Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 123

PWRI March 15, 2017

Model Comparisons Page 1

Model Comparisons
PWRI March 15, 2017
Model Comparisons Page 2

Hydraulic Fracturing in Produced Water Reinjection


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

8000 Rate 4000


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

Property Seawater 50%SW:


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.

Some of the relevant differences are described below. It is essential to recognize


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

Wellhead Pressure (bars)


Rate (m3/day)

1500 150

1000 TIF 100


Radial

500 50

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (days)
PWRI March 15, 2017
Model Comparisons Page 7

Figure 2. Events during a cold water injection program showing thermal


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

Similar considerations apply to competing poroelastic effects. Detailed


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:

"An essential difference with simulation of conventional waterflood fracturing is that


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.

In conjunction with experiments, various researchers have attempted to


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.

Assuming incompressible flow, neglecting diffusion, assuming that particle


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

Iwasaki, 1937,19 worked on deep-bed filtration in sands and indicated that:

c c c
u u uc u ( 0 b)uc 0 (3)
x t x x

where:

........................................................................filtration coefficient (1/cm).

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

Figure 3. Schematic of mechanisms for particulate damage.

This is only part of the problem. Presuming that there is a mathematical


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.

A new perspective on fines deposition in porous media has been demonstrated


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

This area is incredibly complicated. WennbergError: 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).

Unfortunately, it is difficult to strictly apply these matrix injection mechanisms to


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

It is important to realize that injectivity of produced water under fracturing


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 History


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)

Figure 4. A comparison between the dimensionless leakoff rate (Q lD=Ql/


{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).

In reopening (either for a newly converted, fractured producer or for an injector


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

Wennberg, 1998,Error: Reference source not found provided a good analytical


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.

Completing and Bringing Wells on Line


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.

Conformance and Sweep


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

Danian and Cretaceous Maastrichtian chalk formations, which are characterized by


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.

Modified Hydraulic Fracturing Stimulation 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.

Yi and Peden, 1994,38 demonstrated a model, with realistic components. They


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:

pf.....................................................................pressure at the fracture face,


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.

The numerical procedures are as follows.

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."

Mayerhofer and Economides, 1993,40 presented a model which decoupled the


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

Piston like displacement of the reservoir fluid by the filtrate,


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.

Valko et al., 1997,41 developed a radial flow model to represent two-dimensional


reservoir flow that is associated with high permeability fracturing (for
stimulation/completion).

Using a planar three-dimensional fracturing simulator, Morales et al., 1986, 42


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.

Clifton and Wang, 1988,43 summarized three-dimensional modeling concepts in


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.

Two-Dimensional Produced Water Simulators


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.

Koning's analytical model, (Koning, 1988)45 calculates fracture length, bottomhole


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:

p frac (q, t, x f , h) initial P (q, t, x f , h)


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.

The pressure, pfrac, is based on a steady-state solution for a two-dimensional,


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

1. Wellbore Temperature Profile: A bottomhole flowing temperature is first


calculated. The well is divided into segments and the transient heat exchange
solution of Poettmann et al,51 is used.

2. Perform Calculations For Radial Injection: Matrix injection is initially assumed,


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.

3. Fractured Well: When the pressure becomes adequate to initiate/grow a


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:

sgeometry......................................................................geometric fracture skin,


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).

4. Wellhead Pressure: Bottomhole pressure is converted to surface pressure by


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:

an impaired zone where oil/solids have penetrated,


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:

pf (q, t, xf , h) initial PT (q, t, xf , h)


K (12)
g( xf , h) IC
xf
where:

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


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:

A damaged zone around the fracture that was characterized by a uniform


"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.

Once external filter cake development is initiated, it is presumed that internal


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:

1. Assuming that uniform fracture permeability will provide an upper-bound


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."

When a uniform, finite conductivity fracture was assumed, observations from


various simulations were:

Injection water temperature has a significant impact on well injectivity.


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

Where an impermeable tip plug was assumed, simulations suggested that:

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

Analytical representation of the tip-plugging scenario is possible by using infinite


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

x'f...............................................half-length of unplugged part of the fracture,


pfiltercake.....................................pressure drop through the external filter cake,
KIC................................................................Mode I fracture toughness, and,
g(xf, h)...................................................................fracture geometry factor.

