11 vues

Transféré par Binu Kaani

models

- 1. PETSOC-2003-181-P - Using Decline Curves to Forecast Waterflooded Reservoris_Fundamentals and Field Cases
- Analysis of Chemical Tracer Flowback in Unconventional Reservoirs - SPE-171656-MS
- SPE-169263-MS
- H08061
- 2003 Frac and PWT Info
- Karoo Fracking Article
- Waste Water_ America's Hidden 60 Million Barrel a Day Industry
- Natural Gas From Shale and Tight Rocks - An Overview of Western Australia Regulatory Framework
- SPE-96945-MS
- Fracking leaves radioactive materials in PA rivers.
- Shale Gas - Litrature Review
- SPE - 108075 - Horizontal Well Completion and Stimulation Techniques
- Report - The Appearance of the ACP's Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Its Product and Pipeline
- Chapter 2 - Formation Damage
- Fracking Water: It's Just So Hard to Clean
- 2014 03 13 Diana Daunheimer Hydraulic Fracturing Presentation to ASRF
- IPTC-11165-MS-P
- Carbonate SCAL-Characterisation of Carbonate Rock Types for Determination of Saturatiuon Functions and Residual Oil Saturations - 2004.pdf
- States First Letter
- stimulation

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 123

Model Comparisons

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 2

SUMMARY

Reinjection of produced water has become a viable method for disposal, for support

and for drive. Characteristic elements of these injection operations include long-

term injection with consequent stress changes due to poro- and thermoelastic

effects. Dilute concentrations of entrained particles in the produced water add

another level of complexity. These micron-sized particles can plug the formation

during matrix injection. During injection above fracturing pressure, these fines and

carried-over oil will alter the near-fracture permeability, will afford development of

external filter cake on the fracture faces and can plug the fracture tips or reduce

the fracture conductivity itself. Successful produced water injection operations

usually entail the intentional or unintentional development of hydraulic fractures.

Success is measured on an economic basis and, as such, economic planning and

performance evaluation require reliable predictions of fracture geometries and the

capacity of fractures to accommodate fluid. The basic mechanisms for fracture

growth during produced water injection, available in the public domain, are

summarized. Hydraulic fracturing for, or as a result of, produced water reinjection

is compared with hydraulic fracturing for stimulation. Finally, various public domain

models for designing and evaluating produced water hydraulic fracturing are briefly

summarized.

INTRODUCTION

Hydraulic fracturing simulators for stimulation have evolved substantially. Recently,

some effort has been devoted to modeling fracturing processes that occur during

flooding and disposal. For example, in maturing, water-drive oil fields,

progressively increasing volumes of oily water are produced and must be disposed

of. Reinjection is one disposal protocol that can be cost effective and

environmentally attractive.1 Declining well injectivity, often due to particles in the

injected water, is one of the major factors in increasing costs of reinjection

operations. In order to maintain injectivity, it is commonly necessary to inject

above fracturing pressure. Economic forecasting is contingent on the fracture

geometries that are created. The intent of this paper is to indicate some of the key

differences between hydraulic fracturing for stimulation and hydraulic fracturing as

a means for and a consequence of injecting produced water, as are currently

available in the public domain. Also, the public domain methodologies for assessing

fracture geometry and pressure during produced water injection will be

summarized.

It can be surprising to realize the potential reduction in injectivity that can result

from pumping dilute concentrations of small solids and oil. Wennberg, 1998, 2

described injection into unfractured, gravel packed injectors in an unconsolidated

1

Paige, R. and Ferguson, M.: "Water Injection: Practical Experience and Future Potential," Offshore

Water and Environmental Management Seminar, London, March 29-30, 1993.

2

Wennberg, K.E.: "Particle Retention in Porous Media: Applications to Water Injectivity Decline,"

Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied Geophysics, The Norwegian

University of Science and Technology, Trondheim (February 1988).

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 3

sand in the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 1). Despite high native permeability, initial

injectivity was low and repeated stimulation treatments were performed. After

each stimulation, injectivity increased dramatically but then declined progressively

more rapidly. The half-life of some of these wells was approximately 50 days. This

means that within 50 days, the injectivity had decreased by 50% - economically

unsatisfactory. It was concluded that fines were the culprits. The injected seawater

was deoxygenated, filtered to at least five microns and treated for bacteria as well

as inhibited for scale. The solids content in the seawater at the wellhead ranged

from less than 1 to 7 ppm. None of the particles was larger than 4 microns and the

average diameter was 2 to 3 microns. Available models for understanding

injectivity, even for such radial flow scenarios, are inadequate. Modeling of

hydraulic fractures resulting from injection is also difficult. van der Zwaag and

yno, 1996,3 provided a field case that highlights the currently increasing

perception that almost all successful injectors are knowingly or unknowingly

hydraulically fractured. They described injection trials in the Ula field where the

purpose of the injection was to supplement weak reservoir support. Seawater and

seawater-produced water mixtures have been pumped. At the time of their

publication they indicated rates of 200,000 BLPD into seven injectors. Additional

information has been provided by Svendsen et al., 1991. 4 Typical injection water,

reservoir and completion properties are provided in Table 1.

9000 4500

Pressure

7000 3500

6000 3000

Rate (BWPD)

THP (psig)

5000 2500

4000 2000

3000 1500

2000 1000

1000 500

0 0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Time (days)

Figure 1. Injection decline for Well A09 (matrix injection, unconsolidated, Gulf

of Mexico). (from Wennberg, 19982).

Table 1. Typical Injection Water Properties3

3

van der Zwaag C. and yno, L.: "Comparison of Injectivity Prediction Models to Estimate Ula Field

Injector Performance for Produced Water Reinjection," Produced Water 2: Environmental Issues

and Mitigation Techniques, M. Reed and S. Johnsen (eds.), Plenum Press, New York, NY (1996).

4

Svendsen, A.P., Wright, M.S., Clifford, P.J. and Berry, P.J.: "Thermally Induced Fracturing of Ula

Water Injectors," Europec 90, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 22-24, 1990.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 4

50% PW

Total Suspended Solids, TSS (mg/l), including 0.6 - 13.0

oil droplets

Suspended Solids (mg/l) 0.1-4.6 2.6-4.6

Mean Particle Diameter (microns) 3.0 N/A

Density (kg/m3) 1023 1035

Viscosity (cP) 1.011 1.116

Reservoir Height (feet) 293

Hole radius (inches) 4.25

re/rw 1800

Perforations (spf) 4

Perforation diameter (inches) 0.5

Reservoir Permeability (md) 173

Various injection scenarios were evaluated and it was eventually discerned that the

only reason that injectivity had been maintained was because the reservoir had

been thermally fractured. After 45 days of injection "fractures with 2.2 m full

height and 20 m to 34 m half length were measured."Error: Reference source not

found There is some controversy over these dimensions. This is addressed by van

den Hoek et al, 2000.5

DIFFERENCES

Table 1 suggests some of the differences between hydraulic fracturing for

stimulation and hydraulic fracturing during water injection. Settari and Warren,

1994,6 described modeling of waterflood-induced fractures and the features that

distinguish this process from conventional hydraulic fracturing. First, there are

basic philosophical differences. In produced water reinjection or waterflooding,

injectivity can be maintained if fracturing occurs. However, the engineer must

consider more than the immediate impact of stimulation. Production economics are

an essential consideration. A fracture alters the displacement pattern and can

potentially decrease (or increase) recovery. There are significant differences in the

time scale of the operations and the injected fluid viscosity. In water injection, the

efficiency can be close to zero. "As a result, waterflood fracturing is leak-off

dominated as opposed to stimulation fracturing which is leak-off controlled."Error:

5

van den Hoek, P.J., Sommerauer, G., Nnabuihe, L. and Munro, D.: "Large-Scale Produced Water Re-

Injection Under Fracturing Conditions in Oman," ADIPEC, paper prepared for presentation at the

9th Abu Dhabi Intl. Pet. Exhib., Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., October 15-18, 2000.

6

Settari, A. and Warren, G.M.: "Simulation and Field Analysis of Waterflood Induced Fracturing,"

paper SPE/ISRM 28081, presented at Eurorock 94 - Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering,

Delft, The Netherlands, August 29-31, 1994.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 5

Reference source not found Settari and Warren suggested that the following factors

might be important for produced water reinjection or waterflooding situations.

Significant pressure and saturation gradients may exist around the well from

previous field injection or production. Reservoir properties may not be constant.

There can be large-scale reservoir heterogeneity and consequently leakoff

variation.

Other offset producers or injectors will affect fracture propagation.

There can be thermally altered stresses, and changes in the fluid properties.

The average reservoir pressure can change during the time-scale of the injection

operations.

that an important difference between hydraulic fracturing for stimulation and

hydraulic fracturing during waterflooding is that, during stimulation activities, the

fracture will propagate (much) faster than the leakoff fluid front.

Mechanical Properties

As in stimulation scenarios, fracture length is strongly dependent on the leakoff.

"However, net pressure in the fracture is affected by K C, fracture friction and the

factors controlling fracture containment (height) such as the confining stress profile

with depth and modulus contrast in the same manner as in conventional fracturing.

Therefore, once the pfoc is fixed, the mechanical properties do not change the

fracture length match. However, they determine the net pressure which is evident

during pressure fall-off test (PFOT) analysis."Error: Reference source not found The

preceding is not necessarily true. Modulus strongly impacts thermal stresses. Also,

Gheissary et al., 1998,Error: Reference source not found and other researchers

have established that, particularly for layered formations, different mechanical

properties can yield entirely different fracture geometries for the same pressure.

Rate

Many stimulation hydraulic fracturing treatments are performed at injection rates

ranging from 10 to 50 bpm. A paradigm shift is necessary when thinking of

produced water reinjection - consider rates/volumes in terms of barrels per day

rather than barrels per minute. Rates may be up to multiple tens of thousands of

barrels per day (10,000 BLPD ~6.9 bpm). This implies that while the rates may be

similar, the volumes injected and the time scale of the operations can be quite

different. In terms of rates, van den Hoek et al, 2000,Error: Reference source not

found cite rates for injection in Oman of 15,000 to 20,000 m 3/day (~65 to 87 bpm).

Also consider the potential for periodic shutdowns that are inevitable in any long-

term operation and the fact that the injection rate may vary in accordance with

meeting voidage requirements. Potentially, injection rates may also be lower than

for some typical stimulation operations, target formations may have very high

permeability, and the injected fluid viscosity will be low, leading to low efficiency

fracturing operations.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 6

Time Scale

Most hydraulic fracturing stimulation operations are completed in a matter of hours.

A few, large, specialty stimulations have injected large volumes at high rates.

Produced water reinjection and waterflooding are ongoing operations that can last

for years. The consequences include substantial possibilities for poroelastic and

thermoelastic stress field alterations and interaction with remote producers and

injectors. Figure 2 shows a typical field situation (from Detienne et al.,

1995).Error: Reference source not found

Fluids

Stimulation treatments with no polymer in the base fluid are rare. Even slickwater

treatments will have small polymer loading to minimize tubular friction. Produced

water typically has dilute concentrations of solid particulate matter, droplets of oil

(since this water has come from the production stream), and carried-over

production chemicals. Many operators no longer do extensive filtering on injection

water as it is anticipated that hydraulic fracturing will occur and that fractures will

be able to accommodate the particulate material. The particles can be organic

(bacteria, plankton, etc.) or inorganic (e.g., clay minerals, quartz, amorphous silica,

feldspar, mica, carbonates, etc.). Additives to produced water injection streams will

characteristically include biocides, scale inhibitors and sometimes drag reducers

although the price of the latter can sometimes be prohibitive. The viscosity of

heated water represents the viscosity, since the re-injected water will likely be hot.

The reverse will be true if seawater is injected.

2500 250

Hydraulic Fracture

Rate

2000 WHP 200

Rate (m3/day)

1500 150

Radial

500 50

0 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Time (days)

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 7

fracturing (after Detienne et al., 199547).

Thermo- and Poroelastic Effects

Water injection is a long-term, low viscosity operation. There can be significant

changes in the total stresses due to reservoir cooling (seawater), reservoir heating

(possibly produced water) and pore pressure changes with the substantial injection

volumes. Perkins and Gonzalez, 1984, 7 1985,8 provided a view of stress alteration

due to cold water injection. "During ordinary hydraulic fracturing operations

leakoff is controlled so that injected fluid volumes will be minimized. As a result,

pressure and temperature changes in the rock surrounding the fracture do not

ordinarily have a very significant effect on the fracturing operation. Therefore, the

primary concern has been the effect that temperature has on fracturing fluid

rheology and leakoff behavior."Error: Reference source not found

"... in some cases injection of cold fluid can significantly reduce tangential earth

stresses around an injection well. It follows that vertical hydraulic fractures can be

initiated and propagated at lower pressures than would be expected for hydraulic

fracturing of a nearby producing well. The injection well fracture, however, would

tend to be confined to the low stress region that lies within the flooded zone

surrounding the injection well. If the injection rate is sufficiently high, or if injected

solids plug the face of the fracture, then the pressure within the fracture could rise,

thus permitting the fracture to extend beyond the confines of the cooled region.

After breakout, the fracture extension pressure should approach (and probably

exceed because of the increased pressure field surrounding an injection well) the

fracture extension pressure of nearby producing wells. The thermoelastic effect

could have significant impact on fracture confinement at bounding zones. For

injection wells, impermeable layers could confine fractures in vertical extent partly

because the impermeable layers have not been cooled as much as the pay

zone."Error: Reference source not found

considerations of poroelastic calculations are available in the literature (for

example, Detournay et al., 19899). Their real significance may be in produced

water reinjection. Stevens et al., 2000, 10 gave examples specifically relevant to

produced water reinjection. "Cooling is principally due to convection, and since the

rock heat capacity per unit reservoir volume is approximately twice that of the

water, the thermal front advances at about one-third the rate of the water

saturation front." These are two competing phenomena. Thermal changes in

viscosity are also a factor.

7

Perkins, T.K. and Gonzalez, J.A.: "Changes in Earth Stresses Around a Wellbore Caused by Radially

Symmetrical Pressure and Temperature Gradients," SPEJ (April 1984) 129-140.

8

Perkins, T.K. and Gonzalez, J.A.: "The Effect of Thermoelastic Stresses on Injection Well

Fracturing," SPEJ (February 1985) 78-88.

9

Detournay, E., Cheng, A.H-D., Roegiers, J-C. and McLennan, J.D.: "Poroelasticity Considerations in

In Situ Stress Determination," Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 26 (1989) 507-513.

10

Stevens, D.G., Murray, L.R. and Shah, P.C.: "Predicting Multiple Thermal Fractures in Horizontal

Injection Wells; Coupling of a Wellbore and a Reservoir Simulator," paper SPE 59354, presented at

the 2000 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symp., Tulsa, OK, April 3-5.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 8

Plugging

It is known that the solids in produced water can be injected. The literature

indicates field operations where several fracture volume equivalents of solids

contained in the injected water have been successfully pumped. 11,12 In these

situations, the fracture volumes were inferred from ancillary testing procedures

(hydraulic impedance testing, falloff surveys ...). This brings to mind the dominant

question: "Where do the solids go?" van den Hoek et al., 1996, 13 summarized the

issue:

owing to fracture fill-up with injected solids the fracture conductivity cannot be

assumed infinite any more. This relates to the important PWRI issue of where the

injected solids go. Using our model, we show that the pressure drop over a finite

conductivity fracture can lead to a significant increase in fracture volume without

necessarily leading to a significantly higher pressure. Thus, a picture emerges in

which the fracture conductivity 'adjusts' itself in order to accommodate injected

solids. This picture allows the computation of well injectivity as a function of total

injected water volume, solids loading, etc. This concept can also be used to

qualitatively explain the PWRI field observation that injectivity appears to be

partially or fully reversible as a function of water quality."Error: Reference source

not found

Wennberg, 1998,Error: Reference source not found and Wennberg et al., 1995,14

presented the most comprehensive evaluation of water injection damage mechanics

to date. The formation adjacent to the hydraulic fracture will be damaged due to

particulate injection. Various empirical measurements have been made to facilitate

representing injectivity decline as a function of injected volumes; particularly for

matrix injection. Some of the highlights of these efforts are summarized below.

Donaldson et al, 1977,15 showed that particles initially pass through the larger

openings in a core and are gradually stopped by a combination of sedimentation,

direct interception and surface deposition. They found that the larger particles

initiate cake formation. Davidson, 1979, 16 found that the velocity required to

11

Martins, J.P., Murray, L.R., Clifford, P.J.G., McLelland, G., Hanna, M.F. and Sharp, Jr., J.W.: "Long-

Term Performance of Injection Wells at Prudhoe Bay: The Observed Effects of Thermal Fracturing

and Produced Water Re-Injection," paper SPE 28936 presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Tech. Conf.

Exhib., New Orleans, LA, September 25-28.

12

Paige, R.W., Murray, L.R., Martins, J.P. and Marsh, S.M.: "Optimizing Water Injection

Performance," paper SPE 29774, SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 1994.

13

van den Hoek, P.J., Matsuura, T., de Kroon, M. and Gheissary, G.: "Simulation of Produced

Water Re-Injection Under Fracturing Conditions," paper SPE 36846, presented at the 1996 SPE

European Petroleum Conference, Milan, Italy, October 22-24.

14

Wennberg, K.E., Batrouni, G. and Hansen, A.: "Modeling Fines Mobilization, Migration and

Clogging," paper SPE 30111, presented at the 1995 European Formation Damage Conference, The

Hague, The Netherlands, May 15-16.

15

Donaldson, E.C., Baker, B.A. and Carroll, Jr., H.B.: "Particle Transport in Sandstone," paper SPE

6905, presented at the 1977 SPE Annual Tech. Conf. Exhib., Denver, CO, October 9-12.

16

Davidson, D.H.: "Invasion and Impairment of Formations by Particulates," paper SPE 8210,

presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Tech. Conf. Exhib., Las Vegas, NV, September 23-26.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 9

prevent particle deposition is inversely related to the particle size (for the systems

evaluated at least). Core measurements by Todd et al., 1984, 17 showed that the

overall damage is related to the mean pore throat size. Cores damaged with

aluminum oxide particles (with diameters up to 3 microns) exhibited damage along

their entire length and as the particle size increased the damage gradually shifted

to the injection end and external cake. Vetter et al, 1987, 18 found that particles

with sizes from 0.05 to 7 microns caused damage and that the larger particles

caused a rapid permeability decline with a short damaged zone. Permeability

reduction with smaller particles was more gradual.

mathematically characterize the mechanics of how fluid loss of water with

particulates will damage the surrounding media. Most of these efforts have been

continuum models based on conservation principles. The basic mass conservation

relationship for one-dimensional flow is:

d

c d uc D dc 0 (1)

dt dx dx

where:

...................................................................................................porosity,

c(x)......................................................volume fraction of solids in the liquid,

x.............................................................................................the position,

(x)...........volume fraction of trapped particles with respect to the bulk volume,

~..................................................................................indicates averaging,

A.................................................................................cross-sectional area,

u...................................................................................................velocity,

t.................................................................................................time, and,

D................................................................................dispersion coefficient.

deposition is the only mechanism for changes in porosity and finally assuming that

c << 1:

dc d ~

u c 0 (2)

dt dt

17

Todd, A.C. et al.: "The Application of Depth of Formation Damage Measurements in Predicting

Water Injectivity Decline," paper SPE 12498, presented at the Formation Damage Control Symp.,

Bakersfield, CA, February 13-14, 1984.

18

Vetter, O.J. et al.: "Particle Invasion into Porous Medium and Related Injectivity Problems,"

paper SPE 16625, presented at the 1987 SPE Intl Symp. on Oilfield and Geothermal Chemistry, San

Antonio, TX, February 4-6, 1987.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 10

c c c

u u uc u ( 0 b)uc 0 (3)

x t x x

where:

Many of these concepts have been applied to comprehending how fluid loss is a

transient process in matrix produced water reinjection. For example, Barkman and

Davidson, 1972,20 outlined four mechanisms where entrained fines in the injection

stream could reduce injectivity (Figure 3). These included development of an

internal filter cake, where the particles invade the formation and are ultimately

retained, reducing permeability; the consequent development of an external filter

cake (the wall-building analog); plugging of perforations or other completions

hardware; and, progressive coverage of the injection interval due to wellbore fillup.

They derived expressions for the time, t, where the injectivity decline ratio, = I/I0

(I is the injectivity index), has been reduced from 1 to . = 1/2 refers to the

half-life of the well (cylindrical reservoir). Barkman and Davidson outlined a

method to determine the water quality ratio where the suspension was flowed

through a filtration membrane at a constant pressure to build an external filter

cake, giving a straight line on a plot of cumulative injected volume versus the

square root of time. Eylander, 1988, 21 revised the Barkman and Davidson model on

the basis of core flooding measurements. His relationships accounted for porosity

of the filter cake. van Velzen and Leerlooijer, 1992, 22 hypothesized on the variation

of particle concentration with position:

dc

cine x (4)

dx

where:

cin..................................................................................inlet concentration.

All of these models account for external and internal cakes separately. Pang and

Sharma, 1994,23 extended these relationships by considering mutually interactive

formation of internal and external filter cakes with flow. They introduced the

19

Iwasaki, T: "Some Notes on Sand Filtration," J. Am. Water Works Ass., 29, (1937) 1591-1602.

20

Barkman, J.H. and Davidson, D.H.: "Measuring Water Quality and Predicting Well Impairment,"

JPT (July 1972) 865-873.

21

Eylander, J.G.R.: "Suspended Solids Specifications for Water Injection from Core-Flood Tests,"

SPERE (1988) 1287.

22

van Velzen, J.F.G. and Leerloijer, K.: "Impairment of a Water Injection Well by Suspended

Solids: Testing and Prediction, paper SPE 23822, presented at the 1992 SPE Intl. Symp. on

Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, February 26-27.

