Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By
Pinnacle Technologies
FracproPT System -
Highlights
• Estimates fracture geometry and proppant placement in real-time
by net pressure history matching
• Provides unique tool to capture what is learned from direct fracture
diagnostics through calibrated model settings
• Performs near-wellbore tortuosity / perf friction analysis – allows
identification and remediation of potential premature screenout
problems
• Integrated reservoir simulator for production forecasting and
matching
• Optimizes fracture treatment economics
• Supports remote access via modem or internet
• Contains preloaded libraries of stimulation fluids, proppants,
and rock properties for many lithologies
FracproPT Module Interaction
DataAcqPT
Real-Time
Data Acquisition
Calibrated Model
Settings
Wellbore Information
Log/layer Information Treatment Data Production Data
FracproPT
Economic
Optimization
Motivation for Frac Engineering
& Diagnostics
Hydraulic
fracturing is
done for well
stimulation
NOT
for proppant
disposal
Fracture Pressure
Analysis - Advantages
• Basic analysis data collected (in some sense)
during every frac treatment
• Relatively inexpensive and quick diagnostic
technique to apply
• Provides a powerful tool for on-site diagnosis of
fracture entry problems
• Allows on-site design refinement based on
observed fracture behavior
Fracture Pressure
Analysis - Limitations
• Fracture Entry Friction Evaluation
– Using surface pressure increases results uncertainty
– Problematic near-wellbore friction level variable
• Net Pressure History Matching
– Indirect Diagnostic Technique - frac geometry inferred
from net pressure and leakoff behavior
– Solution non-unique – careful & consistent application
required for useful results
– Technique most useful when results are integrated or
calibrated with results of other diagnostics
• Production data & welltest analysis
• Direct fracture diagnostics
Example Application – “Pressure Out” on
Pad
S/D#1: 1700
psi tortuosity;
12.00 small perf fric.
3600
4.00
1200
0.00
0
0.0 28.0 56.0 84.0 112.0 140.
Example Application – Estimation of
Realistic Fracture Half-Length
40.00 1
80.0 40
30.00 1
60.0 30
20.00 8
40.0 20
10.00 4
20.0 10
0.00
0.0 0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Time (min)
Example Application – Estimation of
Realistic Fracture Half-Length
Geometry inferred design Observed net pressure does not match design net pressure response
without real-data feedback
Net Pressure (A) (psi)
Prop Conc (ppg) Btm Prop Conc (ppg)
2000 Observed Net (psi) Slurry Rate (bpm) 5
50.00 1
2000
1600 4
40.00 8
1600
1200 3
30.00 6
1200
800 2
20.00 4
800
400 1
10.00 2
400
0 0
0.00
0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Time (min)
Example Application – Estimation of
Realistic Fracture Half-Length
40.00
80.0 4
1600
30.00
60.0 3
1200
Geometry inferred from net
20.00
pressure matching 40.0 2
800
10.00
20.0 1
400
0.00
0.0
0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Time (min)
Lower stress contrast (0.1 psi/ft) required to match observed net pressure
Confirmed with shale stress test in subsequent wells
Example Application -- Tip Screen-out
Strategy To Obtain Sufficient
Conductivity
40.00
80.0 40.00
Pad fluid volume adjusted based 600.0
600.0 on leakoff behavior following
crosslink gel minifrac
Breakdown injection
30.00 30.00
60.0
450.0 450.0
Minifrac
20.00
20.00
40.0 300.0
300.0
10.00
20.0 10.00
150.0
150.0
0.00 0.00
0.0
0.0 0.0 60.0 120.0 180.0 240.0 300.0 0.0
Time (mins)
Net pressure match Pinnacle Technologies
Pad sizing for TSO design was done utilizing leakoff calibration with minifrac. The
net pressure match shows a significant increase in pressure due to tip screen-out
initiation
Example Application -- Tip Screen-out
Strategy To Obtain Sufficient
Conductivity
W e llb o r e
U sp e r e d i c t e d
n e t p r e s s u r e P a y P a y
P u m p r a t e
N e t
p r e s s u r e P r e d ic t e d n e t p r e s s u r e
P u m p t im e
Fracture Design and Analysis
Evolution
Modeling without Real-Data Feedback
• Early designs (pre-1980) did not incorporate
feedback from real data
• Fractures at that time were still smart enough to
stay in zone
• But measured net pressure was generally MUCH
higher than model net pressure
W e llb o r e
U sp e r e d i c t e d
n e t p r e s s u r e
?
