PtrE 521

Advanced Production
Engineering
Lecture 5
Skin Factor
 Outline
• Overview of Skin Factor
• Skin Calculations
• Pseudo Skin - Fractured Well
Overview of Skin Factor
Formation Damage near Wellbore

Petroleum Engineering
Pressure Drop in Damaged Zone

qB rs
ps  pwf ,ideal  ln
2kh rw

qB rs
ps  pwf ,real  ln
2k s h rw

Petroleum Engineering
 Skin Components

The skin effect is attributed to not only

formation damage but all the near-
wellbore conditions that deviate from
the homogeneous radial flow.
Skin factor considers the lumped
effects of all the non-ideal conditions
 Skin
• The total apparent (or “composite” skin
factor) may be calculated from well test data.
• A key objective of well test analysis is to
separate the observed skin factor into its
components and establish if:
stimulation treatment and/or
workover or recompletion
might be required to remove or overcome the
skin.
 Skin Components
S  S d  S c   S p   S pseudo
S d  damage skin

S c   skin due to partial completion and slant

S p  perforation skin
S pseudo  pseudo skins from rate - depend, phase -
depend, and converging skin effects
 Damage Skin
S d  skin due to formation damage in

 drilling
 cementing
 completion
 injection
 production
 Damage Skin-Drilling

 drilling mud invasion

 long exposure to drilling mud
 improper drilling mud
 high pressure difference, UBD
 Damage Skin-Cementing

 cement filtrate
 improper completion fluid
 low quality cementing→repeat cementing
 Damage Skin-Completion

 perforation (mechanical damage)

 improper completion fluid
 overbalance perforation
 improper stimulation fluid
 Damage Skin-Production

 high velocity (high production rate)

cause fines migrate
 Damage Skin-Injection

 high injection velocity (high injection

rate) cause fines migrate
 improper injection fluid properties
(chemical reaction, emulsion)
 solid in injection fluid
Skin Factor Calculations
 Principal Origins of Skin

• Formation damage
• Perforations
• Partial completions/limited entry
Gravel packs
• Non-Darcy flow
• Multiphase flow
• Natural fractures
• Hydraulic fractures
• Deviated/horizontal wells
 Skin
Additional pressure drop arising from deviations from
ideal radial flow behavior
S o u rc e L ow er U pper
p o o r c o m p le tio n 20 500
d a m a g e d w e ll 2 20
u n s tim u la te d -1 2
d e v ia te d -3 - 0 .5
n a tu ra lly -5 -2
fra c tu re d
p ro p p e d - 6 .5 -5
fra c tu re d
h o riz o n ta l w e ll -7 -5
 Skin due to Formation Damage

k
ks pe

pwf,ideal

p
pwf,real

rw rs
 Hawkins’ Formula
qB rs qB rs
p  pwf ,ideal  pwf ,real  ln  ln
2k s h rw 2kh rw

qB  1 1  rs qB  k  rs
    ln    1 ln
2h  k s k  rw 2kh  k s  rw
qB
 Sd
2kh kh pe  p wf 
q
 re 
141.2 B  ln  S 
k  rs  r 
S d    1 ln  w 
 k s  rw
 Skin: Formation Damage
Hawkins Formula

 k  rs
Sd   1 ln
 ks  rw

k = reservoir permeability
ks = permeability of damaged zone
rs = radius of damaged zone
rw = wellbore radius
 Example 5-1. Formation Damage Skin

Given:
Vertical well
Open hole completion
Full penetration
k = 301 md from welltest analysis
rw = 0.35 ft
ks = 51 md from core
rs = 1.0 ft

Calculate the skin factor due to damage, Sd = ?

 Example 5-1. Solution

Hawkins Formula

 k  rs
Sd   1 ln
 ks  rw
 301   1 
 1 ln 
 51   0.35 
 5.15
 Skin due to Perforation

• Shot density
• Perforation length
• Perforation tunnel radius
• Phasing
• Permeability anisotropy
• Formation damage
• Compacted zone
• Wellbore radius
Idealized Flow into Perforation
 Perforation Flow Shape Factors