Another significant determination by van den Hoek et al., 1996,Error: Reference


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).

In 1998, WennbergError: Reference source not found presented a description of the


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

Pseudo-Three-Dimensional Produced Water Simulators


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

Gheissary et al., 1998,54 extended van den Hoek's injection methodologyError:


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

Presuming slow fracture growth, change in geometry and development of the


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)

0.7 psi / ft 0 - 14.94

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

Injection 134.4 - 149.4

Minimum Stress (MPa)

Figure 5. Application of Shell's in-house pseudo-three-dimensional code for


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

Coupled Reservoir Modeling


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:

Matching the injection below fracture pressure to provide basic reservoir


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

Long-term injection can provide information on stress changes in the reservoir,


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:

"Parametric" leakoff model. This assumes one-dimensional, piston-like


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:

Qiw = Qi/2.......................................................the injection rate for one wing,


R2D.............................................................growth reduction factor based on
numerical solutions for a limited range of QD,
u...................................................................................................velocity,
h...........................................................................formation thickness, and,
C...........................................................................overall leakoff coefficient.

Koning, 1988,Error: Reference source not found provided analytical relationships


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

Most water injection wells in deep reservoirs are fractured.

"Simulation of thermally induced waterflood fracturing requires the coupling of fluid


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

The assumption of large vertical extent is often inappropriate and variable


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

"It is rare for assumptions such as one-dimensional, transient leakoff, which is


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

"The waterflood fracture is assumed to advance through a series of quasi-


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

Case 1 is perforated only in Layers 5 through 7 and a fracture initiates in Layer 5.


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.

Table 2. Vertical and Horizontal Permeabilities

Layer Name Thickness Horizontal Vertical


(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

Table 3. Vertical and Horizontal Permeabilities

Layer Thickness Horizontal Vertical


(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

NN. 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.
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

Planar fractures of arbitrary shape are modeled using a three-dimensional boundary


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

A three-dimensional boundary element method is used to relate the fracture


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

Recent additions allow representation of multiple fractures in a deviated or


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.

Representation of Injected Solids 64

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:

C .....................................................................dimensionless constant and,


L.................................................................cumulative flux in units of length
(m3 of injected water volume per m2 of fracture area).

The constant C is determined from core-flood experiments, and depends on the


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

BP Multi-Lateral PWRI Spreadsheet Model


PWRI March 15, 2017
Model Comparisons Page B-2

BP Multi-Lateral PWRI Spreadsheet Model

Basic Description of the Model

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

Duke Engineering Model


PWRI March 15, 2017
Model Comparisons Page C-2

The GEOSIM Model From Duke Engineering

Basic Description of the Model 65,66

This model considers many of the differences between conventional hydraulic


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

For accurate PWRI simulations, the following factors need to be considered: 67

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.

Capabilities of the Model

Two-Dimensional Leakoff Correction

A 1-D leakoff assumption underestimates the leak-off, especially at low injection


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

Figure 1. Two methods in handling the water invaded zone.


PWRI March 15, 2017
Model Comparisons Page C-5

Figure 2. Leakoff correction factor due to 2-D flow.

Effects of Previous Injection

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.

Relative Permeability and Thermal Effects

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.

Figure 3. Total mobility in the invaded zone as a function of water saturation


and temperature.

Pre-existing Propped/Acid Fractures

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

Pre-existing propped/acid fractures must be considered in modeling SRTs where


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

Figure 4. Simulated injection pressure with combination of static and dynamic


fracture.

Field Study Methodologies

In the analysis of field data, each part of the history provides valuable information:

a) Matching the injection below fracture pressure provides basic reservoir


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.

A fracture description, generated with this matched permeability, is then interfaced


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

HydFrac is a numerical model based on a three-dimensional, two-phase thermal


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.

After fracture initiation, propagation is described by a two-dimensional PKN 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.

The Fracture Model:


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:

1. Deposition on grain surface


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.

For each fractured cell, the formation damage effect is represented by a


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

loss behavior changing from the conventional diffusion leakoff to a steady-state


fluid loss controlled mechanism.

