Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Stage:
Page: 233
Total Pages: 11
Summary
The classical concept of hydraulic fracturing is that a single, planar, opening mode fracture propagates through the formation. In
recent years, there has been a growing consensus that natural fractures play an important role during stimulation in many settings.
There is not universal agreement on the mechanisms by which
natural fractures affect stimulation, and these mechanisms may
vary depending on formation properties. One potentially important mechanism is shear stimulation, in which increased fluid
pressure induces slip and permeability enhancement on pre-existing fractures. We propose a tendency-for-shear-stimulation (TSS)
test as a direct, relatively unambiguous method for determining
the degree to which shear stimulation contributes to stimulation in
a formation. In a TSS test, fluid injection is performed while
maintaining the bottomhole fluid pressure slightly less than the
minimum principal stress. Under these conditions, shear stimulation is the only possible mechanism for permeability enhancement
(except, perhaps, thermally induced tensile fracturing). A TSS test
is different from a conventional procedure because injection is
performed at a specified pressure (rather than a specified rate).
With injection at a specified rate, fluid pressure may exceed the
minimum principal stress, and it may cause tensile fractures to
propagate through the formation. If this occurs, it will be ambiguous whether stimulation was because of shear stimulation or tensile fracturing. Maintaining pressure less than the minimum
principal stress ensures that the effect of shear stimulation can be
isolated. Low-rate injectivity tests could be performed before and
after the TSS test to estimate formation permeability. An increase
in formation permeability would indicate that shear stimulation
has occurred. The flow-rate transient during injection may also be
interpreted to identify shear stimulation. Numerical simulations of
shear stimulation were performed with a discrete-fracture-network
(DFN) simulator that couples fluid flow with the stresses induced
by fracture deformation. These simulations were used to qualitatively investigate how shear stimulation and fracture connectivity
affect the results of a TSS test. Two specific field projects are discussed as examples of a TSS test, the Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) projects at Desert Peak, Nevada, and Soultz-sousForets, France.
Introduction
Classically, hydraulic fracturing has been conceptualized as creating a single, planar, opening mode tensile fracture. But in low-matrix-permeability applications, such as hydrocarbon production
from shale or geothermal production from crystalline rock, the
process of hydraulic stimulation has been conceptualized as creating a complex network of newly forming fractures and/or natural
fractures that slip and open in response to injection (Pine and
Batchelor 1984; Murphy and Fehler 1986; Brown 1989; Ito 2003;
Ito and Hayashi 2003; Fisher et al. 2004; Evans et al. 2005;
Bowker 2007; Gale et al. 2007; Cipolla et al. 2008; King 2010;
Ledesert et al. 2010). The precise geometry of these networks is a
major uncertainty. The networks cannot easily be observed
directly in the subsurface; it is difficult to know how laboratory
C 2014 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Copyright V
This paper (SPE 166332) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 30 September2 October 2013, and revised for
publication Original manuscript received for review 23 June 2013. Revised manuscript
received for review 25 November 2013. Paper peer approved 16 December 2013.
experiments relate to the reservoir scale; and microseismic interpretations with respect to network geometry are nonunique.
One potentially important process is the termination of propagating natural fractures against pre-existing planes of weakness.
This has been described in laboratory experiments (Blanton 1982;
Renshaw and Pollard 1995; Zhou et al. 2008; Gu et al. 2011;
Suarez-Rivera et al. 2013), mine-back experiments (Warpinski
and Teufel 1987; Warpinski et al. 1993; Mahrer 1999; Jeffrey
et al. 2009; Chuprakov et al. 2013), and computational investigations (Dahi-Taleghani and Olson 2009; Gu and Weng 2010; Fu
et al. 2012). If termination occurs, then it may be difficult for a
single, continuous fracture to propagate across the formation, and
pathways for flow through the reservoir may occur through both
new and pre-existing fractures [a process we refer to as mixedmechanism stimulation (MMS)]. This process could play an important role in generating stimulated-fracture surface area and,
therefore, increasing recovery. The MMS concept has been
applied toward the field-scale modeling of hydraulic stimulation
in shale by several authors (Damjanac et al. 2010; Weng et al.
2011; Wu et al. 2012; Section 3.3.2 of McClure and Horne
2013a).
In contrast to the MMS concept, some authors have modeled
stimulation in shale with a single, large, continuous tensile fracture per stage (Warpinski et al. 2001; Palmer et al. 2007; Rogers
et al. 2010; Nagel et al. 2011; Roussel and Sharma 2011). With
this approach, a problem arises because high production rates
from low-permeability shale formations apparently require more
stimulated-fracture surface area than can be explained by a single,
linear fracture per stage (Mayerhofer et al. 2010; Fan et al. 2010;
Cipolla et al. 2010). This problem can be resolved by postulating
that there are secondary fractures surrounding the primary fracture
that contribute significantly to production. Some modelers are
agnostic about the nature of the secondary fractures (Warpinski
et al. 2001), and others suggest that the secondary fractures may
be newly forming tensile fractures (Roussel and Sharma 2011).