P a y P a y
M e a s u r e d n e t p r e s s u r e
P u m p r a t e
N e t
p r e s s u r e P r e d ic t e d n e t p r e s s u r e
P u m p t im e
Fracture Design and Analysis
Evolution
Modeling with Net Pressure Feedback
• Net pressure history match can be obtained by
adding new physics to fracture models – Reason
for the existence of FracproPT
• With the right assumptions and physics, inferred
geometry has a better chance to be correct
W e llb o r e
U sme e a s u r e d
n e t p r e s s u r e
P a y
M a t c h in g m e a s u r e d n e t p r e s s u r e
N e t w i t h m o d e l n e t p r e s s u r e
p r e s s u r e
P u m p t im e
FracproPT Development
Philosophy
• After development of pseudo-3D models (early 1980’s)
the industry was jubilant as it was now known how
fractures really behaved -- or not ?
• Observed net pressures were consistently far higher than
net pressures predicted by these models (discovered in
early 1980’s) -- parameter sensitivity also inconsistent
• Development of Fracpro started in 1980’s with the aim to
honor the “message” contained in real-data
– Capturing the physics of details is not as important as
honoring large-scale elasticity and mass balance
– Calibrated simplified approximation with full 3D growth
model, lab tests and field observations
– Model calibration is now a continuous effort
Fracture Modeling in FracproPT
• Fracture Temperature
• Backstress (poro-
Model elastic) Model
• Multiple Fracture
Model
FracproPT is Just a Tool
• The FracproPT system contains several 2D models, a conventional 3D model,
an adjustable 3D model incorporating “tip effects”, and a growing number of
calibrated model settings
• There is NO “FracproPT answer”
• Designed for on-site engineering flexibility
• Quality of results are more user-dependent than model dependent
Net pressure ?
16.00 160.0
2400
12.00
1800 Friction ? 120.0
8.00
1200 80.0
Closure ?
4.00 40.0
600
Leak-off ?
0.00
0.0
0 50.00 58.00 66.00 74.00 82.00 90.00
Time (mins)
Purpose Of Diagnostic
Injections
• Provide “anchor points” for real-data (net
pressure) analysis
• Obtain accurate measurement of the true net
pressure in the fracture
• On site diagnosis and remediation of proppant
placement
– Near-wellbore tortuosity
– Perforation friction
– fluid leakoff
• Bottom line: provide accurate estimates of the
fracture geometry
Recommended Diagnostic
Injection Procedures
Diagnostic Step When Fluid & Volume Purpose / Results
Breakdown Injection / rate Always ~50-100 Bbl KCl Establish injectivity; obtain small volume ISIP;
stepdown / pressure decline estimate closure pressure and formation permeability.
Crosslinked Gel Minifrac with New areas ~100-500 Bbl fracture Leakoff calibration;
proppant slug / rate stepdown / Real-time pad resizing fluid including 25-50 Net pressure sensitivity to volume and crosslink gel;
pressure decline TSO treatments Bbl proppant slug Characterize fracture entry friction;
(possible range 0.5-5 Evaluate near-wellbore reaction to proppant;
PPG) Screen out or erode near-wellbore multiple fractures.
End Frac Rate Stepdown / Always Minimum of 10 minute Characterize fracture entry friction;
Pressure Decline Monitoring decline data Post-frac leakoff calibration.
“Anchor Point”: Fracture
Closure Stress
“Anchor Points”: Isip
Progression
“Anchor Points”: Frictional
Components
Main Input Parameter -
Permeability
• Matching perm is “permeability under
fracturing conditions” – not necessarily
under production conditions
– Relative permeability issues
– Opening of natural fractures
– Relies on many other assumptions
• Keep it simple:
– only change permeability in pay interval.
– Keep permeability zero in shales
• If permeability profile is “known”, use
Kp/Kl ratio for matching instead
• Fix by matching decline slope of B/D KCl
injection
Main Input Parameter - Closure
Stress
• Closure stress profile determines fracture shape
– Radial if stress profile is uniform (theoretical decrease in net
pressure with pump time)
– Confined height growth if closure stress “barriers” are present
(theoretical increase in net pressure with pump time)
• Effectiveness of “barrier” determined by
– Closure stress contrast
– Level of net pressure
• “Typical” sand-shale closure stress contrast 0.05 - 0.1 psi/ft
– Higher if there has been significant depletion (~2/3 of pore pressure
change)
– Lower if sands and shales are not clean
• When do you change it?
