Turning Sense into Dollar$:

Advances in Hydraulic Fracture

Design within Full Field Models
Arif Khan
Reservoir Technologist
recently in Statoil
(Formerly worked as Sr. PetroTechnical Expert -Reservoir/Production in Schlumberger)
Working in Oil industry since 1999

Agenda

Motivation
Case background information
Stress Profile Preparation
Analytical Analysis
Numerical Model Preparation
Old Approach
New Approach

Numerical Analysis
Well Candidacy
Conclusion

According to Terry Palisch:

Motivation
Why to go for 3D numerical modeling with New approach
Analytical Model versus Numerical Model

Analytical Fracture Modeling

Fractures are modelled (PI calculation of well) using
equivalent wellbore radius with no geometrical
representation of the reservoir.
Hegre and Larsen 1994

No quantification of geological heterogeneity, reservoir

architecture on performance of fracture.
No injection or depletion effects (frac~ closing/widening).

Fracture is represented as modification to productivity

of the well without any representaion of the physical
matrix-fracture interaction

Simple negative skin approach may suite for vertical single

frac in homogeneous reservoir but very conservative for
horizontal well in hetrogeneous medium where multilayer
communication is enhanced by fractures.

Numerical Fracture Modeling

Multiphase Flow
Depletion or phase segrgation or water BT is defined via Relative perm. Curves
(very important factor in gas condensate reservior for condensate bank bypassing.)
Water or Gas Coning
Fracture sustainability and long term profitability by predicting coning/cusping effects on production
profiles (this evaluation is absent from analytical techniques).
Non Darcy Flow
Generally, the lower the permeability is, the higher the Beta factor and, consequently the higher the
non-Darcy effects are. Despite fractures high conductivity, the pressure losses due to non-darcy effects
can be significant, and ignoring those could lead to over-estimating production. Simulators have
options to take Beta factor for each layer or to calculate it using porosity and grid permeability.
Reservoir Geometry and Well location
Hydraulic fracturing (HF) might initially seem profitable, but after one-year of
depletion it looses its efficiency. Well location relative to the reservoir boundaries,
Barriers, and other wells is very important. As shown, only one side of the fracture
contribute to production and if poorly analyzed then production forecast
post frac. will be erronoues.

Numerical Fracture Modeling

Vertical communication
Numerical modeling can achieve objective of connecting horizontal well
through many reservoir layers (volumes), detailed layer properties are
defined (Kv, Phi).
According to the rock strength and stresses, the fracture propogation
direction (vertically and horizontally) is determined and is an input to
simulator to give us an idea on loss of connectivity with time.

Flow Convergence due Partial Penetration

This can result in a high skin factor especially when non-darcy flow is
present

Flow Convergence/Divergence at Fracture Tips

Flow convergene and divergence at fracture tips is crucial to model as it
significantly improves or impairs fracture conductance. Modeling of this
is absent in analytical methods while it requires special consideration in
numerical modeling also.

A fracture connects the wellbore to the

reservoir layers isolated by shale barriers

Numerical versus Analytical Model Results

Analytical sensitivity Fig. B deviates from numerical results (decreasing slope with number of fractures).
PSS solution achieved by analytical model (Fig. C) is greater than even the transient period of numerical
simulation.
Note that Numerical simulation allows a quantification of the magnitude and duration of this transient
period.
Fig A. Shows prod. rate without, 2 and
3 fractures
Nodal Plot

Fig B. Shows sensitivity of the prod.

rate to the number of fractures.
Sensitivity Plot

Fig C. Shows Results comparison

between Analytical and Numerical
models

Case in Hand
Analyse and Rank Candidates for Frac. Job
Prior to Vessel arrival on Short Notice
Basic Field Info and List of Candidates

Reservoir Synopsis:

An oil field located in the southern part of the North Sea.

Permeability varying from 0.025 to 4010.41 md with a mean of 43.5 md for PERMX, PERMY
Permeability varying from 0 to 56.25 md with a mean of 0.785 md for PERMZ
Initial reservoir pressure: 589 bar @ 4166 m TVDSS
Oil density= 805.0 kg/m3
Water density= 1065.9 kg/m3

Porosity

Candidates for Frac job

Permeability

Preparation
Stress Profile Prediction,
Frac. Pumping Diagnostics,
Frac. Properties

1-D MEM - Hydraulic fracture design

Stress and stiffness profile modeling

Zonation
Pumping schedule
Initial output

Mechanical Earth Model (MEM)

3D MEM
(Prepare 3D MEM model
if many wells with mechnical data,
populate geostatistically biased to
seismic etc)

Fracture initiation and intersection with

Wellbore; depend on Azimuth

Stress Orientation

In Current evaluation, no direct information to confirm

frac. propagation, orientation.

