Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract
When dealing with naturally fractured formations, the
knowledge of the location and the permeability of the
fractures intersecting the wellbore has a strong technical and
economical impact upon drilling, production and reservoir
management strategies.
This paper presents a methodology which allows to
perform a real time characterization of the conductive
fractures intercepted by the bit while drilling. Such fractures
are detected by monitoring continuously the mud losses at the
rig-site using flow-meters measuring both the ingoing and the
outgoing mud flow. The accuracy of such measurements is
very high (mud losses as small as 20 liters can be monitored),
and therefore also the smallest conductive fractures can be
pinpointed.
A simple analytical model describing the mud invasion
into a single fracture is used to invert the mud loss data in
order to estimate the aperture and permeability of each
fracture. This model has been validated with core
measurements, and it is used in real time to perform a quick
but sufficiently precise analysis.
The application of this technique to several field cases is
also illustrated and discussed in terms of:
1. interpretation of the process of fracture plugging;
2. real time evaluation of the hydraulic aperture of the
conductive fractures;
3. generation of a secondary permeability log.
Moreover some operative implications are discussed, such
as:
SPE 38177
SPE 38177
k=
h2
.......................................................................(1)
12
SPE 38177
Vcum ( t ) = V0 + C t ...................................................(3)
This confirms that in the plugged zone the moving fluid
could not erode away the blocked particles.
Moreover it could be observed that the coefficient of
proportionality C depends on the differential pressure
between the wellbore and the interior of the fracture
(Table 4), as it happens typically in the process of static
filtration.
The plugging process was very effective in the first
stages, but the loss was stopped very late. In fact, the
solid particles could be easily blocked in the asperities
within the fracture, and therefore they reduced its
aperture in the initial stages of the loss. However, being
the solids 12 times smaller than the hydraulic aperture of
the fracture (and probably, even less in comparison with
the mechanical aperture), they were not coarse enough to
block the biggest channels.
According to this interpretation, it should be concluded
that the granulometric distribution of the suspended solids in
the mud is the most important factor which determines the
ability of controlling losses into natural fractures. Therefore in
order to prevent drilling problems and an unrecovable damage
of the most conductive fractures due to large volumes of
squeezed mud, it should be recommended to use coarser
particles than standard weighting materials while drilling
fractured formations, thus allowing the solids to be blocked
within the fracture as near as possible from the wellbore.
However, as already pointed out by Lietard et al.3, the
process of fracture plugging can be interpreted also as an
effect of the rheological properties of the mud, which
increases its viscosity when its velocity inside the natural
channels is reduced.
Both mechanisms explain qualitatively the field
measurements and in the authors opinion only by analyzing
more field data about massive losses into natural fractures and
of the remedial operations done in order to cope with them it
could be possible to discriminate which mechanism is more
effective.
Conclusions
This paper showed that high accuracy flowmeters provide an
SPE 38177
a=
b=
c=
ct=
D=
h=
k=
l=
p=
Qin=
Qloss=
Qout=
r=
Rw=
req=
t=
tD=
VD=
xb=
=
=
=
P=
=
=
=
=
mayor semiaxis
minor semiaxis
coefficient defined in eq. A-14
total compressibility
distance between the extreme points of the
elliptical profile already discovered
fracture aperture
permeability
length of the arc of ellipse already discovered
pressure
inlet mud flow rate
mud loss flow rate (= Qin-Qout)
outlet mud flow rate
radial coordinate
wellbore radius
equivalent radius
time
adimensional time
adimensional volume
abscissa described in eq. A-4
term defined in eq. A-17
term defined in eq. A-18
wellbore inclination
pressure difference
eccentricity
mud viscosity
angle defined in eq. A-4
porosity
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Agip S.p.A. for permission to
publish this paper. Geolog s.r.l. engineers are particularly
acknowledged for the work done in order to modify and test
the electromagnetic flowmeters, and for the acquisition of the
field data.
References
1. Dyke, C.G., Wu, B., Milton-Taylor, D.: Advances in
Characterizing Natural Fracture Permeability From Mud Log
Data, paper SPE 25022 presented at the European Petroleum
2 p 1 p ct p
+
=
..............................................(A-1)
k t
r 2 r r
A fracture inclined with respect to the wellbore axis
describes an elliptic profile on the internal wall. Therefore, in
order to use the above equation, an equivalent geometry was
assumed by considering a system composed by a wellbore
intercepted by a perpendicular fracture (thus describing a
circle on the internal wall). The equivalent radius of the
wellbore is such that the length of the profile of the fracture is
the same in the two systems.
