Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
GRADUATE COLLEGE
A THESIS
degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
By
SANDEEP JANWADKAR
Norman, Oklahoma
2004
FRACTURE PRESSURE ANALYSIS OF DIAGNOSTIC PUMP- IN TESTS
OF RED FORK SANDS IN WESTERN OKLAHOMA
BY
Chair:________________________________
Member:______________________________
Member:______________________________
ii
©Copyright by SANDEEP JANWADKAR 2004
All Rights Reserved
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To achieve any kind of success only personal capabilities are not sufficient.
There are several factors that contribute towards achieving the end goals and
master’s thesis several individuals have made valuable and significant contributions.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all of those individuals. It would not
be possible to name each individual but I definitely would like to mention some of
them. I apologize to all those wonderful individuals whom I acknowledge but have
missed out.
Right from the beginning, throughout my work and till the end it was Dr. Shah’s
guidance, untiring support, and constant encouragement without which this thesis
with inspiration and built a strong desire in me to work hard to succeed. Thank you
Dr. Sam.
Dr. Chandra Rai, my thesis committee member whose support and help have
iv
I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all the staff and
thank them:
Crawley Petroleum Corporation for providing the data required for this thesis
and also for granting the permission to publish their data, Pinnacle Technologies Inc
for the use of their software FracPro PT 10.2 which was used to run the simulations.
From the bottom my heart I would like to say a BIG THANK YOU to all the
people and organizations that made this difficult task worthwhile. I hope this work
Last but not the least I would like to mention my parents and my family who
have always supported me during all the ups and downs of life, their contribution in
Sandeep Janwadkar
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………..… x
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………...................... xiv
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………….... 1
1.1 The Origin and Growth of Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology…………………………………………….. 1
1.2 Hydraulic Fracturing: Concept and Application……….. 1
1.3 Characteristics of the Red Fork Formation…………….. 3
1.4 Evolution of the Red Fork Fracturing Technology…….. 4
1.5 Research Goals and Outline of Work………………..… 5
vi
5.2 Simulation Model Options...…………………………… 62
5.3 Log Analysis and Reservoir Layers….………………… 65
5.4 Simulator Input.………………………………………... 69
5.5 Breakdown Test Analysis……………………………… 69
Nomenclature………………………………………………………………… 96
References…………………………………………………………………..... 101
vii
LIST OF TABLES
viii
Table A7 Well Configuration Data for Well – 7…………………………… 109
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.2(b) Step Rate Test (Estimating Closure and Extension Pressure) 8
x
Figure 4.9 G-Function versus Pressure and Pressure Derivative……… 51
Figure 5.2 Log for Well-4 (gamma ray and neutron porosity)………... 66
Figure 5.3 Reservoir Layers built from Logs for simulations (Well-4).. 68
xi
Figure 7.9 Plot of 60-day Cumulative Production versus
G-Function at Closure (GDK Model)…...…………………. 91
Figure D10 Square Root Plot for Well – 2 (Zone 2)………………...….. 118
xii
Figure D11 Square Root Plot for Well – 2 (Zone 3)……………………. 118
Figure D17 G-Function Plot (PKN Model) for Well – 2 (Zone 1)……... 120
Figure D18 G-Function Plot (PKN Model) for Well – 2 (Zone 2)……... 121
Figure D19 G-Function Plot (PKN Model) for Well – 2 (Zone 3)……... 121
Figure D20 G-Function Plot (PKN Model) for Well – 3……………….. 121
Figure D21 G-Function Plot (PKN Model) for Well – 4.………………. 122
Figure D22 G-Function Plot (PKN Model) for Well – 5……………….. 122
Figure D23 G-Function Plot (PKN Model) for Well – 6……………….. 122
Figure D24 G-Function Plot (PKN Model) for Well – 7……………….. 123
Figure D25 G-Function Plot (GDK Model) for Well – 2 (Zone 1)……... 123
Figure D26 G-Function Plot (GDK Model) for Well – 2 (Zone 2)……... 123
Figure D27 G-Function Plot (GDK Model) for Well – 2 (Zone 3)……... 124
Figure D28 G-Function Plot (GDK Model) for Well – 3……...……….. 124
Figure D29 G-Function Plot (GDK Model) for Well – 4.………...……. 124
Figure D30 G-Function Plot (GDK Model) for Well – 5……………..... 125
Figure D31 G-Function Plot (GDK Model) for Well – 6…………...….. 125
Figure D32 G-Function Plot (GDK Model) for Well – 7………………. 125
xiii
ABSTRACT
various factors with the production response are available. Case studies have proven
that there exists a relationship between productivity of a well and parameters such as
reservoir. Due to low permeability these wells typically do not produce economically
candidate wells for fracturing is difficult and at times very tricky one. The existing
procedures for selecting wells as candidates for fracture stimulation are not reliable
which sometimes do not result in an increase in the productivity of the wells after the
fracture job.
productivity of the Red Fork sands and parameters obtained from the pump-in
diagnostic tests. In developing this correlation this study considers the G-function at
Utilizing production data from seven wells in the Hammon field of western
Oklahoma and data obtained from diagnostic pump-in tests performed on these wells
xiv
software, to develop and establish the correlation of the G-function at closure with the
productivity prior to fracture stimulation. With the help of this correlation the
economics of future fracturing jobs in the Red Fork formation (western Oklahoma)
can be evaluated. If the well productivity cannot justify the cost of expensive fracture
stimulation jobs then the decision of fracture stimulation needs further careful review.
xv
Chapter 1
Introduction
Hydraulic fracturing technology was developed in the late 1940s. The first
hydraulic fracture job was performed in 1947 on the well “Klepper No. 1” in the
Hugoton gas field located in Grant County of western Kansas1. Since then this
technology has continuously been improved, developed and applied to the oil and gas
industry. Statistics indicate that approximately 50 percent of natural gas wells and 30
In a time span of 15 years from 1984 to 1999 more than 100,000 wells have
been hydraulically fractured in the U.S., which has been responsible for an increment
of more than 7 billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas2. The
above facts and figures clearly demonstrate the significance of hydraulic fracturing in
flow of oil and gas from the reservoir into the wellbore and then to the surface. This
phenomenon is similar to a person walking through a dense forest without any roads
or rivers to follow and trying to locate a nearby town. In the event that a road existed
through the forest that connects the towns then the person would have to travel a
small portion of his journey through the forest till he reaches the road and then reach
1
the town in a much faster and easier way. The concept of hydraulic fracturing is to
induce a crack in the formation to facilitate the flow of oil and gas through the
formation. The fracture in the formation acts like a road through the forest which
wellbore in order to break down the formation and to create a fracture. A proppant is
added to the fluid in order to keep the fracture propped open after the pumping of
fluid has stopped. The fluid used has high enough viscosity to suspend the proppant
during pumping and after pumping has ceased. Fracturing fluids are designed to
breakdown after the fracturing job is completed so that they can easily be recovered.
Hydraulic fracturing has several applications; some of the major ones are
described below1:
Fluids and solids in the drilling mud invade the formation and reduce its permeability.
damage.
rate. They are meant to increase the drainage areas in formations with low
permeability.
2
Hydraulic fracturing is performed in the injecting well to increase capacity of a well
4. Disposal Wells
With the help of fracturing, large volumes of fluids and industrial waste can easily be
disposed off.
This research study is focused on the Red Fork formation. The total overall
thickness of the Red Fork formation is approximately 1500 feet and is located in the
shales the Red Fork formation is of Middle Pennsylvanian Age (Des Moinesian)3.
moderate quantity of feldspar (15%); other clay minerals (kaolinite and illite) and iron
The Red Fork formation has four main producing zones: Cherokee and the
Lower, Middle and Upper Red Fork. Porosity of the Red Fork formation ranges4
from 6 to 18%. The Young’s modulus ranges from 4.9 to 8.5 x 106 psi and the acid
solubility varies5 from 4 to 15%. The amounts of primary and secondary porosity
determine the permeability of the Red Fork formation, which usually exists in the
range3 from less than 1 µd to 0.5 md. Generally speaking the Red Fork formation is
3
classified as tight gas bearing sandstone with low permeability and low to moderate
porosity.
The early fracture treatments on the Red Fork formation were performed
during the late 70’s. The first treatments were performed using sintered bauxite as a
proppant (less than 2 ppg) with borate cross-linked hydroxypropylguar (HPG) fluids.
The trend was to increase the fluid and the proppant volumes4. The production
results were not as expected. One of the possible reasons for low productivity after
fracture treatments was due to the settling phenomenon of the high-density proppant
used in conjunction with the shear sensitive cross linked fluids. Due to the higher
treatment designs used sand with non-cross linked gels3. Concerns were raised for
regaining the permeability, surfactants were used to reduce surface tensions and
compatible with the formation and was considered as a fluid. The results obtained
with linear gel and sand showed substantial improvement due to which the fluid and
The use of CO2 as a fracturing fluid started emerging. Although the density of
CO2 is similar to water, CO2 has a lower surface tension due to which a faster clean up
can be achieved. Early treatments with CO2 faced several problems due to high
tubing friction pressures and unreliable equipment coupled with the lack of
knowledge of the physical properties of foams and liquid CO2. A new procedure of
4
flowing back the fluid as soon as possible was adopted. This helped the prevention of
proppant settling as the fracture closed and trapped the proppant before substantial
settling3.
viscosity fluids resulted in excessive fracture heights beyond the pay zone, as fracture
overcome this problem was to reduce gel concentration and lower the injection rates;
due to this the effective treatments grew smaller in size and proppant concentrations
used went up to 4 ppg. The next trend in the industry was to use pre-cured resin-
coated proppant and fluids using delayed cross linkers. This resulted in economically
priced intermediate strength proppants and fluids with better transport characteristics.
The treatments resulted in longer propped fractures and increased the ability of the
The current trend is to use delayed cross-linked HPG fluids along with
linkers are used with lower gel concentration. Fracturing fluids of low viscosity
result in less fracture height and longer fracture lengths as fracture length is inversely
treatments were obtained with the help of limited-entry perforating and calibration
treatments.
5
• To review the history of fracture technology
and the evolution of the fracture technology as applicable to the Red Fork
formation
• To collect production data from seven producing wells in the Hammon field
• To collect data from diagnostic pump-in tests (breakdown tests) for the above
wells
6
Chapter 2
depicted7 in Fig. 2.1. As the fracture pressure increases the fracture width increases
along the solid line in Fig. 2.1. The plot is a straight line except for the initial portion,
which is non-linear. Figure 2.1 is valid for all fracture models (PKN, GDK etc).
Fracture
Width
Non-Linear Portion
σ min
Pc
Fracture Pressure
Figure 2.1- Plot of Fracture Pressure versus Fracture Width7, fracture closure
pressure corresponds to the pressure when width reduces to zero
width. The reversal of this plot (reduction of pressure) follows a straight line7. The
pressure at which the fracture width reduces to zero is the fracture closure pressure
7
Pc. This plot is a straight line and the non-linear portion is replaced by the dotted line
as illustrated in Fig. 2.1. The measurement of changes in fracture width with respect
to pressure is not practical in the field and therefore the estimation of fracture closure
The fluid used in the step rate test depends on the permeability of the
reservoir. In low permeability reservoirs the step rate test is performed with the
completion fluid like treated water, whereas for high permeability reservoirs polymer
fluids are used to control fluid loss8. The closure pressure can be estimated by
performing a step rate test9. The test is conducted by pumping fluids at different
step end
Pc
Extension Pressure
0 0 Injection Rate
Elapsed Time
Figure 2.2a- Step Rate Test (Injection rate Figure 2.2b- Step Rate Test
increased in fixed time intervals)9 (Estimating closure pressure
and extension pressure)9
estimate of the closure pressure Pc as well as the fracture extension pressure as shown
8
in Figs. 2.2a and 2.2b. The fracture extension pressure as obtained can be considered
well and observing the pressure decline (Fig. 2.3). The bottomhole pressure during
the shut-in decline period is inversely proportional to the square root of time elapsed,
curve is an indicator of closure pressure. After the fracture closure the pressure
decline is gradual, normal or fast depending on the rate of fluid leak off as seen in
Fig. 2.3.
Bottomhole
pressure
Pc
s
litie
ibi
ss
Po
0
Square root of time elapsed since injection
The closure pressure can also be estimated by using the G-plot for the shut-in
decline test. The G-plot is the bottomhole pressure plotted versus the G-function, this
changes to easily identify a change in slope. Estimating the closure pressure from the
shut-in decline test is not very reliable due to the following two reasons7:
9
• The shut-in decline plots may not indicate any change in slope at all.
