You are on page 1of 12

SPE 62521

Water-Fracs Provide Cost-Effective Well Stimulation Alternative in San Joaquin Valley


Wells
Stephen P. Mathis* (Baker Oil Tools), Gary Brierley, Kurt Sickles* (Stockdale Oil & Gas), and Don Nelson* (Hunter Trust),
Rick Thorness (Baker Oil Tools)
* SPE Member
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE/AAPG Western Regional Meeting
held in Long Beach, California, 1923 June 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

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

MATHIS, BRIERLEY, SICKLES, NELSON, AND THORNESS

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

control of formation sand production. In this application


water-fracs consist of a non-viscosified pad (with a volume of
50 100 gal/ft of perforations), followed by a slurry of 1 2
ppa (pounds of proppant added per gallon of fluid) sand
concentration (also in a non-viscosified brine). These jobs are
sized to generate a net pressure increase between 1,000 and
2,000 psi, and place between 100 and 200 lbs. of proppant per
foot of zone.
In high-permeability applications, low-viscosity carrier
fluids produce significantly shorter fractures than do gel fracs.
The reason for the reduced frac length is the much higher
leakoff (reflecting a lower fluid efficiency). However, since
the purpose of these treatments is damage bypass, fracture
length is of minor importance. Rather, it is important to create
significant near-wellbore fracture width. Generating a tipscreenout is key to creating significant fracture width. Since
tip-screenouts are induced by bridging proppant near the
extremity of the fracture, the narrow fracture, and low fluid
efficiency, associated with low viscosity carrier fluids is
beneficial. Once the proppant has bridged the tip of the
fracture, additional proppant injection into the fracture must
increase fracture volume by increasing fracture width. While
the improved proppant carrying capability of viscous fluids
will create higher insitu proppant concentration than water (8
12 lbs./sq.ft. for gel as compared to 4 6 lbs.sq.ft for water),
field data indicate that the fracture created in a water-frac
operation is more than sufficient to bypass near-wellbore
formation damage4,5,6,7. The main drawback to the slightly
reduced near-wellbore proppant concentration is the increased
likelihood of having higher non-darcy skin in high-rate wells8.
However, in moderate to low-rate completions this should not
be an issue.
Previous Completions at Tejon Oil Field
As previously mentioned, the Tejon Oil Field is a mature oil
field near Bakersfield California in the southern San Joaquin
Valley. Stockdale Oil & Gas took over ownership of this field
in 1993. The field currently is being produced from 3 of the
original wells, 5 still remaining idle. The original field
development consisted of cased and perforated completions.
These wells all suffered with poor results due to sanding. The
field consists of multiple horizons, we are dealing here with
the Reserve Sand from a depth of 4600 to 4950 feet TVD.
These sands can be described as a series of stacked marine
channel sands, average permeability of 100 to 150 md, a
bottomhole temperature of 140 F, and a current reservoir
pressure of approximately 1500 psi. This gross interval of 350
feet exhibits approximately 100 feet of net thickness made up
of individual 10 to 20 feet thick sand lobes.
When this field still had virgin reservoir pressure, the
original completions came on line at rates of approximately
100 bopd. However, these wells all sanded up within the first
30 60 days. Later completions typically exhibit initial
productivities ranging from 25 30 BOPD and then dropping
to about 5 BOPD after a few months.
An attempt was made to improve this productivity by
hydraulically fracturing an interval from 4895 - 4923 in Well

SPE 62521

WATER-FRACS PROVIDE COST-EFFECTIVE WELL STIMULATION ALTERNATIVE IN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY WELLS

