Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
The low production rates of high viscosity crudes associated
with wells in the Kern County California area lead to
difficulty in achieving production enhancement through costeffective well stimulation practices. The tight economics also
lead to difficulty in finding a stimulation technique that can be
effectively applied to injection wells associated with these
same fields. Following the successful application of waterfracturing to increase the injectivity of a water injector well in
the Edison Field, water-fracturing was introduced to the Tejon
Oil Field near Bakersfield California in hopes of providing
stimulation to an oil well. Previous gel fracs in the Tejon Oil
Field proved to be uneconomical due to high treatment costs
associated with increased equipment requirements, combined
with poor results.
This paper describes how a small-scale water-frac
treatment provided productivity improvements from 6 bopd to
initial rates of 30 - 50 bopd and sustained rates exceeding 20
bopd for one well in the Tejon Oil Field. Comparison is
provided of the water-frac well performance over its first year
of production to a gel-frac in the same well, and two offset
openhole completions (one gravel packed and one non-gravel
packed). The surface pumping equipment requirements for a
treatment of this type are described, as are the procedures used
to obtain a successful treatment. The paper concludes with a
discussion of the geologic conditions that likely led to the
successful result achieved here, and suggests other
applications where this technique should be attempted.
Introduction
The Tejon Oil Field, located in the southern San Joaquin
Valley of California, is a mature field characterized by low
production rates of relative heavy crude. The reservoir
consists of multiple sands, which are produced independently.
Average reservoir permeability is in the 100 150 md range,
and the reservoir fluid consists of 18.9 API oil with a
produced GOR of approximately 100 SCF/bbl. Typically
wells in this field will experience initial productivity of
approximately 25 30 bopd, and drop off to about 5 bopd
after a few months of production. Previously wells have been
completed as both non-gravel packed and gravel packed either
in open or cased holes.
In hopes of improving productivity of this field, hydraulic
fracturing was attempted. Because of the elevated fracture
gradient in this area, the hydraulic fracture treatment failed to
breakdown the formation. Therefore, very little proppant was
placed in the formation. The result of this failed treatment
was that the well productivity saw no improvement.
To remedy this situation, the fracturing process was further
investigated and it was determined that the amount of
additional surface pumping equipment to successfully fracture
this formation would be cost-prohibitive. For this reason, an
alternative was sought.
At about this time, the results of a previously performed
water-frac treatment on an injector well were brought to
Stockdales attention. This injector well had been fractured
using brine about a year earlier. The water injector, completed
in what has been described as a granite wash, saw injectivity
increases of 400 to 500 percent following the water-frac. This
well performance, coupled with the minimal amount of
surface pumping equipment required for a water-frac
treatment, led Stockdale to attempt a water-frac on the Tejon
Oil Field well.
The treated zone was completed approximately 200 feet
uphole from the gel frac treatment. The water-frac treatment
was successful at not only fracturing the formation, but also
generating a fracture on the order of 25 30 feet in length.
This fracture length, which was significantly greater than the
typical lengths of 5 to 10 feet associated with water-frac
treatments in relatively high permeability formations, was
caused by improved fluid efficiency associated with the highviscosity reservoir fluid. The resulting productivity increase
brought the well from being virtually non-productive (6 bopd),
up to an initial rate of 30 50 bopd and sustained rates of 20
25 bopd for the first year. The fact that these rates are
continuing to hold demonstrates the applicability of this
approach.
Overview of the Water-Fracturing Process
Over the past five years, water-fracturing techniques have
been showing increased application in both hard, very low
permeability formations, and soft high-permeability
formations.
Low-Permeability Applications:
In 1995, Union Pacific Resources (UPR) pumped its first
water-frac treatment in the low permeability (0.001 0.01 md)
Cotton Valley formation of East Texas1,2. These treatments
were likely better termed slick-water fracs in that light gel
loadings were used (10 20 lbs./Mgal); however, sometimes
only a friction reducer was added for both the pad and slurry
stages. For either case, the fracturing fluid viscosity and the
proppant loading was much lower than the standard crosslinked gel fracture treatments previously used in that area.