– Increase contrast when net observed pressures are higher
– Increase contrast when fracture is more confined (up to 1.0 psi/ft)
Closure Stress Profile
T Tcp + T c
B o t to m h o le p r e s s u r e
E f f i c i e n T cc y ~
Tc + Tp
I S I P
P n e t C l o s u r e
R a t e
T p T c
T i m e
Pressure Decline Analysis –
Square-root Time Plot
Surf Press [Csg] (psi) Implied Slurry Efficiency (%)
0 Meas'd Btmh Press (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 200.0
8500 5000
-280 120.0
7100 3600
-420 80.0
6400 2900
-560 40.0
5700 2200
-700 0.0
5000
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 1500
Time (min)
Pressure Decline Analysis – G-
function Plot
Implied Slurry Efficiency (%)
Surf Press [Csg] (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
200.0 Meas'd Btmh Press (psi) Surf Press [Csg] (psi) 1000
800.0
5000
8500
160.0
800
640.0
4300
7800
BH Closure Pressure: 5748 psi
Closure Stress Gradient: 0.697 psi/ft
Closure Time: 3.5 min
120.0 Pump Time: 3.0 min
Implied Slurry Efficiency: 43.1 % 600
480.0
Estimated Net Pressure: 767 psi 3600
7100
80.0
400
320.0
2900
6400
40.0
200
160.0
2200
5700
0.0
0
0.0
0.000 0.620 1.240 1.860 2.480 3.100 1500
5000
G Function Time
Pressure Decline Analysis –
Log-log Delta Pressure Plot
Implied Slurry Efficiency (%)
10000 Delta Pressure (psi) Delta Pressure (psi)
1000
10
0.100 1.000 10.000 100.00
Time (min)
Steprate/Flowback test
~ 30 psi
SI-Rebound < p c
" near-well independent of
pinch " " tortuosity"
SPE PF Feb '97
~ 15 min
Tortuosity Can Be
Measured: Stepdown Test
• Instantaneous rate changes, e.g. 30, 20, 10 and 0 BPM
-- exact rates are unimportant, but changes should be
abrupt
• Implemented easiest by taking pumps off line
• Each rate step takes about 20 seconds -- just enough
to equilibrate the pressure
• Fracture geometry should not change during
stepdown -- total stepdown test volume small
compared to test injection volume (note: pfrac not
proportional to Q1/4 during stepdown test)
• Use differences in behavior of the different friction
components with flow rate
What Is Tortuosity? Width
Restriction Close To Wellbore
Width Restriction Increases
Necessary Wellbore Pressure
Tortuosity Leads To Large
Pressure Drop In Fracture Close
To Well
Net fracturing
pressure
High
Near-wellbore friction
Low
Fracture tip
40.00 790
30.00 730
20.00 670
10.00 610
0.00 550
17.00 17.80 18.60 19.40 20.20 21.00
Time (min)
Tortuosity Can Be Measured:
Stepdown Test
• Perforation friction dominated regime
20.00
20.00
100.0
2000
2000
15.00
15.00
75.0
1500
1500
10.00
10.00
50.0
1000
1000
5.00
5.00
25.0
500
500
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0 30.0 60.0 90.0 120.0 150.0 0
0
Time (min)
FracproPT Net Pressure
Matching Parameters
• “Decline Slope” parameters
– Permeability
– Wallbuilding coefficient (Cw)
– Pressure-dependent leakoff (Multiple fracture leakoff
factor)
• “Level” parameters
– (Sand-shale) Closure stress contrast
– Fracture complexity (Multiple fracture opening/volume
factor)
– Tip effects coefficient
– Proppant drag exponent
– Tip screen-out backfill coefficient
– (Young’s modulus)
• “Geometry” parameters
– Composite layering effect
– Crack opening / width coupling coefficient
Net Pressure Matching Strategy
• B/D Injection
– Level: Tip effects, Fracture complexity
– Decline slope: permeability
• Minifrac
– Level: Tip effects, Fracture complexity
– Decline slope: Wallbuilding coefficient Cw
• Prop frac:
– Level (low perm): stress contrast, proppant drag
– Level (high perm): TSO backfill, Young’s modulus,
stress contrast, proppant drag
– Decline slope: Pressure-dependent leakoff
– Geometry: composite layering effect, width
decoupling
FracproPT Net Pressure
Matching Parameters
Response with Parameter Increase +
Efficiency
Pressure
Length
Height
Slurry
Width
Half-
Net
Parameter Range Unit Mainly Affects When
Lf
Lf
Tip Effects -- Increased
Fracture Growth Resistance
Process Zone
Around Fracture
Tip
• Experiments by
Shlyapobersky reveal
fracture process zone
• Process zone is scale
dependent, and results in
multiple fractures ahead
of hydraulic fracture tip
• Can result in higher net
pressures to propagate
fracture
Main Matching Parameter –
Multiple Fractures
• How does it work?