• There could be more than one change in slope and the change in slope
o Fracture closure
The closure pressure can also be obtained from the data of flowback test10.
After the fracture is created the well is flowed back at a constant rate. The rate of
shows the influence of flowback rate on the pressure response. The three curves
shown in Fig. 2.4(a) represent the pressure response for too low, correct and too high
flow rates. The correct flow rate is usually 1/6 to ¼ of the last injection rate7.
Flowback
Pump-in Flowback
Bottomhole
pressure
pressure
(closure pressure
estimate)
Correct rate
0 0
Time Time
10
The closure pressure is estimated by drawing two tangents on the pressure
response curve as shown in Fig. 2.4 (b). The intersection of these two tangents is the
1. Fluid-loss coefficient, CL
2. Spurt-loss coefficient, Sp
Spurt loss occurs for wall building fluids till the filter cake develops11. Making an
assumption of linear flow fluid loss, Carter12 in 1957 developed the following
2CL A
qL = …………………………………………………………..……………(2.1)
t −τ
where A is an element of the fracture area created at a time τ and t is the time from
the start of injection. The fluid loss has three distinct regions11 (filter cake, invaded
11
The fluid-loss coefficient CL can be split up into three coefficients as follows 13:
The wall building property of the fracturing fluid defines Cw. The fracturing fluid
filtrate penetrates the formation as is shown in the invaded zone of Fig. 2.5. The
filtrate effect is controlled by Cv. The factors on which Cv depends are as follows11:
pressure).
As the fluid leaks off it has to displace the formation fluid, this reservoir effect
pressure).
The three coefficients Cw, Cv and Cc vary depending on the factors as mentioned
12
2.5 Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing
Figure 2.6 shows a cross section of a borehole with a wellbore fluid pressure
of Pi. The in-situ maximum and minimum horizontal stresses are σx and σy
respectively. The radius of the wellbore is ‘a’. Regional stresses present in the
The stresses at any point which is at a distance of ‘r’ from the wellbore center
and at an angle ‘θ’ measured from point ‘A’ can be expressed as:
Radial Stress:
σ x + σ y a 2 σ x − σ y 4a 2 3a 4 a 2
σ r = 1 − 2 + 1 − 2 + 4 (cos 2θ ) + Pi 2 …. (2.2)
2 r 2 r r r
The last term in Eq. 2.2 is that component of stress which is induced around the
Tangential Stress:
σ x + σ y a 2 σ x − σ y 3a 4 a 2
σ θ =
1 + 2 − 1 + 4 (cos 2θ ) − Pi 2 …….….. (2.3)
2 r 2 r r
Shear Stress:
σ x − σ y 2a 2 3a 4
τ rθ = − 1 + 2 + 4 (sin 2θ ) ……………………………...……..….. (2.4)
2 r r
Figure 2.7 shows the profile of pressure vs. time for a fracture treatment. The
rock initially breaks-down at a pressure equal to Pc1, the instantaneous pressure when
the pumps are shut down is equal to Ps and the pressure at which the existing fracture
13
B
r
A' Pi
θ A σ h,max = σ x
B'
σh,min =σy
Breakdown Pressure
Pc1
(Pc1 - Pc2) Fracture Propagation
Pressure
Pc2
Pressure
Ps
Resume Pumping
Stop Pumping (Instantaneous
Shut-in Pressure)
0
Time
14
In rocks the fracture propagates in a plane perpendicular to the least principal
normal stress. If the tensile strength of the rock is equal to -To then the condition for
The fracture propagation pressure is less than the breakdown pressure; the tensile
The average stress in the horizontal direction is equal to σ h and is defined as follows:
σ h ,min + σ h ,max
σh = ……………………………………...………….…………..... (2.7)
2
σ h ,max σ x
K= = ………………………………...…………………….………..... (2.8)
σ h ,min σ y
σh
K= ………………………………………...……………………………........ (2.9)
σv
σ h ,min
N= ………………………………………..…………………………....... (2.10)
σ h ,max
1 N +1
N> and K <
3 6N − 2
1
σ h ,min > σ h ,max ……...……………………………………………...……...... (2.11)
3
15
σh
K < ..……………………………………………………....…..(2.12)
3σ h , min − σ h , max
It can be proved that the breakdown pressure is given by the following expression:
υ (3 − K )
Pc1 = (γZ − Pp ) + To ……………………………………..…….......... (2.13)
(K − υ )
where υ , γ , Z and Pp are the Poisson’s ratio, fracture gradient, depth and pore
pressure respectively.
In the special case where σ x = σ y = σ h the value of K = 1 and Eq. 2.13 reduces to
Eq. 2.14.
2υ
Pc1 = (γZ − Pp ) + To ………………………………..…………….......... (2.14)
(1 − υ )
The average horizontal fracture gradient to create a vertical fracture G f is given by:
υ (K + 1) K + 1 1 − 2υ
G f = S v + α p (PG ) …………...…………........ (2.15)
2(K − υ ) 2 K − υ
where α p is the poro-elastic constant with a range from 0 to 1, PG is the pore pressure
υ (K + 1) K + 1 1 − 2υ
G f = S v + (PG ) ……………...…………….... (2.16)
2(K − υ ) 2 K − υ
υ 1 − 2υ
G f = S v + (PG ) ………………...…………...……..….... (2.17)
(1 − υ ) 1 − υ
16
2.6 Hydraulic Fracture Models
and thermal mechanics15. For proper design and analysis of hydraulic fracturing it is
necessary to build models. The four major reasons for the development and usage of
1 Economic optimization.
pump schedule.
Sneddon and Elliot17. They proved that for a fracture of fixed height and infinite
extent the maximum width and net pressure can be given as:
2 pnet h f
w= …………………………………....…………….……...…….......... (2.18)
E'
E
where, E ' = is the plane strain modulus.
1 −υ 2
They assumed that the shape of the fracture is elliptical, therefore the average width is
π
given as: w = w.
4
fracture mechanics with simple assumptions about the fluid flow. In 1957 Carter12
built a model by concentrating his work on fluid leakoff and neglected effects of fluid
viscosity and solid mechanics. In 1961 Perkins and Kern19 concentrated their work
17
on fluid flow and neglected the role of fracture mechanics. Geertsma and de Klerk20
Khristianovich and Zheltov and provided a model known as the GDK model. In 1972
Nordgren21 added leakoff and storage width to the work of Perkins and Kern and
developed a model, which is now known as the PKN model. The GDK model
considers the fracture mechanics aspects of the fracture tip. The assumption in this
model is that the flow rate in the fracture is constant and that the pressure in the
body, except for a small region near the tip with no fluid penetration, and hence no
fluid pressure. The concept of fluid lag is an important element of the mechanics of
the fracture tip. Warpinski22 validated the concept of fluid lag at the field scale in
1985. Brady et al23 published the results of their work in 1993. They utilized
The basic underlying assumption made by Perkins and Kern is that every
vertical cross section acts independently. The pressure at a section is dominated more
by the height of the section than by the length of the fracture15. This is true where the
length is much larger than the height. The PKN model neglects the effect of fracture
tip and fracture mechanics and focuses on fluid flow and their pressure gradients19.
Other assumptions of the PKN model are that the height of the vertical fracture is
constant and does not exceed the pay zone19. The cross section of the fracture is
the net pressure at that point and independent of the width at any other point19. The
18
fracture width at any point is proportional to its height. The in-situ stresses are
assumed to be homogeneous and the PKN model utilizes the Sneddon16,17 width
equation.
z
L
hf /2
V(x)
x
b(0,t) w(x,t)
hf /2
Perkins and Kern neglected the effects of fluid leakoff and storage resulting from
width increase and developed the following expressions for net pressure and width19:
1
16µqi E '3 L 4
pnet = …………………………………....…………...…….......... (2.19)
πh f
4
q µ (L − x ) 4
1
w( x) = 3 i ………………...……………………….…...…….......... (2.20)
E'
Equation 2.20 when expressed in oilfield units results in Eq. 2.21 where ww is the
19
In Eq. 2.21 the flow rate, width, viscosity µ and the plain strain modulus E’ are
1
q µL 4
ww = 0.38 i ' ………………...………………………….......………......... (2.21)
E
Nordgren21 considered leakoff and storage width and obtained Eq. 2.22
∂ 2 w4 E ' ∂w 8CL
2 = + .………………….........………........ (2.22)
∂ x 128 µh f ∂t ( )1
π t − t f ( x)
2
Nordgren21 defined a dimensionless time term and solved Eq. 2.22 numerically to
2
64CL 5 E 'h f 3
td = t ……………..……………………….….........…….......... (2.23)
π 3 µq 2
i
In this case the fluid efficiency approaches one (η → 1 ) and the length and width of
1
E 'qi 3 5
L(t ) = 0.39(t ) 4 ……………..……………………….….....…….......... (2.24)
4
5
h µ
f
1
qi 2 µ 5
ww = 2.18(t ) ' …………..……………………….…...........…….......... (2.25)
1
5
Eh
f
In this case fluid efficiency approaches zero (η → 0 ) and the length and width of the
20
1 qi
L(t ) = (t ) 2 ……………..……………………….….....……….…....... (2.26)
2πh C
f L
1
qi 2 µ 4
ww = 4(t )
1
8 ……………………………….…...........…...….......... (2.27)
π 3 E 'C h
L f
For any point at a distance x from the wellbore the following are the approximations
1
x 4
w = wmax 1 − …………………………………….…...........….……........ (2.28)
L
π
w= wmax ………………………………….…................................……........... (2.29)
5
The GDK model is based on the assumption that the fracture width is proportional to
its fracture length, the fracture height is constant, the fracture has an elliptical cross-
section in the horizontal plane, there is slippage between layers, fluid does not act on
the entire fracture length and the cross section in the vertical plane is rectangular
21
Area of Highest
Flow Resistance
L
w(x,t)
xL
Vx Approximately Elliptical
Shape of Fracture
w(0,t)
Rw
hf
Geertsma and de Klerk15 incorporated fluid loss into the work of Khristianovich and
Zheltov and developed Eq. 2.30, Eq. 2.31 and Eq. 2.32:
4
ww = (Pnet L ) ………………………………………………..........…...…........ (2.30)
E'
1
' 3 21qi µ 4
Pnet ,w = E …………………………………….…......…...….......... (2.31)
64πh L2
f
1
1 84qi µL2 4
ww = ' …………………………..…….…...........…...….…..... (2.32)
E πh f
The length and width can be expressed as a function of time for two different cases as
follows15:
Case 1: No Leakoff (where L, t, E’, qi, hf and µ are in ft, min, psi, bbl/min, ft and cp)
1
E 'qi 3 6
L(t ) = 0.38(t ) 3 3 ……………..……………………….….....…….......... (2.33)
2
h µ
f
22
1
q 3µ 6
ww = 1.48(t ) 3 i' 3 …………..……………………….….............……....... (2.34)
1
Eh
f
Case 2: High Leakoff (where L, t, qi, hf and CL are in ft, min, ft3/min, ft and ft/min1/2)
1 qi
L(t ) = (t ) 2 ……………..……………………….….....………..…...... (2.35)
2πh C
f L
In case of high leakoff no explicit equation for width has been provided by Geertsma
and de Klerk.
