You are on page 1of 31

Fractured Well Performance

How do you know your fracture design was


successful?

Pumped all fluids and proppants without any mechanical
problems or screenout or additional costs?
.Yes for service company, completions engineer
Achieved a predicted production goal?
.Yes for reservoir and completions engineer
Achieved economic success?
.Yes for manager, production company
Copyright, 2011
Fractured Well Performance
Fracture Conductivity Models

1. Infinite Conductivity Model

Negligible pressure loss in the fracture

Copyright, 2011

r
w
r
wa x
f
p
wf
2
f
x
wa
r =
S
e
w
r
wa
r

=
P
wf
Fractured Well Performance
Fracture Conductivity Models

2. Uniform flux Model

Slight pressure gradient corresponding to a uniformly
distributed flux


Copyright, 2011

r
w r
wa
x
f
p
wf
q e
f
x
wa
r =
P
wf
q
Fractured Well Performance
Fracture Conductivity Models

3. Finite conductivity Model

Constant, limited fracture conductivity
Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity



Copyright, 2011

r
w
r
wa x
f
p
wf
F
cd
=50
F
cd

F
cd
=10
f
kx
w
f
k
cd
F =
McGuire Sikora Empirical Model (1960), Modified by Holditch (1975)
Copyright, 2011
Fractured Well Performance
Basis:
- Pseudosteady state flow
- Constant rate production
- Square drainage shape
- Compressible fluid
- Entire interval is propped
Both x
f
and k
f
w are
important
1. Length is dominant variable
Constraining stimulation
2. k
f
w sufficiently high
Well spacing/shape
Copyright, 2011
Fractured Well Performance
x
f
2y
e
2x
e
x
f
r
e
Limit penetration to 80% of the reservoir boundary,
% 80 s
e
x
f
x
McGuire Sikora Empirical Model (1960), Modified by Holditch (1975)
Copyright, 2011
Fractured Well Performance
Remarks:
For a given L
f
/L
e
ratio, the solution
approaches a maximum
asymptotic value

Thus at large relative conductivity
(low-k), productivity can be increased
by increasing L
f
and not the conductivity.

For a given L
f
, there exists an optimal fracture conductivity

Theoretical maximum increase in productivity ratio is 13.6
McGuire Sikora Empirical Model (1960), Modified by Holditch (1975)
Copyright, 2011
Fractured Well Performance
A
B
C
D
Point A length limited, increase treatment size to
Point B conductivity limited, change proppant type to
Point C length limited, increase treatment size to
Point D reached drainage radius
Tinsley et al. empirical model (1969)
Effect of fracture conductivity and fracture height on well performance
R
wa
= f (x
f
, F
cd
)



Basis:
Steady state flow
Constant rate production
Cylindrical reservoir geometry
Incompressible fluid flow




Copyright, 2011
Fractured Well Performance
Fracture Characterization Parameter, X
Tinsley et al. empirical model (1969)
Copyright, 2011
Fractured Well Performance
Empirical Equations

a. For 0.1 < X < 3
( ) D D C
e
r
f
x
C B FE +

(
(

+
|
|
.
|

\
|
= ) )( ( 28 . 4 25 . 1 83 . 1 tan 785 . 0 /

b. X > 3

( ) | |
C
Z Z Y F
FE
1 ) tan( tan + +
=

where

668 . 9
334 . 0 334 . 3
=
X
B

92 . 0 08 . 0 +
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
f
h
h
C
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
h
f
h
D 75 . 0 1

38 . 2
40 . 6
2
84 . 4
+ =
X X
F

|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
e
r
f
x
X
Y
32 . 1
27 . 2

84 . 0
64 . 1
2
24 . 1
=
X X
Z


Empirical Equations

a. For 0.1 < X < 3
( ) D D C
e
r
f
x
C B FE +

(
(

+
|
|
.
|

\
|
= ) )( ( 28 . 4 25 . 1 83 . 1 tan 785 . 0 /

b. X > 3

( ) | |
C
Z Z Y F
FE
1 ) tan( tan + +
=

where

668 . 9
334 . 0 334 . 3
=
X
B

92 . 0 08 . 0 +
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
f
h
h
C
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
h
f
h
D 75 . 0 1