Methodology for presenting results of exact

FEM simulations to describe flow distortion
near the perforation

qp
ptip  pw  f D

4k r
s

k  k kv
3 2

r  rpl p
Perforation Flow Shape Factors (after Locke, SPE 8804)
spf  3” 6” 9” 12” 15” 18”
2 0 1.317 1.265 1.253 1.264 1.253 1.316
2 180 1.055 0.906 0.853 0.808 0.737 0.782
2 120 0.918 0.816 0.783 0.623 0.627 0.669
2 90 0.913 0.779 0.693 0.583 0.589 0.612
4 0 1.699 1.803 1.906 2.043 2.081 2.229
4 180 1.174 1.158 1.136 1.108 1.138 1.253
4 120 1.047 0.963 0.856 0.923 .0893 .0942
4 90 1.035 0.897 0.766 0.842 0.828 0.899
8 0 2.879 3.084 3.413 3.717 3.995 4.203
8 180 1.320 1.222 1.413 1.477 1.631 2.110
8 120 1.020 0.847 1.103 1.130 1.270 1.516
8 90 0.916 0.667 0.952 0.946 0.934 1.289

Phasing = 90o has the highest productivity

 Perforation Crushed Zone

rs
rp

kcz
 Skin: Perforation Crushed Zone

 
 
 1  k 
Scz   1  
 k  1
 rs 
 1  cz

 rp 
cz refers to the crushed zone
Scz = skin due to crushed zone
kcz = permeability of the crushed zone
rs = cylindrical envelope of damage around the
perforation
rp = perforation radius
Example 5-2. Perforation Crushed Zone Skin

Given:
Vertical well
Full penetration
rs = 0.2 in.
k = 301 md from welltest analysis
rw = 0.35 ft
kcz = 100 md
Perforation diameter = 0.42 in., rp = 0.21 in.

Calculate the crushed zone skin, Scz = ?

 Example 5-2. Solution

 
 
 1  k 
S cz  1     1 
  r s   k cz 
1
 r p 

 
 
 1 
1   301  1 
 0 . 2   100 
 1 
 0 . 21 
 0 . 57
Skin in Perforations + Damaged Zone
After Locke
 Skin: Perforations and Damage Zone

S pd  ln  ln


D

rw k  rs   f s  Scz kh 
  
 
rs ks  rw  l p   2 N p r k A 
 3

" s" denotes damaged zone around wellbore

l p = length of perforatio n
N p = number of perforatio ns
A = anisotropy = k v /k h
h = perforatio n interval length
r  rp l p
f sD  spherical flow shape factor
S cz = skin due to crushed zone
 Example 5-3. Perforation and Damage Skin

• Vertical well
• Cased hole completion
• Full penetration
• Reservoir horizontal permeability, k = 301 md
from welltest analysis
• Reservoir vertical permeability, kv = 60 md
from welltest analysis
• rw = 0.35 ft
• ks = 51 md from core
• rs = 0.7 ft 04/21/2017
Example 5-3. Perforation and Damage Skin

• Perforation diameter = 0.42 in.

• kcz = 140 md
• Tcz or rs = 0.2 in.
• Shot phasing = 90 degrees
• Flow shape factor = Locke model
• Shot density = 8 shots/ft
• Shot penetration = 3, 6, 9 in.
• Total Sp+d = ?
 Example 5-3. Solution

S pd  ln  ln


D

rw k  rs   f s  Scz kh 
  
 
rs ks  rw  l p   2 N p r k A 
 3

Shot penetration = 3, 6, 9 in.

Shot penetration (in.), lp 3 6 9

Sp+d 9.06 6.01 5.87
Skin in Gravel Pack with Open hole Completion

Gravel Packed Completion (Furui, 2004)

Skin in Gravel Pack with Open hole Completion

Gravel Packed Completion (Furui, 2004)

 Skin in Gravel Packed Open hole Completion

Stotal  f Sd , SOG , SOG, NonDarcy 

Subscript:
OG = open hole gravel pack

Stotal = total skin

Sd = formation damage skin, is rate-independent
SOG = open hole gravel pack Darcy skin, is rate-
independent
SOG, Non-Darcy = open hole gravel pack non-Darcy skin, is
rate-dependent
 Darcy Skin: Gravel Pack in Open hole Completion

qB  rw 
p gp  ln
2k gp h  rgi 

k  rw 
SOG  ln
k gp  rgi 
pgp = pressure drop through gravel pack
SOG = open hole gravel pack Darcy skin, is rate-
independent
kgp = permeability of gravel pack
k = reservoir permeability
rgi = screen or liner radius
rw = wellbore radius
Formation Damage Skin in Gravel Pack Completion

Hawkins Formula can be used

 k  rs
Sd   1 ln
 ks  rw
k = reservoir permeability
ks = permeability of damaged zone
rs = radius of damaged zone
rw = wellbore radius