23

Pang, S. and Sharma, M.M.: "A Model for Predicting Injectivity Decline in Water Injection

Wells, paper SPE 28489, presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Tech. Conf. Exhib., New Orleans, LA,

September 25-28.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 11

transition time, t*, which they related as the time when the deposition mechanisms

change from internal filtration to external filter cake buildup. It was postulated that

internal cake forms first, that as more particles are trapped on the surface a point is

reached where invasion is limited, and that this is the time, t*, when the initial

layer of external cake is formed. Before the transition time, internal filtration is

applied and after external filtration is used. Other relevant references on matrix

damage (i.e., the mechanics of formation plugging when there is no hydraulic

fracture or there is a hydraulic fracture that is not propagating) include Khatib and

Vitthal, 1991,24 and Khatib, 1994.25

methodology for inferring the variation of particle concentration with time and

depth into the formation, it is also necessary to infer the variation of permeability

due to the particle concentration (and ideally, using this new permeability

distribution to infer future variations in the concentration profile). Models for

explicitly calculating permeability change are based on Darcy's law and are usually

single phase. Some empirical (semi-logarithmic - Nelson, 1994, 26 or power law -

24

Khatib, Z.I. and Vitthal, S.: "The Use of the Effective-Medium Theory and a 3D Network Model

to Predict Matrix Damage in Sandstone Formations," SPE 19649, SPEPE (1991).

25

Khatib, Z.I.: "Prediction of Formation Damage Due to Suspended Solids: Modeling Approach of

Filter Cake Buildup in Injectors," paper SPE 28488, presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Tech. Conf.

Exhib., New Orleans, LA, September 25-28.

26

Nelson, P.: "Permeability-Porosity Relationships in Sedimentary Rocks," The Log Analyst

(1994) 38-62.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 12

Rumpf and Gupta, 197127) relationships are used to interrelate porosity and

permeability; porosity being determined from the deposition modeling. Many

models still fall back on Kozeny-Carman representations, which have never been

particularly successful.

numerically (using a mesoscopic model) by Wennberg et al., 1996. 28 They alleged

that two generic classes for deposition are permeability reduction in bands

orthogonal to the mean flow direction (localizations) or in bands parallel to the

mean flow direction (wormholes). Which type of damage forms depends on the

local pore velocity. "The possibility of low-permeability bands and high-permeability

wormholes further complicates modeling."Error: Reference source not found

proposed engineering simplifications and outlined possible scenarios for the

evaluation of the filtration coefficient. WennbergError: Reference source not found

recognized that it was important to consider linear flow situations as well as radial,

recognizing the overwhelming number of injectors that are actually hydraulically

fractured. Conceptually at least, at the fracture tip, (infinite conductivity) the

velocity will be higher and particles will be transported to the tip causing fracture tip

plugging. Eventually, leakoff will stabilize along the length of the fracture. If the

whole fracture has a finite conductivity due to accumulation of particles, the flow

pattern can deviate considerably from the purely elliptical flow pattern around

infinite conductivity fractures (refer, for example, to Liao and Lee, 1994 29).

situations where it is known that hydraulic fracturing is occurring. "Field experience

shows that wells have been able to inject produced water over several years,

despite injecting volumes of contaminant that significantly exceed any calculated

fracture volume. Thus, not all the material injected into the fracture remains there,

although in some cases the extrusion of sludge on shutting in of wells indicates that

at least some of the material remains in the fracture. Material that remains within

the fracture may be deposited as a low permeability filter-cake, as a fracture tip

plug, it may form bridges with the fracture. Material may also be transported into

the formation causing an impairment by relative permeability effects." Error: Reference source

not found

conditions is determined by entirely different mechanisms than injection of

produced water under matrix conditions. Plugging of the rock matrix by internal

27

Rumpf, H and Gupta, A.R.: Chem. Ing. Tech., 43 (1971) 367.

28

Wennberg, K.E. Batrouni, G.G., Namsen, A. and Horsrud, P.: "Band Formation in Deposition of

Fines in Porous Media," Transport in Porous Media, 24, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The

Netherlands (1996) 247-273.

29

Liao, I. and Lee, W.J.: "New Solutions for Wells with Finite-Conductivity Fractures Including

Fracture Face Skin," paper SPE 28605, presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Tech. Conf. Exhib., New

Orleans, LA, September 25-28.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 13

and external filter cake during produced water reinjection while fracturing do not by

themselves cause significant injectivity decline.

Leakoff

One-dimensional (Carter) fluid leakoff representations are commonly applied for

low-permeability, stimulation hydraulic fracturing.

t xf ( t)

C T dx

V (t) 4h dt 2C T xf h t (5)

0 0 t ( x)

where:

V ......................................................................................leakoff volume,

CT.............................................................................total leakoff coefficient,

t........................................................................................................time,

h..................................................................................total fracture height,

xf..................................................................................fracture half-length,

x............................................................................................position, and

...................................................first time of exposure to the injection fluid.

"It is well-known that [Equation (5)] only works properly if the fracture propagation

rate is large compared to the leak-off diffusion rate. If this is not the case, the use

of [Equation (5)] can lead to overestimation of fracture length. For example, in

waterflooding under fracturing conditions, this overestimation may be up to two

orders of magnitude.Error: Reference source not found ,Error: Reference source not found In this

case [Equation (5)] needs to be replaced by a proper description of the reservoir

fluid flow around the fracture." 30 Differences in leakoff between linear (Carter)

leakoff in low permeability stimulation on one hand and pseudo-radial leakoff in

high permeability waterflooding on the other hand are demonstrated in Figure 4,

from van den Hoek, 2000.Error: Reference source not found

Previous injection may have caused substantial changes in the near-well/fracture

saturations and pressures, impacting fluid loss. Previous injection will reduce fluid

loss and can also cause changes in the rate at which the fracture propagates.

Settari and WarrenError: Reference source not found considered this in detail.

Beyond changes in formation pressure, it is certain that injection rates will vary and

there will be injection plant downtime. In addition, many injectors are converted

producers that were hydraulically fractured. These issues place additional demands

on hydraulic fracturing simulators - including tracking formation pressure during

shut-ins and multiple injection cycles. In addition, representing conductivity

associated with previous fractures is an issue that needs to be addressed. To

30

van den Hoek: "A Simple and Accurate Description of Non-linear Fluid Leak-off in High

Permeability Fracturing," paper SPE 63239, prepared for presentation at 2000 SPE Annual Tech.

Conf. Exhib., Dallas, TX, October 1-4.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 14

account for reopening and residual conductivity before and during reopening,

Settari and WarrenError: Reference source not found modified the permeability of

the opened fracture using empirical information to account for roughness,

tortuosity, turbulence and closure stress. This issue is becoming more and more

important as finite conductivity below "closure stress" is acknowledged (Abou-

Sayed, 199931). At the opposite end of the spectrum, rather than reopening, a

fracture can recede if a high fluid loss regime is encountered.

100.00

Numerical

Gringarten

Carter

Dimensionless Leakof RatelD)(Q

10.00 Pseudo-Radial

Settari

1.00

0.10

0.01

0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000

Dimensionless Time (tD)

{2khp}) versus dimensionless time (t D=k/{c}) for various

leakoff methodologies. Carter indicates conventional one-

dimensional fluid loss. Gringarten indicates Gringarten et al.'s

solution (1974)32 for transient elliptical diffusivity for a stationary,

infinite conductivity line fracture. Settari indicates an elliptical

leakoff formula from Settari, 1980.Error: Reference source not found

Pseudo-radial is a late-time approximation of the transient elliptical

flow solution from Koning, 1988.Error: Reference source not found

Numerical is a numerical model solution for fully transient elliptical

flow around a propagating hydraulic fracture for arbitrary pump

rates, as developed by van den Hoek, 2000.Error: Reference source

not found (this figure is after van den Hoek, 2000Error: Reference

source not found).

being brought back on line) any pre-existing cake will impact new cake deposition.

31

Abou-Sayed, A.S.: personal communication, June 1999.

32

Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J. and Raghavan, R.: "Unsteady-State Pressure Distributions

Created by a Well with a Single Infinite Conductivity Fracture," SPEJ (August 1974) 347-360.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 15

analog for this for radial injection. Suppose that there is an initial skin, s 0. The

injectivity during startup or reinjection is:

q 2kh

I0

p wf p R ln re / rw s 0

(6)

I ln re / rw s 0

I0 ln re / rw s 0 s

where:

I0.......................................................................................initial injectivity,

I......................................................................................current injectivity,

q...........................................................................................injection rate,

pwf...................................................................................injection pressure,

pR.......................................................................average reservoir pressure,

k............................................................................................permeability,

h................................................................................................thickness,

re........................................................................................external radius,

rw........................................................................................wellbore radius,

s0.......................................................................................initial skin, and,

s.............................................................................................current skin.

As can be seen, the higher the initial skin, the less the impact of cake that is

deposited later. However, if there is initial skin, the injection skin, s, already has a

head start and will develop more quickly.

Stevens et al., 2000,33 used simulations to indicate the importance of how wells are

brought on line, for explicitly controlling the initiation of hydraulic fractures when

thermal effects have changed in-situ stresses. In long horizontal injectors, multiple

fractures may be created or fracturing may be concentrated only at the heel of the

well. These applications demand explicit coupling with wellbore simulators to

forecast bottomhole temperature and pressure at the sand face.

Produced water reinjection usually cannot be viewed strictly as a disposal operation.

It is often an economic component in providing pressure maintenance or drive, and

this is not just in high permeability situations. For example, Ovens et al, 1997, 34

discussed water injection in the Dan Field. The reservoir is located in Tertiary

33

Stevens, D.G., Murray, L.R. and Shah, P.C.: "Predicting Multiple Thermal Fractures in Horizontal

Injection Wells; Coupling of a Wellbore and a Reservoir Simulator," paper SPE 59354, presented at

the 2000 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symp., Tulsa, OK, April 3-5.

34

Ovens, J.E.V., Larsen, F.P. and Cowie, D.R.: "Making Sense of Water injection Fractures in the Dan

Field," paper SPE 38928, presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Tech. Conf. Exhib., San Antonio, TX,

October 5-8.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 16

high porosities (20-40%) but low matrix permeabilities (0.5 - 2 md). The highly

porous D1 zone overlies a tighter D2 followed by the higher porosity Maastrichtian

units M1 through M4. "In the case of low permeability reservoirs, it is possible to

create large fractures, the size and orientation of which can have a profound effect

on sweep patterns, producer placement and reservoir management." Error: Reference source

not found

Firm evidence from the later drilling of production wells indicated that fracturing

had taken place (during a water injection pilot program) in both the Maastrichtian

and Danian units, highlighting the need for fracturing models that can account for

vertical growth and varying material and fluid transport properties. An extensive

field monitoring program was carried out in addition to the development of new

fracture prediction models. "With water injection above fracturing pressure, the

problem is compounded by long term injection causing changes in reservoir

pressure and stress, which in turn couples back to the fracture growth criteria.

Some commercial PC scale packages for fracture growth include this effect, but

since their software architecture is primarily aimed at fracture stimulation, in the

case at hand the use of these packages becomes clumsy, since some of the

matching variables, such as swept zone width, would have to be computed

separately outside each history match run. For this reason, the field data were

matched using simple models of fracture growth, elaborated as required to compute

the matching variables, such as swept zone width, measured in the field." Error: Reference

source not found

MODELS

It is evident from the foregoing discussion that there are some unique challenges

for modeling hydraulic fracturing during water injection operations. Various models

and modeling philosophies are available or have been used. These will be described

subsequently, but first, it is necessary to summarize the basic physical mechanisms

that need to be considered. First, recall the differences that are important between

produced water reinjection under matrix conditions and under fracturing conditions.

Suppose that injection is into an intact wellbore. For the sake of argument,

consider that flow is radial (ignoring anisotropy). Field experience, laboratory

measurements and analytical and numerical modeling all indicate that there will be

the development of internal and external filter cakes. This will cause progressive

development of skin. This causes a progressive and often precipitous decline in the

injectivity (the injection rate divided by the difference between the injection

pressure and the average formation pressure). On the other hand, if there is a

fracture present, internal and external filter cakes will develop along the surfaces

and ahead of the fracture. This causes a progressive increase in the efficiency and

can ultimately facilitate discrete additional fracture propagation until a new

equilibrium situation is reached. In combination with damage to the fracture face

and in the formation, mass balance requires contaminant deposition in the fracture.

Depending on the particulars, it is suspected that this leads to plugging of the tip of

the fracture and/or reduction in conductivity of the fracture itself. It also needs to

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 17

be remembered that there is a larger surface area for development of the cake and

there are important velocity differences between the linear and radial cases.

The applicability of many of the matrix impairment events that have been described

in the literature is relatively secondary for fracturing. For produced water

reinjection under fracturing conditions, the most relevant stage of matrix type

impairment is where an external filter cake has already started to build up. The

real unknowns at this stage are the external filter cake's permeability and the

external filter cake's thickness. The permeability is needed to assess the amount of

fluid leaving the fracture and the thickness is required for mass balance

considerations in evaluating how much "fill" is in the fracture itself. As is known

from the hydraulic fracturing and drilling literature, it is presumed that the

characteristics of a filter cake developed under fracturing conditions are different

from those for a cake forming during matrix injection because of the linear flow

geometry and shear rate effects leading to an equilibrium cake. The message is

that filtration mechanics developed for radial flow models should be cautiously

applied for fracturing scenarios.

As a result, even the most rudimentary fracturing model must account for

movement of fluids and particulates into the adjoining formations, development of

filter cake, and tip plugging or fracture conductivity impairment. The models should

ultimately also account for erosional features associated with dynamic fluid loss

mechanisms. The large injection volumes and common temperature differences

absolutely require consideration of poro- and thermoelastic effects. The entire

perspective of the reservoir must be considered for sweep efficiency considerations

and for interaction with offset injectors and producers. The model must be able to

represent more than one-dimensional fluid flow in the reservoir and have the

capability to model discrete, albeit long-term injection events.

The models available for representing produced water fracturing range from

modified stimulation simulators, through analytical two-dimensional produced water

models, pseudo-three dimensional produced water models, and coupled or partially

coupled reservoir simulators.

With injection into higher permeability formations and increased considerations over

flowback design and in-situ measurements, the stimulation community has itself

made efforts to modify their simulators. In an upcoming paper, van den Hoek,

2000,Error: Reference source not found asserts that changes in representation of

fluid loss relationships are essential for modeling fracpacking and cuttings

reinjection. "In high-permeability reservoirs, leak-off rate may be high enough

compared to fracture propagation rate to the extent that using the 1D Carter model

... is not justified anymore. This is especially true for those cases where the

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 18

reservoir flow contribution to total leak-off is the controlling factor, as can be the

case for fracpacking operations."Error: Reference source not found

Settari, 1980,Error: Reference source not found had shown that the classical form

of fluid loss coefficient is strictly valid only when the permeability in the direction of

the fracture is zero or when the leakoff rate is small. Nghiem et al., 1982, 35

presented a fully implicit model, coupling reservoir flow, fluid loss and fracture

growth for multiphase situations. Settari, 1980, had previously developed a

sequentially coupled model. Fan and Economides, 1995, 36 described relationships

for pressure-dependent leakoff. Their method was based on flow of a non-

Newtonian fluid in a porous medium. Plahn, et al., 1995, 37 used a reservoir model

to evaluate fracture morphology during closure. The real value of that paper may

be the change in modeling philosophy where reservoir mechanics are merged with

fracture mechanics.

included non-Newtonian fluid flow in the invaded zone. A representation of Darcys

law, using power law methodology, was presented. There was Newtonian fluid flow

in the reservoir zone. Ahead of the filtrate, formation fluid is displaced farther into

the reservoir. This described flow of filtrate (fluid that has passed through the

cake). Finally, within the fracture itself, cake is developed. The pressure gradient

through the filter cake is proportional to the leakoff velocity raised to the nth power.

Concurrently, the filter cake grows due to deposition. If the concentration of the

materials causing cake development is Cs, a pressure drop relationship could be

expressed as:

p f p w c Vl v n'

n ' 1

2K C s 3n 1

n'

cn' c 2 (7)

c n

v 1 Cs n 1 c 8k c

where:

pw..................................................................pressure behind the filter cake,

c......................................................................................filter cake factor,

35

Nghiem, L.X., Forsyth, P.A. and Behie, A.: A Fully Implicit Hydraulic Fracture Model, paper

SPE 10506 presented at the 1982 SPE Symp. Reservoir Simulation, New Orleans, LA, January 30-

February 3.

36

Fan, Y. and Economides, M.J.: Fracture Dimensions in Frac&Pack Stimulation, paper SPE

30469 presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, October

22-25.

37

Plahn, S.V., Nolte, K.G. and Miska, S.: "A Quantitative Investigation of the Fracture Pump-

In/Flowback Test," paper SPE 30504, presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Tech. Conf. Exhib., Dallas,

TX, October 22-25.

38

Yi, T. and Peden, J.M.: "A Comprehensive Model of Fluid Loss in Hydraulic Fracturing," SPEP&F

(November 1994) 267-272.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 19

Vl........................................................................................leakoff volume,

nv ...................................................................................conversion factor,

Cs..................................................concentration of pseudo-solids in the cake,

c...................................................................................filter cake porosity,

kc......................................................................filter cake permeability, and,

c ..............................................corrected cake factor accounting for erosion.

1. Solve for the pressure profiles in the invaded and the reservoir zones.

Discretize with standard finite difference techniques.

2. Iteratively couple this with the filter cake model in accordance to specific far-

field pressure or flow boundaries.

3. Knowing the pressure profiles, calculate the leakoff velocity distribution.

Mayerhofer et al., 1993,39 also recognized the importance of more explicitly coupling

reservoir flow with fracture geometry, particularly for analyzing fracture calibration

(minifrac) tests. They stated that the concept of the leakoff coefficient does not

discriminate the controlling phenomena and the nature of their inherent deviations

from ideality. "Fluid loss occurs normal to the fracture face through the filter cake,

and into an invaded zone which does not extend more than a few centimeters into

the formation. Outside the filtrate invaded zone the pressure perturbation may

extend for a significant distance into the formation."Error: Reference source not

found These authors explicitly separated the pressure drop occurring in the

reservoir and in the filter cake. "Traditionally, specific leakoff coefficients have been

postulated for separate phenomena such as compressibility-controlled, viscosity-

controlled etc. ... Then the individual zones have been combined as conductances

in series. A simple (harmonic average) and some more complicated techniques

have been used to calculate the combined leakoff coefficient. Instead [they]

addresse[d] the individual pressure gradients in their correct relative contribution

and the components are added as resistances in series. This approach is straight-

forward, since the solutions are given by well-known filtration models, that have

been used frequently in well testing applications."

reservoir and filter cake behavior as flow in the formation from a transient infinite-

conductivity fracture with a rate and time-dependent skin effect. The assumptions

made included:

39

Mayerhofer, M.J., Ehlig-Economides, C.A. and Economides, M.J: Pressure Transient Analysis of

Fracture Calibration Tests, paper SPE 26527 presented at the 1993 SPE Annual Technical

Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, October 3-6.

40

Mayerhofer, M.J., and Economides, M.J.: "Fracture Injection Test Interpretation: Leakoff

Coefficient vs. Permeability Estimation," paper SPE 28562, presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Tech.

Conf. Exhib., New Orleans, LA, September 25-28.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 20

The filtrate-invaded zone was modeled as a steady-state, but varying fracture

face skin effect, added to the varying filter cake resistance.

The analysis did not account for pressure dependence of the fracture face skin,

relevant if there is significant pressure drop across the cake.

A material balance and PKN geometry considerations characterized, leakoff

during closure.

reservoir flow that is associated with high permeability fracturing (for

stimulation/completion).

approximated growth of a waterflooding induced fracture, resulting from filtered

seawater injection into an oil-bearing limestone reservoir. Since the injected fluid

was filtered seawater, fines were probably restricted. "The fluid loss rate was

assumed to be represented by classic leakoff theory by the combination of the fluid

loss coefficients Cc and Cv for the reservoir fluid and the injected fluid respectively."

Height growth was represented. An important observation was the rapid loss in

thermal barriers to vertical growth once those barriers were ultimately penetrated

by the fracture.

TerraFracTM, the code used by Morales et al. - particularly fluid loss and thermal

stress effects. Leakoff through the walls occurs at a rate determined by the

difference between the pressure in the fracturing fluid and the remote pore

pressure divided by the time elapsed since the local fracturing surface was first

exposed to the fracturing fluid. The fluid loss coefficient is normalized by the

difference between the minimum in-situ compressive stress and the in-situ pore

pressure. "The assumed proportionality of the fluid loss rate to the pressure

difference (p-pf) is consistent with the solution for one-dimensional flow into a

semi-infinite porous medium with far-field pore pressure p f and a constant pressure

p maintained at the injection plane.44,Error: Reference source not found

van den Hoek, 2000,Error: Reference source not found reviewed existing

stimulation models and how fluid loss was represented. He concluded that "none of

41

Valko, P. and Economides, M.J.: "Fluid Leak-off Delineation in High-Permeability Fracturing,"

paper SPE 37403, presented at the 1997 SPE Production Operations Symp., Oklahoma City, OK.

42

Morales, R.H., Abou-Sayed, A.S., Jones, A.H. and Al-Saffar, A.: "Detection of a Formation

Fracture in a Waterflooding Experiment," JPT (October 1986) 1113-1121.

43

Clifton, R.J. and Wang, J-J.: "Multiple Fluids, Proppant Transport, and Thermal Effects in Three-

Dimensional Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing," paper SPE 18198, presented at the 1988 SPE

Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, October 2-5.

44

Kurashige, M.: "Transient Response of a Fluid-Saturated Poro-Elastic Layer Subjected to a

Sudden Fluid Pressure Rise," J. Applied Mech., 49 (September 1982) 492-496.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 21

the efforts addressing non-linear fluid flow around a hydraulic fracture have

resulted in a model that can be used for a fracture propagating at arbitrary but not

necessarily constant, velocity, i.e., that can be used to describe the growth of a

fracture that propagates through a multi-layer reservoir, with stress contrasts

(leading to (temporary) retardation/ acceleration of frac growth) and rock

mechanical property contrasts, and that can also be used to describe the fracture

closure after shut-in."Error: Reference source not found A numerical solution will be

presented in that paper for the fully transient elliptical fluid flow equation around a

propagating hydraulic fracture for arbitrary pump rates(s). In addition, a simple

analytical formula for leak-off rate is presented that is shown to yield an excellent

approximation of the numerical results, both during fracture growth and after shut-

in.

Conventional hydraulic simulators are evolving to represent high permeability

environments which are characteristic of many produced water reinjection zones.

These stimulation codes do not necessarily explicitly represent the influence of fines

and associated plugging, and rarely represent the poro- and thermoelastic effects

adequately. The waterflooding and produced water communities have modified

available codes or have developed new models to represent these effects. As with

stimulation hydraulic fracturing, the first models developed were two-dimensional,

either constant height or radial. Some of these models are briefly described below.

