Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ky
m
P Law (YPL) model is chosen as the model
fluid rheology in :
+
Where is the shear stress;
w
]_
m
1
(5)
By Substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (4) the follow
deferential equation is obtained:
ing partial
[
m
2m+1
_
2
m+1
m
1
k
1
m
_
o
or
_w
2m+1
m _-
Jp
Jr
-_
2m+1
m+1
] _
2
w
]_
1
m
_
+
m
[
2m+1
_
1
2
m+1
m k
1
m
_w m
2m+1
1
r
_-
Jr
Jp
-_
m+1
2m+1
] _
w
2
]_
1
m
+
ot
ow
= u
(6)
F re inside l rm
disturbed as the drilling fluid
all time
int < and he en
nd riod. The
cha pres ich is sho
r
(9)
Fracture walls are consid nd thus
fracture tip acts like a no-f
luid pressu the fracture is initia ly unifo and
equal to the formation pressure.
p = p
r
w
< r < r
c
, t = u (7)
This pressure equilibrium is
propagates into the fracture due to the overbalance
pressure at the well for t>0.
At =0, t rehol trate rmation; the
pre
time t he bo e pene s the fo
ssure at the wellbore increases to p
w
during sm
erval 0 t <t
KBa
stays constant for t tire
ballooning period:
p = p
w
i = i
w
, t
KBa
< t < t
Ba
(8)
At the end of ballooning period, pressure decrease to the
initial reservoi ure u interval and
stay tant
r press d ring same time
cons to the e of the breathing pe
nge in sure wh is used in simulation
t
B
wn
in Fi e 1.
p p i = i
w
gur
=
I
, t
KBr
< t <
ered impermeable a
low boundary:
op
the
or
= u r = r
c
(10)
eters used as the output of e
ate at the wellbore at each time st
2.5. Simulation
Eq. (6) is solved numerically using explicit finite
difference method and the given initial and boundary
n o rate and cumulative volume of loss/gain co ditions. Fl w
are the o main param
simulat Flow r
tw th
ion. is
calculated by:
q
w
= 2i
w
w
w
ep
v
w
(11)
Where w
w
is the fracture aperture at the wellbore and v
w
r is the ave ag dia velocity of the flui
fracture at the wellbore, computed by Eq. (5)
rewritten as:
q
w
= 2 i
w
w
w
[
m
2m+ 1
e ra l d inside the
. This can be
_
w
w
m+1
m
2
m+1
m
k
1
m
__-_
up
ui
]
r
v
-_
2m+1
m+1
] _
2
y
w
w
]_
m
1
w ate is c
(12)
alculated, cumulative volume of
ed by integrating the flow rate over th
w:
After the flo r
loss/gain is obtain
time interval as follo
e
v
cum
= _ q
w
ut
t
0
(13)
4 SPE 150817
e volume of loss/gain
e selected equally in
ation, as
is reduction in the differential
will be larger and thus
ue to faster
pressure reduction during breathing phenomenon in case
n law, which is a result of larger
acture deformation, which is more
nt
Graphs of flow rate and cumulativ
versus time are used as the major tools for later analyses.
3. Results and Discussion
The input parameters of the numerical solution for both
linear and exponential fracture deformation laws are
shown in Table 1. Parameters that affect the mud loss in
the fracture such as mud rheological properties and
borehole and formation pressure ar
both models. Therefore fracture deformation law is the
only factor that will affect the amount of filtration rate
and cumulative loss to the fracture.
Figure 2 illustrates the changes in fracture aperture as a
function of the fluid pressure inside fracture for linear and
exponential deformation laws, using input parameters of
Table 1. As the fluid pressure inside the fracture declines
from the normal total stress of the formation (
n
=3.5E+7)
to lower pressures values, the fracture aperture shrinks
exponentially in the case of exponential deformation law
and linearly in the case of linear deformation law. This
makes the fracture aperture in case of exponential
deformation always be larger than linear deform
shown in Figure 2. Parameters related to the deformations
law are selected in such a way that the best match
between linear and deformation law is obtained.
The amount of cumulative filtration losses for linear and
exponential deformation laws are plotted in Figure 3. The
figure reveals that the amount of loss in the case of linear
deformation is calculated to be larger than that of
exponential deformation. According to Eq. (13), this must
be due to a larger filtration rate in case of linear
deformation law. Values of filtration rate for linear and
exponential deformation laws are plotted in Figure 4
which clearly approves larger filtration rate in case of
linear deformation. Filtration rate is related to the fracture
aperture and filtrate velocity at the wellbore according to
Eq. (11). As the wellbore pressure is assumed to remain
constant during the drilling operation, fracture aperture at
the wellbore will also remain constant in both cases;
however, its value is larger in case of exponential
deformation, as shown in Figure 2. Larger fracture
aperture at the wellbore must have caused more filtration
in the case of exponential deformation, contrary to the
result obtained in Figure 3. This indicates that the other
parameter affecting the filtration rate, which is the filtrate
velocity at the wellbore, must have caused a larger loss in
the case of linear deformation. The filtration velocity
itself is related to the differential pressure at the wellbore
as shown by Eq. (5). The larger the differential pressure at
the wellbore, the more filtration will be lost into the
fracture. In order to compare the pressure distributions in
cases of linear and exponential deformation laws, a plot of
pressure distribution during filtration loss to the fracture is
shown in Figure 5. As shown, the pressure along the
fracture builds up faster in the exponential deformation
than the linear deformation. Thus, the pressure in the
fracture is higher in the case of exponential deformation
law than linear deformation at the same time. Higher
pressure along the fracture means a lower differential
pressure at the wellbore in case of exponential
deformation law. Th
pressure at the wellbore reduces the filtrate velocity and
thus filtration rate in the fracture, which in turn causes a
lower amount of cumulative filtration losses, as observed
in Figure 3.
