Hydraulic Fracture

Hydraulic Fracturing
Short Course,
Texas A&M University
College Station
2005

Modeling, Monitoring, Post-Job
Evaluation, Improvements
Fracture
Modeling+
2
3D
Fracture
Modeling+
3
P3D and 3D Models
FracPro (RES, Pinnacle Technologies)
FracCADE (Dowell)
Stimwin (Halliburton) and PredK (Stim-Lab)
TerraFrac
StimPlan
MFrac

Fracture
Modeling+
4
Dimensionless Form of Nordgren
Model
c
c
=
c
c
2
0
4
2
0
1 w
x
t -
+
w
t
D
D
D D
D
D
t
c
c
=
w
x
i
i
D
D
0
4
0
dx
dt
w
x
fD
D
D
D
=
c
c
4
3
0
3
x
D
= 0 (wellbore)
x
D
= x
fD
(tip)
t
D
(x
fD
) : inverse of x
fD
(t
D
)
w
D 0
0 =
Fracture
Modeling+
5
Propagation Criterion of the Nordgren
Model
Net pressure zero at tip
Once the fluid reaches the location, it
opens up immediately
Propagation rate is determined by how
fast the fluid can flow

Fracture
Modeling+
6
Other Propagation Criteria
(Apparent) Fracture Toughness
Dilatancy
Statistical Fracture mechanics
Continuum Damage mechanics
Fracture
Modeling+
7
Fracture Toughness Criterion
K
I
x
f
h
f
K
IC
(R
f
)
Stress Intensity Factor K
I
=p
n
x
f
1/2
Fracture
Modeling+
8
CDM
dD
dt
=C
n
o
k

o
o
n
1- D
=
dD
dt
=C
1- D
o
k
|
\

|
.
|
What is the time needed for D
to start at D = 0
and grow to D = 1 ?
Fracture
Modeling+
9
CDM Propagation Criterion
u =
Cl
x
l +x
w
f
H,
2
f
f
x=x
2
f
2
1 2
to
min

/
|
\

|
.
|
|
Cl
2
Combined Kachanov parameter:
Fracture
Modeling+
10
P3D
Pseudo 3 D Models: Extension of
Nordgrens differential model with height
growth
Height criterion
Equilibrium height theory
or Assymptotic approach to equilibrium
Plus some tip effect
Fracture
Modeling+
11
3D (Finite Element Modeling)
x
y
wellbore element
tip element
Fracture
Modeling+
12
Fracture Toughness Criterion
K
IC
Fluid flow in 2 D
Fluid loss according to local opening time
Propagation: Jumps
Stress Intensity Factor K
I
>

K
IC
?

Fracture
Modeling+
13
Data Need for both P3D and 3D:
Layer data
Permeability, porosity, pressure
Youngs modulus, Poisson ratio, Fracture
toughness
Minimum stress
Fluid data
Proppant data
Leakoff calculated from fluid and layer data
Fracture
Modeling+
14
Design Tuning Steps
Step Rate test
Minifrac (Datafrac, Calibration Test)
Run design with obtained o
min
(if needed)
and leakoff coefficient
Adjust pad
Adjust proppant schedule
Fracture
Modeling+
15
Step rate test
Time
B
o
t
t
o
m
h
o
l
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

Fracture
Modeling+
16
Step rate test
Injection rate
B
o
t
t
o
m
h
o
l
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

Propagation pressure
Two straight lines
Fracture
Modeling+
17
Fall-off (minifrac)
1
s
t

i
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n

c
y
c
l
e

2
n
D

i
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n


c
y
c
l
e

flow-back
shut-in
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
7
Injection rate
Time
B
o
t
t
o
m
h
o
l
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

3 ISIP
4 Closure
5 Reopening
6 Forced closure
7 Pseudo steady state
8 Rebound
Fracture
Modeling+
18
Pressure fall-off analysis
(Nolte)
( )
e
L
e D p e i t t
t
C
2A t g S 2A V = V
e
o , A
A +
e D
t t t / A = A
( )
e L D p
i
t t
t C t g S
A
V
w
e
2 , 2 -
e
o A =
A +
e
A
Fracture
Modeling+
19
g-function
where F[a, b; c; z] is the Hypergeometric function,
available in the form of tables and computing algorithms
dimensionless
shut-in time
area-growth
exponent
( )
D
t
A
D
D D
D
dA dt
A t
t g
D
D
} }
(
(