World stress Map suggests compression regime WSWENE from reported breakout, which was inline with
observed behaviours in nearby fields.

Such orientation would result in collinear fracture

along direction of planned horizontal wells.

Well:A, Stress Profile

Stress profile developed from

sonic data

Compressional sonic
measured, shear sonic
synthesised from offset data

Stress profile showed good

stress barrier to prevent
excess upward vertical
fracture propagation

Fracture Parameters - post pumping simulations via FracCADE

Fracture Specs. Input to Simulation Recapitulation
Draft Design ver 1
05-10-2011

FracCADE*
ACL Fracture Profile and Conductivity

Draft Design ver 1

05-10-2011

3825

Effective Fracture Half

Length = 40 m

3840

Fracture Conductivity =
900 mdft

3855

W e ll D e p th (T V D ) - m

< 0.0 md.ft

0.0 - 273.3 md.ft
273.3 - 546.6 md.ft
546.6 - 819.9 md.ft
819.9 - 1093.2 md.ft
1093.2 - 1366.5 md.ft
1366.5 - 1639.7 md.ft
1639.7 - 1913.0 md.ft
1913.0 - 2186.3 md.ft
> 2186.3 md.ft

3870

20

40

60

80

Fracture Half-Length - m

< 0.0 md.ft

0.0 - 273.3 md.ft
273.3 - 546.6 md.ft
546.6 - 819.9 md.ft
819.9 - 1093.2 md.ft
1093.2 - 1366.5 md.ft
1366.5 - 1639.7 md.ft
1639.7 - 1913.0 md.ft
1913.0 - 2186.3 md.ft
> 2186.3 md.ft

3885

3900

Fracture Initiation MD = 4774.69 m

3915
8000

k0of Schlumberger

10000

12000-1.0

Stress - psi

-0.5

0.5

1.0

ACL Width at Wellbore - in

20

40
Fracture Half-Length - m

Effective Fracture Height = 40 m vertical,

Fracture

Top = 3,847 m TVDRKB,

Bottom = 3,887 m TVDRKB

60

80

Initial Analysis
Perform Quick Analytical Analysis
(while running batch of 3D numerical simulation cases)

Analytical Fracture Modeling

Input

Equivalent Reservoir Radius

Static Pressure 400 bar

Reservoir Temperature 158 C
Reservoir permeability: 2md
Reservoir thickness 68m
Reservoir Radius 358m
Fracture Half Length 40m
Fracture Height: 40m
Fracture permeability 900 md.ft
Compositional model used - PVT available
Mechanical skin and rate dependent skin adjusted
to match the initial rate ~25m3/d.
Watercut 50%

Surface
r2

Equivalent radius = 358m

Surface
403937m2

Rectangular surface shape converted to an equivalent surface radius

PIPESIM model

Segregation of the results by reservoir interval

Production from full reservoir height
Production from only the hydraulic fracturing interval

Analytical Fracture Analysis

Both reservoir permeability and radius show large variation on results thus numerical modeling will
eliminate this uncertainity.
Fracture through-put is very dependent on matrix permeability as with 80 md; much higher PI.
Smaller radius reservoir shows higher deliverability thus fractures overall area is dominant as expected
for this approach for small drainage radius around it compared to higher Rd = 450m.
Reservoir Radius

Reservoir Permeability

Frac Interval
Contribution

0.5
md

2
md

80
md

Frac Interval
Contribution
50m

300
m
450
m

110
m

Analytical Fracture Analysis

Fracture Half Length shows more sensitivity compared to Frac. Permeability for the same reason as shown
in previous slide where reservior drainage radius was sensitive. Thus larger Frac. Half length will be
dominant in analytical aproach.
Both Parameters max out at 400 sm3/d at maximum input variables values, while Fracture permeability
shows less variation compared to Fracture half length.

