Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
fkK=140f~~
SPE 14085
An Overview of Recent Advances in Hydraulic
Fracturing Technology
by R.W, Veatch Jr,and Z,A, Moschovidis,Amoco Production
Co.
SPE Members
~~t
1SSS.
society
ofPetroleum
Engineers
This
paper
waspresented
atthe
SPE19S6
Imernational
MssIiwl
onPelroieum
Ewin-iwhewInSeiiing,
China
March
17-20,
1986.
Them=!erial
is
S@jSCI
10oorracrbn
bythe
author.
Permiesbn
tocopy
iarestricted
10anSbStrSCt
ofnot
more
than
300words.
Write
SPE,
P.O.
Sox833S.36,
Richardson,
Texas
7WS%SS3S.
Telex:
7S0SSS
SPEDAL.
ABSTRACT
There have been significantadvancee in the
application and developmentof hydraulic fracturing
technology in the past several years. Thi9 paper
piesents an overview of some of these advances to
provide the reader with a perspectiveof the current
fracturing state of the art. The discussion
addressee economic design considerations;fracturing
material behavior (pt~ppingagents? fracture conductivity, fluid loss, fluid rheology and proppant
trang~rt); field acquired fracture design. diagnostic and analysis technology (in-situ stresses and
stress profiling,downhole fracturing pressure and
pressure decline analysis, real-time on-site monitoring and control, and fracture mapping); and
three-dimensionalfracture propagationsimulation.
A ccaprehemsivebibliographyis provided s a
resource for in-depth perusal of each area by the
interested reader.
INTRODUCTION
In 1982 at the InternationalMeeting on PetroLeum Engineering in Beijing, China, Veatchl presented an overview of the status of hydraulic
fracturing treatmentand design technology. Uany of
the facets of this paper were updated in a subsequent paper in 1983.2
is a rather general overview of the recent advancements in technologyand the applicationby the
industry. For the sake of continuity,many of the
referencescontained in the previous papers are
of recent work. This
included along with refertinces
provides the interestedreader a rather comprehensive resource to a more in-depth explorationof the
technologyof fracturing.
The work presented here primarily covers
treatmentapplicationsand
hydraulic fracturing
design. There is minimal reference to the reservoir
performanceanaLysis technologyassociated with
fracturing. The discussion emphasizes (1) economic
design considerations;(2) fracturingmaterial
behavior includingpropping gents and fracture conductivity,fluid loss, fluid rheology, proppant
transport,nd new data on feastedfracturing fluids;
(3) field acquired data for fracture design
includingin-situ stress data and profiling,diagnostic data from downhole fracturingpreasurea anl
from pressuredecline, real-timeon-site monitoring
and control capabilities,and fracturemapping tl:chnology; and (4) three-dimensionalfracture prop#gation simulationmodels.
FRACTURINGECONOMICOPTIMIZATION
During the past 2-3 years, fracturingtechnology and its applicationthroughout the industry
have made significantprogress. This paper focuses
on many of the recent advancementswhich have developed since the previous papers were published. It
attempts to provide the reader with a perspectiveof
the current state of the art of fracturing. The
discussion surveys the many aspects of fracturing,
touching onLy briefly on each. It is outside the
scope of the paper to present an in-depth coverage
of all the detaiLs of the technology. What is given
.
421
-- ---
..
14085
It has been generaLLy recognized that the fracture Length ~equirementsdepend greatly on reservoir
permeabilityand fracture conductivity,such aa is
shown by Elkins3 in Fig. 2. Here, we see that
extremely Low permeabilityformations (k =
0.000md) may require half-Lengthsas long as
3500-4500ft (see shaded area). However? Length and
condueti~itymay not be the only parameterswhich
affect fracturingdesign optimization. This is
sometimesnot obvious in parametric fracturing
studies where the primary focus is on formation
permeability,fracture penetrationand conductivity
requiremeri:s.In some cases, other factors (e.g.,
net pay, fracture height, etc.) can become important
considerationsin fracturingeconomics. Their
incrementaleffects can be very significant. For
of net pay on fracture
example, consider the effect
penetrationrequirementsto optimize the net present
worth of a treatment (i.e., the present worth of the
hydrocarbonproduction for the fractured formation
minus the present worth of the hydrocarbon production for the unfracturedformation minus treatment
costs). The results of an example case, as shown in
Fig. 3, depict the percent increase in net present
worth (i.e., net present worth for the fractured
case expreesed s a percent of the unfracturedcase
preeent worth) versus fracture penetration for net
pays which rmge from 2 to 100 ft (0.6 to 30.6 m) in
conduc~ivity is
a 5-redformation. Here, fracture
6000 md-ft (1829 red-m)nd the wells re on
160 acres/wellspacing. Figure 3 shows that the
optimum fracture penetration(i.e., the penetration
at which the maximum net present worth increase
occurs) gets longer s net pay increases. The
results for this case and two other formation permeability levels (1 and 10 md) are sunsnarizedin
Fig. 4 which shows the optimum fracture penetration
pLotted versus net pay. Here we see optimum fracture lengths which range from 200 to 1320 ft for the
5- and 10-md formations,and an almost constant
optimum length for the l-redformation. This shows
that optimum lengths can vary widely for a givc~
permeabilityand fracture conductivity,depending on
the net pay magnitude.
.