Faster pressure build up in case of exponential
deformation must be related to fracture aperture, since all
other parameters are held constant for both cases. As
shown in Figure 2, exponential deformation law produces
larger fracture aperture. When the fracture aperture is
larger, the fracture transmibility
the filtrate will move easier along the fracture. This will
make the pressure build up faster in the case of
exponential deformation law and consequently reduces
the filtration rate to the fracture.
Fracture ballooning and breathing is also investigated for
both linear and radial deformation laws. The input
parameters related to mud loss/gain are shown in Table 1.
The wellbore pressure changes during drilling operation
as shown in Figure 1. In ballooning part, the wellbore
pressure is higher than fracture pressure and the filtrate is
lost into the fracture by means of this differential
pressure. The fracture ballooning is plotted in first part of
the Figure 6. The amount of cumulative loss is larger for
linear deformation law as discussed before. After some
times, the drilling operation is stopped and the wellbore
pressure returns to the initial value which is 2E+7 Pa. In
this time, the fracture pressure is higher than wellbore
pressure due to the previous filtrate invasion. This
differential pressure causes the filtration to move back to
the wellbore which is known as fracture breathing. This
filtration is assumed as a kick in some situation which is a
common mistake during drilling operations. The filtration
gain into the wellbore is also larger in the case of linear
deformation as shown in Figure 6. This is d
of linear deformatio
fracture transmibility, similar to what discussed for
pressure build up in ballooning phenomenon.
4. Conclusions
A theoretical framework has been developed for radial
flow of mud with Yield-Power-Law (Herschel-Bulkley)
rheology in a single isolated deformable horizontal
circular fracture. In this model exponential deformation
law is used for fr
realistic than the simplified linear deformation law used in
previous works. The model is solved numerically and a
comparison is done between the latest developed model
and the new model.
It is concluded that the filtration loss is larger in the case
of linear deformation compared with exponential
deformation. This difference is due to the differe
pressure distributions in the two cases. The pressure
builds up faster for exponential deformation due to larger
SPE 150817 5
here both
model of the fracture-induced ballooning-
s monitoring of mud losses
and gains.
dimension could be considered for
ure ctangular
coordin nd compare with the
ults dial flow for both linear and
e
me
Normal
fracture aperture. This pressure build up reduces the
differential pressure which accounts for filtration loss.
The model is also developed for a condition w
fracture ballooning and breathing take place, which is
more common during drilling operations. The filtration
moves back to the wellbore when the pump is stopped.
The amount of filtration gain during fracture breathing is
larger for the linear deformation law due to the larger
differential pressure existing along the fracture.
Developed
breathing phenomenon could provide an aid in mud
optimization and improve the well control procedures
while drilling in naturally fractured reservoirs. Using this
model, the hydraulic aperture of conductive fractures can
also be obtained by continuou
The effect of flow
fut studies. Flow of filtrate in the re
ation must be modeled a
res obtained from ra
expon ntial deformation law.
No nclature
Empiric Coefficient of Fracture
Compressibility [L.T
2
/M]
Shear Rate [1/T]
Shear Stress [M/L.T
2
]
y
Yield Stress [M/L.T
2
]
Normal Stres
2
s [M/L.T ]
icular to the Fracture
r [M/L.T ]
]
ure [M/L.T ]
/L.T
2
]
side the Fracture [M/L.T
2
]
[L
3
/T]
e [L]
r
w
s [L]
n
dp Pressure Differential [M/L.T
2
]
dr Radius Increment [L]
dt Time Increment [T]
dv Velocity Differential [L/T]
dz Differential Distance Perpend
Surface [L]
(2-m)
K Consistency Facto
K
n
Normal Fracture Stiffness [M/L
2
T
2
m Flow Behavior Index (Power Law Exponent)
2
p
i
Formation Fluid Press
p
w
Borehole Pressure [M
p Pressure In
q Flow Rate [L
3
/T]
q
w
Flow Rate at the Wellbore
r Distance from Borehole axis in Fracture Plan
Wellbore Radiu
r
ext
Fracture Radius [L]
Time [T] t
t
B
r
a
Duration of Ballooning [T]
on of Pressure Increase at the Start of
rease at the Start of
t
B
t
KBa
t
KBr
Duration of Breathing [T]
Durati
Ballooning [T]
Duration of Pressure Dec
Breathing [T]
v Fluid Velocity [L/T]
v Fluid Velocity Averaged across Fracture Aperture
[L/T]
v
w
Fluid Velocity at the Wellbore Averaged across
m
Aperture in a Given Point Inside the Fracture [L]
*
Fracture Aperture at zero Ef ctive Stress (w at p
=
n
) [L]
w
o
Initial Fracture Aperture (w at p=p
i
) [L]
w
w
Fracture Aperture at the Wellbore [L]
z one of Cylindrical Coordinates, along borehole
axis [L]
Fracture Aperture [L/T]
V
cu
Cumulative Volume of Mud Loss [L
3
]
w
w fe
6 SPE 150817
References
1- Bruel, D., Cacas, M.C., Ledoux, E., and de Marsily, G.