These treatments consisted of 50% pad followed by a
slurry of 0.5 ppa proppant, and gradually ramping proppant to
2 ppa either in the last 5% of the job or over the entire slurry
stage. Typically these jobs involved pumping less than half
the proppant as compared to gel fracs, but total fluid volume
was often increased to yield increased fracture length1. The
net result of these treatments were described as the water-frac
wells exhibiting productivities very similar to the standard
fractures at a cost of 50 80% less than a standard
treatment1,2. Similar results were also obtained from Pennzoil,
Amoco,Valence Operating, and Mitchell Energy in the same
region3.
The very low permeability of these formations does not
seem to be applicable to fracturing with a low-viscosity carrier
fluid. However, it is hypothesized1 that the reason for the
good performance of the water-fracs in these applications is
the fact that low viscosity fluid will tend to create fractures
that are longer and narrower than those created with viscous
fluids. Coupled with this, since fracture faces are not smooth,
they can tend to be self-propping, especially in hard rock.
This mechanism combined with very low reservoir
permeabilities leads to high dimensionless conductivity even
with low proppant volumes. Another mechanism credited
with good productivity is the fact that water-fracs will not
have the same level of proppant pack damage as do gel fracs.
The reduced damaged will help to further increase the
conductivity of water-fracs.
High-Permeability Applications:
During the same time period that UPR was developing waterfrac technology for hard-rock applications in East Texas, this
technique was also being applied in the frac-pack applications
in unconsolidated formations worldwide. In soft formations,
water-fracs are used in conjunction with a gravel pack to
provide bypass of near-wellbore formation damage, as well as
SPE 62521
SPE 62521
WATER-FRACS PROVIDE COST-EFFECTIVE WELL STIMULATION ALTERNATIVE IN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY WELLS
2.
SPE 62521
followed by an 8,000 gal fracture treatment with a crosslinked gel, which was displaced by 1,300 gals of 25 lb/1000
gal linear gel. The job entailed pumping 30,000 lbs of sand at
concentrations up to 10 ppa and rates of 12 bpm which was to
require 2 pumps, a frac blender, and a Mountain Mover
Sand system.
The water frac treatment required slightly more fluid (a
total of approximately 14,100 gals of 3% KCl for the
pretreatment testing and the pumping treatment discussed
herein). However, the job involved pumping only 14,000 lbs
of sand at concentration up to 2 ppa. This required the use of
five 3,000 lb. Super-Sacks of sand, and a High-Rate Gravel
INFUSER. In addition, because the treatment was pumped at
8 bpm, only about 700 HHP was required. This was supplied
by two standard gravel pack pumps.
Applications for Water-Fracturing
As stated previously, water fracturing has been successfully
applied in both high-permeability unconsolidated formations
and in somewhat lower permeability formations in east Texas.
When treating formations with permeabilities in the range of
hundreds of millidarcies, water tends to be an inefficient
fracturing fluid that creates a fracture with a length of 5 10
feet. In these situations, improved well performance is
obtained by providing a highly conductive flow path through
the near-wellbore damaged zone. However, when treating
formations containing high-viscosity crudes, the natural
leakoff control provided by the reservoir fluids cause the fluid
efficiency to significantly increase. The result as shown in
this evaluation is a longer fracture that is better able to
stimulate the reservoir.
In general, water-frac treatments can perform on par with
gel fracs as long as excessive frac height is not desired, and
where relatively low flow rates do not impose significant nondarcy flow effects. Since neither of these conditions existed
here, it is clear that water fracturing was a viable option. The
fact that the non-viscosified fluid is better able to penetrate the
pores of this formation, led to lower breakdown pressures, and
allowed the fracture treatment to be completed without
exceeding surface pressure limitations.
Based on these results, it can be implied that waterfracturing is very applicable for cased-hole sand control
completions in other high permeability formations containing
relatively high-viscosity (17 20 API) crudes. However, if
the wells are not to be cased, it is likely better to seek to
prevent formation damage by employing proper drill-in and
displacement techniques. With the need for damage bypass
eliminated, the wells can be more successfully completed with
open hole circulating water packs.
