Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
w
*
SPE 39959
Copyrfght 1~.
SPE,
Halliburton
Energy Services,
Resources
Inc.
This pa~r
Waa preparad for presentation at the Rocky Mountain Regi~pa[ Meetin~~~
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium held in Denver, Colorado, 5-8 Apr. 1998.
This paper was s%ract~oi-pre.sentalion
by an S?-~rogram
Committea following review of
information c.antalned in an abstract submitted by the author(a), Contents of the paper, as
prasanfed, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subie~! to
correction by~e
autfiorTsJ, me material, as presentad, does not necessarily reflect any
poaftion of the Society of PeUoleum Engineers, its officars, or membars. Papera presented at
SPE meetings are aubjecf to publication review by Editorial CommittMs
of the Society of
Petroleum Enginaara. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words, Illustration may not be copied, The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledge
ment of where and by whom the ps~r is presented, Write Librarian, SPE, P,O. Sox 833836,
Richardson, TX 75063-W36,
U.S.A. iax 01-972-953-9435.
Introduction
Nitrogen foam fracturing has been used for more than 20 years
as a preferred method to stimulate low-pressure, shallow gas
reservoirs.-3 Laboratory studies of foam properties and field
studies of foam stimulation have concluded that foam fluids are
the least damaging of many fluid candidatesf6 During the first
decade of foam stimulation, various correlations were proposed
to quantifi pressure relationships for foam flow?9 In recent
years, foam fracturing pumping rates have been pushed to very
high levels, ofien exceeding the range over which the tubular
friction correlations were developed?
During the pumping of several high-rate foam stimulation
treatments for a production company, unexpected pressure versus rate relationships were observed. As designed pumping rates
were achieved, pressures would fall below expected values. In an
attempt to maintain pressure on the formation, rates were increased, but pressure response would not be sustained. These
observations raised questions about the stability of foam fluids
at very high pumping rates and the applicability of the conventional tubular friction correlations.
Since the implementation
and acceptance of foam as a
standard fluid for stimulation, net-pressure plots have been
introduced and accepted as a standard tool for on-site control of
fiacturingtreatments.1
IAccurate knowledge ofbottomhole treating pressure (BHTP) is essential for proper interpretation of
fmcture growth. Fornonfoamed fluids, BHTP is calculated from
frictional pressure correlations for the particular fluid with
varying degrees of success, Calculation of the BHTP is less
accurate for a foamed fluid than for a nonfoamed fluid because
two-thirds of the volume of a foamed fluid is Nz gas, the volume
of which is dependent on both pressure and temperature. Since
Nz delivery rates are pressure sensitive, errors in BHP estimation
cause control problems with both rate and foam quality. Perforation erosion, if unaccounted for, can signal a need for increase
in rate to maintain BHP. To gain more accurate knowledge
during these high-rate foam fracturing treatments for the production company, real-time, transmitting bottomhole gauges were
Abstract
treatments pumped down 3.5- to 4.5-in. tubing
at up to 80 bbl/min have presented problems in control and
execution, WeI1head pressures used to predict net entry pressure can give erratic results in the absence of good knowledge
of bottomhole pressure (BHP). Since nitrogen (Nz) delivery
rates are pressure sensitive, errors in BHP estimation cause
controI probIems with both rate and foam quality. Perforation
erosion, if unaccounted for, can signal a need for increase in
rate to maintain BHP.
We used a laboratory study of foam in Iaminar and turbulent
flow and a series of field experiments with bottomhole gauges to
calibrate foam fiict ion-pressure in tubulars at very high rates. To
measure the viscosity of foam fluid with Nz at 1,000 psi, we used
a small-scale, flow-loop viscometerthat could be applied in both
laminar and turbulent flow. Foam parameters included foam
qualities from 25 to 80% Nz and guar concentrations from Oto 40
lb~gal.
The effects of surfactant concentrations from 0,2 to
1.07. were also studied.
Field foam treatments pumped at high foam rates were
equipped with bottomhole real-time transmitting gauges. Steprate tests were performed on both neat foam and sand-laden foam
to calcuIate friction pressures. Actual friction pressures from
these treatments were compartid with pressures based on laboratory data. The laboratory correlation can predict tubular friction
accurately for foam fluids up to very high foam rates.
In severaI of the treatments, small perforations were used in
an attempt to provide limited entry stimulation.
With the
bottomhole-gauge
data, we were able to assess the effects of
perforation erosion because of changes in sand concentration.
Results of this study were used to support the design of
lower foam tiac rates. The average rate of 80 bbl/min was
Foam-fracturing
Burlington
509
HIGH-RATE
FOAM FRACTURING
Wel~-ore Equations
The objective of measurement of foam behavior is to enable
prediction ofproperties such as pressure and rate of the foam that
enters the fracture. In the following wellbore equation,
BHTP=PW+P~
Experiment
The recirculating, turbulent-flow loop viscometer, shown in Fig.
