
,
,
2.
,
, ,
.
()
, ,
.
.
,
,
, ,
, ,
.
, -
, .
5
. 1
,
.
0.25 (0.1 ),
.
(
),
5 (2 ),
10 (30 ).
; ,
,
.
.
, ,
.
,
. ,
, ,
.
, ,
, ,
- ,
.
,
,
.
.
6
. 1
,
, ,
,
,
,
,
.
, ,
,
.
,
,
.
,
(
, ) .
-,
. -
, 7,
.
.
,
(tip
screenout TSO),
,
.
,
formation, a well will deliver the maximum ,
7
. 1
,
.
,
(, , 1.6,
3) ,
, ,
.
, , ,
.
,
.
,
,
,
, ,
. ,
,
.
,
.
,
, ,
,
,
,
.
,
( ),
.
,
(
).
. 1
,
, ,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
, .
, ,
,
. ,
,
.
,
x
,
x.
(.., ,
,
,
)
.
.
Extensive height growth limits the volumetric
proppant efficiency, and is something that we
generally try to avoid. (The possibility of intersecting
a nearby water table is another important reason to
avoid excessive height growth.)
,
, , ,
. ( ,
,
,
).
,
,
,
().
,
,
.
,
,
,
, .
9
. 1
.
,
.
,
,
, .
,
,
, .
Fracture-to-Well Connectivity
,
.
(
, ,
).
,
.
.
.
-
,
: ,
(
500 , 1500 )
,
.
,
,
10
. 1
.
naturally coincide with the fracture plane.
. ,
,
,
. , ,
.
If the well azimuth does not coincide with the
fracture plane, the fracture is likely to initiate in one
plane and then twist, causing considerable
tortuosity en route to its final azimuthnormal to
the minimum stress direction. Vertical wells with
vertical fractures or perfectly horizontal wells drilled
deliberately along the expected fracture plane result
in the best aligned well-fracture systems. Other wellfracture configurations are subject to choke effects,
unnecessarily decreasing the productivity of the
fractured well. Perforations and their orientation may
also be a source of problems during the execution of
a treatment, including multiple fracture initiations
and premature screenouts caused by tortuosity
effects.
, , ,
,
,
,
, -
.
-
,
; ,
.
,
(, S-
),
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
, ,
11
. 1
,
.
,
.
( )
,
/
.
,
,
. ,
(TSO),
.
,
,
.
( ,
),
, .., .
. ,
: (
) /
( ).
(..,
( ),
12
. 1
, 1-4
(120-480 /3).
,
,
, .
,
(
),
,
.
.
-
,
.
,
,
, .
.
-,
, -,
,
() (
, ,
,
. 1
).
, ,
,
,
.
Net Pressure
, .
.
,
(,
, ,
)
.
,
( )
,
. , -
,
-
,
.
,
,
,
,
. -, -
. ,
. 1
,
.
, ..,
,
( , ,
, ),
,
Leakoff
.
,
. ,
,
, ,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
Candidate Selection
,
, .
,
( ),
.
.
15
. 1
,
,
.
.
-
,
,
,
.
. . 1-3
,
,
( ),
, , , ,
,
5. ,
,
,
. ,
,
. 1-4
.
Figure
1-4
illustrates
two
multi-fracture
configurations. A rather sophisticated conceptual
configuration would involve the combination of HPF
with multiple-fractured vertical branches emanating
from a horizontal mother well drilled above the
16
. 1
,
.
, ,
, .
(
);
Design Logic
,
.
,
.
,
,
17
. 1
,
.
. ,
,
, ,
.
,
. ,
, ,
HF2D. Excel-
(
) (
).
(,
,
) ,
,
. ,
,
,
,
,
,
.
18
. 2
, ,
.
-, ,
,
, ,
.
,
, (
,
) .
,
,
.
;
; .
Excel
HF2D
software package for the design of traditional
(moderate permeability and hard rock) and frac
(
& pack (higher permeability and soft rock)
)
fracture treatments.
19
. 2
- (
).
2. The MF Excel spreadsheet is a minifrac 2. Excel MF
(calibration test) evaluation package. Its main
(
).
strongly
,
:
Hydraulic Fracture Mechanics, by Peter Valk Hydraulic Fracture Mechanics, by Peter Valk
and Michael Economides, addresses the
and
Michael
Economides
(
,
theoretical background of this seminal
)
technology. It provides a fundamental treatment
of basic phenomena such as elasticity, stress
.
distribution, fluid flow, and the dynamics of the
,
rupture process. Contemporary design and
,
,
analysis techniques are derived and improved
,
using a comprehensive and unified approach.
.
.
Stimulation Engineering Handbook, by John Ely, Stimulation Engineering Handbook, by John Ely
aptly covers many issues of fracture treatment
(
, ),
implementation and quality control. This is a
very hands-on book, intended to drive execution
.
performance and quality control.
.
,
:
Petroleum Well Construction (
,
-); ,
Reservoir Stimulation,
Third Edition ( ,
,
); SPE Monograph No. 12: Advances in
Hydraulic Fracturing (
- 12,
, ,
, ).
,
( )
,
-
20
. 2
,
( ),
,
.
,
.
,
.
Fracturing Crew
,
.
,
7 15 ,
.
,
, ,
.
,
,
10,
,
F,
.
. 2
.
( )
,
.
, ,
.
.
.
. (,
,
,
.)
,
,
.
(-: desk
engineer ,
) ,
,
. ,
, ,
(
).
(
)
( )
;
.
, , ,
, .
,
.
. 2
() .
.
,
(.,
) -50
, ,
,
.
,
,
(, 100 ).
.
,
, ,
.
(.,
).
6 9 ,
F,
.
,
Stimulation Engineering Handbook
(
).
-
,
()
. -
( 4 9),
.
, ,
.
,
( 10).
-
,
-,
.
,
23
. 2
.
.
, -
,
,
.
,
.
24
. 3
Well Stimulation as a
Means to Increase the
Productivity Index
(
)
.
, ,
,
(
). ,
,
, ,
.
.
,
/
.
.
To
understand
how
stimulation
increases
PRODUCTIVITY INDEX
25
. 3
q = Jp
(3-1)
J
().
,
,
,
p =
1Bq
pD
2kh
(3-2)
,
q=
2khp
q
1B D
(3-3)
pD ( 1 qD )
1 1
,
pD = Ei
2 4t D
pi pwf
Steady state
pe pwf
pD = ln (re rw )
Pseudo-steady state
p pwf
pD = ln (0.472 re r w )
where
tD =
kt
ct rw2
- ,
,
.
, s ,
26
. 3
J=
2kh
B ( pD + s )
(3-4)
- ( )
,
: ,
,
.
,
.
( ) .
-
,
.
,
,
, .
-
), .
.
-.
-,
,
,
,
.
,
-, ,
, ,
.
J=
where
index.
JD
q
2kh
JD
=
p pwf 1B
(3-5)
27
. 3
JD =
1
0.472re
ln
+s
r
w
,
.
,
JD =
1
0.472re
ln
+ sf
r
w
(3-7)
JD =
(3-6)
1
0.472re
ln
rw
(3-8)
JD =
(3-9)
(
).
,
( ).
. ,
.
,
,
(.,
, . 12-13 Reservoir
Stimulation,
Third
Edition
(
, )).
--
,
pay layer of thickness h, as shown in Figure 3-1.
28
. 3
h, . 3-1.
,
,
,
.
re xe
A ,
r e
x e
A = re2 = xe2
(3-10)
, ,
,
x ,
Ix =
2x f
xe
(3-11)
C fD =
where
xf
xe
kf w
kx f
is the side
(3-12)
xf
xe
,
kf
formation permeability, k f is the proppant pack k
permeability, and w is the average (propped) , w
() .
fracture width.
29
. 3
PROPPANT NUMBER
,
(
) :
.
,
,
.
,
:
N prop = I x2C fD
(3-13)
,
:
.
3-13,
N prop =
where
N prop
dimensionless;
kf
is
the
4k f x f w
kxe2
proppant
4k f x f wh
kxe2 h
2k f V prop
number,
(3-14)
Vres
N prop
kf
( ,
), 3;
Vres (..,
,
3
), . (,
,
).
3-14 ,
:
( )
,
. ,
,
. , ,
30
. 3
,
volumetric proppant efficiency yields the V prop used . ,
,
in calculating the proppant number.
, V prop ,
.
The dimensionless proppant number,
N prop ,
is by ,
N prop ,
FIGURE 3-2. Dimensionless productivity index as a function of dimensionless fracture conductivity, with I x as a parameter
(McGuire-Sikora type representation).
. 3-2. , I x
( -)
, . 3-2 -
. . 3-3
3-4, ,
,
proppant number,
N prop ,
. 3
N prop .
as a parameter. The
JD
JD
at a fixed value .
As seen from Figures 3-3 and 3-4, for a given value . 3-3 3-4,
of N prop , the maximum productivity index is
N prop
individual curves.
,
.
One of the main results seen from the figures is, that
at proppant numbers less than 0.1, the optimal
compromise occurs always at C fD = 1.6. When the
propped volume increases, the optimal compromise
happens
at
larger
dimensionless
fracture
conductivities, simply because the dimensionless
penetration cannot exceed unity (i.e., once a fracture
reaches the reservoir boundary, additional proppant is
allocated only to fracture width). This effect is shown
in Figure 3-4, as is the absolute maximum achievable
dimensionless productivity index of 1.909. The
maximum value of PI, equal to 6 , is the
productivity index corresponding to perfect linear
flow in a square reservoir.
,
, ,
0.1
C fD = 1.6.
,
,
(..,
). . 3-4,
, ,
, 1.909.
, 6 ,
( 50 )
0.1.
-,
0.0001 0.01.
,
C fDopt = 1.6 .
,
, . ,
,
, 1 10.
32
. 3
FIGURE 3-3. Dimensionless productivity index as a function of dimensionless fracture conductivity, with proppant number as a
parameter (for N prop
< 0.1).
. 3-3. ,
( N prop
< 0.1).
FIGURE 3-4. Dimensionless productivity index as a function of dimensionless fracture conductivity, with proppant number as a
parameter (for N prop > 0.1).
. 3-4. ,
( N prop
33
> 0.1).
. 3
.
()
,
.
, ,
.
. ,
C fD
. . 3-5,
.
,
,
,
.
FIGURE 3-5. Dimensionless productivity index as a function of penetration ratio, with proppant number as a parameter (for N prop >
0.1).
. 3-5. ,
( N prop
> 0.1).
. 3
. ,
(
),
7, .., 0.9 0.13.
. ,
, -
.
(, , )
, .
,
.
,
,
,
(,
) .
,
.
kf
is the
kf
( ,
) .
.
,
.
.
,
( )
.
:
,
,
35
. 3
(
),
.
( /
).
,
.
.
,
, 0.1.
(, -)
,
.
.
,
,
-
.
, ,
()
.
decreases
36
. 3
[Prats,
1961]
,
.
,
, ,
,
.
(., 100),
.
[Gringarten and
Ramey, 1974].
, - [Cinco-Ley
and
Samaniego,
1981]
,
.
JD =
where
sf
(3-15)
r
ln 0.472 e + s f
rw
JD =
sf
1
r
ln 0.472 e
rw
(3-16)
JD =
1
r
ln 0.472 e + f
xf
(3-17)
. 3
xf
f = s f = ln
rw
r
s f = ln w
rw
rw = rw exp[ s f ]
rw = rw exp[ f ]
rw
= exp[ f ]
xf
rw rw
=
exp s f
xf xf
- (f-) ,
( ) f
. . 3-6
f- -
.
C fD ,
the f-factor ,
C fD
f- ln(2),
,
, /2 ,
,
( ).
:
where
u = ln C fD
(3-18)
rw
1.65 0.328u + 0.116u 2 where
=
,
exp
2
3
xf
1 + 0.18u + 0.064u + 0.05u
u = ln C fD
(3-19)
,
and 3-19 are only valid over the range indicated in 3-18 3-19,
Figure 3-6. For very large values of C fD , one can ,
simply use the limiting value for Equation 3-19, . 3-6. C fD
()
38
. 3
xf 2.
,
,
.
< 0.1 ),
< 0.1 )
,
. ,
,
,
(.., h f = h ).
Selecting
C fD
C fD
expressed as
39
. 3
1/ 2
Vf k f
xf =
C hk
fD
JD =
(3-21)
1
hk
ln 0.472re + 0.5 ln
+ (0.5 ln C fD + f )
Vf k f
(3-22)
Because
the drainage radius, formation thickness, the two C fD . ,
,
C fD .
y = 0.5 ln C fD + f
(3-23)
C fD , opt = 1.6 ,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
, ( ),
.
.
. ,
C fD
1/ 2
V k
x f = f f
1.6hk
(3-24)
width should be
1/ 2
1.6V f k
w=
hk
f
Vf
hx f
40
(3-35)
Notice that
Vf
is
V prop 2
. 3
Vf
V prop 2 ,
.
,
requirement results in a long and narrow fracture; in
high permeability formations, a short and wide C fD .
fracture
provides
the
same
dimensionless
;
conductivity.
.
The most important implication of the above results
is that there is no theoretical difference between low
and high permeability fracturing. In all cases, there
exists a physically optimal fracture that should have a
C fD near unity. In low permeability formations, this
J D , max =
1
0.99 0.5 ln N prop
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
, ,
,
( C fD << 1 / 6 ),
(3-26)
>> 1 / 6 ).
( C fD >> 1 / 6 ).
,
-
,
, 1.6, 3-26
0.1.
3-3 3-4. . 3-3
the simple Equation 3-26. In Figure 3-4, however, C fD = 1.6 , J D
where the proppant numbers are larger than 0.1, the 3-26. ,
location of the maximum is shifted, and the simple . 3-4, 0.1,
calculations based on the f-factor (Equation 3-18) or ,
on the equivalent wellbore radius (Equation 3-19) are , f- ( 3no longer valid.
18)
41
. 3
( 3-19), .
Optimization routines found on the CD that
accompanies this book are based on the full
information contained in Figures 3-3 and 3-4, and
formulas developed for moderate proppant numbers
are used only in the range of their validity.
,
-, ,
,
. 3-3 3-4,
, .
DESIGN LOGIC
,
.
that reaches the pay, and hence is dependent on the . V prop
volumetric proppant efficiency, the proppant number
,
1.
. (
,
,
,
.)
2. . 3-3 3-4 (
),
J D max ,
,
C fD , opt , .
3.
.
(
) V f ,
42
. 3
1/ 2
Vf k f
xf =
C
hk
fD , opt
(3-27)
4.
C fD , optV f k
w=
hk
Vf
and
Vf
xf h
(3-28)
must
Vf
h
h
,
() , h
.
. ,
()
( ),
.
, ,
.
,
(
)
.
. ,
,
.
43
. 4
Fracturing Theory
fracturing.
.
,
. ,
,
(
,
,
)
.
.
,
,
.
.
1-4
. ,
, ( E )
( ).
vertical strain ( xx ), and horizontal strain ( yy ), as
( xx ), ( xx ),
shown in the figure.
( yy ),
.
. 4-1 ,
.
( E ) ,
. 4
E,
G,
E, G
Shear modulus, G
, G
E
2(1 + )
Youngs modulus, E
, E
2G (1 + )
Poisson ratio,
,
E 2G
2G
E
1 2
2G
1
4G 2
4G E
. ,
, (
)
(..,
).
,
.
.
, .
45
. 4
, , ,
.
).
KGD,
PKN.
.
, ,
[Sneddon, 1973]:
w( x) =
4 p0 2
c x2
E
x , c
( ),
p0 ,
. 4-1
w0 =
(4-1)
4cp0
,
E
(4-2)
,
, p0
, pn ,
,
[Hubbert and Willis, 1957; Haimson
and Fairhurst, 1967].
,
,
,
. (, )
,
.
. 4
.
,
.
, .
.
. (
)
.
,
1 / 2
.
the sense that they decrease according to r
,
.
where r is the distance from the tip. The quantity
,
used to characterize the level of infinity is the
stress intensity factor, K I , defined as the multiplier
1 / 2
, r
, r
1 / 2
to the r
function. For the idealization of a . ,
pressurized line crack with half-length, c , and
1 / 2
r
.
,
c ,
p0 ,
K I = p0c1 / 2
(4-3)
,
,
(
).
-
,
,
K IC ,
( ).
47
. 4
, ,
.
,
,
. ,
,
. ,
.
()
( , )
.
.
()
.
-
,
.
,
,
1/.
. ,
, , .
(
). ,
.
(, )
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
48
. 4
.
. 4-2
, . 4-2
.
Newtonian
= K n
Power law
= y + p
Bingham plastic
= y + K n
, , ,
,
. ,
[Reidenbach, 1985; Winkler, 1995].
(..,
). ,
,
. , n,
49
. 4
0.3 0.6.
All fluids exhibit some finite limiting viscosity at
high shear rates. The build-up of very high apparent
viscosity at low shear might be approximated by the
inclusion of a yield stress for certain fluids. Many
fluids demonstrate what appears to be Newtonian
behavior at low shear rates.
