Professional Documents
Culture Documents
5406 D 6600 CF 2 C 48563 B 26 D 5 e
5406 D 6600 CF 2 C 48563 B 26 D 5 e
5406 D 6600 CF 2 C 48563 B 26 D 5 e
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250089226
CITATIONS
READS
125
8 authors, including:
L. Neumann
Valdo Rodrigues
5 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS
20 PUBLICATIONS 26 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Summary
This paper provides a case history of the first hydraulic fracture on
a subsea horizontal well in the Quissam formation, a low-permeability limestone reservoir in Campos basin, Brazil.
The well was drilled in the direction of the expected fracture
growth, thus evolving longitudinal fractures along the horizontal
section. It is part of a research project to evaluate selective stimulation methods for subsea horizontal wells. Every aspect since the
drilling, completion, and evaluation of the well was handled with
the end in mind of hydraulically fracturing it in several stages.
Hydraulically fracturing a horizontal well has become a more
accepted practice in our industry. The procedures used in fracturing
vertical wells must be taken into consideration when fracturing a
horizontal well, to avoid refracturing work. Near-wellbore (NWB)
problems are usually the main reason that fracturing work is not
completed. This paper describes hydraulic-fracture treatments with
detailed discussion on analysis of calibration tests, fluid-efficiency
tests (FETs), and lessons learned.
Results of the pumping work will be presented showing theory
and how common practices played a key role for a successful
application of techniques used. Laboratory tests performed with
cores taken from the well itself, such as rock mechanics, proppant
embedment, compaction measurements, and basic mineralogy, are
presented.
Production results will be presented and compared to conventional
methods used on other subsea horizontal wells in Campos basin.
Introduction
The main reservoir of Enchova and Bonito fields is the Quissam member of the Maca formation. The Quissam is a Lower
Cretaceous, Albian-aged carbonate reservoir. The Enchova field
is elongated southwest to northeast (Fig. 1), is in water depth
from 106 to 130 m, and was discovered in 1976 while drilling
Well 1-RJS-22. The Quissam carbonate is characterized by lowto-medium porosity (1525%) and low permeability (110 md),
exhibiting a typical thickness of 4070 m. The drive mechanism is
gas expansion combined with some water influx of a weak aquifer.
The undersaturated oil had an initial pressure and temperature of
approximately 3,550 psia and 190F, respectively, with Rs value of
2,750 scf/STB and a viscosity of 11 cp. The Enchovas Quissam
reservoir can be divided into three main groups: the south area,
naturally fractured; the central area with lower permeabilities and
porosities; and the thinner north area that has preserved the original porosities. The field came on production in 1983, and it is on
primary production until today.
Throughout the producing life of Quissam formation, completion and stimulation methodology has proved to be a challenge. In
many aspects, it followed its counterparts in the North Seathat
is, the Dan, Valhall, and Eldfisk fields (Owens et al. 1992; Norris
et al. 1998; Cook and Brekke 2004), among others. All of those fields
started development by the middle of the 1980s, using variations
Copyright 2010 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 98277) was accepted for presentation at the International Symposium and
Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1517 February 2006, and
revised for publication. Original manuscript received for review 7 October 2005. Revised
manuscript received for review 28 April 2008. Paper peer approved 6 May 2008.
outperforms a horizontal open hole when there are more than three
fractures (Lietard and Hegeman 1998). It has also been shown that
when steady-state flow is established, the flow into the outermost
fractures can be much larger than that into the interior fractures.
However, if the well produces both oil and gas, the NWB pressure drop increases dramatically because of the reduced effective
fracture permeability, and this results in more-uniform inflow
distribution.
Considering that, it is implicit that the number of fractures
would be greater than three to show significant oil-productivity
impact, and, on the other hand, the number of fractures should be
minimized for reasons concerning logistics and cost-intensive rig
time in the offshore environment.
An in-house semianalytical model has been used for calculating
productivity index and production rate vs. time for a horizontal
well with multiple transverse or longitudinal fractures, and it was
used to define the optimum number of fractures. Finally, the number of fractures was established as seven.
It should be mentioned that this optimum number (seven)
of fractures on the first HRMF well in Campos basin has other
considerations. Seven fractures would not produce as much as 10,
14, or 18 fractures but, even so, would provide enough oil deliverability to demonstrate that this HRMF well should outperform
the openhole horizontal wells in Enchova and Bonito fields, and
it would be done in a shorter period of time.
Well Design. The objective set for that first HRMF well was to drill
a 1500 m (4,900 ft) horizontal section, 30 m (65 ft) below of the
top of the Quissam formation ( 2380 m or 7,810 ft total vertical
depth) and 7090 m (230295 ft) above the oil/water contact.
The main difference between the HRMF well and previous
horizontal wells drilled and completed in the Quissam formation is related to the liner cementation. Even so, it was decided to
keep the same design used on horizontal open holes; that is, plan
the well with a long radius, using experience previously gained,
and be able to use more-conventional drilling equipment from the
spud to total depth. As usual, in all Campos basin horizontal wells,
the HRMF well was drilled with a semisubmersible rig equipped
with topdrive.