RALPH W. VEATCH. JR. AND ZISSIS A. MOSCHOVIDIS
14085
:~ii4: lndlcated
:nny t
aL*24
~odhar:
and
that
dynamic
fluid loss
tests can yield different results than static tests
do and that shear rate and shear history can affect
the tests significantly. Figure 9 shows a typical
flow system with the fluid loss cells, rheology Loop
and heating capabilitiesused by most of the investigators. Figure 10 shows the different fluid Loss
behaviors observed by Culbis for different shear
rates, shear histories and temperatures. These
tests were run on the same fluid, i.e., a Hydroxypropyl.Cuar (HPG) fluid, crosslinkedwith a titanium
compound. The test conditions shown in the legend
FG(t2) = FG(t1)[l+A(C~~8]
............(1)
C++i++r
*******
Ct =
[1
II
= 0.0374Ap
0.5
: .................(2)
r]
1$k Cf
...(6)
+(C*112C17+4C11
%C12+C111 2))o*5
CICIII
Theologicalcharacterizationof crosslinked
fracturingfLuids remains a difficult and elusive
challenge. However, some additional insightshave
been developed to extend the work of previous investigators.3 9 Studies by Cuillot and Dunand80 and
Prudhonsme61
have demonstratedthe use of Laser Ane&mstry to observe velocity profiLes for investigating wall slip phenomena. GuiLlot and Dunand,
using a circular cross-sectionalflow apparatus
reported that at low shear rates aqueous HPG solutions exhibited velocity profiles much different
than what known power Law parameter calculations
would indicate. Prudhonmeswork in a coaxial cyLinder apparatus exhibited behavior anomalous to conventionallyknown flow models. Further work is
necessary to resolve or expLain the occurrenceof
these anomalies.
2CICIICIII
Ap@k
C1 = 0.0469
P
14085
5
; .............(3)
Fo
CIII
=0.0164~
. .......0.....0..........(4)
424
14085
lt3h;
W3
fm .
Ap
(8)
;*****.********
**********
64PQ2AX
where
h ia the fracture height; w is the fracture
width$ & ia the volumetric flow rate; and Ap/Ax is
the pressure gradient. The results given in Table 4
show that pressure losses long the fracture were
much larger
than what would be predicted by viscous
theory which is currently used in most of the aimulation models throughoutthe industry. The causes
for this are not identifiedto the degree that one
can do more than make empirical corrections. They
are thought to result from tortuosity,secondary
flow, multiple fracture strands, sharp turns (corners), etc., due to the irregularityof the fracture
faces.
..-..4d3
A(Um/d );b-n)
*+1
l/n
(pp-~)g
[1
Wi =
dp
u=
mINEL
where
F(n) = [~(3*-3)/21
....(10)
3p
24F(n)
{y
4 (pP-p) gd
Re
[
P
f2(n)
+ )
f3(n)
N
R
e
-1/2
..........(11)
u
WE
= mINEL
{1-(S(NRe
Wi)B]-12..(12)
dllp
e
NRe =
p
;....................(~3A)
and
..............(14)
2.
3.
No pubLished normal stress data exist for viscoelastic characterizationof commonly used
fracturingfluids (both crosslinkedand
uncrosslinked). Such normal stress data will
have to be measured before Eq. (12) can be used
for the purpose of fracturedesign.
, 33n5-63n4-lln3+97n2+16n
u
mINEL =
..........(9)
18K F(n)
14085 -
Roodhart1s80work substantiatedthe need for separate expressions for different Jhear rate regimes.
His expressionsincorporateterms involvingvalues
of viscositiesextrapolatedto zero and infinite
shear, and apparent yield stresses to describe proppant settling.
Studies in a cylindricalapparatus by Kirkby
and Rockefeller**on proppant settling under
stagnant conditions (such as might be occurring
during shut-in after pumping a fracturingtreatment)
showed a strong dependenceon concentrationof the
proppant. The results shown in Fig. 21 include both
croeslinkedand uncrosalinkedfluids as listed in
Table 5. Here one can see the effects that proppant
clusteringhaa on increasingsettling velocity with
concentration up to 0.1-0.2 vol/voL. At higher
concentrations,hindered settlingmay occur which
reduces velocity. Also, ~ne can observe the much
lower settling velocities for the viscoelastic
fluids. Recent work by Clark, et al.,*3 using
equipment very similar to Kirkby and Rockefellerts
yielded results that indicated improved proppant
suspensionwith Xanthan gundhydroxypropylguar
mixtures over that achieved with HPG alone. Dunand
and Soucemarianadin84investigatedboth single
particle
and suspension sattling in quiescent
fracturing fluide. Their obaervationaindicatemore
rapid settling for suspensionsin HPG solutionsthan
would be computed for Newtonian fluids.
Cottschling,et al.,85 conducted proppant
transport experimentsunder simulated fractureconditions using onty nitrogen gas as the transport
medium. Some of the results shown in Fig. 22 depict
the proppant bank for various injection rate and
equilibriumbanking conditions. Field fracturing
treatmentswere conducted in the Devonian shale formetions where nitrogen would alleviate clay swelling
or migration, or oil-water emulsion problems which
might occur with aqueous fLuids. Although production informationto date is not sufficientto evaLuate if nitrogen gas/sand treatmentsare better than
other types, it was found that nitrogen gas at high
enough rates would effectivelycreate a fracture and
transport 20/40 mesh sand into it efficiently.
14085
FOAMED FRACTURINGFLUIDS
There has been considwable interest in the use
of foamed fracturingfluids in the past 3-4 years.
Several
laboratorieshave constructedequipment
especiallyfor teeting foam rheology and fluid loss.
Results of recent tests from these various sources
have significantlyextended the database established
Se-ss In particular,work
by previous~nvestigators.
1 Reidenbach,
by Herris,sg 90 Harris and Reidenbach,
et al.,2 Watkins, et al. 93 Wendorff and Earl,g
have shown foams to have
and Craighead,et al., s48
extremelygood theologicaland fluid loss performante under a fairly wide range of conditions. Most
of the Laboratorysystems used to test foams are
similar to the one described by Wendorff and Earl.
Basicallythey are high-pressuresystems with foam
generators,foam viewing chambers,heated rheology
loops, inline fluid loss cells, and fracture simulation chambers,and are quite similar to the equipment depicted in Fig. 9.