.
,
.
,
() .
() ,
.
(., ,
,
).
(
) .
( e ),
, ,
,
.
(
) ,
,
.
, (
,
),
50
. 4
.
KGD, PKN.
4-1 ,
.
,
.
, .
. ,
geometry of the flow channel (in case of slot flow, on
the width, w ; in case of elliptical cross section, on
( u avg ) (
the maximum width, w0 ). It is interesting to note
, w ;
that the equation for laminar flow of a Power law
fluid in the limiting ellipsoid geometry has not been
,
w0 ).
derived. The solution presented here can be obtained
by analogy considerations (for details, see Valk and ,
Economides, 1995).
,
,
.
( . [Valk and Economides,
1995]).
Table 4-3 gives the solutions commonly used in
hydraulic fracturing calculations. The most familiar
equation, valid for Newtonian behavior, is presented
first. Then an equivalent viscosity is given for the
Power law fluid. The equivalent viscosity can be
used in the Newtonian form of the pressure drop
equation. Notice that the equivalent viscosity
depends on the average velocity ( u avg ) and on the
Newtonian
Power law
n
= K
Slot flow
p 12 uavg
=
L
w2
2 n 1 1 + 2n
1 n n 1
e =
Kw uavg
3 n
Ellipsoid flow
p 16 uavg
=
L
w02
2 n 1 1 + ( 1)n
n 1
Kw10 nuavg
e =
.
[Roodhart, 1985; Acharya, 1986].
51
. 4
, ,
,
.
( ),
,
,
.
,
[Carter, 1957] (.
[Howard
and
Fast,
1957]),
. ,
vL ,
I :
vL =
CL
t
(4-4)
VLost
= 2C L t + S p
AL
where
VLost
(4-5)
VLost
t .
zero to
constant, S p , is
Sp,
called the spurt loss coefficient. It can be considered ,
as the width of the fluid body passing through the .
surface instantaneously at the very beginning of the ,
leakoff process. Correspondingly, the term 2C L t
. ,
can be considered as the leakoff width. (Note that the
factor 2 is an artifact of the integration. It has nothing 2C L t
to do with the two wings and/or two faces . (, 2
introduced later.) The two coefficients, C L and S p , .
the surface
52
. 4
test.
Consider
the
fracturing
treatment
shown ,
schematically in Figure 4-3. The volume Vi injected . 4-3. Vi ,
te ,
:
( Ve )
( ). e ,
.
,
. Ae
of one face of one fracture wing. Fluid efficiency e
is defined as the fraction of the fluid remaining in the
. (
fracture: e = Ve Vi . The average width, w ,
) e
defined by the relation, V = Aw .
, :
e = Ve Vi . , w ,
= Aw .
. 4
A hydraulic fracturing operation may last from tensof-minutes up to several hours. Points on the fracture
face near the well are opened at the beginning of
pumping while the points near the fracture tip are
younger. Application of Equation 4-5 necessitates the
tracking of the opening-time of the different fracture
face elements.
.
,
,
,
. 4-5
.
,
,
,
:
Vi = Ve + K L 2 AeC L te + 2 Ae S p
K L
.
,
,
. ,
,
K L
,
KL = 2 .
.
,
,
, ,
,
.
4-6 :
e =
showing that the term
we
we + 2 K LC L te + 2 S p
C L te
2 LL C L t e
2S p
2S p
.
4-7 ,
,
:
Sp
(4-7)
can be ,
2 LL C L t e
KL =
(4-6)
we
we
+
2C L tt 2eC L te
(4-8)
. 4
( II)
,
(
).
,
:
e =
where
we (we + 2 S p )
2
exp 2 erfc ( ) +
1
2
4C L te
2C L t e
we + 2S p
( )
2C L t e
we + 2S p
(4-9)
,
[Nolte, 1979, 1986]
.
,
,
AD = t D
(4-10)
AD = A Ae t D = t te ,
. ,
.
, g 0 ,
( )
( )
g 0 .
,
[Hagel and Meyer, 1989]:
55
. 4
g 0 ( ) =
where
( )
( + 2 3)
(4-11)
( ) - .
(4-12)
,
,
.
,
, ,
.
= 4 / 5 PKN,
= 2 / 3 KGD, = 8 / 9
.
, 4-4.
Numerically,
the
original
constant-width
approximation of Carter and the power law surface
growth assumption of Nolte give very similar results
when used for design purposes. The g 0 -function
approach does, however, have technical advantages
when applied to the analysis of calibration
treatments.
,
. ,
g 0
()
.
[Williams, 1970 and
Settari, 1985; Ehlig-Economides, et al., 1994; Yi and
Peden, 1994; Mayerhofer, et al., 1995].
56
. 4
p face
p face
(4-13)
is ,
the pressure drop across a polymer-invaded zone and , p piz
p piz
pres
()
, pres .
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
, .
,
.
, ,
, ( )
.
,
.
,
,
. ,
,
,
(2D) .
,
, ,
,
(
57
. 4
).
A further simplification occurs if we can relate
fracture length and width, neglecting the details of
leakoff for now. This is the basic concept of the early
so-called width equations. It is assumed that the
fracture evolves in two identical wings, perpendicular
to the minimum principal stress of the formation.
Because the minimum principal stress is usually
horizontal (except for very shallow formations), the
fracture will be vertical.
,
,
.
. ,
,
),
.
PKN ,
,
; ,
.
,
- ,
.
,
, pn ,
x.
.
4-1
w0 =
2h f p n
E
(4-14)
[Perkins and Kern, 1961]
,
( qi ),
.
:
4 q
dp n
= 3 i
dx
w0 h f
(4-15)
. 4
:
1/ 4
x
w0 ( x) = ww,0 1
x
f
(4-16)
ww,0
qi x f
= 3.57
E
14
(4-17)
,
, ,
, ,
. ,
,
repeating the Perkins-Kern derivation with a constant () , ()
flow velocity assumption has very little effect on the
, u avg . ,
final results.
In reality, the flow rate in the fracture is less than the
injection rate, not only because part of the fluid leaks
off, but also because the increase of width with time
consumes another part of the injected fluid. In fact,
what is more or less constant along the lateral
coordinate at a given time instant, is not the flow rate,
but rather the flow velocity, u avg . However,
-
,
.
. 4
, ,
.
,
,
, .
w = ww,0 ,
where
4
45
= 0.628
(4-18)
.
/4, ,
.
4/5,
.
4-17
,
-- (PKN) [Nordgren,
1972]:
ww,0
qi x f
= 3.27
E
14
Khristianovich-Zheltov-Geertsma-deKlerk
Width Equation
(4-19)
--
,
[Khristianovich
and
Zheltov,
1955],
underlying physical hypothesis is that the fracture
faces slide freely at the top and bottom of the layer. h f .
The resulting fracture cross section is a rectangle. ,
The width is considered as a function of the
coordinate x. It is determined from the plane-strain .
assumption, now applied in the (every) horizontal .
plane. The Khristianovich and Zheltov model x.
contained another interesting assumption: the
1/ 4
336
ww =
qi x 2f
E h f
1/ 4
qi x 2f
= 3.22
E h f
60
1/ 4
(4-20)
. 4
,
, .
, -
,
w = ww ,
where
2x f < hf
= 0.785
(4-21)
KGD,
[Daneshy, 1978],
,
.
,
.
, the horizontal ,
2x f < hf
( KGD),
2 x f > h f
( PKN).
, ,
,
, ,
.
( )
,
.
,
(
),
,
, -,
R f = x f = h f 2 .
The result is
qi R f
w = 2.24
E
14
61
(4-22)
. 4
,
,
.
. 4-4
(
).
4-4. :
-
,
.
,
. ,
,
,
- ,
.
( )
,
, ,
. KGD (
) ,
,
.
,
,
.
, PKN
,
.
,
:
,
;
,
; ,
. ,
.
62
. 4
Radial
x f = c1t 4 / 5
x f = c1t 2 / 3
R = c1t 4 / 9
1/ 5
Fracture Extent
qi3 E
c1 = c1 4
f
f
1/ 5
625
c1 =
3
512
1/ 6
= 0.524 c = 16
1
3
21
ww , 0 = c 2 t 1 / 5
Width
1/ 5
1/ 6
1/ 5
= 3.04
5376
c2 = 3
19
qi3 E
c1 = c1
c1 = 0.572
ww , 0 = c 2 t 1 / 9
q3
c2 = c2 i 3
E h
f
= 2.36
1/ 9
qi3 2
c2 = c2
2
c2 = 3.65
w = ww,0
w = ww
w = ww,0
= 0.628
= 0.785
= 0.533
pn, w = c3t1 / 5
pn, w = c3t 1 / 3
pn, w = c3t 1 / 3
1/ 5
Net Pressure
= 0.539
ww = c 2 t 1 / 3
1/ 6
qi3
c2 = c2
E h
f
2560
c2 = 2
16
qi3 E
c = c1 3
h
f
E 4 qi2
c3 = c3
h6
f
1/ 4
80
c3 = 2
c3 = c3 E 2
1/ 3
1/ 3
= 1.52
21
c3 =
16
63
= 1.09
c3 = c3 E 2
c3 = 2.51
1/ 3
. 5
Fracturing of High
Permeability Formations
THE EVOLUTION OF THE TECHNIQUE
1990-
. ,
,
,
, ,
.
, ,
,
().
,
(TSO tip
screenout),
.
, .
,
,
0.25 (6-7 )
,
(25 ) .
,
50 5
(. 5-1).
.
,
, ,
64
. 5
Gas
Oil
k < 0.5 md
k < 0.5
k < 5 md
k < 5
Moderate
5 < k < 50 md
5 < k < 50
High
k > 5 md
k > 5
k > 50 md
k > 50
Low
,
, -,
,
: (sand exclusion
(sand deconsolidation
control ).
,
.
( ),
.
,
, -.
,
.
.
65
. 5
() (..,
).
,
,
()
.
, ,
: (1)
,
, (2)
, (3)
.
,
.
( )
(,
),
, ,
.
: ,
100
(30.5 ).
1 (0.3 ),
,
, 300 . (28
2). 100
(30.5 ) (2 100
100 2) 40 000 . [(2 30.5 30.5 2)
3720 2]. (:
.) ,
,
.
,
1/100
.
, ,
.
,
3000
(900 ) .
,
.
66
. 5
, ,
.
,
,
,
, ,
.
,
(
,
),
,
,
,
.
,
.
, , ,
.
-
,
,
(20/40 ).
.
,
, -,
.
In the following section, HPF is considered in a semiquantitative light in view of competing technologies.
This is followed by a discussion of the key issues in
high permeability fracturing, including design,
execution, and evaluation.
.
,
, .
Gravel Pack
. 5
(,
)
() ,
.
.
(..,
).
( -)
, , .
()
J=
q
=
pe p wf
kh
0.472re
+ s
141.2 B ln
rw
(5-1)
(),
(., s = 10),
(., s = 30)
5, 2.3 1.1 ././psi
(11.7, 5.4 1.1 .3//).
1000 psi (68 )
5000, 2300 1100 ../
(795, 366 175 3/.). ,
.
.
,
. . 5
(. . 3-6) -
68
. 5
,
C fD = k f w kx f , , x f .
. 5-1 ,
(., C fD = 0.5)
(., x f = 50 = 15 ) -,
s f , ( r w = 0.328 = 0.1 )
3.
FIGURE 5-1. Pseudoskin factor for a vertical well intersected by a finite conductivity fracture.
. 5-1. - , .
-, 3,
5-1,
7.7 ././psi (18.0
.3/./),
50-
7-
.
(,
, [Mathur et
al., 1995]) -, 1,
5.6 ././psi
(13.1 .3/./)
.
,
, , .
,
( )
69
. 5
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
, [Tiner et al.,
1996],
4-1,
,
,
, .
.
+2 to +5 reported
, +2 +5
HPF
0 to +2 normally
0 +2
0 to 3 in some reports
, 0 3
,
.
( ,
)
. , [Stewart et al.,
1995; Mathur et al., 1995; Ning et al., 1995]
,
. 5
( - ).
PERFORMANCE OF FRACTURED
HORIZONTAL WELLS IN HIGH PERMEABILITY
FORMATIONS
15
.
.
,
.
. ,
,
()
,
.
, [Valk and
Economides, 1996]
1996 . 15 ,
5-3 ,
()
,
,
.
Furthermore, the horizontal well fractured with 10fold less proppant (C fD = 0.12) still outperforms the
fractured vertical well for k = 1 and 10 md, and is
competitive at 100 md. The longitudinal
configuration may provide the additional benefit of
avoiding excess breakdown pressures and tortuosity
problems during execution.
,
, 10
(C fD = 0.12)
, , k = 1
10 , 100
.
,
.
71
. 5
k = 1 md
k = 1
k = 10 md
k = 10
k = 100 md
k = 100
Vertical well
0.73
6.4
57.7
Horizontal well
3.48
14.2
78.8
2.59
13.4
89.6
3.88
16.3
95.8
3.91
16.3
103.3
()
.
. 5-2.
,
.
(,
),
( ).
,
: (
) /
( ).
72
. 5
1-4 / (120-480
/3). ,
,
(., 10-16 /
= 1200-1920 /3).
20
2
/. (97 / ).
( )
/
.
,
,
.
,
, ,
. ,
(
),
,
.
73
. 5
.
-
,
,
.
,
, .
,
.
,
,
,
( )
[Mullen et al., 1994].
. 5
,
, ,
,
( ,
, ,
). ,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
(,
,
)
.
,
( )
,
,
(.
10). , -
.
75
. 5
Fracture Propagation
,
,
,
. ,
[Chudnovsky, 1996]
.
,
.
,
(
),
.
[Vitthal and McGowen,
1996] [McGowen and Vitthal, 1996].
,
.
,
,
,
,
. ,
.
76
. 5
,
.
,
. ,
. (:
).
, [Mayerhofer, et
al., 1993]
.
[Fan and Economides, 1995],
,
.
,
.
. (
4),
VL
= 2C L t + S p
AL
(5-2)
. 5
Sp,
.
As discussed in more detail in Chapter 4, Equation 52 can be visualized assuming that the given surface
element remembers when it has been opened to
fluid loss and has its own zero time that is likely
different from that of other elements along the
fracture surface. Points on the fracture face near the
well are opened at the beginning of pumping while
the points at the fracture tip are younger. Application
of Equation 5-2 or its differential form necessitates
tracking the opening time for different fracture-face
elements, as discussed in Chapter 4.
4,
5-2
, ,
,
,
, , ,
.
,
.
5-2
,
4.
. [Mayerhofer, et al.,
1993]
,
, : (1)
(2)
. , ( R0 ,
t0 , k r , )
,
. , ,
,
.
78
. 5
p face
p face
(5-3)
is ,
the pressure drop across a polymer invaded zone, and , p piz
fracture face dominated by the filtercake,
p piz
pres
FIGURE 5-4. Filter cake plus reservoir pressure drop in the Mayerhofer et al. (1993) model.
. 5-4. .
[Mayerhofer et al., 1993].
(.,
)
5
.
,
()
(
),
(., 200 ).
79
. 5
, ,
4-21
p (t ) = p face (t ) + pres (t )
(5-4)
R0 ,
.
p D ,
,
( ).
maximum fracture length reached at time tn . And
, t D ,
rp is introduced as the ratio of permeable height to ,
tn . rp
the total height h h .
The filter cake pressure term can be expressed as a
function of, and is proportional to, R0 , the
characteristic resistance of the filter cake. The
transient pressure drop in the reservoir can be reexpressed as a series expansion of p D , a
dimensionless pressure function describing the
behavior (unit response) of the reservoir.
Dimensionless time, t D , is calculated with the
qn =
n 1
(
)
q
p
t
t
+
n 1 D Dn Dn 1 (q j q j 1 ) pD (t Dn t Dj 1 )
kr rp h f
j =1
R0
tn r pD (t Dn t Dn 1 )
+
kr rp h f
2rp An te
(5-5)
, t n ,
,
. ,
p D t Dn t Dj 1 ,
h f ).
( )
,
,
:
p(tn )
(hp
(, ),
[Mayerhofer, et al., 1995].
,
,
,
The model can be used to analyze the pressure falloff subsequent to a fracture injection (minifrac) test,
as described by Mayerhofer, et al. (1995). The
method requires more input data than the similar
analysis based on Carter leakoff, but it offers the
distinct advantage of differentiating between the two
major factors in the leakoff process, filter cake
resistance and reservoir permeability.
80
. 5
,
the polymer-invaded zone.
.
The total driving force behind fluid leakoff is the ,
pressure difference between the fracture face and the ,
reservoir, p frac pi , which is equivalent to the
sum of three separate pressure dropsacross the , p frac pi ,
filter cake, the polymer-invaded zone, and in the
,
reservoir:
.
(5-6)
).
,
,
.
(..,
)
. 5-5.
1,
( )
2.
81
. 5
FIGURE 5-5. Fluid leakoff model with polymer invasion and transient reservoir flow.
. 5-5. .
,
,
.