Stotal  Sd  SOG
Example 5-4. Darcy Skin of Gravel Pack in Open
hole
• Vertical well
• Gravel pack open hole completion
• Full penetration
• Reservoir horizontal permeability, k = 301 md
from welltest analysis
• rw = 0.35 ft
• ks = 51 md from core
• rs = 0.7 ft
• kgp = 40000 md
• Gravel pack placed between wellbore and
screen. Screen OD = 3 in.
• Sgp = ? Total skin, Sgp+d = ?
 Example 5-4. Solution

 
k  rw  301  0.35 
SOG  ln  ln   0.0077
k gp  rgi  40000  3 
 
 24 

k  rs  301   0.7 
S d    1 ln    1 ln   3.4
 k s  rw  51   0.35 

SOGd  Sd  SOG  3.4077

 Example 5-4. Solution

If kgp changed from 40000 md to 100 md due to

precipitation or fine plugging

 
301  0.35 
SOG  ln   3.09
100  3 
 
 24 

SOGd  Sd  SOG  6.49

 Skin: Gravel Pack in Open hole Completion

Non-Darcy skin, SOG,Non-Darcy, in open hole gravel pack

is caused by turbulent flow and is rate dependent.
(Furui, 2004)

SOG, Non Darcy  f t Fo,w

ft = turbulent scale factor

Fo,w = Forchheimer number
 Skin: Gravel Pack in Open hole Completion
Non-Darcy skin, SOG,Non-Darcy, for gravel pack in open hole.
(Furui, 2004)

SOG, Non Darcy  f t ,OG Fo,w

f t ,OG
 1
  Dgp 

 1   Ds 
1   Ds 
r  r
 Dgi  Ds

k  q 
Fo,w   
  2rwh 
ft,OG = turbulent scale factor for open hole gravel pack
Dimensionless Variables
rgi gp
rDgi  Dgp 
rw 
s
rs Ds 
rDs  
rw
b 2.7310 10

k gp  a
k Dgp  k k
k b 2.731010
 gp  a 
ks k gp k gp
k Ds 
k b 2.7310 10
s  a 
ks ks
 Skin: Gravel Pack in Open hole Completion

ks = damage zone permeability

kDs = dimensionless damage zone permeability
rgi = screen (liner) radius
rDgi = dimensionless screen (liner) radius
rs = damage zone radius
rDs = dimensionless damage zone radius
 = high-velocity coefficient
s = high-velocity coefficient of damage zone
Ds = dimensionless high-velocity coefficient of
damage zone
gp = high-velocity coefficient of gravel pack
Dgp = dimensionless high-velocity coefficient of
gravel pack
 Skin: Gravel Pack in Open hole Completion
(Horizontal Well)

Open hole gravel pack Darcy skin

k  rw 
SOG  ln
k gp  rgi 

Formation damage skin

 1   rDsH  rDsH  I ani  1 

 2 2
Sd    1 ln
 Ds  
k  I  1 
ani 
 Skin: Gravel Pack in Open hole Completion
(Horizontal Well)

rsH
rDsH 
rw
rDsH = dimensionless damage zone in horizontal
direction
rsH = damage zone radius in horizontal direction

kH
I ani 
kV

Iani = vertical-to-horizontal permeability anisotropy

 Skin: Gravel Pack in Openhole Completion
(Horizontal Well)

Openhole gravel pack non-Darcy skin

 1    
1  Ds  1  Ds  
I 1
ft ,OG  Dgp ani
r    2
 2
 
 Dgi  r
 DsH r DsH I ani 1 

 k  q 
Fo , w   
  2rw L 

SOG, Non Darcy  f t ,OG Fo,w

L = lateral length
Validation with Finite Element Method (FEM)
(Horizontal Well)
Validation with Finite Element Method (FEM)
(Horizontal Well)
Skin in Gravel Pack with Cased Hole Completion

Gravel Packed Completion (Furui, 2004)

Skin in Gravel Pack with Cased Hole Completion

Gravel Packed Completion (Furui, 2004)

 Skin in Gravel Pack with Cased Hole Completion

Pressure Profile in Gravel Packed Completion (Furui, 2004)

 Skin in Gravel Packed Cased Hole Completion

Case 1, kgp >> k

Case 2, kgp = 50k

When kgp >> k, fluid flow is similar to perforation in cased hole

without gravel pack. In other words, the pressure drop in gravel
pack (skin caused by gravel pack) is very small.