2, was initially calibrated with water and 20-, 30-, and 40-lb/
Mgal guar-base gel fluids, starting at room temperature. Eight
gal of base-gel fluid were prepared in the mixing tank on the
bench shown in Fig. 2. Base gel from this tank was pumped
through a centrifugal pump and injected into the loop during
recirculation through a large quintuple
pump. The flow-loop
volume is 5 gal. System pressure was set at 1,000 psi with a
backpressure regulator. Afier stable flow rate and differential
pressure were obtained, a step-rate test was perfomed from 5
gal/rein up to the maximum flow rate, or untiI the ~Rerentialpressure transducer reached its maximum.
.(1)
Pr PP~
(2)
Pw
SPE 39959
of these pressure
1
1
PhPf
P@
I
BHTP
Pg
I
I
I
I
Fig. 2Turbulent-flow loop viscometer.
-Pg.
(3)
SPE 39959
P. C. HARRIS,
DAP/4L
M. PIPPIN
= AD(8v/Dy
(5)
DAP/4L
= K(sV/D)
(6)
10
0.1
0.01
1. .=
100
10
..
Fig.3Water
and finear-guar
fluids in recirculating
flow loop.
511
1,000
1 (5,000
HIGH-RATE
- ....... . - .-
10
1 #
-IT
1 1 r
. . ----
..
1
~~
N
2 gal/Mgal AFA
5 gal/Mgal AFA
--A-1()
SPE 39959
FOAM FRACTURING
gal/Mgal AFA
0.1
0.01
10,000
1,000
100
10
anionic foaming
100
r , 1
Y
~~
w
1 1 , r
11
/!
.I
25 Quality
r r Illlr
=- 50 Quality
10
60 Quality
I
70 Quality
-o
111
I
~~,,,,,,
80 Quality
11 F
1 1 1 , ,
TTlli
1111
0.1
0.01
1
10
1,000
100
10,000
anionic
512
foaming
100,000
SPE 39959
P. C. HARRIS,
Field Application
The Pictured Cliffs and overlying Fruitland formations of the
San Juan basin, in northwestern New Mexico and southwestern
Colorado, comprise genetically interrelated sediments deposited during the last major regression of the Late Cretaceus
seaway out of the western interior U.S. The sands of the
Pictured Cliffs were deposited in marine shoreline systems that
trended northwest-southeast
and were seaward (northeast) of
the continental fluvial (river) sands, silts, clays (shales), and
peats (coals) of the overlying Fruit land formation. The entire
Pictured Cliffs-Fruitland
system rapidly regressed in terms of
to account for the lower densi~ of foams. A is the turbulentflow intercept for foam, and m is the turbulent-flow slope for
foam (which equals the turbulent-flow
slope for the externalphase fluid).
= A p Dc(8V~)m
DAP/4L
M. PIPPIN
, (7)
-..
10
-f-r,
-..
,,,
70%
50%
&
25%
11111
I II !1
0.1
0.01
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
20-lb/Mgal
513
anionic foaming
agent at varying
Nz qualitiea.
HIGH-RATE
10
SPE 39959
FOAM FRACTURING
! ,
H
1
za) 0.1
6
0.01
1
100
10
1,000
10,000
Nz, linear-gel
foama typical
of field use.
1 ,000
100
.
10
100
10
514
Iinesr-guar
foam computed
P. C. HARRIS,
SPE 3-9959
M. PIPPIN
,---$.;
----
Gamma
Neutron
Density
...
----------,
---------.
..
,.
<!
------
.1
,.-$
<---. -.,
,,
.
: ---.-,
,---:,
:-----
8 5/8-in. Casing at 92 ft
----
-----,
------,
----.
.
L
2 -...,
Top Kirtland
at 1,227 ft
~------...
-------
<
-.-.
,.=
...
2,,..---.,
..,--- ..-
-,-. -,
Top of Cement
at 1,390 ft
(
--- .;
>
---
---------.,
,,-
.---.*
.-----------,
---------
5 112-in.
at 1,901 ft
Packer at 2,056 ft
% ----....--..=---
.!
Fig. 9-WeIIbore diagram and log for Well A, a typical Pictured Cliffe well.
515
.
>-3
HIGH-RATE
SPE39959
FOAM FRACTURING
Discussion
of Treatment
Data
-7---,
Friction without Perforation Erosion. Four treatments performed on the Fruitland Coal wells (Stages 1 and 2 of Well C and
Stages 1 and 2 of Well D) were similar in design. All treatments
were performed with 52,000 to 65,000 gal of 70-quality Nz foam
Gamma
1,800
,-.
