You are on page 1of 14

Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation of Highly Permeable

Formations: The Effect of Critical Fracture


Parameters on Oilwell Production and Pressure

A.K. Mathur, SPE, X. Ning, SPE, and R.B. Marcinew, SPE, Schlumberger Dowell; C.A. Ehlig-Economides,
SPE,
Schlumberger Oilfield Services; and M.J. Economides, SPE, Texas A&M; U.

Copyright 1995, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition held in Dallas,
U.S.A.,
22-25 October, 1995.

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. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations
may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where
and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX
75083-3836,
U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEDAL.

Abstract

Hydraulic fracturing of moderate to high-permeability reservoirs with short, highly conductive fractures is a
technique often applied to improve well productivity through penetration beyond near wellbore damage. This
paper investigates the effect of important fracture parameters (e.g., fracture half-length, fracture conductivity,
and fracture-face damage) on the short-term behavior and long-term productivity of the well. The degree and
extent of near wellbore damage, in addition to the fracture parameters, are varied in the sensitivity analysis. A
case study from the Gulf Coast addresses the effect of these important parameters on the well response.

It is evident the length and conductivity of a created hydraulic fracture have an important effect on the
poststimulation performance of a well. Some of these fractures may be damaged. Damage to the proppant-pack
has considerable effects, reducing the fracture conductivity. Generally fracture-face damage caused by fluid and
polymer leakoff does not significantly alter long-term production, assuming the permanent reduction of
absolute permeability is low (less than 90%) and provided the fracture bypasses the radial ldamage zone in the
formation. When the fracture face damage is high (greater than 90%), early time well response is significantly
impaired by the fracturing fluid cleanup process. This has implications on the timing of poststimulation
pressure transient analyses. The modeled behavior and recommendations for the design of such tests are
presented.

Introduction

A two-step-in-one fracture stimulation and gravel-pack procedure, has been emerging as a preferred well
completion technique in soft formations and higher permeability reservoirs.1-7 Employing a technique known
as tip screenout (TSO), the lateral fracture propagation is arrested, the fracture is inflated, and the resultant
fracture is short and, presumably, highly conductive.

A large fracture conductivity is required in higher permeability reservoirs while the fracture half-length is of
secondary importance. Until recently, these treatments have encroached into extraordinary permeability ranges.
Reservoirs with permeabilities of 2000 md or greater have been targeted.(7)

1
The execution of these treatments is burdened by considerable leakoff which is especially severe in higher
permeability reservoirs. Filter-cake-building fracturing fluids (such as crosslinked polymer solutions) are
employed to prevent the invasion, of polymers into the reservoir, normal to the direction of fracture
propagation. These fluids effectively limit an invasion for reservoir permeabilities up to 50 md.(8,9) For higher
permeability reservoirs, crosslinked polymer solutions may invade the formation.

Linear gels have been employed in a misguided attempt to reduce "fracture damage." The latter has been
frequently confused. There are two distinct types of damage: (1) proppant-pack damage inside the fracture,
resulting from unbroken polymer chains, with a major impact on the created fracture conductivity, and (2)
fracture-face damage which refers to permeability impairment outside the fracture and normal to its. Laboratory
experiments have demonstrated that polymer invasion from linear gels such as hydroxyethyl-cellulose (HEC)
into the reservoir occurs at permeabilities(9,10) as low as 1 md.

Cinco-Ley and Samaniego (11) have expounded on these two types of damage. Their work suggested that for
relatively long fractures (xf >> 100 ft), typical fracture-face damage has little impact on posttreatment well
performance. However, this may not be true for short fractures (xf 50 ft) with considerable damage penetration
and small fracture conductivity. It is well known that higher permeability reservoirs require higher fracture
conductivities to achieve sufficient dimensionless fracture conductivity (denoted by FCD = kfw/kxf). For shorter
fractures, fracture-face damage must be considered along with the all important
higher dimesionless fracture conductivity (FCD). Crosslinked polymer gels with appropriately engineered fluid
loss control additives and breakers that ensure effective cleanup of the fracture and invaded zones are likely to
minimize fracture-face damage and provide sufficient fracture conductivity.

Figure 1 from Cinco-Ley, et al.12 provides a means to estimate the skin effect, sf, resulting from a finite
conductivity hydraulic fracture with no fracture-face skin. For the treatments under study here, FCD values
higher than 10 are unlikely; frequently they are less than 1. Fan and Economides(13) presented a design
procedure for these treatments, resulting in FCD values of the order of 0.1 to 1.0. These FCD values greatly
depend on the inflated width, and especially the quality of proppant and the effectiveness of polymer breakdown
following the treatment.