When kgp approaches k, the pressure drop in gravel pack (skin

caused by gravel pack) is high.
 Skin in Gravel Packed Cased Hole Completion

Stotal  f Sd , SCG , SCG, NonDarcy 

Subscript:
CG = Cased hole gravel pack

Gravel pack skins in the screen(liner)-casing annulus is

small and is neglected (Furui, SPE 90433).
Cased hole gravel pack skins, SCG,ic, ft,CG,ic in the
perforation tunnel in the casing is based on linear flow
Cased hole gravel pack skins, SCG,oc, ft,CG,oc in the
perforation tunnel outside of the casing depends on
gravel pack permeability. An empirical constant, , is
used to quantify.
 Skin in Gravel Packed Cased Hole Completion

Sgp between tubing and casing

Cased hole gravel pack skin in the screen(liner)-

casing annulus is neglected by Furui because it
is small comparing with other skin components.
 Skin in Gravel Packed Cased Hole Completion

Cased hole gravel pack skins, SCG,ic, ft,CG,ic in the

perforation tunnel in the casing is based on linear flow.

 2hDp  t Dct
SCG,ic   2 
 rDct  k Dpg
2
 2hDp 
f t ,CG,ic   2   Dpgt Dct
 rDct 
Assumption: Gravel pack in the perforation tunnel in the
casing has same properties as that between screen
and casing.
 Skin in Gravel Packed Cased Hole Completion

rct  gp
rDct   Dgp 
rw 
hp
hDp 
rw b 2.731010
 a
k k
t ct
t Dct 
rw b 2.731010
 gp  a 
k gp k gp
k gp
k Dgp 
k
 Skin in Gravel Packed Cased Hole Completion

hp = perforation spacing or perforation interval length

hDp = dimensionless perforation spacing or perforation interval
length
rct = perforation radius (through the casing and cement)
rDct = dimensionless perforation radius (through the casing and
cement)
tct = thickness of casing and cement
tDct = dimensionless thickness of casing and cement
 Skin in Gravel Packed Cased Hole Completion
Cased hole gravel pack skins, SCG,oc, ft,CG,oc in the
perforation tunnel outside of the casing depends on
gravel pack permeability.

The flow geometry outside casing depends greatly on

the ratio of the gravel permeability inside the
perforations extending through the formation to the
permeability of the formation, kDgp (= kgp/k). The gravel
pack skin factor approaches that of a cased and
perforated well at kDgp = ∞ and that of a perforated liner
at kDpg = 1. With this observation, Furui proposed the
following interpolation to calculate damage/Darcy skin
and non-Darcy skin. Introducing an empirically
determined constant ,
 Skin in Gravel Packed Cased Hole Completion


SCG,oc  1  k 
Dgp S  k S
P

Dgp PL


f t ,CG,oc  1  k 
Dgpf  k f
t ,P

Dgp t , PL

Subscript
P = cased and perforated wells
PL = cased and perforated liners

Finite Element Simulation gives  =0.5.

Calculation of the static perforation skin factor, SP,

can be done by Furui’s method (SPE 77363).
Skin in Gravel Packed Cased Hole Completion

Calculation of the static perforation skin factor,

SP, can be done by Furui’s method (SPE
77363).

S p  S2 D  S wb  S3D
 For Cased and Perforated Wells

hDe  1 
ft ,P  1   2 
lDp  rDe 
hp I ani rp  1  lp
hDe  rDe  1   lDp 
lp 2hp  I ani  rw
rp = perforation radius through formation
rDp = dimensionless perforation radius through
formation
lp = perforation length through formation
lDp = dimensionless perforation length through
formation
 For Cased and Perforated Liners

3hDp  v2 
S PL   ln 2   0.61
2rDp  hDp 1  
2
 hDp   27  16 3  4
f t , PL      
r 
 Dp 
 24r  3h
 Dp  Dp  1  

rp 

1.5   360 0
o o
 
rDp      
rw sin 
  360 /     360o o
0  
θ = perforation angular phasing
 Example 5-5. Skin of a cased hole gravel
packed well