L
J
.
1 l/2-in.
Tubing at 1,897 ft
1,900
1
,
Fruitland Coal Perforations
1,806
ft
1,894 ft
-.:.=
<
1,938 ft
-.
--* ,
\
I
-1
.
2,00si
Packer at 2,152
$-
ft
l/2-in. at 2,198 ft
,
\:
/
,#---.
Fig. 10-Wellbore
diagram
Fruitland
Coal well.
516
SPE 39959
P. C. HARRIS, M. PIPPIN
Foam Volume
(gal)
4.0 Iblgal
5,000
20,000
Totela
52,000
90,000
I
Flow Rate
(bbUmin)
I
I
30
Well C (Stage 1)
18
18
40
Well C (Stage 2)
Well D (Stage 1)
17
--:
34
42
33
42
33
54
65
Average Friction
18.8i2.2
26.5*3.7
35.7*4.8
45.0i6.O
58*9.9
Correlation Friction
19.5
28.0
37.2
47.0
57.0
Percent Deviation
-9.6
-9.5
9.6
-9.6
9.6
70
--=
mm
40
30
--
20
10
0
19:26
19:33
19:40
19:48
Time (hr:min)
Fig. 1l-Data
517
51
43
.>~:
.-
19:19
32
50
19:12
42
22
2,000--
1,000- -
Well D (Stage 2)
60
1,500- -
70
25
~e~~
P~--
I 60I
25
24
50
80
2,500- -
3,000
.
Table 2-Comparison
of Laboratory Correlation with
Field Friction Data Measured with Bottomhole Gauae
500-
Sand Volume
(lb)
19:55
10
..
4,500
~_--..
SPE39959
.
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
10:10
10:03
10:39
10:32
10:24
10:17
Time (hr:min)
Fig. 12Treatmant
70
4,500
BH Gauge
4,000- -
-60
3,500- -50
~ 3,000- a
tf
~ 2,500- 3
% 2,000- g
n
BHTP=BH Gauge-Perf
-40
-30
E
$3
La
:;
~ g
gg
@o
~~
1,500- -*
Perf Friction
Lictlori
1,000- -
-20
gg
2
500- -
.-
~~
010:03
Fig. 13-Seiected
10:10
10:17
10:24
Time (hr:min)
10:32
10:39
SPE 39959
P. C. HARRIS,
M. PIPPIN
Table 3-Perforation
11
gauge has been extremely useful to help diagnose the perforation-erosion condition.
Perforation Friction
As shown in Eq. 2, perforation friction is included with the
bottomhole gauge pressure. Perforations can be eroded by an
abrasive sand slurry traveling at high velocity .14S!urry velocity
in the Wells B, C, and D was typically 60 ft/s. Slurry velocities
in Well E were in the 200 to 400 Ws range. Highervelocities are
much more erosive to the perforations.
We calculated perforation friction by the method ofEberhard
and Schlosserl Susing the equation
P,f = P,+
Fluid
Volume
(gai)
Bottomhole
Foam Rate
(bbl/min)
Bottomhole
Gauge
(psi)
Actual
Friction
(psi)
3,600
27
4,088
163
System
Enlargement
Perforation
Sand
Concentretlon
(lb/gai)
(9)
From Data-Acquisition
9. net
(psi)
Pp,
Ppf
(pei)
(psi)
cd
16
1,286
1,323
0.95
Perforation
Diameter
(in.)
Dsta
No. of
Perforations
Velocity
(Ws)
0.28
14
444
15,000
27
4,145
262
0.5
67
1,313
1,192
0.95
0.29
14
414
20,100
32
3,621
456
1.1
90
807
922
0.95
0,34
14
357
25,500
35
4,143
448
2.4
114
1,303
1,188
0.95
0.34
14
390
32,000
43
3,500
769
2,4
143
699
701
0.95
0.43
14
300
40,000
51
3,438
704
2.3
179
587
687
0.95
0.47
14
297
50,000
58
3,250
1,023
3.3
223
422
498
0.95
0.55
14
247
55,200
60
3,064
1,239
4.2
246
258
284
0.95
0.65
14
183
519
HIGH-RATE
12
FOAM FRACTURING
Follow-Up Results
We used results of this study to support the design of lower foam
frac rates. The average rate of 80 bbl/min was lowered to 40 bbl/
min resulting in a fracturing cost savings of approximately
$7,400 per treatment. The success of these lower rates has been
verified by both after-fiat tracer logs and on-line production.
Gas production from Wells A, B, C, D, and E is detailed in
Table 4.