, 5-7
,
, :
2 p neff ct
=
k
x 2
1 n
1
n
consistency index).
(5-7)
ct , k
, u
, n
,
,
p
t
eff
the fluid
1n
K
3
=
9 + (150k ) 2
12
n
law fluid ( K
).
p frac pr =
app 1 e
2 k
4 1
+ r 2 e
erf
82
4 2
erfc
4 2
(5-8)
where a1
k
n
()
1 1 n
ct
eff u
. 5
and
a2 =
k
ct
a1
k
n
()
1 1 n
ct
eff u
a2 =
k
ct
5-8
(
).
1
qL = A
2 t
( )
(5-9)
( )
,
. -
,
, ,
.
, , ,
.
,
,
.
83
. 5
k rg
(5-10)
is
k rg
, f
f =
(5-11)
1/ b
N
1+ c
a
Nc =
kp
(5-12)
5-12: k ,
where
Sg
ng
S wi
,
.
( ) 5-10,
k rgI ,
is defined as
krgI
Sg
=
S
1
wi
ng
(5-13)
is the connate
Sg
S wi
ng
krgM =
Sg
(5-14)
1 S wi
, [Cinco and
Samaniego, 1981] ,
:
s fs =
where
bs
1
2 x f ks
bs k
ks
is the
84
(5-15)
bs
. 5
damaged permeability.
. ,
,
-,
.
,
(..,
).
ks
s fs =
bs 1
1
2 s f krg
(5-16)
,
.
, ,
(
).
,
,
.
.
5-16,
-
.
, 5-10
5-14.
.
5
2545 psi (17.55
85
. 5
0.35.
A series of simulations based on the work of Wang,
et al. shows the maximum productivity index that can
be achieved when the gas condensate skin is
introduced, and indicates appropriate changes to the
fracture design. The fracture length is progressively
increased, while the proppant number (i.e., the mass
of proppant injected) is held constant. This, of
course, causes an unavoidable reduction in the
fracture conductivity, even while maximizing the
productivity index.
,
.,
,
,
.
,
(.., )
. , ,
,
.
, . 5-6,
225
(77.7 ) (16-
1.2
1.6.
0.294.
86
. 5
0.35 ,
0.045
.
(200 ) ,
, 35
number for this case is 0.0005 (for the same 80,000 (10.7 ) ( C fD = 1.6).
lb m of proppant). The corresponding dimensionless 0.0005 (
80000 = 36 287 ).
productivity index is 0.21.
0.21.
For a much higher permeability reservoir (200 md)
again, ignoring the fracture face skin initiallythe
same calculation results in an optimum fracture halflength equal to 35 ft ( C fD = 1.6). The proppant
. 5-7
,
,
45 (13.7 ) (
30
). C fD
1,
0.171.
,
.
0.003 6
, !
. 5
(
)
,
.
. ,
,
,
-,
.
88
q=
. 5
kr , app
where
m( p )
k f , app
m( p )
k f , app
is the apparent
k r , app
(5-17)
0.472re
kr f1 (C fD , app ) + ln
[
k r , app
. (
, .) f
- [Cinco-Ley and
Samaniego, 1981],
3
where
u = ln C fD .
(5-18)
u = ln C fD .
CsD , app
k f , app w
(5-19)
kr , app x f
implicit in the production rate.
.
Proceeding further requires a model of non-Darcy ,
flow. Almost exclusively, the Forcheimer equation is .
used:
:
dp
= v + | v | v
dx k
(5-20)
is a v = qa A ,
.
(5-21)
k 1.2
89
. 5
dp
1 k | v |
1 c | v |
= v 1 +
= v 1 + 0.2
dx
k
k
k
(5-22)
showing that
k app
k
1
c | v |
1 + 0.2
k
(5-23)
, ,
.
, h = h f .
v=
qa
4hx f
(5-24)
where q a is the in-situ (actual) volumetric flow rate; q a
hence, for the reservoir non-Darcy effect,
(); ,
cv cqa 1
0.2 =
0.2
2
h
k
2x f k
(5-25)
v=
qa
2hw
(5-26)
cv
cqa 1
0.2 =
0.2
h
2
k
wk f
f
The term
qa
(5-27)
qa
cqa c a g
=
q = c0 q
2h
2 h
where
(5-28)
. 5
c0
is constant for a .
c0 .
k app
1
=
k r 1 + c0 q
2 x f k r0.2
(5-29)
k app
1
=
k f 1 + c0 q
wk 0f .2
(5-30)
q=
1 + c0 q f1 (C fD , app ) + ln 0.472re
x
2 x k 0.2
f
f
(5-31)
where
c0
q
kf w
wk 0f .2
=
kr x f 1 + c0 q
2 x f kr0.2
1+
C fD , app
(5-32)
c0 q
f1 (C fD , app ) + ln 0.472re f1 (C fD ) + ln 0.472re
s ND = 1 +
x
x
2 x k 0.2
f
f
f r
(5-33)
.
, ,
.
91
. 5
,
. ,
, -,
,
-.
2
p 2 pwf
1
q=
1424 ZT
1 + c0 q f1 (C fD , app ) + ln 0.472re
kr h
x
2 x k 0.2
f
f r
where
c0 =
c a g
2h
must
be
expressed
kf w
C fD , app =
k x
r f
c0 =
in
c a g
(5-34)
2h
example, -0.2/.../.
c 0 = 0.73 .../.
c0
q
k f w 1 + c0 r q
2 x f kr0.2
=
k x 1+ c q
c0
0f
1 + 0.2 q r f
wk f
1+
(5-35)
( )
re
ft
1,500
457.2
cp
0.02
0.02
N/A .
0.95
0.95
640
355.56
kr
md
10
10
ft
80
24.38
hf
ft
80
24.38
92
. 5
kf
md
10,000
xf
ft
30
9.14
inch
0.5
1.27
N/A .
0.65
0.65
psi /.
4,000
27.58
rw
ft
0.328
0.10
10,000
where
(../)1
(../)1
C fD , app = 1.39
1 + 0.76q
1 + 280q
(5-36)
and
q=
2
4000 2 pwf
21.645
1
(1 + 0.76q ) f1 (C fD, app ) + 3.16
(5-37)
(5-38)
( 3)
-,
.
-,
()
,
93
. 5
FIGURE 5-8. Inflow performance of fractured gas reservoir, non-Darcy effect from Firoozabadi-Katz correlation.
. 5-8. ,
-.
FIGURE 5-9. Additional skin effect from non-Darcy flow in the fracture.
. 5-9. - .
FIGURE 5-10. Observable pseudoskin, the resulting effect of fracture with non-Darcy flow effects.
. 5-10. , .
94
. 6 ,
6
,
Fracturing Materials
Materials used in the fracturing process include
fracturing fluids, fluid additives, and proppants. The
fluid and additives act together, first to create the
hydraulic fracture, and second, to transport the
proppant into the fracture. Once the proppant is in
place and trapped by the earth stresses (fracture
closure), the carrier fluid and additives are degraded
in-situ and/or flowed back out of the fracture
(fracture cleanup), establishing the desired highlyproductive flow path.
,
, .
, , ,
-,
.
(
), -
/
(
),
.
.
, ,
: 45
(
), 25
, 20 10
.
,
,
,
1949 .
-.
FRACTURING FLUIDS
( )
,
,
( ) .
( )
, .
95
. 6 ,
,
, ,
,
-,
,
.
(1) ,
, (2) ,
(3)
,
. 1950-
. 1990- 90
.
(N 2 )
(CO 2 )
25
.
6-1
.
,
.
, ,
. ,
,
,
() (),
,
,
. ,
(
),
.
,
()
.
,
,
5 100 .
(),
, (Zr)
(Ti), (Sb)
96
. 6 ,
(Al).
Gelling Agent
pH Range
pH
Application Temperature
B, non-delayed
B,
Guar, HPG
, ()
812
70300 F
21149
B, delayed
B,
Guar, HPG
, ()
812
70300 F
21149
Zr, delayed
Zr,
Guar
710
150300 F
66149
Zr, delayed
Zr,
Guar
58
70250 F
21121
Zr, delayed
Zr,
CMHPG, HPG
- (),
()
911
200400 F
93204
Zr-a, delayed
Zr-a,
CMHPG
- ()
36
70275 F
21135
Ti, non-delayed
Ti,
79
100325 F
3816
Ti, delayed
Ti,
79
100325 F
3816
Al, delayed
Al,
CMHPG
- ()
46
70175 F
2179
Sb, non-delayed
Sb,
Guar, HPG
, ()
36
60120 F
15.549
,
( )
[Chambers, 1994].
.
FLUID ADDITIVES
pH
()
.
,
. 6-2
97
. 6 ,
Biocide
()
Fluid loss
1050 lb m ( 1000 )
1.26 /3
Breakers
0.110 lb m ( 1000 )
0.0121.2 /3
Friction reducers
Surfactants
()
Foaming agents
Clay control
Purpose
()
.
,
,
,
,
. ,
.
pH 12,
,
.
.
0.1 50 .
.
, , ,
.
,
98
. 6 ,
,
. 6-3
.
Application Temperature
Enzyme
60200F
15.693
Encapsulated enzyme
60200F
15.693
120200F
4993
Activated persulfates
70120F
2193
Encapsulated persulfates
120200F
4993
200325F
93163
Comments
()
,
(.., ).
. ,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
1 3 KCl
99
now available,
concentrations.
which
are
. 6 ,
used
at
lower .
,
,
.
.
PROPPANTS
( )
,
,
.
,
,
()
(
, ).
,
, , ,
, .
.
,
8000 (2400 )
(,
).
, ,
8000 (2400 ).
,
,
:
(1)
, ,
, (2)
( ,
) , (3)
,
. . 61, 6-2 6-3
100
. 6 ,
FIGURE 6-1. Fracture conductivity for various areal proppant concentrations (20/40 mesh).
. 6-1. (20/40 ).
101
. 6 ,
102
. 6 ,
Sh =
where
pp
Sv
, .
(..,
),
.
:
(Sv p p ) + p p
is the absolute
(6-1)
,
It is worthwhile to understand
development of this relationship.
the
Sv
pp
forward .
, .
, S v ,
, , ,
. ,
,
-. ,
0.95
1.1. psi (21.5 24.9 /),
()
1 psi (22.6
/).
(.., ,
),
,
,
v = Sv p p
(6-2)
,
,
,
,
( ).
. 6-5.
103
. 6 ,
h =
where
, ,
,
-
,
,
,
(, )
, = ex ez .
,
,
( ).
(6-3)
,
h
.
104
. 6 ,
Sh
(Sv p p ) + p p
(6-4)
, ,
,
,
,
.
:
,
,
.
,
,
. , ,
, C fD .
:
1/2
(
). . [Hunt et al.,
1994] ,
100
10 (3.05 )
8000 -
(2438 -),
. ,
50
(~15 )
10 (~3 ) .
105
. 6 ,
. :
.
. :
(..,
).
is :
maintainedthis may require an increase in areal C fD (
C fD
,
.
,
,
PKN KGD).
. ,
,
(.,
).
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
(.,
),
.
106
. 6 ,
Proppant Selection
,
,
. ,
, ,
,
.
:
,
,
,
, ,
.
,
[Saucier, 1974].
formation grain size ( D f 50 ). The so-called 4-by-8 , ( G )
g 50
rule implies minimum and maximum grain-size -
diameters that are distributed around Sauciers
( D f 50 ).
criteria
(i.e.,
and
Dg , min = 4 Dg 50
4 8 ,
Dg , min = 8 Dg 50 , respectively). Thus, many early
treatments were pumped with standard 40/60 mesh or
(..,
Dg , min = 4 Dg 50
even 50/70 mesh sand. The somewhat limited
conductivity of these gravel pack mesh sizes under
).
.
As with equipment choices and fluids selection, the
gravel-packing roots of frac & pack are also evident
when it comes to proppant selection. Engineers
initially focused on sand exclusion and a gravel pack
derived sizing criteria such as that proposed by
Saucier (1974). Saucier recommends that the mean
gravel size ( Gg 50 ) be five to six times the mean
,
.
() 20/40 .
107
. 6 ,
,
[Hannah et al.,
1993].
It is interesting to note that the topics of formation
competence and sanding tendency, major issues in
the realm of gravel pack technology, have not been
widely studied in the context of HPF. It seems that in
many cases HPF is providing a viable solution to
completion failures in spite of the industrys
primitive understanding of (soft) rock mechanics.
,
,
,
. ,
,
()
.
,
( )
, ,
.
.
Fluid Selection
,
,
()
.
(),
,
, ,
.
-
,
.
108
. 6 ,
)
.
[Mathur et al., 1995]
,
,
-.
,
. ,
,
,
.
. ,
(1 ), ,
,
[Roodhart, 1985; Mayerhofer et
al., 1991].
,
.
.
()
. 6 ,
,
.
,
, .
zones.
sd =
(b1 b2 )kr b1
b2 k r
=
+
(6-5)
. 6 ,
st = sd + s f
Parametric Studies
(6-6)
(1)
(2)
. 6-4
( x f = 25
k2 kr , are re-expressed in real units in Table 6-4. = 7.62 , C fD = 0.1, k f = 10 ),
Under each of these conditions, the total skin is equal
to zero.
, b2 x f ,
Aggour and Economides (1996) employed the
Mathur et al. model (with no radial wellbore damage)
to evaluate total skin and investigate the relative
effects of different variables. Their results related the
total skin in a number of discrete cases to (1) the
depth of fluid invasion normal to the fracture face
and (2) the degree of permeability reduction in the
polymer-invaded zone. A sample of their results (for
x f = 25 ft, C fD = 0.1, and k f = 10 md), expressed
initially in terms of damage penetration ratios,
b2 x f , and permeability impairment ratios,
,
111
k2 kr ,
. 6 ,
.
.
2.5 ft
2.5 = 76.2
90%
1.25 ft
1.25 = 38.1
95%
0.25 ft
0.25 = 7.6
99%
: [Aggour and Economides, 1996].
, (
)
2.5 (76.2 )
,
90 .
1.25 (38.1 ),
,
95%.
0.25 (7.62 ),
99
.
,
1,
,
,
. ,
,
.
,
,
.
,
illustrated; certainly, a good proppant pack should ,
99
.
not be sacrificed in an attempt to minimize the
fracture face damage.
C fD ;
It is also clear from this work that the extent of
damage normal to the fracture face is more important
than the degree of damage. If fluid invasion can be
minimized, even 99 percent damage can be tolerated.
The importance of maximizing C fD is also
.
This points toward the selection of appropriate
fracturing fluids:
:
. 6 ,
.
Crosslinked polymer fluids with high gel
(
,
.,
. ,
. [Ning et al.]
, , ,
,
.
.
: 70 1000
(8.4 /3)
() 30 40 1000
(3.6 4.8 /3) ()
.
2 (..,
)
10 200 1000
120F (48.9) 180F (82.2).
. 6 ,
200
[Aggour and Economides, 1996]
,
,
.
,
,
- . ,
,
.
,
;
(
, )
,
. [Brown et al., 1996]
,
.
0
.
114
. 6 ,
-
,
, :
,
,
.
115
. 7
Fracture Treatment
Design
Fracture treatment goes well beyond the sizing of a
fracture, as important as that is for production
enhancement, to include the calculation of a pumping
schedule that will realize the goals set for the
treatment. This chapter also includes discussion of
pre-treatment diagnostics that are often incorporated
with fracture treatments to determine or at least place
bounds on parameters that are critical to the design
procedure and execution.
(
),
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
MICROFRACTURE TESTS
The microfracture stress test (microfrac)
determines the magnitude of the minimum principal
in-situ stress of a target formation. The test usually
involves the injection of pressurized fluid into a
small, isolated zone (4 to 15 ft, 1.2 to 4.6 m) at low
injection rates (1 to 25 gal/min, 0.010 to 0.095
m3/min). The minimum principal in-situ stress can be
determined from the pressure decline after shut-in or
the pressure increase at the beginning of an injection
cycle. The fracture closure pressure and fracture
reopening pressure provide good approximations for
the minimum principal in-situ stress.
(-
)
.
(4 15 , 1.2 4.6 )
(1 25 /, 0.010 0.095
3/).
.
.
MINIFRACS
- ()
(-),
.
116
. 7
, (
). ,
, , pc ,
,
( ),
, ,
.
. . 7-1
() ,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
, ,
. ,
,
,
, ,
,
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
()
. 7
(, ,
-).
,
, :
p shut-in vs. t
p shut-in t
p shut-in vs.
p shut-in
p shut-in g - ( )
,
,
,
.
,
[Soliman, 1984].
[Nolte, 1979,
Soliman and Daneshy, 1991].
,
.