• Vertical well
• Cased hole gravel packed completion
• Full penetration
• Reservoir horizontal permeability, k = 500 md
from welltest analysis
• Reservoir vertical permeability, kv = 500 md
from welltest analysis
• rw = 0.5 ft
• No formation damage
 Example 5-5. Skin of a cased hole gravel
packed well
• Perforation radius at casing and cement = 0.4 in.
• Perforation radius in formation = 0.4 in.
• Thickness of casing and cement = 1.2 in.
• Shot phasing = 90 degrees
• Flow shape factor = Locke model
• Shot density = 10 shots/ft
• Shot penetration in formation = 6 in.
• kgp = 10000 md
• Clearance between casing and tubing (or
screen) = 3 in.
• Skin components S = ? And Total skin S = ?
 Example 5-5. Solution
1. Calculate dimensionless variables
rct 0 .4
rDct    0 .067
rw 6

h p 10 12 
1
hDp    0 .2
rw 6
t ct 1 .2
t Dct    0 .2
rw 6
k gp
10000
k Dgp    20
k 500
 a
 gp  k   1 1.0
 Dgp        0.05
  k gp   20 

b 2.7310 10
b 2.731010
 gp  a   a
kgp kgp k k

b  2.731010 a  1.0
 2. Calculate SCG,ic and ft,ic

 2hDp  t Dct  2  0.2  0.2

SCG,ic   2   2 
 0.89
 rDct  k Dpg  0.067  20

2
 2hDp  2  0.2 
2

f t ,CG,ic   2   Dpgt Dct   2 
0.050.2  79.4
 rDct   0.067 
3. Calculation of the static perforation skin
factor, SP, can be done by Furui’s method
(SPE 77363).

S p  S2 D  S wb  S3D
 0.298  0.008  0.128
 0.163
4. Calculate SCG,oc and ft,oc

     
  sin   sin   0.707
 360 /    360/ 90 
rp
0.4
rDp  
rw 6
3hDp  v2 
S PL   ln 2   0.61
2rDp  hDp 1  
30.2  0.707 2

  ln 2   0.61  5.86
20.067  0.2 1  0.707 
4. Calculate SCG,oc and ft,oc (Cont.)

hp I ani
1
1
hDe   10  0.2
lp 6
12
rp  1  0.4  1 
rDe  1    1    0.33
 1   1
212 
2hp  I ani 
 10 
lp 6
lDp   1
rw 6
4. Calculate SCG,oc and ft,oc (Cont.)

hDe  1 
ft ,P  1    2 
lDp  rDe 
0.2  1 
 1   2   1.21
1.0  0.33 
 4. Calculate SCG,oc and ft,oc (Cont.)

2
 hDp   27  16 3  4
f t , PL     
r 
 Dp 
 24r  3h
 Dp  Dp  1  
  16 30.707  4
2
 0.2  27
       171.2
 0.067   240.067  30.2 0.7071  0.707
4. Calculate SCG,oc and ft,oc (Cont.)


SCG,oc  1  k 
Dgp S P k 
Dgp PL S

 1  20 0.5
 0.163  20 5.86  1.18
0.5


f t ,CG,oc  1  k 
Dgp f t ,P k 
f
Dgp t , PL


 1  20 0.5
1.21  20 171.2  39.2
0.5
5. Calculate the rate –independent skin and
turbulent scale factor

SCG  SCG,ic  SCG,oc  0.89  1.18  2.07

f t ,CG  f t ,CG,ic  f t ,CG,oc  79.4  39.2  118.6

 Skin due to Partial Penetration

04/24/2017
 Skin: Partial Completion (Odeh)

  kH  
0.825 ln
 ht  7  
 ht    kV  
Sc  1.35 1
h   
 p   lnr   0.49  0.1ln h kH  1.95
 wc   t k  
   V 
 

 r e .2126 
Zm
ht  2 . 753 
for y  0
rwc  w
 rw for y  0
 Skin: Partial Completion (Odeh)

rwc = corrected wellbore radius

Sc = partial completion skin
ht = total sand thickness
hp = length of perforated interval
y = distance between the top of the sand and the
top of the open (or perforated) interval
Zm = vertical distance from the top of the pay to the
middle of the perforated interval, Zm = y+hp/2
If Zm/ht>0.5, substitute (1- Zm/ht)
 Example 5-6. Partial Penetration Skin

• Vertical well
• Partial penetration
• Reservoir horizontal permeability, kH = 301 md
from welltest analysis
• Reservoir vertical permeability, kV = 60 md
from welltest analysis
• rw = 0.25 ft
• Total sand thickness, ht = 200 ft
• Length of perforated interval, hp = 40 ft
• Distance between the top of the sand and the
top of the open (or perforated) interval y = 80 ft
 Example 5-6. Solution

