Re-Frac Job by HBT

Hydraulic Re-Fracturing*
Neil Stegent1 Search and Discovery Article #40837 (2011)

Posted November 14, 2011 *Adapted from presentation at AAPG Geoscience Technology Workshop, International Shale Plays, Houston, Texas, September 27-28, 2011
1
Pinnacle-A Halliburton Service (neil.stegent@pinntech.com)
Abstract A discussion and review of re-fracturing of both vertical and horizontal wells. Discussion of basic fundamentals of hydraulic fracturing, reasons to re-frac, candidate selection, operational considerations, and case histories.
Copyright AAPG. Serial rights given by author. For all other rights contact author directly.
Hydraulic Re-Fracturing
Neil Stegent, P.E. Technology Manager - Fracturing
v1
Re-Frac Case History Papers

(not all inclusive)
Vicksburg, S. Texas SPE 4118 Canyon Sand, Texas SPE 4800 Escondido Sandstone Sandstone, Te Texas as SPE 7912 J Sand, Wattenberg, CO SPE 7936 Undisclosed low pressured field, SPE 14376 Oak Hill, Cotton Valley E TX + LA SPE 14655 Morrow, Red Fork, Atoka, OK SPE 18861 Smackover, Mississippi SPE 19768 Mesaverde Group, CO & NM SPE 24307 McAllen Field, Vicksburg, S. Texas SPE 24872 Eastern Gas Shales-Antrim, MI and Appalachian Shales SPE 26894 Mendota, Granite Wash, TX SPE 27933 Antrim Shale, MI SPE 29172 Gray Sand, Cotton Valley, LA SPE 29554 Almond/Wams tter WY SPE 30480 Almond/Wamsutter, Green River Frontier, WY + Piceance Basin, CO SPE 55627 Piceance Basin, CO and GGRB, WY SPE 56482 g Ferrier, Alberta Pet Society y 99-60 Viking, Barnett Shale, TX SPE 63030 Cotton Valley TX SPE 63241 Codell, DJ Basin, CO SPE 67211, 71045, OGJ 2006 Medicine Hat, Milk River, Alberta SPE 81730 S Texas undisclosed field E&P 2006 S.
SPE 134330 by Mike Vincent

Refracs - Why do they work, and Why do they Fail in 100 Published Field Studies?
25 page Paper + 4 pages of paper references (120) + 15 pages of findings findings from re-fracs (130)
2011 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Hydraulic Fracture Design

Cr k frac w frac
k zone X frac
McGuire & Sikora Curves
What is a Hydraulic Fracture?

w w
1 2
overburden
max
h
L
min
v > 1psi/ft
Stress Pro ofile

Wellbore
m ax
m in
Whats Fractures Really Look like.........
Fracture
Bedding Planes
Whats Fractures Really Look like.........
SPE 114173 and 77441
Initial Hydraulic Fracture Completion:
(
4500
Average gas production ra ate, Mscf/D
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000 0
20
40
60
80
100
Time, day
Petrophysicis
Frac Design
Production
Reasons to Refrac:
Improve original fracture conductivity Alter fracture geometry y of Proppant pp Restoration fracture conductivity Embedment bed e t S SPE 135502 3550 Embedment Stress cycling Diagenesis g Scale/Fines Restore near-wellbore conductivity by passed pay intervals Stimulating by-passed Utilize new Technology Re-energizing or re-inflating natural fissures Fracture reorientation due changes in the stress field refrac often contacts new rock
Reasons to Refrac:
I Increase Original O i i l Job J b Size Si
Restimulation of Oil Wells

SPE 101821
120
Reservoir Pressure (bar rs)
40 35
100 80
Tonnes of f Proppant
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Well A Well B Well C Well D Well E
Initial Frac
60 40 20 0 Well A Well B Well C Well D Well E
Initial Frac R f Refrac
Refrac
Fig. 14 Restimulation Treatment Sizes were 135% Larger
Fig. 15 Reservoir Pressure declined approximately 15%
Despite pressure depletion of ~15%, refracs provided large benefits Refracs were designed to improve conductivity, proppant mass increased by 135%.
Restimulation of Oil Wells Increased Job Size

SPE 101821
120
Productio on Rate (to onnes/day y)
100 80 60 40 20 0 Well A
Initial Frac Refrac
Well B
Well C
Well D
Well E
Production from restimulated wells increased by y an average g of 37 t/day y (~ 275 bbls/Day)

Alter Original Geometry
Re-fracture due to change in rock Stress

Stress Stress
Shale
Sand Shale
Depleted

Stress Profile
7700
Re-Fracture Treatment
Concentration of Proppant in Fracture (lb/ft)
7820
7940
8060
8180 Depth (ft)
Re-Fracture Treatment R Results lt i in L Longer Fracture
8300
8420
8540
8660
Stress Profile
8780
Low
Re-Fracture Treatment
Concentration of Proppant in Fracture (lb/ft)
Permeability
Proppant Concentration (lb/ft)
7900
High
0.00
0.30
0.60
0.90
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
3.0
8020
8900 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 0 300 600 Length (ft) 900 1200
8140
Closure Stress (psi)
8260
8380 Depth (ft)
8500
8620
8740
Original Fracture Grows U Upward d and di is Sh Short t