Vt e + t = Vi 2 Ae S p 2 Ae g (t D , )C L te
(7-1)
t D = t te
(7-2)
118
. 7
1
1
4 t D + 2 1 + t D F , ;1 + ; (1 + t D )
2
g (t D , ) =
1 + 2
(7-3)
F a, b; c; z
.
g-,
7-1 (., Excel
MF
).
wt e + t =
Vi
2S p 2Cl te g (t D , )
Ae
(7-4)
g t D , ,
,
.
pnet = S f w
(7-5)
1 Sf
S f Vi
p = pC +
2 S f S p 2 S f C L te g (t D , )
Ae
119
(7-6)
7-5
. 7
PKN
KGD
Radial
Sf
2E
h f
E
x f
3E
16 R f
4/5
2/3
8/9
p = bN mN g (t D , )
if plotted against the g-function (i.e., transformed
time, Castillo, 1987). The g-function values should
be generated with the exponent considered valid
for the given model. The slope of the straight line,
mN , is related to the unknown leakoff coefficient by
CL =
(7-7)
g-
(.., , [Castillo, 1987]).
g-
,
.
, mN ,
:
mN
2 te s f
(7-8)
,
7-3. ,
PKN
,
,
.
,
120
. 7
( x f
Rf
).
From Equation 7-6 we see that the effect of the spurt 7-6 ,
loss is concentrated in the intercept of the straight
g = 0:
line with the g = 0 axis:
Sp =
Vi
b pC
N
2 Ae
2S f
(7-9)
TABLE 7-3. Leakoff Coefficient and No-Spurt Fracture Extent for Various Fracture Geometries
7-3.
PKN
Leakoff coefficient, C L
,
CL
Fracture Extent
h f
4 te E
xf =
KGD
x f
( mN )
2 E Vi
(bN pC )
h 2f
4 te E
xf =
( mN )
E Vi
h f (bN pC )
8R f
3 te E
Rf = 3
3E Vi
8(bN pC )
(7-10)
we =
( mN )
[Shlyapobersky,
1987], 7-9
, ,
.
7-3
. ,
PKN,
. KGD
,
(.., C L ).
,
wLe = 2 g 0 ( )C L te
Radial
Vi
wLe
x f hf
(7-11)
121
. 7
we =
Vi
R 2f
wLe
(7-12)
( ) :
e =
we
we + wLe
(7-13)
,
.
,
,
. ,
,
.
(),
h p , ,
Equation 7-14).
,
.
,
rp (. 7-14).
While adequate for many low permeability
treatments, the outlined procedure might be
misleading for higher permeability reservoirs. The
conventional minifrac interpretation determines a
single effective fluid loss coefficient, which usually
slightly overestimates the fluid loss when
extrapolated to the full job volume (Figure 7-2).
,
,
(. 7-2).
.
,
,
,
,
(. 7-3, [Dusterhoft, 1995]).
122
. 7
,
analysis. This approach is illustrated in Figure 7-4.
. 7-4.
FIGURE 7-2. Fluid leakoff extrapolated to full job volume, low permeability.
. 7-2. , , .
FIGURE 7-3. Overestimation of fluid leakoff extrapolated to full job volume, high permeability.
. 7-3. , .
,
(
)
.
123
. 7
(..,
).
FIGURE 7-4. Leakoff estimate based on a net-pressure match in a 3D simulator (Source: Dusterhot et al., 1995).
. 7-4. , ( )
(: [Dusterhot et al., 1995]).
3 ,
:
,
( ).
,
( /
)
C fD = 1.6.
50 ,
0.1.
0.0001 0.01. ,
C fDopt = 1.6 .
, .
,
124
. 7
,
,
(..,
).
( )
.
,
.
,
. ,
,
,
.
,
.
.
Pump Time
, ,
h , E , qi , , C L S p ,
E , qi , , C L , and S p are known, we can design f
.
a fracture treatment. The first problem is to determine ,
the pumping time, te , using the combination of a t ,
e
width equation and material balance. The first part of .
a typical design procedure is shown in Table 7-4.
Notice that the injection rate, qi , refers to the slurry 7-4. , , q ,
i
(not clean fluid) injected into one wing.
( ),
.
Armed with a target length and assuming that
KL
hf
are delineated in ,
7-5 7-7.
(),
KL ,
hp ,
,
.
(,
),
125
. 7
rp ,
(. . 7-5
7-6).
q i x f
ww,0 = 3.27
E
1.
1/ 4
) :
q i x f
ww,0 = 3.27
E
1/ 4
PKN (
we = 0.628ww,0
2.
: w = 0.628w
e
w, 0
3.
3.
, K L = 1.5 (
).
4.
4.
t e :
qi t
(
qi t
(Quadratic Equation
2 K L C L t (we + 2S p ) = 0
hf x f
for
x = t ). Selecting
hf x f
x = t ). t
,
qi ; b = 2 K C ;
L L c = (we + 2 S p )
hf x f
a=
5.
e =
2 K L C L t (we + 2S p ) = 0
: at + b t + c 0 ,
a=
b = 2 K L C L ; c = (we + 2S p )
5.
h f x f we
: Vi = qi te
( )
:
Vi
qi
hf x f
e =
h f x f we
Vi
KL =
Sp
CL
K L :
we
we
, where
+
t e 2C L t e 2 e C L t e
we (we + 2 S p )
2
exp 2 erfc( ) +
1 and
2
4C L te
e =
( )
KL =
C L te
we
we
,
+
2C L t e 2 e C L t e
we (we + 2 S p )
2
1
exp 2 erfc( ) +
2
4C L te
2C t e . K L
= L
e =
we + 2S p
Sp
( )
we + 2S p
, ;
,
K L .
126
. 7
K L
where = we x f h f .
e
K L = 1.33 e + 1.57(1 e ) , e =
K L
, ;
,
K L .
it e
we x f h f .
it e
( 7-2) K L = g 0 ( ) ,
K L 1.5 . (,
7-1.
.)
For the PKN and KGD geometries, it is the ratio of PKN KGD
permeable to the fracture height,
,
rp =
hp
hf
(7-14)
rp =
[x(1 x )
2 0.5
+ arcsin( x)
where
x=
hp
2R f
(7-15)
FIGURE 7-5. Ratio of permeable to total surface area, KGD, and PKN geometry.
. 7-5. , KGD PKN.
127
. 7
ww,0 =
1
n
2
9.15 + 2
n
1 +
n
2
3.98 + 2
.
,
. ,
,
4-3.
PKN,
n
2.14n 2 n + 2
1
i n h1f n x f
n
+
2
2
1
2n + 2
(7-16)
Proppant Schedule
,
(
, ,
),
.
. 7
.
. 30 60
, ,
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
() .
, ,
. , ,
,
.
,
.
.
7-7
,
.
, .
,
, . . 7-8
,
1 3 ( 120
360 /3)
.
,
(..,
,
).
129
. 7
130
. 7
7-9
( )
,
5 / (600 /3).
,
.
,
.
,
.
(
,
),
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
, 7-8
(.,
[Nolte, 1986])
.
: ce ,
.
, ce
.
,
131
. 7
,
Therefore, the proppant concentration, ce , at the end
ce .
of pumping should be determined from material
, ce ,
balance:
:
with the value of the concentration equal to
ce .
M = e ceVi
where
Vi
(7-17)
(,
slurry efficiency), and M is the mass of injected )
proppant (one wing).
), M
( ).
wing,
Vi
[Nolte, 1986],
: (1)
; (2)
; (3)
,
, ,
( 7-8).
, ;
(-
,
);
;
[Babcock et al. 1967,
Daneshy 1974, Shah 1982].
,
qi
( ),
. M
.
, ,
(152.4
500 )
M = 8760 (19 400
) .
7-17, , c e = 875 /3
(7.3 /).
,
. ,
12.5 (..
132
. 7
1.
1 e
=
1 + e
1 e
1 + e
2.
Calculate the pad volume and the time needed to pump it:
2.
,
: V pad = Vi
t pad = te
3.
3.
(,
)
t pad = te
V pad = Vi
t t pad
following: c = ce
t t
e pad
t t pad
: c = ce
t t
e pad
, where c e is the
where
c
1
seconds, or c = 7.3
t 27.8 0.677 ,
13.3
<< >>
<<,
>> ( ),
c a , ppga
(, ) (
3 ).
, c e
(7-18)
1666
)
c = 875(t 795
to
mass/slurry-volume
ca =
4.
19.3 ,
= 0.677.
27.8 ,
where c is in lb m /gal
1666
)
c = 875(t 795
0.677
/3
)0.677
, c = 7.3 t 1327.3.8
, c
of slurry volume and t is in minutes. The obtained
,
proppant curve is shown in Figure 7-10.
t .
. 7-10.
133
. 7
[(
) ]
[(
) ]
,
,
,
12
16
C fD = (60 10 0.002)/(5 10 152) = 1.6,
.
,
- .
, ,
(,
)
.
134
. 7
.
, ,
, /
.
.
,
,
,
.
, ,
.
,
.
(.,
),
,
0.5, 0.1.
,
, ,
,
.
().
,
.
TSO Design
,
TSO.
(, ,
,
),
135
. 7
.
,
,
( )
.
,
.
-.
. 5-3 5-4,
.
50
( )
;
1015
0.5 2 / (60
240 /3) ( ,
, 50
). ,
(., 12
14 / = 1440 1680 /3).
(
Excel HF2D)
:
TSO,
.
, ,
(,
)
( ).
,
.
,
. ,
,
(
),
.
TSO
, .
136
. 7
must reach its critical value during this first part of , TSO
the treatment.
,
,
.
We suggest a critical dry-to-wet ratio of 0.5 to 0.75
as the TSO criterion (representing quite dehydrated
sand in the fracture). Unfortunately, there is no good
theoretical or practical method to refine this value.
Engineering intuition and previous experience are
critical to judging whether a significant arrest of
fracture propagation is even possible in a given
formation.
, 0.5 0.75 (,
). ,
. ,
,
.
,
,
. ;
,
. ,
,
.
,
,
. -
,
,
.
,
. ,
,
.
50 (15 ),
. ,
-
137
. 7
,
,
.
,
:
-,
surface with clean gel, well before the end of
pumping. Thus, proppant addition and slurry
,
volumes must be metered carefully to ensure
. ,
there is sufficient proppant left in the tubing to
place the gravel pack (i.e., to avoid over ,
displacing proppant into the fracture).
,
,
(..,
138
. 7
).
Conversely, if an HPF treatment sands out ,
prematurely (i.e., with proppant in the tubing),
(..,
the service tool can be moved into the reverse
),
position and the excess proppant circulated out.
.
Movement of the service tool from the
position can create a sharp instantaneous
drawdown effect and should be done carefully to
,
avoid swabbing unstabilized formation material
,
into the perforation tunnels and annulus.
(
),
qs = 2057
where
qs
Vs
tm
(7-19)
qs
Vs
,
.
2.68 2.8
(10.6 ),
().
5 ,
1100 / (175 3/).
. 7
,
(., 12
= 40 /, ).
,
, ,
,
,
0 180.
,
:
,
,
,
, ,
,
. ,
, (., 10-25
= 0.124 - 0.3 3/) 10-15
(..,
).
(
).
,
.
. 7
,
,
, :
;
/ ,
/
; ,
.
,
,
(,
,
,
,
,
.
( ),
:
,
.
Step-Rate Tests
The step-rate test (SRT), as implied by the name,
involves injecting clean gel at several stabilized rates,
beginning at matrix rates and progressing to rates
above fracture extension pressure. In a high
permeability environment, a test may be conducted at
rate steps of 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, and 12 barrels per
minute, and then at the maximum attainable rate. The
injection is held steady at each rate step for a uniform
time interval (typically 2 or 3 minutes at each step).
(-, step-rate test, SRT),
,
, ,
() ,
0.5, 1, 2, 4,
8, 10 12 (0.08, 0.16, 0.32,
0.64, 1.3, 1.6 1.9 3/),
.
( , 2 3
).
,
,
.
(
)
141
. 7
.
, ,
(
),
,
).
() .
. 7-11
.
(SRT)
,
. ,
.
,
.
,
,
(. . 7-11).
, [Singh and
Agarwal, 1988], .
,
142
. 7
,
.
.
Casing pressure that can be expected if the , ,
treatment is pumped with the service tool in the
circulating position.
.
A step-down option to the normal SRT is sometimes
used specifically to identify near-wellbore
restrictions (tortuosity or perforation friction). This
test is done immediately following a minifrac or
other pump-in stage. By observing bottomhole
pressure variations with decreasing rate, nearwellbore restrictions can be immediately detected
(i.e., bottomhole pressures that change only gradually
as injection rate is reduced sharply in steps is
indicative of no restriction).
,
,
(
).
.
(..,
).
Minifracs
- ()
(),
.
.
.
143
. 7
.
-
, ,
(..,
,
.
(
)
,
,
.
(
),
.
,
, (
),
.
(.., )
.
- ,
, ,
, -
.
( )
. ,
(
)
144
. 7
,
:
. ,
,
,
,
() ,
k h ,
,
. [Chapman
et al., 1996] [Barree et al., 1996]
/ (
),
,
.
.
,
/
.
,
5,
.
145
. 7
,
.
,
,
.
,
, :
,
annulus; tubing may also be used as dead string
;
when treatment is pumped down the casing.
,
.
Bundle carriers in the workstring measured
downhole, but above the service tool crossover.
,
.
Washpipe data attached to washpipe below
service tool crossover.
.
Washpipe pressure data is the most desirable for HPF
design and analysis based on its location adjacent to
the fracture and downstream of all significant
flowing pressure drops. Workstring bundle carrier
data can introduce serious error in many cases
because of fluid friction generated through the
crossover tool and in the casing-screen annulus.
Without detailed friction pressure corrections that
account for specific tool dimensions and annular
clearance, there is a possibility for a significant
departure between washpipe and workstring bundle
carrier pressures. Deadstring pressures are widely
used and considered acceptable by most practitioners;
some others suggest that redundant washpipe
pressure data has shown that the deadstring can mask
subtle features of the treatment. The use of
bottomhole transducers with realtime surface
readouts is suggested in cases where a dead string is
not feasible or when well conditions (e.g., transients)
may obscure important information.
,
.
-
,
.
,
,
.
, ;
, ,
, ,
146
. 7
,
(., )
.
Reliance on bottomhole pressures calculated from
surface pumping pressure is not recommended in
HPF. The combination of heavy sand-laden fluids,
constantly changing proppant concentrations, very
high pump rates, and short pump times makes the
estimation of friction pressures nearly impossible.
,
. ,
,
,
,
,
.
147
. 8
,
.
,
,
.
,
. ,
(..,
).
.
,
,
, (
)
.
FRACTURE HEIGHT
,
.
,
,
.
[Simonson et al., 1978]
,
-
.
-
(
148
. 8
psi, .., )
,
,
. 8-1
. ()
( 1 ) .
.
( )
( hu )
hp
K I ,top =
( yu yd )
pn ( y )
1
1+ y
dy
1 y
(8-1)
and
K I ,bottom =
where
( hd ) .
(
(top), (bottom)),
,
:
hp
1 y
dy
1+ y
hp
( yu yd )
pn ( y )
1
hp
(8-2)
and
yd , with values between 1 and +1 (see Figure 8-1). yu yd ,
1 +1 (. .
8-1)
yu
In Equations 8-1 and 8-2, the net pressure is given as 8-1 8-2
,
,
y
by
pn ( y ) = k00 + k1 y ( y )
(8-3)
hd hu
2
(8-4)
k00 = pcp + g
and
k1 = g
where
pcp
perforations,
2h p
g
(y)
(8-5)
yu yd
pcp
is the ,
is the ,
149
( y )
. 8
y.
y.
The solution pair from Equations 8-1 and 8-2 can be , 8-1
used to obtain the upper and lower penetrations in a 8-2,
dimensional length unit (such as ft) according to
( )
yu = 1
2hu
h p + hu + hd
(8-6)
and
yd = 1 +
2hd
h p + hu + hd
(8-7)
,
,
.
.
,
, ,
,
, .
,
.
( ),
.
,
150
. 8
, , ,
8-1,
, . 82. .
hp
15.24 m ()
50 ft ()
20.68 MPa ()
24.13 MPa ()
27.58 MPa ()
K IC , 2
K IC ,1
62.4 lb m /ft3 ( .)
. 8
(
),
,
, .
25.3 (3675 psi),
. 8-2.
.
25.3 (3675 psi).
,
,
.
,
,
,
(..
,
).
[Rahim
and Holditch, 1993].
,
.
[Palmer and Caroll, 1983, Settari and
Cleary, 1986, Morales and Abou-Sayed, 1989]
.
.
,
,
152
. 8
iteration process.
,
.
,
.
64) ( ).
TIP EFFECTS
(
) .
,
,
, .
,
-
,
.
[Medlin and Fitch, 1988, Palmer and
Veatch, 1990], ,
,
.
,
.
,
.
),
.
.
,
153
. 8
,
(
).
.
2
,
by a combined parameter, Cl , which comprises a
.
damage parameter (the Kachanov parameter), C ,
and a scale parameter l .
, Cl ,
( ), C ,
, l .
A boundary condition based on the combined CDM
parameter is written to replace the zero net pressure
boundary condition in a simple 2D differential model
(such as PKN), resulting in the following form of the
tip propagation velocity:
uf =
Cl 2
H ,min
x1f / 2
l + xf
( PKN)
,
,
:
2
2
wx = x
f
(8-8)
, C D l D ,
, .