For any point at a distance x from the wellbore Eqs. 2.36 and 2.37 are an
π
w= wmax ………………………………….…................................…...…........ (2.37)
4
This model assumes that the fracture propagates in a uniform stress medium
without any vertical containment, the shape of the fracture is circular and the
maximum width is at its center. Other assumptions made in this fracture model are
that the fracture propagates radially by the same distance, pressure drop at the same
The maximum width of the radial fracture can be expressed14 by Eq. 2.38:
8P R
wmax = net' ……………………………….................................…...…........ (2.38)
E
23
Geertsma and de Klerk20 developed the equations for a radial fracture. The
width and radius approximation for different cases are summarized below:
Case 1: No Leakoff (where ww, t, E’, qi, R, and µ are expressed in inches, min, psi,
1
µ 2 qi 3t 9
ww = 2.17 ……………………….….................................…...…........ (2.39)
'2
E
1
E ' qi 3 9 4 9
R = 0.52 t …………………….…....................................…...…........ (2.40)
µ
1
1 q t
2 4
R = i 2 …………………….…..............................................…...…........ (2.41)
π CL
24
Chapter 3
3.1 Mini-Fracs
the fracture treatment job in advance is a must. The design of the fracture treatment
parameters. The parameters that are obtained from the mini-fracs are closure
fracture geometry, and fracture height. The mini-frac essentially consists of two
parts: the stress test and the calibration treatment24,25. Brief outline of these tests is
given below25.
additive) without proppant is pumped till the formation breaks down; subsequently a
step rate injection test is carried out. In the next step a flowback or a pressure decline
analysis is performed from which the closure pressure is determined. One of the most
critical parameters in any fracture treatment design is the closure pressure. The
closure pressure can be defined as equal to the minimum horizontal in-situ stress. In
addition to the closure pressure the stress test also determines the fracture extension
treatment the fluid pumped is generally the same that will be used later in the actual
fracture treatment; but without the proppant24,25. Fluid without proppant is pumped at
25
the same rate as that is planned for the fracture treatment. The pressure decline is
closely monitored until closure is attained. Information obtained from the pump-in
period is: the type of fracture propagation, identification of rapid height growth,
detection of fissure opening25. The other critical parameters obtained from the
pressure decline are the in-situ fluid efficiency and fluid loss co-efficient for a
particular fluid in the well25,26,27. Fluid efficiency is defined as the ratio of the volume
of the fracture created to the volume of the fluid pumped. The information obtained
In known areas where several wells have been drilled and fractured in the near
The fluid in the casing is displaced to KCl treated water. The zone of interest is
perforated. Potassium chloride treated water is pumped down the casing with the
well shut-in. The pressure inside the casing keeps rising until the fracture gradient of
the formation is reached. Further pumping of the fluid results in the formation being
synthetic material are dropped in the wellbore. The number, size and the
specifications of the balls are selected based on the number and size of perforations.
The well is shut-in and the balls are allowed to fall to the bottom of the wellbore.
Pumping of fluid is resumed and a ‘Ball off” operation is performed. The ‘Ball off”
operation ensures that the balls seal off the open perforations, and with fluid being
26
pumped the closed and partially open perforations begin to open up. When all
perforations have been opened and all restrictions cleared up the pumping of fluid is
stopped. The balls are then surged off the perforations and allowed to fall to the
bottom of the wellbore. A step rate test is performed at different pressures and the
rates and pressures are recorded. The details of the step rate test are described in
Chapter 2. The well is the shut-in and the shut-in decline data monitored. At the end
of the shut-in decline the pressure is bled-off and the well flown back. The shut-in
Tests)
The major differences between mini-fracs and the breakdown tests are as
follows:
• The Stress test portion of the Mini-Frac is performed with KCl treated
performed with the same fluid that will be used in the main fracture
water.
27
performed several days prior to the main-frac job, this provides
• Upon review of the results of the mini-frac, last minute changes in the
breakdown test one decides whether the main-frac job must be carried
out or not.
breakdown tests.
It is for these reasons that breakdown tests are becoming more common in the field.
28
Chapter 4
Once the formation breaks down fracture is initiated. Further growth of the
fracture results in an increase of the fracture area. If the fracture area at any time τ is
equal to a and this fracture area changes to A at time t then the ratio of the fracture
α
a τ
= ……………………………....…………...……….………...……........ (4.1)
A t
expression for fluid loss flux (uL) can be expressed in terms of the fluid loss rate ( q L )
as follows7:
qL 2C L
uL = = ….………………....………………….…….…..……........ (4.2)
A (t − τ )1−θ
where, θ is the fluid loss exponent. By integrating Eq. 4.2 with respect to time the
t
2C θ
vL = ∫ u L dt = − L (t − τ (a )) ………….......……………….……....……........ (4.3)
0 θ
where, vL is defined as the fluid loss volume per unit leak off area.
If the flow behavior index of the power law fluid model of the fracturing fluid
filtrate invading the formation is given by nf, then it can be proven that28:
29
nf
θ= …………………………….......………………….…….…...……........ (4.4)
nf +1
1
For a Newtonian fluid filtrate the value of n f = 1, θ = and Eq. 4.2 reduces to Eq.
2
2.1 which is the Carter’s equation for fluid loss7. Similarly when the fluid filtrate is
1
pseudoplastic non-Newtonian7 then the value of n f < 1, and θ < . For viscoelastic
2
filtrate29 the value of θ is greater than ½ and less than 1, the values of θ ≈ 1 for high
VL = VL ,C + VL ,S …………...………….......………………….………....……......…(4.5)
where, VL,C is the Carter’s fluid loss volume (CL component) and VL,S is the spurt loss
fluid volume.
time ∆t D , dimensionless area parameter ξ and dimensionless time tαD are defined as
follows:
t − tp ∆t
∆t D = = …………………….….……..…………………...……......……(4.6)
tp tp
a t
ξ= and tαD = ……………...….......………………….……...……......…...(4.7)
Af tp
where, Af is the fracture area at the end of injection and tp is the injection time. The
term A in Eq.4.1 is the fracture area at any intermediate time t. Substituting the terms
30
of Eq. 4.7 into Eq. 4.3 and integrating over the area, the volume of the Carter
(
V L ,C = 2 rp A f C L t p
θ
) g (∆t D, α , θ ) ………...…………………….……...……......….(4.8)
where, rp is the ratio of permeable area of the fracture to the total fracture area and the
1 θ
g (∆t D , α , θ ) = ∫ 1 + ∆t D − ξ α dξ
1 1
∆t D > 0 ………………….......……(4.9)
θ 0
where, ∆tD, α, θ and ξ are the dimensionless shut-in time, fracture area growth
exponent, fluid loss exponent and dimensionless area parameter. At the end of
θ1
1
g (∆t D = 0, α , θ ) = g 0 (α ,θ ) = ∫ 1 − ξ α dξ
1
∆t D = 0 …….….........(4.10)
θ 0
In 1989 Meyer and Hagel30 proved that the G-function in Eq. 4.9 for Newtonian
α Γ(α ) π
g 0 (α ) = ……….......……………….………………….…….…....….(4.11)
3
Γ + α
2
1
and θ = (Newtonian fluids). The term Γ(α ) in Eq. 4.11 is the Euler gamma
2
function and α is the fracture area growth exponent. Alternate expression of the fluid
31
1 −1
4α ∆t D + 2 1 + ∆t D F , α ; 1 + α ; (1 + ∆t D )
g (α , ∆t D ) = 2
……........…........ (4.12)
1 + 2α
computing algorithms.
volume of fluid lost prior to the cake build up is known as the spurt fluid loss ( VL ,S )
and is expressed in7 Eq. 4.13, where SP is the spurt loss co-efficient:
VL ,S = 2rp S P A f ………………………….…….......……………….……........…..(4.13)
1
filtrate ( n f = 1 and θ = ) after the wall cake has been deposited. The fracture area
2
1
growth exponent α as defined in Eq. 4.1 has bounding values given by: < α < 1.
2
The simplified expressions for the fluid loss volume function ‘g’ for the bounding
values of α are obtained by substituting the values of α and θ into Eq. 4.9 and 4.10
and integrating the resulting equations8,9. Simple interpolation can be used to obtain
the values of ‘g’ for other values of α lying between ½ and 1. Table 4.1 is obtained
32
Table 4.1: Analytical equations8,9 for g (∆t D , α , θ ) and g 0 (α , θ )
g0 (∆t D = 0) g (∆t D )
1 1 π 1 + ∆t D sin −1 (1 + ∆t D )
−1
+ ∆t D
1
α= , θ= 2 2
2 2 2
α = 1, θ =
1
2
4
3
4
3
(
(1 + ∆t D ) 2 − ∆t D 2
3 3
)
The CL component of fluid loss at the end of the injection period is obtained
1
by substituting ∆t D = 0 and θ = in Eq. 4.8 as follows:
2
1
A f g 0 α ,θ =
1/ 2
V L ,C = 2 rp C L t p ………….…...………………...…........……(4.14)
2
The total fluid loss at the end of the injection period is obtained by substituting Eqs.
VL , P = 2rpκC L t p A f g 0 α ,θ = 1 ( 2
) ……………………………...….…..…….. (4.15)
where, the spurt factor κ which provides for increase in fluid loss over no-spurt
SP
κ = 1+
(
g 0 α , θ = 1 CL t p
2
)
………….……………………………....……....….(4.16)
The fluid loss during the shut-in period is obtained by subtracting Eq. 4.15
(
VLS (∆t ) = 2rp CL t A f ) [g (∆t ) ( )]
α ,θ = 1 2 − g 0 α ,θ = 1 2 ………...……......….(4.17)
D,
33
4.4 Non-Newtonian Filtrates
When fracturing fluids that have a power law based fluid rheology and do not
build up a filter cake; the filtrate that leaks off is a non-Newtonian fluid. Integrating
Γ(1 + θ )Γ(1 + α )
g 0 (α ,θ ) = ……………………………………...…...……......….(4.18)
θ Γ(1 + α + θ )
For the upper bound, value of α = 1 and the fluid loss volume function is expressed
as7:
g (∆t D , α = 1, θ ) =
1
θ (1 + θ )
[ ]
(1 + ∆t D )1+θ − (∆t D )1+θ ……………...……..……....….(4.19)
In cases where the value of θ approaches 1 the fluid loss volume function is
expressed as7:
1
g (∆t D , α , θ = 1) = + ∆t ……………...….…………….…….…….....…(4.20)
(1 + α ) D
The fluid loss at the end of the injection period is given as follows7:
1
VLp = 2rp C Lt p A f g 0 (α ,θ )
θ
θ≠ ………….……...………......…..(4.21)
2
The fluid loss during the shut-in period is obtained by subtracting Eq. 4.19
(
VLs (∆t ) = 2rpCLt θ A f ) [g (∆t α ,θ ) − g 0 (α ,θ )]
D, θ≠
1
2
………...(4.22)
34
4.5 Typical Pressure Profile of Fracture Treatment
The pressure profile of a typical fracture treatment9 is shown in Fig. 4.1. The
is initiated. Following the injection stage the well is shut-in and the bottomhole
pressure declines until the fracture closes on the proppant at the closure pressure, pc.
The net pressure in the fracture is equal to pw - pc. The pressure keeps reducing in the
below.
The fracture treatment efficiency (η) can be defined7 as the ratio of the volume
of the fracture created at the end of pumping (Vfp) to the total volume of fluid injected
(Vi).
V fp
η= ……………………………....…………...……….……...…….….......... (4.23)
Vi
35
During the fluid pumping stage the pressure within the fracture varies from
the maximum pressure pw at the wellbore to pc the closure pressure that is a short
distance away from the fracture tip. The pressure gradient7 within the fracture is
characterized by a factor β which is defined as the ratio of the average net pressure
∆pf
β= …………………………....…………...……….……...…….….......... (4.24)
pnet
∆ p f = p f − pc …………………………....…………...………...……...…........ (4.26)
where p f is that constant internal pressure that would produce the same average
The pressure gradients during injection and shut-in are different, which
implies that the value of β is different for these two stages. For injection stage as
well as shut-in stage the values of β are selected at the end of the respective stage and
The fracture width averaged over its length and height known as w is directly
compliance and depends on the factor β , the plane strain modulus E’, and the fracture
36
4.7 Equations for Pumping Stage
The equations relating fracture pressure, fracture geometry and time during
fluid injection stage have been developed by Nolte33,34 and are given in the following
sections.
