Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
This paper presents an integrated technique for evaluating the
production performance of gas wells with finite-conductivity
vertical fractures. Our methodology combines conventional
pressure transient test analysis with new material balance
decline type curves developed specifically for gas wells with
finite-conductivity, vertical fractures. We utilize short-term
pressure buildup test analysis to enhance the production data
analysis, particularly for interpretation of early-time transient
flow behavior. We illustratewith several field casesthat
both techniques can be integrated to provide not only a more
consistent and systematic analysis methodology, but also a
more accurate assessment of stimulation effectiveness.
Introduction
Wells producing from tight gas sands require stimulation to
achieve economic rates and to maximize ultimate recoveries.
The most common stimulation technique is hydraulic
fracturing. Depending on the type and size of the treatment,
hydraulic fracturing may be expensiveoften representing a
significant percentage of the total completion costs. Since the
economic viability of wells completed in tight gas sands
depends on minimizing costs, then it is essential that we
optimize fracture treatments, i.e., find the proper balance
between stimulation costs and well productivity. A key
component in achieving this balance is a post-fracture
diagnostics program to determine stimulation effectiveness.
Many diagnostic techniques for evaluating hydraulicallyfractured gas well performance have been documented in the
petroleum industry, but theoretical model assumptions, model
applicability and simplicity, data requirements, and/or data
quality and quantity may limit the effectiveness of any single
analysis technique. Therefore, we employ an integrated
approach in which we capture the benefits and utilize the
strengths of several types of hydraulically-fractured well
SPE 97972
SPE 97972
ta =
gi c gi
q g ( )
g ( p ) c g ( p ) d
q g (t )
................................(1)
qg
( p pi p pwf )
= 1
p p t a
...............................................(2)
ta
qg
p p d .............................................(3)
0
c. Pseudopressure-drop
integral function:
normalized-rate
derivative-
q 1 d q
qg
d
=
g =
g
p p
id d ln(t a ) p p i t a d t a p p i
...................................................................................(4)
5. Overlay the three field pseudopressure-drop ratenormalized functions on MBDTC for a specific value of
FCD. We recommend that you start with a low value of FCD
as an initial estimate. Force the field data in the boundarydominated flow regime to match the depletion stems for
each of the respective dimensionless functions (i.e., match
(qg/pp) against qDd, (qg/pp)i against qDdi, and (qg/pp)id
against qDdid).
6. Evaluate the match of the transient field data on each of the
three dimensionless transient functions. If a good match is
not obtained, then choose another set of type curves by
increasing the value of FCD.
7. Once a good match is obtained, record time and rate match
points (indicated by subscript MP) for both field and type
curve parameters. In addition, record values of the type
curve correlating parameters, FCD and reD. Compute the
well and reservoir parameters as follows:
a. Contacted gas-in-place (G):
G=
1 (t a ) MP (q g / p p ) MP
.............................(5)
c gi (t Dd ) MP (q Dd ) MP
GBgi
h(1 S wi )
.............................................(6a)
A / ..............................................................(6b)
B gi gi
h
b Dpss
( q g / p p ) MP
( q Dd ) MP
.................(7)
SPE 97972
Lf =
re
................................................................. (8)
reD
g ct k g
.......................... (9)
.............................. (10)
g ct k g
wf k f
Lf kg
........................................................ (11)
5,000
4,000
3,000
Shut in for
Two-Week
Pressure
Buildup Test
2,000
1,000
0
6-Sep-00
6-Jun-01
6-Mar-02
6-Dec-02
6-Sep-03
6-Jun-04
6-Mar-05
Date
SPE 97972
MBDTC Results
kg = 0.0084 md
Lf = 236 ft
wfkf = 3.96 md-ft
FCD = 2; reD = 2
G = 3.7 Bcf; A = 14.7 acres
Bilinear Flow
Region
Bilinear
Flow
One-quarter slope
line indicative of
bilinear flow
SPE 97972
4,000
Measured Bottomhole Pressure
3,500
Pseudopressure function
Pseudopressure derivative function
2,000
Simulated Results
kg = 0.0071 md
Lf = 270 ft
wfkf = 5 md-ft
FCD = 2.6
1,500
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Field Example 2
The second example illustrates a large conventional slick
water-frac stimulation treatment for a well producing from the
Bossier Sands in the East Texas Basin. Specifically, this well
is completed in the Bald Prairie Field located in Robertson
County, TX. The well was hydraulically fractured in early
May 2001 with 9,710 bbl slick water and 135,000 lbs 40/70
proppant. As shown by the production history in Fig. 8, the
initial gas rate was slightly greater than 1,500 Mscf/day. The
well was shut in for a two-week pressure buildup test after
about 18 months of production.