Harrisag recently conducted a comprehensive
study to investigatehow foam texture relates to
rheology. Some of the conclusionsresulting from
this work are as follows: (1) foams are shear hisof foam is
tory dependent fluids; (2) the viscosity
determinedprimarily by its quality and liquid phase
extent by
properties,and is influencedto a lesser
its texture; (3) higher surfactantconcentrations
produce finer texture foams; (4) viscosity measurements at low pressure may not adequately simulate
field usage at high pressure; (5) the chemical type
of the liquid phase influencestexture; and (6) the
larger bubbles of hydrocarbonand methanol foams
result in sensitivityto degradationat high shear
rates.
(l-~~a)A&x+(~i+u~a)A&+(1+VI)P2ACZ
Ux=aUz
(l+Pl)[(l-Pl)A&z+~2a(A&x+A&y)]
(15)
and
Oy=ao
z
(1-u~a)AS+(ul+v~a)A&x+(l+u)V Ac
1 2 z (16)
(l+vl)[(l-ul)A&z+v2a(A&x+A&y)]
.
427
A relativelycomprehensiveinvestigationof the
effect of the in-situ atress profile on vertical
fracture
growth in the Mission Canyon Ratcliffe
formationa in North Dakota was conducted by Begnaud,
et al.116 Their paper discusses several teeting
technique used to determine that vertical fractures
are not confined within the pay zone during both
Hission Canyon and Ratcliffe fracture treatments.
They presented severalmethods of determininghorizontal stress differencesbetween the pay zones and
their bounding formations. These included in-situ
maasurementa(using cid treatments,mini-frac, and
pump-in/flowbacks),differentialstrain curve analyees, conventionalcore analyses, and LSDS logs.
.
14085
mants
.
14085
**.******.*...***...*.*
.....(18)
429
PKN
II
f
c = rp<
E p
32L
CD.
**(19)
dlaL
AW UVEKVIBW UF ltlZGfiN1
AuVANbna lm
TECHNOLOGY
10
f=
*..****.,**. . . . . 0.0....0.
,.00
(20)
Figure 38 is used to estimate ef frOM dimensionless closure time (i.e., the closure timef
pumping time ratio, tc/ti). Then, Eq. (21) is used
to compute the required pad pumping time/treatment
pumping time ratio
2
(1 - e )
f=
fi2...................21)
(E)
=&
J?
. . . . ..0.0
tlt.-f
~-;
where:
6=
and
t =time(t>ft,)
. . . . . . . ..0...0
,...OO.
eooooO(Z
14G85
In the area of fracture design, several investigators have presented res~~~e of special design
concluded it may be
applications. Kim, at al.,
possible to use fracturingpressure, pressure
decline data, and poet-fracturingtemperaturesurveys to speculate inferences of fracture orientation
relative to the azimuth of a deviated wellbore in
certain areas. Other investigation have discussed
special designsl:~rgeothermal reservoirs,1.58frac180 and
soft unf~f~~~2formations,
ture acidizing,
multiple zone stimulation.
CD
rmnu~uumu
t
f =:=
i
nxunAuLIAb
. . . . ..(22)
3)oooo0(Z3)
Coo er, et al.,163 Hannah, et ai.?164 and Harringtonlisdeecribe some of the on-site computerized
pLotting nd analysis capabilities,nd monitoring
systems.
These capabilitiesinclude an on-site,
field durable, transportablecomputer system; software for real-timeanalysis and graphi.al display of
both fracturing~pumping and post-shut-indecline
pressure data; nd an on-site rheology test system
interfacedwith the computer for determiningtheological flow data pertinent to the treatment.
Figure 41 shows one example of the type of realtime, on-site data displays which are now available
industrywidefrom the fracturingservice companies,
and treatment monitoring service companies.
There has been even more significantprogress
enhancing these capabilitiessince the presentations
by the above authors were published. Enhancements
and advancementsin computer hardware, software,
microprocessor,servo-controLof blending equipment,
proppant densitometers,and on-site theologicaltest
equipment have significantlyimproved the design and
execution of fracturingtreatments. The computer
age has truly come for fracturing!
FRACTURE PROPAGATIONSItlULATION
MODELS
There have been some vety significantadvancements in the area of hydraulic fracture propagation
modeling. Recent developmentsof working three-
14085
LA
p(Xi*X~)
J{+
(xl-xi)
aw
+ (X2
Xfi)
where
0=*
and
R2 x (xl-~i)2+ (x2-x;)2 ,
r...
. .
. . .
--
-.
--...
. . .
. .
. .
..-
---
. ----------
-------------
14085
TECHNOLOGY
12
P ,a + rl(v/w)n-lva/w2 = p fa , a=
1,2 ...(25)
where
=4(1-v)(Kc/@~~\
.................(27)
q = 2K(4+2/n)n ?
and tensorialnotation is employed. Here v is the
fluid velocity; v is the fluid velocity meg~itude;
due to body forces; p is the
f is the acceleration
f~uid pressure;p is the fluid density; w is the
fractureopening; and K and n are the consistency
index and flow behavior index of the fracturing
fluid.
Eq. (25) is the momentum equation used in
hydraulic fracturing. This form or simplified forms
for one-dimensionalflow are used in all fracturing
models. Numerical solution of Eq. (25) can be
obtained either with FE or FD methods. The FE
f?r 3D simulaand stmpler
ones in which onedimensionalflow (sireLe geometry, lumped and P3D
models) is assumed.20E The FD method is more comdimensional fluid flow
~~~~s~!g~ied for one-
~E~~3:$f6;f!ii~$4b0th
432
14085
13
433
14
14085
Economic FracturingOptimization
3. Elkins, L. E.: Western Tight Sands Major
Research Requirements,paper presented at the
1980 InternationalGas Research Conference,
Chicago, June 9-12.