0.01 ,
, ,
.
(
).
. 8
,
,
.
,
,
.
. (. PKN-CDM
Excel- MF
,
HF2D).
(CDM)
,
results, and CDM-PKN design examples are ,
Hydraulic Fracture
provided in Hydraulic Fracture Mechanics.
Mechanics, by Peter Valk and Michael Economides
( ,
).
,
,
.
,
,
( ).
,
,
.
,
.
,
[Jin and
Penny, 2000, M. Cikes, 2000, Milton-Tayler, 1993,
Gidley, 1990, Guppy et al., 1982];
5.
.
,
155
. 8
, , 60 000
10 000 . ,
,
.
( ,
). , ,
.
,
.
,
- ,
the productivity of the well, and how can we s ff = 1 .
compensate for it? Assume the proppant number for
? ,
the suggested treatment is N prop = 0.1 .
N prop = 0.1 .
In a certain reservoir, it is suspected that the
fracturing fluid filtrate will interact with the
formation and create an estimated fracture face skin,
s ff = 1 . What is the effect of this phenomenon on
J D max =
1
= 0.47
0.99 0.5 ln N prop
(8-9)
and we ,
assume the simple case of uniform influx, then the s ff = 1,
,
actual productivity will be
If there is a fracture face skin,
J Dactual =
s ff = 1,
1
= 0.32
0.99 0.5 ln N prop + 1
(8-10)
.
, ,
2
e = 7.4 ,
156
. 8
,
= 1 .
,
. ,
.
8-2
(
1.7
76 = 23.2 ).
(
40 = 16.19 ).
,
90 000 (40.82 ) .
(5000 psi = 34.27 )
20/40
60 000 .
. ,
,
-
,
. (
3D
,
,
).
(..,
) 2 106 psi (13 789.5
). -
0.005 /1/2 (0.152 /1/2),
.
(,
.
,
.)
157
. 8
, (-
)
20 / (3.18 3/).
( ),
()
90,000 (40.82)
( = 1)
2.65
0.38
60,000
. , D pmax , ()
0.031 (0.89)
Formation permeability, md
1.7
() , ()
76 (23.2)
Well radius, ft
, ()
0.25 (0.0762)
, ()
745 (227.1)
0.0
Fracture height, ft
, ()
, E', psi ()
2.0E + 06 (13790)
( , +
), / (3/)
20.0 (3.18)
s n
, K' (-/2)
s n
0.07
Rheology, n'
, n'
0.45
,
/1/2 (/1/2)
0.005 (0.152)
, S p , /2
(3/2)
0.010 (0.407103)
,
( 8-2).
,
(..,
) 100
(30.5 ). ,
76 (23.2 )
.
100 (30.5
),
.
, -
,
2:1. ,
158
. 8
hf = x f .
h f ,
,
h f = x f .
At this point, we input a starting estimate of h f = 100
ft into our design spreadsheet, and we specify the
additional operational constraints as shown in Table
8-3.
h f = 100 (30.5 )
,
8-3.
, -/ (/3)
12 (1438)
12 -/ (1438
/3) ( [] ,
1 [1 ]
).
.
,
0.35,
,
0.65,
, 5.72.
4.74 (
,
).
. 8
, N prop
0.3552
, J Dopt
0.65
, C fDopt
1.8
, x fopt , ()
294.2 (89.67)
, w opt ,
()
0.2 (5.08)
- , s f
5.72
Folds of increase of PI
4.74
(2 ), ()
58,501 (26.536)
, N prop
0.2309
, J Dact
0.57
, C fD
1.2
Half length, x f , ft
, x f , ()
294.2 (89.67)
, w, ()
0.12 (3.05)
- , s f
5.50
Folds of increase of PI
4.15
,
58 500
(26.54 ) .
.
,
100 (30.5 )
.
2:1 (h f = x f ),
200 (71
).
h f =
216 (65.84 ). h f = 211
(64.31 )
160
. 8
( 8-6).
, N prop
0.1684
, J Dopt
0.53
, C fDopt
1.6
, x fopt , ()
211.1 (63.34)
, w opt ,
()
0.1 (2.54)
- , s f
5.37
Folds of increase of PI
3.85
,
, .
?
(.., ,
). ,
,
211 (64.3 ), ,
, ,
2:1.
?
),
,
,
, N prop = 0.168,
211 (64.3 ).
, J Dact = 0.53. ,
, s f = 5.37.
161
. 8
(2 ), ()
90,000 (40.823)
, N prop
0.1684
, J Dact
0.53
, C fD
1.6
Half length, x f , ft
, x f , ()
211.1 (63.34)
, w, ()
0.12 (2.54)
- , s f
5.37
Folds of increase of IP
3.85
,
.
; ,
.
,
.
TABLE 8-8. Details of the Actual Placement for MPF01 (h f = 211 ft)
8-8. MPF01 (h f = 211 )
Treatment Details
Efficiency, e ta , %
, e ta , %
34.5
, t e ,
40.4
, t e ,
19.7
, e ps
0.4871
, -/3 (/3)
57.5 (921.1)
, -/2 (/2)
1.0 (4.88)
. ,
(/3)
11.8 (1414)
, ()
132.5 (913.6)
162
. 8
: MPF02
MPF01 .
,
150 000 (68.04 ) .
, 8-9
. 8-10
MPF02.
, .
,
.
( ),
()
Fracture height, ft
, ()
150,000 (68.039)
248 (75.6)
, N prop
0.2387
, J Dopt
0.58
, C fDopt
1.7
, x fopt , ()
248.0 (75.6)
, w opt ,
()
0.1 (2.54)
- , s f
5.54
Folds of increase of PI
4.23
. 8
message:
,
8-11
(2 ), ()
136,965 (62.126)
, N prop
0.2180
, J Dact
0.57
, C fD
1.5
Half length, x f , ft
, x f , ()
248.0 (75.6)
, w, ()
0.13 (3.3)
- , s f
5.49
Folds of increase of PI
4.12
Treatment Details
Efficiency, e ta , %
, e ta , %
36.1
, t e ,
58.0
, t e ,
27.2
, e ps
0.4694
, -/3 (/3)
58.2 (923.3)
, -/2 (/2)
1.1 (5.37)
. ,
(/3)
12.0 (1438)
, ()
122.9 (847.4)
,
,
.
,
90 000 (40.823 )
. ,
.
. 8
design again!
!
. ,
(/3)
16 (1917)
( 812)
TABLE 8-12. Actual Placement for MPF02 (max possible conc: 16 ppga)
8-12. MPF02 (. : 16 /)
Actual placement
Proppant mass placed (2 wing)
(2 ), ()
150,000 (68.039)
, N prop
0.2387
, J Dact
0.58
, C fD
1.7
Half length, x f , ft
, x f , ()
248.0 (75.6)
, w, ()
0.14 (3.56)
- , s f
5.54
Folds of increase of PI
4.23
Treatment Details
Efficiency, e ta , %
, e ta , %
64.0
, t e ,
32.7
, t e ,
7.2
, e ps
0.2191
, -/3 (/3)
63.7 (1020)
, -/2 (/2)
1.2 (5.86)
. ,
(/3)
13.9 (1554)
, psi ()
122.9 (847.4)
165
. 8
.
(..,
). ,
;
~14
/ (1678 /3).
,
8-10. ,
, -
.
,
50
5.54 5.50,
.
, ,
( )
.
: MPF03
,
- ,
.
, -
30
[Lacy, 1994].
,
33.3
.
?
,
(
60 000 )
40 000 .
(h f = 211 = 64.3 ),
, 8-13.
166
40,000
. 8
TABLE 8-13. Theoretical Optimum for MPF03
8-13. MPF03
Optimum Placement without Constraints
, N prop
0.1280
, J Dopt
0.50
1.6
, x fopt , ()
185.2 (56.45)
, w opt ,
()
0.2 (5.08)
- , s f
5.23
Folds of increase of PI
3.60
C fDopt
, 0.50,
,
(. 8-14).
, 63 500
(28.803 ) ,
185 (56.4 )
211 (64.3 ),
,
(
).
(2 ), ()
65,285 (29.613)
, N prop
0.0929
, J Dact
0.46
, C fD
1.2
, x f , ()
185.2 (56.45)
, w, ()
0.11 (2.79)
- , s f
5.06
Folds of increase of PI
3.31.
167
. 8
.
, ,
250 (76.2 ). 2:1
,
250 , ,
250 (76.2
). 1.58 (. 8-15
8-16).
Length modified
, ()
, -/ (/3)
12 (1438)
1.58
250 (76.2)
, N prop
0.0947
, J Dopt
0.46
, C fDopt
1.6
, x fopt , ()
158.9 (48.43)
, w opt ,
()
0.1 (2.54)
- , s f
5.08
Folds of increase of PI
3.34
168
. 8
(2 ), ()
90,000 (40.823)
, N prop
0.0947
, J Dact
0.44
, C fD
0.7
Half length, x f , ft
, x f , ()
251.0 (76.50)
, w, ()
0.08 (2.03)
- , s f
4.98
3.19
90 000 (40.823 ) ,
.
,
4.98; 65 300
(28.803 )
5.06.
N prop = 0.095
N prop = 0.05 ,
, N prop = 0.01.
,
, ,
.
,
,
,
.
.
: HPF01
.
,
,
: ,
,
169
. 8
Table 8-18.
.
8-18.
( ),
()
90,000 (40.823)
( = 1)
2.65
0.38
60,000
. , D pmax ,
()
0.031 (0.79)
Formation permeability, md
50
() , ()
76 (32.2)
Well radius, ft
, ()
0.25 (0.0762)
, ()
745 (227.1)
0.0
Fracture height, ft
, ()
, E', psi ()
7.5E + 05 (5171.1)
( , +
), / (3/)
20.0 (1.18)
s n
, K' (-/2)
s n
0.07
Rheology, n
, n'
0.45
,
/1/2 (/1/2)
0.01 (0.3048)
, S p ,
/2 (/2)
0.02 (8.15)
. ,
30
(30.5 ).
, ,
,
,
.
h f = 100 (30.5
),
, 8-19.
8-20.
170
. 8
, -/ (/3)
16 (1917)
, N prop
0.0121
, J Dopt
0.31
, C fDopt
1.6
, x fopt , ()
56.7 (17.28)
, w opt ,
()
0.9 (22.9)
- , s f
4.05
Folds of increase of PI
2.27
,
0.012.
( 8-21).
:
,
56.7 (17.28 ),
10 700 (4.853 ) .
, 2.5.
,
,
.
171
. 8
TABLE 8-21. Actual Placement for HPF01
8-21. HPF01
Actual Placement
(2 ),
()
10,702 (4.854)
, N prop
0.0014
, J Dact
0.21
, C fD
0.2
Half length, x f , ft
, x f , ()
56.7 (17.28)
, w, ()
0.11 (2.29)
- , s f
2.50
Folds of increase of PI
1.53
, ,
(
),
,
. ,
16 / (1917 /3),
.
,
(TSO). ,
,
(56.7 = 17.28 )
.
Wdry/Wwet
( )
0.7
, ,
,
- ( ,
)
.
,
,
, ,
, .
172
. 8
(Table 8-22).
,
0.7,
( 8-22).
(2 ), ()
90,000 (40.823)
, N prop
0.0121
, J Dact
0.3127
, C fD
1.64
Half length, x f , ft
, x f , ()
56.7 (17.28)
, w, ()
0.9282 (23.58)
- , s f
4.05
Folds of increase of PI
2.27
,
57
(17.4 ),
.
()
,
,
()
( 8-23).
, 11 000 (5 )
8 .
,
(. 8-3).
, 500 psi (3450 ).
,
1 (25.4 ).
173
. 8
0.41
7.9
24.8
, ()
11,065 (5.019)
, c a , /
(/3 )
2.0 (239.7)
, x f ,
()
56.7 (17.28)
, ()
1.2 (30.5)
, psi ()
81.1 (559.2)
, / (/3
)
16.0 (1917)
, /. (/2)
1.3 (6.35)
, psi ()
482 (3323.3)
FIGURE 8-3. Fluid, proppant schedule, and net pressure forecast for the TSO treatment.
. 8-3. ,
.
174
. 8
: HPF02
. ,
,
( 8-24).
Formation permeability, md
500
, N prop
0.0012
, J Dopt
0.23
, C fDopt
1.6
, x fopt , ()
17.9
, w opt ,
()
2.9
- , s f
2.90
Folds of increase of PI
1.67
,
18 (5.5 ).
,
(. 8-25).
. ,
,
;
.
.
,
. 1000
(~6.9 ). ,
175
. 8
(2 ), ()
90 000 (40.823)
, N prop
0.0012
, J Dact
0.2299
, C fD
1.64
Half length, x f , ft
, x f , ()
17.9 (5.46)
, w, ()
2.9351 (74.55)
- , s f
-2.90
Folds of increase of PI
1.67
Treatment Details
Pad pumping time, min
0.06
1.2
18.6
, ()
2,353 (1.067)
, c a , /
(/3 )
3.0 (359.5)
, x f ,
()
17.9 (5.46)
, ()
5.4 (137.16)
, psi ()
54.5 (375.76)
, / (/3
)
16.0 (1917.2)
, /. (/2)
0.9 (4.39)
, psi ()
, .
1:1;
:
176
. 8
(2 ),
()
90,000 (40.823)
, N prop
0.0012
, J Dact
0.2058
, C fD
0.18
Half length, x f , ft
, x f , ()
53.8 (16.15)
, w, ()
0.9784 (24.85)
- , s f
2.39
Folds of increase of PI
1.49
Treatment Details
Pad pumping time, min
0.38
7.2
24.2
, ()
10 308 (4.676)
, c a , /
(/3 )
2.1 (252)
, x f ,
()
53.8 (16.40)
, ()
1.3 (33.0
, psi ()
79.7 (549.51)
, / (/3
)
16.0 (1917.2)
, /. (/2)
1.3 (6.35)
, psi ()
521 (3592)
. 8
. ,
. ,
,
(
).
.
,
:
( 8-27 8-28).
(2 ), ()
45,000 (20.412)
,
0.0012 0.0006. ,
.
.
,
,
( )
.
50 000 (22.7 ) .
178
. 8
, N prop
0.0006
Actual Placement
Proppant mass placed (2 wing)
(2 ), ()
45,000 (20.412)
, N prop
0.0006
, J Dact
0.1847
, C fD
0.10
Half length, x f , ft
, x f , ()
50.7 (15.45)
, w, ()
0.5189 (13.18)
- , s f
1.84
Folds of increase of PI
1.34
Treatment Details
Pad pumping time, min
0.34
6.5
14.0
, ()
9 523 (4.320)
, c a , /
(/3 )
2.1 (251.6)
, x f ,
()
50.7 (15.45)
, ()
0.6 (15.24)
, psi ()
78.1
, / (/3
)
16.0 (1917.2)
, /. (/2)
1.2 (5.86)
, psi ()
239 (1648)
: LPF01
,
,
, 8-29.
179
. 8
TABLE 8-29. Input for LPF01
8-29. LPF01
( ),
()
90,000 (40.823)
( = 1)
2.65
0.38
60,000
. , D pmax , ()
0.031 (0.79)
Formation permeability, md
0.5
() , ()
76 (32.2)
Well radius, ft
, ()
0.25 (0.0762)
, ()
745 (227.1)
0.0
Fracture height, ft
, ()
E (psi).
Rheology,
K (lb f /ft2) s
Rheology,
, E', psi ()
2.00E + 06
(13789.5)
( , +
), / (3/)
20.0 (1.18)
, K' (-/2)
s n
0.0700
, n'
0.45
,
/1/2 (/1/2)
0.00200 (0.061)
, S p , /2
(/2)
0.00100
(0.0041)
, -/ (/3)
12 (1438)
-
.
,
,
1.6.
180
. 8
, N prop
1.2077
, J Dopt
1.06
2.9
, x fopt , ()
423.0 (128.9)
, w opt ,
()
0.1 (2.54)
- , s f
-6.30
Folds of increase of PI
7.66
C fDopt
,
.
, ,
(
) 8:1 .
2:1.
, 2:1.
300
(91.44 ),
;
(
8-31 8-32).
, N prop
0.4026
, J Dopt
0.68
, C fDopt
1.8
, x fopt , ()
309.4 (94.31)
, w opt ,
()
0.1 (2.54)
- , s f
5.78
Folds of increase if PI
4.92
181
. 8
(2 ), ()
90,000 (40.823)
, N prop
0.4026
, J Dact
0.68
, C fD
1.8
Half length, x f , ft
, x f , ()
309.4 (94.31)
, w, ()
0.06 (1.52)
- , s f
5.78
Folds of increase of PI
4.92
Treatment Details
Efficiency, e ta , %
, e ta , %
67.1
, t e ,
52.7
, t e ,
10.4
, e ps
0.1966
, -/3 (/3)
22.6 (362.0)
, -/2 (/2)
0.5 (2.44)
. ,
(/3)
3.5 (419.4)
, psi ()
113.7 (783.9)
,
:
(
) ,
67 . ?