The fracture net pressure is directly proportional to the term as given in Table
1
4.2. The exponent e = , where n and K are the power law behavior exponent
2n + 2
and consistency index of the fracturing fluid. As can be seen from Table 4.2,
Nolte33,34 concluded that for all models the fracture net pressure depends on
parameters like n, K, qi and fracture extension (L or R). In case of PKN model the net
and radial fracture model the net pressure is inversely proportional to L and R
respectively. From Table 4.3 it can be concluded that a plot of net pressure versus
time on a logarithmic scale would yield a straight line with slope equal to the
exponent in Table 4.3. The value of the flow behavior index can then be calculated
37
Table 4.2: Fracture Net Pressure – Fracture Geometry Relations33,34
proportional to
PKN L
e
(E ' 2 n+1
K qi )
n e
3n+1
h f
GDK 1
e
(E ' 2 n +1
K qi )
n e
n 2n
h f L
Radial
(E )
e
' 2 n +1 n e 1
K qi R 3n
Similar to the relations for fracture net pressure Nolte33,34 also developed
relations for the fracture width and are summarized in Table 4.4.
proportional to
↓ ↓
38
Similar conclusions can be drawn from Table 4.4; Nolte33,34 recognized that
for all models the fracture width depends on parameters like n, K and qi. In case of
PKN model the width is directly proportional to the fracture extension L and the
fracture height hf, whereas in case of GDK the width is directly proportional to the
fracture extension L and inversely proportional to the fracture height hf. In case of the
radial fracture model the width is directly proportional to the fracture extension R.
proportional to
PKN e
Kqi n 1−n e
' hf L
E [ ]
GDK Kqi n
e
L2
e
' n
E
h f
Radial e
Kqi n 2−n
' R
E [ ]e
The slope of a log-log plot of net pressure versus time provides a lot of
information about the fracture propagation mode. Figure 4.2 is a log-log plot
showing various fracture propagation modes. Table 4.5 provides the interpretation of
39
Log net pressure
IV Va
III
Vb
II
Ia, Ib
Log time
The ratio of perforated interval to the reservoir thickness determines the initial
equal to the length of reservoir the fracture propagation approximates a GDK model
40
(Section Ia). Alternatively in the case of limited fluid entry interval (low ratio of
(Section Ib). The slope in this section is negative indicating that the fracture is
The section II in Fig. 4.2 is observed when the fracture height growth is
confined, this happens when the reservoir is bounded by higher stress zones above
and below. The fracture propagation approximates a PKN fracture model. The net
pressure rises as the fracture extension increases and the resulting slope of the plot is
positive. The slope of the plot in section Ia, Ib and II depends on the value of n and
η (fracture treatment efficiency), the relationships given in Table 4.3 are utilized to
calculate the slope for different values of n and η (fracture treatment efficiency).
Section II progresses till the fracture net pressure approaches a value of one
half the stress difference between the stress of the formation being fractured and the
stress of the adjoining barrier. When this happens the fracture begins to penetrate the
adjoining barrier. This controlled height growth is shown as section III in Fig. 4.2.
Fissures are very fine cracks that occur naturally in the earths crust. Some of these
fissures are stress sensitive. During fracturing the increase in the stress causes these
fractures to open up and dilate. The dilation of stress sensitive fissures is another
possible cause of the section III in Fig. 4.2. Propagation of the fracture from a low
stress formation to a high stress formation causes the fracture width to abruptly
reduce, this phenomenon produces a pinch point as seen in Fig 4.3(b). A horizontal
causes of Section IV (usually a flat section) as seen in Fig. 4.2 are either height
41
growth through a pinch point or fissure dilation or a T-shaped fracture. Figure 4.3
shows the typical shape of a T-shaped fracture, height growth through a pinch point
Fracture width
T-Shape
width
width
(c)
(a) (b)
Section Va shows a sharp shoot-up in the net pressure as well as the slope of
the plot rises ( > 1). The possible cause for this type of behavior is restricted
extension (screenout). The slope of this section is less if the restriction exists at the
fracture tip (Tip screenout) as compared to the slope of the section when the
42
Section Vb in Fig. 4.2 is a characteristic indication of uncontrolled height
growth. This could happen when the fracture propagates vertically beyond the barrier
Fracture pressure diagnosis and analysis become easier when the pressure
derivative is plotted in addition to the net pressure on the same graph using a
logarithmic scale. Ayoub et al35 showed that by plotting the pressure derivative we
can estimate the closure pressure or confirm closure pressure obtained from other
10000
Underestimated pc
Net Pressure (psi)
ct p c
Corre
pc
1000 Overestimated
ativ e
deriv
re s sure
P
100
1 10 100
Time (min)
43
• b is the slope of net pressure and pressure derivative plots on a log-log scale
• A is a constant
• t is time
The net pressure and the pressure derivative plots are separated by a value of 1/b on a
log-log scale.
Differentiating Eq. 4.28 with respect to time t and multiplying both sides of the
dp w
t dt = Abt ……………………….…………..……………...…….….......... (4.29)
b
4.5.
Net Pressure (psi)
The pressure derivative plot is much more sensitive than the net pressure plot
due to which the fracturing events are easily recognized. The fracture height growth
into the barrier zones can be quantified and tip screenouts are detected much earlier34.
44
4.10 Near WellBore Pressure Losses
The fracture pressure analysis can give erroneous results if the near wellbore
pressure losses are not accounted for. The near wellbore pressure losses occur due to
When the fluid is injected, kinetic energy gets dissipated as it flows with a
high velocity through the small opening of the perforation. This pressure loss could
cleanup or if the breakdown procedure was ineffective. One way to identify high
rate step-down test as explained subsequently in the section on rate step down test.
The number of perforations N that are accepting fluid can be estimated by using Eq.
q 2ρ
∆p pf = 0.2369 2 i 4 2 ……………………...……………...…….…........ (4.30)
N D C
p
where the flow rate, density of fluid, diameter of perforation and the discharge
very high that would restrict the value of qi; re-perforating with larger holes or a
45
The connection between the wellbore and the main fracture body could be
straight or it could be a highly convoluted path as illustrated in Fig. 4.6. This latter
Tortuosity can have a major effect on the fracture treatment when the wellbore
and the stress fields are misaligned37. The effect produced is a reduction in the width
of the fracture. In extreme cases there is excessive reduction of the width at the
reduce the pressure drop caused by tortuosity is to increase the fluid viscosity38.
Increasing the pad volume is another way to reduce effects of tortuosity and prevent
near wellbore screenouts. The side effect produced by these methods is that it can
affect the height confinement, permeability in the fracture and proppant placement.
46
Some of the perforations are well aligned with the preferred fracture plane
whereas others may be misaligned to as much as 90 degrees. When the fracture does
not initiate at the perforation then the fluid communication between the perforation
and the fracture takes place through narrow channel on the side of the casing39. This
pressures and in certain cases the proppant forms a bridge at the pinch point which
Unlike tortuosity the effects produced by the pinch points increase as the
pressure increases. The fluid at the pinch point has a high velocity which has an
erosive effect. This phenomenon takes place where proppant slugs are pumped to
47
4.11 Rate Step-Down Test
pressure loses (perforation friction and losses due to tortuosity)40. These losses can
2. At each interval measure the stabilized pressure (preferably bottomhole) and the
rate. The change in the two constant rates should be done quickly.
3. Calculate the drop in pressure ∆p at each interval of the rate step down test. The
2
∆p pf = k pf qi ………………………...…………………………...…….….......... (4.31)
ρ
where k pf = 0.2369 2 4 2 ………………....……………......…….…........ (4.32)
N D C
p
1
∆pt = kt qi 2 ……………...…...………………………………......…….….......... (4.33)
where kt is a proportionality constant. The pressure drop, ∆p for each interval of the
rate step down test is substituted in Eq. 4.34 and the values of kpf and kt are
1 2
∆p = kt qi 2 + k pf qi ……………...…………………….……......…….…............ (4.34)
A plot of ∆p , ∆p pf and ∆pt versus the rate is prepared on the same graph to evaluate
the severity of perforation friction and tortuosity friction as illustrated in Fig. 4.8.
48
Figure 4.8- Rate Step-Down Test (Adapted from Wright40)
It can be seen from Fig. 4.8 that for this particular case the perforation friction losses
are higher as compared to the tortuosity losses. Based on the results obtained we can
The fracture area growth exponent α has a lower bounding value of α 0 when
the fluid efficiency η → 0 (high fluid loss) and an upper bounding value of α1 when
the fluid efficiency η → 1 (negligible fluid loss). Equation 4.35 defines7 the lower
bounding value of α .
α 0 = 1 − θ ……………………………....…………...……….……...……........ (4.35)
nf 1
where, θ = ; in case of a typical value of θ = , the lower bounding value of
nf +1 2
49
Table 4.6: Values of α1 (Upper bound of area exponent)7
Model α1
PKN 2n + 2
2n + 3
GDK n +1
n+2
Radial 4n + 4
3n + 6
The upper bounding value of the area exponent α1 depends on the fracture model and
the flow behavior index of power law fracturing fluid and is given7 in Table 4.6
The value of α can be calculated by interpolating between the lower and upper bound
obtained by interpolation7 with Eq. 4.37, where, α1 is the upper bound of the fracture
1 1
g (∆t D , α ) = g ∆t D , α = + η ((2α 1 ) − 1) g (∆t D , α = 1) − g ∆t D , α = ……... (4.37)
2 2
4
G (∆t D ) = [g (∆tD ) − g0 ]……………..............…………...……….………........ (4.38)
π
50
It can be proven7 that the bottomhole pressure pw during the shut-in period can be
π rpCL t p
pw = − [G (∆t D )] + pws .............……...……….…………........ (4.39)
2c f
Equation 4.39 indicates that a plot of pw versus G (∆t D ) has a negative slope equal
π rp C L t p dP
to as illustrated in Fig. 4.9. The derivative (pressure with respect to
2c f dG
The G-function at the closure pressure pc is defined as Gc. Fluid efficiency is defined
as the ratio of the volume of the fracture created to the volume of the fluid pumped.
If the fluid leaks off at a high rate then the volume of the fracture created is relatively
smaller then the volume of the fluid pumped. A low fluid efficiency indicates a high
51
rate of fluid leakoff and a high fluid efficiency indicates a low rate of fluid leakoff.
The fluid efficiency η can be expressed7 in terms of the G-function at closure and the
Gc
η= ...........…………………………………….....……….………........ (4.40)
2κ + Gc
The leakoff coefficient CL can be calculated from the slope m as given in Table 4.7,
where β s is the pressure gradient in the fracture during shut-in as was defined earlier.
The expressions in Table 4.7 can be utilized to calculate the leakoff coefficient
provided the values of rp and hf (for PKN models), L (for GDK models) and R (for
Model CL
mβ s
PKN
[ ]
hf
rp t p E '
GDK mβ s
[2 L]
rp t p E '
Radial mβ s 32 R
rp t p E ' 3π
2
Mukherjee42 developed techniques for identifying pressure dependent leakoff and its
52
effect on fracture geometry. The technique developed by Barree and Mukherjee42 is
dP dP
to plot pressure, pressure derivative , and the superposition derivative G
dG dG
versus the G-function. Their research work was done on five hypothetical case
studies in which unique behavior of the plot for pressure dependent leakoff, fracture
extension, fracture recession and height changes were identified. They validated their
work by using a fully 3-D fracture geometry model43. The technique developed by
function plots were utilized to identify the type of leakoff, fracture closure stress and
fracture geometry behavior. The G-function plots for four common leakoff types in
44
low permeability sandstones from Craig et al are described in the following
sections.
53
The requirements for a normal leakoff to occur are a constant fracture area
during shut-in and a homogeneous rock matrix. The two characteristic signatures for
dP
1. A constant pressure derivative .
dG
dP
2. The superposition derivative G lies on a straight line that passes
dG
dP
The fracture closure point is identified on the superposition derivative G
dG
curve when the curve starts to deviate from the straight line as shown in Fig. 4.10.
This point is then projected vertically on to the pressure curve and the pressure at this
point is the fracture closure pressure. A small initial portion of the pressure decline
might be pressure dependent, but the majority (more than 80%) of the pressure
dependent leakoff during shut-in. Figure 4.11 shows the G-function plot for a
54
Figure 4.11- G-Plot - Pressure Dependent Leakoff -Fissure Opening
(from Craig44)
dP
1. A large hump in the superposition derivative G .
dG
3. The portion of normal leakoff lies on a straight line passing through the
origin.
4. The hump lies above the straight line that passes through the origin.
The pressure at the point where the straight line begins is the fissure opening
pressure. The superposition derivative then exhibits a decline from the straight line
dP
superposition derivative G curve when the curve starts to deviate downwards
dG
from the straight line as shown in Fig. 4.11. This point is then projected vertically on
to the pressure curve and the pressure at this point is the fracture closure pressure.
55
Figure 4.12 shows the G-function plot for a pressure decline in which fracture
tip extension occurs. Fracture tip extension is said to occur if the fracture continues
which cannot be released through leakoff then results in fracture-tip extension after
shut-in.
dP
1. The superposition derivative G curve lies on a straight line.
dG
2. This straight line when extrapolated intersects the Y-axis above the origin.
In Fig. 4.12 fracture closure has not yet taken place as the superposition derivative
dP
G does not deviate downwards from the straight line.
dG
56
Figure 4.13 shows a G-function plot where fracture height recession occurs.