4. Warembourg, P. A., Klingensmith,E. A., Hodges,
J. E., Jr., and Erdle, J. E.: Fracture StimuLation Design and Evaluation,paper SPE 14379
presentedat the 1985 SPE AnnuaL TechnicaL Conference and Exhibition,Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
5. Rosenberg,J. I., OShea, P., Mercer, J.,
Morra, F. Jr., and Brashear, J. P.: A Sensitivity AnaLysis of the NPC Study of Tight Gas,
paper SPE 11645 presented at the 1983 SPE/DOE
Symposium on Low Permeability,Denver,
March 14-16.
6. Brashear, J. P., Rosenberg, J. I., and Mercer,
J.: Tight Gas Resource and Technology
Appraisal: SensitivityAnalyses of the
NationaL Petroleum Council Estimates,paper
SPE 12862 presented at the 1984 SPE/DOE/GRI
UnconventionalGas Recovery Symposium, Pittsburgh, M~y L3-15.
ProppingAgents ana Fracture Conductivity
TM
7. The Fracbook Design/DataManuaL for
Hydraulic Fracturing,HalliburtonServices,
Duncan, OK (1971).
14085
22. Propped Fracture Flow Capacity, TechnicalNewsLetter, The Western Company of North America,
Research and Development,Fort Worth (1985).
Fluid Loss
34. Hall, C. D. Jr., and Dollarhide,F. E.: Fracturing FLuid-L.oss
Agent PerformanceUnder
Dynamic Conditions,J.
Pet. Tech. (July 1968)
763-68.
35. Harris, P. C.: Dynamic FLuid-LossCharacteristics of Foam FracturingFluids, paper
SPE 11065 presentedac the 1982 SPE Annual
Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,New
Orleans, Sept. 26-29.
36. McDaniel, R. R., Dey~arkar.A. K., and CaiLanan, M. J.: An Improved Method for Measuring Fluid Loss at Simulated Fracture
Conditiona,paper SPE 10259 presentedat the
1981 SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 4-7.
38. Penny, G. S.: NondamagingFluid Loss Additives for Use in Hydraulic F:-,.cturing
of Gas
Wells, paper SPE 10659 presentedat the 198?
SPE FormationDamage Control Symposium,Lafa,ette, Uarch 24-25.
39.
I
29. Phillips, A. M. and Wilson, W. J.: Improved
Drainage of Sand Pack Enhsnces FracturingFluid
Recovery and Increase %oduction, paper
SPE 12924 presentedat the 1984 SPE Rocky llountain Regional Meeting, Casper, Hay 21-23.
15
435
40. Williams. B. Bti Fluid Loss From Hydraulically Induced Fractures,Trans., ~IME
(1970)
249L882-88.
41. Williams, B. B., Gidley, J. L. and
Schechter,R. S.: Acidizing Fundamentals,
Society of PetroLeum EngineersMonograph,
Vol.
6 (1979).
42. GuLbis, J.: Dynamic Fluid Loss of Fracturing
Fluids, paper SPE 12154 presentedat the 1983
SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,
San Franciaco,Oct. 5-8.
43. Harria, P. C., and Penny G. S.: Influenceof
Temperatureand Shear History on Fracturing-
Fluid Efficiency,paper 14258 presentedat the
1985 SPE 60th AnnuaL TechnicaL Conferenceand
Exhibition,Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
44. Penny, C. S., Conway, Il.W., and Lee, W. S.:
The Control and Modeling of Fluid Leakoff
During Hydraulic Fracturing,paper SPE 12486
presentedat the 1984 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium,Bakersfield,Peb. 13-14.
16
..
45. Rcmihart,L. t.: FracturingFluid, Fluid Loss
MeasurementsUnder Dynamic Conditions,paper
SPE 11900 presentedat the 1983 SPE Offshore
Europe Conference,Aberdeen, Sept.
1.4085
TheologicalSehavior of Cross-LinkedFluid
Systems,J.
-Pet, Tech. (Feb. 1983).
56. Craigie, L. J.: A New Method for Determining
the Rheologyof CrossLinkedFracturing Fluids
Using Shear History Simulation,paper
SPE 11635 presented at the 1983 SPE/DOE Symposium on Low Permeability,Denver, March 14-16.
46. Zigrye, J. L., WhitfilL, D. L., and Sievert, J. A.: Fluid Loss Control Differences
of CrossLinkedand Linear FracturingFluids,
paper 12153 presentedat the i983 SPE Annual
TechnicaLConferenceand Exhibition,San Francisco, Oct. 5-8.
47. Nierode, D. E.: Comparisonof Hydraulic Fracture Design Methods to Observed Field ResuLts,
paper SPE 12059 presentedat the 1983 SPE
Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,San
Francisco,Oct. 5-8.
48. Khristianovitch,S. A., and Zheltov, P.: Formation of Vertical Fractures by Means of Highly
Viscous Fluids, Proc. of the Fourth World
PetroleumCongress,VOL. II (1955) 579.
61. Prudhonmte,
R. K.: TheologicalCharacterization of FracturingFluids, PRAC Project 45
Final Reports 82-45 (April 1984) and 84-45
(Aug. 1985), American petrole~ Institute.
FracturingFluid Rheology
53. Saumgartner,S. A., Parker, C. D., Williams, D.
A., and Woodroof, R. A.: High Efficiency
FracturingFluids for High-Temperature,LowPermeabilityReservoirs,paper SPE 11615 presented at the 1983 SPE/DOE Symposiumon Low
Permeability,Denver, March 14-16.
54. Cloud, J. E. and Clark, P. E.: Stimulation
Fluid Rheology III. Alternativesto the Power
Law Fluid Hodel for CrosslinkedGels, paper
SPE 9332 presentedat the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,Dallas,
Sept. 21-24.
55a. Suechley,T. C. and Lord, D. L..: Hydraulic
FracturingFLuid Hechanics - State of the Art,
AICllE~. (1973) v.