Perkins and Gonzalez, 1985,Error: Reference source not found developed a model

for calculating the thermo- and poroelastic stresses that are induced within

elliptically shaped regions of finite thickness around a fracture. Presuming constant

viscosity injection into a line crack (two-wing, constant height, vertical fracture),

the flood front propagates elliptically. A region of thermal alteration, with a

reasonably sharp front chases the flood front (also elliptical). They cited the

thermoelastic changes in an infinitely long elliptical cross section and

approximations were derived for finite thickness situations. These authors used

Lubinski's developments to include poroelastic effects. Following the conventional

Perkins and Kern methodology, the fracture is assumed to start and initially grow

radially, after which continued growth is lateral and confined. The stresses affecting

growth are impacted by thermoelastic and poroelastic stress changes. One

particularly interesting concept is the potential for development of secondary

fractures.

injection pressure and dimensions of the waterflood front for a user-specified

injection volume, Vinj. The waterflooded formation layer (with thickness, h) is

bounded by impermeable zones above and below. The fracture, with a half-length,

xf, is at the centre of a set of concentric ellipses representing a zone where the

reservoir temperature has changed, a flooded zone, and an unflooded virgin zone

45

Koning, E.J.L.: "Waterflooding Under Fracturing Conditions," Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University

of Delft (1988).

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 22

(oil zone). Each region is characterized with its own mobility. Adopting a Geertsma

and deKlerk methodology, the length is determined from:

K IC (8)

T (Q, x f , h)

x f

where:

pfrac.....................................................fluid pressure in the fracture (uniform,

(since the fracture has infinite conductivity),

q...........................................................................................injection rate,

Q = qt................................................................................injected volume,

t........................................................................................................time,

xf..................................................................................fracture half-length,

h................................................................total height of layer and fracture,

initial.....................................................total minimum in-situ principal stress

.......................................................................................(before injection),

P...............................................poroelastic back stress on the fracture face,

T....................................thermoelastic back stress on the fracture face, and,

KIC.......................................................................Mode I fracture toughness.

infinite conductivity fracture, accounting for the individual zones with different

mobilities. Using this late-time transient approximation implies that fracture

propagation is very slow in comparison to the diffusion of the fluid. In situations

where this is not the case (i.e., low permeability injection or stimulation) this

approach is unacceptable. From this pressure profile, Koning derived an analytical

expression for poroelastic effects and adopted the Perkins and Gonzalez

relationships for thermal effects.

Ovens and Niko, 1996,46 formulated a radial version of Koning's model. They

combined the Barenblatt fracture growth criterion with changes in back stress to

derive a formulation relating changes in length to changes in fracture pressure.

Presuming that superposition is appropriate, the state of stress near the fracture tip

was determined from the summation of two stress fields. The first one relates to

the deformed surface resulting from the pressure applied to the fracture. The

second stress state was for a continuous body subjected to body forces, in this case

the loads arising from the pore pressure or temperature fields acting within the

rock. An oblate spheroidal coordinate system has been used in formulating the

equations leading to the stress changes.

46

Ovens, J. and Niko, H.: "A Screening Tool for Predicting Lateral and Vertical Extent of

Waterflood Fractures, paper SPE 36892, presented at the 1996 SPE European Petroleum

Conference, Milan, Italy, October 22-24.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 23

For internal pressure in the radial fracture, Ovens and NikoError: Reference source

not found cited an unreferenced development by Abou-Sayed giving:

KI 2

R

(1 Ap )pi ( App ) (9)

where:

R.........................................................................................fracture radius,

Ap..............................................................................poroelastic parameter,

pi....................................................................................pressure in zone i,

p .............................................................far-field formation pressure, and,

......................................................................................far-field stress.

This was used in conjunction with thermo- and poroelastic stresses and volumes for

a damaged zone, a cooled zone and an invaded zone. These expressions were used

to evaluate an analytical version of Sneddon's relationship for a penny-shaped

crack.

R

p f (r, t ) n (r, t )

rw R r

2 2

rdr

2

RK IC (10)

where:

pf(r,t)................................................................................fracture pressure,

r..........................................................................................radial position,

t........................................................................................................time,

n..................................................................................normal stress, and,

KIC.......................................................................Mode I fracture toughness.

Damage was accounted for. Ovens and Niko indicated that a rigorous way to

include the effect of fracture face skin or reduced conductivity was to change the

pressure boundary condition that governs calculation of the state of stress

associated with internal loading. Reduced fracture conductivity would alter the

pressure and flux distribution over the fracture face and thus alter the poroelastic

back stress. More details on this can be found in van den Hoek, 1996. Error: Reference source

not found

"Internal damage in the formation must be governed by the way in which the oil

and solids are deposited within the formation. It is most likely that the deposition

extends some distance away from the fracture face, since near the fracture the flow

velocity may be sufficiently high to cause stripping of any deposited oil/solids. Thus

dynamic filtration theory may be required to model this effect." Error: Reference source not found

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 24

"At the present time, the new radial model only accounts for the effects of internal

damage, i.e. damage extending into the formation. This damage is crudely

represented by two parameters, the damage factor K DAM and the damage volume

FDAM. The damage factor KDAM simply scales the water relative permeability to

produce an ellipsoidal zone of reduced permeability around the fracture. The

volume of this zone is governed by F DAM, which simply scales the damage volume

relative to the total injected volume."Error: Reference source not found

Detienne et al., 1995,47 presented a convenient, basic model that has worked

effectively in history matching wellhead pressure and injection rates for long-term

(3 to 5 years) injection. "The algorithm is sufficiently simple to be implemented in

a conventional reservoir simulator."Error: Reference source not found They

particularly emphasized the concepts of thermally-induced fracturing (TIF). 48,49,50

"The reservoir stress near the well is reduced when the reservoir is cooled, and

fracturing will occur if the reservoir stress falls below bottom hole flowing pressure.

It is this same mechanism which can sometimes be heard as you drop an ice cube

into a cocktail at room temperature."Error: Reference source not found TIF

improves fracturing. The dimension of the cooled zone that develops around the

well impacts the lengths of the fractures. The methodology adopted is as follows

calculated. The well is divided into segments and the transient heat exchange

solution of Poettmann et al,51 is used.

bottomhole pressures are calculated and tested against the pressures required

to cause hydraulic fracturing. Three radial zones are assumed - a near-wellbore

cooled and flooded zone, a flooded and warmed up zone, and virgin reservoir.

In each zone, pressure drop is determined. Skin is incorporated in the

cooled/flooded zone. Fluid properties and permeabilities are specified for each

zone. The cooled radius is calculated, the flooded radius is determined from

mass balance considerations and the pressure drop is found by adding the

pressure drops in the three discrete zones. Thermoelastic effects are

incorporated by using the results from Perkins and Gonzalez, 1985.Error:

Reference source not found Elliptical cooled zones are indicated not to occur

47

Detienne, J-L., Creusot, M., Kessler, N., Sahuquet, B. and Bergerot, J-L.: "Thermally Induced

Fractures: A Field Proven Analytical Model," paper SPE 30777, presented at the 1995 SPE Annual

Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, October 22-25.

48

Svendsen, A.P., Wright, M.S., Clifford, P.J. and Berry, P.J.: "Thermally Induced Fracturing of Ula

Water Injectors," Europec 90, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 22-24, 1990.

49

Morales, R.H., Abou-Sayed, A.S. and Jones, A.H.: "Detection of Formation Fracture in a

Waterflood Experiment," paper SPE 13747, presented at the SPE Middle East Technical Conference

and Exhibition, Bahrain, March 11-14, 1985.

50

Simpson, A.J. and Paige, R.W.: "Advances in Forties Field Water Injection," SPE 23140

(19191).

51

Poettmann, F.H. et al., "Secondary and Tertiary Oil Recovery Processes," Interstate Oil

Compact Commission, Oklahoma City, OK.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 25

until the fracture grows beyond the radial-flow cooled zone. Poroelasticity was

represented with a global effect to accommodate the evolution of the average

reservoir pressure and a local effect due to pressure change in the immediate

vicinity of the well.

fracture, an iterative procedure is used to find xf. An equivalent radius is used

to represent the fracture in calculating skin. The skin incorporates a fracture

conductivity component which accounts for the width and permeability of the

fracture, the geometric skin due to the existence of the fracture itself (s geometry),

skin that can be associated with external filter cake (scake), and skin associated

with damage to the fracture face.

sfracture = G + sgeometry + scake + sdamage

w cake k

s geometry ln(1 x f / rw ), s cake

2x f k cake

(11)

k w damage

s damage 1

k damage 2x f k damage

where:

scake.......................................................................skin due to external cake,

sdamage.........................................................skin due to fracture face damage,

sfracture...............................................................................total fracture skin,

G.....................skin due to fracture relative conductivity, (G0.69, for FCD>30),

xf..................................................................................fracture half-length,

rw........................................................................................wellbore radius,

wcake.........................................................................external cake thickness,

k..............................................................................formation permeability,

kcake.....................................................................external cake permeability,

wdamage.................................depth of fracture face damage (internal cake), and

kdamage.....................permeability of fracture face damaged zone (internal cake).

accounting for the head and the friction.

van den Hoek et al., 1996,Error: Reference source not found described a numerical

model that couples the reservoir engineering and fracture mechanics aspects of

produced water reinjection, PWRI. It incorporates finite, non-uniform fracture

conductivity, fracture growth, and evolving accumulation of filter cake. The

consequences of internal filter cake are addressed, as are stress changes associated

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 26

with poro- and themo-elastic effects. The numerical and analytical models are

appropriate for constant-height fractures which fully penetrate a permeable layer

bounded by impermeable layers, although a 'square fracture' option allows a first-

order estimate of radial fracture dimensions. The model is an extension of Koning's

model for waterflood-induced fracturing. The fracture is surrounded by four

elliptical pressure/temperature regimes. These are:

a cooled zone (presuming the injection fluid is cooler),

a flooded zone where the injected fluid has warmed up, and,

a virgin hydrocarbon-bearing zone.

Each zone is characterized by its own temperature, viscosities and relative

permeabilities. The extent of each zone is determined from the injected volume,

the heat capacities, etc. There is an external filter cake composed of oil and solids.

The internal and external filter cakes and the finite conductivity fracture were

elements not included in Koning's model. For clean water injection, the propagation

criterion was represented as:

K (12)

g( xf , h) IC

xf

where:

and the reservoir pressure at the start of the injection,

q...........................................................................total water injection rate,

t........................................................................................................time,

xf..................................................................................fracture half-length,

h.....................................................................reservoir and fracture height,

KIC.......................................................................Mode I fracture toughness,

initial................................initial total minimum in-situ stress (before injection),

PT.........sum of the poro- and thermoelastic stresses on the fracture face, and,

g(xf,h)....................................................................fracture geometry factor

(PKN vs. KGD)52 [for a KGD fracture, g(xf,h)=1].

52

van den Hoek, P.J.: "A New Model for Optimizing Design of Hydraulic Fractures and Simulation

of Drill Cuttings Re-Injection," SPE 26679, European Offshore Conference, Aberdeen, UK (1993).

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 27

The pore pressure profile around the fracture followed Muskat's 53 original

derivations, the poroelastic stresses followed Koning'sError: Reference source not

found developments and the thermoelastic stress field was determined after Perkins

and Gonzalez.Error: Reference source not found The damaging mechanisms were

represented by:

"permeability impairment factor." Damage can be modification of the relative

permeability in addition to solids-based damage. The outer extent of this

impaired zone (internal filter cake) is calculated from the volume of injected oil

and solids that deeply penetrates into the formation.

An external filter cake with uniform permeability that accumulates on the face of

the fracture. The external filter cake (forming on the face of the fracture) is

assumed to have a uniform permeability. The thickness is assumed to be

elliptically variable. This will provide a uniform pressure drop through the

external filter cake along the length of the fracture if the fracture has infinite

conductivity. Mass balance is used to determine the thickness of the external

filter cake [d(x), d(0) = d0].

d( x) d0 1 (x / xf ) 2 (13)

where:

d(x).................................................................external filter cake thickness,

d0......................................external filter cake thickness at the fracture mouth,

x..................................................................position along the fracture, and,

xf..................................................................................fracture half-length.

filter cake development away from the fracture face will cease. Mass balance

would then suggest that accumulation of solids could lead to plugging of the

fracture itself and invalidation of continuing assumptions of infinite fracture

conductivity, with accompanying pressure drops. The elliptical symmetry is no

longer valid and pressure drop is determined semi-analytically using

appropriately truncated Fourier series. Both poroelastic effects and fracture

pressure depend on the position along the fracture half-length. "One problem

that arises in modeling finite conductivity PWRI fractures is that both the

average fracture permeability and the permeability profile in the fracture are

unknown."Error: Reference source not found If solids accumulate within the

fracture after the initiation of an external cake (presuming dynamic stability with

erosion), solids fill the fracture and flow can be concentrated into discrete

channels, possibly visualized as "wormholes" within a filter cake that entirely fills

53

Muskat, M.: "The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through Porous Media," McGraw-Hill (1946).

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 28

the fracture. Continued injection can plug wormholes, and cause supplementary

increases in local fracture width because of the consequent reduction in fracture

conductivity. These authors were among the first to publicly consider two

limiting cases caused by differing distributions of plugging material. These are:

estimate of injection pressure.

2. Assuming an infinite conductivity fracture with a low permeability plug behind

the tip will result in a lower-bound estimate of fracture pressure. Analytical

models have been developed for this situation.

It is anticipated that the tip of the fracture will plug first and that fracture

permeability will decrease towards the tip. There are two extremes that one can

imagine for modeling - a uniform, but finite fracture conductivity and a tip-plugged

region with infinite conductivity behind it. In the first case, iterations can be carried

out on the fracture width until mass balance will allow all injected solids to be

accommodated. In the latter case, it is presumed that the fracture behind the tip

plug is dominantly filled but does contain adequate, discrete channels to minimize

pressure drop and validate infinite conductivity assumptions, except at the tip. For

the same wellhead injection pressure, case (i) [finite conductivity] will result in

fractures with a smaller volume than for case (ii) [tip plugging]. On the basis of

equal injected solid volumes, a lower injection pressure will characterize case (ii).

"... the assumption of a uniform fracture permeability profile will lead to an upper-

bound estimate of injection pressure, whereas the assumption of an impermeable

plug will lead to a lower bound estimate of injection pressure."

various simulations were:

Determinations of filter cake permeability are problematic.

Most simulation runs showed a gradual reduction in injectivity due to fracture

plugging.

Injectivity decreases for higher TSS, filter cake permeability, modulus, and

injection water temperature,

Fracture size increases for higher TSS, lower filter cake permeability and lower

injection water temperature,

Young's modulus had little effect on dimensions but affected pressure

substantially,

Initial injectivity is not strongly dependent on solids loading because initial

growth of the fracture is relatively rapid. Initial injectivity depends on the filter

cake permeability and the injection water temperature.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 29

After prolonged injection, the pressures can be considerably lower than those

forecasted for a uniform, finite conductivity fracture.

Injectivity hardly decreases with time. "This seems to be more in line with BP's

PWRI experience, who have been injecting for over 10 years in their Prudhoe

Bay field without observing any appreciable decline in injectivity." Error: Reference source

not found

These authors suggested that field information might preferentially support the tip-

plugging scenario, with infinite conductivity behind the tip plug. Modeling

demonstrated that for a very large range of plug permeabilities, the computed

wellhead pressure was fairly insensitive to the plug permeability and length (except

for very high plug permeabilities). The actual mechanics of the plug are uncertain

but one can speculate that the plug will be filled and compressed progressively up

to a point where the wellhead pressure no longer decreases. "The above discussion

suggests that the picture of a low-permeability tip plug is more realistic than the

picture of a uniform fracture permeability distribution."Error: Reference source not found

conductivity assumptions over the unplugged length. In the plugged portion, the

pressure profile and poroelastic stress regime are not uniform. Formulations are

provided.

p f (q, t, x f , h) initial PT ( q, t, x f , h)

1 q x 2 x

(1 A p ) 1 ln f p filtercake 1 sin 1 f

2 2k 1h x f xf (14)

K

g( x f , h) IC

x f

where:

pf....................................................difference between the fracture pressure

and the reservoir pressure at the start of injection,

q...........................................................................total water injection rate,

t........................................................................................................time,

xf..................................................................................fracture half-length,

h......................................................................reservoir and fracture height,

initial................................initial total minimum in-situ stress (before injection),

PT................sum of the poro- and thermoelastic stresses on the fracture face,

Ap................................................................................poroelastic constant,

i........................................................................effective viscosity in zone i,

ki...................................................................effective permeability in zone i

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 30

pfiltercake.....................................pressure drop through the external filter cake,

KIC................................................................Mode I fracture toughness, and,

g(xf, h)...................................................................fracture geometry factor.

source not found was that the computed fracture length is quite insensitive to the

degree of internal fracture plugging. This is demonstrated in Appendix B of van den

Hoek et al., 1996,Error: Reference source not found (Equations B7 and B13).

WID simulator that incorporates many of the plugging concepts described earlier.

Current versions of the code are proprietary. Nevertheless, the philosophical

methodology is as follows.

1.

Determine the concentration of deposited particles as a function of distance and

time. This requires us to know the initial filtration coefficient as well as the

variation of the filtration coefficient with time. (find the specific deposit

"Even more difficult to predict is the evolution of [the filtration

coefficient]as deposition proceeds." However, the formulas [discussing transition

time] rely on parameters that are difficult to determine theoretically, but they

can be determined by careful experiments."Error: Reference source not found

2.

"The next step in damage modeling is to predict how the permeability changes

as a function of specific deposit (). In general, it is difficult to relate the

permeability reduction directly to the specific deposit, since the deposit

morphology will have considerable impact on the permeability reduction."Error:

Reference source not found The deposited particle concentration must be

converted to a permeability distribution ... from which the corresponding skin

factor can be deduced (the version described by WennbergError: Reference

source not found used the Kozeny-Carman model). Sum the resistances in the

discretization and update suspension concentration using mass balance.

3.

Knowing the skin, determine the change in injectivity.

"The reliability of WID (and any other simulation effort) is dependent on a correct

understanding and prediction of the deposition rate. Due to the complexity of the

process, involving particle type (size, shape and mineralogy), pore space

morphology, pore mineralogy, liquid type, etc., it is virtually impossible to develop a

correlation that will give a correct prediction of for all cases."Error: Reference source not found

As in conventional hydraulic fracturing, the next step in development of simulators

has been to extend geometry with pseudo-three-dimensional considerations.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 31

Reference source not found to multi-layered reservoirs, where pseudo-three-

dimensional fracture growth was represented. Previously, KoningError: Reference

source not found and Ovens and Niko, 1996,Error: Reference source not found had

developed solutions for a contained, and a radial fracture in a vertically unbounded

reservoir, respectively. Gheissary et al. presented a method that approximates the

gradual transition from three-dimensional to two-dimensional elliptical symmetry, if

there is no crossflow - "... a new 3-dimensional fracture growth model which

permits the description of fully contained elliptical fractures within the injection

layer; with the fracture length, the height upwards and the height downwards all

potentially growing at different rates."Error: Reference source not found "We have

developed an analytical model because it needs to be coupled with a fracture

simulator. A numerical model would be very time consuming as the reservoir

pressure field needs to be evaluated at a large number of succeeding time

steps."Error: Reference source not found

pressure field were decoupled, and the pressure field was modeled with a constant

fracture length. Fracture friction was neglected (rates are low and the injected fluid

is water). It was assumed that there is no vertical crossflow away from the

wellbore. Close to the fracture, the pressure field was approximately that for a

fracture in an unbounded reservoir, whereas farther away it is two-dimensional

(asymptotically). Assuming pseudo-steady state and constant fracture pressure,

analytical solutions are possible and there is a gradual transition from the three- to

the two-dimensional solutions. The transition is represented by a discontinuity in

the space for a fracture that is vertically centered in the layer. "The 3D-solution is

taken inside the ellipsoid that touches the layer boundaries. The remainder of the

reservoir is approximated by a 2D ellipsoidal volume and the associated 2D

solution. A volume equal to the volume of the 3D ellipsoid is excluded, and the 2D

solution beyond the 3D-2D transition is determined by an equivalent rectangular

fracture over the full layer height. The boundaries of the 3D ellipsoid and the 2D

excluded ellipsoid do not coincide; a pressure solution is only formulated inside the

3D ellipsoid and outside the excluded 2D elliptical cylinder. This allows pseudo-

three-dimensional fracture propagation."Error: Reference source not found

"In the previous 2D model,Error: Reference source not found the filter cake was

assumed to be uniformly distributed over the fracture wall, with a possible tip plug

at the end of the fracture where no water could penetrate. However, this resulted

in often very high simulated bottomhole pressures as the friction in the very narrow

"sheet" of fluid would become excessive. This observation pointed us to introduce

"channeling" as a mechanism to release the pressure."Error: Reference source not

found Channeling apparently reduces friction, reduces the area available for fluid

loss, filter cake thickness is reduced, and an increased pressure may be required to

54

Gheissary, G., Fokker, P.A., Egberts, P.J.P., Floris, F.J.T., Sommerauer, G. and Kenter, C.J.:

"Simulation of Fractures Induced by Produced Water Re-Injection in a Multi-Layer Reservoir," paper

SPE 54375, presented at the 1998 SPE/ISRM Eurock '98, Trondheim, Norway, July 8-10.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 32

obtain the same opening as with sheet flow. With more channeling, the pressure

reduces and the fracture length increases. Gheissary et al. found that:

Simulations are very sensitive to variations in oil viscosity with depth and

temperature.

Simulations are very sensitive to the variations in water relative permeability

with depth.

The simulator is unable to duplicate published field observations where there

have been very rapid changes in the injection behavior when the TSS is

changed.

Figure 5 is an example simulation using this model for water disposal in Oman.

Shale

Initially

Planned

Injection

Width (mm)

14.94 - 29.87

29.87 - 44.81

44.81 - 59.74

59.74 - 74.68

Depth (m)

Disposal Zone

74.68 - 89.61

89.61 - 104.5

104.5 - 119.5

119.5 - 134.4

modeling produced water disposal in Oman (after van den Hoek et al.,

2000).Error: Reference source not found

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 33

As is evident, it is desirable to incorporate the fracture modeling with detailed

reservoir simulation. This has been done at varying levels of sophistication. Ali et

al, 1991,55 described injection above parting pressure in the soft chalk of the Valhall

field. Four different simulation models were used for evaluation purposes. The first

model was used to investigate the effect of injection water temperature on sweep

and injectivity and to predict performance for three different reservoir descriptions.