Fracture Half Length

Fracture Permeability
Frac Interval Contribution

20 m
10 m

50 m
40 m

Frac Interval Contribution

300 md

600 md
1200
md
900 md

Preparation
3D Fracture Modeling for Numerical Analysis
Overview of Old Approach

3D Hydraulic fracture design and Simulation Workflow

(now its Old)
This workflow was started few years ago as innovative solution for modeling Fractures in 3D Full Field
models, to avoid LGRs and model 1ft to 3 ft wide fractures in simulation model without any through-put
convergence issues.
OR follow

Petrel* workflow:

Imported FFM grid &

properties from the client
History Matched Eclipse
Model

Created horizons from FFM

Imported HFTM grid with

correct map coordinates

Recreated layer structure

Sampled properties from FFM

onto HFTM grid

Exported integrated grid

Exported FFM well trajectory

from Petrel to Eclipse

3D Hydraulic fracture design and Simulation Workflow

(now its Old)
Method offers advantages of modeling fractures in modified but existing simulation model at field level
and drawback in terms of partial remodeling like transformation of properties between grids, distorted
grid, grid realigment to fracture in contrast to field wide drainage flow-pattern dictated by channels or
faults or dominant direction of flow, loosing details, effect on other wells, combursome workflow, trialerror approach, use of many tools and menus, loss of history matching per well (field wide), have to be
done separately for each candidate Well thus many grids and many iterations, leading to delays, erronoues
results.

Preparation
3D Fracture Modeling for Numerical Analysis
Overview of New Approach

Fracture Location and Design

Fracture is located traverse to the well path as per FracCADE design

Still Orientation is a bit uncertain, keeping in view regional stress profile assumption

OWC is below this

bottom horizon

Fracture Location and Design

Fracture specs (center, Top, bottom, orientation) as below

TVD

TOP=3847m
TVDRKB

TOP=3847m
TVDRKB

GR
Log

Fracture
Traverse to
Well Path

BTTM=3887m
TVDRKB

OWC is below this

bottom horizon

Phi
Log

BTTM=3887m
TVDRKB

Fracture Location and Design

Fracture covers almost all zones vertically as shown with respect to MD and TVD
GR log

GR log

Zones or
Sands
TVD

MD
Frac
orthgonal
to well
path

Hydraulic Fracture Modelling

Model Dimensions

Unstructured LGR in Global Sim. Grid

Unstructured Local Grid Refinement

for Fracture gridding is applied where
well A is located
The min. size of the grid cell around
Frac is approx. 0.9 m or 3 ft.
Frac conductivity upscaled /adjusted
to 3 ft
Unstructured LGR for Fracture
Modelling generates polyhedral grid
cells. Special simulator INTERSECT is
used to solve these type of cells.

Merits of UnStr LGR + INTERSECT:

Well : A

INTERSECT is Schlumbergers Next Generation Simulator

Spherical flow is robustly modelled at

fracture tips
Upscaling is avoided
Grid distortion is avoided
No imports and horizon rebuiling required
Integrated workflow within Petrel
Time saving, error mitigation and accurate
frac. flow modelling at field level.

Generation of Local Grid for HF

Using Existing FFM

Existing Sim. model

Petrel* workflow 1:
Use Existing Simulation model

Spot grid cells around Target

Well A
Gather information from
FracCADE

Judge frac. orientation per

30deg Global Stress direction

FFM

Design location, top and

bottom and orientation of
fracture using HF module of
Petrel
Draw (link) HF to well
Trace cells intersecting well and
HF

FracCADE information

Generation of Local Grid for HF

Using Existing FFM

Petrel* workflow 2:
Define Unstructured Local Grid
Refinement traverse to Well A
path (i.e. Parallel to desgined
HF) using Petrels built-in
unstructured LGR option.
Adjust grid for fracture tips i.e.
spherical flow profile
Define cells parrallel to HF
increasing logrithmically

FFM

Create fracture conductivity (for

3 ft) using property calculator.
Export new completions per
polyhedral cells to INTERSECT
sim. deck
Create another unstr. LGR for
other scenarios

Generation of Local Grid for HF

Using Existing FFM

Fracture Half Length = 60m

This highly optimistic (and unlikely) 60m
scenario was not simulated.

Fracture Half Length = 40m

FFM

Fracture Half Length = 20m

Fracture Half Length = 10m

Generation of Local Grid for HF

Using Existing FFM

Fracture Height=
40m

FFM

Fracture Location and Height are shown above

2 scenarios are simulated with 20m fracture height as
worst case for fracture conductivity of 300md as
shown at lower right.