– Opening and volume factor control the degree of fracture
complexity using the amount of overlapping “equivalent”
(equal sized) fractures
– Leakoff factor can mimic increase leakoff or pressure-
dependent leakoff
• When do you change it?
– When observed net pressure with default Gamma 2 (0.0001)
is significantly higher than model net pressure
– Use specific starting points for distributed limited entry and
point source perforation strategies
– Use strict rules
• Only change during injections
• Tie opening and volume factors for “point source” perfs
• Tie leakoff and volume factors for “distributed limited entry” perfs
Multiple Hydraulic Fractures In
FracproPT
Modeling Approach for Multiple
Hydraulic Fractures
Situation Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent
number of number of number of
growing fractures fracs
multiple with leakoff competing
fracs (MV) (ML) for width
(MO)
Equivalent number of 3 3 1
spaced identical fractures
without interference
3 2 2
Equivalent number of 3 1 3
fractures competing
For width
Evidence for the Simultaneous
Propagation of Multiple Hydraulic
Fractures
• Core through and mineback experiments
• Direct observations of multi-planar fracture propagation
• Fracture growth outside plane of wellbore
• Observation of high net fracturing pressures
• Continuous increases in ISIPs for subsequent injections
C o n c e p t u a l s im p lif ic a ti o n o f
n e a r - w e llb o r e t o r t u o s it y
a n d m u lt ip le f r a c tu r e s
M o d e lin g s t r a t e g y f o r
n e a r - w e llb o r e t o r t u o s it y
a n d m u lt ip le f r a c tu r e s
Main Matching Parameters –
Proppant Drag Exponent
• How does it work?
– Mimics the increase in frictional pressure drop along the fracture
as proppant is introduced
– Controls how much the proppant in the fracture slows the
fracture length and height growth.
– Separate terms for Upper and Lower height growth calculated.
Length effect is based on average of upper and lower terms.
– Once a stage has become packed with sand (“immobile proppant
bank”), there is no more growth in that direction
– If both an upper and lower stage are dehydrated, quadratic
backfill model takes over (if enabled)
• When do you change it?
– Significant proppant induced observed net pressure increase
during proppant stages (that is not due to TSO)
Main Matching Parameter –
Quadratic Backfill Exponent
• How does it work
– When fracture height and length growth are stopped
due to dehydration of an upper and lower stage,
quadratic backfill model starts working (if enabled)
– Quadratic backfill is based on the idea the the
fracture dimension controlling fracture stiffness will
decrease as the fracture fills with immobile packed
proppant from the tip back to the wellbore.
• When do you change it?
– Increase it when the TSO-induced observed net
pressure rise is steeper than model predicts
New Matching Parameter –
Width Coupling Coefficient
• How does it work ?
– Multiplier for Gamma 1 representing how fracture
width is decoupled along fracture height
– We will provide automatic correlation as a function
of composite layering effect
• When do you change it ?
– Decrease it to trade fracture width for half-length
– Decrease it to mimic reduced coupling “shear-
decoupling” over fracture height (also associated
with use of composite layering effect)
δ = Wcγ 1 pnet R/ E
δ pnet
R
Main Matching Parameters –
Composite Layering Effect
• How does it work ?
– This parameter controls the near-tip
pressure drop in each individual layer
• When do you change it ?
– Increase in layer adjacent to pay zone if no
other confining mechanism can explain
actual level of fracture confinement
– Keep unity in pay zone
Estimating Frac Dimensions
Using Real Data And Radial
Frac Assumption:
“Back-of-the-Envelop Model”
1
2 3 eVE 3
Mass balance e V = πR 2w
• R=
3 4 p net
1
R = 260 feet
Pnet = 800 psi
w = 1.6 in
Fracture Geometry Changes With
Net Pressure
• Two modeling solutions for the same
treatment; if 500 psi stress contrast exists
around payzone
Predicted net Predicted frac
pressure dimensions
Simple Approach:
• Evaluate performance based on EUR’s or other indicators such
as IP’s, 6-month and 12-month cumulative, best 3-month of
production etc.