38 . 2
40 . 6
2
84 . 4
+ =
X X
F

|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
e
r
f
x
X
Y
32 . 1
27 . 2

84 . 0
64 . 1
2
24 . 1
=
X X
Z


Example
Copyright, 2011
Fractured Well Performance
A given well currently produces at a constant bottomhole flowing pressure of 1200
psia. It was determined this well would be a good candidate for hydraulic fracturing.
Two fracture treatments are proposed by the service company:
Treatment A with x
f
= 100 ft and F
cD
= 200
Treatment B with x
f
= 250 ft and F
cD
= 10.
To assess the results of the fracture treatments, rate decline is used to forecast
performance.

Assume h
f
= h

Reservoir data for a typical well

p
i
= 2600 psia
oi
= 0.2 cp
B
oi
= 1.642 bbl/stb h = 66 ft
r
w
= 0.33 ft c
ti
= 30 x 10
-6
psi
-1

| = 0.117 S
w
= 0.32
r
e
= 744 ft k = 0.25 md
Example
Copyright, 2011
Fractured Well Performance
Time to start of pss

t
pss
= 77 days

where t
DApss
= 0.1 (center of a circle) and A = t r
e
2

Dimensionless time
t
D
= 2,258 t/r
wa
2




DApss
t
k
A
T
c
3790
pss
t
|
=
2
wa
r
t
c
kt 000264 . 0
D
t
|
=
Example
Copyright, 2011
Fractured Well Performance
( ) 123 200
33 .
744
ln
744
100
1 593 . 0 = |
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
= X
. 72 3 . 3
ln
ln
ft
wa
r
wa
r
e
r
w
r
e
r
FE = =
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
Calculate r
wa

Case A:


From the figure this value
of X indicates an infinite
conductivity fracture; thus
r
wa
= x
f
/2 = 50 ft.

Case B:
X = 15.4
x
f
/r
e
= 0.336
From the figure or equations,


X=123
X=15.4
x
f
/r
e
= 0.336
FE=3.3
Example
Copyright, 2011
Fractured Well Performance
1
10
100
1000
1 10 100 1000 10000
q
o
,
b
o
p
d
time,days
Case B
Case A
Unfrac
Example
Copyright, 2011
Fractured Well Performance




- Depletion rate decline
Apply Fetkovichs type curve
a. Calculate t
Dd

( )
( ) ( )
D
t *
.5
wa
r
e
r ln
1
*
1
2
wa
r
e
r
2
D
Bt
Dd
t


= =

b. Calculate q
Dd
assuming exponential decline
Dd
t
e
Dd
q

=
c. Calculate q
D

( ) ( )
Dd
q
wa
r
e
r
Dd
Aq
D
q *
5 . ln
1

= =
d. Calculate q
o

- Transient rate decline
a. From Example 1 the t
pss
= 77 days, therefore
dimensionless time

2
wa
r
t
c
kt 000264 . 0
D
t
|
= t
D
= 2,258 t/r
wa
2


b. Dimensionless rate is from the approximate
solutions corresponding to t
D
.

c. Calculate flow rate from

o
q
)
wf
p
i
p ( kh
o
B
o
2 . 141
D
q

= q
o
= 498 q
D
Decline Curve Analysis Advanced Topics
Composite of analytic and empirical type curves (Fetkovich, 1980)


GRM-Engler-09
Decline Curve Analysis Advanced Topics
Example Use type curve matching to analyze the given well data
GRM-Engler-09

0.01
0.1
1
10
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Dimensionless Time, tdD
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

q
d
D
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 b=0
Linear
reD=2.5
5
10
20
50
200
5000
QdD=1-exp(-tdD)
b = 0.4, r
e
/r
wa
= 1000
Decline Curve Analysis Advanced Topics
Example - Results
GRM-Engler-09