Fracture Height=
20m

Results Analysis
Numerical Analysis
Overview of Results for One Well

Assumption: Constant Flux Boundary: No Frac vs. Frac case

FPR: around 600 bars in all cases

HF_No Frac_ BC

Frac_600/300/150md_L40/20/10m_H40/20m

*L=Frac half Length, H=Frac Height, ??md = Frac conductance

Note:
4 casess pressure
varies 8 bars
which requires
further aquifer
attenuation but it
has no major
effect on
production and
frac. collapse

Assumption: Production Control under THP = 15 bars

FFM unstructured LGR A

Liquid Production Rate for All Sensitivities

WLPR : A, FFM unstructured LGR

@THP =15 bars

Frac All Sensitivities

No Frac_ BC

log

0
L40_H40_600md

L40_H20_600md

L40_H20_300md

L40_H40_300md

L20_H20_600md

L20_H40_600md

L20_H20_300md

L20_H40_300md

L40_H20_150md

L40_H40_150md

L20_H20_150md

L20_H40_150md

L10_H20_300md

L10_H40_300md

BC

Liquid Production Rate, sm3/d

Sensitivity Cases Performed

HF A
Liquid Production Rate, Ranked

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

Table 1: Sensitivity Cases Performed

HF A,
Sr. No.

Cases

Fracture
Half Length
(m)

Height of
Frac (m)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9*
10*
11
12
13
14

BC
600 md
600 md
600 md
600 md
300 md
300 md
300 md
300 md
300 md
300 md
150 md
150 md
150 md
150 md

40
40
20
20
40
40
20
20
10
10
40
40
20
20

40
20
40
20
40
20
40
20
40
20
40
20
40
20

* Highlighted is special scenario i.e. Most pessimistic case

Liquid Production Ranking

Rate after 5 Years
(sm3/d)
26.7396
161.910
161.909
149.065
149.065
152.167
152.168
142.196
142.196
75.606
101.490
135.765
135.765
129.427
129.427

1
2
5
5
4
3
6
6
10
9
7
7
8
8

Effect of Conductivity
WLPT A (Frac_600mD_vs. Frac_300mD vs. Frac_150mD)
@ Frac_half_L40m, Frac_Height_40m

L40_H40_600md
L40_H40_300md

L40_H40_150md

BC

*L=Frac half Length, H=Frac Height, ??md = Frac conductance

At constant fracture
height of 40m, 600md
and 300md
conductivities has no
dependence on frac half
length, they are
insensitive above half
length 20m i.e. at 40m
150md is sensitive to
40m half length i.e.
L40_H40_300md=
L20_H40_600md
Case
L40_H40_600md
L40_H40_300md
L40_H40_150md

MSm3
0.3062
0.2849
0.2501

Effect of Conductivity (continued)

@ Frac_half_L40m, Frac_Height_20m

L40_H20_600md
L40_H20_300md

L40_H20_150md
BC

*L=Frac half Length, H=Frac Height, ??md = Frac conductance

All three frac.

conductivities are sensitive
to 40m half length with
20m fracture height
Case

MSm3

L40_H20_600md
L40_H20_300md
L40_H20_150md

0.3062
0.2849
0.2501

Effect of Conductivity (continued)

@ Frac_half_L20m, Frac_Height_20 & 40m

L20_H40_600md
L20_H20_600md
L20_H40_300md
L20_H20_300md

L20_H40_150md
L20_H20_150md
BC

*L=Frac Half Length, H=Frac Height, ??md = Frac conductance

All three frac.

conductivities are sensitive
to 20m half length with
20m fracture height
While 20m half length is
not sensitive to 20m frac
height as results are
similar to 40m frac height
Case

MSm3

L20_H40_600md
L20_H40_300md
L20_H40_150md

0.2779
0.2633
0.2370

Effect of Fracture Half Length

Frac. Half Length for same value of conductivity is less sensitive, least
significant change is seen in 600md where if there is 600md conductivity
available then it doesnt matter if frac half length is 40m or 20m.