• Finite-Difference
• Numerical Solution to Diffusivity Equation
• Reservoir As Grid System
• Single Well Within Rectangular Grid System
• Single Flowing Phase
• 2-D
• Unfractured and Hydraulically Fractured Wells
• Fracture Input From FracproPT
• Proppant Crushing
• Non-Darcy and Multi-Phase Flow Effects in Fracture
• Fracture Face Clean-up
Log-Log Rate versus Time Plot
Transient & Boundary Influenced
Flow High Conductivity Fracture
1000
Transient Flow
100
2300 ac
Oil Rate (bbl/day)
360 ac
Boundary Influenced Flow
10
200 ac
100 ac
1
10 100 1000 10000
Time (days)
Semi-Log Rate versus Time Plot
Transient & Boundary Influenced
Flow High Conductivity Fracture
1000
100
2300 ac
Oil Rate (bpd)
360 ac
10
200 ac
100 ac
1
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
T ime (days)
Log-Log Rate versus Time Plot
Transient & Boundary Influenced Flow
High & Low Conductivity Fracture & Un-fractured Case
1000
No Fracture
10
360 acres
1
10 100 1000 10000
Time (days)
Semi-Log Rate versus Time Plot
Transient & Boundary Influenced Flow
High & Low Conductivity Fracture & Un-fractured Case
1000
10
1
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Time (days)
360 acres
Important Parameter Is
Relative Fracture Conductivity
At Reservoir Conditions
• Fracture Conductivity, wkf
wkf = fracture width x fracture
permeability
k = Formation Permeability, md
Lf = Fracture Half-Length, ft
1.000
Rw'/Xf
0.100
0.010
0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
Fcd
Need Length Or Conductivity?
(After McGuire&Sikora)
Frac design
change with
same amount of
Productivity increase
proppant
Increase in
frac length
Increase in
conductivity
Design In Low-permeability
Formation
• Need long fractures
• Treatment design
– Moderate pad size (avoid long closure times on
proppant)
– Relatively low maximum proppant concentrations
– Poor quality proppant can be OK (if closure stress is
relatively low)
– Pump rate not very critical
Design In High-permeability
Formation
• Sufficient fracture conductivity is critical
• Treatment design
– Minimum pad size to create TSO (Tip Screen-
Out) based on crosslink gel minifrac
– Use best possible (and economic) proppant for
expected closure stress
– Larger diameter proppant provides more
conductivity and reduces proppant flowback
problems
– Use high maximum proppant concentrations
– Use of large casing frac string makes achieving
TSO difficult for small treatments
– Pump rates generally high, but can be
decreased to initiate TSO
Optimum Conductivity
• FCD = 10 results in virtually infinite
conductivity fracture
• In permeable reservoirs or in deep
formations where closure stress is high, it
may be difficult to achieve FCD = 10; FCD of
1.6 is generally sufficient
• Use reservoir simulation to determine
optimum L assuming you can achieve
adequate FCD
• Choose proppant type and concentration to
maximize FCD , up to a value of 10
• Consider Multiphase flow effects
• Consider Turbulent flow effects
Fracture Conductivity
In The Reservoir
• Conductivity is reduced by
– Closure Stress
– Embedment
– Crushing (generates fines and
damages proppant)
– Corrosion
– Gel Residue Plugging
– Convection
– Proppant Settling
– Multiphase flow effects
– Turbulent flow
Optimization Of
Fracture Treatments
• Function of:
– Permeability
– Oil & Gas in Place
– Drainage Area
– Fracture Conductivity and Ability to
Place Proppant
• Economic Criteria Are Optimized
– Maximum Increase at Minimal Cost
– Multiple Economic Yardsticks to Choose
From
Economic Indicators
• Net Present Value (NPV)
• Rate of Return (ROR)
• Net Present Value to Investment Ratio
(NPV/IR)
• Other
Optimization Methodology
Step-by-step
TREATMENT COST
L f = 500 Optimal
CUM. GAS
L f = 300
NPV
L f = 100
Unstimulated
1 2 3
Fracture Diagnostic Tools
Will Determine ABILITY TO ESTIMATE
May Determine
Can Not Determine
W e llb o r e
U sp e r e d i c t e d
n e t p r e s s u r e P a y P a y
P u m p r a t e
N e t
p r e s s u r e P r e d ic t e d n e t p r e s s u r e
P u m p t im e
Fracture Design and Analysis
Evolution
Modeling without Real-Data Feedback
• Early designs (pre-1980) did not incorporate
feedback from real data
• Fractures at that time were still smart enough to
stay in zone
• But measured net pressure was generally MUCH
higher than model net pressure
W e llb o r e
U sp e r e d i c t e d
n e t p r e s s u r e
?