1,500
2,500
500
3,000
1,000
History-Matched Results
kg = 0.0068 md
Lf = 221.3 ft
wfkf = 2.96 md-ft
FCD = 1.97
D = 4.0x10-5 (Mscf/d)-1
1,200
900
Shut in for
Two-Week
Pressure
Buildup Test
600
300
0
5/5/2001
2/5/2002
11/5/2002
8/5/2003
5/5/2004
2/5/2005
Date
Bilinear Flow
Region
Bilinear Flow Analysis
kg = 0.0195 md (MBDTC)
Lf = 114.5 ft (MBDTC)
wfkf = 7.8 md-ft (Eq. 9)
FCD = 3.5 (Eq. 11)
Fourth-Root of Pseudotime Superposition Function, (hr)1/4
Pseudopressure function
Pseudopressure derivative function
Pseudopressure function
Pseudopressure derivative function
History-Matched Results
kg = 0.0185 md
Lf = 101.1 ft
wfkf = 16.4 md-ft
FCD = 8.77
D = 1.1x10-14 (Mscf/d)-1
Pseudotime Superposition Function, hr
One-quarter slope
line indicative of
bilinear flow
Field Example 3
The third example illustrates a small but very effective
conventional slick water-frac stimulation treatment for a well
producing from the Bossier Sands in the East Texas Basin.
The particular well is completed in the Mimms Creek Field
located in Freestone County, TX. The well was hydraulically
fractured in early October 1999 with 8,220 bbl slick water and
37,000 lbs 20/40 sand proppant. As shown by the production
history in Fig. 13, the initial gas rate was almost 12,000
Mscf/day. The well was shut in for a two-week pressure
buildup test after more than two years of production.
12,000
10,000
SPE 97972
8,000
6,000
Shut in for
Two-Week
Pressure
Buildup Test
4,000
2,000
0
10/8/99
10/8/00
10/8/01
10/8/02
10/8/03
10/8/04
Date
SPE 97972
MBDTC Results
kg = 0.0191 md
Lf = 229.8 ft
wfkf = 43.9 md-ft
FCD = 10; reD = 2
G = 2.1 Bcf; A = 15.2 acres
shown in Fig. 17, the formation linear flow period is very well
defined. Using mL from the line drawn through the formation
linear flow period and kg estimated from the MBDTC analysis,
we compute Lf=239.8. Again, the fracture half-lengths
estimated from the MBDTC and square-root-of-time analyses
are generally in agreement. We also compute a dimensionless
fracture conductivity of 16.9 corresponding to an effective
fracture conductivity of 77.4 md-ft estimated from the bilinear
flow analysis.
Bilinear Flow
Region
Formation
Linear Flow
Region
One-half slope
line indicative
of formation
linear flow
One-quarter slope
line indicative of
bilinear flow
Field Example 4
The fourth field example is a another well completed in the
Bossier Sands in the Mimms Creek Field in Freestone County,
TX. The well was hydraulically fractured in early April 2001
with 8,571 bbl slick water and 170,000 lbs 40/70 sand
proppant. The well was shut in for a two-week pressure
buildup test after about 18 months of production (Fig. 19).