Estimated Properties Units Rate-Time Rate-Cum Cum-Time
Productivity Factor, PF Mscf/d/psi 0.176 0.176 0.171
Pore Volume, PV MMcf 14.463 14.026 14.026
Initial Gas-In-Place, IGIP Bscf 2.091 2.028 2.028
Drainage Acreage Acres 86.5 83.9 83.9
Equivalent Drainage Radius, r
e
ft 1094.9 1078.3 1078.3
Apparent Wellbore Radius, r
wa
ft 1.1 1.1 1.1
Skin Factor, S - -1.1 -1.1 -1.1
Flow Capacity, kh md-ft 2.628 2.628 2.548
Permeability, k md 0.08211 0.08211 0.07963
Current Recovery, % IGIP % 50.0 51.6 51.6
Current Recovery, Per Acre Mscf/acre 12097.6 12474.4 12474.4

91.10 Mscf/d
334533 Mscf
1380543 Mscf
67.39 %
16294.79 Mscf/acre Projected Recovery, Per Acre
Last Reported Rate, q
last
Remaining Reserves
Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR)
Projected Recovery, % IGIP
Decline Curve Analysis Advanced Topics
Example Use type curve matching to analyze well data from example 1.8
GRM-Engler-09
0.01
0.1
1
10
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Dimensionless Time, tdD
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

q
d
D
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 b=0
Linear
reD=2.5
5
10
20
50
200
5000
QdD=1-exp(-tdD)
b = 0.8, r
e
/r
wa
= 5
Decline Curve Analysis Advanced Topics
Example - (results)
GRM-Engler-09
b = 0.8, r
e
/r
wa
= 5
Estimated Properties Units Rate-Time
Productivity Factor, PF Mscf/d/psi 0.139
Pore Volume, PV MMcf 15.281
Initial Gas-In-Place, IGIP Bscf 0.718
Drainage Acreage Acres 79.7
Equivalent Drainage Radius, r
e
ft 2636
Apparent Wellbore Radius, r
wa
ft 2636
Skin Factor, S - -9.4
Flow Capacity, kh md-ft 1.762
Permeability, k md 0.044
Current Recovery, % IGIP % 73.3
Current Recovery, Per Acre Mscf/acre 6604
Transient solution for finite-conductivity vertical fractures, (Agarwal, et al.,1979)
p kh
o
B q 2 . 141
D
q
A

=
2
f
x
t
c
kt 0063 .
xf
D
t
|
=
f
kx
w
f
k
CD
F =
Basis:
The fracture has finite conductivity that is uniform throughout the fracture
The fracture has two equal wing lengths
The reservoir is infinite acting

Fractured Well Performance
Copyright, 2011
Low F
CD
case
Start with point A
Double x
f
Reduces F
CD
by
and reduces t
Dxf
by

Result:
An increase in fracture length
results in no difference in flow
rate


A
A
f
kx
w
f
k
CD
F =
2
f
x
t
c
kt 0063 .
xf
D
t
|
=
Fractured Well Performance
Copyright, 2011
Low F
CD
case
Start with point A
Double x
f
and
k
f
w is increased by
a factor of 4, then
F
CD
would double
and t
Dxf
reduces by

Result:
An increase in fracture length
And fracture conductivity results
in an increase in flow rate


A
A
f
kx
w
f
k
CD
F =
2
f
x
t
c
kt 0063 .
xf
D
t
|
=
Fractured Well Performance
Copyright, 2011
High F
CD
case
Start with point B
Double x
f
and
Reduces F
CD
by
and reduces t
Dxf
by

Result:
An increase in fracture length
results in an increase in flow
rate


B
B
f
kx
w
f
k
CD
F =
2
f
x
t
c
kt 0063 .
xf
D
t
|
=
Fractured Well Performance
Copyright, 2011
F
CD
3
Cannot be improved
significantly by increasing x
f
with same fracture
conductivity