= A
A +
1
0
1
/ 1
/ 1
1
,
o
o
o
( )
( ) | |
o
o o o
o
2 1
1 ; 1 ; , 2 / 1 1 2 4
,
1
+
A + + A + + A
= A

D D D
D
t F t t
t g
Fracture
Modeling+
20
g-function
Approximation of the g-function for various exponents
o
(d =
A
tD)
6 5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2
d 0765693 . 0 d 6.49129 + d 167.741 + d 540.342 + d 383.11 + d 54.8534 + 1.
d 94.0367 + d 763.19 + d 1293.07 + d 632.457 + d 79.4125 + 1.41495
5
4
,

= |
.
|

\
|
= o d g
g d, o =
|
\

|
.
| =
2
3
1.47835 + 81.9445 d + 635.354 d + 1251.53 d + 717.71 d + 86.843 d
1. + 54.2865 d + 372.4 d + 512.374 d + 156.031 d + 5.95955 d - 0.0696905 d
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5 6
g d, o =
|
\

|
.
| =
8
9
1.37689 + 77.8604 d + 630.24 d + 1317.36 d + 790.7 d + 98.4497 d
1. + 55.1925 d + 389.537 d + 557.22 d + 174.89 d + 6.8188 d - 0.0808317 d
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5 6
Fracture
Modeling+
21
Pressure fall-off
( ) ( ) ( ) o , 2 - 2 - /
D e L f p f e i f C w
t g t C S S S A V S p p A + =
( ) p b m g t
w N N D
= + A ,o
( )
e
L
e D p e i t t
t
C
2A t g S 2A V = V
e
o , A
A +
e D
t t t / A = A
( ) , 2 2 -
e
o
D e L p
i
t t
t g t C S
A
V
w
e
A =
A +
w S p
f net
=
Fracture stiffness
Fracture
Modeling+
22
Fracture Stiffness
(reciprocal compliance)
Table 5.5 Proportionality constant, S
f
and suggested o for basic fracture geometries
PKN KGD Radial
o
4/5 2/3 8/9
S
f
2E
h
f
'
t
E
x
f
'
t
3
16
tE
R
f
'
w S p
f net
= Pa/m
Fracture
Modeling+
23
Shlyapobersky assumption
No spurt-loss


( ) ( ) o , 2 - 2 -
D e L f p f
e
i
f C w
t g t C S S S
A
V
S p p A
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
A
e
from intercept
g
p
w
b
N
m
N

g=0
Fracture
Modeling+
24
Nolte-Shlyapobersky
PKN o=4/5 KGD o=2/3 Radial o=8/9
Leakoff
coefficient,
C
L
( )
N
e
f
m
E t
h

' 4
t
( )
N
e
f
m
E t
x

' 2
t
( )
N
e
f
m
E t
R

' 3
8
t
Fracture
Extent
( )
C N f
i
f
p b h
V E
x

'
=
2
2
t ( )
C N f
i
f
p b h
V E
x

'
=
t
( )
3
8
3
C N
i
f
p b
V E
R

'
=
Fracture
Width
e L
f f
i
e
t C
h x
V
w
830 . 2

=
e L
f f
i
e
t C
h x
V
w
956 . 2

=
e L
f
i
e
t C
R
V
w
754 . 2
2
2

=
t
Fluid
Efficiency
i
f f e
e
V
h x w
= q
i
f f e
e
V
h x w
= q
i
f e
e
V
R w
2
2
t
q =
V
i
: injected into one wing
Fracture
Modeling+
25
7 Calculate q

(fluid efficiency)

3 Calculate R
f
(fracture extent -radius)
4 Calculate C
LAPP
(apparent leakoff coeff)
5 Calculate w
L
(leakoff width)
6 Calculate w
e
(end-of pumping width)
( )
R
E V
b p
f
i
N C
=
'