This three-dimensional, three-phase, dual porosity model (with thermal capabilities)

used an effective wellbore radius approach to model the induced fracture. A second

model was used to evaluate the impact of long fracture lengths and different

fracture orientations on breakthrough performance. "This was a very rigorous

simulation of the actual fracture, assuming a single porosity reservoir system. An

in-house implicit formulation of the black oil model was used."Error: Reference

source not found A third model was used to address the uncertainties of fracturing.

It was a single layer gridded system with three producers and one injector (dual

porosity). Fractures of different lengths (all infinite conductivity) were

incorporated. A fourth model was run to evaluate thermo-poroelastic effects.

"An in-house analytical fracture simulator was used to predict the thermo-poro-

elastic effectThis model assumed uniform thickness and an infinite reservoir with a

propagating Perkins-Kern type fracture. It accounted for the effects of relative

permeability and different viscosities for oil and water at reservoir temperature and

injection temperature. The impact of fracture face plugging by solids and fracture

extension as a result of injection of "dirty" water is also evaluated. The model

assumes that the injected water displaces the oil in piston-like manner creating a

flooded domain which is an elliptic cylinder confocal to the fracture length." Error:

Reference source not found

Settari and Warren, 1994,Error: Reference source not found stated that "A typical

waterflood pilot injection well may experience low rate water injection, below

fracturing pressure, step rate tests (SRTs), several high rate tests followed by

falloffs and an extended high rate injection until breakthrough is achieved. Ideally,

the model should match the entire sequence of events in order to have confidence

in the predicted fracture geometry."

They recommended:

characteristics and to indicate "ambient" conditions.

Analysis of SRTs or high rate injection tests to give permeability and

opening/closure pressures. Matching falloffs can give information on fracture

volume, and leakoff.

55

Ali, N., Singh, P.K., Peng, C.P., Shiralkar, G.S., Moschovidis, Z. and Baack, W.L.: "Injection

Above-Parting-Pressure Waterflood Pilot, Valhall Field, Norway," paper SPE 22893, presented at the

1991 SPE Annual Tech. Conf. Exhib., Dallas, TX, October 6-9.

Step-rate tests.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 34

as can repeated SRTs.

These authors described the use of a partially coupled model and its application to

both static (propped or acidized) or dynamic (waterflood) fractures. A crucial

component is the representation of leakoff. Two methods were proposed:

displacement and describes the invaded (waterflooded) region by average

mobility, saturation, compressibility and temperature. The leakoff model can

approximate the influence of other wells or boundaries and correct the leakoff

for 2-dimensional flow.

In the numerical leak-off model, one-dimensional finite difference solutions are

used for two-phase flow, heat transfer and stresses (approximately).

With either model, each fracturing event is modeled independently and is then

"interfaced" to a reservoir model at the appropriate time."

There are two evaluation components; waterflood fracturing simulation and

reservoir simulation. For the fracture representation, a one-dimensional leakoff

assumption underestimates leakoff. In 1980, Settari, 56 described a correction

factor for the one-dimensional leakoff velocity as a function of a dimensionless

injection rate (QD = Qiw/(hC2).

u

u 2D (15)

R 2D ( Q D )

where:

R2D.............................................................growth reduction factor based on

numerical solutions for a limited range of QD,

u...................................................................................................velocity,

h...........................................................................formation thickness, and,

C...........................................................................overall leakoff coefficient.

between half-length and rate, from which Settari and Warren derived relationships

for the growth reduction factor, in single or multi-layered reservoir situations. For a

single layer, two classical limiting cases were presented. For a large dimensionless

injection rate (high rate and/or small height and/or small fluid loss):

56

Settari, A.: "Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Processes," SPEJ (December 1980) 487-500.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 35

t 2qi

xf and R 2D 1 (16)

kc T hp

For a small dimensionless injection rate (low rate and/or large height and/or large

fluid loss):

q qi

c T 2 khi p 6 khp 2khp

xf 3 e and R 2D e (17)

kt qi

where:

xf..................................................................................fracture half-length,

..................................................................................................viscosity,

t........................................................................................................time,

...................................................................................................porosity,

k............................................................................................permeability,

cT.................................................................................total compressibility,

qi...........................................................................................injection rate,

h.........................................................................................thickness, and,

p.................................................................................pressure difference.

There is a significant increase in fluid loss for a small dimensionless injection rate.

A standard reference for this subject is the publication by Clifford et al., 1990. 57

"The injection of cool surface water into higher temperature reservoirs frequently

leads to thermal fracturing of the injection well. The fracture becomes a major

influence on injectivity and, in some cases, on sweep efficiency. Fracture growth is

dominated by stress changes due to cooling, and differs in a number of ways from

the conventional hydraulic fracturing process."Error: Reference source not found

These authors presented results of thermal fracturing in three-dimensional reservoir

structures with spatially-variable permeability. A finite difference reservoir

simulator was coupled with a three-dimensional boundary integral fracture

mechanics calculation. It was shown that:

Thermal fractures could often occur in high permeability layers that cool more

rapidly.

Vertical fracture growth was found to depend on rates, pressures, temperatures,

the perforation interval and on the horizontal and vertical permeability

distribution.

57

Clifford, P.J., Berry, P.J. and Hongren, G.: "Modelling the Vertical Confinement of Injection Well

Thermal Fractures," paper SPE 20741, presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Tech. Conf. Exhib., New

Orleans, LA, September 23-26.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 36

and heat flow in the fractured reservoir with thermo- and poro-elastic stress and

fracture mechanics. If the fracture can be approximated as 2-dimensional,

extending over the full vertical interval of the pay zone for its full length, then

simple plane strain formulae may be used to describe the fracture mechanics for a

linear elastic medium. Perkins and Gonzalez constructed a simplified analytic model

of 2-dimensional thermally induced fracturing based on the assumption of elliptical

flow fields around the fracture. Models which couple two-dimensional fracture

models into a reservoir grid have been developed both for hydraulic fracturesError:

Reference source not found and for waterflood-induced fracturing. 58 The Dikken

and Niko model calculates the thermo- and poro-elastic stresses from the Goodier

displacement potential, using methods developed by Koning."59

formation properties and layering need to be represented. The elastic modulus is

the most important factor in determining thermal stress effects, in conjunction with

permeability. The simulator uses a three-dimensional simulator developed by Gu

and Yew, 1988,60 in combination with the fluid and heat flow calculation from a

three-dimensional reservoir simulator.61 The stresses are calculated following

Koning's methodology. "For a consolidated rock without a network of natural joints,

it is a reasonable approximation to separate the fluid and rock mechanics elements

of the problem, at each time step. The assumption is that rock porosity and

permeability are nearly independent of fluid pressure and rock stress." Error: Reference source

not found

standard in many hydraulic fracture simulations, to be valid at any stage in thermal

fracture studies. It is likely that flow over a wide region of the reservoir, including

neighboring wells, will influence and be influenced by fracture growth. A reservoir

simulator is therefore an essential component of the model." Error: Reference source not found

"At each time step, a pressure calculation must be performed which incorporates

flow both in the reservoir and the fracture. ... Options exist for treating the fracture

either as having infinite conductivity or having a finite conductivity, determined by

the local fracture width."Error: Reference source not found

58

Dikken, B.J. and Niko, H.: "Waterflood-Induced Fractures: A Simulation Study of Their

Propagation and Effects on Waterflood Sweep Efficiency," paper SPE 16551, presented at the

Offshore Europe 87, Aberdeen, September 8-11, 1987.

59

Koning, E.J.L.: "Fracturing Water Injection Wells - Analytical Modelling of Fracture

Propagation," SPE 14686 (1985).

60

Gu, H. and Yew, C.H.: "Finite Element Solution of a Boundary Integral Equation for Mode I

Embedded Three-Dimensional Fractures, Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng., 26 (1988) 1525-1540.

61

Barker, J.W. and Fayers, F.J.: "Factors Influencing Successful Numerical Simulation of

Surfactant Displacement in North Sea Fields," In Situ, 12 No. 4 (December 1988).

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 37

equilibrium states ... in which the stress intensity factor K I at every point on the

fracture boundary is equal to a critical value KIC..."Error: Reference source not found

Clifford et al., showed two simulation examples that are informative. The first was

for a layered reservoir with moderate vertical permeability. These are

communicating sandstone layers of different permeability (refer to Table 2). There

is high permeability in the upper part. "Early breakthrough has occurred in

production wells in the Brent formation, and has been attributed to channeling of

water through the high permeability streaks in the Etive, leaving the Rannoch sands

poorly swept. In order to reduce the vertical sweep problem both injection and

production wells have sometimes been perforated only in the Rannoch sands." Error:

Reference source not found

There is substantial vertical flow into the Etive even before fracturing occurs. The

fracture grows into the Etive within 20 days. Once the fracture has penetrated the

Etive that zone takes most of the water and the perforation placement has not done

any good. Case 2 has perforations extending into the Etive. The fracture is

assumed to initiate in Layers 3 and 4. There is no growth beyond the Etive. This is

advantageous because of the high stresses in the upper Rannoch. There is more

cooling in the Etive.

(feet) Permeability Permeability

(md) (md)

1 Ness 57.7 1497 899

2 Ness 60.2 652 391

3 Etive 68.5 1397 1076

4 Etive 47.0 1807 1391

5 Rannoch 90.8 346 246

6 Rannoch 60.2 208 131

7 Rannoch 46.7 33 16

The second example was an artificial case; a layered reservoir with low vertical

permeability (refer to Table 3).

It is undesirable to inject directly into the high permeability zone, since there would

be poor waterflood performance. The desired rates cannot be achieved by only

injecting into the lower permeability zones. "A realistic strategy for vertical fracture

confinement must therefore include a non-perforated low permeability buffer zone

between the perforated interval and the high permeability layers." Error: Reference source not

found

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 38

"It is therefore necessary to start injecting at relatively low rates, with a bottomhole

pressure just greater than the cooled region stress. The rate is then allowed to

build up gradually at roughly constant pressure, as the extent of cooling in layer 2

increases, and the fracture advances into it. The fracture must follow rather than

lead the cool front."Error: Reference source not found

(feet) Permeability Permeability

(md) (md)

1 36.7 2.7 .0027

2 23.3 98.7 .0987

3 22.6 106.2 0.1062

4 15.4 39.0 .0780

5 20.7 850.2 2.5506

6 54.1 452.9 4.529

7 56.8 3.5 0.0105

More recently, the BPOPE code has been developed, amongst other things, to

allow multiple thermal fracture generation and propagation in horizontal or multi-

lateral wells to be modeled. Following on from these developments our attention

has now turned to the way we handle bottomhole temperature in the BPOPE

simulator, given the importance of temperature on the correct prediction of thermal

fractures. Typically bottomhole temperature is treated as a single, time

independent parameter by many reservoir simulators.Error: Reference source not

found Wellbore and reservoir simulators have been coupled together. The wellbore

simulator was expanded to allow multiple entry points.

THE CHALLENGES

An evaluation of produced water models and generic model categories shows that

each has advantages and limitations. Advantages of some relate to their simplicity,

recognizing that it is particularly difficult to resolve all appropriate input

parameters. Others more reliably incorporate the physical mechanisms of fluid loss

and plugging while still others are capable of accounting for interactions with offset

producers and injectors. There is no ideal model at the present time - just as the

diversity of presentations at this workshop demonstrates that there is no ideal

model for stimulation hydraulic fracturing. One of the upcoming challenges includes

representing and comprehending the physics of particulate transport and plugging

more effectively - Where do the solids go? Other challenges relate to the

development of additional concepts for pseudo-three-dimensional modeling that

approximates height growth without the burden of full-scale reservoir simulation.

Another challenge lies with extending fluid flow from two to three dimensions in the

reservoir, within the realms of convenient computing. This may in fact be the

greatest challenge since vertical crossflow away from the wellbore is an enormous

economic consideration for recognizing and controlling sweep efficiency.

That has evolved from the code presented by Clifford, et al., 1990. Error: Reference source not found

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 39

In the long run, effective modeling of fracturing associated with water injection may

have more of an economic impact on the petroleum industry than fine tuning

models for stimulation prediction.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 40

REFERENCES

A. Paige, R. and Ferguson, M.: "Water Injection: Practical Experience and Future

Potential," Offshore Water and Environmental Management Seminar, London,

March 29-30, 1993.

B. Wennberg, K.E.: "Particle Retention in Porous Media: Applications to Water

Injectivity Decline," Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Petroleum Engineering and

Applied Geophysics, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology,

Trondheim (February 1988).

C. van der Zwaag C. and yno, L.: "Comparison of Injectivity Prediction Models

to Estimate Ula Field Injector Performance for Produced Water Reinjection,"

Produced Water 2: Environmental Issues and Mitigation Techniques, M. Reed

and S. Johnsen (eds.), Plenum Press, New York, NY (1996).

D. Svendsen, A.P., Wright, M.S., Clifford, P.J. and Berry, P.J.: "Thermally Induced

Fracturing of Ula Water Injectors," Europec 90, The Hague, The Netherlands,

October 22-24, 1990.

E. van den Hoek, P.J., Sommerauer, G., Nnabuihe, L. and Munro, D.: "Large-

Scale Produced Water Re-Injection Under Fracturing Conditions in Oman,"

ADIPEC, paper prepared for presentation at the 9th Abu Dhabi Intl. Pet.

Exhib., Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., October 15-18, 2000.

F. Settari, A. and Warren, G.M.: "Simulation and Field Analysis of Waterflood

Induced Fracturing," paper SPE/ISRM 28081 presented at Eurorock 94 - Rock

Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands, August 29-31,

1994.

G. Perkins, T.K. and Gonzalez, J.A.: "Changes in Earth Stresses Around a

Wellbore Caused by Radially Symmetrical Pressure and Temperature

Gradients," SPEJ (April 1984) 129-140.

H. Perkins, T.K. and Gonzalez, J.A.: "The Effect of Thermoelastic Stresses on

Injection Well Fracturing," SPEJ (February 1985) 78-88.

I. Detournay, E., Cheng, A.H-D., Roegiers, J-C. and McLennan, J.D.:

"Poroelasticity Considerations in In Situ Stress Determination," Int. J. Rock

Mech. Mining Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 26 (1989) 507-513.

J. Stevens, D.G., Murray, L.R. and Shah, P.C.: "Predicting Multiple Thermal

Fractures in Horizontal Injection Wells; Coupling of a Wellbore and a

Reservoir Simulator," paper SPE 59354 presented at the 2000 SPE/DOE

Improved Oil Recovery Symp., Tulsa, OK, April 3-5.

K. Martins, J.P., Murray, L.R., Clifford, P.J.G., McLelland, G., Hanna, M.F. and

Sharp, Jr., J.W.: "Long-Term Performance of Injection Wells at Prudhoe Bay:

The Observed Effects of Thermal Fracturing and Produced Water Re-

Injection," paper SPE 28936 presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Tech. Conf.

Exhib., New Orleans, LA, September 25-28.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 41

L. Paige, R.W., Murray, L.R., Martins, J.P. and Marsh, S.M.: "Optimizing Water

Injection Performance," paper SPE 29774, SPE Middle East Oil Show,

Bahrain, 1994.

M. van den Hoek, P.J., Matsuura, T., de Kroon, M. and Gheissary, G.: "Simulation

of Produced Water Re-Injection Under Fracturing Conditions," paper SPE

36846, presented at the 1996 SPE European Petroleum Conference, Milan,

Italy, October 22-24.

N. Wennberg, K.E., Batrouni, G. and Hansen, A.: "Modeling Fines Mobilization,

Migration and Clogging," paper SPE 30111, presented at the 1995 European

Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, May 15-16.

O. Donaldson, E.C., Baker, B.A. and Carroll, Jr., H.B.: "Particle Transport in

Sandstone," paper SPE 6905, presented at the 1977 SPE Annual Tech. Conf.

Exhib., Denver, CO, October 9-12.

P. Davidson, D.H.: "Invasion and Impairment of Formations by Particulates,"

paper SPE 8210, presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Tech. Conf. Exhib., Las

Vegas, NV, September 23-26.

Q. Todd, A.C. et al.: "The Application of Depth of Formation Damage

Measurements in Predicting Water Injectivity Decline," paper SPE 12498,

presented at the Formation Damage Control Symp., Bakersfield, CA, February

13-14, 1984.

R. Vetter, O.J. et al.: "Particle Invasion into Porous Medium and Related

Injectivity Problems," paper SPE 16625, presented at the 1987 SPE Intl

Symp. on Oilfield and Geothermal Chemistry, San Antonio, TX, February 4-6,

1987.

S. Iwasaki, T: "Some Notes on Sand Filtration," J. Am. Water Works Ass., 29,

(1937) 1591-1602.

T. Barkman, J.H. and Davidson, D.H.: "Measuring Water Quality and Predicting

Well Impairment," JPT (July 1972) 865-873.

U. Eylander, J.G.R.: "Suspended Solids Specifications for Water Injection from

Core-Flood Tests," SPERE (1988) 1287.

V. van Velzen, J.F.G. and Leerloijer, K.: "Impairment of a Water Injection Well by

Suspended Solids: Testing and Prediction, paper SPE 23822, presented at the

1992 SPE Intl. Symp. on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, February

26-27.

W. Pang, S. and Sharma, M.M.: "A Model for Predicting Injectivity Decline in

Water Injection Wells, paper SPE 28489, presented at the 1994 SPE Annual

Tech. Conf. Exhib., New Orleans, LA, September 25-28.

X. Khatib, Z.I. and Vitthal, S.: "The Use of the Effective-Medium Theory and a

3D Network Model to Predict Matrix Damage in Sandstone Formations," SPE

19649, SPEPE (1991).

Y. Khatib, Z.I.: "Prediction of Formation Damage Due to Suspended Solids:

Modeling Approach of Filter Cake Buildup in Injectors," paper SPE 28488,

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 42

presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Tech. Conf. Exhib., New Orleans, LA,

September 25-28.

Z. Nelson, P.: "Permeability-Porosity Relationships in Sedimentary Rocks," The

Log Analyst (1994) 38-62.

AA. Rumpf, H and Gupta, A.R.: Chem. Ing. Tech., 43 (1971) 367.

BB. Wennberg, K.E. Batrouni, G.G., Namsen, A. and Horsrud, P.: "Band Formation

in Deposition of Fines in Porous Media," Transport in Porous Media, 24,

Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands (1996) 247-273.

CC. Liao, I. and Lee, W.J.: "New Solutions for Wells with Finite-Conductivity

Fractures Including Fracture Face Skin," paper SPE 28605 presented at the

1994 SPE Annual Tech. Conf. Exhib., New Orleans, LA, September 25-28.

DD. van den Hoek: "A Simple and Accurate Description of Non-linear Fluid Leak-

off in High Permeability Fracturing," paper SPE 63239 prepared for

presentation at 2000 SPE Annual Tech. Conf. Exhib., Dallas, TX, October 1-4.

EE. Abou-Sayed, A.S.: personal communication, June 1999.

FF. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J. and Raghavan, R.: "Unsteady-State Pressure

Distributions Created by a Well with a Single Infinite Conductivity Fracture,"

SPEJ (August 1974) 347-360.

GG. Stevens, D.G., Murray, L.R. and Shah, P.C.: "Predicting Multiple Thermal

Fractures in Horizontal Injection Wells; Coupling of a Wellbore and a

Reservoir Simulator," paper SPE 59354 presented at the 2000 SPE/DOE

Improved Oil Recovery Symp., Tulsa, OK, April 3-5.

HH. Ovens, J.E.V., Larsen, F.P. and Cowie, D.R.: "Making Sense of Water injection

Fractures in the Dan Field," paper SPE 38928 presented at the 1997 SPE

Annual Tech. Conf. Exhib., San Antonio, TX, October 5-8.

II. Nghiem, L.X., Forsyth, P.A. and Behie, A.: A Fully Implicit Hydraulic Fracture

Model, paper SPE 10506 presented at the 1982 SPE Symp. Reservoir

Simulation, New Orleans, LA, January 30-February 3.

JJ. Fan, Y. and Economides, M.J.: Fracture Dimensions in Frac&Pack

Stimulation, paper SPE 30469 presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical

Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, October 22-25.

KK. Plahn, S.V., Nolte, K.G. and Miska, S.: "A Quantitative Investigation of the

Fracture Pump-In/Flowback Test," paper SPE 30504 presented at the 1995

SPE Annual Tech. Conf. Exhib., Dallas, TX, October 22-25.

LL. Yi, T. and Peden, J.M.: "A Comprehensive Model of Fluid Loss in Hydraulic

Fracturing," SPEP&F (November 1994) 267-272.

MM. Mayerhofer, M.J., Ehlig-Economides, C.A. and Economides, M.J: Pressure

Transient Analysis of Fracture Calibration Tests, paper SPE 26527 presented

at the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX,

October 3-6.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 43

Interpretation: Leakoff Coefficient vs. Permeability Estimation," paper SPE

28562 presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Tech. Conf. Exhib., New Orleans,

LA, September 25-28.

OO. Valko, P. and Economides, M.J.: "Fluid Leak-off Delineation in High-

Permeability Fracturing," paper SPE 37403 presented at the 1997 SPE

Production Operations Symp., Oklahoma City, OK.

PP. Morales, R.H., Abou-Sayed, A.S., Jones, A.H. and Al-Saffar, A.: "Detection of

a Formation Fracture in a Waterflooding Experiment," JPT (October 1986)

1113-1121.

QQ. Clifton, R.J. and Wang, J-J.: "Multiple Fluids, Proppant Transport, and

Thermal Effects in Three-Dimensional Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing,"

paper SPE 18198 presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference

and Exhibition, Houston, TX, October 2-5.

RR. Kurashige, M.: "Transient Response of a Fluid-Saturated Poro-Elastic Layer

Subjected to a Sudden Fluid Pressure Rise," J. Applied Mech., 49 (September

1982) 492-496.

SS. Koning, E.J.L.: "Waterflooding Under Fracturing Conditions," Ph.D. Thesis,

Technical University of Delft (1988).

TT. Ovens, J. and Niko, H.: "A Screening Tool for Predicting Lateral and Vertical

Extent of Waterflood Fractures, paper SPE 36892 presented at the 1996 SPE

European Petroleum Conference, Milan, Italy, October 22-24.