(
76 = 20.4 ).
300 (91.4 ),
,
. ,
. ,
,
(
),
. 8
loss coefficients,
, /0.5
(/0.5)
0.0050 (1.524)
0.0050
, S p , /2 (/2)
0.00250 (1.02)
0.00250
8-33.
TABLE 8-33. Actual Placement for LPF01 (h f = 300 ft, Adjusted Leakoff)
8-33. LPF01 (h f = 300 = 91.44 , )
Actual Placement
Proppant mass placed (2 wing)
(2 ), ()
90,000 (40.823)
, N prop
0.4026
, J Dact
0.68
, C fD
1.8
Half length, x f , ft
, x f , ()
309.4 (94.31)
, w, ()
0.06 (1.52)
- , s f
5.78
Folds of increase of PI
4.92
Treatment Details
Efficiency, e ta , %
, e ta , %
38.2
, t e ,
92.8
, t e ,
41.5
, e ps
0.4475
, -/3 (/3)
22.6 (362.0)
, -/2 (/2)
0.5 (2.44)
. ,
(/3)
3.5 (419.4)
, psi ()
113.7 (783.9)
,
,
. ,
?
183
. 8
().
.
( ) ,
,
, ,
.
- .
.
, ,
0.006 (0.15
) (..,
20/40 ).
(
).
,
,
.
; ,
2:1,
.
8-34 8-35.
90,000 (40.823)
, ()
200.0 (60.96)
,
/1/2 (/1/2)
0.0050 (1.524)
, S p ,
/2 (/2)
0.0025 (0.102)
, -/ (/3)
12 (1438)
0.55
Fracture height, ft
184
. 8
( ),
()
90,000 (40.823)
, N prop
0.6039
, C fD
6.7
Half length, x f , ft
, x f , ()
198.3 (60.442)
, w, ()
0.13 (3.30)
- , s f
5.76
Folds of increase of PI
4.85
J Dact
0.67
Treatment Details
Efficiency, e ta , %
, e ta , %
38.3
, t e ,
38.5
, t e ,
17.2
, e ps
0.4457
, -/3 (/3)
54.3 (865.0)
, -/2 (/2)
1.1 (5.37)
. ,
(/3)
10.8 (1294.1)
, psi ()
166.4 (1147.3)
,
.
90 000
(40.823
)
.
-
, .
, .
SUMMARY
. 8
, .
.
,
,
,
, .
,
,
.
186
. 9
,
. ,
, ,
,
, ,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
;
; ,
;
,
, ;
.
:
company performance on fracture treatments, while
FRACTURING EQUIPMENT
. 9
,
1949 .
20 20 (3.2 3)
( 0.6 / = 72
/3).
300
,
.
10 000 ,
10
/ (1200 /3) (. 9-1)
.
,
.
,
.
. 9
,
.
( ,
),
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
, ,
,
,
.
,
. ,
,
/
.
. ,
-,
,
,
. ,
,
-
300
, 1949 .,
2000
,
.
2000 psi (140.6 ) 20 000 psi
(1406 ) (
).
.
189
. 9
/ .
The monitoring of stimulation treatments has also
progressedfrom the pressure gauges, stopwatches
and chart recorders of decades past, to full computer
monitoring and control today. Today, more than a
thousand
individual
parameters
can
be
simultaneously monitored and recorded during a
stimulation treatment. Monitoring the treatment
fluids is an essential element of quality control.
Parameters monitored and recorded during a
stimulation treatment include but are not limited to
pressures, temperatures, flow rates, proppant and
additive concentrations, pH, and viscosity. Any or all
of these parameters can be displayed during the job,
along with, in many cases, real-time translation of the
values to downhole conditions. Many equipment
parametersrun times, pressures, vibration, and so
onare also monitored and recorded during the
treatment. This information is used to diagnose and
preempt equipment problems, to assist in equipment
maintenance and to improve future equipment layout
and designs.
.
.
.
,
, ,
, ,
,
pH .
,
,
, .
,
,
.
EQUIPMENT LIST
, ,
,
-
.
,
:
.
Pit Manifold
. 9
4-
. ,
(. . 9-8),
,
.
( )
.
,
,
.
,
6-
.
Fracturing Tanks
500 (80 3).
,
.
4 12-
,
,
.
Proppant Supply
()
.
,
191
. 9
()
.
,
, 35 000 - 60 000 (15.9 - 27.2 )
250 000-500 000 (113.4 - 226.8 ).
,
mountain mover
( ).
Sand Conveyor
,
.
,
.
. :
.
,
,
.
-
,
,
,
.
. 9
, , .
,
, .
(
,
pH.
,
.)
,
.
,
-
.
,
.
Blender
()
,
, , ,
.
(. 9-2).
4 (
).
4-
.
,
.
,
. ,
,
.
.
193
. 9
FIGURE 9-2. The blender sits at the "heart" of the fracturing treatment.
. 9-2. .
Pumping
/ (HI-LO)
/
(. 9-3),
.
(LO)
.
4 ,
.
.
.
(HI)
, ,
.
.
()
15 000 psi (103.4 )
15 000 psi (103.4 ).
194
. 9
(..,
)
()
. -,
.
Frac Pumps
,
(.
9-4).
( 60 psi = 4 )
psi ( ).
.
( ).
(5-),
, ,
,
.
1000
..
2000
..
195
. 9
FIGURE 9-4. Frac pumps are the "muscle" of the fracturing treatment.
. 9-4. .
,
,
,
-,
(
),
. ,
( treating iron
-), 2, 3 4
.
-
(. . 9-6).
. -
196
. 9
()
.
Flex Hoses
,
150 psi (1.03 )
60 psi (0.41 ),
,
,
; 12
,
.
Frac Van
,
(.
9-5).
,
,
.
,
. ,
, ,
, ,
.
,
(,
,
197
. 9
).
FIGURE 9-5. Vital data are continuously monitored in the frac van.
. 9-5. .
, : pH-;
;
; ; ;
; , ,
;
, , ,
, , ,
.
.
Communications
, ,
,
,
,
, .
,
198
. 9
Remote Monitoring
,
.
,
.
.
Remote Operations
( ),
.
,
.
,
.
Miscellaneous
, ,
.
, - ,
, - ,
.
.
,
, ,
,
.
Steel stakes and steel ropes are used to secure all high
pressure discharge lines during the fracturing
treatments. High pressure treating iron that is not
properly staked can whip around uncontrollably if it
ruptures during pumping, with great potential to
damage equipment or injure personnel.
.
,
,
,
.
. 9
, ,
9-1 ,
.
Specifications
Qty
Comments
Frac tanks
6-8
Blender
Or two 60 bpm
Frac pumps
Manifold
10,000 psi
Trailer mounted
Flex hoses
28 of each
Pup joints
20
Pup joints
4 each
Pup joints
Swivels
30
Y-unions
4 spares
Pop-off valves
2 spares
Plug valves
11
8 spares
Check valves
3 spares
1 spare
Rate transducers
10,000 psi
2 spares
Pressure transducers
10,000 psi
2 spares
Command center
Per vendor
Two-way radios
2 mile range
16
Satellite up-link
Per vendor
Respirator gear
Per vendor
Safety gear
12 sets
Frac lights
200
. 9
9-1.
500 (80 3)
6-8
120 / (19 /
2 60 / (9.5 3/)
2000 .., 14
/ (2.23 3/)
28
12 , 16
()
20
12 , 2 , 6
()
()
4 , 2
, 2
30
3 , 6
, 9
11
3.2
16
, 8
,
, 2
, ,
12 .
. 9
, ,
,
.
. 9-6,
,
FIGURE 9-6. The most desirable fracture equipment layout, on the fly with HI-LO manifold.
. 9-6. , ,
/
.
2. Draw a straight line from the well to this area. At 2.
the head of the line, draw a line perpendicular to
.
it. Center all frac tanks here. It is important that
.
the tanks are level.
. ,
.
202
. 9
instead.
.
4. Place the blender(s) parallel to the hydration unit. 4.
()
If two blenders are used, place blenders side-by .
side.
,
, .
5. Place the sand supply system in line with the 5.
hopper on the blender(s), backing it into position.
()
.
6. Along the line from the wellhead and near the 6.
blender place the HI/LO pressure manifold.
/ .
7. At the discharge side of the manifold, place the 7.
high pressure fracturing line.
.
8. On each side of the HI-LO pressure manifold, 8.
Fluid Supply-to-Blender
12 ,
.
4 .
4-
8 (1.27 3/),
, ,
.
.
4- .
203
. 9
/
4-
8 / (1.27
3/).
Proppant Supply
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
Frac Pumps
Each pump intake is connected with one 3-inch or 4inch flex hose to the low pressure (supply) side of the
frac manifold. The flex hose must be small enough to
maintain fluid velocity and prevent sanding, yet large
enough that it does not restrict flow. The discharge of
each pump is connected to the high pressure side of
the manifold with at least two pup joint sections and
a chicksan (swivel) in between. Preferably, a
chicksan is used at the pump discharge, then a pup
joint, chicksan, pup joint, and a third chicksan at the
manifold. This allows enough movement so that the
treating iron does not loosen up or rupture as it
vibrates and shifts under high pressure.
3-
4- ()
.
,
,
,
.
()
. ,
,
, ,
.
,
.
Manifold-to-Well
/ ,
,
,
(. 97). , ,
204
. 9
.
,
.
, (..,
),
.
, ,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
, .
,
.
, ,
.
(. 9-8).
205
. 9
FIGURE 9-7. Fracture equipment layout, batch mix with no HI-Lo manifold.
. 9-7. , , / .
FIGURE 9-8. Fracture equipment layout, on the fly with frac pit and HI-LO manifold.
. 9-8. , ,
/ .
. 9
;
-.
, .
, ,
,
, .
,
,
.
,
.
,
(
).
/
,
.
.
.
.
, , (1)
,
, (2)
.
Pre-job Testing
, pH
.
. 9
.
.
from location.
Proppant Validation
,
.
Pre-job Inventory
,
.
5000 (18.9 3)
.
-
,
.
Real-Time QA
, ,
,
: pH,
, ,
.
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 (cf.
Appendix F).
,
:
,
,
,
(.
F).
6
(, )
F (
).
208
. 9
FORCED CLOSURE
, ,
.
,
(
),
.
, ,
,
( ).
,
.
.
,
( )
( 40 /
/) (2-3)
(300-500 /),
.
.
(
),
-
.
.
,
,
,
,
( )
.
,
.
209
. 9
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
()
.
,
,
.
, CO 2 N 2
,
.
.
-
. ,
,
-
.
210
. 9
211
. 10
10
Treatment Evaluation
REAL-TIME ANALYSIS
,
(, ,
).
,
.
,
[Nolte and
Smith,
1981],
,
(. . 10-1). ,
(., ,
, ),
.
0.25
()
( I).
,
( II).
,
,
(,
).
212
. 10
HEIGHT CONTAINMENT
,
,
,
,
.
,
[Simonson et al., 1978],
,
- .
,
( psi =
) ,
, / .
(
),
213
. 10
( hu ) ( hd )
.
( ,
),
.
,
-
. -
.
,
,
,
. ,
,
.
( ,
),
,
.
,
[Rahim and Holditch, 1993].
,
. 10-2.
.
214
. 10
.
-,
,
,
,
-. -
, (1)
,
(2)
,
(3)
, (4)
.
.
,
. ,
,
,
.
,
215
. 10
.
Specialty proppants will be used, especially if
tailed-in at the end of the treatment.
,
.
Fluid leak-off is unknown or expected to be
higher than usual.
, .
Temperature logging can determine post-treatment
hydraulic fracture height and fluid distribution at the
wellbore, but is not indicative of proppant placement
or distribution. Cold fluids (ambient surface
temperature) injected into the formation can be
detected readily by a change in the temperature
profile within a wellbore. A series of logging passes
is usually sufficient to determine the total treated
height. Intervals that received a large volume of
injected fluids and/or proppant will require a much
longer time to return to thermal equilibrium.
,
. (
),
,
.
. ,
/
,
.
(.
[Vinegar, et al., 1992]).
, ,
.
-.
.
,
,
.
. 10
( ),
(. 10-3).
,
,
.
[Fisher, 2001],
. ,
,
.
( , ..,
)
,
.
,
0.0000001
.
.
,
.
217
. 10
WELL TESTING
, ,
,
.
() ,
,
, . ,
, ,
.
,
.
.
,
,
-
[Cinco-Ley et al., 1978, 1981]. .
10-4
218
. 10
.
In the bilinear flow regime, where the flow is ,
determined by both the reservoir and fracture ,
pD
(5 4 ) 2C fD
t1Dxf4
(10-1)
t Dxf ,
.
,
1/4
.
,
.
mbf , ()
.
219
mbf =
2 2(5 4 ) C fD
. 10
Bq k
kh ct x 2f
14
B 3 4 q
1
= 0.390 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 2 1 2
h ct k k f w
(10-2)
, ,
.
,
.
,
be determined from the slope, but the fracture extent
( k f w ),
cannot.
.
It can be used to obtain one or the other quantity, or
their combination, depending on the available
information. As is obvious from the above equation,
the formation permeability and the fracture
conductivity cannot be determined simultaneously
from this regime. Knowing the formation
permeability, the fracture conductivity ( k f w ) can
x feq
0.308 Bq
3 4
=
34 14 14
m
bf h k ct
(10-3)
.
The actual fracture extent might also be determined
from the subsequent formation linear or late-time
pseudo-radial flow regimes. Unfortunately, the
formation linear flow regime is often too limited in
duration to be distinguishable, and the pseudo-radial
flow regime may not be available owing to boundary
effects.
. ,
,
,
- .
p i p wfs
kt
2B
=
c x 2
kh
t f
12
(10-4)
11.14 qB
xf =
m flf h ct k
220
(10-5)
. 10
: ,
,
,
/ ,
, ,
,
.
Production Results
,
( )
(..,
).
,
,
. [McLarty and DeBonis, 1995]
, -
2 - 2
,
,
10-1.
New Well
Comparison
Recompletion (oil)
()
Recompletion (gas)
()
Sand Failure
Before
After
. 10
1995]
,
( )
,
,
,
.
, ,
.
.
,
.
.
,
() ,
.
,
.
. 10
created fracture dimensions and the areal
proppant concentration from the bottomhole
pressure curve monitored during the execution of
,
the HPF treatment. This procedure (termed
.
slopes analysis) is further developed in a
(
separate section below as a fundamental and
)
.
At present, there seems to be a trend in the industry
to support joint efforts and assist mutual exchange of
information. The procedure above provides a
coherent (though not exclusive) framework to
compare HPF data from various sources using a
common, cost-effective evaluation methodology.
, ,
.
( )
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
-,
223
. 10
- [McGuire and
Sikora, 1960]
( ).
. [van Poollen et al., 1958].
[Gringarten
and Ramey, 1974] - .
[Cinco-Ley et al., 1978].
,
. ,
, ,
.
( ,
,
),
.
(
).
,
.
,
/
,
.
( )
.
.
,
+10
+1
+4. ( ) -
.
,
,
:
224
. 10
,
factor that decreases the apparent permeability of
the proppant pack, and therefore fracture
, ,
conductivity, is proppant pack damage. The
.
the gelled fluid and proppant crushing are well
,
understood. Since these phenomena exist in any
the quality of a well might be a source of the
discrepancy itself.
.
225
. 10
,
,
.
, ; -
,
. ,
.
,
,
,
.
,
, . ,
,
,
, ,
,
.
SLOPES ANALYSIS
,
; ,
. ,
,
, , - ,
-
(..,
).
. 10
,
;
;
.
,
,
( ) .
,
.
Assumptions
.
.
,
.
,
()
,
()
,
(, ) .
.
(..
).
,
,
.
. 10
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
( ).
228
. 10
,
.
w ,
( ,
) A ,
dw 1
= (i qL )
dt A
where i is the injection rate (per one wing) and
is the fluid-loss rate (from one wing).
qL
(10-6)
( ),
qL (
).
A=
R 2
(10-7)
229
. 10
pn =
where
4).
,
(.., ).
, , ,
3E
w
16 R
(10-8)
dp 3E 2
=
(i qL )
dt 16 R R 2
(10-9)
10-9 R .
qL .
4. ,
t
,
t , qL
q L , t = 2 AC L
1
t
g (t D , )
t D = 0
D
(10-10)
,
g-, 4.
For a radial fracture created by injecting a Newtonian ,
fluid, the exponent is taken as = 8 9 and the ,
derivative of the g-function is
= 8 9 , g-
g (t D , 8 9 )
= 1.91
dt
t D = 0
D
Therefore, the estimate of leakoff rate is obtained as
(10-11)
,
230
. 10
qL ,t = 2 ACL
1
1.91
t
(10-12)
,
,
Shell E&P Technology Company.
. 10-6
.
, ,
(
)
.
(..,
). ,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
. ,
,
.
,
, . 10-7.
.
,
,
,
231
. 10
FIGURE 10-7. Bottomhole pressure points corresponding to width inflation intervals and corresponding straight lines.