3
8
3
( ) C
R
t E
m
LAPP
f
e
N
=
8
3t '
w g C t
L LAPP e
= ( , ) 0
8
9
2
w
V
R
w
e
i
f
L
=
2
2 t /
q =
+
w
w w
e
e L
1: g-function plot of pressure
2: get parameters bN and mN
Fracture
Modeling+
26
Computer Exercise 3-1 Minifrac
analysis
Fracture
Modeling+
27
Example
Permeable (leakoff) thickness, ft, 42
Plane strain modulus, E' (psi), 2.0E+6
Closure Pressure, psi, 5850

21.8 9.9 0.0 1 0
21.95 0.0 7550.62 0 0
22.15 0.0 7330.59 0 0
Time,
min
BH Injection
rate, bpm
BH Pressure,
psi
Include into inj
volume
Include into
g-func fit
0.0 9.9 0.0 1 0
1.0 9.9 0.0 1 0
Fracture
Modeling+
28
Output
Slope, psi -4417
Intercept, psi 13151
Injected volume, gallon 9044
Frac radius, ft 39.60
Average width, inch 0.4920
5
Fluid efficiency 0.1670
8
Apparent leakoff coefficient (for total area),
ft/min^0.5
0.0159
2
Leakoff coefficient in permeable layer, ft/min^0.5 0.0247
9
Fracture
Modeling+
29
From "apparent" to "real (radial)
| | 64 . 0 ) arcsin( ) 1 (
2
53 . 0
6 . 39 * 2
42
2
5 . 0 2
= + =
= = =
x x x r
R
h
x
p
f
p
t
ft/min 0.024 ft/min
0.64
0.015
m/s
0.214
10 85 . 5
ft/min 0.015 m/s 10 85 . 5
0.5 0.5 0.5
5
,
0.5 0.5 5
,
= =

=
= =

True L
App L
C
C
Fracture
Modeling+
30
Redesign
Run the design with new leakoff
coefficient
(That is why we do minifrac analysis)
Fracture
Modeling+
31
Monitoring
Calculate proppant concentration at
bottom (shift)
Calculate bottomhole injection pressure,
net pressure
Calculate proppant in formation, proppant
in well
Later: Add and synchronize gauge
pressure
Fracture
Modeling+
32
Nolte-Smith plot
Log net
pressure
Log injection
time
Normal frac
propagation
Tip
screenout
Wellbore
screenout
Unconfined
height growth
Fracture
Modeling+
33
Post-Job Logging
Tracer Log
Temperature Log
Production Log

Fracture
Modeling+
34
Available Techniques for Width
and Height
Measured Directly
Formation Micro Scanner
Borehole Televiewer
Based on Inference
Temperature Logging
Isotopes (fluid, proppant)
Seismic Methods, Noise Logging
Tiltmeter techniques
Spinner survey
Fracture
Modeling+
35
Sc
Sb
Ir

Trace
r
log
Fracture
Modeling+
36
Tiltmeter Results
after Economides at al. Petroleum Well Construction
Fracture
Modeling+
37
0 100 200 300 400
Fracture Half -Length (f t)
< 0.0
0.0
0.0 - 2.0
2.0 - 4.0
4.0 - 6.0
6.0 - 8.0
8.0 - 10.0
10.0 - 12.0
12.0 - 14.0
> 14.0
FracCADE
*Mark of Schlumberger
EOJ Fracture Profile and Proppant Concentration
Texaco E&P
OCS-G 10752 #D-12
Actual
05-23-1997
-0.45 -0.30 -0.15 0 0.150.300.45
Wellbore Hy draulic Width(in)
5600 6400 7200
Stress(psi)
7300
7350
7400
7450
7500
Pressure Match with 3D Simulation
Fracture
Modeling+
38
3D Simulation
0 50 100 150 200 250
Fracture Half-Length - ft
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
P
r
o
p
p
e
d

W
i
d
t
h

-

i
n

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

(
K
f
w
)