UU. Detienne, J-L., Creusot, M., Kessler, N., Sahuquet, B. and Bergerot, J-L.:

"Thermally Induced Fractures: A Field Proven Analytical Model," paper SPE

30777 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference and

Exhibition, Dallas, TX, October 22-25.

VV. Svendsen, A.P., Wright, M.S., Clifford, P.J. and Berry, P.J.: "Thermally Induced

Fracturing of Ula Water Injectors," Europec 90, The Hague, The Netherlands,

October 22-24, 1990.

WW. Morales, R.H., Abou-Sayed, A.S. and Jones, A.H.: "Detection of Formation

Fracture in a Waterflood Experiment," paper SPE 13747 presented at the SPE

Middle East Technical Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain, March 11-14,

1985.

XX. Simpson, A.J. and Paige, R.W.: "Advances in Forties Field Water Injection,"

SPE 23140 (19191).

YY. Poettmann, F.H. et al., "Secondary and Tertiary Oil Recovery Processes,"

Interstate Oil Compact Commission, Oklahoma City, OK.

ZZ. van den Hoek, P.J.: "A New Model for Optimizing Design of Hydraulic

Fractures and Simulation of Drill Cuttings Re-Injection," SPE 26679,

European Offshore Conference, Aberdeen, UK (1993).

AAA. Muskat, M.: "The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through Porous Media,"

McGraw-Hill (1946).

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 44

BBB. Gheissary, G., Fokker, P.A., Egberts, P.J.P., Floris, F.J.T., Sommerauer, G. and

Kenter, C.J.: "Simulation of Fractures Induced by Produced Water Re-

Injection in a Multi-Layer Reservoir," paper SPE 54375 presented at the 1998

SPE/ISRM Eurock '98, Trondheim, Norway, July 8-10.

CCC. Ali, N., Singh, P.K., Peng, C.P., Shiralkar, G.S., Moschovidis, Z. and Baack,

W.L.: "Injection Above-Parting-Pressure Waterflood Pilot, Valhall Field,

Norway," paper SPE 22893 presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Tech. Conf.

Exhib., Dallas, TX, October 6-9.

DDD. Settari, A.: "Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Processes," SPEJ (December

1980) 487-500.

EEE. Clifford, P.J., Berry, P.J. and Hongren, G.: "Modelling the Vertical Confinement

of Injection Well Thermal Fractures," paper SPE 20741 presented at the 1990

SPE Annual Tech. Conf. Exhib., New Orleans, LA, September 23-26.

FFF. Dikken, B.J. and Niko, H.: "Waterflood-Induced Fractures: A Simulation Study

of Their Propagation and Effects on Waterflood Sweep Efficiency," paper SPE

16551 presented at the Offshore Europe 87, Aberdeen, September 8-11,

1987.

GGG. Koning, E.J.L.: "Fracturing Water Injection Wells - Analytical Modelling of

Fracture Propagation," SPE 14686 (1985).

HHH. Gu, H. and Yew, C.H.: "Finite Element Solution of a Boundary Integral

Equation for Mode I Embedded Three-Dimensional Fractures," Int. J. Num.

Meth. Eng., 26 (1988) 1525-1540.

III. Barker, J.W. and Fayers, F.J.: "Factors Influencing Successful Numerical

Simulation of Surfactant Displacement in North Sea Fields," In Situ, 12 No. 4

(December 1988).

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page A-1

APPENDIX A

BPOPE Model

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page A-2

BPOPE Model

62,63

Basic Description of the Model

element method. Fracture growth is governed by linear elastic fracture mechanics.

Pore pressure and thermal stress changes are coupled in this model using a three-

dimensional finite difference reservoir simulation of fluid and heat flow in the region

around the well. At each time step during injection, the pressure, saturation and

temperature are calculated in the gridblocks of the reservoir model, using the

fracture as the fluid source term. At intervals, the stress state in the plane of the

fracture is calculated and the fracture size is updated so that it is in equilibrium with

the new stress field. The effect of face-plugging due to suspended solids is

modeled as a static filtration process. Model constants can be determined from

core flooding tests. This model for formation damage due to suspended solids was

found reasonable for low solid content injection.

Fracture Model

opening and the pressure for planar fractures of arbitrary shape.Error: Reference

source not found The fracture growth criterion is based on the computed stress

intensity factor and the input fracture toughness. This fracture model is a true

three-dimensional hydraulic fracturing model. The fracture model is coupled with a

reservoir model to calculate temperature change (and thus thermal stress) and

pore pressure change (and thus poro-elastic effects) on fracture growth.

Reservoir Model

The fracture model is interfaced with a reservoir model. The reservoir model is

based on a three-dimensional finite difference method for solving temperature

change and pore pressure change. Saturation changes and temperature effects on

water relative permeability are considered in this model. Once the temperature and

pore pressure changes are obtained from the reservoir model, the stress changes

due to these changes can be obtained numerically by integrating a three-

dimensional integral. Error: Reference source not found This 3-D integral may be reduced to a 2-

D integral through integration by parts. This improves the numerical performance

of this coupled model. Having computed the stress changes due to thermal and

poroelastic effects from the reservoir model, new stresses are applied to the

fracture model to update the fracture geometry.

62

P.J. Cliford, P.J. Berry and H. Gu, Modeling the Vertical Confinement for Injection Well Thermal

Fractures, SPE 20741 (1990).

63

J.P. Martins, L.R. Murray, P.J. Clifford, G. McLelland, M.F. Hanna and J.W. Sharp Jr., Long-Term

Performance of Injection Wells at Prudhoe Bay: The Observed Effects of Thermal Fracturing and

Produced Water Re-Injection, SPE 28936, presented at the SPE 69 th Annual Technical Conference

and Exhibition held in New Orleans, LA, 25-28 September 1994.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page A-3

horizontal well, and couple the model with a thermal wellbore simulator for

calculation of the injection temperature along the well. These features are

important for optimization of the injection along the wellbore.

Injection fines are represented by the gradual build-up of a thin layer of low

permeability skin along the fracture face, either on the surface or internal. If this

layer has a thickness dsk and a permeability of ksk on some part of the fracture face,

the pressure drop across it in that region will be:

dsk Q

psk

k sk A

where:

Q/A ..................................flow rate through unit area of the fracture face and,

........................................................................................water viscosity.

The buildup of this skin (on any region of the fracture surface) is assumed to

depend on the cumulative flux of injected water through that region of the fracture

face. For relatively low concentrations of fine solids, it is assumed that the face

plugging can be described by the following equation:

d sk L

C

k sk k rock

where:

L.................................................................cumulative flux in units of length

(m3 of injected water volume per m2 of fracture area).

water quality and the formation properties, most notably the permeability. A typical

test involves injection of several thousand pore volumes of representative water

into a core plug of one inch length. If the effective plug permeability is found to be

reduced 50% for 500 pore volumes of injection, then one can determine the

corresponding C. For seawater, C usually varies from 0.01 to 0.1.

64

P.J. Clifford, D.W. Mellor and T.J. Jones, Water Quality Requirements for Fractured Injection Wells,

SPE 21439, presented at the SPE Middle East Oil Show held in Bahrain, 16-19 November 1991.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page B-1

APPENDIX B

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page B-2

Fluid flow in a deviated well is first modeled for both laminar and turbulent flow.

Various pressure losses such as frictional loss along the pipe and perforation friction

are considered explicitly. Both matrix injection with formation damage and

fracturing injection are considered. The fracturing model considers a fracture with a

fixed fracture height. Stress changes due to temperature and pore pressure

changes are considered. Formation damage due to suspended solids and oil in

water is considered. Permeabilities in the vertical and horizontal directions do not

need to be the same. The well can be vertical or deviated.

The model is capable of modeling produced water re-injection into multiple zones

such as for multi-lateral wells. The input data include the initial in-situ stresses,

original reservoir pressure and temperature, drainage radius, coefficient of linear

thermal expansion, poro-elastic properties, well trajectory, water quality, absolute

permeability and end point relative permeability, the k v/kh ratio, fracture toughness,

Youngs modulus, the Poissons ratio, etc. The calculated data include injection rate

into each zone, injection pressure and injectivity, whether it is matrix injection in

each zone or fracturing injection. If it is fracturing injection, the fracture length and

width are calculated.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page C-1

APPENDIX C

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page C-2

fracturing and long term, lower rate water injection. One of the major differences

is leak-off and thus efficiency. Fluid efficiency for stimulation fracturing is much

higher than the fluid efficiency for PWRI. Therefore, the conventional Carter leakoff

model was revisited in the model and a two-dimensional leakoff model adopted.

This model shows that Carters leakoff model may underestimate leak-off by several

orders of magnitude, especially for low injection rates. The model presents a

mechanism to partially couple the fracturing model with reservoir simulation, where

fracture dimensions are determined from the fracturing model and reservoir model

is executed with the predetermined fracture. Modelling parameters can be adjusted

in order for the two models to give the same injection pressure. The model is

capable of considering variations in thermal stress, pore pressure and saturation in

the water invaded zone. This model also considers effects of previous injection, and

pre-existing propped/acid fractures. These features are important in analyzing step

rate tests and fall-off tests after a period of injection.

Factors Considered

a) Significant pressure and saturation gradients may exist around the well from

previous, long-term injection or production. It cannot be assumed that the

fracture will propagate through a reservoir with constant properties.

b) Large scale reservoir heterogeneity will cause leakoff variation in the fracture

path as the fracture can be a few thousands of feet in half length. 68

c) Long-term cold water injection can create a large cooled zone around the

fracture, with thermally-altered fluid properties and stresses.

d) Average reservoir pressure and stresses can change during the time of fracture

propagation.

e) The leakoff zone around the fracture becomes large and has a saturation and

temperature distribution, which is three-dimensional.

65

A. Settari and G.M. Warren, Simulation and Field Analysis of Waterflood Induced Fracturing,

SPE/ISRM 28081, Eurorock 94 Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands,

August 29-31, 1994.

66

A. Settari, G.M. Warren, J. Jacquemont, P. Bieniawski, and M. Dussaud, Brine Disposal into a

Tight Stress Sensitive Formation at Fracturing Conditions: Design and Field Experience, SPE

38893, presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Meeting, San Antonio, TX, October 5-8, 1997.

67

Fracture Propagation, Filter Cake Build-up and Formation Plugging During PWRI, PWRI News

Letter, Feature Article, Volume 1, No. 3, October 1999.

68

J.E.V Ovens, F.P. Larsen and D.R. Cowie, Making Sense of Water Injection Fractures in the Dan

Field, SPE 38928, presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in

San Antonio, Texas, 5-8 October 1997.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page C-3

f) Formation damage and filter cake buildup due to solids and oil need to be

considered to study the effect of water quality on injection performance.

Fracture tip plugging and branching have been observed both in the laboratory

and in the field.Error: Reference source not found

Methodology of Modelling

Two methods have been presented for modeling the change of physical parameters

during injection (Figure 1). In the parametric or analytical leakoff model, the

model assumes a one-dimensional piston-like displacement and describes the

changes of physical parameters such as temperature, water saturation, relative

permeability, etc, in the invaded region by their average. In the numerical leakoff

model, the changes of physical parameters from each element of the fracture are

computed by a one-dimensional (perpendicular to the fracture surface) finite

difference model which solves simultaneously for 2-phase flow, heat transfer and

for the stresses.

rates. Settari (1980) 69 introduced a correction factor to the 1-D leakoff velocity,

which is a function of the dimensionless injection rate. Based on the results

obtained from the Konings (1988) 70 model, a relationship is given between the

correction factor and the dimensionless injection rate. This relationship shows that

the 2-D leakoff correction can be several orders of magnitude different (Figure 2).

This needs to be confirmed because this has a big effect on fracture size if this is

true.

69

A. Settari, Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Processes, SPE Journal, December

1980, pp. 487-500.

70

E.J.L. Koning, Waterflooding Under Fracturing Conditions, PhD thesis, Technical

University of Delft, 1988.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page C-4

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page C-5

This is very important in studying falloff or step rate tests after a preceding period

of injection. For example, previous injection leaves large pressure and saturation

gradients in the fracture path, which will affect the leakoff rate. In the analytical

model shown in Figure 1, since average values are used, this model does not

account for pressure and saturation dissipation during shut-in. In the numerical

model shown in Figure 1, leakoff, pressure, saturation and temperature are

computed during shut-in periods and the solution therefore accounts for the

dissipation process during shut-in.

Since water saturation is a function of position and, in many situations the average

mobility has a minimum at an intermediate water saturation, effective mobility in

the invaded zone may be considerably lower than the end-point values (see Figure

3). In the numerical model, since the saturation and relative permeability are

modeling variables, this changing relative permeability can be accurately

represented. The effective mobility in the invaded zone, which can be constructed

by Welges tangent to the fractional flow curve, is at S w = 0.5. Figure 3 shows that

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page C-6

this value is much lower than the end-point values. It also should be noted that the

mobility is temperature dependent.

and temperature.

When the pressure in the pre-existing (static) fracture increases during high rate

injection, the closure stress on the fracture decreases, causing some increase of its

conductivity. When the pressure reaches the confining stress, the entire fracture

will unload (starting from the wellbore due to pressure losses) becoming part open

and part propped fracture. Eventually, the dynamic fracture will start to extend

from the tip of the static fracture.Error: Reference source not found

pressure both below and at fracture conditions must be matched. The problem in

modeling this process lies in how to model the combined conductivity of a static

fracture and a dynamic fracture. Injection pressure can not be modeled by simply

overlaying the static and dynamic fractures or just by considering either the static

fracture or the dynamic fracture. A model is presented to represent the combined

permeability (kf)c:

(k f ) c k f exp( 0.6931( p) 2 / 2 )

where kf = w2/12 is the permeability of the dynamic fracture with w being the

fracture width and is an input value of p at which the full permeability is reduced

to one-half and p = poc (opening-closing pressure)- pf (computed pressure from

the reservoir model). Figure 4 shows an example of using this approach to

combine the static and dynamic fractures.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page C-7

fracture.

In the analysis of field data, each part of the history provides valuable information:

characterization and establishes the ambient conditions prior to fracture

propagation.

b) Analysis of SRTs or high rate injection tests gives reservoir permeability and

fracture opening/closing pressure. If a falloff is recorded, its match will yield

information about fracture volume, net pressure and leakoff rate.

c) Long-term injection under fracturing conditions can provide data on stress

changes in the reservoir (from the trend of the fracture pressure).

The proposed approach in analyzing field data can be broken into two phases

fracturing simulation and reservoir simulation. Basically, fracturing simulation

determines fracture growth as a function of injection volume or time. Having

developed a fracture growth versus time scenario with the fracturing simulator, the

description of fracture and its conductivity is interfaced with a reservoir model to

test the fracture growth versus time validity by comparing the computed injection

pressures from both simulators. Injection pressure above fracturing can be matched

by adjusting in-situ stress and net pressure. Pressure falloff can be used to

determine net pressure and closure time. These can be history matched by

adjusting leak-off and fracture volume. Ideally, the injection pressures from both

fracturing and reservoir simulations should be the same by adjusting the input

physical parameters. These adjustments should be determined from matching field

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page C-8

injection history data and/or test data; such as step rate tests, falloff tests,

hydraulic impedance tests. Usually the only parameters which need to be adjusted

are those associated with leakoff rate in the fracture model.

A Case Study

An example has been published, showing how the model was used to reproduce

step rate tests performed for well in Valhall field.Error: Reference source not found

Reservoir modeling of the SRTs is approached in a staged fashion. First, the

pressure response due to injection below fracture was matched with a conventional

reservoir model with a static fracture (if the well is so completed) by adjusting

reservoir permeability and the static fracture conductivity. Matching the pre-

fracturing data also provides for a point of departure between the observed and

calculated pressure, which indicates when fracture starts.

to the reservoir model at the time of pressure departure. If the fracture extension

is correct, the calculated injection pressure in the reservoir model will match the

observed data. For example, if the calculated pressure is too low, then fracture

growth rate needs to slow down in order to give a higher calculated pressure.

If a falloff test is available after the SRT, the pressure decline after fracture closure

should also confirm the matched reservoir permeability.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page D-1

APPENDIX D

Difract Model

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page D-2

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page E-1

APPENDIX E

Hydfrac/Hydfrac V3 Models

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page E-2

HydFrac

reservoir simulator. It incorporates fracture mechanics and formation plugging due

to injected particles. Special attention is paid to the analysis of fracture closure

during injection shut-in and to the description of formation damage.71 The media

are represented as heterogeneous, anisotropic and compressible and there is a

thermo-poroelastic stress model.

with a model for fracture plugging by particles. Internal and external filter cakes

are considered.

Capabilities:

1. Three-dimensional, two-phase, thermal reservoir simulator for anisotropic,

compressible media.

2. One injector and several producers can be modeled.

3. Injection can be specified by rate or pressure, at the wellhead or as

bottomhole conditions.

4. Temperature can be applied as a bottomhole or wellhead condition.

5. When pressure/temperature are specified at the wellhead, heat exchange

and pressure drop in the injector wellbore are represented.

6. The model computes pore pressure, saturation and temperature in the entire

field.

7. From the pressure and temperature distributions, in-situ stress variations are

computed using a thermo-poro-mechanical stress model and are solved using

Konings method.

8. The displacement filed is represented as the gradient of a scalar function and

the mechanical problem reduces to the Poissons equation. The temperature

and pressure are the source terms of the equation with corresponding

thermal expansion and poroelastic coefficients.

9. Thermal or hydraulic fracturing can be represented.

10. The fracture can increase or decrease in length at any time step.

A two-dimensional model was used. A PKN representation was selected. Each

vertical plane in the fracture is therefore assumed to deform independently of the

others. The fracture widths in vertical planes are coupled by the fluid flow and

continuity equations and the width is a function of the local pressure.

71

Longuemare, P., Detienne, J-L., Lemonnier, P., Bouteca, M., and Onaisi, A.: Numerical Modeling of

Fracture Propagation Induced by Water Injection/Reinjection, SPE 68974, paper presented at SPE

European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, (May 21-22, 2001).

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page E-3

The equation for the width of the fracture is based on Sneddons equation and the

propagation criterion is stress-based and takes the following form:

pf x x f

3 xxf

0

Mass Balance:

Once fracturing has been initiated, a fracture fluid flow model determines the fluid

pressure profile in the fracture, accounting for friction, leakoff, changes in fracture

volume and particle plugging. Solution is fully implicit.

Fracture Plugging:

Four mechanisms are cited:

2. Formation of mono- or multiparticle bridges

3. Internal cake formation (solids and oil) as soon as the non-percolation

threshold has been reached near the fracture face. It is represented as a

progressive permeability reduction function of the cumulative fluid filtration

per unit fracture surface with a dependence on equivalent particle

concentrations (oil and water). The depth of the permeability reduction is

user-specified.

4. External filter cake and complimentary fracture filling. After internal

plugging, particles accumulate on the surface of the fracture. This filter cake

is assumed to be incompressible (i.e., constant permeability) but the

thickness is allowed to increase. The thickness depends on the fracture

evolution and the accumulated volume of particles in the fracture. The

external cake is dynamic.

modification of the transmissibility between the fracture and the reservoir. The

damaged transmissibility is calculated using an equivalent fracture face permeability

taking into account the pressure drop induced by internal and external plugging.

(Permeability in series.) The damaged transmissibility is integrated in the coupled

fluid flow description between fracture and reservoir, which is solved in an implicit

manner. This description ensures a good representation of mass fluid balance in

the fracture and the reservoir.

This is a synopsis of the cited SPE paper. For additional information and examples,

refer to the paper.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page F-1

APPENDIX F

MWFlood Model

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page F-2

MWFlood

MWFlood is a pseudo-three-dimensional simulator for predicting the pressure and

geometry of conventional hydraulic fractures associated with waterflooding. The

program was specifically designed for evaluating the effects of injecting large fluid

volumes over long periods and for fracture efficiencies approaching zero.

MWFlood has options for conventional (diffusion controlled) and steady-state (non-

diffusion) fluid loss. "At early times, fluid loss from the fracture is generally

diffusion controlled, but at large times the fluid loss is governed by steady-state or

pseudosteady-state leakoff. The fluid loss option has a marked effect on fracture

geometry with larger leakoff rates at later times as compared to diffusion alone."

Features

Prediction of hydraulic fracture geometries for waterflood applications

Determine water and thermal fronts

Includes general MFrac features with waterflood limitations

Thermal and water front tracking

Multi-layer thermal stress properties

Effect of thermal stress distribution on fracture propagation

Conventional and steady-state fluid loss

Low injection rates, large pumping times and volumes

Application to fracture efficiencies approaching "zero"

Filtration Law

The Filtration Law has two options. Conventional is the standard diffusion type fluid

loss model as used in MFrac. The Steady-State option is useful for long injection

times when the leakoff rate is no longer controlled by diffusion but rather by

steady-state injection and production.

Conventional

The Conventional option is the standard type of fluid loss mechanism where the

rate of fluid loss to the formation is governed by the total leakoff coefficient. This is

referred to as diffusion type leakoff because the fluid loss mechanism is diffusion-

controlled.

Steady-State

This option should be used for long periods of waterflood injection. The steady-

state equations are based on the assumption that the production rate is equal to

the injection rate resulting in a steady-state pressure behavior of the reservoir.72

Although steady-state fluid loss is not diffusion controlled at long injection periods,

the leakoff velocity at early times is diffusion controlled (i.e. the leakoff velocity is

inversely proportional to the square root of time). This option accounts for the fluid

72

Note that the MWFlood documentation erroneously calls this pseudo-steady state. It is uncertain

whether the formulation reflects this error, although the following paragraph suggests it does not.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page F-3

fluid loss controlled mechanism.

value. This results in a constant leakoff velocity since as time increases the fracture

length asymptotes to a constant value.

Thermal Stress

The in-situ stress in MWFlood can be modified in the vertical and lateral directions

to account for the effects of thermoelastic stresses. The fracture fluid temperature

is specified by the user.

The thermal and water fronts are calculated based on the rate of creation of energy

and mass. The fluid ahead of the thermal front is assumed to be at the reservoir

temperature and the fluid behind the thermal front is at the fluid temperature

specified for the fracture.

The injection fluid temperature is also used to calculate the induced thermoelastic

stresses.

Ahead of the thermal front, the stresses are equal to the initial formation stresses.

Behind the thermal front (and toward the wellbore), the modified stresses are seen

by the fracture system.