69, n.
135, 199-200.
-.
55C. Conwav.
. . M. W.. Almond. S. W.. Briscoe. J. E.
and Hart;z.,L. it.: Chemical Model for the
..-
14085
17
80. Roodhart, L. P.: proppanc Settling in NonNewtonian FracturingFluids, paper SPE 1390S
presentedat the 1985 SPE/DQE Low Permeability
Gas ReservoirsSymposium,Denver, May 19-22.
68. Govier, C. W. and Aziz, K.: The Flow of Complex Mixtures in Pipes, Van Nostrand Reinhold
Co., New York City (1972).
82. Kirkby, L. L. and Rockefeller,H. A.: Proppant Settling Velocities in Nonflowing Slurries, paper SPE 13906 presentedat the 1985
SPE/DOE Low PermeabilityGas ReservoirsSymposium, Denver, Hay 19-22.
NumericalSolution of Sand
71. Daneshy, A. A.:
Transport in Hydraulic Fracturing,~.
Pet.
Tech. (Jan. 1978) 132-40.
72. Barrington,L. J., Hannah, R. R. and Williams,
Do: Dynamic Experimentsand Proppant Settling
in CrosslinkedFracturingFluids, paper
SPE 8342 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,Lee Vegas,
Sept. 23-26.
Foamed FracturingFluids
86. King, G. E.: Factors Affecting Dynamic Fluid
Leakoff with Foam FracturingFluids, paper
SPE 6817 presentedat the 1977 SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,Denver,
Oct. 9-12.
87. Harrie, P. C.: Dynamic Fluid Loss Characteristics of Foam FracturingFluids, paper
SPE 11065 preeentedat the 1982 SPE Annual
Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,New
Orleans, Sept. 26-29.
77. Clark, P. E. and Guler, N.: Proppant Traneport in Vertical Fractures: Settling Velocity
Correlations,*
paper SPE 11636 presented at the
1983 SPE/DOE Sympoeium on Low-Permeability,
Denver, Harch 14-16.
18
103. Teufel, L. W.t Predictionof HydraulicFracture Azimuth from Anelastic Stain Recovery
Measurementsof Oriented Core, in Proc. 23rd
U.S. National Rock Mechanics Symposium (1982)
238-46.
104. Teufel, L. U.: In-Situ Stress State in the
Mounds Test Well as Determinedby the Anelastic
Strain Recovery Hethod, paper SPE 13896 presented at the 1985 SPE/DOE Low PermeabilityGas
ReservoirsSymposium, Denver, Hay 19-22.
105. 8Lanton,T. L.: The Relation Setween Recovery
Deformationand In-Situ Stress Magnitudes,
paper SPE 11624 presented at the 1983 SPE/DOE
Symposiumon Low Permeability,Denver,
March 14-16.
106.
..-
14085
.438.- ----
1408s
119. Schuster, C. L.: DetectionWithin the Wellbore of Seismic Signals Created by Hydraulic
Fracturing,paper SPE 7448 presented at the
1978 SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 1-4.
120. Smith, M. B., Logan, J. M., and Wood, M. D.:
Fracture Azimuth - A Shallow Experiment,
Trans., ASME (June 1980) 102, 99-105.
121. Hanson, J. H. and Owen, L. B.: Fracture
OrientationAnalysis by the Solid Earth Tidal
Strain t4ethod,paper SPE 11070 presented at
the 1982 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition,New Orleans, Sept. 26-29.
19
134. Dobecki, T. L.: Hydraulic Fracture Orientation Using Passive Borehole Seismics, paper
----439
-----
------
20
14085 -
147. Nolte, K. G.; A General AnaLysis of Fracturing Pressure Decline,paper SPE L2941 submitted for publicationFeb. 1984.
148. Martins, J. P. and Harper, T. R.: Mini-Frac
Pressure Decline AnaLysis for Fractures
Evolving from Long PerforatedIntervalsand
Unaffectedby ConfiningStrata, paper
SPE 13869 presented at the 1985 SPE/DOE Low
PermeabilityGas ReservoirsSymposium,Denver,
May 19-22.
i51. Barrington,L. J. and Hannah, R. R.: FracturifigDesign Using Perfect Support Fluids for
Selected Fracture ProppantConcentrationsin
Vertical Fractures,paper SPE 5642 presented
at the 1975 SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand
ExhibitionFleeting,Dallas, Sept. 28 - Oct. 1.
440
14085
.441
,.
,-.21
22
IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
14085
202. 8arree, R. D.: A PracticalNumerical SimuLater for Three-DimensionalFracture Propagation in HeterogeneousHedia, paper SPE 12273
presentedat the 1983 SPE Reservoir Simulation
Symposium,San Francisco,Nov.
,
23
14085
CI
= fracturingfLuid viscosity
FLC
CII
CIII
210. Meyer, B. R.: Frac Model in 3D-1: New Simulator Makes Fracture Design Routine,TechGas J., 87.
nolo~ (June 17, 1985) Oil
and .
cc
cc
fracture-widthcompliance
Cf
controlled
.= reservoirfluid compressibility,psz 1
.= hydraulicdiameter of the
fracture
particlediameter
P
E
elastic modulus
E/(1-P2)
plane-strainelastic
modulus
f
fa
FG(t)
f
th
theoreticalfriction factor
G(tD,t;)
dimensionlesspressure difference
function
gravity acceleration
vertical fractureheight
Kc
formationpermeability,Darcy
NOMENCLATURE
A
= D2(t)/Dl(t),Eqs.