The resulting leakoff velocity for steady-state behavior approaches an asymptotic


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.

The thermoelastic stresses perpendicular, T, to the major axes of the ellipse


(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.

Figure 1. Thermal constant versus elliptical shape.

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.

Oil Displacement Factor


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.

Waterfront Aspect Ratio


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.

Figure 3. Thermal/Water Front Aspect Ratio as a Function of Time.

Formation Porosity
The formation porosity is the equivalent value over the fracture height used
for calculating the thermal and waterflood regions.

Net Formation Height


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.

Equivalent Drainage Radius


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

Perkins and Gonzalez Model


PWRI March 15, 2017
Model Comparisons Page G-2

Perkins and Gonzalez Model

Basic Description of the Model Error: Reference source not found

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.

Thermoelastic Stress and Stress Change Due to Poro-Elasticity

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):

1. The cooled-and-flooded ellipse from the wellbore out,


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

Figure 1. Plan view showing a two-winged vertical fracture oriented


perpendicular to the plane of minimum horizontal in-situ stress.

Thermoelastic stresses for regions of elliptical cross-section and finite thickness


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

1T ..................... thermal stress in the direction perpendicular to the fracture,


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.

Size of the Injected and Cooled Regions

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

The bottom hole pressure in the wellbore is given as:

Piwf p R p1 p 2 p 3 p s pf p p
where:

pR ......................................reservoir fluid pressure far from the injection well,


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.

Opening of Secondary Fractures

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

An example problem was provided by Perkins and Gonzales. It showed a BHIP


(after thermal stress reduction) that was well below the initial minimum horizontal
stress.

Summary

1. Thermal stresses resulting from a step change in temperature, across a region


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.

Capabilities of the Model

Wellbore Temperature Profile


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.

Figure 1. Injectivity index and viscosity.


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

Figure 2. Bottomhole flowing temperature.

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).

For the cooled-and-flooded zone, viscosity is determined from correlations at


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.

Thermal Stress and Poro-elastic Effects

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 this exercise it is concluded that:

From 0 to 30 days, injection is in the radial injection regime.


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

Figure 4. Attempt to match assuming radial flow.

Figure 5. Attempt to match assuming TIF is confined vertically.


PWRI March 15, 2017
Model Comparisons Page H-7

Figure 6. Final history match assuming an unconfined fracture.


PWRI March 15, 2017
Model Comparisons Page I-1

APPENDIX I

The PWFRAC Model


PWRI March 15, 2017
Model Comparisons Page I-2

The PWFRAC Model

Basic Description of the Model

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 injection pressure that is required to maintain a given injection rate,


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

Fracture Propagation, Filter Cake Build-up and Formation Plugging


During PWRI

Produced water (PW) injection offers an acceptable means of disposing of the


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.

It is generally accepted that PW injection will lead to plugging of fractures and


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.

Injector Fracturing Concepts


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:

Concept 1 The application of fracture mechanics techniques to hydraulic


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.

Concept 2 As injection proceeds, particles in the produced water are deposited in


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.

Concept 3 A second characteristic of the continuing injection process is that a


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.

Concept 4 The two combined phenomena (indicated in 2 and 3 above) affect


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.

Fracturing Propagation Models for PW Injection


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:

1. Fracture propagation during waterflooding using clean water requires injection


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

4. Fracture tip plugging by solids will lead to a higher required propagation


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.

For predicting the behavior of a vertical fracture, propagating in a horizontal


reservoir layer as a result of PW injection, a simulator must take into account the
following phenomena:

1. Loading of the formation caused by the water flow during leakoff,


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:

1. The injection pressure that is required to maintain a given injection rate,


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:

1. The poroelastic solution for the opening of a fracture subjected to arbitrary


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

Filter Cake Behavior


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.

Formation Permeability Damage


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.

Parameter Interrelationships During Fracture Propagation Scenarios


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

Undamaged Formation Crack

Plug

r
Damaged Zone + a
r

a{1+2}1/2

Figure 1. Schematic representation of a PWRI fracture.