SPE 97972
Pseudopressure function
Pseudopressure derivative function
History-Matched Results
kg = 0.0257md
Lf = 261.1 ft
wfkf = 131.5 md-ft
FCD = 19.6
D = 8.6x10-20 (Mscf/d)-1
Pseudotime Superposition Function, hr
3,000
One-quarter slope
line indicative of
bilinear flow
One-half slope
line indicative
of formation
linear flow
Shut in for
Two-Week
Pressure
Buildup Test
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
8-Apr-01
Pseudopressure function
Pseudopressure derivative function
8-Jan-02
8-Oct-02
8-Jul-03
8-Apr-04
8-Jan-05
Date
3,500
Bilinear Flow
Region
10
SPE 97972
History-Matched Results
kg = 0.0082 md
Lf = 282.8 ft
wfkf = 44.3 md-ft
FCD = 19.1
D = 4.8x10-8 (Mscf/d)-1
Pseudotime Superposition Function, hr
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our thanks to Anadarko Petroleum
Corp. for permission to use the data and to publish the results
of our study.
Nomenclature
Dimensionless Variables
bDpss = dimensionless pseudosteady-state constant
FCD = dimensionless fracture conductivity = wfkf/kgLf
qDd = dimensionless pseudopressure-drop normalized
function
qDdi = dimensionless pseudopressure-drop normalized
integral function
qDdid = dimensionless pseudopressure-drop normalized
integral-derivative function
reD = dimensionless reservoir radius = re/Lf
rate
rate
rate
SPE 97972
mB
mL
ppi
ppwf
qg
re
rw
Swi
T
ta
wf
w f kf
g
gi
References
Agarwal, R.G., Carter, R.D., and Pollock, C.B.: Evaluation
and Performance Prediction of Low-Permeability Gas Wells
Stimulated by Massive Hydraulic Fracturing, J. Pet. Tech.
(March 1979) 362-372; Trans. AIME, 267.
2. Lee, W.J. and Holditch, S.A.: Fracture Evaluation with
Pressure Transient Tests in Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs.
Part I: Theoretical Background, paper SPE 7929 presented at
the 1979 SPE Symposium on Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs,
Denver, CO, May 20-22.
3. Holditch, S.A. and Lee, W.J.: Fracture Evaluation with
Pressure Transient Tests in Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs.
Part I: Theoretical Background, paper SPE 7930 presented at
the 1979 SPE Symposium on Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs,
Denver, CO, May 20-22.
4. Bostic, J.N., Agarwal, R.G., and Carter, R.D.: Combined
Analysis of Postfracturing Performance and Pressure Buildup
Data for Evaluating an MHF Gas Well, J. Pet. Tech. (Oct.
1980) 1711-1719.
5. Holditch, S.A., Lee, W.J., and Gist, R.: An Improved
Technique for Estimating Permeability, Fracture Length and
Fracture Conductivity from Pressure Buildup Tests in Low
Permeability Gas Wells, paper SPE 9885 presented at the 1981
SPE Symposium on Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs, Denver,
CO, May 27-29.
6. Lee, W.J. and Holditch, S.A.: Fracture Evaluation with
Pressure Transient Testing in Low-Permeability Gas
Reservoirs, J. Pet. Tech. (September 1981) 1776-1792.
7. Rushing, J.A. and Blasingame, T.A.: Integrating Short-Term
Pressure Buildup Testing and Long-Term Production Data
Analysis to Evaluate Hydraulically-Fractured Gas Well
Performance, paper SPE 84475 presented at the 2003 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, 5-8
Oct. 5-8.
8. Barree, R.D., et al.: Closing the Gap: Fracture Half-Length
from Design, Buildup, and Production Analysis, paper SPE
84491 presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Denver, CO, Oct. 5-8
9. Cipolla, C.L. and Wright, C.A.: Diagnostic Techniques to
Understand Hydraulic Fracturing: What? Why? And How?,
paper SPE 59735 presented at the 2000 SPE/CER Gas
Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, April 3-5;
SPE Prod. & Facil. (Feb. 2002) 23-35.
10. Cipolla, C.L. and Wright, C.A.: State-of-the-Art in Hydraulic
Fracture Diagnostics, paper SPE 64434 presented at the 2000
11
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
1.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
12
SPE 97972