Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

SPE 101048

SPE 101048 Vertically Fractured Well Perform ance in Rectangular Drainage Area V.V. Sabaev, Aurora Oil; D.S.

Vertically Fractured Well Performance in Rectangular Drainage Area

V.V. Sabaev, Aurora Oil; D.S. Wolcott, SPE, J.M. Mach, SPE, and D.V. Antipina, Rusia Petroleum; A.M. Haidar, Ufanipineft; and O.O. Sviyazova, Aurora Oil

Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Moscow, Russia, 3–6 October 2006.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract This paper presents two new models to define the dimensionless productivity index of finite conductivity fractured well either for pseudo-steady state or steady state conditions in the rectangular shape reservoir.

Maximum dimensionless productivity index (J D ) of a fractured well in a square drainage is 6/π at pseudo-steady state, and 4/π for steady state. The same well in a rectangular drainage can have larger J D with the same area and dimensionless proppant number (N prop ).

Since rectangular geometry provides much larger J D , it seams reasonable to consider this geometry for field development. For a given set of reservoir conditions there is an optimum rectangular geometry aspect ratio (rectangle length width ratio), which when fractured properly, will yield the maximum possible J D under pseudo steady state. Optimizing the aspect ratio impacts the well spacing, which has major significance for field development planning or infill evaluation. The purpose of this work is to provide performance type curves for a fractured well in rectangular drainage area and provide a methodology to determine the optimum aspect ratio for a given set of reservoir conditions.

Introduction M. Economides and P. Valko [1,2] introduced an optimization technique to maximize dimensionless productivity index. They introduced new dimensionless value: proppant number (N prop ):

N

prop

=

I

2

x

C

fD

=

2

k

f

V

fr

k

V

res

(1)

where I x is penetration ratio, C fD is dimensionless productivity index, V f is proppant (fracture) volume in the net pay and V res

is reservoir volume. They found that for a given value of proppant number there is optimal dimensionless fracture conductivity and penetration ratio at which productivity index is maximized. Also they presented a type curve for fracturing optimization of a well in the center of square reservoir under pseudo steady state conditions.

Later J. Rueda, J. Mach and D. Wolcott [3] presented a new type curve for fracturing optimization of a well in the center of square reservoir under steady state conditions, which can be applied to the waterflooding case.

The purpose of this work was to extend J D and N prop approach in fracturing performance analysis and planning with rectangular shape well drainage, both for pseudo steady state and steady state conditions.

It was found that for the same volume of proppant used in the square drainage area a rectangular shaped drainage area can

give higher productivity. Since rectangular geometry provides much larger J D , it seams reasonable to consider this geometry for field development. The following main implications were made:

- Steady state fractured well performance potential in a rectangular drainage is always better than in a square drainage.

- For new field developments rectangular patterns provide higher investment efficiency.

- In the case of pseudo steady state as N prop increases the optimum aspect ratio increases

- For fracture design of rectangular drainage shapes the appropriate type curves should be used to achieve optimum fracture geometry and therefore J D potential. Aspect Ratio Let’s define the aspect ratio as:

(2)

A

=

X

e

r Y

e

where

e

propagation (Fig.1);

X

- reservoir (pattern) length in the direction of fracture

Y

e

- reservoir (pattern) width in the direction opposite to

fracture propagation.

2

SPE 101048

Ye

xf xf
xf
xf

Xe

Figure 1: Illustration to using rectangular shape

The analytical solution for fully penetrating infinite conductivity fracture in the rectangular is presented in equation [4] for steady state and equation [5] for pseudo steady state.

J

J

d

d

=

=

4

X

e

π

6

Y

e

X

e

π

Y

e

A

r

A

r

*1.27

*1.9099

(4)

(5)

From inspection of Equations 4 and 5, since J D is proportional

to aspect ratio, well productivity increases as the aspect ratio

increases.

From this observation it can be concluded that

aspect ratios should be greater than one.

Proppant number in the case of rectangular shape can be defined from the following equation:

N

=

2 k

f

V fr

 
 

prop

k

V

 

res

 

After rearranging:

 

N

 

=

2

k

f

2

X

f

w

f

h

=

2

k

f

2 X

f

w

f

X

f

X

e

prop

k

X

Y

h

k

X

Y

X

X

 

e

e

e

e

f

e

Therefore:

 

N

prop

= C

fd

I

2

x

A

r

(3)

This equation should be used for proppant number determination for the case of rectangular shape well drainage.

Type Curves

A 3D finite-difference model was developed to examine the

response of fractured wells in rectangular drainage for various practical aspect ratios. The accuracy of chosen finite-difference grid and time steps were verified by analytical solutions. The type curves provide the relationship between dimensionless productivity index, fracture conductivity, proppant number and penetration ratio.