.
f
Re
..m
44a
24
Re
Greek
Eq. (24)
p (xl, x2)
P*
= type ccrve
14085
= constant,Eq. (14)
= constant,Eq. (14)
= ratio of average
sure,
Eq. (18)
= formationporosity,fraction
A*
= 10ss ratio
= fracturingfluid viscosity, cp
IJa
match decline
= fluid density
Pp
= particle density
ax,a ,0
yz
= fracture shape
f
c
= time
= time after
t
c
AEX,AEY,AE
= dimensionlesstime
D
t
o
E*
D
= pumping time
t.
L
t
P
tl
= differential
cries
Ap
= bottomhole
Ap/Ax
= pressuregradient
fracturingpressure minus
reservoir pressure,psi, Eq. (3)
Um
= terminal settlingvelocity
isotopicPoissonsratio
V;,V*
= transverselyisotropicPoissons
ratios
= fra:ture volume
= loss volume
2
v
= fluid velocity
v
a
v
c
= crack propagationvelocity
= Leak off velocity
Wi
w
xl?
= reference tD values
t*
Fo
X2
cartesian coordinateson S
....
444
TA6LE
PI&d
COSDITI-S
TABLS 2
1SS2S
shear
Shear
Before
Delisnation
120
1)
2)
c
c
1)
2)
Shear
History
Ueac irm
see t
250
Sec
see
t 33s0
c
250
sac-
9--1
2W
,.C
mC-l
34
240
sac
,CC
1690
.C
120
120
After
60
See-l
17
120
sec
at
250
see-l
(see
1)
1-
** C-
2.s
24
s*c-l
S*C
2.5
24
see-
SeC-
120
C!C
120
120
120
s~c
ecc
t
t
120
120
21t-XL
66
(150)
0.50
0.13
1.02
0.48
TN-XL
93
(200)
0.41
0.15
o.a5
0.34
160
24.9
160
t 250
250
Sate
in%11 *1I
26.9
24.9
sec
sac
60
60
S*C:
*c
Velocity
in Cell
(rdsec)
History
Bestin#
13
TM-XL
93
(200)
s*
0.59
0.026
o.za
0.15
14
TS-KL
66
(150)
0.47
0.0s1
0.56
0.25
see Table
~ Pascal-see
Ts-XL =
1
= 1000 cp
-tal-crossl
trmwit
ion
1),
2)
- Shur
cell
Cell
inked
tbeorder
Ciut
re 1 isted
in
1 = Fluid flow
in 1.27
2 . fluid
flows in 0.64
they
occur.
u
hola
through
core.
cm wide uuhr
8pace
round
core.
mma
2he0rmt
Fe-t
Almond
Cotton
Valley
J-Ssnd
Mission
CayOn
COccon Valley
SeSer Sand
apriqer
Send
&rem
Kupmuk
(bum)
(Upper)
- 40 lbm $el/10DO
2 = 50 1arl/lmO
3 = hisb
cu~rac.re
4 = 50 lb
gel/lmO
*1
county. State
ion
t luid
lx
%eetwater,
US
Cherokee,
n
Adms,
co
lkKenxie,
WJ
Penola,
22
Usshim,
OX
Cddo,
0s
Kamuha,
WV
Sarth
Slope.
AK
-l
SA1
40
aal
Pamcsbilicy
(d)
1
2
3
5~a
4,a
2
6
7
::
1s.0
40.0
crosslinked
SFC
delsyed
crossl
inked WC
!k
~dllom
d crcwslinlmd
crosslinked
WC
t Final
ISIP lower
than initial
IsIp
F Taken frm
ISIPS during
the -in
prqpnt
S Screenout
problem
based
on theoretical
fracture
Ct , SIbercas
Cdftlwtt]
!!9dQ
m
.00231
.00063
.D@S6
.om30
.om92
.00091
.0019s
.00119
.00114
.01
.1
.1
.1
.1
UK
treatment
designs
ical
5
6
7
8
.m194s
.00050
.00051s
.rnom
.mo79s
.mos6
.m2a6
. mesa
.m336
*
=
=
=
*0-SOICR
AUwQd.
.00321
.00040
.00161
.M042
.m315
.00031
.m359
.m]za
.m179
Uierode
ISIP Analysis
ct[fc/hinl
Pxm
Xco
.0049s
.00040
.~+29
.DD395F
.om44
.oola2F
.00203
t
.m513
.mo40
t
.mo29
.m414F
.mo44
.mla6F
. m209
t
high
te~erat.re
50 lb
gel IIDDD gal crossl
25 1ael/10m
ad
uncrosslinbed
klm
10 ad
Sallins
a6enc/10m
ad
hydroc~rbon,
PIUS 52 hydrocarbon
follwing
mimifrac
based
on pressure
decline
Cc were
wccessf.1.
(x2)
inked
HPG
crosslinked
IAUJ!
LX#FAKI~
FsIcTIOS
TABLE 6
(IAASPINSKIse)
CTSUFSL,
Apparent
F1OW Sate
gp
(ttalsec)
Fluid
rcsc
Viscosity
Cp
MeiSht
fc (m)
fmlf ~h
10
( .00063)
so
(3.0)
1.0
1.39
20
(.0013)
12
(3. T)
1.0
2.45
30
( .0019)
12
(3.7)
1.0
2.15
Uater
zone
@xh
Interval
Upper Fluvial
1330-1565
(=!
water
40
(.002s)
15
(4.6)
3.11
1.0
50
lb
cel
20
(.0013)
20
(6.1)
20
2.15
10
50
lb
Sd
60
(.0025)
20
(6.1)
22
2.16
11
50
lb
zel
20
(.0013)
20
(6.1)
45
1.48
Directions
= Msmred
friction
= theoretical
factor
friction
[see
Eq.
factor
[see
(8)1
Eq.
