09 Haider FracTech - Frac Candidate Selection PDF

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 30

Fracture Technologies

9. Frac Candidate Selection

Tight Gas 19th Sept 06


Sami Haidar
Fracture Technologies Ltd.
Fracture Technologies

Hydraulic Fracturing
History in Brief
 Hydraulic fracturing was implemented in the USA as early as the 1940s
without sand hence production enhancement was limited
 In the late 50s and 60s proppant was introduced (natural sand)
 In the the sixties the technique became well established for production
enhancement of tight reservoirs. Analytical techniques (Cinco-Ley et al) were
developed to estimate negative skin
 In the 80s Mini Frac analysis (Nolte et al) was developed, which made
fracturing into a science rather then an art.
 In the mid 80s tip screen out was developed (by Paul Martins in BP) which was
valuable in medium-high permeability reservoirs.
 In 2000 reservoir and fracture numerical modeling (Stimplan a and WellWhiz)
were introduced for fracture production optimisation and design
 Currently 80% of the production from the USA is from hydraulically fractured
wells.
Fracture Technologies

Fracturing History in USA


Fracture Technologies

North Sea Fracturing


 Under utilized. Historically we tends to develop the better
reservoir and leave behind marginal ones.
 Costly to apply, and hence carries a high risk.
 Proppant flow back was a threat in the past in - some
Companies still believe that is a deterrent.
 Current oil prices suggests lots of opportunity to develop
marginal reservoirs.
 Better tools, products and experience has evolved in the
last 10 years that does improve results
Fracture Technologies

Fracturing and Stresses


Fracture Technologies Fracture Dimensions
Simplistic View
Complex Geology Fracturing
Fracture Technologies

Realistic
Fracture Technologies
Analytical Methods
PI increase in Vertical Wells

North Sea
Range!
Frac Design Old
Fracture Technologies

In Frac Models we Trust!


Fracture Technologies

Or Do We?!
(Same input/ same software Two answers)

Untitled
2360
25.27 min

Shale
TVD 0.000
m
0.037
2380

Shale
0.075
0.112

Width - Total in
0.149
2400
0.186
0.224
0.261
2420
0.298
0.335
0.373
2440

40 45 50 55 20 40 60 80
Stress (MPa) Fracture Penetration (m)

Analytical Solution Numerical Solution


Fracture Technologies

New Ways
 New tools are now available for better design

 In depth Fracture design field data collection


 Numerical Reservoir Simulation

 Sensitivities and field calibration of models

 Etc..
Candidate Selection-A Field Example
Fracture Technologies

Mechanical Screening
Fracture Technologies

Basis of Selection
 GIIP in model obtained from P/Z
 KH obtained from PBU (a challenge in tight gas where the
well might not flow)
 Layer permeability obtained from PLT
 Model is initially history matched with prod data
 Well trajectory and CBL, etc..
 Frac modeling includes multi-phase flow (condensate
banking) and non Darcy effects numerical techniques
used)
 Fracture placement
Fracture Technologies

Inputs to Numerical Reservoir


Simulator (WellWhiz)
Fracture Geometry Reservoir Parameters
Multiple fractures Perm,
Width/ Height/ Length Multiple Rel perm regions
Conductivity, non-Darcy Multiple shale/ sand units
Condensate drop-out

Sensitivities
Tunnel Permeability Wellbore Hydraulics
non-Darcy , Inputs to
# of Effective WellWhiz Prosper generated VLP
Frac Fluid
Annular Pack D
Early Screen-out
Flow thru frac/ non-frac perfs Screen Effects
Zonal contribution Screen selection
Annular pack perm
D non-Darcy coefficient
Perforation
Diameter
Tunnel Permeability
non-Darcy ,
# of Effective
Fracture Technologies

Inputs to Frac Simulator (WellWhiz)


Fracture
Wellbore Multiple fractures
Width/ Height/ Length
Hydraulics Conductivity, non-Darcy
Prosper generated E70
VLP
E60
Perforation E50
Diameter E40
Tunnel
Permeability Shale
non-Darcy ,
# of Effective E30 Reservoir WellWhiz
E20 Perm,
Multiple Rel perm regions
E10 Multiple shale/ sand units
Screen Effects Condensate drop-out
Screen selection
Annular pack perm
D non-Darcy StimPlan Lab Work
coefficent
Tests WellWhiz
Fracture Technologies

Production Log Data


Fracture Technologies

P/Z Plot
Fracture Technologies

PBU- June 1999


Fracture Technologies

Log Log (kh=740 mD-ft)


Fracture Technologies

Horner Plot (kh=720 mD-ft, S=9)


WellWhiz Reservoir Modeling
Fracture Technologies

GIIP=62 BCF from P/Z


Layers Model
Fracture Technologies

Calibrated to PLT and PBU (sort of)


Gas-Condensate Rel Perm
Fracture Technologies

(all models)
Fracture Technologies

History Match
Fracture Technologies

Explicit Frac Modeling


Fracture Technologies

Frac Performance
Fracture Technologies

Extra Reserves with fracturing!

Tubing lift curve

BHFP

IPR for a fractured well

IPR Un
fractured well

Rate (MMscf/d)
Fracture Technologies

Summary of Data
Fracture Technologies

Conclusions
 Hydraulic fracturing like any other technology will work when
selecting the right well and conducting the correct design.

 Statistics from the last 15 wells (over the last few years) indicate a
success ratio of over 95%.

 Fracturing should be considered an a completion strategy (during


field development studies), and not an after thought when
production does not meet expectations.

 Finally, for success consider expertise, up to date tools and good


data when selecting a well for fracturing, and of course post frac
evaluation
Fracture Technologies

One Slide on Post Frac Evaluation


 Post frac net pressure match using frac models to
assess fracture geometry and proppant
concentration
 Post frac PBU tests to detect Bi-Liner flow period
 Post frac production history match
 Learn and re design next job

You might also like