. 10-7. , , .
232
. 10
R 2
1
3E 2
CL 1.91
m=
2 i 2
t
16 R R
2
(10-13)
Rearranging, we obtain
2.25E CL 0.375E i
R3 + R 2
=0
m
m t
(10-14)
,
m
i t ,
1-14 R .
,
.
10-14
, i ,
t ,
.
. . 10-8 ,
. ,
( 25 )
.
,
. ,
.
233
. 10
,
,
.
,
t
(. . 10-8).
. 10
( )
.
.
()
location R .
R .
Application of the scheme above to the example data
results in the areal proppant concentration as a
function of the radial distance from the center of the
perforations, R . The areal proppant concentration
distribution for the example dataset is shown in
Figure 10-9.
, R .
. 10-9.
FIGURE 10-9. Final areal proppant concentration as a function of radial distance from the center of the perforations.
. 10-9. .
. 10
-
/
. ,
.
( ,
).
,
.
,
,
/
.
,
(,
,
,
),
,
,
236
Nomenclature
A
area, m, ft
, ,
A0
b1
, ,
b2
, ,
bN
, ,
, psi (/2)
Bo
,
( ) /
( )
bs
, ,
CA
- (
)
C fD
CL
(,
), /1/2, /1/2
C L, p
( ), /1/2,
/1/2
Cw
, /1/2, /1/2
ct
, 1, psi1
[(/2)1]
, , psi (/2)
, , psi
(/2)
hf
fracture height, m, ft
, ,
hp
permeable height, m, ft
, ,
237
, 31,
/
Ix
penetration ratio:
, 311,
.//psi
JD
, 2,
k1
, 2,
k2
(
), 2,
k3
(
), 2,
kf
, 2,
kr
, 2,
, n,
-n/2
kf
fracture permeability, md
, 2,
k fg
KL
ks
damaged permeability, md
M tso
mN
, , ,
psi (/2)
mbf
,
, 1/4, psi1/4
Np
proppant number
pi
, ,
psi (/2)
pe
,
, psi (/2)
, , psi
(/2)
2 x f xe
238
2 x f xe
pwf
, , psi
(/2)
pc
() ,
, psi (/2)
pD
dimensionless pressure
p(t0 )
( ), 31,
./
qg
, ./
qL
(1 , 2 ),
3/, /
, ,
re
, ,
Rf
, ,
Ro
,
1
rp
rw
wellbore radius, m, ft
, ,
()
sd
sf
s fs
Sg
gas saturation
s ND
( )
Sh
()
, , psi (/2)
Sv
, ,
psi (/2)
Sf
, 1, psi1
Sp
(), ,
239
S p, p
( ), ,
st
Sw
t
water saturation
time, s, hr
, ,
temperature, K, R
(), K, R (
=
)
t0
tD
(
)
t Dxf
(
)
te
V
VF (t0 )
, ,
, 3, 3
Vi
,
, 3, 3
Vp
,
3
Vr
w
, 3
, ,
we
,
,
wp
, ,
xf
fracture half-length, m, ft
, ,
xe
ye
Z
(
887.22)
( ),
porosity, dimensionless
240
, 1/
(
) ,
(
) ,
viscosity, Pas, cp
, ,
a
e
, ,
,
,
, ,
()
( )
,
, psi (/2)
, ,
psi (/2)
, , psi (/2)
porosity
= 0.57721566 ...
241
B
Glossary
Darcy: a unit of measurement for permeability.
242
pumps
p , or outer boundary
symbol
pe . (Shut-in
constant pressure,
bottomhole pressures measured at the formation
face are sometimes reported as reservoir pressure.
Rarely is this a valid indication of reservoir
pressure.)
pH,
:
,
,
0 14 ( 7
, 7
,
7
).
pH.
()
,
,
.
,
-
( )
:
, . (
,
.)
: ,
.
: (,
),
pH , (,
),
245
: .
, .
( ):
.
()
: (
),
.
: ,
,
(
),
.
:
,
,
;
. (
,
.)
:
.
: ,
,
.
(
.)
,
.
:
,
,
,
(
)
,
)
.
:
,
,
;
( ) .
(
1 /2 10 .
, ,
,
.)
:
,
( )
, ,
:
,
1500 (450 .)
:
,
:
,
.
:
,
(
) ,
.
:
,
, .
: , ,
/ (
,
,
),
.
: (
,
),
:
,
,
.
: -
- - (., ,
6000
).
246
:
,
. (.
)
:
,
,
(..,
).
:
,
,
. (
.)
: ,
, .
:
:
.
:
:
, ()
( )
,
. (.
).
:
.
:
/
- .
: ,
(
(
).
:
,
, .
:
,
. (.
).
163),
,
( pH 3 14).
:
,
( ,
).
: ,
,
.
: ,
. (.
).
:
,
.
(,
,
,
1.0.
).
:
,
,
. (.
).
: ,
,
,
.
:
,
,
. (. ).
247
,
( ).
(21
93), pH.
: ,
,
.
:
,
,
,
. (.
).
(
): ,
, k ( ).
:
,
, pi ,
, p ,
,
pe . (
,
,
.
).
: (.,
),
( ) ,
,
( ) .
: ,
,
.
(.
).
: ,
(
)
.
: (
)
1
1 ,
1 /3. (.
.)
:
,
.
:
- : ,
,
.
-
()
,
,
,
:
: ,
,
,
.
:
,
.
(. .)
():
, 1/100 . (
1 ,
100 1 ).
:
, ,
.
,
,
,
.
( ):
,
248
(), ()
( ).
: ,
,
.
(
;
.)
: .
-: ,
,
, s.
: .
( )
:
( ),
.
:
( )
( ).
:
( )
,
.
,
,
KGD.
( ,
),
.
,
,
,
PKN.
:
, ,
,
. (
,
.)
:
,
,
( ),
.
,
() (., , ,
, ),
(., ),
,
.
60F 200F (16 93) ( pH
10).
:
(
)
(, ).
: .
:
.
: ,
. (.
.)
: ,
,
:
249
Bibliography
,
.
- .
-
.
,
:
.
250
-
-.
,
.
. : :
Chapman, B. J., Vitthal, S. and Hill, L. M. (1996). Prefracturing Pump-in Testing for High Permeability
Formations, paper SPE 31150.
:
.
:
.
,
-
.
251
(2- )
-.
/
:
, ,
, .
, ,
.
252
(September) 310-318.
, 109.
, ,
.
, ,
.
, ,
.
,
.
-
.
:
.
:
-.
-.
253
. 1:
.
-.
FFCF.
,
.
Meyer, B. R and Hagel, M. W. (1989). Simulated MiniFracs Analysis, JCPT 28 (5) 63-73.
-
.
, :
.
254
,
331.
-.
-
.
,
.
-, 61.
255
Reimers, D. R. and Clausen, R. A. (1991). HighPermeability Fracturing at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, paper
SPE 22835.
, .
Roodhart, L. P. (1985). Proppant Settling in NonNewtonian Fracturing Fluids, paper SPE 13905.
-: ,
.
:
.
().
().
256
: .
:
, .
I
, .
Soiliman,
M.Y.
and
Daneshy,
A.A.
(1991).
Determination of Fracture Volume and Closure Pressure
from Pump-In/Flowback Tests, paper SPE 21400.
-
:
.
- .
-
.
257
. 2:
.
,
-
.
-.
258
. D
Fracture Design
Spreadsheet
The HF2D Excel spreadsheet is a fast 2D design
package for traditional (moderate permeability and
hard rock) and frac & pack (higher permeability and
soft rock) fracture treatments.
Excel HF2D
(
) - (
).
PKN
PKN
, .
;
;
, ,
.
-
,
() .
,
,
, ,
(
3),
(
7) ( 8).
,
,
8, ,
.
. D
,
,
(.., ),
DATA REQUIREMENT
Input Parameter
Remark
Sp grav of proppant
material (water =1)
Porosity of proppant
pack
Proppant pack
permeability, md
,
, D
p max
(
),
( =
1)
p max
()
.
, 2.65 .
;
0.3.
,
,
,
10
.
10 000 100 000 .
,
,
500 000
,
.
();
20/40 0.035
(0.89 ).
Formation permeability,
md
Permeable (leakoff)
thickness, ft
(,
) ,
Well radius, ft
260
.
(
)
(
)
.
.
. (
!)
Input Parameter
. D
Remark
Pre-treatment skin
factor
Fracture height, ft
, E'
(psi)
(
, +
),
/.
Rheology, K
(lb f /ft2)*sn
Rheology, n
Leakoff coefficient in
permeable layer,
ft/min1/2
(
), K
(/2)*sn
(
), n
,
/1/2
, S p ,
/2
, /
261
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
E = E 1 n 2 .
(
).
106 psi (6895 ),
105 psi (689.5 ) .
.
,
.
.
30 / (4.7
3/).
(, ),
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
(.
).
.
15
/ (~1800
/3).
Input Parameter
. D
Remark
()
. ,
( ),
.
(
),
.
.
1. .
8.
,
(
)
(
, 1).
, 1,
.
,
,
.
,
special cases of TSO and CDM designs.
.
Input Parameter
Remark
TSO criterion
Wdry/Wwet
,
Wdry/Wwet (
/
)
, psi
262
(
)
(
),
(TSO).
,
,
,
.
0.5
0.75,
,
.
PKN-CDM,
Input Parameter
. D
Remark
the traditional PKN and PKN-TSO
designs are based on net pressures.
For example, the Continuum Damage
Mechanics model of fracture
propagation velocity is affected by
the absolute value of the minimum
stress.
CDM Cl2,
2/(psi-)
PKN
PKN-TSO
. ,
Continuum Damage
Mechanics (
)
.
(
)
.
(,
1),
; ,
PKN.
, 0.01
2/(psi-),
.
,
,
,
PKN.
,
.
CALCULATED RESULTS
.
,
(,
).
, ,
.
,
,
,
-
.
. D
Output Parameter
Remark
t, min
t,
qi_liq, bpm
qi_liq,, /
cum liq,,
cum prop,
x f ,
w ave ,
(
)
,
t
,
,
,
t
t
t
, 3
.
210
,
,
(
-
).
,
(.,
0.2).
TSO ( )
.
cadd, lb m /gal
cum prop, lb m
x f , ft
w ave , in.
w ave / D pmx
w dry / w wet
cadd,
/
w ave / D pmx
264
Minifrac Spreadsheet
The MF Excel spreadsheet is a minifrac (calibration
test) evaluation package. Its main purpose is to
extract the leakoff coefficient from pressure fall-off
data.
Excel - MF
() ( ).
.
model,
Nolte- PKN, .
model,
Nolte- KGD, .
model,
Nolte- , .
(
retardation (in the form of the Continuum
, Cl2).
Damage parameter, Cl2).
The PKN-CDM option uses the overpressure
observed during a minifrac treatment to estimate the
deviation in fracture dimensions from the traditional
PKN model. There is no CDM option for the KGD
and Radial models.
PKN-CDM
,
-,
PKN. KGD
CDM (
) .
,
.
CDM
(..,
,
-,
PKN).
265
:
Cl2, /(psi-).
Excel FD .
- ,
7, . ,
, Excel
MF,
.
.
DATA REQUIREMENT
Remark
()
,
,
Permeable (leakoff)
thickness, ft
Fracture height, ft
Plane strain
modulus, E (psi)
, E (psi)
Closure pressure,
psi
(), psi
Rheology,
K' (lb f /ft2)*sn'
Rheology, n'
(
), K' (/2)*sn'
(
), n'
,
.
PKN KGD,
PKN-CDM.
.
,
.
, .
KGD
, PKN.
CDM.
,
.
CDM.
,
.
CDM.
Input Parameter
Remark
t, min
qi_liq, bpm
t,
qi_liq, /
Bottomhole
pressure, psi
,
psi
266
, .
(
,
).
,
Input Parameter
Remark
period is used for overpressure
calibration of the CDM parameter.
.
CDM
.
,
1
(
),
.
0
.
,
1
,
( ,
)
. :
,
,
,
1.
RESULTS
.
,
.
.
,
: x f ( R f ) w (..,
).
( ) (,
).
Output Parameter
Remark
Apparent leakoff
coefficient (for total
area), ft/min0.5
( ),
/0.5.
Leakoff coefficient
in permeable layer,
ft/min0.5
,
/0.5.
Half length, ft
267
.
.
.
,
PKN KGD.
Output Parameter
Remark
Radius, ft
Efficiency (fraction)
(
)
CDM Cl2,
ft2/(psi-sec)
CDM Cl2,
2/(psi-)
SAMPLE RUN
,
.
(
)
, .
CDM
(
).
.
(,
1),
; ,
PKN.
, 0.01 2/(psi-),
.
,
,
PKN.
,
-.
- ,
,
Excel- MF.
Input
() , ()
, E', psi ()
, psi ()
Tabular Input
42 (12.8)
2.00E+06 (13 789.5)
5850 (40.33)
BH Pressure, psi
, psi
0.0
9.9
0.0
1.0
9.9
0.0
2.0
9.9
0.0
3.0
9.9
0.0
4.0
9.9
0.0
5.0
9.9
0.0
6.0
9.9
0.0
7.0
9.9
0.0
8.0
9.9
0.0
9.0
9.9
0,0
268
Tabular Input
10.0
9.9
0.0
12.0
9.9
0.0
14.0
9.9
0.0
16.0
9.9
0.0
18.0
9.9
0.0
20.0
9.9
0.0
21.0
9.9
0.0
21.5
9.9
0.0
21.8
9.9
0.0
21.95
0.0
7550.62
22.15
0.0
7330.59
22.35
0.0
7122.36
22.55
0.0
6963.21
22.75
0.0
6833.39
22.95
0.0
6711.23
23.15
0.0
6595.02
23.35
0.0
6493;47
23.55
0.0
6411.85
23.75
0.0
6347.12
23.95
0.0
6291.51
24.15
0.0
6238.43
24.35
0.0
6185.85
24.55
0.0
6135.61
24.75
0.0
6090.61
24.95
0.0
6052.06
25.15
0.0
6018.61
25.35
0.0
5987.45
25.55
0.0
5956.42
25.75
0.0
5925.45
25.95
0.0
5896.77
26.15
0.0
5873.54
26.35
0.0
5857.85
26.55
0.0
5849.29
26.75
0.0
5844.81
26.95
0.0
5839.97
27.15
0.0
5830.98
27.35
0.0
5816.3
27.55
0.0
5797.01
27.75
0.0
5775.67
Output
Slope, psi
Intercept, psi
Injected volume, gallon
Frac radius, ft
Average width, inch
Fluid efficiency
Apparent leakoff coefficient (for total area),
ft/min0.5
Leakoff coefficient in permeable layer, ft/min0.5
, psi ()
, psi
,
,
, ()
(
), /0.5 (/0.5)
,
/0.5 (/0.5)
269
4417 (30.454)
13151 (90.673)
9044 (34.24)
39.60 (12.07)
0.49205 (12.498)
0.16708
0.01592 (0.48524)
0.02479 (0.77560)
,
, ,
39.6 (12.1 )
.
270
. F
F
Standard Practices and
QC Forms
.)
The producing company representative meets
.
The operations engineer prepares a workover
program (procedure) to be followed by company
() ,
field personnel in preparing the well for
271
. F
.
, ,
,
-
.
G.
/,
,
.
One day before the job: Small samples of the :
prescribed gel are mixedpreferably with water
from the frac tanksand tested. Samples of
.
. F
,
(
) .
Day of the job: The crew chief collects the pre- :
frac checklists, confirms the volume of chemicals
and proppant on location, and gauges all tanks.
,
Proppant sieve analysis is carried out and
, .
reported on the appropriate form. If acid is to be
,
used, the acid quality control form is filled out,
showing any dilution calculations. The supervisor
. ,
is now almost ready to start the job
,
.
.
The Frac-Crew Chief seeks out the personin-charge for the producing company.
.
.
. F
(
,
)
:
,
.
, -
-
.
-
. (
1000 psi =
70 )
).
,
,
.
.
, ,
.
.
274
. F
,
.
,
5, 10 15
.
(
).
Mixing Acid
, .
,
,
.
,
.
90 ,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
, ,
.
275
. F
Fracturing Fluids
. .
, ,
. (
, 10
.)
. , ,
, .
,
.
real time.
,
.
( )
,
.
are on location.
.
Perform gel, crosslinker and breaker tests.
,
.
Proppants
. F
minimum specifications.
.
Safety
.
.
Assign a vehicle and driver to be discharged on ,
short notice in the case of an emergency. The
vehicle should be parked outside the well
.
perimeter.
.