Conclusions
The use of water fracturing has been demonstrated to be an
economic sand control option for use in the both producing
and injecting wells in the heavy-oil regions of Southern
California. The ability to accurately design and model
treatments of this type has been demonstrated, as have large
improvements in well performance. Injectivity increases of
SPE 62521
WATER-FRACS PROVIDE COST-EFFECTIVE WELL STIMULATION ALTERNATIVE IN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY WELLS
SPE 62521
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
11
Rate (bpm)
Non-Normalized Injectivity
4000
3500
3000
2500
Well 5A
2000
Well 6
Well 34
1500
1000
500
Water-Frac Treatment
0
5/15/96
12/1/96
6/19/97
1/5/98
7/24/98
2/9/99
8/28/99
3/15/00
Date
Figure 2: Injectivity of Subject Well (Well 5A) and Two Offsets. Effect of Water-Frac Highlighted in Well 5A Performance
SPE 62521
WATER-FRACS PROVIDE COST-EFFECTIVE WELL STIMULATION ALTERNATIVE IN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY WELLS
Normalized Injectivity
30
25
20
Well 5A
Well 6
15
Well 34
10
Water-Frac Treatment
0
May-96
Dec-96
Jun-97
Jan-98
Jul-98
Date
Feb-99
Aug-99
Mar-00
SPE 62521
psi
feet
feet
md
feet
unitless
cp
unitless
(0.25 if unknown)
unitless
unitless
psi/ft
psi
psi
bpm
ln(re/rw)
Skin
Frac. Grad.
Frac. Press.
Delta P
Q to Frac.
50
md
Frac. Rate
BPM
Thickness
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
0.61
1.22
1.83
2.44
3.04
3.65
4.26
4.87
1300
4636
0
150
20
1.05
1
0.28
7.87
5
0.96 Known Frac Gradient
4451
0 if unknown
3151
3.44
0.96
100
150
200
250
300
350
md
md
md
md
md
md
Frac. Rate Frac. Rate Frac. Rate Frac. Rate Frac. Rate Frac. Rate
BPM
BPM
BPM
BPM
BPM
BPM
1.22
2.44
3.65
4.87
6.09
7.31
8.52
9.74
1.83
3.65
5.48
7.31
9.13
10.96
12.78
14.61
2.44
4.87
7.31
9.74
12.18
14.61
17.05
19.48
3.04
6.09
9.13
12.18
15.22
18.26
21.31
24.35
3.65
7.31
10.96
14.61
18.26
21.92
25.57
29.22
4.26
8.52
12.78
17.05
21.31
25.57
29.83
34.09
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
10 ft
20 ft
20.00
30 ft
40 ft
50 ft
15.00
60 ft
70 ft
10.00
80 ft
5.00
0.00
0
50
100
150
200
Perm eability, (m d)
250
300
350
400
SPE 62521
WATER-FRACS PROVIDE COST-EFFECTIVE WELL STIMULATION ALTERNATIVE IN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY WELLS
10
SPE 62521
SPE 62521
WATER-FRACS PROVIDE COST-EFFECTIVE WELL STIMULATION ALTERNATIVE IN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY WELLS
11
Jan-97
Feb-97
Mar-97
Apr-97
May-97
Jun-97
Jul-97
Aug-97
Sep-97
Oct-97
Nov-97
Dec-97
Jan-98
Feb-98
Mar-98
Apr-98
May-98
Jun-98
Jul-98
Aug-98
Sep-98
Oct-98
Nov-98
Dec-98
Jan-99
Feb-99
Mar-99
Apr-99
May-99
Jun-99
Jul-99
Aug-99
Sep-99
Oct-99
Nov-99
Dec-99
Jan-00
10
25
20
12
MATHIS, BRIERLEY, SICKLES, NELSON, AND THORNESS
35
30
Figure 13: Performance Plot From Offset Well - Slotted Liner Non-Gravel Packed Completion
SPE 62521