The layers adjoining the fracture zone are usually high stress and having relatively
low permeability. During injection if the fracture propagates through the adjoining
impermeable layers then during shut-in the fracture first closes on the impermeable
relatively low, this happens because only the permeable area causes fluid leakoff in
the entire fracture. Subsequently the impermeable fracture area starts closing (height
recession), during this period rate of pressure decline increases. At the end the
fracture consists of only permeable area, during this period the rate of pressure
decline is once again constant (normal leakoff) but at a higher value than the initial
leakoff. The three characteristic signatures for height recession during shut in are44:
57
dP
1. The superposition derivative G curve lies below a straight line
dG
dP
3. Increasing pressure derivative curve .
dG
The theory and equations pertaining to the G-function have been discussed in
detail in the previous sections. The same can be summarized as given below:
Dimensionless Time
Some of the important equations pertaining to the G-function which have been
α
a τ
= ……………………………....…………...……….………...……........ (4.1)
A t
t − tp ∆t
∆t D = = …………………….….……..…………………...……......……(4.6)
tp tp
a t
ξ= and tαD = ……………...….......………………….……...……......…...(4.7)
Af tp
1 θ
g (∆t D , α , θ ) = ∫ 1 + ∆t D − ξ α dξ
1 1
∆t D > 0 ………………….......…….(4.9)
θ 0
58
1 θ
1 α
g (∆t D = 0, α , θ ) = g 0 (α ,θ ) =
1
θ ∫0
1 − ξ dξ ∆t D = 0 ……..............(4.10)
4
G (∆t D ) = [g (∆tD ) − g0 ]……………..............…………...……….…….…........ (4.38)
π
59
Chapter 5
A total of seven wells were considered in this study. Figure 5.1 shows a
typical well casing diagram for the wells under consideration. The details about
casing and perforation depths for each of the seven wells are given in Appendix A.
60
A pump-in diagnostic test was carried out for seven wells under consideration.
All of these wells are located in the Hammon field in western Oklahoma. These
wells are gas wells producing from the Red Fork formation. The details regarding
the diagnostic pump-in tests (breakdown tests) performed on each of the wells and
the simulation results are given in the following sections. The breakdown tests
were performed using KCl treated water. The well was shut-in and the pressure
decline was observed for approximately two to three hours after breakdown. The
The data obtained from the service company was in an ASCII (American Standard
Code for Information Interchange) text format and an ASCII Excel comma separated
value spreadsheet format. The time interval of the data recorded was one second;
therefore data recorded over a period of four hours had approximately 14,400 rows of
data per well. The first step done was to ensure that the data for every breakdown test
was complete, evenly spaced at one-second-time interval and was free of errors. Data
for a total of ten wells were analyzed. Three wells which had missing data or out of
range readings were not considered in this analysis. The fracturing simulator requires
that the data file be entered in a binary format. Commercially available data
conversion software was utilized to convert the ASCII format files into binary format
(database files).
61
5.2 Simulation Model Options
For each well an input file for the fracture simulator was created and the options
selected for the simulations are summarized in Table 5.1 and subsequently
discussed in detail:
Simulations Simulations
(Set 1) (Set 2)
Fracture Growth Option Allow Growth after Shut- Allow Growth after
in Shut-in
Option
Ignore
Fracture Model: The options available for the fracture model are PKN,
GDK, Radial, Tip Dominated and Conventional. The tip-dominated model predicts
very high net pressures; radial and conventional models predict low net pressures47.
The assumptions of the PKN model are that the height of the vertical fracture is
62
constant and does not exceed the pay zone19. The cross section of the fracture is
the net pressure at that point and independent of the width at any other point19. The
fracture width at any point is proportional to its height. The fracture model utilized
for the simulator for the first set of simulations was ‘PKN’ as the assumptions of the
PKN model are more appropriate for breakdown tests. Additionally field experience
with the breakdown tests have proven that the PKN fracture model for the simulator
The simulations were repeated for all the wells with the GDK fracture model
for comparison with the results obtained from the PKN model.
Leakoff Model: The two models available for leakoff were ‘lumped
parameter’ and ‘grid based’. The ‘lumped-parameter’ leakoff model was selected for
the simulations. This model is formulated for speedy computations and is accurate in
low permeability reservoirs. The grid-based leakoff models are slow and are more
suited for reservoirs with high permeability (atleast 100 mD) and reservoirs having
Backstress Option: There are two options available; ‘backstress model’ and
‘backstress ignore’. Reservoirs having a high fluid leakoff increase the pore pressure,
which results in a change in formation closure stress known as backstress. For gas
reservoirs selecting the backstress model option complicates and slows the
computations. The Red Fork formation being a low permeability gas reservoir has
relatively low fluid leakoff, due to this reason the ‘backstress ignore’ option was
63
Growth After Shut-In Option: Accurate interpretation of the pressure-
decline requires that growth after shut-in be considered47. Among the two options
‘freeze dimensions’ and ‘allow growth after shut-in’ the later option was selected for
the simulations.
‘horizontal’) for fracture orientation the ‘vertical fracture orientation’ was selected for
orientation.
Heat Transfer Effect Option: For Heat transfer effects there are two options
available; ‘heat transfer model’ and ‘heat transfer ignore’. The volume of the fluid
pumped in a breakdown test is very small as compared to the main fracture treatment.
Neglecting the heat transfer effects will increase the computation speed and not have
any significant change in the accuracy of the results. The ‘ignore heat transfer’
iteration, the ‘general’ iteration option was selected for the simulations. Simplified
iterations are much faster but the results obtained are less accurate. The ‘general
iteration’ option takes longer computation time but the results are more accurate and
reliable.
The next step performed was to input the binary format database file into the
simulator. Subsequently the wellbore configuration was created for the simulations.
64
• Casing Data (various casing strings diameter, corresponding setting
Logs for the seven wells were analyzed to determine the lithology of the
formation. Gamma ray and neutron porosity logs were analyzed. The estimated
lithology was used to create reservoir layers in the commercial fracturing software.
Figure 5.2 shows the gamma ray and neutron porosity logs for Well – 4. For every
reservoir layer a shale index Ish is calculated from the log using Eq. 5.1:
where γlog is the log response for the layer being evaluated, and γsh and γmin are the log
65
Feet
0 Gamma Ray (gr) 130 30 Neutron Porosity (cnl) -10
(API) (pu)
Figure 5.2 Log for Well-4 (gamma ray and neutron porosity)49
Table 5.2 summarizes the values of γlog for the individual layers and the
corresponding values of the shale index Ish calculated using Eq. 5.1. The log has a
scale of 0-130 API gamma ray units. The values of γsh and γmin are 110 and 52 API
gamma ray units. A lithology of shale, sandy-shale, shaley-sand and sandstone was
modeled for Ish ranges of 0.9 - 1, 0.6 – 0.89, 0.25 – 0.59 and 0 – 0.24 respectively.
66
Table 5.2: Shale Index of Well-4 Reservoir Layers
units
From Table 5.2 it can be concluded that the total thickness of all the sandstone
layers (t1) and all the non-sandstone (shaly-sand and sandy-shale) layers (t2) for Well-
The depth and the rock type (shale, sandstone, shaly-sand, sandy-shale etc.)
were entered into the simulator for all layers of the reservoir. Figure 5.3 shows the
67
Figure 5.3 Reservoir Layers built from Logs for simulations (Well-4)
Following similar procedures layers were built for six other wells. The
thickness of sandstone layers (t1) and the total thickness of non-sandstone layers (t2)
for all other wells were calculated. Table 5.3 summarizes the ratio of t1 to t2 for the
seven wells. Wells 2, 5 and 7 indicate a very high thickness of sandstone layers as
compared to the sum of shaley-sand and sandy-shale layers. The Well production
data given in Appendix B indicates that the cumulative production for Wells 2, 5 and
Well t1 / t2
1 1.5
2 5.1
3 0.29
4 0.99
5 5.71
6 0.35
7 6.59
68
5.4 Simulator Input
The type of fluid and proppant need to be specified prior to running the simulator.
Potassium chloride treated water without proppant was specified for the
simulations.
The treatment schedule details that were specified for the simulations were the
stage type (water injection stage, shut-in stage etc), stage length in minutes and the
type of fluid for water injection stage. The treatment schedule information entered
was obtained from the service company breakdown report and was verified with the
The final simulation input that need to be specified to the simulator are the
start time, end time and the time step for performing calculations. Start time is
selected in order to skip over any initial glitches in pump rate or data that is collected
prior to actually starting the job. The end time selected is usually a few minutes more
than all the stages of the treatment schedule. The start time and end time are obtained
from the test reports and verified from the ASCII format data files to eliminate
possible errors in simulations. The time step determines the frequency of calculations
performed by the simulator. The time step recommended47 for conducting Minifrac
analysis is between 0.1 and 0.5 minute. The time step selected for performing the
Simulations were executed and from the results a breakdown test analysis was
performed for each well. The simulator calculates several parameters from the
69
database file to create plots required for breakdown test analysis; the methodology is
as given below:
pressure and bottomhole pressure versus time. The surface pressure and time are
obtained from the database file which was input to the simulator. The bottomhole
p w = (0.052 * Z * ρ ) + p s …………………………………………………..(5.2)
where pw is the bottomhole pressure in psi, Z is the depth from the surface to the
center of the perforations in feet, ρ is the density of the KCl treated water in ppg and
ps is the measured surface pressure in psi. A vertical line is drawn on the plot at the
time when pumping stopped; this vertical line is the beginning of the shut-in decline
period. The ISIP plots in Chapter 6 and Appendix D are drawn to have the Y-axis as
the end of pumping which is also the beginning of shut-in decline period. A tangent
is drawn to the bottomhole pressure decline curve at the start of the decline. The ISIP
should be the reflection of the pressure in the main body of the fracture. Near
wellbore effects make it difficult to pick the true ISIP. The tangent should be
positioned in such a way that the initial effects have dissipated. The intersection of
the tangent with the end of the injection line (Y-axis for plots in Chapter 6 and
pressure and the derivative of the surface pressure plotted versus the square root of
time. The scale on the ‘X-axis’ of this square-root plot is non-linear similar to the
70
slope of the bottomhole pressure on a square-root time plot indicates fracture closure.
The surface area available for fluid leak-off changes at fracture closure and this
results in a change of slope on the pressure decline curve. A tangent is drawn to the
bottomhole (BH) pressure curve; the point at which the BH pressure curve starts to
deviate from the tangent is the bottomhole closure pressure. The time at this point is
the closure time. The surface pressure for the plot is obtained from the database file;
the bottomhole pressure is calculated using Eq. 5.1. The simulator calculates the
derivative of the surface pressure (G dP/dG) versus the G-function time. A tangent is
drawn to the superposition derivative of the surface pressure (G dP/dG) curve passing
through the origin; the point at which the curve starts to deviate from the tangent is
the closure point. The G-function time (dimensionless) at this point is the G-function
time at closure. The bottomhole pressure at this closure point (G-function time at
obtained from the breakdown test data. Equation 4.6 is utilized to calculate
• A value of α = 4/5 is assumed for the simulations with the PKN fracture
model and α = 2/3 is assumed for the simulations with the GDK fracture
71
upper bounds for the fracture area growth exponent α are ½ and 1. The fluid
used for the breakdown tests being KCl treated water implies that ½<α<1.
Additionally it has been proven that for the PKN fracture model the value of
very good approximation for the GDK model. Equation 5.3 is utilized for
estimating the G-function50 for the simulations performed with the PKN
fracture model.
2 3
g (4 / 5, ∆t D ) = 1.415 + 1.376∆t D − 0.388∆t D + 0.097∆t D
4 5 6
……………….…(5.3)
− 0.01407∆t D + 0.00105∆t D − 0.000031∆t D
Equation 5.3 is a very good approximation to obtain the G-function values for a PKN
fracture model with KCl treated water as the fracturing fluid (without proppant) used
for the breakdown tests. The value of g0 = g(4/5, ∆tD) = 1.415 for PKN fracture
model.
The G-function for the simulations performed with the GDK fracture model is
1 −1
4α ∆t D + 2 1 + ∆t D F , α ; 1 + α ; (1 + ∆t D )
g (α , ∆t D ) = 2
……........…........ (5.4)
1 + 2α
computing algorithms.