Computation of the equivalent radius. The equation of the
ellipse described by an inclined fracture can be written in the
standard canonical form:
2
x2 y
+ 2 = 1 ...............................................................(A-2)
2
b
a
Rw
cos ..................................................................(A-3)
b = Rw
SPE 38177
therefore:
l = 2a E ; E( ; ) ..........................................(A-5)
tD =
h2 t
.......................................................(A-13)
12 ct r 2eq
E( ; ) = 1 2 sin2 d .........................................(A-6)
0
x2b
.........................................................(A-7)
a2
req =
kt
ct r 2eq
VD =
...........................................................(A-10)
Vcum
.................................................(A-11)
2 ct r 2eq hP
h2
...................................................................(A-12)
12
VD = c
tD
............................................................(A-14)
ln t D
with c = 2.01.
And finally, the following equation was obtained:
h2 t
12 c t r 2eq
h2 t
ln
12 ct r 2eq
Vcum
= 0 .....................(A-15)
2 ct r 2eq hP
h2
= 0 .................................................(A-16)
ln( h2 ) h
where:
=
t
........................................................(A-17)
12 ct r 2eq
Vcum
.....................................................(A-18)
2 ct r 2eq P
2896.1
2930.6
2934.6
3027.3
3028.3
3028.6
3029.2
3032.1
3032.3
3032.5
3032.6
3032.9
3033.1
3033.8
3034.1
3034.8
3035.5
3035.7
3036.1
3036.4
3036.5
3037.9
3038.8
3039.2
3039.3
3039.7
3040.1
3041.0
3044.3
3045.8
Aperture of the
fracture (mm)
0.29
0.34
0.29
0.34
0.29
0.31
0.30
0.37
0.30
0.72
0.46
0.44
0.38
0.48
0.55
0.36
0.43
0.44
0.45
0.37
0.37
0.33
0.50
0.42
0.35
0.49
0.36
0.40
0.46
>0.80
TABLE 3 - SUMMARY OF THE EVENTS OCCURRED DURING THE MASSIVE MUD LOSS IN WELL A
EVENT #
TIME
BOTTOM
HOLE DEPTH
STANDPIPE
(m)
(Kg/cm2)
PRESSURE
MUD RATE IN
(L/min)
1
2
8:23
8:25
3621.44
3621.57
92
92 to 0
1700
1700 to 0
8:31
3621.57
28
860
0 - 1270
200 (while
circulating)
180
8:48
3621.57
50
750
120
8:53
3621.73
28
860
100
9:27
3621.73
28
860
90
10:00
3621.73
NOTES
Sudden loss increasing within 20
seconds, then progressive decline.
Short trip and static survey.
End of static survey and beginning of
dynamic survey.
Attempt of drilling, mud loss slightly
increases.
Stop drilling, then dynamic survey.
Dynamic survey goes on. Since this
time the flowmeters were recalibrated,
and
therefore
their
measurements cannot be used from
now on.
Beginning of the static survey.
SPE 38177
Standpipe pressure
2
(kg/cm )
92
Estimated differential
2
pressure (kg/cm )
103
28
39
Coefficient C (m /s
-1/2
180
161
Figure 1: Installation of the flowmeter measuring the outlet mud flow rate.
900
Qin
800
700
600
500
Qout
400
300
200
100
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Time (sec)
SPE 38177
0.5
3600
3600
3700
3700
3800
3800
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
3900
4000
10
20
3900
4000
4100
4100
Figures 3a and 3b: Well A: localization of all conductive fractures and estimation
of their hydraulic aperture and permeability.
2890
2890
2910
2910
2930
2930
2950
2950
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
2970
2990
40
60
2970
2990
3010
3010
20
3030
3050
3030
3050
Figures 4a and 4b: Well B: localization of all conductive fractures and estimation
of their hydraulic aperture and permeability.
1400
1200
Qloss (L/min)
1000
800
600
400
3
200
4 5
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Time (s)
Figure 5: Massive loss occurred in well A (numbered events are described in Table 3).
10
SPE 38177
12000
6
10000
8000
5
6000
4000
2000
1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
time (s1/2)
Figure 6: Linear trend between the cumulative mud lost volume and the square root of
time observed during the massive loss occurred in well A. It can be explained with a
mechanism of static filtration (numbered events are described in Table 3).
Moving bit
P
D 2b
P
xb
2a
PP = l
PP = D
Figure 7: Parameters used to describe the geometry of the profile of a fracture intercepted by the bit.