The casing program included a 30-in. conductor jetted to 215
m, a 20-in. casing from wellhead to 500 m, a 1338-in. casing from
wellhead to 1600 m, a 958-in. casing from wellhead to top of Quissam, and a 7-in. liner through the horizontal section.
Selection of Fracturing Treatment. To select the best fracturing
method and to obtain a simulation of the effectiveness of each
March 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion
The test program also included the measurement of acid reaction rates, reaction order coefficients, and acid diffusivity to obtain
proper data for acid computer simulations.
Horizontal-Section Cementation. Lack of bond between the
pipe (7-in. cemented liner) and formation is thought to be one of
the most important factors that can lead to stimulation-treatment
failures. Higher stress levels at perforations and multiple high-pressure cycles during multiple fractures impose tremendous stresses
on cement sheaths. So, unless the cement sheath between each
pair of fractures presents full seal of the pipe/formation annulus
with very-low-permeability cement, the fracturing fluid, under
high pressures, may travel through lower-stress sites instead of
propagating the fracture. The fracturing fluid during early stages
may clean up cement channels, allowing proppant placement
along these channels. Literature shows that in one case there were
evidence that proppant traveled approximately 100 ft behind the
casing, re-entering the casing and damaging the work string (Kogsbll et al. 1993). Low-quality cement may add tortuosity, enhance
premature-screenout risk, compromise zonal isolation, and, in
more adverse situations, damage the fracturing string.
In this HRMF well, despite careful planning, the cement operation presented a few problems because the liner could not be rotated
immediately before pumping the cement slurry. Cement evaluation
through sonic and ultrasonic logs was not straightforward because
of the tools eccentricity. The logs were interpreted, and a mud
channel in the lower part of the well was diagnosed along most of
the horizontal section. To deal with the mud channel, the following
procedures were adopted: (a) intervals of good cement, generally
close to casing centralizers, were highlighted; (b) each planned
perforation interval was relocated on the basis of the good-cement
intervals; (c) it was assumed that the indication of pressure-dependent leakoff behavior in the pressure-decline analysis could also
be because of the mud channel; (d) in case of pressure-dependent
leakoff, slugs of 1- to 2-ppa 100-mesh sand were pumped in the
main treatment pads to fill the mud channels.
Regarding cement planning and execution, the significant
change for the next HRMF wells in Campos basin was the replacement of low-torque, low-drag ordinary centralizers with flexible,
integral centralizers. This decision was made after exchanging
ideas with more-experienced Danish personnel.
Isolation Method of Each Fracture. Three common methods to
isolate fractures during multiple-fracture operations are (a) the use
of recoverable or millable bridge plugs; (b) plugs-and-guns method
(Cook and Brekke 2004); and (c) the method that allows perforation, stimulation, and isolation in one trip (Damgaard et al. 1992).
The project team evaluated the pros and cons of each method and
decided to use the third method.
This completion method allows each zone to be mechanically
isolated during both stimulation and production. This is an important feature, even in a subsea well, because it allows better reservoir
management, since was expected, and later confirmed, that there
were great differences in reservoir pressure along the horizontal
section of the well.
Another excellent feature of this completion method is that the
annulus between the work string and the liner is kept open during
stimulation, providing direct access to bottomhole pressure, using
the static annulus pressure, or live annulus.
Perforation of the Well. The HRMF well was planned to be drilled
along the direction of the expected fracture growth, thus evolving
longitudinal fractures throughout the horizontal section. However,
even in this favorable situation, one is to assume the risks associated with misalignment of fracture and wellbore and develop ways
to overcome them.
When perforations are misaligned with respect to the preferred
fracture plane, hydraulic fracturing often results in increased NWB
complexity (e.g., tortuosities and high frictional pressure losses). In
addition, this generates multiple competing fractures that may lead to
NWB proppant bridging, rapid or premature screenout, incomplete
fracture placement, and fractures lacking enough conductivity.
115
PerforationsMD/TVD (m)
Type of Stimulation
41864188/2404.7
Hydraulic fracturing
40194021/2405.0
Hydraulic fracturing
38293831/2404.6
Hydraulic fracturing
36743676/2405.1
Hydraulic fracturing
34643466/2405.2
Hydraulic fracturing
32493251/2404.7
Hydraulic fracturing
30293031/2405.6
Acid fracturing
same IT pressure decline but using square root of time and its
derivative dP/dt. Inspection of Figs. 4 and 5 shows a very good
agreement between them, in regard to the definition of fractureclosure pressure.
In the sequence of calibrations tests, an SDT was performed,
and Fig. 6 depicts its interpretation. The pressure drop is approximately 300 psi, accepted as normal, and no slug was deployed to
remove such restriction.
Figs. 7 and 8 show the minifrac pressure decline, G-function,
and square root of time. They define the same fracture-closure
pressure that is in very good agreement with that closure pressure
from IT pressure-decline analysis.
The G-function of Fig. 7 also shows a normal decline with a
minimum signal of height recession.