72
Chapter 6
The ISIP and square-root plots for Well-1 are shown in Figs. 6.1 and 6.2
respectively. The G-function plots for Well-1 with PKN and GDK fracture
models are shown in Figs 6.3 and 6.4 respectively. Similar plots for Well-2
closure for each well is estimated from the simulation plots utilizing the procedure
described in Chapter 4.
Data obtained from simulation plots for PKN and GDK fracture models are
summarized in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 respectively. The average of the closure pressure
obtained from the square-root plot and the G-function plot is denoted by ‘Average
pc’. The closure time is denoted by ‘tc’ and the dimensionless G-function at closure is
denoted by ‘Gc’. Well-2 has three zones; the break down test for each of these zones
was performed separately; the values of ‘average pc’, ‘tc’ and ‘Gc’ given for Well-2 in
Table 6.1 and Table 6.2 are the weighted average values for all the three zones.
73
Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
10000 5000
9200 4200
8800 3800
8400 3400
8000 3000
22.0 42.2 62.4 82.6 102.8 123.0
Time (min)
120
9600 4600
40 4200
9200
-40
3800
8800
-120
8400 3400
-200
3000
80000.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Time (min)
(d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) (G·d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
2000 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 2000
10000 5000
1600 1600
9600 4600
1200 1200
9200 4200
800 800
8800 3800
400 400
8400 3400
0 0
8000 0.000 0.780 1.560 2.340 3.120 3.900 3000
G Function Time
74
(d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) (G·d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
2000 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 2000
10000 5000
1600 1600
9600 4600
1200 1200
9200 4200
800 800
8800 3800
400 400
8400 3400
0 0
8000 0.000 0.800 1.600 2.400 3.200 4.000 3000
G Function Time
75
Table 6.2: Data from Simulation Results (GDK Fracture Model)
ISIP Plots: The average rate of pressure decline during the shut-in period can
be obtained from the ISIP plot (the total pressure drop divided by the shut-in period
time). Table 6.3 summarizes the average rate of pressure decline for seven wells
obtained from the ISIP plots (Figs. 6.1 and D1 through D8). Well-2 has the highest
rate of pressure decline (44 psi/min) and Well-4 has the lowest rate of pressure
decline (1.42 psi/min). The rate of pressure decline is an indication of the rate of
fluid leakoff.
76
Table 6.3: Average rate of pressure decline
decline (psi/min)
1 6.32
2 44
3 6.824
4 1.42
5 10
6 5.06
7 6.7
coefficient and the total fluid loss coefficient. Potassium Chloride treated water does
not build a filter cake which implies the spurt-loss is not applicable. The total fluid-
loss coefficient depends on wall building fluid loss coefficient, viscosity controlled
fluid loss coefficient and the compressibility controlled fluid loss coefficient. For
KCl treated water the only factors that affect the fluid loss are viscosity controlled
fluid loss coefficient and the compressibility controlled fluid loss coefficient. The
factors that affect the fluid leakoff rate in the break down tests with KCl treated water
are as follows:
2. Pressure difference (pressure inside the fracture minus the reservoir pressure).
77
4. Permeability of the formation to the mobile formation fluids.
The viscosity of the fracturing fluid and the formation fluid being similar for
all the wells are not the contributing factors for the difference in the rate of pressure
decline. Relative permeability of the formation to the fracturing fluid and the
formation fluids are the most significant factors affecting the leakoff rate. A high rate
probability that the well will be a good producer. Production data in Appendix B
indicates that Well-2 had the highest cumulative production in the first sixty-day
period as compared to all other wells. Well-6 had the lowest cumulative production
among the seven wells; the average rate of pressure decline for Well-6 was observed
to be 5.06 psi/min which was the second lowest among the seven wells.
Alternatively there could be more than one change in slope and the change in slope
could be due to either fracture closure, height recession from bounding layers or from
In situations where the closure point cannot be easily identified, the pressure
pressure and helps in identifying the closure point. In case of Well-2 (Zone-2) the
closure point is easily identified by the change of slope in the bottomhole pressure
curve (Fig. D10). In case of Well-2 (Zone-1) the change of slope of the bottomhole
78
pressure curve cannot be easily identified (Fig. D9). The pressure derivative curve
A combination of the square-root plot and the G-function plot can help
the G-function plot is utilized to identify the closure point is Well-4. In Fig. D13 the
closure point cannot be identified from both the bottomhole pressure curve as well as
the pressure derivative curve. The G-function plot for Well-4 (Fig. D21) is utilized to
The closure pressure obtained from the square-root plot differs slightly from
the closure pressure obtained from the G-function plots. Well-2 (Zone-2) has a high
pressure derivative slope indicating a high rate of fluid leakoff as seen in Fig. D10.
The cumulative production of Well-2 was the highest among all the wells.
function plot are utilized to determine the leakoff mechanism as mentioned in Chapter
fracture tip extension and fracture height recession were elaborated earlier in Chapter
4. Analysis of Figs. 6.3 and D17 through D19 for Well - 1 and Well – 2 (Zones 1, 2
and 3) indicate a normal leakoff as the pressure derivative (dP/dG) is constant and the
superposition derivative (G[dP/dG]) lies on a straight line that passes through the
origin. Analysis of Figs. D20 through D22 for Well–3 through Well-5 respectively
79
3. The portion of normal leakoff lies on a straight line passing through the origin.
4. The hump lies above the straight line that passes through the origin.
G-Function Plots (GDK Model): Analysis of Figs. 6.4 and D25 through
D27 for Well 1 and Well – 2 (Zones 1,2 and 3) indicate a normal leakoff. Analysis of
Figs. D28 through D30 for Well–3 through Well-5 respectively indicate a pressure
dependant leakoff.
The ISIP and the square-root plots for both the models are identical as these plots
depict the pressure decline data, which is recorded at the surface and is
Well-1 has a normal leakoff with PKN as well GDK fracture models, similarly
Well-4 has a pressure dependent leakoff in both the models. For every well the
G-function plots for the simulations performed with the PKN model and GDK
model indicate an identical leakoff mechanism. The reasoning for this similarity
The closure pressure and closure time obtained from the G-function plots for the
PKN model are slightly higher than those obtained from the G-function plots of
the GDK model. The reasoning for this phenomenon is that the PKN model
predicts fractures with more length and less width in contrast to the GDK fracture
80
model that predict fractures with less length and more width. The actual range of
the fracture geometry as generated by the simulator for PKN and GDK models
were as follows:
PKN Model:
GDK Model:
The range of the fracture half length generated with the PKN models is almost
twice that of GDK model; whereas the range of fracture width generated for GDK
81
Chapter 7
The productivity of a well depends on several factors; some of the major ones
• Reservoir Pressure
• Porosity
• Permeability
All seven wells considered in this study are in the Hammon field, which is
located in two adjoining counties namely Roger Mills and Custer in western part of
82
Subsequent to the diagnostic injection test these wells have been stimulated
and all of them have a very similar fracture stimulation job performed. The
producing formation for all of the above wells is ‘Red Fork’ and the heights of the
producing intervals are given in Table 7.1. Production data for the seven wells are
provided in Appendix B. The 30-day (Q30) and 60-day (Q60) cumulative gas
The 60-day cumulative production data for Well-3 was not available, as this
well has been completed recently. Due to this reason Table 7.2 and Figs. 7.3, 7.5,
7.7, 7.9 and 7.11 have one data point less corresponding to the cumulative production
Interval (feet)
1 130
2 16 (Zone 1)
2 52 (Zone 2)
2 32 (Zone 3)
3 60
4 90
5 200
6 38
7 128
83
Table 7.2: Well Production Data
A statistical analysis of the data in Tables 6.1, 7.1 and 7.2 indicated that no
correlation exists between the well production data and three other variables ISIP,
closure pressure pc and closure time tc. The data, however indicates a correlation of
Figures 7.2 and 7.3 are log-log plots of the height of the producing interval of
each well in feet versus the cumulative production in MCF for the first thirty-day and
sixty-day period respectively. A good correlation could not be established that fitted
all the points on Figs. 7.2 and 7.3. The reason for this is attributed to the variation of
reservoir properties as can be seen in the lithology of the layers in Figs. 5.3 and C1
through C8. The ratio of the total thickness of sandstone layers to the total thickness
of the non-sandstone layers was calculated and is summarized in Table 5.3. Wells 2,
5 and 7 have the highest values of the ratio t1/t2 which is in the range of 5.1 to 6.59.
84
The corresponding values of the ratio t1/t2 for the Wells 1, 3, 4 and 6 were in the
range of 0.29 to 1.5. The production data in Table 7.2 indicates that Wells 2, 5 and 7
have the highest cumulative production. The higher value of the ratio t1/t2 for the
Wells 2, 5 and 7 is considered as one of the reasons for higher well productivity.
of a well is the high rate of pressure decline during the shut-in period. Analysis of the
data in Table 6.2 (Rate of Pressure Decline) indicates that Well-2 has the highest rate
of pressure decline (44 psi/min). A high rate of pressure decline indicates a high rate
of fluid leakoff. The high rate of fluid leakoff implies that the permeability of the
well is high. High permeability is considered as one of the reasons for the high
A detailed review of the logs of the seven wells indicated that the porosity of
Well-7 to be the highest and was in the range of 11 to 12.5 percent. For all other
wells the porosity was found to be in the range of 8 to 10 percent. The high
Wells 2 and 7 have the highest cumulative production and the corresponding
points for these wells lie prominently apart from all the other points in Figs. 7.2 and
7.3. Wells 1, 3 and 4 through 6 when considered as a group show a good correlation
on the plots of Figs. 7.2 (96.79 percent fit) and 7.3 (94.89 percent fit). The curve on
Figs. 7.2 and 7.3 was fitted with the points corresponding to Well 1, 3 and 4 through
6.
85
100000
2 7
5
30 Day Cumulative Production (MCF)
1
0.7052 4
y = 1407.8x
2
R = 0.9679
10000
10 100 1000
Height of Producing Interval (feet)
1000000
60 Day Cumulative Production (MCF)
7
0.841
y = 1349.8x 2
2
R = 0.9489
5
100000
4 1
10000
10 100 1000
Height of Producing Interval (feet)
Figures 7.4 and 7.5 are semi-log plots of the G-function at closure of each
well versus the cumulative production in MCF for the first thirty-day and sixty-day
period respectively. It can be seen that in general the G-function at closure (PKN
86
Model) is inversely proportional to the thirty-day and sixty-day cumulative
production.
100000
7 2
5
30 Day Cumulative Production (MCF)
1 4
6
2
y = -2161.6x - 1177.2x + 76015
2
R = 0.7927
10000
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
G-Function at Closure
1000000
60 Day Cumulative Production (MCF)
7
2
5
100000
4
2
y = -1822.9x - 19837x + 177507
2
R = 0.6936
10000
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
G-Function at Closure
87
Figures 7.6 and 7.7 are semi-log plots of the Height/G-function at closure for
PKN model of each well versus the cumulative production in MCF for the first thirty-
100000
7 2
5
30 Day Cumulative production (MCF)
4 1
0.5603
y = 5770.1x
6 2
R = 0.9459
10000
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91
(Height/G-function at Closure)
1000000
60 Day Cumulative production (MCF)
5 2
100000
4
1
0.6499
y = 7710.6x
2
R = 0.8892
10000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
(Height/G-function at Closure)
88
Equation 7.1 gives a fit of 94.59 percent as seen from Fig. 7.6:
(0.5603 )
H
Q30 = 5770.1 ……………………………………………………..……..(7.1)
Gc
Equation 7.2 gives a fit of 88.92 percent as seen from Fig. 7.7:
(0.6499 )
H
Q60 = 7710.6 ……………………………………………………………(7.2)
Gc
where Q30 and Q60 is the cumulative production in MCF of gas produced for the first
30-day and 60-day periods respectively, H is the height of the producing interval in
Figure 7.6 indicates that there exists a very good correlation between the ratio
Whereas Fig. 7.7 indicates that there exists a reasonably good correlation between the
production.