Zm = y+hp/2 = 80 + 40/2 = 100 ft

.2126 Zm
ht  2.753 
rwc  rwe
.2126 100 200  2.753 
 0.25e
 0.49922
   kH  
0.825 ln ht  7  
 ht    k V  
Sc  1.35 1 
h   
 p   lnr   0.49  0.1 ln h kH  1.95
 wc   t k  
   V  
  301  
 ln 200  7  
 200    60  
0.825

 1.35 1  
 40     301  
 ln0.499  0.49  0.1 ln 200 60  1.95
 
    
 20.91
 If kH = kV

  kH  
0.825 ln
 ht  7  
 ht    kV  
Sc  1.35 1
h   
 p   lnr   0.49  0.1 ln h kH  1.95
 wc   t k  
   V 
 
 200 
 1.35 1
0.825

ln 200 1  7  
 40 

  
 ln0.499  0.49  0.1 ln 200 1 1.95


 17.33
 Skin due to Well Deviation


hp

h
 Skin: Well Deviation (Cinco & Miller)

  
2.06
   1.865  h k  
S wd       log H 
 41    kV 
56  100rw 
 kH 
   tan  tan 
1

kV 


suitable for <75o

Pseudo Skin - Fractured Well
Creation of Fractures
Creating a Propped Fracture

End of Injection
Shut in well
Allow pressure to decline
Fracture closes on proppant pack
 Productivity Index (pseudo steady state flow)

Q . 00708 kh
PI  
P   re  
 B  ln    . 75  S
  rw  
constant constant
 
re re
ln S
ln '
rw e rw

Stimulation practices adjust the skin effect: fracturing

results in an increased effective wellbore radius.
 Effective wellbore radius

Xf
rw’

Fracture
re
2rw
 Definition of Dimensionless Fracture
Conductivity, Fcd

K f Wf
Fcd 
KX f
K
Wf Kf

Xf
 Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity

kf w
Fcd 
kx f

kfw = ability of the fracture to conduct fluid

along fracture to the well

kxf = capacity of the formation to deliver fluid

to the fracture
 Pseudo Skin (in pseudo radial flow):

' kh pe  pwf 

r q
S f   ln w
  re  
rw 141.2 B ln   0.75  S f 
  rw  
For FCD > 10,
effective wellbore
radius
xf
rw 
'

2
xf
S f   ln
2rw
 Pseudo Skin (in pseudo radial flow):

'
r
S f   ln w

rw
For FCD < 3

kf w xf
rw '
 FCD
4k 4

kf w xf
S f   ln   ln FCD
4krw 4rw
Example 5-6. Pseudo-Skin from Hydraulic Fracture

• Vertical well connects a vertical fracture

• Wellbore radius, rw = 0.328 ft
• Reservoir drainage radius, re = 1490 ft
• Reservoir horizontal permeability, kH = 0.1 md
• Fracture conductivity, kfw = 2000 md-ft
• Fracture half length, xf = 1000 ft
• Pseudo-skin, Sf = ?

• What are the pseudo-skins if reservoir

horizontal permeability is 1.0 md and 10 md
 Example 5-7. Solution

a) k  0.1 md, b) k  1 md, and c) k  10 md

k f w  2000 md  ft

x f  1000 ft
rw  0.328 ft

re  1490 ft
a) k  0.1 md

kf w 2000
FCD    20  10
kx f (0.1)(1000)

xf 1000
rw '    500 ft
2 2
xf
S f   ln
500
 7.33 S f   ln
0.328 2rw
b) k  1 md

kf w 2000
FCD   23
kx f (1)(1000)
xf 1000
rw '  FCD  (2)  500 ft
4 4
500
S f   ln  7.33
0.328
kf w xf
S f   ln   ln FCD
4krw 4rw
c) k  10 md
kf w 2000
FCD    0.2
kx f (10)(1000)
xf 1000
rw '  FCD  (0.2)  50 ft
4 4
50
S f   ln  5.03
0.328
kf w xf
S f   ln   ln FCD
4krw 4rw
Productivity index improvement due to hydraulic
fracture
a) k  0.1 md

J ln(re / rw ) ln(1490 / 0.328)

   7.72
J o ln(re / rw )  S f ln(1490 / 0.328)  7.33

c) k  10 md

J ln(re / rw ) ln(1490 / 0.328)

   2.48
J o ln(re / rw )  S f ln(1490 / 0.328)  5.03