# 104. This treatment was planned to consist of pumping


1,500 gal of 25-lb/1000 gal linear gel minifrac. This was to be
followed by 1,500 gal pad of cross-linked gel followed by
4,800 gal of cross-linked gel carrying 30,000 lbs. of proppant
at concentration ramped from 2 ppa 10 ppa. The pump rate
planned for this treatment was 12 bpm at 4000 psi. Upon
initial injection, the pressure approached 3600 psi (the
wellhead limit) at a pump rate of only 6 bpm. Therefore the
well could not be fractured. The treatment was pumped at this
reduced rate, with the result being only 7500 lbs. of proppant
being placed outside of the casing.
This failed fracture treatment also lead to unacceptable
productivity with a production rate of 6 bopd being achieved
after the treatment. Another attempt to fracture this well was
considered, but the increased equipment cost that would be
required could not be justified.
Injector Well Treatment
About 6 months prior to the gel frac in the Tejon Oil Field,
Hunter Trust performed a water-frac treatment on a water
injection well in the Edison field (also near Bakersfield
California). Prior to performing the water-frac treatment
itself, a step-rate test was performed to determine bottomhole
frac pressure and rate. Figure 1 illustrates the results of this
test. These results indicate that this formation could indeed be
fractured with brine, with a fracture initiation rate of
approximately 3.5 bpm and a bottomhole fracture initiation
pressure of 2200 psi.
The main treatment was performed by pumping down a
dedicated frac string, and consisted of a 20 bbl pad followed
by slurry stages starting at 0.5 ppa and ramping up to 2 ppa.
Pump rate for this treatment was 8 bpm, with the carrier fluid
being lease water. Total sand pumped was 6000 lbs., with
5771 lbs. being placed behind casing. With the perforations
located from 2532 2572 ft, this equates to 144 lb./ft. The
maximum hydraulic horsepower required was 392 HHP, so
this treatment was easily performed with a single 600 HHP
pump. Following the water-frac treatment, the excess gravel
was washed from the casing, the slotted liner assembly was
run, and a circulating water-pack was performed.
Figure 2 illustrates the injectivity improvement that
resulted from the water frac treatment on this well (Well 5A).
However, this plot does not tell the complete story. While the
absolute injectivity rates did quadruple as a result of this
treatment, it appears that this well still had less injectivity than
the offset wells. To accurately assess this treatment, interval
length must also be considered. Since all three of these wells
have different open intervals (40 feet for Well 5A, 191 feet for
Well 6, and 140 feet for Well 34), it is more meaningful to
normalize the injection rates based upon open interval. This
adjustment has been made to Figure 3, which indicates that the
water-frac treatment brought Well 5A up to the level of one of
the best injectors in the field.
Water-Frac at Tejon Oil Field
Based partially on the results from the performance of the
injector well described above, and partially on a desire to

stimulate the productivity of Well #104, Stockdale Oil & Gas


decided to attempt a water-frac treatment. The zone selected
for recompletion was located from 4636 4682 feet TVD, the
previous gel frac on this well was performed from 4895
4923 feet TVD. The general completion procedure involved:
1. Reperforate lower zone from 4916 4924 (8 spf) and
4890 4904 (12 spf).
2. Isolate @ about 4710 ft with wireline set retrievable
bridge plug.
3. Perforate upper zone from 4672 4682 feet and 4636
4646 feet using 8 spf big hole (3/4 inch entry hole)
guns.
4. Perform water-frac on upper zone using 2 7/8 inch
frac string and service packer.
5. Clean out to bridge plug and retrieve.
6. Cleanout to TD
7. Run gravel pack assembly, with 4.5-inch 12-gauge
wire-wrapped screen across perforations and 12-gauge
semi-slotted pipe between zones.
8. Pump circulating gravel pack.
9. Return well to production.
This treatment was initiated by pumping a step-rate test to
insure that this formation could be fractured with brine.
Figure 4 illustrates the results of this test which clearly show a
fracture was initiated at about 3 bpm and at a bottomhole
pressure of approximately 4519 psi (which corresponded to
about 3200 psi surface treating pressure). These results are
quite interesting in light of the fact that the formation did not
appear to fracture when a gel fluid was used and surface
pressures exceeded 3600 psi at 6 bpm. The reasons for this
can be hypothesized as being:
1.

2.

The higher leakoff of the brine caused this fluid to act as a


penetrating fluid which has been shown to lower
breakdown pressure9.
The greater viscosity of the viscous fluid could have led
to higher pressure drop down the 2-7/8 inch tubing (even
with the friction reducing nature of most gels).

Whatever the reason for the reduced surface breakdown


pressure, the net result was that the formation was fractured
with brine. This result can also provide some additional
insight concerning the condition of the formation prior to the
treatment. Examination of Figure 5 (which represents the
results of Darcy Law calculations to estimate fracturing rate)
indicates that for the fracture gradient determined through the
step-rate test, this interval would only have to have a skin of
+5 prior to the fracture treatment to allow this 20 foot thick
interval be fractured with brine at 3 bpm. This implies that the
measured fracturing rate is about as expected.
With the fracturing pressures and rates established, the
main water-frac treatment was pumped. The surface data
recorded during this treatment (as well as the calculated
bottomhole treating pressures) are shown in Figure 6. This
treatment involved pumping a 34 bbl pad of 3% KCl followed
by 127 bbls of 2.5 ppa slurry of 20-40 gravel pack sand in 3%