Obmrvat
Cocstal
Paludal
Marine
H7tilo0
SSDW5
N74UH1
+
+
+
b1701Ailo0
klmsN5
M74k7!11
fl?awl
ki7SVt7
1171W0
sf191A
I162UM3
sA
s6Sklf9
u751A
k175Sflo0
M66uH3
k151ti21
N5911t220
Sk.41&14e
~
~~~
ions
+
+
n7sut7
In*itU
i0it8
SCYRSS OirQct
Stress
Oi rations
Strees
Core
Oirecc
ions
--
tial
ysit
ss2ui12*
-
7kl lbore
S66UMCI
ssxml
Caliper
fags
Telcviever
In-Situ
- Oriented
ss6vt15
SS5kl
Sredcoucs
m4Ui9
k17SkfH2
- Computer
Model ins
of
TOPPgrqhi
c Loadin#
974%
tla7u
s75kl
W33W
Smw
1179u
S2skl
ff73kl
IA65kl
sA9kl
SA
HA
--SA
SAm*a
sA
Fracture
sA
klA
5A
t150-700u
S0 Tectonic
Stress
Tectonic
Screls
of (1170kA)
TAMS
CeOlOBic
li70uilo
ssoUt15
I176U*11
Im-Si tu
(7)]
SON1
Faults
Surface
Fractures
Oriented
Core
Fractures
Cdcit*
Strain
hly8is
Strain
Iecovery
Oifferenci*l
Strain
Aaaly*i*
f th
Lower Fluvial
15s5 -1%35
FKSOICT2VK nsTnoDs
Paleo-Stress
f=
ST AL.[2)
5
OSSUVAT1lW lkETlfDOS
FLUIDS 4s0
(KIftK5Y
Pluid
nd POIP
0.4S2
by wt
fufmfdnxssFOSfee.
AM
socftmm.f.ss
21
-z,
Geopbyaical
Mapping
SOrebOle
Sei a-i c
t Lou
Biteologv
r Lmdins
shear
openhole
&t*8
bpresaion
Hydrmyprapylcur
O. 72% by
wt
Hydrorpropylgtur
O. 1S
by
wt
Sorate
0.302
by
wt
2anclutI
(ffFC)
(WC)
Searly
Ssvtnnim
Sesrly
Sewtonian
tlydrsul ic
Packer
TASLS
Crossl
inked
WC
Viatodastic;
Yield
SIMAKY
Cu=
Yield
Stres8
n3usDs
0S A21HUTH RSSULTS
TEsT
(SMI171,
E
0.4S2
by
C-
Uigb
Yield
wt
Mtbm
ut
Folyacrylmide
FsewdOpl*scic
Strass
SITS,
oKLAfmlu
ST AL.27)
Stress
Procedure
0.4S% by
Propriet&ry
Fluid
A-1
Vi coelascic;
Pmtudopla*t
Ii
Proprietary
Fluid
A-2
Viscoelmtic;
Stress
Very
Uigt.
ic
Yield
Tcue
~LE
fLICS
Dotmhole
Television
-liper
tqs
fA95k!
TILTNSTESS
Tilt8eters
cOSE ASALFSIS
Amlascic
Strain
Recovery
Laboratory
Core Analysis
Oi f ferent id
Strain
Curve
Differential
Uave Velocity
SEISHIC SLNITOSWC
Borehole
Seis-ic
SWte
Seismic
Azimuth
U95E
S66E
N30S
(DSCA
(DUVA)
WOE
--
3 -
F?*.
2 -
1/2 Length
of
MD
Ooo1
Micro
,1
,
I
,0s.1
.001006,01
1.0 10.0 100,
1
5 10 aoloo 1000 10,000100,000
InSituGas Pormotbili~
D#rclos
m
*k,
1-$tlChW
8tillwhtlWl
~-101#
.2911ccPI
IOF0@fltlW0,1041,
VMC)I.
2-ouk4d
tr8cwm Iuit.hmths
#m Onfmwlf
f&nutwr
!?mmiw8#
Irivm.
10(
160 Acres/Well
(re= 1320feet)
5(
150
2C
10
k=lmd
b
~
0
200
400
603
600
1000
12LIU
1600
Moo
OptimumEconomicFracture
Length(ft)
nupr8cwd9101tlr w. fmwn~
fOnnm&n,
..:.L ,
..
K
:..~
Legend
1600
!400
z
m
1200
m Fracture
Penetration
u Treatment
.- Volume
...
,:
.j
600
.,
i..
00
800
600
s
400
400
200
200
200
400
Fracture
500
600
700
200
)
Heigh(
(ft)
*M.6-mmOtlm
ctwhcwfmOF umumfruFmpwubnmdrm
tmml
m 1**,
*#~,
~
Froch,c
Penetrctkn
(ft)
F19.3-6rfu901n8t
wy0mpma!4kluvmln
rim, f0rm6.w
md.Rhulln01ns4.md
200
w01ulmfa@2,mo*n
447
200
EE!!!ml
150
100
I!EsE.1
5 o!
p
50
3000
2000
1000
FRACTURE CONDUCTIVITY
4000
(kfw)
-1
5(
50
w
---..
kL_l
200
150
250
FRACTURE HALF LENGTH (ft)
100
300
350
5a0105.mad47, s,e.n14
S.<
/ ..-
,..
60
y,y:,mm~,
/./4
/,+~
-/HH--
,,,,
,.,
/
20 ,
,
~-/
/---
40
..
.0
103024
TM
&
T,rne
Ho. lo-~~slw
XL ,14, -O%
---
,~
P*tec ,,37SU
607050
flnm)
71UM
IOu.
,...;
lo-
lo-
DIFFERENTIAL
FIQ. 11Ltioll
=Odlkki)t.
C.,
OIIICIIMId lb
,03
,02
10
PRESSURE
veuwm
(bar)
di77uenlMl m
lb
WI-
-.