F
CD
30
Increasing xf will be more
beneficial than increasing
conductivity

f
kx
w
f
k
CD
F =
2
f
x
t
c
kt 0063 .
xf
D
t
|
=
Guidelines
Fractured Well Performance
Copyright, 2011
Fractured Well Performance
Copyright, 2011
Example
A low-permeability gas well required a massive hydraulic fracture (MHF) to become productive.
The following data was acquired for analysis.

p
i
2394 psia
gi
0.0176 cp k 0.0081 md
T
f
260F h 32 ft
r
w
0.33 ft c
ti
2.34 x 10
-4
psi
-1

| 0.107 A 640 Acres
p
wf
1600 psia z 0.93

The well has produced for a little less than a year, with the performance data shown below.

Time,days q, mscfd
20 625
35 476
50 408
100 308
150 250
250 208
300 192

The objectives are to compute the fracture length and fracture flow capacity, and to predict future
performance.
Fractured Well Performance
Copyright, 2011
Example
Example Transient Type Curve Matching for
Finite Conductivity Fractures
Match Point
q = 100 mcfd t = 100 days
qD = 2 tDxf = .0038
10
100
1000
1 10 100 1000
q
,
m
s
c
f
d
time,days
Solution
- Type curve match with the finite conductivity
fracture solution

m
D
q
q
2
wf
p
2
i
p h
zT
gi
1422
k
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|

= (q/q
D
)
m
= 50

Since kh were determined from an earlier well test,
the y-axis match is fixed.

m
D
t
t
t
c
g
k 000264 . 0
2
f
x
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
= x
f
2
= 4.853*(t/t
D
)
m

x
f
= 357 ft.

- From the type curve, Fcd = 500; thus the fracture
flow capacity can be computed by,

ft md
f
kx
CD
F w
f
k = = 1446 ) ( *
Fractured Well Performance
Copyright, 2011
Example
- Find the time to the beginning of pss

DApss
t
k
A
T
c
3790
pss
t
|
= t
pss
= 23,951 days (66 yrs)

where t
DApss
= 0.1 (center of a circle) and A = t re
2


- Future performance

a. Assume a time
b. Calculate t
dxf

c. From type curve find corresponding q
D

d. Calculate q

Fractured Well Performance
Copyright, 2011
Example
A Mesaverde gas well in the San Juan Basin was stimulated with a hydraulic fracture treatment.
The reported fracture parameters are a fracture half-length of 1030 ft and a dimensionless
fracture conductivity of 500.

p
i
1175 psia
gi
0.0143 cp k 0.04 md
T
f
173F h 29 ft
r
w
0.33 ft c
ti
5.2 x 10
-4
psi
-1

| 0.08 A 320 Acres r
e
2106 ft
p
wf
600 psia z 0.87

Objective

Calculate the rate-time forecast for the well assuming an infinite-conductivity fracture.
Fractured Well Performance
Copyright, 2011
Example
Solution

- Time to start of pss
DApss
t
k
A
T
c
3790
pss
t
|
= t
pss
= 3,272 days (9 years)


- Calculate apparent wellbore radius

R
wa
= x
f
/2 = 515 ft.
s
e
w
r
wa
r

= S = -7.4

- Calculate Dimensionless time

2
wa
r
t
c
kt 000264 . 0
D
t
|
= t
D
= 1.61 x 10
-3
t {days}

- Calculate dimensionless rate

o
q
)
wf
p
i
p ( kh
o
B
o
2 . 141
D
q

= q
o
= 0.00946 q
D
{mscfd}


- For transient rate decline, find q
D
from (1)uniform flux solution approximate equations,
and (2) infinite conductivity solution from type curve.
- For depletion rate decline use Fetkovich type curve.

Fractured Well Performance
Copyright, 2011
Example
10
100
1000
0 0 1 10 100
r
a
t
e
,
m
s
c
f
d
time,yrs
measured data
infinite conductivity
uniform flux