-

m
d
.
f
t

Propped Width (ACL)
Conductivity - Kfw
FracCADE
*Mark of Schlumberger
Flow Capacity Profiles
Texaco E&P
OCS-G 10752 #D-12
Actual
05-23-1997
Fracture
Modeling+
39
Well Testing: The quest for flow regimes
Fracture
Modeling+
40
Design Improvement in a Field
Program
Sizing
Pad volume for generic design
More aggressive or defensive proppant
schedule
Proppant change (resin coated, high strength
etc.)
Fluid system modification (crosslinked, foam)
Proppant carrying capacity
Leakoff
Perforation strategy changes
Forced closure, Resin coating, Fiber
reinforcement, Deformable particle
Fracture
Modeling+
41
Example: Tortuous Flow Path
Analysis of the injection rate dependent
element of the treating pressure
Does proppant slug help?
Does limited entry help?
Does oriented perforation help?
Extreme: reconsidering well orientation:
e.g. S shaped

Fracture
Modeling+
42
Misalignment
Fracture
Modeling+
43
Fracture Orientation: Perforation
Strategy
after Dees J M, SPE 30342
o
max

o
max

From
overbalanced perforation
From
underbalanced perforation
Fracture
Modeling+
44
High Viscosity slugs
Fracture
Modeling+
45
Proppant Slugs
Fracture
Modeling+
46
Forcheimer Equation



Cornell & Katz

Case Study: Effect of Non-Darcy Flow
2
v
k
v
L
p
|

+ =
A
A
2
av
k
v
L
p
+ =
A
A
Fracture
Modeling+
47
Non-Darcy Flow
Dimensionless Proppant Number is the most
important parameter in UFD
res
prop f
prop
V
V
k
k
N
2
=
Effective Proppant
Pack Permeability
Fracture
Modeling+
48
Non-Darcy Flow
Effective Permeability
Reynolds Number
Re
1 N
k
k
nom
eff
+
=

| v k
N
nom
=
Re
k
eff
is determined through an
iterative process
Drawdown is needed to
calculate velocity
Fracture
Modeling+
49
Non-Darcy Flow Coefficient (|)
Several equations have been developed
mostly from lab measurements (empirical
equations)
General form of | equation



where | is 1/m and k is md
c
b
f
k
a x
|
|
8
10 1
=
Fracture
Modeling+
50
SPE 90195
Optimum FractureTreatment Design Minimizes the Impact of Non-Darcy Flow Effects
Henry D. Lopez-Hernandez, SPE, Texas A&M University, Peter. P. Valko, SPE, Texas A&M University, Thai T. Pham, SPE, El Paso Production
Fracture
Modeling+
51
Case Study: Reynolds number
Fracture
Modeling+
52
Case Study: Proppant number
Comparison for 20/40 Norton Proppants
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
B
e
l
h
a
j

e
t

a
l
C
o
l
e

a
n
d

H
a
r
t
m
a
n
C
o
o
k
e
*
D
a
n
c
u
n

L
i
E
r
g
u
n
F
r
e
d
e
r
ic
k

e
t

a
l
G
e
e
r
t
s
m
a
J
a
n
ic
e

a
n
d

K
a
t
z
J
o
n
e
s
K
u
t
a
s
o
v
*
M
a
c

D
o
n
a
l

e
t

a
l
M
a
l
o
n
e
y

e
t

a
l
*
M
a
r
t
i
n
s

e
t

a
l*
P
e
n
n
y

a
n
d


J
i
n

-

B
a
u
x
it
e
*
T
e
k

e
t

a
l
T
h
a
u
v
in

a
n
d

M
o
h
a
n
t
y
D
a
r
c
y
F
lo
w
P
r
o
p
p
a
n
t


N
u
m
b
e
r
Naplite Interprop Sintered Bauxite
Fracture
Modeling+
53
Case Study: Max possible JD
Fracture
Modeling+
54
Case Study: Optimum frac length
Fracture
Modeling+
55
Case Study: Optimum frac width
Fracture
Modeling+
56
Summary
Increasing role of evaluation
Integration of reservoir engineering,
production engineering and treatment
information
Cost matters
Expensive 3D model does not substitute
thinking
Still what we want to do is increasing J
D