Motivation for Frac Engineering & Diagnostics

Hydraulic Fracturing
is done for well
stimulation

NOT

For proppant
disposal
Frac Models : Which Model & Why ?
Software Model type Company Owner
❑ Classic 2D PROP Classic 2D Halliburton
❑ Pseudo - 3D “parametric” Chevron 2D Classic 2D Chevron Texaco
CONOCO 2D Classic 2D CONOCO
❑ Pseudo - 3D “cell” Shell 2D Classic 2D Shell
❑ Planar 3D FRACPRO Pseudo-3D "parametric" RES, Inc. GTI
FRACPROPT Pseudo-3D "parametric" Pinnacle Technologies GTI
MFRAC-III Pseudo-3D "parametric" Meyer & Associates Bruce Meyer
Model Provides decision making capability Fracanal Pseudo-3D "parametric" Simtech A. Settari
STIMPLAN Pseudo-3D "cell" NSI Technologies M. Smith
✓ Understand what happened ENERFRAC Pseudo-3D "cell" Shell
✓ Isolate causes of problems TRIFRAC Pseudo-3D "cell" S.A. Holditch & Association
✓ Change necessary inputs FracCADE Pseudo-3D "cell" Schlumberger EAD sugar-land
✓ Ability to predict (not just mimic) job results TerraFrac Planar 3D Terra Tek ARCO
HYRAC 3D Planar 3D Lehigh U. S.H. Advani
If your model can’t do this, why run it? GOHFER Planar 3D Halliburton R. Barree
Decision Tree for Carbonate Formations Stimulation
Best Candidates to
Acid Fracturing:

1. > 85% Soluble

2. Heterogeneous
3. Closure stress < 8k psi
4. Permeability:
✓ Oil K < 10 mD.
✓ Gas K < 1mD.
Frac Candidates
❑ Excellent candidates
✓ Damaged wells
✓ Low permeability reservoirs with sufficient oil or gas in place

❑ Good candidates
✓ Naturally fractured reservoirs
✓ Unconsolidated, high permeability reservoirs, that have been damaged

❑ Poor candidates
✓ Reservoirs with limited reserves
✓ Thin reservoirs with poor barriers
✓ Low pressure reservoirs where fracture fluid cleanup is difficult
✓ Reservoirs where stimulation can penetrate water zones
Hydraulic Fracturing Equipment
❑ Frac Tanks
❑ ExpressSand Delivery System
❑ Proppant Storages
❑ Blender
❑ Manifold
❑ Data Van
❑ High Pressure Pumps
❑ Wellhead Isolation Tool

ExpressSand
Delivery
System
Complete Closure Pressure Equation

❑ Pc = closure pressure, psi

❑ ν = Poisson’s Ratio
❑ Pob = Overburden Pressure
❑ αv = vertical Biot’s poroelastic constant
❑ αh = horizontal Biot’s poroelastic constant
❑ Pp = Pore Pressure
❑ εx = regional horizontal strain, microstrains
❑ E = Young’s Modulus, million psi
❑ σt = regional horizontal tectonic stress

✓ Actual in‐situ stresses can only be determined by direct measurement.

Handling Tectonic Stress
❑ Two ways

❖ A constant regional stress can be added to one (or both) horizontal stresses over some vertical extent
❖ Assume some regional strain which then generates a different stress in each layer, according to its stiffness
✓ Allows component of stress proportional to Young’s Modulus
✓ Shown to work effectively in many field cases

Added 200 micro‐

strains regional strain
to stress calcs to match
observed closure stress
of 4500 psi at 6050’
Measurement of Dynamic and Static Elastic Properties
Dynamic modulus must be converted to static

✓ Static Modulus: large amplitude at low (zero)

frequency (load frame tests)

✓ Dynamic Modulus: small amplitude at high

frequency (acoustic waves)
Logging for Mechanical Properties
❑ Acoustic logs
✓ Measure compressional and shear velocity or “slowness” (1/v)
✓ Can be affected by fractures, pore fluids, and borehole conditions

❑ Density logs
✓ Measure neutron capture cross‐section, interpreted as bulk density
✓ Strongly affected by borehole conditions and breakouts (pad device)

❑ Gamma Ray
✓ Records spontaneous GR emissions from multiple sources
✓ Spectral GR logs can differentiate energy levels from different sources (U, Th, K)

❑ Resistivity
✓ Measures electrical resistance along an assumed path length
✓ Affected by clays minerals, clay morphology, and pore fluids

❑ None of these measure pressure or stress

❑ None actually measures rock elastic or mechanical properties
DFIT
A DFIT is a Diagnostic Fracture Injection Test.

❑ A DFIT is NOT:
A diagnostic formation injection test
A reservoir transient falloff test or “Mini-Falloff” (MFO)
A fluid efficiency test (FET)
A micro-frac
A mini-frac
A “data-frac”
A pressure rebound test
A reservoir limits test
A pump-in flowback test (but the analysis techniques may apply)

❑ The purpose is to determine properties affecting fracture initiation and extension, treating pressures, leakoff,
screen-out risk, calibration of the in-situ earth stress tensor, and secondarily post-frac production

“ IF you don’t do this, and do it right, don’t even think of using a numerical simulator for frac design.” Nolte
Events Observed During DFIT Procedure
Breakdown indicates initiation of new fracture
Roll-over indicates dilation of existing fracture(s)
Injection pressure should be stable at constant rate
Step-down at end of injection for perf and tortuosity
ISIP (not instant) represents fracture extension
pressure
Fissure opening may be observed, or not, between
extension and closure pressures
Reservoir transients may be observed after closure if
the test is run long enough
Pore pressure is always extrapolated to infinite shut-
in time
DFIT Design Constraints:
❑ Plan for enough HP to reach about 10 bpm (1.5 m3/m) at treating pressure
❑ Time to reach closure is approximately Pump Time / 3*Estimated Perm (md)
✓ Five minutes in 0.01 md rock = 150 min (2.5 hours)
❑ Time to establish analyzable reservoir transient is roughly 3 times the closure time
How to PICK ISIP with High Tortuosity?