(fracture) are given by:

E

T T

1

where:

..............................................................................Thermoelastic Constant

.................................................................Coefficient of Thermal Expansion

T ...........................Temperature difference between fluid and reservoir (T1-Tf)

The thermoelastic stresses are determined for regions of elliptical cross sections

and finite zone thickness (h) using the calculations by Perkins and Gonzalez. The

thermal constant for stresses perpendicular to the major axes for (b 1/h) < 0.01 is

b1 / a1

1 b1 / a1

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page F-4

where b1 is the minor semi-axis of the elliptical thermal front perpendicular to the

fracture and a1 is the major semi-axis of the thermal front (in the direction of the

fracture length).

The limiting thermal constant for large minor axis to thickness ratios is unity (i.e.,

for b1/h > 10; 1.0). This condition generally occurs at later periods. Figure 1

shows typical Thermal Constant values for various thermal front conditions.

The modified stress is the minimum horizontal stress behind the thermal front

(toward the wellbore). Ahead of the thermal front, the stresses are equal to the

initial in-situ stresses.

The modified layer stress is equal to the initial layer stress, , plus the

thermoelastic stress, T,

M T

where T is negative if the fluid injection temperature is less than the reservoir

temperature.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page F-5

Thermal/Water Front

The Thermal/Water Front input data include the oil displacement factor, the

waterfront aspect ratio, the porosity, formation thickness and an equivalent

drainage radius. This data are used to calculate the thermal front, waterfront,

ellipsoidal waterflood shape, oil displacement and leakoff characteristics. The input

data are:

Injected Fluid

The injected fluid represents the properties of the fracturing fluid. For

waterflood applications, the user should specify water.

In-situ Fluid

The In-situ Fluid is the formation fluid that occupies the pores. Typically, this

fluid is oil.

The Oil Displacement Factor is the fraction of oil that is displaced by the

water. This factor is directly related to the irreducible oil saturation (i.e., Oil

Displacement Factor = 1- irreducible oil saturation).

Figure 2. Flood and thermal fronts calculated for a specific situation using

MWFlood.

This is the limiting aspect ratio of the minor to major axes of the ellipsoidal

thermal and waterflood regions. The minor axis is perpendicular to the

fracture plane and the major axis is in the fracture plane.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page F-6

At early times, this aspect ratio is very large since it represents the fracture

length divided by the leakoff distance perpendicular to the fracture face.

Figure 3 illustrates that as time progresses this aspect ratio will decrease and

asymptote to the user specified Waterfront Aspect Ratio.

Formation Porosity

The formation porosity is the equivalent value over the fracture height used

for calculating the thermal and waterflood regions.

The Net Formation Height is used in the mass conservation equations to

calculate the water and thermal fronts. This height is also used for calculating

the leakoff velocity for the Steady-State Filtration Law option.

The equivalent drainage radius is used to calculate the steady-state leakoff

velocity. The drainage radius is only used if the Filtration Law option is set to

Steady-State.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page G-1

APPENDIX G

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page G-2

This is one of the earliest fracturing models that consider thermal stress and pore

pressure change during injection. The model considers thermal stress that would

result from cooled regions with fixed thickness and elliptical cross section.

Thermoelastic stresses for a region with an elliptical cross-section and finite

thickness are determined approximately with a numerical procedure. Empirical

equations were developed to estimate the average interior thermal stresses in

elliptical cooled regions of any height. Stress changes induced by pore pressure

changes during fracturing are calculated using the same equations that were

derived for thermal stresses. Since for linear elasticity, the form of the equations is

the same, this is accomplished by replacing the linear thermal expansion coefficient

with the coefficient of pore pressure expansion and temperature change with pore

pressure change. The computed thermal stresses and stress changes due to pore

pressure changes are coupled with closed-form solutions for a PKN hydraulic

fracturing model to determine fracture dimensions including length and width as

functions of injection volume or time. Examples, using typical elastic and thermal

properties, showed that injection of cool water can reduce in-situ stresses around

injection wells substantially, causing them to fracture at pressures considerably

lower than would be expected in the absence of the themoelastic effect. Thermal

effects have been proved to be a very important factor in many water injection

projects. Error: Reference source not found ,Error: Reference source not found A mechanism is

also presented in the model to study the effect of water quality on injection

performance.

When water is injected during PWRI, a region of cooled rock forms around the

injection well. This region grows as additional water is injected. At any time, its

outer boundary is approximately described as an ellipse that is confocal with the

line crack (2D fracture). Three zones with sharply defined boundaries are assumed

(see Figure 1):

2. Followed by a flooded, but not cooled? ellipse (the same temperature as the

virgin reservoir, but increased injection water saturation) and,

3. The undisturbed virgin reservoir.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page G-3

perpendicular to the plane of minimum horizontal in-situ stress.

were determined approximately with a numerical procedures. The following

empirical equations were developed to estimate the average interior thermal

stresses in elliptical cooled regions of any height:

where:

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page G-4

2T ............................ thermal stress in the direction parallel to the fracture,

E ....................................................................................Youngs modulus,

........................................................................................Poissons ratio,

.................................................linear thermal coefficient of expansion, and

h ..................................................................................reservoir thickness.

If it is assumed that the porosity and permeability are independent of the stress

level, the change of stress induced by pressure change can be computed in a

similar manner to the change in stress that is induced by a temperature change,

with the linear thermal expansion coefficient replaced by the linear coefficient of

pore pressure expansion. However, it should be noted that the equations for

thermal stresses are obtained numerically with the assumption that the

temperature in the elliptical region is uniform. This may be a good assumption,

based on the numerical results, if the heat transfer is dominated by convection.

Pressure in the elliptical region is not uniform and stress changes due to pore

pressure changes may have to be computed from a reservoir model.

The injected (flooded) region is approximately elliptical in shape, in its plan view,

and it is confocal with the fracture length (Figure 1). The size of the elliptic region,

its major and minor semi-axes, can be determined from volume balance of the

injected water. The cooled region is also approximated as elliptical in cross-section,

and is also confocal with the fracture; the major and minor semi-axes of the cooled

region are determined from an energy balance. Heat transfer and energy loss to

the upper/lower bounding layers are not considered.

Pressure Equations

Piwf p R p1 p 2 p 3 p s pf p p

where:

p1 ............................pressure rise at the elliptical boundary of the flood front,

p2 ...............pressure increase between the flood front and the hot/cold front ,

p3 ....................pressure increase between the hot/cold front and the fracture,

pS .........................pressure increase across skin damage at the fracture face,

pf ...........difference between the wellbore pressure and the average pressure

at the face of the fracture, and

pp..................... pressure drop through perforations connected to the fracture.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page G-5

Equations and/or descriptions on how to compute each of the above terms are

given by Perkins and Gonzales (1985)Error: Reference source not found.

Because the cooled region is nearly circular in shape when the fracture length is

short, the thermally-related reduction of the horizontal stresses is nearly uniform in

all directions. As the fracture length becomes large, the cooled region becomes

more elongated. As the cooled region elongates, the thermal stress reduction

parallel to the fracture exceeds the thermal stress reduction perpendicular to the

fracture. This tends to reduce the difference between stresses within the cooled

region and it is possible at some point the stress parallel to the fracture becomes as

large as the stress perpendicular to the fracture. When this happens, fractures may

initiate along the original fracture surface and propagate in the direction

perpendicular to the original fracture. Whether this will happen or not depends on

the difference in the principal horizontal stresses that are initially present in the

reservoir, the thermal coefficient of expansion, the temperature change and the

elastic modulus. This process is depicted in Figure 2.

Example Problem

(after thermal stress reduction) that was well below the initial minimum horizontal

stress.

Summary

of elliptical cross-section and finite thickness are considered.

2. Stress changes due to pore pressure changes are considered.

3. These stress changes are coupled with the PKN model.

4. Damage due to suspended solids is considered.

5. An example using typical elastic and thermal properties of rocks shows that the

injection of cool water can reduce earth stresses around injection wells

substantially, causing them to fracture at pressures considerably lower than

would be expected in the absence of the thermoelastic effect.

6. Depending on the shape of the cooled region and the difference between the

minimum and maximum in-situ horizontal earth stresses, fractures

perpendicular to the main two-winged fracture could eventually open, thus

creating a "jointed" fracture system.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page G-6

Figure 2. Plan view showing that the shape of the cooled region controls the

ration of principal stresses within the cooled region.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page H-1

APPENDIX H

Predictif Model

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page H-2

Predictif

Basic Description of the Model 73

This model first considers the wellbore temperature profile as water flows down the

injection string from the surface to bottom-hole. A linear geothermal gradient is

assumed in calculating the temperature distribution along the wellbore. Thermal

stress and poroelastic effects are considered in the model using the solution given

by Perkins and Gonzalez.74 Two-dimensional hydraulic fracturing model such as KGD

is used in predicting fracture length and fracture width. Radial flow is considered

before fracturing. Case studies are available to show the importance of thermally

induced fracturing in water injection. Based on the model, the entire injection

history can be divided into different regimes and the injection history over each

regime can be matched with the model.

The model first calculates the bottom-hole flowing temperature, using the surface

temperature, the injection rate and the wellbore configuration. A linear geothermal

gradient is assumed. The solution also assumes that the injection rate is constant.

To cope with rate-varying behavior, an effective injection time has been used. It

was found that as long as the injection rate does not vary too abruptly, the

algorithm gives satisfactory results. This may explain the initial reduction in

injectivity that is shown in Figure 1. As the bottom-hole flowing temperature

decreases sharply initially (Figure 2), the average viscosity of the injected water

increases and thus the injectivity decreases.

73

J-L. Detienne, M. Creusot, N. Kessler and B. Sahuquet and J-L. Bergerot, Thermally Induced

Fractures: A Field Proven Analytical Model, SPE 30777, presented at the SPE Annual Technical

Conference & Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 22-25 October, 1995.

74

T.K. Perkins and J.A. Gonzalez, The Effect of Thermoelastic Stresses on Injection Well Fracturing,

SPE Journal, February 1985, pp. 78 88.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page H-3

Radial Injection

The model calculates the bottom-hole flowing pressure by first assuming radial,

matrix injection. It then tests whether this assumption is acceptable using a

fracture criterion. If radial injection is acceptable, the model concludes that radial

injection prevails and the model proceeds to the next time step. If the fracturing

criterion is satisfied, strictly radial injection does not occur and the model calculates

bottom-hole flowing pressure assuming that the reservoir has been fractured.

A conventional three-zone model is used for computing the flowing pressure during

radial injection. For injection of a cooler fluid, there are: (1) a cooled-and-flooded

zone from the wellbore out, (2) followed by a flooded zone, but with reservoir

temperature and (3) finally the undisturbed virgin reservoir (see Figure 3).

different salinities and temperatures. Relative permeability is entered as data. For

the flooded zone at reservoir temperature, the viscosity also comes from

correlations. Relative permeability to hot water is also entered as data. Finally, for

the undisturbed virgin zone, the viscosity and relative permeability are entered as

data.

Determining the extent (size) of the cooled-and-flooded zone can be found in many

papers.75 However, all solutions assume injection of water at a constant bottom-

hole flowing temperature. In reality, the bottom-hole injection temperature is

changing, particularly in the early stages. The bottom-hole injection temperature

as a function of injection time can be modeled. A concept based on average

temperature is used in the model to include temperature changes.

75

R.H. Morales, A.S. Abou-Sayed, A.H. Jones and A. Al Saffar, Detection of Formation Fracture in a

Waterflooding Experiment, SPE 13747, presented at the SPE 1985 Middle East Oil Technical

Conference and Exhibition held in Bahrain, March 11-14, 1985.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page H-4

Figure 3. Temperature and water saturation profiles due to cold water injection

as simplified three-zone model.

It has been observed that injectivity which is lost on conversion from seawater to

produced water can often be fully restored on conversion back to seawater. Error:

Reference source not found Including thermal and poroelastic effects is important

for correct analysis of such cases. Thermal stresses have been proven to be an

important factor in modeling long term injection such as waterflood. Thermal stress

due to temperature change during injection are estimated in the model according to

the method proposed by Perkins and Gonzales. Error: Reference source not found

The stress change due to poro-elastic effects is divided into a global reservoir effect

and a local well effect. Each can be computed analytically.

Fracture Injection

After a fracture has been initiated, the fracture length and width are determined

using a two-dimensional hydraulic fracturing model. An equivalent radius is used to

represent the fracture in the injectivity index equation. This equivalent radius is

based on skin calculation, which consists of geometric skin due to the fracture, filter

cake skin, and skin due to damage. Skin is converted into an equivalent well

radius. This equivalent well radius is then used for injectivity index calculation.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page H-5

A Case Study

One case study has been published for an offshore oil field in West Africa. Ten wells

have been injecting for a period of 3 to 5 years. Well head pressure has remained

fairly constant at 100 to 120 bars. Typical initial injection rates were 200 to 800

m3/d. Typical increases in injectivity indices due to thermally induced fracturing are

a factor of 1.5 to 2, bringing injection rates to the 1000 to 2000 m 3/d ranges. On

three wells, the injectivity indices increased by a factor 10.

Pressure Matching

Wellhead pressure was held constant at 120 bars. After 40 days of injection,

injection rate increased abruptly from 200 m 3/d and reached 2000 m3/d after 120

days. The radial flow model can correctly matches the wellhead pressure during

the first 30 days (see Figure 4). If thermally induced fracturing is assumed at the

point when the injection rate increased abruptly, the match of the radial injection

regime during the first 30 days is unchanged. Now however, well history between

30 days and 60 days is reproduced as shown in Figure 5.

From 30 to 60 days, injection is in thermally induced fracturing regime.

At around day 60, the injectivity again suddenly increased. It was impossible to

match the well behavior beyond 60 days with any reasonable set of reservoir

parameters. One explanation offered was vertical fracture growth. The wellhead

pressure and injection rate can be matched beyond 60 days by increasing the

fracture height and reservoir permeability. It was found that in order to match the

injection history, the fracture height had to be increased drastically from some 20

meters to 120 meters and later back down to 80 meters. With this increase and

decrease of fracture height, the entire injection history (over 1200 days) can be

matched by the model (Figure 6). But, as Detienne et al. Error: Reference source

not found pointed out, there are no limits to the possibility of matching when k and

h are allowed to vary from one time step to the next. A true 3D hydraulic fracturing

simulator may be required to simulate this sudden fracture height growth and

constrain the otherwise arbitrary variation of fracture height.

One feature which may also explain the observed phenomena can be secondary

fractures due to stress orientation change resulted from thermal stress because

thermal stresses in the directions parallel and perpendicular to the fracture direction

are different, as indicated by Perkins and Gonzalez. Error: Reference source not

found

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page H-6

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page H-7

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page I-1

APPENDIX I

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page I-2

PWFRAC was developed for the PEA-23 project and is not in the open literature. All

of the information presented here is from the feature article in the October 1999

PWRI Newsletter (Volume 1, No. 3).

Coupling of the pore fluid movement, pore pressure change, and stress changes

associated with injection operations are incorporated in the model. Both internal

formation damage and external cake are considered. When the open gap (the part

of the fracture that is open between the filter cake on the fracture walls) does not

extend to the tip of the fracture, the pressure-flow relationships along the open

fracture gap satisfy the usual equations for viscous hydraulic flow between two

surfaces. The pressure within the closed gap (designated as a tip plug) may have

different pressure profiles, depending on the filter cake permeability. Opening of the

fracture is computed from pressure along the fracture, based on poroelastic theory,

resulting from Darcy flow in the formation. The fracture propagation criterion is

based on a stress intensity factor. The filter cake buildup is linked to the amount of

solid particles that are deposited by PW entering the formation at the fracture face.

Erosion of particles, caused by shear stresses on the filter cake surface, and the

pressure drop across the filter cake are also considered. The model also provides a

detailed description of the near-tip region. The simulator provides the following

predictions, as a function of time during the injection period:

The length and width of the created fracture,

The filter cake thickness and the open gap along the length of the fracture,

The impaired permeability of the formation and the extent of this formation

damage.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page I-3

During PWRI

produced water and may provide an opportunity for a water drive when applied in

waterflooding. The required rate of produced water injection can be anticipated

using the expected pore volume replacement ratio and water cut estimated from

the production forecast. Fracturing is likely to occur during PW injection at voidage

replacement rates.

The extent (size) of the induced fracturing will significantly impact this process.

Therefore, it is necessary for well injectivity planning and fracture sizing to have an

accurate estimate of the pore pressure, the rock's mechanical properties, and the

minimum in-situ stress in the injection horizon. This collective information can be

used to estimate the required injection pressure and the number of injectors

throughout the production period. . Well planning and design can also benefit from

predictions concerning the histories of the injector performance and the length of

the created fracture. As a result, the waterflood planning cycle efficiency would be

increased.

damage of injection zone permeability. The engineering problem faced by the

operator is reduced to establishing the balance between two competing

mechanisms. The first mechanism is related to the well injectivity improvement

that may result from any fracturing associated with produced water injection. The

competing mechanism results from plugging of the near crack tip region and the

impairment of reservoir performance (permeability) around the fracture caused by

water contaminant invasion of the injection horizon.

In the present article, we will confine the discussion to fracture propagation and its

impact on well injectivity, under conditions of produced water injection in permeable

reservoirs. Results of such analyses, in conjunction with experimental

determinations, can provide estimates of filter cake permeability [if history

matching is done, indications can be provided by the model alone, but, uniqueness

is not guaranteed] and thickness, as well as the magnitude of permeability

impairment around the fracture and the extent of the impairment zone.

The objective of this article is to illustrate how fractures propagate during produced

water injection. The role of porous formation mechanics on the interaction between

a permeability-damaged zone around the fracture and a plug at the fracture tip is

investigated. The article discusses the four concepts listed below:

fracturing during the initiation of clean water injection and continuing through the

life of the reservoir. Fracture mechanics can be used to predict the relationships

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page I-4

between the injection rate, the size of the hydraulic fracture and the required

injection pressure for clean water.

the injection formation horizon and a "damaged" zone forms around the hydraulic

fracture surface. These deposits decrease the permeability of the zone and tend to

increase the required injection pressure (for a fixed injection rate). Considerations

must be given to the water quality (concentrations and characteristics of the

damage-causing contaminants) and its relationship to formation damage.

plug of produced water particles can collect at the tip of the hydraulic fracture. This

plug restricts flow at the crack tip and also tends to increase the injection pressure

that is required to dispose water at a given rate and also cause the fracture to

propagate.

fracture propagation. Although both phenomena tend to increase the required

injection pressure for a given injection rate, their influences on the local stress state

(and their impact on the criteria for crack propagation) are quite different.

Fracture propagation during produced water injection in a permeable reservoir

presents an added dimension to the problems encountered in applying fracture

mechanics concepts to rocks. Coupling of the pore fluid movement, pore pressure

change, and the stress changes associated with an injection operation must be

incorporated in any analysis. The impact of water contaminants on plugging of the

fracture and/or the formation depends on the injected water quality. General

understanding gained from past experience and published data, as well as from

earlier JIP work, provides the following insights into well fracturing during constant

rate injection of produced water:

pressures that are far in excess of those required during hydraulic fracturing

conditions at a constant specified injection rate. A decrease in formation

permeability or an increase in the injection rate will reduce the required pressure

for fracture propagation at the same injection rate. If there is less fluid lost to

the formation, pressure will develop in the fracture to facilitate propagation

this can occur if the rate is higher (poroelastic considerations, if the formation is

less permeable and/or if cake develops along the fracture surface.

2. The presence of contaminants in the injected water will have two competing

effects (tip plugging versus fracture face impairment) depending on where these

particles are deposited.

3. Fracture extension during produced water injection operations may be significant

without apparent changes in well injectivity, injection rate or pressure.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page I-5

pressure during waterflooding in comparison to the clean fracture tip case.

5. Formation permeability damage around the fracture will tend to facilitate

fracture propagation during constant rate injection operations. The extent of the

permeability reduction and the magnitude of the damage in the permeability

impairment zone will both significantly impact the injection operations and will,

in general, lead to a decrease in the required fracture propagation pressure.

6. Under constant injection rate, injector performance (for example, the injectivity

index) can be maintained fairly constant, while both tip plugging and

permeability damage occur. This can occur by fracture propagation without

significant change in injection pressure. The two phenomena may actually be in

balance.

7. Fracture growth might allow the operator to inject lower quality produced water

for a longer period of time without adversely impacting injector performance

(different water qualities significantly affect injectivity).

8. Conclusion #7, above, is not true if vertical conformance or aerial sweep

become negatively impacted by the extent of fracturing in the injector. Care

should be taken when interpreting PW injector data to allow for estimation of the

fracture size.

9. Fracture propagation criteria for produced water injection can be best verified by

comparison with available well performance records.

reservoir layer as a result of PW injection, a simulator must take into account the

following phenomena:

2. Permeability damage from produced water particles deposited in the formation

during injection,

3. Filter cake build up on the fracture surface and plugging at the fracture tip.

These features are required for the simulator to reliably compute a fracture's

dimensions and a well's response during injection. The simulator predictions need

to be consistent with a set of field observations. This is demonstrated in the

current article by several illustrative examples. The simulator must provide the

following predictions - as a function of time during the injection period:

2. The length and width of the created fracture,

3. The filter cake thickness and the open "gap" along the length of the fracture,

4. The impaired permeability of the formation and the extent of this formation

damage.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page I-6

To achieve the above, the simulator must represent the following six physical

requirements and these must be satisfied simultaneously:

stresses/body forces, resulting from Darcy flow in the formation.

2. The fracture propagation criteria. These may be related to the stress intensity

factor, KI, or other equivalent conditions.

3. The flow of fluid leaking off inside the injection zone. This flow most likely

satisfies Darcy's law. The gradient of the pore pressure at the fracture face

(within the damaged zone) is proportional to the rate of migration of the fluid

that has leaked off (away from the fracture) and the impaired permeability.

4. The pressure-flow relationships along the open fracture gap (the open fracture

width) must satisfy the usual equations for viscous hydraulic flow. Both laminar

and turbulent flow regimes must be considered.

5. The filter cake buildup should be linked to the amount of solid particles that is

deposited by water entering the formation at the fracture face. Erosion of

particles, caused by the shear stress on the filter cake surface, and the pressure

drop across the filter cake must also be accounted for.

6. Alteration of the formation permeability, by the produced water particles that are

deposited in the formation, must be taken into account.

General Observations

As the fluid flows in the pores, the pore pressure is increased and the effective

compressive stress in the matrix is reduced. Note, however, that depending on the

diffusivity and poroelastic characteristics of the formation, the total stress can

increase due to poroelastic effects. The stress distribution in the matrix is altered,

and there are associated displacements that tend to close the fracture. The

fracture itself is responding to the local total stress field. The situation is more

complicated when a filter cake and altered formation permeability are present.