(1994) Modeling Storage Behavior in a Fractured Rock
Mass, J. Hydrology 162, 267.
2- Gill, J.A. (1989) How Borehole Ballooning Alters
Drilling Responses, Oil & Gas J., 87, 43.
3- Lavrov, A. and Tronvoll, J., (2004) Modeling Mud
Loss in Fractured Formations Paper SPE 88700 presented
at the 11
th
Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition
and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.
4- Lavrov, A. and Tronvoll, J., (2005) Mechanics of
Borehole Ballooning in Naturally-Fractured Formations
Paper SPE 93747 presented at the 14
th
SPE Middle East Oil
& Gas Show and Conference held in Bahrain International
Exhibition Centre, Bahrain.
5- Lavrov, A. and Tronvoll, J., (2006) Numerical
Analysis of Radial Flow in a Natural Fracture: Applications
in Drilling Performance and Reservoir Characterization
Paper SPE 103564 presented at the Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi,
U.A.E.
6- Lietard, O., Unwin, T., Guillot, D., and Hodder, M.,
(1996) Fracture Width LWD and Drilling Mud/LCM
Selection Guidelines in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
Paper SPE 36382 presented at the European Petroleum
Conference, held in Milan. Italy.
7- Majidi, R., Miska, S.Z., Yu, M. and Thompson, L.G.,
(2008a) Quantitative Analysis of Mud Losses in Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs: The Effect of Rheology Paper SPE
114130 presented at the 2008 SPE Western Regional and
Pacific Section AAPG Joint Meeting held in Bakersfield,
California, U.S.A.
8- Majidi, R., Miska, S.Z., Yu, M. and Thompson, L.G.,
(2008b) Fracture Ballooning in Naturally Fractured
Formations: Mechanism and Controlling Factors Paper
SPE 115526 presented at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado,
U.S.A.
Table 1: Summary of Base Case input Parameter
Description Parameter Value
Empiric Coefficient of Fracture Normal
Compressibility [Pa
-1
]
8.57141
0
-8
Yield Stress [Pa]
y
10
Normal Stress [Pa]
n
3.510
7
Radius Increment [m] dr 0.1
Time Increment [s] dt 510
-5
Consistency Factor [Pas
m
] K 0.2
Normal Fracture Stiffness [Pa/m] K
n
410
10
Flow Behavior Index (Power Law
Exponent)
m 0.8
Formation Fluid Pressure [Pa] p
i
2 10
7
Borehole Pressure [Pa] p
w
3 10
7
Wellbore Radius [m] r
w
0.1
Fracture Radius [m] r
ext
10
Duration of Ballooning [s] t
Ba
10
Duration of Breathing [s] t
Br
10
Duration of Pressure Increase at the Start
of Ballooning [s] t
KBa
1
Duration of Pressure Decrease at the Start
of Breathing [s] t
KBr
1
Fracture Aperture at zero Effective Stress(
w at p =
n
) [m]
w
*
8.7510
-4
Initial Fracture Aperture (w at p=p
i
) [m] w
o
510
-4
Figure 1: Pressure change during drilling operation
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
M
P
a
Fracture Ballooning
Fracture Breathing
Time (Sec)
SPE 150817 7
Figure 2: Change in fracture aperture with pressure
for linear and exponential deformation law
Figure 3: Cumulative loss for linear and exponential
deformation law
Figure 4: Filtration loss rate for linear and exponential
deformation law
Figure 5: Pressure distribution for linear and
exponential deformation law at different time
Figure 6: Fracture Ballooning and Breathing for
linear and exponential deformation law
2 2.5 3 3.5
x 10
7
5
6
7
8
9
x 10
-4
Pressure (Pa)
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
A
p
e
r
t
u
r
e
(
m
)
Exponential Deformation
Linear Deformation
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
Time (sec)
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
L
o
s
s
(
m
3
)
Exponential Deformation
Linear Deformation
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
0.02
Time (sec)
L
o
s
s
R
a
t
e
(
m
3
/
s
e
c
)
Exponential Deformation
Linear Deformation
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
3
x 10
7
10
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
Fracture Radius (m)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
P
a
)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
Time (sec)
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
L
o
s
s
(
m
3
)
Exponential Deformation
Linear Deformation
t=20 sec
t=8 sec
t=2 sec
t=0.5
Fracture Ballooning
Fracture Breathing
Exponential Deformation
Linear Deformation