MATHIS, BRIERLEY, SICKLES, NELSON, AND THORNESS

KCl into the fracture. The entire treatment was pumped at


approximately 8 bpm. This treatment resulted in 11,900 lbs.
of gravel being placed behind pipe (approximately 300 lbs./ft).
The first step in analyzing this treatment was to determine
fracture closure pressure and fluid efficiency. Figures 7 & 8
are the Square-Root of Time Plot and the G-Function plot for
the pressure decline portion of the step-rate test. These
analyses agree that the closure pressure can be estimated to be
about 4080 psi. In addition, these analyses both yield a fluid
efficiency of approximately 0.3 to 0.35. While this efficiency
may seem to be high for brine, the high viscosity of the
reservoir fluid provides significant leakoff control.
With the actual pumping schedule determined, and a
closure stress estimated, a history match of the water-frac can
be accomplished. Figure 9 is a plot of the final Net Pressure
match, and Figures 10 & 11 are the corresponding fracture
cross-section and insitu proppant concentration plots. These
plots indicate an excellent net pressure match corresponding to
a fracture length of approximately 30 ft and an average
proppant concentration of 3 lbs./sq.ft. The extended fracture
length is directly related to the relatively low leakoff
coefficient to achieve this match (0.0165 ft/min). This
leakoff coefficient is very close to the theoretically calculated
value (0.0167 ft/min) based upon a 150 md formation, 18.9
API oil with a GOR of 100 SCF/bbl, 140 F reservoir
temperature, and a 1 cP fracturing fluid. In addition, this
leakoff coefficient results in a fluid efficiency of 0.32, which
is in excellent agreement with the value derived from the
pressure decline analysis. Based on all of this corroborating
evidence, a high level of confidence can be placed in these
simulation results.
Resulting Well Productivity
Figure 12 illustrates the productivity of this well prior to and
following the gel frac as well as following this water-frac
treatment. The significant improvement in productivity
resulting from the water-frac treatment is evident. The benefit
from this completion technique can also be highlighted when
offset well performance from a slotted liner completion (nongravel packed) is considered (Figure 13). This well shows
initial production rates in the range of 10 to 20 bopd, and then
dropping to 5 to 8 bopd. This productivity curve is very
typical for this field. However, another offset openhole gravel
pack completion is experiencing a sustained productivity of
approximately 35 bopd. This implies that while water
fracturing may be a valid approach for cased-hole completions
in this environment, correctly performed openhole gravel
packs may provide even better productivity.
Equipment Requirements
In addition to the productivity increases obtained with the
application of water fracturing treatments in the San Joaquin
Valley, the overall success of this work was also related to the
reduced equipment requirements as compared to a large-scale
gel frac. The gel frac on the lower interval in this well was
planned to be executed by pumping a 2,000 gal prepad,

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

400 to 500 percent were observed when this technique was


applied to a water injector well, and similar increases in
productivity were observed following a water fracture
treatment in a producing well. The increase in productivity
was achievable in a well where a previous attempt at a largescale gel frac failed. Further proof of the success of this
technique is that these levels of productivity and injectivity
increases have been maintained for over a year. In the past,
any increase in productivity has been very short-lived.
However, even with the success of this technique in the
cased hole environment, good performance in an offset open
hole gravel pack completion indicates that for new wells both
open hole gravel packs and cased-hole water fracs should be
considered. If openhole gravel packs are selected, appropriate
measures to insure a non-damaged wellbore (i.e., use of a
properly designed drill-in fluid to drill the reservoir section as
well as the use of proper hole cleaning techniques prior to
running the liner assembly) should be incorporated for
maximum well performance.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to first thank the management of
Stockdale Oil & Gas, Hunter Trust and Baker Oil Tools for
permission to publish this paper. In addition, we would like to
thank all of the field operations and technical support
personnel of all three organizations that helped to make this
project a success.
References
1. Mayerhofer, M.J., Richardson, M.F., Walker, R.N., Meehan,
D.N., Oehler, M.W., and Browning, R.R. Jr., Proppants? We
Dont Need No Proppants, SPE 38611, 1997 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio TX, 5-8
October 1997.
2. Mayerhofer, M.J., and Meehan, D.N., Waterfracs Results from
50 Cotton Valley Wells, SPE 49104, 1998 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, 27-30
September 1998.
3. Walker, R.N., Hunter, J.L., Brake, A.C., Fagin, P.A., and
Steinberger, N., Proppants, We Still Dont Need No Proppants
A Perspective of Several Operators, SPE 49106, 1998 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA,
27-30 September 1998.
4. Mathis, S.P., and Saucier, R.J., Water-Fracturing vs. FracPacking: Well Performance Comparison and Completion Type
Selection Criteria, SPE 38593, 1997 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio TX, 5-8 October 1997.
5. Patel, Y.K., Troncoso, J.C., Saucier, R.J., and Credeur, D., "High
Rate Pre-Packing Using Non-Viscous Carrier Fluid Results in
Higher Production Rates in South Pass Block 61 Field", SPE
Paper 28531, 69th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Louisiana, September 25-28, 1994.
6. Barrilleaux, M.F., Ratterman, E.E., and Penberthy, W.L. Jr.,
Gravel Pack Procedures for Productivity and Longevity, SPE
31089, 1996 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium,
Lafayette LA., 14-15 February 1996.
7. Claiborne E.B., Saucier, R.J., and Wilkinson, T.W., Water Frac
Applications in High Island 384 Field, SPE 36459, 1996 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver CO., 6-9
October 1996.