When the open gap (the part of the fracture that is open between filter cake on the

fracture walls) does not extend to the end of the fracture, the pressure within the

closed gap (designated as a tip plug) could be constant and equal to the pressure at

the tip of the open gap. The tip plug region may have other pressure profiles

depending on the filter cake permeability. If the formation layers bounding the

fractured horizontal layer are sufficiently "strong" (or the stresses in these bounding

layers are large enough), the fracture can be contained within the injection horizon.

In a containment situation, the bounding zones cause a stiffening influence to the

fracture propagation within the injection layer - with a consequent increase in

injection pressure (all other factors being equal).

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page I-7

A filter cake model for produced water injection depends on the particular

volumetric fraction of the solids in the water entering a particular section of the

fracture surface that is assumed to remain on the surface of the fracture (external

cake). The remaining solids must pass along the fracture and may cause tip

plugging, or, especially at early exposure times, form an internal cake. The solid

material that collects on the fracture surface forms an external filter cake. The filter

cake thickness should be determined in the simulator and with experiments and

back-analysis, along with the permeability for the filter cake. Both of these

quantities are needed for determining the pressure gradient in the filter cake as a

result of fluid leakoff into the formation.

The solid material that is deposited on the fracture surface causes the effective

fracture width to be reduced, leaving an open gap for flow along the fracture.

When the volume rate of flow into the fracture is specified, reduction in the width of

this gap can lead to increased fluid velocity along certain regions of the fracture.

When the velocity in this effective fracture width is sufficiently high, material on the

surface of the filter cake can be dislodged and swept into the flow along the gap. A

criterion for "sweeping" material off the filter cake is required.

When solids-laden produced water flows through a porous formation, some of the

solids are deposited in the porous material. Some of the produced water particles

become lodged in pores and do not move with the fluid. As flow continues, an

equilibrium is reached between the concentration of particles trapped in the

formation and those flowing with the fluid.

Consider the case where produced water, with a constant solids concentration, is

entering a formation with no "fixed" (lodged, trapped) particle concentration.

After some time, solids concentrations in the formation can be expected decrease

away from the fracture face. With time, solids concentrations in the formation, at a

fixed position, will approach equilibrium values.

In order to gain some physical insight into the more general case of a porous

material where there is a damaged zone, a rough approximation is considered here.

The results give a feeling for the influence of the actual damaged zone.

Consider that there is a porous skin (internal and external filter cakes) at the

surface of the crack. Fluid pressure drops across this skin as the fluid flows from

within the crack into the porous material (Figure 1). This skin represents the

collection of particles from the produced water that has accumulated at and near

the crack surface. Although the mechanism for the pressure drop across this skin

depends on many factors, the pressure drop is taken here as a fraction,

(0 1) , of the internal crack pressure, pi, or the injection pressure. Additionally,

the volume rate of flow, Q, into the formation is reduced by the factor (1 ) ,

compared to the case with no porous skin.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page I-8

Plug

r

Damaged Zone + a

r

a{1+2}1/2

(Use the symbol R on the figure like in the text instead of symbol r )

For a constant injection rate, there is a considerable increase in the stress intensity

factor, KI as the skin factor increases (.

For fixed values of , , KIc and Q, the dependence of the crack radius, a, and the

crack pressure, pi, can be determined at incipient crack propagation. For example,

consider the case of constant values for the injection rate (Q), the critical stress

intensity factor (KIc) and the permeability to viscosity ratio (). As increases, the

crack length (A) grows while the crack pressure ( B) decreases. As changes

from 0 to 0.3 the crack length increases by about a factor of 3 while the crack

pressure drops by about a factor of 2 (refer, for example, to Figures 2 and 3).

These results are related to a penny-shaped crack model and I feel that the

pressure decrease has more to do with this frac geometry than with plugging

effects.76

76

J-L. Detienne, personal communication.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page I-9

1.6

Poisson's ratio = 0.2

1.2 Poisson's ratio = 0.3

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Filter Cake Damage Parameter ()

Figure 2. This figure shows a plot of A (dimensionless crack radius) versus for

three values of Poisson's ratio. The plot illustrates the interplay

between poroelastic and filter cake effects. The crack radius

increases with increasing damage.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page I-10

25

20 Poisson's ratio = 0.2

Poisson's ratio = 0.3

15

10

0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Filter Cake Damage Parameter ()

Poisson's ratios. For the case of constant injection rate, Q, the curves

show the relationship between the injection pressures and the

amount of damage. According to this model the injection pressure, p i,

will decrease as the damage increases (due to damage and the

geometry of the fracture). The pressure decrease may have more to

do with the volume of the fluid lost than the extent of the damage.

The argument for this is that in conventional hydraulic fracturing

simulations, excess pressure (for a contained two-dimensional

fracture) decreases with increasing fluid loss. However, the increase

in length shown in Figure 2 can be directly correlated with the

plugging effects of the solids.

Porous Material Solution with Damaged Zone and Crack Tip Plug

1. A plug of length R - a occupies the crack tip(s). In this representation, the crack

radius is R while the radius that is open for "fluid occupancy in the crack" is a.

There is no fluid flow into the injection zone from the crack surface between the

radii a and R.

2. A damaged zone of finite extent is introduced around the crack. The damaged

zone is an ellipsoid occupying the region around the fracture. All quantities in

the damaged zone are designated with subscripted plus signs. For example, P +

is the pore pressure in the damaged zone and + is the permeability to viscosity

ratio in the damaged zone. The corresponding quantities outside of the

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page I-11

damaged zone are designated with subscripted minus signs. The elastic

properties, , and (Lams constants and Poissons ratio) of the poroelastic

material are the same in the damaged and undamaged zones.

a / R andR1 a 1 2 are factors for the sizes of the tip plug and damage

zones.

1 1

2

1 0 0 1

is the permeability damage factor

injection rate, Q, and a fixed crack radius, R, (tip plugging and efficiency could be

restricting growth) while is increased (a greater extent of the damage zone) and

is decreased (longer plug at the crack tip). The figures in the following section

illustrate the interaction between these plugging parameters (at the fracture tip and

formation damage), with injection pressure and fracture length.

For a fixed crack radius, R, and selected values of the dimensionless plug length,

measured by (1 ) , the dependence of the crack pressure, p i, on the permeability

ratio, measured by , is plotted in Figure 4. The crack pressure is seen to rise as

either the damaged zone permeability decreases or as the plug length grows.

These results make physical sense as permeability reduction and plug length

growth both cause an impediment to fluid leakoff from the fracture into the

injection zone.

Figures 4 and 5 show results for the case with no plug [(R-a)/R =0] and for

different ratios of the (damaged region radius)/(crack length). These curves

demonstrate that the injection pressure and the stress intensity factor (because of

differing degrees of fluid lost to the formation) both increase with a reduction in the

damaged zone permeability and an increase in the size of the damaged zone - as is

intuitively expected.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page I-12

11500

(R - a)/R = 0

11000 (R - a)/R = 0.048

(R - a)/R = 0.084

10500

Crack Pressure (psi)

10000

9500

9000

8500

8000

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

= 1 - +/ -

with the magnitude of the reduction in permeability in the damaged

zone. A larger value of implies that the permeability of the

damaged zone is reduced. is equal to permeability divided by

viscosity, the subscript "+" denotes the damaged zone, and the

subscript "-" denotes the virgin, undamaged formation. As the

reduction of permeability in the damaged zone increases, the

pressure in the fracture increases. As the extent of tip plugging

increases, the pressure in the fracture also increases because

pressure is not transmitted to the fracture tip to allow propagation

(fixed crack radius).

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page I-13

12500

(R-a)/R = 0

12000 (R-a)/R = 0.048

(R-a)/R = 0.084

11500

Crack Pressure (psi)

11000

10500

10000

9500

9000

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

= 1 - +/ -

with the magnitude of the reduction in permeability in the damaged

zone. This is similar to Figure 4, with the exception that the injection

rate is 43 percent higher. More precisely, the ratio of the rate to the

product of k/ and R is 43 percent higher. The consequence is an

increase in the fracture pressure - caused by increased rate and/or

decreased damage zone permeability, and/or increased viscosity and

or an increase in the overall length of the fracture. A larger value of

implies that the permeability of the damaged zone is reduced. is

equal to permeability divided by viscosity, the subscript "+" denotes

the damaged zone, and the subscript "-" denotes the virgin,

undamaged formation. As the reduction of permeability in the

damaged zone increases, the pressure in the fracture increases. As

the extent of tip plugging increases, the pressure in the fracture also

increases because pressure is not transmitted to the fracture tip to

allow propagation.

pressure with an increase in the extent of the permeability-damaged zone.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page I-14

11500

Damage Zone Radius/Crack Radius = 1.25

11000 Damage Zone Radius/Crack Radius = 1.50

Damage Zone Radius/Crack Radius = 1.75

Damage Zone Radius/Crack Radius = 2.00

Injection Pressure (psi)

10500

10000

9500

9000

8500

8000

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

= 1 - +/ -

Figure 6. This is a plot of the injection pressure with the degree of damage in

the formation due to fluid loss. Moving along, the abscissa, it can be

seen as the permeability of the damaged zone decreases, the

pressure increases. In addition, looking at the three different curves,

as the extent of the damaged zone increases, the injection pressure

also increases.

Field experience has shown that, to maintain a fixed injection rate, the required

injection pressure changes very slowly with time (very important). It is possible

that an interplay between the competing influences on K I of the damaged zone and

the plug accounts for this gradual injection pressure change.

In the following example, the nature of the damaged zone - plug length interplay

indicates that the fracture can maintain a steady rate of growth while both the

injection pressure and the injection rate remain nominally constant as damage

(measured either by the damaged zone permeability decrease or the damaged zone

extent) increases. The fracture growth criterion remains constant while both the

crack radius and the plug length increase.

Initially the crack has no damaged zone and no plug. In that situation, as either

R a

d = (damaged zone radius)/(crack radius) = 1 1 2 , or,

R

= 1 - (permeability ratio) = 1

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page I-15

are increased, the values of the crack radius, R, and the plug length, R-a, are found

so that the initial value of the stress intensity factor, K I, occurs while the injection

rate, Q, has a value of Qo.

Consider Figure 7. In this figure, each curve is for a fixed, but different

permeability in the damaged zone. An increase in means a reduction in the

permeability in the damaged zone. The dimensionless damaged zone radius

R a

1 1 2 is the abscissa, the dimensionless plug length [(R-a)/R] is the

R

ordinate and the parameter varied is which is indicative of the magnitude of the

permeability reduction. For each curve in Figure 6, initially, there is a rapid rise

increase in the length of the plugged zone at the tip with an increase in the extent

of the dimensionless damaged zone (damaged zone radius)/(crack radius). The

rate at which the tip plug grows decreases with increasing extent of the damaged

zone up to a value of approximately 1.5, after which it levels off and then the

dimensionless plugged length (plug length)/(crack radius) decreases slightly from

its maximum value.

0.08

0.07

Plug Length/Crack Radius

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Damaged Zone Radius/Crack Radius

Figure 7. This is a plot of the length of the plugged zone at each tip of the

fracture (non-dimensionalized by the fracture radius) with the extent

of damage in the formation due to fluid loss. Moving along, the

abscissa, it can be seen that as the extent of the damaged zone

increases, the plug length first increases rapidly up to reach a

constant plug length-to-crack radius ratio. In addition, looking at the

four different curves, as the permeability of the damaged zone

decreases, the plug length to crack radius ratio also increases.

[supported by mass balance considerations].

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page I-16

Figure 8 shows how the crack radius is altered by damage. Each curve is for a

constant (but different) damaged zone permeability. As the size of the damaged

zone increases, the radius of the crack grows monotonically. The rate of growth of

the crack radius decreases with the size of the damaged zone.

R/Ro (Crack Radius/Original Crack Radius)

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Damaged Zone Radius/Crack Radius

the original fracture radius) with the extent of damage in the

formation due to fluid loss. Moving along, the abscissa, it can be seen

as the extent of the damaged zone decreases, the radius increases.

In addition, looking at the three different curves, as the permeability

of the damaged zone decreases, the crack radius also increases.

Figures 7 and 8 show the interplay between the plug length and crack radius when

both the injection pressure and the injection flow rate are held constant. The

figures show that a nearly constant value for (plug length)/(crack radius) is

approached as damage continues to increase. The crack radius grows

monotonically at a decreasing rate as damage continues to increase.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page J-1

APPENDIX J

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page J-2

Shell/Maersk Models

(Ovens and Niko, Ovens et. al)

The Barenblatt fracture growth criterion is combined with thermal and poroelastic

effects and fracture toughness to yield a compact formulation, relating changes in

fracture length to changes in fracture pressure. It is assumed that fractures grow

with a constant height. Two dimensionless parameters are introduced: one relates

the magnitude of in-situ stress changes due to thermal and poroelastic effects and

one relates to toughness. The limitations of this model include:

necessary for considering injector/producer interaction.

Flux of water exiting the fracture is uniformly distributed along the length of the

fracture.

It is a two-dimensional, constant height model.

Case studies have been published for a number of wells in the Dan Field, in the

Danish sector of the North Sea - a low permeability chalk oil field. The reservoir

has a porosity of 20 40% but low matrix permeability of 0.5 2 mD. Tectonic

fractures are rarely observed except in the immediate vicinity of the main fault.

Several monitoring techniques were applied to evaluate fracture height, length,

orientation and injector/producer interaction. The techniques included openhole

and through-casing saturation logging, tracer injection, producer water cut

monitoring and falloff surveys in injection wells.

In general, the observed fracture wing areas are in line with those expected from

the model. However, injectors with higher rates generally require higher

permeability to match the field data. The physical origin of this effect could be the

induction of micro-fractures near the plane of the main fracture, which enhances

the effective permeability seen by the fracture.Error: Reference source not found

This may be due to thermal stress effects because the minimum stress can change

orientation during injection. Error: Reference source not found

to Dan field water injection projects.Error: Reference source not found The

following is a summary of the monitoring techniques used in identifying fractures.

77

J. Ovens and H. Niko, A New Model for Well Testing in Water Injection Wells Under Fracturing

Conditions, SPE 26425, presented at the SPE 68 th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held

in Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1993.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page J-3

a short lived radioactive -emitting tracer was injected into the water injectors

MFB-07m MFA-09A, MFB-05 and MFB-01, which surround the A-Flank west

producer MFB-22. In addition, a suite of logs including -ray, was run in the MFB-

22 itself. The -ray logs were intended to identify the position of the induced

fractures intersecting MFB-22 and to determine whether the fractures had multiple

branches.

If the injector and producer are both sub-vertical, this method of injection may not

work because the fracture may not intersect with the producer.

In the summer of 1996, a new producer, well MD-3B, was drilled on the crest of

the A-block. The well intercepted the fracture created by the injector ME-02, which

had been injecting above fracture propagation pressure for some six months. The

open-hole resistivity log from MD-3B clearly shows a waterflooded interval about

150 feet wide. Error: Reference source not found

The contrast between the injected water and formation water indicates where the

fracture intersects with the producer. The sharp change could also indicate piston

like displacement.

Temperature logs were used to infer the fracture height along the wellbore. This

technique is questionable, especially after a large volume of water has been

injected.

Fracture dimensions (length and height) are mainly inferred through pressure

matching with numerical model.

Three possible methods were suggested for detecting fracture splintering or

branching one is -ray tracer logging, another is saturation logging and the third

is evaluation of the injection pressure signature. Multiple spikes and new spikes at

a later time were suggested to be indications of multiple fractures. If saturation

logging did not indicate swept zone from a single fracture and injection pressure

showed a step-like increase, then this was suggested as an indication of multiple

fracture growth. Periods of rapid pressure increase were inferred to be indications

of multiple fracture growth. One needs to be cautious about this because periods of

rapid pressure increase could be the indication of fracture tip plugging and sudden

growth.

Fracture branching has been observed in the pilot injection well through logging the

swept zone in a horizontal well about 1000 ft away. Two swept zones of about 50

feet wide and 100 feet apart were found.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page K-1

APPENDIX K

Shell 1 Model

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page K-2

Shell 1

Background

The model is an extension of Konings model for waterflood-induced fracturing. The

fracture is assumed to fully penetrate a permeable layer and is bounding above and

below by impermeable material. The fracture is surrounded by four elliptically

shaped zones that include:

2. a cooled (or heated depending on the injected fluid) zone,

3. a zone flooded by injected water that has warmed up, and,

4. a virgin oil zone.

Each zone is characterized by its own temperature, saturant viscosities, and relative

permeabilities. The extent of each zone is determined from mass balance as well

as heat capacities of the water and the target formation (using the methods

outlined in Konings thesis). The fracture face is covered with an external filter cake

consisting of injected oil and solids that have not penetrated into the formation.

Eventually, the fracture may be filled with solids (oil) that have not penetrated into

the formation, leading to a finite fracture conductivity. This is a significant

departure from Konings model.

Propagation

For clean water injection, the fracture is infinite conductivity, poro- and

thermoelastic back stresses are applied and propagation is based on a critical stress

intensity factor criterion. A geometry factor is included to account for whether the

fracture has a KGD or PKN geometry. Poroelasticity is incorporated using analytical

solutions for elliptical regimes. Thermoelasticity is based on the concepts of Perkins

and Gonzalez.

Damage

The damage is represented as:

permeability impairment factor. The boundary is calculated from the volume

of injected oil (solids) that deeply penetrates (analogous to an internal filter

cake). It is assumed that this is roughly equal to the extent of the residual

oil saturation. A determination must be made of what percentage of the

oil/solids deeply penetrates.

2. An external filter cake on the fracture face with uniform permeability. The

thickness of this filter cake is assumed to be elliptical. If the fracture

conductivity is infinite this implies a uniform pressure drop over the entire

surface. Thickness of the filter cake is calculated from the volume of injected

solids/oil that remains in the fracture and the fracture surface areas.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page K-3

3. Internal plugging of the fracture. When the external cake starts to form it is

assumed that supplementary deposition of solids will be against the external

filter cake and will progressively fill the fracture. Elliptical symmetry is lost

but this is resolved mathematically in the model. Consequently, a finite

conductivity fracture can result. It is visualized that wormholes will evolve.

This picture allows one to calculate the fracture conductivity by requiring

that at any moment in time, the fracture volume should be equal to the total

volume of injected solids.

Movement of fines towards the tip is envisioned and two extremes in fracture

permeability are envisioned (one uniform permeability profile and one with an

impermeable tip plug).

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page L-1

APPENDIX L

Shell 2 Model

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page L-2

Shell 2 Model

Introduction

This is a pseudo-three-dimensional fracture growth model which permits the

description of elliptical fractures in a multi-layered reservoir. Symmetrical vertical

growth is not a pre-requisite.

Principles

that fracture growth and development of the pressure field can be decoupled. This

permits modelling of the pressure field in the reservoir using a constant fracture

length. The transient pressure is approximated by applying the Laplace equation

with a moving boundary for the pressure disturbance.

Fracture friction (shear) is ignored although pressure drop along the length of the

fracture can result due to plugging. It is assumed that when multiple layers are

present that there is no crossflow in the reservoir.

Pressure Distribution

radial fracture in an unbounded reservoir with a two-dimensional solution (far-field)

for an elliptically symmetric, pseudo-steady state situation. There is a discontinuity

at the transition between the two regimes. This transition concept also applies for

multiple mobility zones. Thermo- and poroelastic effects are considered.

Damage

previous 2D model, the filtercake was assumed to be uniformly distributed over the

fracture wall, with a possible tip plug at the end of the fracture where no water

could penetrate. However, this resulted in often very high simulated bottomhole

pressure as the friction in the very narrow sheet of fluid would become excessive.

This observation pointed us to introduce channeling as a mechanism to release

pressure.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page M-1

APPENDIX M

TerraFracTM

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page M-2

TerraFrac

three-dimensional elasticity and two-dimensional fluid flow between fracture

surfaces. Fracture growth is governed by fracture mechanics. The fracture is

subdivided into discrete triangular elements by an adaptive meshing generator and

the governing equations for these elements are solved by an approach similar to

finite element method. That is, the modal force and displacement are related by a

stiffness matrix. These governing equations consists of:

1. Elasticity equations that relate the pressure over the fracture to the fracture

opening for an arbitrary shaped, planar fracture.

2. Fluid flow equations that relate the flow of the slurry between the fracture

surfaces to the pressure gradients in the fluid.

3. A fracture criterion that relates the intensity of the stress state ahead of the

fracture front to the critical stress intensity necessary for tensile fracture of

the rock.

Thermoelastic and poroelastic effects are considered in the model. Elastic modulus

contrast between layers and their effects on fracture growth are modeled. For long-

term injection, fractures can cross many different zones and all or parts of the

fracture can close during injection. The model can simulate fracture closure on part

of the fracture and re-opening if pressure becomes high enough again during

injection.

subdivided into elements. For three-dimensional hydraulic fracture modeling, the

fracture geometry must be determined during the simulation and can be very

complex in shape. More importantly, the fracture constantly changes its shape

during injection and therefore, the meshing generator must be adaptive.

triangulation. It has proven to be robust and adaptive for continuing fracture shape

evolution. The following are three examples generated by the meshing generator.

78

R.J. Clifton, Three-Dimensional Fracture-Propagation Models,, Chapter 5 in

Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE Monograph Vol. 2, edited by J.L.

Gidley, S.A. Holditch, D.E. Nierode and R.W. Veatch, Jr.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page M-3

2000

1500

1000

Y (ft)

500

-500

0 1000 2000

X (ft)

200

150

100

Fracture Height (ft)

50

High Stress Layer

0

-50

-100

-150

-200

Fracture Length (ft)

high stress or a large permeability pay zone.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page M-4

150

100

50

0

Y (ft)

-50

-100

-150

X (ft)

Examples

Several example simulations are shown below. These examples show the

mechanisms such as stress, permeability, elastic modulus, fluid viscosity, etc., that

can affect the fracture geometry. All of the mechanisms interact together to govern

the fracture geometry. For example, the example shown for high stress barriers

(Figure 5) indicates that the fracture is contained by the high stress in the upper

and lower zones. However, if the fluid viscosity were higher, the pressure drop from

the wellbore to the fracture front in the lateral direction would be larger and the

fracture could grow in the vertical direction, rather than laterally.