QC Forms
. F
278
. F
279
. F
280
. F
281
. F
282
. F
283
. F
284
. F
285
. F
286
. F
287
. F
288
. F
289
. F
290
. G
G
Sample Fracture
Program
, . -4,
,
OBJECTIVE:
CONDUCT
MINIFRAC
AND
FRACTURE TREAT THE FOXEN
DIATOMITE
EQUIPMENT REQUIRED:
Pumping Equipment
7 :
500 (80 3)
V-12 PUMPS to deliver 1,000 HHP at 25 BPM 6 : V-12,
(includes 50% backup)
1000 .. 24
/ (4 3/)
Blender
1 :
LCG Pre-blender
1 : LCG
Chemical delivery truck
1 : /
Mountain Movers
2 : Mountain Mover
Tech Command Center
1:
1:
1:
1:
2:
1:
equipped
with
digital
. G
-: 625 (99.4 3)
: 2 467 (392.2 3)
PROPPANT REQUIRED:
. . . ,
729-925
(222.2-281.4 ) 675
(205.7 ) 3-1/2 ;
, . . .
SETUP
-3
.
QUALITY CONTROL TESTING: Obtain
water samples from each tank and record the
tank number. For each sample, measure and
record temperature, pH, and bacteria level.
Gel samples from tanks 2-7 with 1% LGC-V
according to the attached Tank Mixing
Schedule. Measure and record the base gel
viscosity for each sample. Determine and
record the required crosslinker concentration.
:
.
, pH
.
2-7 1% LGC-V
.
.
.
the wellhead to 3,000 psi.
3000 psi (20.98 ).
B. Pre-mix all tanks with 3% KCL. Pre-mix
B. 3% KCL
Tank 4 with Versagel 40. Measure and
.
Versagel 40 4.
record the temperature, pH, and base gel
, pH
viscosity of a Tank 4 sample after mixing.
4
Perform a vortex closure test on a crosslinked
sample to ensure adequate viscosity at
.
292
. G
downhole conditions.
.
C.
Logging
Service
Co.
3000
psi (20.7 ).
MINIFRAC
3. RIH
W/ 606
PRESSURE 3.
GAUGE/TEMPERATURE
PROBE.
RUN
/
606.
BASE TEMPERATURE LOG FROM ED TO
300'. HANG TOP OF TOOL 10' BELOW
300 (91.4 ).
BOTTOM PERFORATION. RECORD DEPTH
10 (3 )
OF PRESSURE SENSOR ON MORNING
.
REPORT. CHECK CALIBRATION OF
PRESSURE GAUGE.
.
4. ENSURE SURFACE EQUIPMENT IS READY 4. ,
TO START MINIFRAC.
-.
A. Check data acquisition system to ensure
A.
injection meters, flowback meter, and
,
wellhead
pressure
transducers
are
functioning properly.
.
B. Calibrate flowback controls and fill all lines
B.
with 3% KCL.
3% KCL.
C. Pressure test all lines to 3,000 psi.
C. 3000 (20.7
).
5. PERFORM MINIFRAC:
5. -.
SPECIAL
NOTE:
THE
FOLLOWING
SEQUENCE
OF
PUMPING
AND
MONITORING IS ONLY A GUIDELINE
BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS. THE VOLUMES
AND RATES WILL BE CHANGED BASED ON
ACTUAL
CONDITIONS
ENCOUNTERED
DURING THE TEST. ENGINEERING WILL BE
ON LOCATION DURING THE MINIFRAC TO
ADVISE ON PROCEDURE AS NECESSARY.
Stage A
:
10 (1.59 3) 35 KCL
1 / (1.59 3/).
100 psi (689.5 ),
. G
.
5 .
Breakdown: Pump 50 BBLS of 3%
KCL water at 10 BPM. Shut-in and
monitor pressure decline for at least 30
minutes. Estimate breakdown pressure,
ISIP, fracture propagation pressure, frac
gradient, leak-off coefficient, and
effective number of perforations open.
: 50 (7.94
3) 3% KCL 10
/ (1.59 3/).
30 .
,
,
, ,
.
CAUTION:
Maximum
surface pressure is 2,950 psi.
allowable
:
2950 psi (20.34
).
Stage B
1:
3% KCL 1
/ (159 /).
,
10 / (1.59
3/) 75 (11.9
3).
,
.
,
Stage C
2:
3% KCL 1-3
/ (159-477 /).
,
294
. G
10 / (1.59
3/) 100 (15.9
3).
,
.
Stage D
:
3% KCL 1-3
/ (159-477 /).
,
15 / (2.38
3/) 150 (23.8
3). 2
16 /
(2.54 3/)
1 / (159 /).
1 / (159 /),
.
,
Stage E
:
3% KCL 1-3
/ (159-477 /).
,
Versagel 40
25 /
(3.97 3/). 250
(39.7 3)
7 (1.11 3) 3%
KCL. ( 3%
KCL
,
).
,
.
. G
SERVICES. .
7. IN PREPARATION FOR MAIN FRACTURE 7. ,
TREATMENT, RE-FILL TANKS 1 AND 4
1 4 3%
WITH BACTERIACIDE TREATED 3% KCL
KCL,
WATER. PRE-MIX TANKS 4-7 WITH
.
VERSAGEL 40 4-7
VERSAGEL 40 ACCORDING TO ATTACHED
TANK MIXING SCHEDULE. MEASURE AND
.
RECORD THE PH, TEMPERATURE, AND
,
BASE GEL VISCOSITY FOR ALL GEL
TANKS AFTER MIXING. PERFORM A
.
VORTEX CLOSURE TEST ON A GELLED
SAMPLE FROM EACH TANK TO ENSURE
,
ADEQUATE VISCOSITY AT DOWNHOLE
CONDITIONS.
.
: 2 3
-.
2950 psi (20.34 ).
NOTE:
ATTACHED
TREATMENT
SCHEDULE IS ONLY TENTATIVE; A
REVISED
SCHEDULE
WILL
BE
GENERATED BY THE ENGINEER ON
LOCATION BASED ON RESULTS OF THE
MINIFRAC.
-.
CAUTION: Maximum
pressure is 2,950 psi
allowable
UNTIL
DIRECTED
BY
COMPANY
296
ENGINEER ON
MONITORING.
. G
LOCATION
TO
STOP
48 .
. . .
.
.
.
. . .
Tank
Base Fluid
Stages
Minifrac
-
1
3% KCL
VERSAGEL 40
A-D
DISPL
E
Additives On-the-Fly
0.1% BE-3
3% KCL
0.1% BE-3
3% KCL
1% LGC-V
0.05% MVF-2L
NONE
0.1% BE-3
3% KCL
0.1% BE-3
3% KCL
NONE
0.1% BE-3
3% KCL
1% LGC-V
0.05% MVF-2L
0.1% MVF-10
0.1 LB GBW-30
Main Frac
1
3% KCL
2,3
VERSAGEL 40
PRE-PAD
FLUSH
PAD
4,5,6,7
VERSAGEL 40
4-8 # SLF
1% LGC-V
0.05%MVF-2L
0.1% MVF-10
0.1 LB GBW-30
0.1% MVF-10
0.1 LB GBW-30
297
. G
Stage
Minifrac
50
75
100
D
E
150
250
-
Main Frac
Total
625
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
50
695
169
263
392
560
331
7
Total
2,467
Pump Rate
(bpm)
Pump Time
(mins)
Breakdown
KCL
Extended SI
KCL
Extended SI KCL
Flowback KCL
Extended SI
Gel
(Displace w/
KCL)
50
10
75
10
7.5
100
10
10
150
250
15
25
10
10
Pre-Pad KCL
ISIP
Pad Gel
SLF 2 ppg
SLF 3 ppg
SLF 4 ppg
SLF 5 ppg1
ISLF 6 ppg
Flush KCL
14,196
33,151
65,880
117,643
83,530
50
695
184
299
463
687
421
7
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
10
2.0
27.8
7.4
12.0
18.5
27.5
16.8
0.7
314,400
298
112.7
. G
II. ()
()
50
75
100
150
250
625
50
3
4
695
169
KCL
KCL
KCL
KCL
(
KCL)
()
()
50
(/)
10
()
5
75
10
7.5
100
10
10
150
15
10
250
25
10
-
KCL
2 /
50
25
2.0
25
14,196
695
184
25
25
27.8
7.4
299
. G
II. ()
5
263
392
560
331
2,467
3 /
4 /
5 /
6 /
KCL
33,151
299
25
12.0
65,880
463
25
18.5
117,643
687
25
27.5
83,530
421
25
16.8
10
0.7
314,400
300
112.7
Index
selection, 108-115
foaming agents, 99
frac van, 197
Forchheimer equation, 99
frac&pack (see high permeability fracturing)
fracture conductivity, 7, 18, 39-42, 49, 78, 96, 98,
102, 110, 116-120, 134, 144
fracture design, (see also HF2D), 4, 5, 8-10, 1718, 42, 116-147
fracture compliance, 104
fracture dimensions
azimuth, 9
length, 6, 7, 8, 39, 40, 42, 105-107
height, 8, 122, 124, 127, 148-153, 213-215
penetration ratio, 29
width (hydraulic), 47, 54, 58-63, 106, 122,
125
width (non-Newtonian), 113
width (propped), 6, 7, 8, 12, 41, 135
width (soft formations), 76
fracture propagation, 11, 66, 134-135
fracture stiffness, 119
fracture toughness, apparent, 153
fracturing fluid penetration, 114
fracturing fluids
borate fluids, 97-99
crosslinked, 49, 66, 97-99
emulsions, 95
foams, 95
linear gells, 66
titanate fluids, 97-99
zirconate fluids, 97-99
friction pressure, 142
friction reducers, 102
forced closure, 209-210
A
anisotropy, 225
areal proppant concentration, 13, 234-236
B
bilinear flow, 219
Bingham plastic, 49
biocides, 98
Biot's constant, 103
Blender, 193
breakers, 98
C
CDM (see continuum damage mechanics)
candidate reservoirs, 2, 3, 7, 15, 65
carbon dioxide foam, 96
chemical mixing, 191
clay control additives, 99
closure pressure (stress), 75, 103-105, 116, 143
communications, 198
complex wells, 16
connectivity (fracture-to-well), 10
continuum damage mechanics, 153
crosslinked fluids, 51, 107
D
damage
choke, 109
fracture face, 110
reduction in proppant pack permeability, 109
deviated wells, 11, 15
design optimization, 6, 7, 8-10, 31, 84-88
dilatancy, 134
E
efficiency, 53, 122
ellipsoid flow, 50
embedment, 7
design example, 166-169
encapsulated breakers, 109
enzymes, 109
equipment, fracturing, 187-207
Euler gamma function, 56
G
gas condensate reservoirs, 83-87
gravel pack, 67
H
HF2D, 18, 135
HF2D, medium permeability example, 157-162
HF2D, pushing the limits example, 163-165
HF2D, high permeability example, 169-174
HF2D, extreme high permeability example, 175178
HF2D, low permeability example, 179-184
HPF (see high permeability fracturing)
HPG (see hydroxypropyl guar)
HI-LO pressure manifold, 194
height, 8, 122, 124, 126
F
filter cake, 86, 88, 117
flow behavior index, 49
fluid lag, 154
fluid loss control additives, 98
fluids
additives, 95, 97-100
fluid mechanics, 48-51
301
containment, 213-214
design for, 148-150
high permeability fracturing, 1, 12, 18, 64-94,
107-115, 135-139
evaluation, 222-226
high-rate water packs, 70
high-temperature oxidizers, 99
history of fracturing, 1, 64
hook-up, 201-207
horizontal wells, , 12, 16, 71
hydration unit, 192
hydroxypropyl guar, 97
hypergeometric function, 119
I
ISIP (see instantaneous shut-in pressure)
injected volume calculation, 125
injection tests
microfracture, 116
minifracs, 116-224
instantaneous shut-in pressure, 102-103
K
KGD geometry, 47, 55, 60, 106, 129
Kachanov parameter, 154
L
LEFM (see linear elasticity)
leakoff, 15, 53-56, 76-82
leakoff coefficient, 53, 78, 116-124, 222
linear elasticity, 44-47, 153
linear flow, 220
logging methods, 215
M
mapping, 216
material balance, 53, 125
microfracture, 116
minifrac, 116-124, 143
monitoring, 205
Q
quality control, 187, 198, 207-209
N
net present value (NPV), 9
net pressure, 13, 47, 58, 75, 150
Newtonian fluid, 49
nitrogen foam, 95
Nolte analysis, 116-124
Nolte-Smith analysis, 212-213
non-Darcy effects, 8, 36, 88-94, 155-156
R
radial fracture, 61-66, 122
real-time analysis, 212-213
real-time pressure data, 222
relative permeability effects, 84
S
sand control, 66
sand conveyor, 191
sand supply system, 191
seismic imaging, 216
shape factor, 58-60
shear modulus, 45
skin
O
opening time distribution factor, 53, 54, 127
P
PKN geometry, 47, 55, 58-59, 106, 127
packing radius, 227, 233
302
composite, 109-112
damage skin, 6, 26
fracture, 27, 37, 68, 94
fracture face, 84-85, 156, 225
gravel pack, 67
for HPF, 226
mechanical, 27
non-Darcy, 89, 92, 94
radial equivalent, 5
slopes analysis, 226
slot flow, 51
spurt loss, 52, 54, 119
steady state flow, 26
stress intensity factor, 47
stresses
absolute, 104
effective, 104
principal, 10, 104
values, 44, 47
surfactants, 98
T
tanks, 191
tilt meters, 216
tracers, 188
transient flow, 26
TSO (see tip screenout)
tip screenout, 7, 12-14, 64, 72-75, 106, 130
tip screenout design, 135-139
design examples, 169-178
tip effects, 153-154
tortuosity, 12
transfer pump, 190
two-dimensional (2D) models, 57-63
V
viscosity
apparent, 49, 50
effective, 82
Newtonian, 50
polymer solution, 85
viscoelastic (VES) fluids, 114
W
well deviation, 4
well performance, 6-8, 36-38
wellbore radius, equivalent, 37
well testing, 218-220
diagnostic plot, 219
specialized plot, 220
post-treatment for HPF, 223-226
Y
Young's modulus, 44-45
303
, 212-213
, 216-124
-, 221-223
, 226
, 225
() ,
75, 103-105, 116, 143
, 222
(2D) , 57-63
, 98
, 154
, 99
, 219
, 49
, 98
(), 193
, 66
, 191,
, 119
, , 153
, 108-115
, 95, 97-100
, 48-51
, 7
, , 166169
, 125-127
, 70
, 1, 12, 18, 64-94, 107115, 135-139
, 99
, 8, 122, 124, 126
, 148-150
, 213-214
, 49, 50
, 50
, 97
, 82
, 114
, 191
, 81-83
, 12
, 147
, 147
, 146
, 6, 25-28, 67, 87, 156
, 109
, 145
, 218-220
, 219
, 223-226
, 220
, 83-87
- , 56
KGD, 47, 55, 60, 106, 129
304
, 154
-, 116
- (), 116-224
,
140-147
, 145
, 141-142
- (), 143-144
, 1, 64
, 154
, 96
, 95
, 99
, 190
, 99
, 4, 12, 139, 142
, 190
, 59
-, 2, 3, 7, 15, 65
, 13, 234236
- (), 98
, 109
, 110
, 109
, 119
, 128, 132
, 49
, 102
, 104
, 103
, 209-210
, 7, 18, 39-42, 49, 78, 96,
98, 102, 110, 116-120, 134, 144
(. HF2D), 4, 5,
8-10, 17-18, 42, 116-147
, 114
, 128-134
, 6, 95, 100-104
, 100
, 8
, 100
, 8, 41,
, 100
, 12, 234-236
, 100
, 128-130
, 104, 107
, 49
, 26,
, 152
, 216
, 187, 198, 207-209
, 7, 12-14, 64, 72-75,
106, 130
, 47
, 44, 104
, 53, 54, 127
, 53, 78, 116-124, 222
, 58-60
, 153-154
, 44-47, 153
, 220
/ , 194
, 53, 125
, 52, 54, 119
, 116-117
, 215
, 153
, 116
- (), 116-124, 143
, 44
, 45
, 44-45
, 205
, 216
,11, 15
, 104
, 44, 47
, 10, 104
, 104
, 195
, 26
, 49
, 97-99
, 66
, 95
, 49, 66, 97-99
, 97-99
, 97-99
, 95
, 201-207
, 187-207
, 6, 7, 8-10, 31, 84-88
305
, 61-66, 122
, 227, 233
, , 37
, 10
, 8, 122, 124, 127, 148-153, 213215
, 6, 7, 8, 39, 40, 42, 105-107
, 29
(), 47, 54, 5863, 106, 122, 125
(
), 128
(), 6, 7, 8, 12, 41,
135
( ), 76
, 13, 75, 153
, 125
, 51
, 50
, 109
, 13, 47, 58, 75, 150
( )
, 53, 122
, 6-8, 36-38
, 8, 36,
88-94, 155-156
, 84
, 216
, 191
, 16
(-)
, 67
, 226
, 89, 92, 94
, 6, 26
, 27
() 109-112
, 84-85, 156, 225
, 5
, 27, 37, 68, 94
(-), 10
, 198
, 197
( ), 50
( ),
55-56, 76
, 51, 107
, 98
, 135-139
, 169-178
, 191
, 215
, 4
, 99
, 26
, 192
, 15, 53-56, 76-82
306