Shown in Figure 2 is an illustration showing that linear flow dominates to the fracture and is well established at the average pressure boundary. Corner injectors are assumed to be stimulated adequately to not adversely affect producer J D .

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

xf

xf

Ye

Y e  
 
X e
X e
X e
X e

Xe

X e
X e
X e

Figure 2: Waterflooding case illustration

New steady state type curves for aspect ratios 2, 3, 5 and 10 are shown in Figures 3 to 9. New pseudo steady state type curves for aspect ratios 2, 3, 5 and 10 are shown in Figures 10 to 13.

As optimum dimensionless fracture conductivity for a given proppant number is defined from the type curves the optimum fracture geometry can be readily determined from the following Equations 6 to 8.

X

f

w

f

Or

w

f

_

_

_

opt

opt

opt

Benefits

X N prop e = 2 * A C fd _ opt r k =
X
N
prop
e
=
2
* A
C fd
_ opt
r
k
= C
X
fd
_
opt
f
_
opt
k f
kX
N
C
prop
fd
_ opt
e
=
2 k
A
f
r

(6)

(7)

(8)

Drilled field Often, in existing waterfloods, patterns are not square and therefore have an aspect ratio other than one. In such cases, for a given N prop , the aspect ratio affects the optimum geometry. Therefore attention should be paid to using the appropriate type curve, with corresponding aspect ratio, to facilitate optimum design. Shown in Figures 14 and 15 are examples of the increase in J D for rectangular drainage shapes. For the steady state case (Figure 15) at an Nprop of 10 using the correct type curve can increas J D potential by 10% to 18% for aspect ratios of 2 to 3, respectively.

From inpection of Figures 14 and 15 the following conlusions can be made:

- As job volume increases (higher Nprop) use of the correct type curve creates more benefit.

- The larger the well drainage aspect ratio the greater the benefit from using the correct type curve.

Undeveloped field Use of rectangular shaped patterns (aspect ratio greater than one) in field development provides proportionally larger J D potential for a given N prop . Since the proppant volume in a rectangulare pattern can provide larger J D the investment efficiency is also larger.

SPE 101048

3

Due to higher fractured well productivity in the rectangular shape pattern with the same N prop , a larger well spacing can be used. Larger well spacing leads to a decrease in the total number of wells in the field development, and will further improve investment efficiency.

In field development under pseudo steady state conditions the economic benefits of using rectangular shapes are intuitively

obvious due to the significantly larger J D s. Following are two principle benefits that are arrived at by using rectangular drainage shapes.

- larger net present value and investment efficiency resulting from higher velocity of field development

Conclusion

1) Use of rectangular patterns in field development combined with hydraulic fracturing creates the potential for larger J D s and recovery. The resulting economics are also better when compared to the traditional square pattern development approach. 2) New type curves of fractured well performance in rectangular drainage areas for steady state and pseudo steady state are presented. 3) Presented type curves enable fracturing design in the case of rectangular shaped well drainage to achieve higher productivity index.

- larger recovery factor since the economic limit flow rate will be achieved at a lower reservoir pressure Nomenclature

It was found that for a specific proppant number there is an optimum aspect ratio that can provide the largest productivity under pseudo steady state conditions. Figure 16 shows the design optimum curve needed to optimize N prop and aspect ratio.

Waterflood Recovery For the steady state (waterflooding) case the benefits for increased production potential with rectangular shaped patterns are clear. However there have been questions raised about the influence of fracturing on early water breakthrough or more significantly reduced recovery. To dispel these fears an example is provided that shows recovery efficiency is improved when rectangular shaped paterns with optimum fracturing is implimented.

Steady State Example:

Two approaches to field development of the same area and volume were compared:

Square pattern with well in the center. For N prop =5 and

the optimum fracture parameters are in the Table 1. 2) Rectangular pattern of aspect ratio three. Optimum fracture parameters for N prop =5 are in the Table 1. In both cases injectors were assumed to have the same Jd as the production wells. Simulation results are shown on the Figures 17 and 18.

1)

Table 1 – Example data

Ar

Nprop

Optimum Parameters

Ix

Cfd

Jd

1

5

0.9

6.2

1.03

3

5

0.7

3.4

1.48

From Figure 17 it can be seen that the higher aspect ratio fractured well has the highest oil rate for most of the well life. More significantly it is observed from Figure 18 the most cumulative production comes from the higher aspect ratio well at all times during field life.