This case is for a contained fracture in a three-layered formation with uniform

properties except for the minimum in-situ stress, as shown in Figure 4. The large

stresses in the bounding layers prevent out-of-zone growth. If the frictional loss

along the fracture becomes large either (due to large fracture length or due to

higher fluid viscosity), then out-of-zone growth may occur. Selected simulation

using TerraFrac is shown in Figure 5.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page M-5

Stress Profile

(Injection Volume = 250,000 bbls)

400

Width (in)

1.20

200 1.08

0.96

0.83

Permeable 0.71

0

F ra ct u re H e i g h t (f t )

Sand 0.59

0.47

0.34

200 0.22

0.10

400 Schematic of

Shale Stress Profile

600

800

1000

0 500 1000 1500

Half Fracture Length (ft)

Figure 5. Large stresses in the upper and lower shales prevent the fracture

from growing substantially out of the sand.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page M-6

Circular Fracture

This is a classic simulation. There are even some closed-form solutions to

restricted versions of this problem. The example shown here entails fracturing in a

homogeneous, isotropic environment with only regular variation in the minimum

horizontal stress (refer to Figure 6). Selected simulation using TerraFrac for this

case is shown in Figure 7.

Stress Profile

400

Width (in)

0.4456

300 0.4160

0.3864

0.3568

0.3272

200 0.2976

0.2680

0.2384

0.2088

Y (ft)

0.1792

100 0.1496

0.1199

0.0903

0.0607

0.0311

0

-100

X (ft)

Figure 7. Fracture shape and fracture width contour plot for a circular

fracture.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page M-7

This case shows a fracture in a layered environment, with different in-situ stress

levels in each of the layers; as shown schematically in Figure 8. Selected

simulation results using TerraFrac are shown in Figure 9.

Stress Profile

250

Width (in)

0.6020

0.5619

200 0.5218

0.4818

0.4417

0.4016

0.3615

150 0.3214

0.2813

0.2412

0.2011

Y (ft)

100 0.1611

0.1210

0.0809

0.0408

50

-50

0 100 200 300

X (ft)

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page M-8

This case demonstrates the non-symmetric features (inclined) and the to

fundamentally incorporate elastic moduli contrasts between layers. The example

shown here is a three-layer scenario. The layers dip at 45 o (for demonstration

purposes only). The elastic moduli for the top and bottom layers are ten times the

elastic modulus of the middle layer. Other properties for the three layers are the

same. Figure 10 shows the fracture shape and width contours, at shut-in. As can

be seen, fracture growth into the higher modulus layers is limited because of much

smaller apertures and consequent larger pressure gradients.

150

Width (in)

0.4200

0.3920

100 0.3640

0.3361

0.3081

0.2801

50 0.2521

0.2241

0.1961

0.1681

Y (ft)

0 0.1402

0.1122

0.0842

0.0562

-50 0.0282

-100

-150

-100 0 100

X (ft)

Figure 10. An elevation view of the fracture shape and width contours for a

formation dipping at 45, showing the elastic modulus effect on

fracture growth.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page M-9

A Leakoff Barrier

This example shows the effect of permeability and solid particles on fracture growth

in drill cuttings re-injection. The fracture propagates rapidly upward due to lower

in-situ stress at smaller elevations. As the fracture enters the upper zone, which

large permeability, fluid leaks off into the formation and high concentration of solid

particles prevents the fracture from growing up further, as shown in Figure 11. The

same characteristic plugging effect can be anticipated for PWRI.

2500

2000 0.550

0.504

0.457

0.411

Solid particles were simulated as

2 ppg proppant. Solid plugging 0.365

1500

F r a c tu r e H e ig h t (ft)

when the fracture enters into the 0.272

permeable sand (at the top). 0.225

0.179

1000 0.133

0.086

0.040

500

500

0 1000 2000 3000

Half Fracture Length (ft)

Figure 11. This case shows that the fracture is contained by a highly permeable

sand during drill cuttings re-injection.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page M-10

Hourglass-Shaped Fractures

This case was a three-layered situation with larger in-situ stresses (or large

permeability) in the perforated, middle layer. As the fracture enters the upper and

lower layers, which have smaller in-situ stresses, the growth rate into these two

layers becomes larger and the fracture is pinched in the middle layer. An

hourglass-shaped fracture is developed, as shown in Figure 12.

(Fracture Growth into Low Stress Zones)

200

Width (in.)

150

0.243

0.226

100 0.210

0.194

Fracture Height (ft)

0.178

50 0.162

0.146

High Stress Layer 0.130

0 0.114

0.098

0.082

-50

0.065

0.049

-100 0.033

0.017

-150

-200

Fracture Length (ft)

Figure 12. Hourglass shaped fracture and the fracture width contours.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page M-11

Non-Symmetric Fractures

and in three dipping layers, with larger in-situ stresses (or large permeability) in

the perforated, middle layer. As the fracture enters the upper and lower layers,

which have smaller in-situ stresses, the growth rate into these two layers becomes

larger and the fracture is pinched in the middle layer, as shown in Figure 13.

Formation with Dipping Layers

Wellbore

200

0.258

0.241

0.224

Vertical C oordinate (ft)

100

0.207

0.190

0.173

50 0.156

0.139

0.121

0 0.104

0.087

0.070

0.053

50 0.036

Dipping Layers

0.019

100

150

100 0 100 200 300

Horizontal Coordinate (ft)

with dipping layers.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page M-12

REFERENCES - TerraFracTM

1. Cliford, P.J., Berry, P.J. and Gu, H.: Modeling the Vertical Confinement for Injection

Well Thermal Fractures, SPE 20741 (1990).

2. Martins, J.P., Murray, L.R., Clifford, P.J., McLelland, G., Hanna M.F., and Sharp Jr, J.W.:

Long-Term Performance of Injection Wells at Prudhoe Bay: The Observed Effects of

Thermal Fracturing and Produced Water Re-Injection, paper SPE 28936, presented

at the 1994 SPE (69th) Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New

Orleans, LA, September 25-28.

3. Clifford, P.J., Mellor, D.W. and Jones, T.J.: Water Quality Requirements for Fractured

Injection Wells, paper SPE 21439, presented at the 1991 SPE Middle East Oil Show

held in Bahrain, November 16-19.

4. Settari, A. and Warren, G.M.: Simulation and Field Analysis of Waterflood Induced

Fracturing, paper SPE/ISRM 28081 presented at the 1994 Eurorock 94 Rock

Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands, August 29-31.

5. Settari, A., Warren, G.M., Jacquemont, J., Bieniawski, P. and Dussaud, M.: Brine

Disposal into a Tight Stress Sensitive Formation at Fracturing Conditions: Design and

Field Experience, paper SPE 38893 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical

Meeting, San Antonio, TX, October 5-8.

6. Fracture Propagation, Filter Cake Build-up and Formation Plugging During PWRI,

PWRI News Letter, Feature Article, Volume 1, No. 3, October 1999.

7. Ovens, J. Larsen, F.P. and Cowie, D.R.: Making Sense of Water Injection Fractures in

the Dan Field, paper SPE 38928 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical

Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, October 5-8.

8. Settari, A.: Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Processes, SPE Journal, December

1980, pp. 487-500.

9. Koning, E.J.L.: Waterflooding Under Fracturing Conditions, PhD thesis, Technical

University of Delft, 1988.

10. Detienne, J-L., Creusot, M., Kessler, N., Sahuquet, B. and Bergerot, J-L.: Thermally

Induced Fractures: A Field Proven Analytical Model, paper SPE 30777 presented at

the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, October

22-25.

11. Perkins, T.K. and Gonzalez, J.A.: The Effect of Thermoelastic Stresses on Injection

Well Fracturing, SPE Journal, February 1985, pp. 78 88.

12. Morales, R.H., Abou-Sayed, A.S., Jones, A.H. and Al Saffar, A.: Detection of

Formation Fracture in a Waterflooding Experiment, paper SPE 13747 presented at

the SPE 1985 Middle East Oil Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Bahrain,

March 11-14.

13. R.J. Clifton, Three-Dimensional Fracture-Propagation Models, Chapter 5 in Recent

Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE Monograph Vol. 2, edited by J.L. Gidley, S.A.

Holditch, D.E. Nierode and R.W. Veatch, Jr.

14. J. Ovens and H. Niko, A New Model for Well Testing in Water Injection Wells Under

Fracturing Conditions, SPE 26425, presented at the SPE 68 th Annual Technical

Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1993.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page N-1

APPENDIX N

Visage TM System

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page N-2

Basic Description of the Model

The VISAGETM System provides for two software options for studying injection

during reservoir simulations in both small scale (around wells) and large scale

reservoir simulations. The first option is for partially coupled simulations, whereby

VISAGETM when linked to ECLIPSE, VIP, ATHOS and FRONTSIM forms the SIM2VIS

System. The second option is to use a fully coupled stress/fluid/thermal multiphase

flow module called VIRAGE.

SIM2VIS

The SIM2VIS system can be used to study the effect of thermal gradients on

preferred waterflood directionality, stress magnitude and orientation. This

simulator assesses the effect of porous media deformation on fluid flow

characteristics and is linked directly to ECLIPSE, VIP, ATHOS and FRONTSIM. 3-D

reservoir models with complex pre-defined distributions of faults and a large

number of gridcells (>500,000) are readily accommodated. During waterflooding,

faults and fractures may become conduits of flow or indeed transmissibility barriers

if sealing occurs. The evolution of fractures is constantly traced with hydraulic

parameters being updated, incorporating experimental data obtained from core

samples to update permeabilities and rock fabric characteristics, as such fracturing

develops. SIM2VIS accounts for changes in the effective stress state and rock

fabric.

where ECLIPSE performs the fluid flow and temperature calculations, using

permeability fields that have been determined from a non-linear stress analysis

using VISAGETM. ECLIPSE determines pore pressure and/or temperature

distributions which are used in the stress calculations to determine equilibrium

levels of effective stress. V.I.P.S. stated that if hydraulic fracturing takes place,

normal and shear plastic fault/fracture strains are determined and used to enhance

or reduce levels of permeability in the reservoir. If thermal fracturing takes place

VISAGETM will take account of thermal gradients in the reservoir in determining

distributions of plastic strain. The frequency of the non-linear stress calculations

and the associated permeability enhancement calculations are at the discretion of

the user when using the SIM2VIS system.

The VISAGETM System also offers a Fully Coupled Stress Sensitive Multiphase Flow

Simulator, the VIRAGE module, for studies in a compressible non-linearly

deforming porous media. The simulator is based on the finite element method and

uses Galerkin-based numerical discretisation techniques to obtain fully coupled

solutions to the mass balance, force equilibrium and plasticity equations of

continuum mechanics. Incorporating experimental data from core samples the

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page N-3

multiphase simulator updates the full permeability tensor as fault activation and/or

fracture initiation develops during thermal injection. The thermal front is

determined from coupled solutions of the advection diffusion equation governing

thermal energy transport.

in response to changes in volumetric stress and strain. Direct, symmetric and

asymmetric solvers enable large problems, which may involve complex distributions

of faults and fractures, to be solved effectively and efficiently. VIRAGE is also linked

to ECLIPSE, FRONTSIM, ATHOS and VIP. Pre- and post-processors, FEMGEN and

FEMVIEW, provide a wide range of mesh and visualisation techniques for complex,

structured or unstructured model generation and interpretation of predicted results,

including deformations, stress/strain distributions, levels of induced pressure and

saturation and vector plots of all the velocity components of all fluid phases. Colour

contour maps of updated permeability and porosity levels can easily be obtained.

Fault/Fracture Model

Fracture models in the VISAGE TM System are available for both 2-D and 3-D

simulations and use the finite element method to determine changes in fault and

fracture apertures. The approach incorporates constitutive models for the rock

fabric operating under the fundamental principles of viscoplasticity. In this manner

the intact rock, fracture sets and faults can obey independently different

constitutive laws. Upon fracturing and/or fault activation, the simulator calculates

normal and shear strains for each fracture set or fault. Normal strains represent

the potential for fault opening and permeability enhancement, whereas shear

strains represent the potential for fault sealing. The viscoplastic approach to

solving intact material non-linearity and/or fracturing is based upon iterative

procedures which determine successive solutions until any effective stresses that

violate the imposed constitutive models are returned to the yield surfaces within

strict tolerances.

For soft sands a damage mechanic theory with or without a cap and based on

multi-plane theories may be invoked to assess the potential for micro-fracture

initiation and fracture evolution and propagation during thermal injection.

Permeability and porosity changes in the rock fabric can be ascertained, which in

turn alter the pressure and/or thermal fields. Both the VIRAGE and the SIM2VIS

Systems have access to these procedures in an attempt to assess the effects of

fracturing in soft sands and resulting reservoir performance.

use the code foe PWRI simulations. (These are provided in Appendix __.)

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page O-1

APPENDIX O

WID Model

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page O-2

WID

WID is a PC-based simulator developed at the University of Texas at Austin. It can

accommodate layered reservoirs, horizontal wells, and constant injection pressure

boundary conditions.

as a function of time and distance from the well. This is done by solving the

filtration equations in that region. Information on the filtration coefficient is

available in Pang and Sharma, 1994,79 and Wennberg, 199880.

2. Calculate the altered permeability in the near-well zone due to retained

particles.

3. Determine how this near-well damage changes the injectivity of the well.

This depends on the formation parameters as well as the completion

geometry.

4. Calculate the transition time, i.e., the time where an external filter cake

starts building on the wellbore. Before the transition time, only internal

filtration is considered. After the transition time, only external damage is

considered. The default porosity for the external cake is 0.25 and

permeability is calculated from particle size and the Cozeny equation.

Other Features:

1. WID 3.1 can represent a constant half-length fracture with a constant width.

The conductivity is calculated assuming parallel plates.

2. Completion skin can be incorporated.

3. Surface properties are specified and downhole pressure is calculated.

4. Damage is calculated using particle deposition and the Cozeny equation

(refer to Sharma et al., 1997 81). Changes in porosity and surface area are

considered, as is the consequent tortuosity and reduction in permeability. A

damage factor is specified as is a filtration coefficient,, (d/dt=vc where

is the deposited concentration, v is the velocity, and c is the suspended

concentration).

5. The injectivity ratio is calculated and plotted. This is the injectivity divided

by the initial injectivity. The half-life is indicated (the injectivity ratio has a

value of 0.5).

79

Pang, S. and Sharma, M.M.: A Model for Predicting Injectivity Decline in Water Injection Wells, SPE

28489, paper presented at the 69 th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA

(September 25-28, 1994).

80

Wennberg, K.E.: Particle Retention in Porous Media: Applications to Water Injectivity Decline, PhD

Thesis, The Norwegian Institute of Science and Technology, Trondheim (February, 1998).

81

Sharma, M.M., Pang, S., Wennberg, K.E., and Morganthaler, L.: Injectivity Decline in water Injection

Wells An Offshore Gulf of Mexico Case Study, SPE 38180, paper presented at SPE 1997 European

Formation Damage Control Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands.

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page O-3

filtration, i.e., damage to the rock matrix. The injectivity curve, therefore,

stays at a value of 1 until the transition time is reached. Then the injectivity

starts to decrease because the deposited particle layer at the fracture surface

decreases the fracture conductivity. Just before the fracture plugs

completely, the injectivity declines very rapidly.

7. The simulator defines a one-dimensional grid in the nearwell zone in which

the filtration equation is solved and particle deposition is determined.

8. The transition time is the time when the deposition mechanism changes from

internal deposition to external cake build-up. In practice, this transition will

be gradual, but WID considers it to take place abruptly in each layer.

Different layers can have different transition times. By default, the

transition time is reached when the porosity in the first few layers of grains is

reduced to that of the formation porosity times the filter cake porosity. This

is the theoretical minimum value the formation porosity can achieve. All

subsequent particles are trapped as an external cake.

- 1. PETSOC-2003-181-P - Using Decline Curves to Forecast Waterflooded Reservoris_Fundamentals and Field CasesTransféré parFranck Iparraguirre
- Analysis of Chemical Tracer Flowback in Unconventional Reservoirs - SPE-171656-MSTransféré parkarenomalley
- SPE-169263-MSTransféré parfrancisco_pazv_59954
- H08061Transféré paralexverde3
- 2003 Frac and PWT InfoTransféré parshanlykannoth
- Karoo Fracking ArticleTransféré parWillem Avenant
- Waste Water_ America's Hidden 60 Million Barrel a Day IndustryTransféré parBckMtCitizens
- Natural Gas From Shale and Tight Rocks - An Overview of Western Australia Regulatory FrameworkTransféré parHands Off Country
- SPE-96945-MSTransféré parUdi
- Fracking leaves radioactive materials in PA rivers.Transféré parAlexander Knight
- Shale Gas - Litrature ReviewTransféré parArpan Biswas
- SPE - 108075 - Horizontal Well Completion and Stimulation TechniquesTransféré parfendercolombo
- Report - The Appearance of the ACP's Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Its Product and PipelineTransféré paryostgb
- Chapter 2 - Formation DamageTransféré parKamran Haider Tunio
- Fracking Water: It's Just So Hard to CleanTransféré parruddydownlink4406
- 2014 03 13 Diana Daunheimer Hydraulic Fracturing Presentation to ASRFTransféré paryaheria
- IPTC-11165-MS-PTransféré parmsmsoft90
- Carbonate SCAL-Characterisation of Carbonate Rock Types for Determination of Saturatiuon Functions and Residual Oil Saturations - 2004.pdfTransféré parAlex
- States First LetterTransféré parColin Gardette
- stimulationTransféré parSergio Pablo Rodríguez
- Fracking Briefing NoteTransféré parKaren Kleiss
- dashti2007Transféré parAmr Hegazy
- 00001121Transféré parBolsec14
- Hydraulic Fracturing FAQTransféré parOmar Zamora
- SPE-167145-MSTransféré partomk2220
- <<<<U_U>>>>Transféré parvastaguen
- Wiley-Contaminant pathways fr hydraulically fract shale (1).pdfTransféré parAnonymous Wcj4C3j
- Hydraulic FracturingTransféré parAnurag Roy
- Infill WellsTransféré parEsteban Santamaria Ovalle
- [Canada Research] Cardium Junior Oil Amp Gas ProducersTransféré parBiswajeet Pattnaik

- 01.Chapter 1Transféré parrajpersonal
- Lab 6_ HardnessTransféré parBinu Kaani
- Energy and Climate CoursesTransféré parBinu Kaani
- 2010-12-09-20-05-29Transféré parBinu Kaani
- Tech%5CReservoir%5CReservoarteknikk 2%5Cløsning Til OppgaverTransféré parBinu Kaani
- me16ch00Transféré parFigueiredo Marcos
- Lab 8_ Jar TestTransféré parBinu Kaani
- Løsninger i Excel TinaTransféré parBinu Kaani
- EOR Lect 5 Polymer FloodingTransféré parBinu Kaani
- Lab 2_ pHTransféré parBinu Kaani
- Øving 15 Eksempel Felt ReservoartrykkTransféré parBinu Kaani
- Øving-5-løsningTransféré parBinu Kaani
- Lab 4_ TurbidityTransféré parBinu Kaani
- Lab 11_ ColorTransféré parBinu Kaani
- EOR Lect 1 EOR OverviewTransféré parBinu Kaani
- Return From DDNTransféré parBinu Kaani
- Sept 2015 Paid ReceiptTransféré parBinu Kaani
- Sept 2015 bill.pdfTransféré parBinu Kaani
- Standard Chartered Bank CardNet 33923 Feb 2017Transféré parBinu Kaani
- Calculus I CompleteTransféré parxenocid3r
- Tata Sky Online Recharge, Tata Sky Recharge OnlineTransféré parBinu Kaani
- _CoursePortfolio (1)Transféré parparakhurd
- Bubble DewTransféré parBinu Kaani
- Copy of Gosan Directory Updated Final Jan 2014Transféré parBinu Kaani
- Løsninger i Excel TinaTransféré parBinu Kaani
- Øving 15 Eksempel Felt ReservoartrykkTransféré parBinu Kaani
- Øving-7-MaterialbalanseTransféré parBinu Kaani
- Gspc Bill Aug-sept 16Transféré parBinu Kaani
- Standard Chartered Bank CardNet Rs.9160.00 Jan-2017.pdfTransféré parBinu Kaani

- isi IPBATransféré parWanda Astari
- ZeoliteTransféré parmelprvn
- Richter Magnitude ScaleTransféré parElaine Reyes Noriega
- Manali Leh HighlightsTransféré parCarmen David
- Japanese Volcanoes (1)Transféré parmehatabbanu
- new sepTransféré parapi-109282183
- Buried Pipelines Subjected to Mining-induced Ground movements.pdfTransféré parTony Chan
- Fuel and Energy AbstractsTransféré parashkanr65
- b 011231027Transféré parAnonymous HcYQZoQtTT
- Watershed DelineationTransféré parConor Sullivan
- Lindquist_Secant Pile Shoring - Developments in Design and Construction (DFI2011)Transféré paronuruman
- Report Text- Mystery of Borobudur TempleTransféré parNisa Ayu
- Doc Arkcls SciTransféré parEzadin Baban
- Flow RegimTransféré parrdp
- River Structures 2 LN_Ch4_RSWO_Teshome.pdfTransféré parAshraf Bestawy
- 2008-SHACKLEY-Archeometry.pdfTransféré parPareja Anyosa Dante
- Seismic Design PrinciplesTransféré parmahesh
- Unified Soil ClassTransféré parjdav1206
- 2-1 Earths Crust and InteriorTransféré parhmsaad_01
- Reservoir Petrophysics ExamTransféré parhusnainzaidi
- Pulau Kukup Johor National ParkTransféré parSiva Rajah
- SIMPLE WAY OF CONSTRUCTING ROAD BRIDGESTransféré parV Venkata Narayana
- Nova Hunting the ElementsTransféré parSepehr Masoumi-Alamouti
- 0263276417690587Transféré parLester Worthy
- Structural Analysis and Synthesis_Solution Manual [Part2].pdfTransféré parCarlos José Lopes Rodrigues
- Green_Final_Thesis_08Transféré parDianna Daitona
- Status of Geochemical behavior of ground water of Deep Aquifer in Muktainagar Area of Jalgaon District M.S. IndiaTransféré parIRJET Journal
- Pub Conf 2008 ASCE-SEI Deierlein ATC-63Transféré parprofelgwad11
- Shrinkage and Atterberg Limits in Relation to Other Properties of Principal Soil Types in IsraelTransféré parbkollarou9632
- Foundation DesignTransféré parPrem Kumar R