Wells 2 and 7 in Figs. 7.6 and 7.7 do not stand prominently apart as they did
in Figs. 7.2 and 7.3. The reason for this is that the G-function takes into account
utilizing the data obtained from the simulations with the GDK fracture model shown
in Table 6.2. No correlation exists between the well production data and three other
variables ISIP, closure pressure pc and closure time tc. The simulation results confirm
89
that similar to the PKN model the GDK model indicates a correlation of the well
productivity with the G-function at closure. Figures 7.8 and 7.9 are semi-log plots of
the G-function at closure (GDK Model) of each well versus the cumulative
production in MCF for the first thirty-day and sixty-day period respectively. Similar
to the PKN Model it can be seen that the G-function at closure for the GDK Model is
100000
2
7
5
30-Day Cumulative Production (MCF)
2
y = -2185.9x - 1018.2x + 75790
2 6
R = 0.7922
10000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
G-function at Closure
90
1000000
7
2
5
100000
1 4
6
2
y = -1862.1x - 19567x + 177110
2
R = 0.6927
10000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
G-function at Closure
Figures 7.10 and 7.11 are semi-log plots of the Height/G-function at closure
for GDK model of each well versus the cumulative production in MCF for the first
100000
0.5788
y = 5700.4x
2
R = 0.856 2 7
5
30-Day Cumulative Production (MCF)
1
4
10000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Height/G-function at Closure
91
1000000
0.6791
y = 7447.7x
2
R = 0.833
60-Day Cumulative Production (MCF)
7
2
5
100000
4
1
10000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Height/G-function at Closure
Equation 7.10 gives a fit of 85.6 percent as seen from Fig. 7.6:
(0.5788 )
H
Q30 = 5700 ……………………………………………………..…...…..(7.3)
Gc
Equation 7.11 gives a fit of 83.3 percent as seen from Fig. 7.7:
(0.6791)
H
Q60 = 7447.7 ……………………………………………………………(7.4)
Gc
where Q30 and Q60 is the cumulative production in MCF of gas produced for the first
30-day and 60-day periods respectively, H is the height of the producing interval in
The PKN model gives better correlations than those obtained with the GDK model.
This indicates that the fracture geometry actually created are better modeled with the
PKN fracture model. The reasoning for this is that the fluid utilized for the
breakdown tests is KCl treated water which is a low viscosity fluid. The length of the
92
fracture created is inversely proportional to the viscosity of the fracturing fluid;
therefore KCl treated water creates fractures that are longer and sammler in width.
93
Chapter 8
8.1 Summary
1. Breakdown test data and post-frac production data for seven wells from Hammon
2. Wireline logs of the above wells were analyzed and lithology layers created for
the reservoir.
3. Input files for the simulator were created from well data and lithology layers.
4. Breakdown test data and input files were utilized to perform simulations for PKN
6. Statistical analysis was performed on the data obtained from these specialized
plots.
8.2 Conclusions
2. The cumulative production of the well was found to be proportional to the ratio of
94
3. Simulations with a PKN fracture model give better results than those with a GDK
fracture model.
4. A high rate of pressure decline during the shut-in decline period indicates that the
proportional to the ratio of the total thickness of sandstone layers to the total
8.3 Recommendations
taken into consideration in addition to the G-function at closure and the height
3. Data for additional wells should be considered to improve the reliability of the
correlations developed.
95
Nomenclature
cf = fracture compliance
hf = fracture height, ft
N = number of perforations
96
Pc1 = breakdown pressure of the rock, psi
area
R = fracture radius, ft
97
Sv = vertical stress gradient due to overburden, psi/ft
t = time, min
td = dimensionless time
w = fracture width, in
98
Z = depth, ft
υ = Poisson’s ratio
µ = viscosity, cp
κ = spurt factor
τ = time, min
99
Γ(α ) = Euler’s gamma function
ρ = density, lbm/ft3
100
References
1. Howard G.C., and Fast C.R.: “Hydraulic Fracturing,” SPE Monograph, Vol. 2, 8,
1970
3. Cornell, F.L.: “Engineering Improvements for Red Fork Fracturing,” JPT (Feb.
1991) 132-137
5. Rose, R. E.: “New Techniques Lead to Better Completions in Red Fork and Other
Low-Permeability Formations”, SPE No. 17305, presented at the SPE Permian
Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas (March 10-11, 1988)
6. Penny, G.S., Soliman, M.Y., Conway, M.W. and Briscoe, J.E.: “Enhanced Load
Water-Recovery Technique Improves Stimulation Results”, SPE No. 12149,
presented at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Francisco, CA, (October 5-8, 1983)
7. Gulrajani S.N. and Nolte K.G.: “Fracture Evaluation Using Pressure Diagnostics,”
Chapter 9 of “Reservoir Stimulation, Third Edition – 2000, edited by
Economides, M.J. and Nolte, K.G.”
8. Smith, M.B.: “Stimulation Design for Short, Precise Hydraulic Fractures,” paper
SPE 10313, SPE Journal (June 1985), 371.
9. Nolte, K.G.: “Principles for Fracture Design Based on Pressure Analysis,” paper
SPE 10911, SPE Production Engineering (February 1988c) 3, No.1, 22–30.
10. Plahn, S.V., Nolte, K.G., Thompson, L.G. and Miska, S.: “A Quantitative
Investigation of the Fracture Pump-In/Flowback Test,” paper SPE 30504, SPE
Production & Facilities (February 1997) 12, No. 1, 20–27.
11. Smith, M.B. and Shlyapobersky, J.W.: “Basics of Hydraulic Fracturing” Chapter
5 of “Reservoir Stimulation, Third Edition – 2000, edited by Economides, M.J.
and Nolte, K.G.”
12. Carter, R.D.: “Derivation of the General Equation for Estimating the Extent of the
Fractured Area,” Appendix I of “Optimum Fluid Characteristics for Fracture
101
Extension,” Drilling and Production Practice, G.C. Howard and C.R. Fast, New
York, NY, USA, American Petroleum Institute (1957), 261–269.
13. Howard, G.C. and Fast, C.R.: “Optimum Fluid Characteristics for Fracture
Extension,” Drilling and Production Practice, New York, New York, USA,
American Petroleum Institute (1957) 24, 261–270. (Appendix by E.D. Carter)
15. Mack, M.G., and Warpinski N.R.: “Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing” Chap 6
of “Reservoir Stimulation, Third Edition – 2000, edited by Economides, M.J. and
Nolte, K.G.”
17. Sneddon, I.N. and Elliot, A.A.: “The Opening of a Griffith Crack Under Internal
Pressure,” Quarterly of Appl. Math. (1946) 4, 262–267.
19. Perkins, T.K. and Kern, L.R.: “Widths of Hydraulic Fractures,” paper SPE 89,
Journal of Petroleum Technology (September 1961) 13, No. 9, 937–949.
20. Geertsma, J. and de Klerk, F.: “A Rapid Method of Predicting Width and Extent
of Hydraulic Induced Fractures,” paper SPE 2458, Journal of Petroleum
Technology (December 1969) 21, 1571–1581.
21. Nordgren, R.P.: “Propagation of a Vertical Hydraulic Fracture,” paper SPE 3003,
SPE Journal (August 1972) 12, No. 8, 306–314.
23. Brady, B.H., Ingraffea, A.R. and Morales, R.H.: “Three-Dimensional Analysis
and Visualization of Wellbore and the Fracturing Process in Inclined Wells,”
paper SPE 25889, presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low
Permeabililty Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA (April 12-14,
1993)
24. Gidley et al: “Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing,” SPE Monograph Vol.
12, 1990 Edition, SPE, Richardson, Texas.
102
25. Thompson, J.W., and Church D.C.: “Design, Execution, and Evaluation of
Minifracs in the Field: A Practical Approach and Case Study”, SPE No. 26034,
presented at the Western Regional Meeting held in Anchorage, Alaska, USA (26-
28 May, 1993)
26. Warpinski, N.R.: “Hydraulic Fracturing in Tight, Fissured Media”, JPT (Feb.
1991) 146-209.
27. Castillo, J.L.: “Modified Fracture Pressure Decline Analysis Including Pressure-
Dependent Leakoff”, SPE No. 16417 presented at the 1987 SPE DOE Low
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, May 18-19.
28. Parlar, M., Nelson, E.B., Walton, I.C., Park, E. and Debonis, V.: “An
Experimental Study on Fluid-Loss Behavior of Fracturing Fluids and Formation
Damage in High-Permeability Porous Media,” paper SPE 30458, presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA (October
22–25, 1995).
29. Chaveteau, G.: “Fundamental Criteria in Polymer Flow Through Porous Media
and Their Relative Importance in the Performance Differences of Mobility
Control Buffers,” Water Soluble Polymers, J.E. Glass (ed.), Advances in
Chemistry Series (1986), 213.
30. Meyer, B.R. and Hagel, M.W.: “Simulated Mini-Frac Analysis,” Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Engineering (September–October 1989) 28, No. 5, 63–73.
31. Valkó, P. and Economides, M.J.: “Fracture Height Containment with Continuum
Damage Mechanics,” paper SPE 26598, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA (October 3–6, 1993b).
33. Nolte, K.G.: “Determination of Proppant and Fluid Schedules from Fracturing
Pressure Decline,” paper SPE 13278, SPE Production Engineering (July 1986b)
1, No. 4, 255–265.
34. Nolte, K.G.: “Fracturing Pressure Analysis for Non-Ideal Behavior,” paper SPE
20704, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, USA (September 23–26, 1990); also in Journal of Petroleum
Technology (February 1991) 43, No. 2, 210–218.
35. Ayoub, J.A., Brown, J.E., Barree, R.D. and Elphick, J.J.: “Diagnosis and
Evaluation of Fracturing Treatments,” SPE Production Engineering (February
1992a), 39.
103
36. El-Rabba A.M., Shah S.N. and Lord D.L.: “New perforation Pressure-Loss
Correlations for Limited-Entry Fracturing Treatments,” SPE Production and
Facilities (February 1999), Vol. 14, No. 1, 63-71.
37. Cleary, M., Johnson, D., Kogsboll, H., Owens, K., Perry, K., de Pater, C., Stachel,
A., Schmidt, H. and Tambini, M.: “Field Implementation of Proppant Slugs to
Avoid Premature Screen-Out of Hydraulic Fractures with Adequate Proppant
Concentration,” paper SPE 25892, presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain
Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA
(April 12–14, 1993).
38. Aud, W.W., Wright, T.B., Cipolla, C.L., Harkrider, J.D. and Hansen, J.T.: “The
Effect of Viscosity on Near-Wellbore Tortuosity and Premature Screenouts,”
paper SPE 28492, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA (September 25–28, 1994).
39. Nolte, K.G.: “Application of Fracture Design Based on Pressure Analysis,” paper
SPE 13393, SPE Production Engineering (February 1988a) 3, No. 1, 31–42.
40. Wright C.: “Rate step-down test analysis – a diagnostic for fracture entry,”
Sidebar 9E of “Fracture Evaluation Using Pressure Diagnostics,” Chapter 9 of
“Reservoir Stimulation, Third Edition – 2000, edited by Economides, M.J. and
Nolte, K.G.”
42. Barree, R.D. and Mukherjee, H.: “Determination of Pressure Dependent Leakoff
and Its Effect on Fracture Geometry,” paper SPE 36424, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA (October
6–9, 1996).
44. Craig D. P., Eberhard M. J. and Barree, R.D.: “Adapting High Permeability
Leakoff Analysis to Low Permeability Sands for Estimating Reservoir
Engineering Parameters,” paper SPE 60291, presented at the SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional/ Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado,
USA (March 12–15, 2000).
104
SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium,
Denver, 5-8 April 1998.
46. Craig, D.P., et al.: “Case History: Observations From Diagnostic Injection Tests
in Multiple Pay Sands of the Mamm Creek Field, Piceance Basin, Colorado,”
paper SPE 60321 presented at the 2000 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 12-15 March 2000.
49. Well Drilling Data Files, Crawley Petroleum Corporation, 800 N. Hudson, High
Tower Building, Oklahoma City, OK, 2003.
50. Craig D.P. and Brown T.D.: “Estimating Pore Pressure and Permeability in
Massively Stacked Lenticular Reservoirs Using Diagnostic Fracture Injection
Tests,” paper SPE 56600 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1999.
51. Well Production Data Files, Crawley Petroleum Corporation, 800 N. Hudson,
High Tower Building, Oklahoma City, OK, 2003.
105
Appendix A
Well TD 13,100’
Well TD 13,100’
106
Table A3: Well Configuration Data for Well – 3
Well TD 13,000’
Well TD 12,995’
12,656’ – 12,664’
12,672’ – 12,688’
12,694’ – 12,714’
12,724’ – 12,734’
12,776’ – 12,782’
12,804’ – 12,814’
107
Table A5: Well Configuration Data for Well – 5
Well TD 12,910’
12,700’ – 12,730’
Well TD 12,909’
108
Table A7: Well Configuration Data for Well – 7
Well TD 12,950’
109
Appendix B
Cumu.