Nomenclature
PW= wellhead pressure
P~ = hydrostatic pressure of foam column
P~= fluid friction loss in the tubulars
PP~= friction loss in the perforations
P~ = gauge pressure
D = pipe diameter
P = pressure
L = length
A= turbulent-flow intercept
e = power that the pipe diameter is raised to
V = bulk linear velocity
s = turbulent-flow
slope
K= fluid-consistency
index
n = flow-behavior index
x = power that the density is raised to
A= turbulent-flow intercept for foam
m = turbulent-flow slope for foam
A.,, = change in net pressure during the treatment
p = density of the fluid
Q = total pump rate
N = number of perforations
DP = perforation diameter
Cd= discharge coefficient
Table 4-Gas
production after 9 Months from Wells
Stimulated by High-Rate Foam Fracturing
~-WeIl
A (Pictured Cliffs)
Gas Rate
(Macf/D)
I
280
400
400
500
200
39959
Name of Well
(Location)
Conclusions
Field data were collected from six treatments for the production company and analyzed. The fracturing treatments were
designed as 70%-quality foams with 30-lb/Mgal gelling agent
pumped down 1,800 to 2,100 ftof3 %- or4 %-in. casing at rates
greater than 50 bbl/min. Field-treatment
data from the TCC
were merged with bottomhole-pressure
data from a real-time
transmitting gauge. Four of the treatments, on Wells C and D,
gave good agreement between friction pressures from the TCC
programs and the friction pressures calculated with the use of
bottomhole-gauge
data. The average friction pressure calculated wit~the use of the bottomhole-gauge
data was within 10%
of the correlation
value for friction pressure reported by
Reidenbach et af. 7 Consequently,
the correlation
value has
good ability to predict tubular friction. These treatments down
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the managements of Halliburton
Energy Services, Inc. and Burlington Resources Oil & Gas
Company for the opportunity to present this work. Special thanks
are due to Stan Heath for constructing the apparatus and conducting the experimental work. We would also like to acknowledge
the contributions of John Baker, Clay Terry, and Ed Woodall to
the success of the project.
520
SPE 39959
P. C. HARRIS, M. PIPPIN
References
1. Blauer, R.E, and Kohlhaas, C.A.: Formation Fracturing with
Fo~
paper SPE 5003 presented at the 1974 SPE Annual
Meeting, Houston, Oct. 6-9.
Columbia Gas: Massive Hydraulic Fracturing Experiments of
2.
the Devonian Shale in Lincoln Co., WV, final report, Vol. 1,
Contract No. E (46-1)-8014, U.S. DOE, Washington, DC (Jan.
1979).
Gaydos, J.S. and Harris, P, C.: Foam FracturingTheories,
3.
Procedures and Results, paper SPE 896 I presented at the 1980
SPE-DOE Symposium on Unconventional Gas Recovery, Pittsburgh, May 18-21.
Harris, P. C.: Application of Foam Fluids to Minimize Damage
4.
During Fracturin&w paper SPE 22394 presented at the 1992 SPE
International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, Mar
24-27.
5. Penny, G.S. and Conway, M. W.: Coordinated Studies in Support
of Hydraulic Fracturing of Coal Bed Methane, Gas Research
Institute Report No. GRI-94/0398, Section 2.5, Contract No.
5090-214-1983, Gas Research Institute, Chicago, IL, (Aug. 1994).
6.
SheIley, R.F. and Stacy, A,: Production Data Analysis Aids
Fracture Treatment Design/Cherokee Group in Western Oklahom~ paper SPE 37433 presented at the 1997 SPE Production
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Mar. 9-12.
Reidenbach, V.G. et al.: Rbeological Study of Foam Fracturing
7.
Fluids Using Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide, .SPEPE (Jan. 1986)
31-41.
Harris, P. C.: A Comparison of Mixed Gas Foams with N, and
8.
COZ Foam Fracturing FIuids on a Flow Loop Viscometer,
SPEPF{Ati~FW5)
197202.
Gidley, J.L. er al.: Foamed Fracturing Fluids, Section 9.7,
9.
Recent Advances in HydrauIic Fracturing, Monograph Series,
SPE, Richardson, TX (I 989) 12, 198209.
10. Friction Factor Correlation for C-O-TWO Foam, Halliburton
Services, Halliburton Services Laboratory Report No. M24-
11.
12.
13.
14.
13
15. Eberhard, M.J. and Schlosser, D.E.: Current Use of LimitedEntry Hydraulic Fracturing in the CodeI1/Niobrara Formations
DJ Basin, paper SPE 25553 presented at the 1995 SPE Rocky
Mountain Meeting, Denver, Mar. 20-22.
factor is exact.
E+OO
E-O 1
E+()(l
E+02
E03
E-02
E-02
E-O 1
E-O 1(5)
EO 1
E02
E-O 1
E-O 1
=
=
=
.
cm
m
kPa
4m3
= m
= dmls
= kPa
= m
= kPa/m
=m
= m3
= ds
= kg