@600md, Height=40m

@300md, Height=40m

L 40m

L 20m

L 40m

@150md, Height=40m

L 40m

L 20m

L 20m

L 10m
BC

BC

BC

Case

MSm3

Case

MSm3

Case

MSm3

L40_H40_300md

0.2849

L40_H40_600md

0.3062

L40_H40_150md

0.2501

L20_H40_300md

0.2633

L20_H40_600md

0.2779

L20_H40_150md

0.2370

L10_H40_300md

0.1919

*L=Frac Half Length, H=Frac Height, ??md = Frac conductance

Effect of Fracture Height

@ 300md, significant sensitivity is seen for frac height (40 to 20m) for
frac. Half length of 10m
@ 300md, no sensitivity seen
for frac height (40 to 20m)
both for 40m and 20m length
L40_H40_300md

(no sensitivity) L40_H20_300md

L20_H40_300md

(no sensitivity) L20_H20_300md

L10_H40_300md

L10_H20_300md

BC

*L=Frac Length, H=Frac Height, ??md = Frac conductance

@ 600md with frac. length

20m, there is no frac. height
sensitivity seen, even L40 is
very similar. (not shown in this plot)
@300md, Length=10m
Height = 40m and 20m (very sensitive)
Case
L40_H40_300
md
L40_H20_300
md
L20_H40_300
md
L20_H20_300
md
L10_H40_300
md
L10_H20_300
md

MSm3
0.2849
0.2849
0.2633
0.2633

0.1919
0.1395

Table 1: Sensitivity Cases Performed

HF A,

Most Optimistic case:

L40_H20_600md, 0.3062 MSm3

Most Pessimistic case:

L10_H20_300md, 0.1395 MSm3
BC, 0.0487 MSm3
*L=Frac Length(m), H=Frac Height(m), ??md = Frac conductance

Total Liquid Production, Msm3

0,000
L40_H20_600md

L40_H40_600md

L40_H20_300md

L40_H40_300md

L20_H20_600md

L20_H40_600md

L20_H20_300md

L20_H40_300md

L40_H20_150md

L40_H40_150md

L20_H20_150md

L20_H40_150md

L10_H40_300md

L10_H20_300md

BC

Sensitivity Cases Performed

HF A,
Total Liquid Production Increment after 5 Years,
Ranked

0,350

0,300

0,250

0,200

0,150

0,100

0,050

Table 2: Sensitivity Cases Performed

HF A,
Sr. No.

Cases

Fracture Half
Length (m)

Height of Frac (m)

Total Liquid Production

Increment after 5 Years

Ranking

(Msm3)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9*
10*
11
12
13
14

BC
600 md
600 md
600 md
600 md
300 md
300 md
300 md
300 md
300 md
300 md
150 md
150 md
150 md
150 md

40
40
20
20
40
40
20
20
10
10
40
40
20
20

* Highlighted is special scenario i.e. Most pessimistic case

40
20
40
20
40
20
40
20
40
20
40
20
40
20

0.04870
0.28496
0.30633
0.27793
0.27793
0.28488
0.28489
0.26325
0.26325
0.19187
0.13951
0.25013
0.25013
0.23695
0.23695

1
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
8
9
6
6
7
7

Wells Ranked as go/no go Candidates prior

Frac. Vessel arrival
Here shown in separate colors, all possible frac scenarios simulated on an individual well to
qualify for ranking (volume wise for next 5 years), also shown is comparison with base case i.e.
no frac.
If one well has issues (WH fatigue, downhole problems etc) then next inline is known to switch
to.
Candidates for Frac job

Conclusion

Perform in advance initial MEM for all available wells and establish 1D and 3D MEMs, use those as input for
rapid numerical analysis

Update MEM with new frac data.

Perform brief analytical + analogue analysis before jumping in numerical modeling so to have better control
over numerical results.

Polyhedral Grid cells show rapid numerical analysis with outmost accuracy.

On downside; simulating and preparing polyhedral cells requires special features, both in pre-post
visualization and enhance simulator.

Case study results showed Rate (PI) increase of 5 times.

Analytical solution is over-estimating PI (Rates).

Fracture conductivity showed an impact to overall liquid productivity in the fracture cases, contrary to
analytical analysis, although one to one comparison (analytic vs. numerical) is bias.

Fracture Height variation showed significant impact on lower (10m) compared to higher (20m, 40m) values of
Fracture half length.

Fracture Half Length showed a limited effect on the overall liquid productivity of the well except for worst case
of 20m frac. Height, compared to analytical analysis.

Wells were rapidly ranked for immediate selection as candidate for intervention.

Thank you!
Arif Khan

arkha@statoil.com
Mob: (0047) 45 22 1367