P a y P a y
M e a s u r e d n e t p r e s s u r e
P u m p r a t e
N e t
p r e s s u r e P r e d ic t e d n e t p r e s s u r e
P u m p t im e
Fracture Design and Analysis
Evolution
Modeling with Net Pressure Feedback
• Net pressure history match can be obtained by
adding new physics to fracture models – Reason
for the existence of FracproPT
• With the right assumptions and physics, inferred
geometry has a better chance to be correct
W e llb o r e
U sme e a s u r e d
n e t p r e s s u r e
P a y
M a t c h in g m e a s u r e d n e t p r e s s u r e
N e t w i t h m o d e l n e t p r e s s u r e
p r e s s u r e
P u m p t im e
Fracture Design and Analysis
Evolution
Modeling with Net Pressure Feedback
• Net pressure history matching can be
implemented by adding new physics to fracture
models
• With the RIGHT assumptions and physics, inferred
geometry has a better chance to be correct
• BUT pressure matching inferred geometry does
not always fit directly measured geometry W e llb o r e
U sme e a s u r e d
n e t p r e s s u r e
P a y
M a t c h in g m e a s u r e d n e t p r e s s u r e
N e t w i t h m o d e l n e t p r e s s u r e
p r e s s u r e
P u m p t im e
Fracture Design and Analysis
Evolution
Modeling with Net Pressure and Geometry
Feedback
• Change physical mechanisms in model to match
BOTH net pressure and directly observed fracture
geometry
• Obtained a predictive tool that is firmly linked to
actual growth behavior
W e llb o r e
P a y
M a t c h in g m e a s u r e d n e t p r e s s u r e
N e t w i t h m o d e l n e t p r e s s u r e
p r e s s u r e
P u m p t im e
Example Application - Model Results
Are Not Always Consistent with
Directly Measured Geometry
GR log
1600
Initial fracture modeling
1700 (no confinement
mechanism)
1800
Depth (ft)
Calibrated fracture
modeling (composite
layering effect)
1900
2000
HYDRAULIC FRACTURE
MINEBACK
Fracture Height Confinement
Mechanisms
I n c r e a s e d f I r n a t ce t r u f a r ec e C o m p o s it e
c lo s u r e s t rs e l i s p s p a g e l a y e r i n g
FracproPT Model
Calibration Parameters
• Crack Opening Coefficient (Shift-F3)
– 0.85 represents “coupled” behavior along frac
walls
– < 0.7 represents “shear decoupled” behavior
along frac walls
• Tip Effects Coefficient Coefficient (Shift-F3)
– 1e-04 represents model with tip effects
– 0.4 represents linear elastic fracture mechanics
• Composite Layering Effect (Mechanical Rock
Properties)
– 1 represents radial growth
– >1 represents confined height growth
FracproPT Calibrated Model
Limitations
• Sometimes actual closure stress is not well know
• Quite often, the closure stress profile is not well
known at all
– Make assumptions about continuity in bounding
layers stresses
• Need a substantial number of measurements
pointing in the same direction
• We do not really understand when composite
layering effect applies and how to assign it
• Consistent strategy to create match, as you can
match net pressure and dimensions in more than
one way
Model Calibration Discussion
• Models today are more sophisticated than 20 years ago,
but often still do NOT accurately predict fracture growth
• Poor characterization of rock/reservoir/geology
• Incomplete understanding of relevant physics
• Model “calibration”
• Empirical, by matching geometries,
• Hopefully leading to improved physics in models
• Ultimate goal:
• Fully integrated fracture, reservoir and production models
• Integrated with real-time direct fracture diagnostics
New Engineering Approach:
Modeling AND Measuring
Characterize
friction from rate Match net pressure
S/D tests for propped frac