Low-permeability formations may contain some fractures that are
naturally conductive (Laubach et al. 2004; Olson et al. 2009),
and, thus, hydraulic fracturing may also improve recovery by connecting these conductive fractures to the wellbore. Other authors
have modeled secondary fractures as shear stimulating (or possibly opening) of pre-existing fractures (Palmer et al. 2007; Rogers
et al. 2010; Nagel et al. 2011). We refer to this latter mechanism
as primary fracturing with shear-stimulation leakoff.
Shear stimulation occurs when slip along a fracture causes a
mismatch of asperities. This mismatch creates additional void
space between the fracture walls, increasing the fracture transmissivity, a mechanism sometimes called self-propping (Barton
et al. 1985; Esaki et al. 1999). Slip can be induced by an increase
in fluid pressure, which weakens the frictional resistance to slip.
Fractures in more-brittle formations are more likely to be selfpropping (Lutz et al. 2010), and the creep of fracture asperities
could cause time-dependent loss of transmissivity after slip.
Because of the high compressive strength of intact rock, fluid injection should not typically be expected to create the formation of
new shear fractures from intact rock (Olson et al. 2009). Instead,
the term shear stimulation refers to induced slip on pre-existing
fractures.
Projects in which hydraulic stimulation is performed for geothermal-energy production are often referred to as EGS. EGS
projects are pursued in a variety of settings, but it is most common
to perform hydraulic fracturing in deep wells drilled into the
233
Stage:
Page: 234
Total Pages: 11
Stage:
Page: 235
Total Pages: 11
E0
/Edil
DE;eff tan
; . . . . . . 3
1 9r0n =rn;Eref
1 9r0n =rn;Eref
235
Stage:
Page: 236
Total Pages: 11
0.005 m
.005 m
15 GPa
h
Pinit (initial fluid pressure)
S0
Mechtol [error tolerance used in solving
shear-stress equations, Section 2.3.5 in
McClure and Horne (2013a)]
Itertol [error tolerance used in
iterative coupling scheme, Section 2.3.1
in McClure and Horne (2013a)]
/Edil
tp (Poissons ratio)
3 MPa/(m/s)
0.5 MPa
100 m
8.7 MPa
0.5 MPa
.003 MPa
0.6
20 MPa
20 MPa
14.5 MPa
0.01 MPa
23.8 MPa
0
5 MPa/km
0.25
e3
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
12
14 MPa/km
Stage:
Page: 237
Total Pages: 11
150
2.5
.00001 m
2.5
.00001 m
0
.00005 m
100
11.5
11
50
0
10.5
50
10
100
9.5
12
80
60
11
20
0
10.5
20
10
40
11.5
40
Distance (m)
12
Distance (m)
/edil
e0
12.5
200
9.5
60
80
150
200
200
100
100
200
8.5
Distance (m)
Fig. 1The final pressure distribution for Simulation A. The
black line represents the wellbore. The blue/red lines are natural fractures, with color proportional to fluid pressure. The figure can be viewed as showing a vertical cross section of the
formation.
100
100
50
50
100
8.5
Distance (m)
Fig. 2The final pressure distribution for Simulation B. The
black line represents the wellbore. The blue/red lines are natural fractures, with color proportional to fluid pressure. The figure can be viewed as showing a vertical cross section of the
formation.
counterclockwise from the y-axis direction. Fig. 6 shows the normalized flow rate vs. time for Simulations A, B, and C.
Discussion
Overall Behavior. In Simulation A, the final fracture network
was more spatially dispersed and sparsely connected than in Simulation C (Figs. 1 and 3), even though the simulations used the
200
12
150
1.5
11.5
100
11
50
10.5
0
50
10
100
150
200
100
100
200
0.5
50
0
0
0.5
50
9.5
100
150
200
8.5
Distance (m)
Fig. 3The final pressure distribution for Simulation C. The
black line represents the wellbore. The blue/red lines are natural fractures, with color proportional to fluid pressure. The figure can be viewed as showing a vertical cross section of the
formation.