J

d = dimensionless productivity index

N prop

= proppant number, dimensionless

I

x

= penetration ratio, dimensionless

C fd

k

f

= dimensionless fracture conductivity

= proppant (fracture) permeability, md

k = reservoir permeability, md

V

fr

V

res

= proppant (fracture) volume in the net pay,

= reservoir volume,

3

m

3

m

A

X

r

e

= aspect ratio, dimensionless

= reservoir (pattern) length in the direction of fracture

propagation, m

Y

e

= reservoir (pattern) width in the direction opposite to

fracture propagation, m

X

w

= fracture half-length, m

f

f = fracture width, m

h = fracture height in the net pay, m

References

1. Economides M.J., Oligney R.E. and Valko P.P.:

Unified Fracture Design, (hardbound) Orsa Press, Houston, May 2002.

2. Romero D.J., Valko P.P. and Economides M.J.:

“Optimization of the Productivity Index and the Fracture Geometry of a Stimulated Well with Fracture Face and Choke Skins”, Paper SPE 73758, 2002. 3. Rueda J.I., Mach J., Wolcott D.: “Pushing Fracturing Limits to Maximize Producibility in Turbidite Formations in Russia”, Paper SPE 91760, 2004.

4

SPE 101048

4 SPE 101048 Figure 3 – Steady State Fracture Performance Type Curve (Ar=2)

Figure 3 – Steady State Fracture Performance Type Curve (Ar=2)

SPE 101048

5

SPE 101048 5 Figure 4 – Steady State Fracture Performance Type Curve (Ar=3) Figure 5 –

Figure 4 – Steady State Fracture Performance Type Curve (Ar=3)

4 – Steady State Fracture Performance Type Curve (Ar=3) Figure 5 – Steady State Fracture Performance

Figure 5 – Steady State Fracture Performance Type Curve (Ar=3)

6

SPE 101048

6 SPE 101048 Figure 6 – Steady State Fracture Performance Type Curve (Ar=5) Figure 7 –

Figure 6 – Steady State Fracture Performance Type Curve (Ar=5)

6 – Steady State Fracture Performance Type Curve (Ar=5) Figure 7 – Steady State Fracture Performance

Figure 7 – Steady State Fracture Performance Type Curve (Ar=5)

SPE 101048

7

SPE 101048 7 Figure 8 – Steady State Fracture Performance Type Curve (Ar=10) Figure 9 –

Figure 8 – Steady State Fracture Performance Type Curve (Ar=10)

8 – Steady State Fracture Performance Type Curve (Ar=10) Figure 9 – Steady State Fracture Performance

Figure 9 – Steady State Fracture Performance Type Curve (Ar=10)

8

SPE 101048

8 SPE 101048 Figure 10 – Pseudo Steady State Frac ture Performance Type Curve (Ar=2) Figure

Figure 10 – Pseudo Steady State Fracture Performance Type Curve (Ar=2)

Pseudo Steady State Frac ture Performance Type Curve (Ar=2) Figure 11 – Pseudo Steady State Frac

Figure 11 – Pseudo Steady State Fracture Performance Type Curve (Ar=3)

SPE 101048

9

SPE 101048 9 Figure 12 – Pseudo Steady State Frac ture Performance Type Curve (Ar=5) Figure

Figure 12 – Pseudo Steady State Fracture Performance Type Curve (Ar=5)

Pseudo Steady State Frac ture Performance Type Curve (Ar=5) Figure 13 – Pseudo Steady State Frac

Figure 13 – Pseudo Steady State Fracture Performance Type Curve (Ar=10)

10

SPE 101048

2.4 2.2 2 2 3 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 1 10 100 Jd_max/Jd_designed
2.4
2.2
2
2
3
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
1
10
100
Jd_max/Jd_designed

Nprop

Figure 14 – Design Error Evaluation at Pseudo Steady State

1.7 1.6 Ar=3 1.5 Ar=2 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 1 10 100 Jd_max/Jd_designed
1.7
1.6
Ar=3
1.5
Ar=2
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
1
10
100
Jd_max/Jd_designed

Nprop

Figure 15 - Design Error Evaluation at Steady State JD vs. Aspect Ratio 8 0.1
Figure 15 - Design Error Evaluation at Steady State
JD vs. Aspect Ratio
8
0.1
Nprop=100
7
0.5
1
6
2
5
5
Nprop=50
10
40
4
30
20
20
30
3
40
10
2
50
5
100
2
1
1
0.5
Max
0.1
0
1
10
Aspect Ratio
Jd

Figure 16 – Optimum Aspect Ratio (only for pseudo steady state)

300 Ar=3 Ar=1 Nonfrac 200 100 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Oil
300
Ar=3
Ar=1
Nonfrac
200
100
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Oil flow rate (tonn/day)

Recovery factor

Figure 17 – Example simulation results

0.6 0.5 0.4 Ar=3 Ar=1 No nfrac 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 5 10 15
0.6
0.5
0.4
Ar=3
Ar=1
No
nfrac
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
5
10
15
20
Recovery factor

Years

Figure 18 - Example simulation results