For FCD = 1, from Fig. 1, sf + ln(xf/rw) = 1.5, and if xf = 100 ft and rw = 0.328 ft, then sf = -4.2. Even for a
much smaller FCD of 0.2 and an xf = 25 ft, the skin effect is sf = -1.7. The conclusion is simple: any hydraulic
fracture without fracture-face damage will provide a negative skin effect for the well performance.

To explain positive skin effects reported by several authors,(7,14,15) it is essential to evaluate the impact of
fracture-face damage on the posttreatment well performance. Further, the effects of radial wellbore damage on
well performance are considered, and the results are compared to Chen and Raghavan.16

Composite Skin Effect.

Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of a finite conductivity fracture with the fracture-face skin penetrating a
radially composite reservoir . Figure 3 shows a simplified conceptual model representing the geometry of the
various permeability zones. Assuming that the fluid flow through the damage occurs only in the direction
perpendicular to the fracture, and approximating the circular skin zone by a rectangle, the equivalent
permeability (k') in the region adjacent to the fracture can be calculated by the combination of different
permeability zones connected in parallel and in series

Eqn (1)

The pressure drop across the region is .

Eqn (2)

2
During pseudoradial flow, let the equivalent wellbore radius of the undamaged fracture be rw' and the
equivalent damage depth be b'. Then, the pressure drop across the damaged region is .

Eqn (3)

The equivalent damage depth is obtained by combining Eqs. 2 and 3. .

Eqn (4)

The skin caused by the damage in pseudoradial flow can be calculated by .

Eqn (5)

Substituting Eq. 1 into Eq. 5,

Eqn (6)

Equation 6 has the same format as the fracture-face skin proposed by Cinco-Ley and Samaniego,(11) but it
includes all damage permeabilities and has been derived by accounting for flow through adjoining zones in
series or parallel. The derivation indicates that Eq. 6 can be used to calculate an equivalent skin for wellbore
and fracture-face damage during a pseudoradial flow regime, which can be added directly to the equivalent skin
value created by the undamaged fracture.12 For example, if a fracture can create a skin of -3 without damage
and the skin caused by wellbore and fracture-face damage is 0.5, then the effective total skin caused by the
damaged fracture is -2.5.

The following are two special cases.

(1) No fracture-face damage, k2 = kr and k3 = k1,

Eqn (7)

In the Appendix, Eq. 7 is rewritten in terms of the variables used by Chen and Raghavan.(17)

(2) No wellbore damage, k1 = kr and k3 =k2,

3
Eqn (8)

which is the Cinco-Ley and Samaniego equation.

(3) No wellbore damage, no fracture-face damage, sd = 0 Eqn (9) as expected.

Magnitude of the Composite Damaged Skin.

Using Eq. 6, a parametric study was done to evaluate the magnitude of the composite damaged skin and
evaluate the relative effects of the individual variables. In Fig. 4, sd is plotted on the y axis; the permeability
impairment, k2/kr, within the invaded zone normal to the fracture face is plotted on the x axis. A value of 0.05
corresponds to a 20-fold reduction to the reservoir permeability, kr. The importance of the damage penetration
is shown by plotting the ratio of b2/xf. A value of 0.2 for xf = 25 ft corresponds to an extraordinary damage
penetration equal to 5 ft.

As concluded by Chen and Raghavan,16 radial damage appears to play an insignificant role even for the small
fracture lengths, once they penetrate beyond the damage. The radial damage radius is normally assumed to be 5
ft or less, and fracture half-lengths approaching only 5 ft cannot even be envisioned.

Figure 4 shows that the effect of radial damage on the composite skin is minimal. The two cases for each b2/xf
value reflect radial skins of 0 and 20, respectively. While it may appear that radial damage has an appreciable
impact for a small b2/xf, it must be noted that in this log-log plot the absolute value of sd is insignificant. It can
be readily concluded that radial damage plays a minor role in the performance of treatments that penetrate to
any appreciable length, e.g., 25 ft or more.

More telling are the graphs of the total skin presented in Figs. 5 to 8. The total skin is simply st = sf + sd Eqn
(10), where sf can be obtained from Fig. 1 for a given FCD and xf, and sd is the previously discussed composite
damaged skin.

Figure 5 is for a relatively short fracture (xf = 25 ft) with relatively low conductivity (FCD = 0.2). From Fig. 1
(and using an rw value of 0.328 ft) sf = -1.7 for an ideal undamaged fracture. Positive values of the total skin
are possible as shown in Fig. 5. However, they must be considered extraordinary. For a 2-ft damage penetration,
a positive skin would appear if the permeability impairment in the invaded zone were more than 90%. No
positive skin is possible for a more realistic 0.5-ft damage penetration for almost any permeability impairment.