(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

Dimensionless Crack Radius (A) 1.4 Poisson's ratio = 0.1


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

B (B is proportional to crack pressure) Poisson's ratio = 0.1


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 ()

Figure 3. This is an example plot of B versus for the indicated values of


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

The schematic in Figure 1 considers the following scenarios:

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.

From Figure 1, the relations between a, R, and may be written as

a / R andR1 a 1 2 are factors for the sizes of the tip plug and damage
zones.

1 1
2

2 is the elliptical coordinate of the damage zone.


1 0 0 1
is the permeability damage factor

This configuration can be used to predict fracture propagation parameters at a fixed


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.

Results and Conclusions


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 - +/ -

Figure 4. An example simulation of the variation in the pressure in the fracture


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 - +/ -

Figure 5. An example simulation of the variation in the pressure in the fracture


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.

Figure 6 is an alternate representation, demonstrating the increase in the injection


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

Figure 8. This is a plot of the length of the fracture (non-dimensionalized by


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

Shell / Maersk Models


PWRI March 15, 2017
Model Comparisons Page J-2

Shell/Maersk Models
(Ovens and Niko, Ovens et. al)

Basic Description of the Model Error: Reference source not found,77

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:

Proximal producers are not considered. Coupling with a reservoir simulator is


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

The model is applied, in conjunction with fracture dimension monitoring techniques,


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

How to Determine the Orientation of the Fracture?

1. Injection of Radioactive Tracer


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.

2. Fractures Intercepted by New Wells


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.

How To Determine the Fracture Height?


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.

Does fracture branch?


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:

1. an impaired zone where oil and/or solids have penetrated,


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:

1. A damage zone around the fracture which is characterized by a uniform


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

This model is analytical and it is coupled with a reservoir simulator. It is assumed


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

Pressure distribution is represented by coupling the three-dimensional solution for a


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

The external filter cake is represented as a zone of altered mobility. In the


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

Basic Description of the Model 78

TerraFrac is a PC-based hydraulic fracturing simulator based on fully coupled


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.

Adaptive Meshing Generator

In order to solve the governing equations numerically, the fracture must be


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.

The meshing generator implemented in TerraFrac is based on DeLaunay


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)

Figure 1. A snap-shot mesh for a run-away.

200

150

100
Fracture Height (ft)

50
High Stress Layer
0

-50

-100

-150

-200

0 100 200 300 400 500


Fracture Length (ft)

Figure 2. A snap-shot mesh for an hour-glass shaped fracture due to either


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

-100 0 100 200


X (ft)

Figure 3. A mesh for a non-symmetric fracture in dipping strata.

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.

Contained Fracture Due To A Stress Barrier


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

Figure 4. Stress profile and schematic of the expected fracture shape.

Fracture Shape and Width


(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

Figure 6. Stress profile and schematic of the expected fracture shape.

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

0 100 200 300 400 500 600


X (ft)

Figure 7. Fracture shape and fracture width contour plot for a circular
fracture.
PWRI March 15, 2017
Model Comparisons Page M-7

Multi-Layered Formations with Different Stresses


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

Figure 8. Stress profile and schematic of the fracture shape.

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)

Figure 9. Fracture shape and width contour plots, at shut-in.


PWRI March 15, 2017
Model Comparisons Page M-8

Fracture Containment Due To A Modulus Barrier


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.

Solids Concentration By Volume


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)

and dehydration are indicated 0.318


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 Shape and Width


(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

0 100 200 300 400 500


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

This example shows a non-symmetric fracture growing from an inclined wellbore


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.

Fracturing From a Deviated Well in a


Formation with Dipping Layers
Wellbore
200

150 Width (in)


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)

Figure 13. A non-symmetric fracture from an inclined wellbore in a formation


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

The VISAGETM System


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.

For example, in a SIM2VIS simulation a staggered solution scheme is adopted


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.

Stress Sensitive Reservoir Simulator

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.

Porosity levels, together with system compressibilities may be continually updated


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.

Other VISAGE documents are available where it unsuccessfully was attempted to


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.

The principles are as follows:

1. Determines the concentration of deposited particles around the injection well


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

6. For fractured completions, we neglect injectivity decline due to internal


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.