8. Powell, K.R., Hathcock, R.L., Mullen, M.E., Norman, W.D.,


Baycroft, P.D., Productivity Performance Comparisons of
High-Rate Water Pack and Frac-Pack Completion Techniques,
SPE 38592, 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio TX, 5-8 October 1997.
9. Howard, G.C. and Fast, C.R., Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE
Monograph Volume 2, 1970, p. 21.

SI Metric Conversion Factors


ft x 3.048*
E-01 = m
in. x 2.54*
E+00=cm
lbm x 4.535924
E-01=kg
psi x 6.894757
E+00=kPa
bpd/psi x 2.305916
E-02=m3/day/kPa
bopd x 1.589873
E-01=m3/day
* Conversion factor is exact

MATHIS, BRIERLEY, SICKLES, NELSON, AND THORNESS

SPE 62521

3000

Bottomhole Pressure (psi)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

10

11

Rate (bpm)

Figure 1: Results of Step-Rate Test Performed Prior to Water-Frac on Injection Well

Non-Normalized Injectivity
4000

3500

Daily Injection Rate (BPD)

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

Injection Rate per Foot of Zone Length (bpd/ft)

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

Figure 3: Injectivity Normalized for Interval Length.

Figure 4: Step-Rate Test Results for Tejon Oil Field Well

Feb-99

Aug-99

Mar-00

MATHIS, BRIERLEY, SICKLES, NELSON, AND THORNESS

SPE 62521

DARCY'S RADIAL FLOW EQUATION


Q = [k x h x delta P] / [24 x 60 x 141.2 x Bo x u x (ln(re/rw)+S)]
delta P = Frac. pressure - reservoir pressure
K = permeability
h = formation thickness
B = formation volume factor of injected fluid (1 for water)
u = viscosity of injected fluid (1 cp for water)
re/rw = ratio of drainge radius radius to well radius, assume ln(re/rw)=8
BHP
TVD
Water Depth
k
h
B

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

Frac. Inj. Rate vs. Permeability For Varying Formation Thicknesses

40.00

35.00

Est. Frac. Inj. Rate, (bpm)

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

Figure 5: Fracturing Rate Estimation for Zone to be Treated by Water-Fracturing.

300

350

400

SPE 62521

WATER-FRACS PROVIDE COST-EFFECTIVE WELL STIMULATION ALTERNATIVE IN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY WELLS

Figure 6: Surface Data From Water-Frac Treatment.

Figure 7: Square-Root of Time Plot of Pressure Decline Following SRT.

10

MATHIS, BRIERLEY, SICKLES, NELSON, AND THORNESS

Figure 8: G-Function Plot of Pressure Decline Following SRT.

Figure 9: Net Pressure Match of Water-Frac Treatment.

SPE 62521

SPE 62521

WATER-FRACS PROVIDE COST-EFFECTIVE WELL STIMULATION ALTERNATIVE IN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY WELLS

Figure 10: Calculated Fracture Cross-Section.

Figure 11: Calculated Insitu Proppant Concentation Profile.

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

Production Rate (BOPD)


15

10

25

20

Water Frac Performed

Gel Frac Performed

12
MATHIS, BRIERLEY, SICKLES, NELSON, AND THORNESS

Average Daily Oil Production

35

30

Figure 12: Productivity Increase Observed Following Water-Frac Treatment

Figure 13: Performance Plot From Offset Well - Slotted Liner Non-Gravel Packed Completion
SPE 62521

You might also like