8860
8980
Low
Permeability
Proppant Concentration (lb/ft) (lb/ft )
High
0.00
0.30
0.60
0.90
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
3.0
9100 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 0 300 600 Length (ft) 900 1200 Closure Stress (psi)
Restore Fracture Conductivity
Re-fracture to remove near wellbore damage
Post-Frac Decline 62%
Refrac
Re-Frac placed 74,000 LBS 5 PPG w/ SandWedge

Post-ReFrac Decline 40%
Reasons to Refrac: Candidate Selection

New Technology: By-Passed Pay

kh Profile
kgh, md-ft 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Zone 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
5000 7000 Closure @ 6,085-psi 6000 dP/dG = 750 1000 1500 9000 BHP calc l ( (psi) i) dP/dG 8000 GdP/dG 2500 3000
Low Res Pay High Clay Content

1 1.5
0.5
Low Clay
2000
14
500
Quantify Pay Zones

4000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 G -function
DFIT Diagnostic Fluid Injection Test
Increased Production: Re-frac by-passed Pay Zones

2500
2000
1,818 mcf/d Average
1500
810 mcf/d Average

1000
500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
3/31/1999
Well Test Number
3/08/2000
5/21/2000
Reasons to Refrac: Candidate Selection

Re-Frac with Different Frac Design: SPE 95568

Original Frac: Viscous Polymer Gel Fluid
3000
3000
Perforations
2500
2500
South-Nort th (ft)
2000
Observation Well 1
1500
2000
No orthing (ft) (ft) So outh-North
1500
Observation Well Observation Well 1 1
1000
500
1000
0
500
Perforations
-500
Observation Well 2
-500
Observation Well 2 Observation Well 2
-1000 -1000 1000
-500 500
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
West-East (ft)
-1000 -1000
Re-Frac: Low Viscosity Water Frac Fluid

-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Easting (ft)(ft) West-East
Re-Frac with Different Frac Design: SPE 95568
Fracture Re-Orientation
Re-fracture Reorientation - Barnett Shale

SPE 63030
Re-Frac Reorientation Concept


SPE 63030
Original Fracture Orientation
Re-Fracture Orientation

SPE 63030
Reasons to Refrac:
SPE 134330 by Mike Vincent
R f Refracs - Why Wh do d they h work, k and d Wh Why d do they h F Fail il in 100 Published Field Studies?
Thank You
30

Re-Frac Job by HBT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Re-Frac Job by HBT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydraulic Re-Fracturing*

Neil Stegent1 Search and Discovery Article #40837 (2011)

Pinnacle-A Halliburton Service (neil.stegent@pinntech.com)

Neil Stegent, P.E. Technology Manager - Fracturing

Re-Frac Case History Papers

SPE 134330 by Mike Vincent

2011 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Hydraulic Fracture Design

McGuire & Sikora Curves

2011 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

What is a Hydraulic Fracture?

Stress Pro ofile

Whats Fractures Really Look like.........

2011 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Whats Fractures Really Look like.........

SPE 114173 and 77441

2011 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Initial Hydraulic Fracture Completion:

Average gas production ra ate, Mscf/D

2011 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

2011 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

2011 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

I Increase Original O i i l Job J b Size Si

2011 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Restimulation of Oil Wells

Reservoir Pressure (bar rs)

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Well A Well B Well C Well D Well E

Initial Frac R f Refrac

Fig. 14 Restimulation Treatment Sizes were 135% Larger

Fig. 15 Reservoir Pressure declined approximately 15%

2011 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Restimulation of Oil Wells Increased Job Size

Productio on Rate (to onnes/day y)

Initial Frac Refrac

Production from restimulated wells increased by y an average g of 37 t/day y (~ 275 bbls/Day)

Alter Original Geometry

2011 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Re-fracture due to change in rock Stress

2011 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Re-fracture due to change in rock Stress

8180 Depth (ft)

Re-Fracture Treatment R Results lt i in L Longer Fracture

Proppant Concentration (lb/ft)

Closure Stress (psi)

8380 Depth (ft)

Original Fracture Grows U Upward d and di is Sh Short t

Proppant Concentration (lb/ft) (lb/ft )

Re-fracture due to change in rock Stress

2011 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Restore Fracture Conductivity

2011 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Re-fracture to remove near wellbore damage

Post-Frac Decline 62%

Re-Frac placed 74,000 LBS 5 PPG w/ SandWedge

2011 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Reasons to Refrac: Candidate Selection

2011 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

New Technology: By-Passed Pay

Low Res Pay High Clay Content

Quantify Pay Zones

DFIT Diagnostic Fluid Injection Test

Increased Production: Re-frac by-passed Pay Zones

1,818 mcf/d Average