1
1.5
150 100
50
50
100
150
Distance (m)
100
Distance (m)
150
200
Distance (m)
Fig. 4The final distribution of pressure and induced change
in CS (Eq. 5) for Simulation A. Gold/green contours in the background show the change in CS for fractures oriented 30 counterclockwise from the y-axis. The black line represents the
wellbore, and the blue/red lines represent natural fractures,
with color proportional to fluid pressure. The figure can be
viewed as showing a vertical cross section of the formation.
237
150
1.5
1
Distance (m)
100
0.5
50
0
0
0.5
50
100
1.5
150
150 100
50
50
100
150
Distance (m)
Fig. 5The final distribution of pressure and induced change in
the absolute value of shear stress (Eq. 5) for Simulation A. Gold/
green contours in the background show the change in absolute
value of shear stress for fractures oriented 30 counterclockwise
from the y-axis. The black line represents the wellbore, and the
blue/red lines represent natural fractures, with color proportional
to fluid pressure. The figure can be viewed as showing a vertical
cross section of the formation.
Shear
Displacement (m)
(2012)]. Fig. 7 illustrates the CSS mechanism. Fig. 7 shows the distribution of fluid pressure, shear stress, frictional strength, shear displacement discontinuity, and transmissivity along a particular fault
in a network. Fluid is flowing from right to left. The fluid-pres0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Pressure (MPa)
3
Transmissivity (m ) Shear Stress (MPa), Blue
Friction (MPa), Red
10
10
10
50
100
150
200
250
10
5
0
50
100
150
200
250
15
20
50
100
150
200
250
Stage:
Page: 238
Total Pages: 11
1.00E+01
Simulation A
Simulation B
Simulation C
1.00E+00
1.00E01
1.00E02
1.00E+00
1.00E+01
1.00E+02
1.00E+03
sure front is at approximately 80 m, and the front of shear displacement discontinuity and transmissivity enhancement is at
approximately 40 m. The transmissivity at the fluid-pressure
front is much higher than the initial transmissivity (which was
extremely low in this particular simulation and is seen at the far
left side of the fracture).
CSS arises because of the interaction between induced stresses,
transmissivity enhancement, and fluid flow. Along a particular
fault, a concentration of shear stress develops at the boundary
between where slip has occurred and slip has not occurred (effectively, this is a shear crack tip). The concentration of shear stress
causes slip and transmissivity enhancement to propagate ahead of
the fluid-pressure front. This allows the fluid-pressure front to propagate along the fracture at a rate related to the stimulated, not the
initial, fracture transmissivity. The maximum magnitude of shear
stress that can be borne by the fracture in the region of stress concentration is limited by its frictional strength.
CSS can help stimulation propagate along a fracture, but cannot cause the first patch of slip to occur on a fracture. The initiation of slip on a fracture requires fluid to flow into it at the initial
transmissivity. If the initial transmissivity is much lower than the
stimulated transmissivity, slip will propagate along fractures
much more rapidly than slip can start on fractures. This creates an
episodic behavior in which individual fractures are stimulated in
relatively short durations of time, separated by periods of quiescence [Section 3.4.2.2 of McClure (2012)].
Change in CS, DCS, can be calculated to estimate whether
induced stresses, Ds and Drn0 , on a fracture will encourage or discourage slip (positive changes encourage slip):
DCS jDsj lDr0n : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
15
200
Stage:
Page: 239
Total Pages: 11
239
Stage:
Page: 240
Total Pages: 11
Acknowledgments
Thank you the Precourt Institute for Energy for supporting this
research from 2009 to 2012. Thank you to three anonymous
reviewers and to the editorial staff for their excellent comments
and revisions.
References
Baisch, Stefan, Weidler, Ralph, Voros, Robert et al. 2006. Induced Seismicity During the Stimulation of a Geothermal HFR Reservoir in the
Cooper Basin, Australia. Bull. Seismological Soc. Am. 96 (6):
22422256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1785/0120050255-PA.
Barton, N., Bandis, S., and Bakhtar, K. 1985. Strength, Deformation, and
Conductivity Coupling of Rock Joints. International J. Rock Mechanics and Mining Sci. & Geomechanics Abstracts 22 (3): 121140.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(85)93227-9-PA.
Benato, S., Reeves, D.M., Parashar, R. et al. 2013. Computational Investigation of Hydro-Mechanical Effects on Transmissivity Enhancement
During the Initial Injection Phases at the Desert Peak EGS Project,
NV. Paper presented at the Thirty-Eighth Workshop on Geothermal
Reservoir Engineering, Stanford, California.
Bird, R. Byron, Stewart, Warren E., and Lightfoot, Edwin N. 2006. Transport Phenomena, second edition, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Stage:
Page: 241
Total Pages: 11
241
Stage:
Page: 242
Total Pages: 11
Stage:
Page: 243
Total Pages: 11
243