Month Number of Hours Net Prod CumulativeProduction Prod.
Days Down Days Days MCF MCF
Dec-03 7 7 6.71 6.71 12788 12788
Dec-03 8 62 5.42 12.13 7422 20210
Dec-03 7 31 5.71 17.83 7474 27684
Jan-04 8 9 7.63 25.46 10064 37748
Jan-04 8 0 8 33.46 9994 47742
Jan-04 8 0 8 41.46 5235 52977
Jan-04 7 0 7 48.46 5234 58211
Feb-04 29 0 29 77.46 31236 89447
Cumu.
Month Number of Hours Net Prod Cumulative Production Prod.
Days Down Days Days MCF MCF
May-03 20 29 18.79 18.79 47748 47748
Jun-03 30 23 29.04 47.83 61526 109274
Jul-03 31 3 30.88 78.71 49186 158460
Aug-03 31 0 31 109.71 40668 199128
Sep-03 30 0 30 139.71 34748 233876
Oct-03 31 72 28 167.71 31289 265165
Cumu.
Month Number of Hours Net Prod CumulativeProduction Prod.
Days Down Days Days MCF MCF
Jan-04 5 45 3.13 3.13 3688 3688
Jan-04 14 0 14 17.13 13892 17580
Feb-04 29 0 29 46.13 15934 33514
110
Table B4: Production data for Well – 4
Cumu.
Month Number of Hours Net Prod Cumulative Production Prod.
Days Down Days Days MCF MCF
Apr-02 7 5 6.79 6.79 6916 6916
May-02 31 87 27.38 34.17 37720 44636
Jun-02 30 0 30 64.17 31317 75953
Jul-02 31 0 31 95.17 24730 100683
Aug-02 31 26 29.92 125.08 21447 122130
Sep-02 30 0 30 155.08 18815 140945
Oct-02 31 0 31 186.08 17487 158432
Nov-02 30 0 30 216.08 15587 174019
Dec-02 31 0 31 247.08 14989 189008
Jan-03 31 0 31 278.08 13901 202909
Feb-03 28 8 27.67 305.75 11743 214652
Mar-03 31 0 31 336.75 12497 227149
Apr-03 30 0 30 366.75 11695 238844
May-03 31 0 31 397.75 11751 250595
Jun-03 30 0 30 427.75 11277 261872
Jul-03 31 0 31 458.75 11234 273106
Aug-03 31 0 31 489.75 10903 284009
Sep-03 30 0 30 519.75 10527 294536
Oct-03 31 76 27.83 547.58 10236 304772
Cumu.
Month Number of Hours Net Prod Cumulative Production Prod.
Days Down Days Days MCF MCF
Nov-02 6 98 1.92 1.92 2560 2560
Dec-02 31 24 30 31.92 57319 59879
Jan-03 31 24 30 61.92 60890 120769
Feb-03 28 12 27.50 89.42 46364 167133
Mar-03 31 0 31 120.42 46325 213458
Apr-03 30 4 29.83 150.25 35617 249075
May-03 31 40 29.33 179.58 32847 281922
Jun-03 30 0 30 209.58 30109 312031
Jul-03 31 0 31 240.58 26457 338488
Aug-03 31 0 31 271.58 24477 362965
Sep-03 30 0 30 301.58 20953 383918
Oct-03 31 99 26.88 328.46 18873 402791
111
Table B6: Production data for Well – 6
Cumu.
Month Number of Hours Net Prod Cumulative Production Prod.
Days Down Days Days MCF MCF
Mar-03 6 57 3.63 3.63 4017 4017
Apr-03 30 22 29.08 32.71 14689 18706
May-03 31 0 31 63.71 9709 28415
Jun-03 30 0 30 93.71 7668 36083
Jul-03 31 0 31 124.71 7027 43110
Aug-03 31 0 31 155.71 6611 49721
Sep-03 30 0 30 185.71 6090 55811
Oct-03 31 121 25.96 211.67 5211 61022
Cumu.
Month Number of Hours Net Prod Cumulative Production Prod.
Days Down Days Days MCF MCF
Oct-03 3 7 2.71 2.71 3001 3001
Nov-03 8 15 7.38 10.08 16177 19178
Nov-03 8 24 7 17.08 16209 35387
Nov-03 8 0 8 25.08 20939 56326
Nov-03 6 0 6 31.08 16081 72407
Dec-03 8 0 8 39.08 20535 92942
Dec-03 8 0 8 47.08 19975 112917
Dec-03 8 0 8 55.08 17755 130672
Jan-04 7 0 7 62.08 14339 145011
Jan-04 8 0 8 70.08 15338 160349
Jan-04 8 0 8 78.08 14381 174730
112
Appendix C
113
Fig. C5 Layers of Well-3 Fig. C6 Layers of Well-5
114
Appendix D
Simulation Plots
11500
Tangent 6800
11000 6200
10500 5600
10000 5000
20.0 44.6 69.2 93.8 118.4 143.0
Time (min)
10800 5800
10200 5200
9600 4600
9000 4000
111.1 115.0 118.9 122.7 126.6 130.5
Time (min)
115
Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
11000 6000
10400 5400
9800 4800
9200 4200
8600 3600
8000 3000
39.0 63.2 87.4 111.6 135.8 160.0
Time (min)
10200 6200
9400 5400
8600 4600
7800 3800
7000 3000
326.5 356.0 385.5 415.0 444.5 474.0
Time (min)
9800 4700
9600 4500
9400 4300
9200 4100
9000 3900
6.00 17.80 29.60 41.40 53.20 65.00
Time (min)
116
Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
12000 7000
11200 6200
10400 5400
9600 4600
8800 3800
8000 3000
28.3 58.8 89.4 119.9 150.5 181.0
Time (min)
Fig. D6 ISIP Plot for Well – 5
10600 5600
10200 5200
9800 4800
9400 4400
9000 4000
23.9 48.1 72.3 96.6 120.8 145.0
Time (min)
10400 5400
9800 4800
9200 4200
8600 3600
8000 3000
75.0 94.2 113.4 132.6 151.8 171.0
Time (min)
117
(d/dt) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
100 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
7000
12000
60
11600 6600
20 6200
11200
-20
5800
10800
-60
10400 5400
-100
5000
100000.0 24.5 48.9 73.4 97.8 122.3
Time (min)
Fig. D9 Square Root Plot for Well – 2 (Zone 1)
300
11400 7000
100 6000
10800
-100
5000
10200
-300
9600 4000
-500
3000
90000.0 3.9 7.7 11.6 15.4 19.3
Time (min)
300
11200 6200
100 5400
10400
-100
4600
9600
-300
8800 3800
-500
3000
80000.0 24.0 48.1 72.1 96.1 120.1
Time (min)
118
(d/dt) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
500 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
12000
12000
300
9600 9600
100 7200
7200
-100
4800
4800
-300
2400 2400
-500
0
0 0.0 29.6 59.3 88.9 118.5 148.1
Time (min)
600
10400 5400
400 4800
9800
200
4200
9200
0
8600 3600
-200
3000
80000.0 11.7 23.5 35.2 47.0 58.7
Time (min)
900
9600 9600
300 7200
7200
-300
4800
4800
-900
2400 2400
-1500
0
0 0.0 31.0 62.0 93.0 124.0 155.0
Time (min)
Fig. D14 Square Root Plot for Well – 5
119
(d/dt) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
1000 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
7000
12000
760
10600 5600
520 4200
9200
280
2800
7800
40
6400 1400
-200
0
50000.0 24.2 48.4 72.7 96.9 121.1
Time (min)
300
10400 5400
100 4800
9800
-100
4200
9200
-300
8600 3600
-500
3000
80000.0 19.1 38.2 57.2 76.3 95.4
Time (min)
(d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) (G·d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
1000 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 1000
12000 7000
800 800
11600 6600
600 600
11200 6200
400 400
10800 5800
200 200
10400 5400
0 0
10000 0.000 1.020 2.040 3.060 4.080 5.100 5000
G Function Time
120
(d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) (G·d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
3000 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 3000
12000 8000
2400 2400
11400 7400
1800 1800
10800 6800
1200 1200
10200 6200
600 600
9600 5600
0 0
9000 0.000 0.420 0.840 1.260 1.680 2.100 5000
G Function Time
(d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) (G·d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
3000 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 3000
11000 6000
2400 2400
10400 5400
1800 1800
9800 4800
1200 1200
9200 4200
600 600
8600 3600
0 0
8000 0.000 1.180 2.360 3.540 4.720 5.900 3000
G Function Time
(d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) (G·d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
3000 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 3000
11000 7000
2400 2400
10200 6200
1800 1800
9400 5400
1200 1200
8600 4600
600 600
7800 3800
0 0
7000 0.000 1.140 2.280 3.420 4.560 5.700 3000
G Function Time
121
(d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) (G·d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
50.00 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 100.0
10000 4500
40.00 80.0
9800 4300
30.00 60.0
9600 4100
20.00 40.0
9400 3900
10.00 20.0
9200 3700
0.00 0.0
9000 0.000 1.500 3.000 4.500 6.000 7.500 3500
G Function Time
(d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) (G·d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
3000 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 3000
11000 6000
2400 2400
10400 5400
1800 1800
9800 4800
1200 1200
9200 4200
600 600
8600 3600
0 0
8000 0.000 0.900 1.800 2.700 3.600 4.500 3000
G Function Time
(d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) (G·d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
4000 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 4000
11000 6000
3200 3200
10600 5600
2400 2400
10200 5200
1600 1600
9800 4800
800 800
9400 4400
0 0
9000 0.000 1.100 2.200 3.300 4.400 5.500 4000
G Function Time
122
(d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) (G·d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
3000 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 4000
11000 6000
2400 3200
10400 5400
1800 2400
9800 4800
1200 1600
9200 4200
600 800
8600 3600
0 0
8000 0.000 0.380 0.760 1.140 1.520 1.900 3000
G Function Time
(d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) (G·d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
1000 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 1000
12000 7000
800 800
11600 6600
600 600
11200 6200
400 400
10800 5800
200 200
10400 5400
0 0
10000 0.000 1.020 2.040 3.060 4.080 5.100 5000
G Function Time
(d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) (G·d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
3000 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 3000
12000 8000
2400 2400
11400 7400
1800 1800
10800 6800
1200 1200
10200 6200
600 600
9600 5600
0 0
9000 0.000 0.420 0.840 1.260 1.680 2.100 5000
G Function Time
123
(d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) (G·d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
3000 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 3000
11000 6000
2400 2400
10400 5400
1800 1800
9800 4800
1200 1200
9200 4200
600 600
8600 3600
0 0
8000 0.000 1.180 2.360 3.540 4.720 5.900 3000
G Function Time
(d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) (G·d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
3000 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 3000
11000 7000
2400 2400
10200 6200
1800 1800
9400 5400
1200 1200
8600 4600
600 600
7800 3800
0 0
7000 0.000 1.140 2.280 3.420 4.560 5.700 3000
G Function Time
(d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) (G·d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
50.00 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 100.0
10000 4500
40.00 80.0
9800 4300
30.00 60.0
9600 4100
20.00 40.0
9400 3900
10.00 20.0
9200 3700
0.00 0.0
9000 0.000 1.560 3.120 4.680 6.240 7.800 3500
G Function Time
124
(d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) (G·d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
3000 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 3000
11000 6000
2400 2400
10400 5400
1800 1800
9800 4800
1200 1200
9200 4200
600 600
8600 3600
0 0
8000 0.000 0.900 1.800 2.700 3.600 4.500 3000
G Function Time
(d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) (G·d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
4000 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 4000
11000 6000
3200 3200
10600 5600
2400 2400
10200 5200
1600 1600
9800 4800
800 800
9400 4400
0 0
9000 0.000 1.100 2.200 3.300 4.400 5.500 4000
G Function Time
(d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) (G·d/dG) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
3000 Meas'd Btmh (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 4000
11000 6000
2400 3200
10400 5400
1800 2400
9800 4800
1200 1600
9200 4200
600 800
8600 3600
0 0
8000 0.000 0.420 0.840 1.260 1.680 2.100 3000
G Function Time
125