Measure Wellbore Blowdown

compressive Analysis: Compute wellbore
wellbore storage discharge or blowdown rate,
during initial assuming constant tortuosity
injection. (psi/√bpm) and variable DP
Typical Derivative Shapes in G-function Analysis:
Classical Nolte Analysis:

❑ Find the “correct” straight line on the

pressure-G-time plot.

❑ Deviation from the end of the straight line

indicates closure (1979).

❑ Castillo suggested plotting 1st derivative to

define the “correct” straight line (1987).

❑ Barree added semi-log derivative to reduce

ambiguity and define leakoff “type-curves”
(1996).
Biggest Current Misconception: Variable Compliance
Nolte defined fracture compliance, for a PKN fracture, as H/E (L/E for KGD)
Compliance represents the inverse of stiffness of the fracture
Compliance, in his model, controls the rate of pressure decline
For a single planar fracture, with all his other limiting assumptions, the only way he had to change the rate of
pressure decline was to assume that “compliance” was changing
With rock modulus, E, constant that leaves H as the only variable
This led to the concept of fracture “height recession”
✓ Initial slow pressure decline > high compliance
✓ Transitions to faster decline > decreasing compliance
The same concept of “variable compliance” can be
applied to “length recession”
Both theories must assume that the fracture
✓ Closes from the tip back to the center (height or length)
✓ Closure of the tip changes frac length or height and
compliance
That means the rock grows back together
Fundamentally, this NEVER happens!
Biggest Current Misconception: Variable Compliance
Usual Cause of the “Belly” or Delayed Leakoff
✓ Recharge from Variable or Transverse Storage

No recharge from storage: Hard shut-in With recharge from storage: Variable
with no return rate return rate
Permeability Estimation from G at Closure (Gc)
Good estimate when after-closure radial-flow data not available or unreliable

Where:
k = effective perm, md
M = viscosity, cp
Pz = process zone stress or net pressure
PHI = porosity, fraction
Ct = total compressibility, 1/psi
E = Young’s Modulus, MMpsi
rp = leakoff height to gross frac height ratio
Perforation Phasing Chart
Stress Cage Formation
❑ The shock of perforating causes a plastic deformation of the rock surrounding the
perforation tunnel. When the pressure pulse dissipates, a residual deformation is
left in the rock with an associated high residual compressive stress. The residual
stress acts similarly to the stress concentration effect around the borehole in that
the pressure required to initiate a fracture is increased significantly.

❑ The effect of the "stress cage" formed around a jet shot perforation is indicated
by the photograph of an actual perforation in a horizontal well at the Nevada Test
Site (Sandia National Laboratories). The cased, cemented hole was perforated
with a 32 gram jet charge and subsequently fractured with a dyed fluid. The
fracture was then mined back to expose the fracture surface and the well casing.

❑ The casing is visible on the left side of the figure. The light area surrounding the
perforation is unfractured rock. The surrounding dark area is the dyed face of the
created fracture. It is apparent that no fracturing fluid exited through the
perforation tunnel. All communication with the fracture is through a narrow
annular ring at the cement-formation interface.
Proppant Design Considerations
Frac Fluids
Frac Screenout:
Common False Assumptions:

❑ Proppant is homogeneously distributed

❑ Sand and fluid travel together
❑ Pad is required to open width for sand
❑ Pad is depleted by leakoff
❑ Screenouts caused by prop bridging
❑ Prop concentration increased by leakoff

“False assumptions lead to failed remedies.” Bob Barree

Common Remedies:

❑ Pump more pad volume

❑ Increase pump rate
❑ Use higher viscosity fluids
❑ Use smaller proppants
❑ Use fluid‐loss additives

“Sometimes they work, and sometimes NOT!” Bob Barree

Post‐Job Analysis: Actual Frac Conductivity
Pack width determined by:

❑ Proppant concentration
❑ Closure stress
❑ Filter‐cake and embedment

Pack permeability determined by:

❑ Proppant size and strength

❑ Packing and porosity
❑ Regained permeability and gel clean‐up
❑ Non‐Darcy and multiphase flow

“We must know what was achieved to improve the design, or the design effort was wasted.” Samuel
Post‐Job Analysis: Impact of each variable on results
Fracture Treatment Sensitivity:
❑ Width Exponent
❑ Permeability
❑ Fluid Type
❑ PZS (Process Zone Stress) - Increase/Decrease
❑ PZS Vertical to Horizontal Anisotropy (V/H Factor)
❑ PHOLD (Proppant Holdup
❑ PHOLD Vertical to Horizontal Anisotropy (V/H Factor)
Production Input Sensitivity:
❑ Gel Damage
❑ Permeability - Increase/Decrease
❑ Drainage Area - Increase/Decrease
❑ Aspect Ratio - Increase/Decrease
❑ X/Y Offset
❑ Remove Condensate Yield
❑ Remove Condensate Yield & Water Production

Frictional Sensitivity:
❑ Tortuosity
❑ Cd (Coefficient of Discharge
❑ CXSP (Sand Exponent)

Diagnostic Injection Falloff (DFIT) Sensitivity:

❑ Perm
❑ Secondary Leakoff Coefficients
✓ PDL Coefficient (Pressure Dependent Leakoff)
✓ TSC (Transverse Storage Coefficient)
❑ Relative Permeability Factor/Ratio