117
The SDT and the minifrac results also receommended the use
of two slugs. The first slug included 100-mesh sand to overcome
or minimize the pressure-dependent leakoff effects. The second
slug included 12 ppa of 20/40-mesh ceramic to remove or reduce
the NWB tortuosities.
Fig. 14 shows a zoom of the main treatment of the Interval 4
at the moment when both slugs hit the perforations. The line with
x marks is the surface rate, the line with circle marks is the
measured bottomhole pressure, and the line with the square marks
is the bottomhole proppant concentration.
When the 100-mesh sand hits the perforations between 30 and 33
minutes, the increase in the bottomhole pressure suggests the sanding out of the fissures. When the proppant slug hits the perforations,
between the 35 and 40 minutes, the bottomhole pressure drops rapidly
by 200300 psi, clearly suggesting the removal of NWB tortuosity.
118
Final Results
By the end of May 2005, the HRMF well was completed and
declared ready for production with six propped fractures and one
acid fracture. All fractures were mechanically isolated with packers
and sliding-sleeve (SLV) doors.
At the end of well drilling, the reservoir-pressure data collected
showed a large reservoir-pressure distribution along horizontal section
with differences up to 400 psi or 30 kgf/cm2. By manipulating SLVs,
one can choose which interval will be placed in production, preventing unwanted crossflows caused by pressure difference. And, on the
basis of reservoir simulations, it was expected that the bottomhole
flowing pressure would be approximately 2,1002,300 psi or 150
119
Initial Tracer
Return (hours)
25% Tracer
Return (hours)
50% Tracer
Return (hours)
90% Tracer
Return (hours)
Sliding
Sleve
2.01
17
25
61
Open
7.62
17
20
47
Open
0.45
17
22
49
Closed*
0.005
15
21
47
Closed
0.015
18
24
53
Closed
0.476
31
47
153
Open
0.477
17
24
61
Open
120
Nomenclature
CfD = dimensionless fracture conductivity
k = formation permeability
kf = fracture permeability
Rs = solution gas/oil ratio
xf = fracture half-length
w = fracture width
Conclusions
1. Adequate fracture height, length, and fracture conductivity were
obtained from most fracture treatments on the HRMF well,
Quissam formation.
2. The combination of G-function and square root of time pressuredecline analyses of both IT and minifrac resulted in a much morereliable and -consistent interpretation of fracture-closure pressure.
3. The application of G-function and G dP/dG derivative analysis of
minifrac data can aid in the identification of pressure-dependent
leakoff, thus providing an indication of potential fracture-treatment problems.
4. The application of SDT analysis is very useful in identifying
NWB tortuosities and in defining the need of deployment of
proppant slugs.
5. The available data from the Quissam formation suggest that
excessive fluid loss from activation or dilation of natural fractures/
fissures can be controlled with the use of 100-mesh-sand slugs.
March 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their appreciation to the management of Petrobras, BJ Services, and Halliburton for their permission to publish this paper.
References
Abass, H., Brumley, J., and Venditto, J. 1994. Oriented PerforationsA
Rock Mechanics View. Paper SPE 28555 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 2528 September.
doi: 10.2118/28555-MS.
Cipolla, C.L., Hansen, K.K., and Ginty, W.R. 2007. Fracture Treatment
Design and Execution in Low Porosity Chalk Reservoirs. SPE Prod &
Oper 22 (1): 94106. SPE-86485-PA. doi: 10.2118/86485-PA.
Cook, C.C. and Brekke, K. 2004. Productivity Preservation Through Hydraulic Propped Fractures in the Eldfisk North Sea Chalk Field. SPE Res Eval
& Eng 7 (2): 105114. SPE-88031-PA. doi: 10.2118/88031-PA.
Damgaard, A.P., Bangert, D.S., Murray, D.J., Rubbo, R.P., and Stout, G.W. 1992.
A Unique Method for Perforating, Fracturing, and Completing Horizontal
Wells. SPE Prod Eng 7 (1): 6169. SPE-9392-PA. doi: 10.2118/19282-PA.
Economides, M.J. and Nolte, K.G. 2000. Reservoir Stimulation, third edition. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Kogsbll, H.H., Pitts, M.J., and Owens, K.A. 1993. Effects of Tortuosity
in Fracture Stimulation of Horizontal WellsA Case Study of the Dan
Field. Paper SPE 26796 presented at Offshore Europe, Aberdeen, 710
September. doi: 10.2118/26796-MS.
Lietard, L. and Hegeman, P. 1998. Optimum Development of a Thin BoxShaped Reservoir with Multiply Fractured Horizontal Wells. Paper SPE
121
SI Metric Conversion
bar 1.0*
bbl 1.589 873
cp 1.0*
ft 3.048*
ft3 2.831 685
F (F 32)/1.8
lbm 4.535 924
psi 6.894 757
*Conversion factor is exact.
122
Factors
E+05 = Pa
E01 = m3
E03 = Pas
E01 = m
E02 = m3
= C
E01 = kg
E+00 = kPa