RIIMM$I
.
w
I
Q
14f185
70-
/
200 OCCURRING
~~ -
ti
G
~
30 -
20
z~
OCCURRING IN
FLUID LOSS CELL
FLUID LOSS
z
$
>
5% DIESEL
50 lb SILICA FLOUR *
5% DIESEL
01
0
20
40
60
S0
TIME (MINUTES)
Pia.12.-sffd OsPMdlmamlhm vl0whylna~
aPPmmvlaCOanYd
w. Ummd IaakOfl, Mad
ffti
240260
Wkmn*m@uMfOnbeQ
Parmy.~
. .
TEST CHAWER
FluidLoss
JD!!VES
mu
QS!!MSM
1.14k
.015
3!!.
I
&
flwlSOo
8amaklml,
wamda.-
511sec-1
10.0
1.0
lW
A&AAAAAAAA&AAAA4b AAAA~b
CFOSSLINKED
i!
170 Sec -1
AAAA
oo~~
400
Time (Sec.)
aEv*8*arf.laa
300
Tamwahraa1200F
Tawwfawaat
S50f
.
250 A
-
.A
AA4
A
AA
.o1oFRhJENCY
(RADISEC)
449
r =
Ol
300
----
. 250
1408. ~
30
TURBULANT TRANSPORT
-t
.,0 .
ig
*5
SETTLED BANK
1
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
VOLUME)
Plexglass
Fracture Model
A -
U2Tlll==
B -
Expected
Proppant
Bank
D -
Eal
Lzsdl
C -
t
o
PROPPANT
0.3
0.2
0.1
CONCENTRATION
maw~-!
~-
(Volume Fractii)
0.35
High Pwforation
Velocity Test
u-
uncertain behwx
~
--.
141-
PERMEABILITY
450
(*IO
W171
u wsAoOLs
d*AsmsMmsmMw
Mcssas
.l,oo,o~x
SHALE@
SHALE
~ND~ND
SHALE
SHALE
/
u
~Goao
SHALE
SHAL
g
o
&j
7W0 -
SAN
s
Z6000
~0
MOM
ARCH FRONTIER
CARTHAGE, (ETCV)
WCQDLAWN, (ETCV)
&
5000 1
t
5ooo6000700060ao
LSDS
kFmlm
16
pm
16
2022
8
1.1
LOG
CALCULATED
STRESS (PSI)
kftilm
{ 24
16
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
1.0
MWX-S
m,:
&.
A STC?
.:
I
Ala
08oo:oa49;cJm9
0
%:0 :?%
0%
0
RATC/FLOW
9 MIMIFRAC
41
c MINIFRAC
.u;qoo~
ACK
I
:
7170 H (21ssm)
~
TY;E
I
I
14u85
IV
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
>,,
til
&
.HVJ
i
I
TYPE
.n
LEAKOFF DOMINATED
STORAGE DOMINATED
2. -
t;=l.o
0s
0.2
m.
//
1. -p
I
I
I
!
4
I
.edue&F1us
mlwlala
~hscswm~
pss4mm, C.m!aq 01*. **
lwcl,
lclnNOfdw
u. ffl.adwfncnnu
OlsswmOut
:
0.5
1.0
0.8
o.2
i
ai-
;
/,
0. 1-
i~l;
0.0 5
I
0.05
01
0.5
0.2
to
I
1.
5.
2.
0,20 W*
00.050,1
,
k
c,
(Cd=l)
:;
I
Pad
~Tme,
0
E
~
m
slurry-d
t
fti
. 0
4-/
,0
0.2
t
/
:
Radial
e, =0.18
Computy Model
(f=d
--(
+0.05)
f=Q*
QSO.82
1
\ I
ti
jpl
02
i4
Injection
452
I
:+=;:::,/
0608
~c
Height
06 .::::
0.4
5.0 10.0
2.0
Constant
. H~ht
$-0<8
g
1.0
1.0
I
I
0.5
0.2
Time,
th
YE
r
a
g
$2W
1 1 I 1
14f185
175
150.
... ..
........ ...
;.,, ;...
:*. (~@2qlE..
> :.
125,.;::
loo::!::~:
1?24 Ml
gg:Ty:,
*
}KH
DENSEZONE
-;.:.,;::;:
-50 ~
-10o
-6Zfm-
c-o
S-ZUIE
,&~i
5oloo150m
X(FEET)
150
125 . .
100
FoRMATnM
moP.
::lO:XIO%A
FLulovlscOs17Y
p.wzql
FwPlffi RA7E
,.,0 = 1S bblhmn
-8300.
1-
(
~mm
$
:-~-
C=o.lmfzl,.
U-ZONE
C. OJYJZtu . m
#J
&
&
:%
ES 6S
: #x&&E&e
-6s0w
C.o.ooz RI .%lfi
\l
-woo
6700
7@10
6&l
6h0
7100
hMIISEIUS
~811d0131U
gi
7ZO0
ti3WZ0MW4M0110i
&16c,nsmdks
Amd
B.
ILzbi
-A
-40
-60.
~-zmE
)be!
Ibbl
%
20
_.
d
163
lg
0,5
0 *O
140
u
CLOSURE
PRES6URE- PSl
W.42-Z%EWWM
005 c$foA
WIDTH (INCHES)
0.66 pm
L-ZONE
B
E3
%4
pERFORATIONS
-1oo
-125
-wow
FERFORATIWS
~
0
250
0.00
DENSEZONE
4?,4
PERFORATIONS
CASE B
(J.05 0.100.150.20
WIDTH (INCHES)
-75
-1oo
-125
x (FEET)
453
0.25
0.251
0.05 *b
O.OOO
:CABEA;
~
ml
1500 2000
TOT. VOL. INJECTED (BBL)
0.30]
o.~~ti
CABEB
,m
.q-
,m
400
CABEA
400800120016W
TOT. VOL. INJECTED (BBL)
300
200
100
-:d
+-...-.L.--.J
1000
500
600-
1500
(BBL)
- ~~ij~B
400
. ..
200
/
/.16
,,
---
2000