For a physically impossible damage penetration of 5 ft (in the 25-ft fracture half-length fracture) and
permeability impairment of 80% and higher, a positive skin can be calculated.

It is rather curious that several authors and frequent papers (7,14,15) have alluded to substantial posttreatment
positive skin values. The calculations here suggest the almost physical impossibility of positive skins unless the
concentrated polymer slurry is almost devoid of any breakers, and the fracture-face permeability impairment
(with substantial penetration) approaches 99%. Alternatively, the treatment may be plugged temporarily by kill
fluids lost to the formation following the treatment.

The issue has an additional important component shown in Fig. 6 for xf = 25 ft but FCD = 1 (instead of FCD =
0.2 as shown in Fig. 5). As mentioned above, for an xf = 25 ft and FCD = 0.2, the ideal total skin is -1.7. For
the higher fracture conductivity (wider fractures, better proppants, and especially lower proppant-pack
permeability impairment using effective breakers), a 2-ft damage penetration with as much as 90% permeability
impairment can give similar skin (s = -1.7). For a fracture-face damage of 0.5 ft, almost any conceivable
permeability impairment can be tolerated.

The obvious conclusion for any highly-permeable formation fracture treatment design: never sacrifice a good
proppant pack in an effort to reduce the fracture-face damage.

4
The situation is even more striking for longer fractures. Figures 7 and 8 are for a fracture half-length = 100 ft
and FCD = 0.2 and 1, respectively. Positive total skins are practically impossible. The ideal skins for these two
cases are -3.1 and -4.1, respectively. Note that in these two figures, b2/xf = 0.2 suggests an extraordinary
damage penetration of 2 ft. Yet, even with a drastic fracture-face permeability impairment, the total skin is very
near the ideal value. Clearly, FCD and its maximization are paramount.

Well Performance With Cleanup.

A Gulf Coast example shows the effect of cleanup during flowback of the broken polymer solution and the
consequential improvement in the fracture-face permeability. For this case, k = 100 md, h = 100 ft, p = 200 psi,
= 0.2, o = 0.8 cp, Bo =1.25 rb/STB, and ct = 10-5 psi-1. Using the calculations for FCD = 1, xf = 25 ft and b2 =
2 ft, for a 95% permeability impairment the total skin is equal to -0.36. Assuming a linear cleanup in 14 days
from 95% to 10% impairment, the predicted posttreatment flow rate evolution of the well is shown in Fig. 9.
The top curve is the production decline curve with cleanup illustrating the frequently-observed early time
improvement of the production rate (in contrast to the frequent dramatic decline in gravel-packed wells).

Case studies for gas wells in the Cadomin formation in the deep basin area of northwestern Alberta, Canada,
with permeabilities ranging from 0.065 to 1 md and fracture conductivities ranging from 50 md-m to 200 md-
m were discussed by Ning et al.17 These studies implied that the effect on long-term gas production of damage
due to fracture fluid invasion should be minimal. As for the above cases, these studies showed that the effect of
fracture conductivity on the long-term gas production rate is more significant than that of the fracture-face
damage, and that creating a highly conductive fracture should be the first prioity in designing a fracturing
treatment.

Well Test Interpretation.

Since the previous analysis has shown that the effect of radial wellbore damage on the composite skin is
negligible, this discussion ignores this effect. The analysis requires a model for the finite conductivity fracture
with a fracture-face skin.

The pressure transient response for a posthydraulic fracture treatment in a high-permeability reservoir is quite
distinct from that observed in low-premeability reservoirs. While a typical test response in a low-permeability
reservoir is dominated by bilinear or linear flow, the high-permeability reservoir response will usually reach
radial flow within an hour or less. Applying conventional analysis techniques, the data are plotted on a Horner
or semilog plot, and the reservoir permeability and the total skin are determined from the slope and intercept of
the straight line portion. The correct portion of the data for analysis should be selected using a log-log
diagnostic plot.(18)

The time of onset of radial flow, torf, unless delayed by wellbore storage, is related to the fracture half-length by
the following equation, which applies for FCD > 1:(19)

Eqn (11)

The onset of radial flow is picked as the time when the rising pressure derivative first reaches the radial flow
level. If the pressure derivative is descending from wellbore storage, Eq. 11 does not apply. The duration of
wellbore storage for a buildup test is estimated from the equation(20)

Eqn (12)

5
The factor 50 used in Ref. 20 has been doubled because the pressure derivative, which was not available at the
time the original equation was developed, shows that the original equation underestimated the duration of the
wellbore storage.

If the onset of radial flow occurs at a time at least 10 times the time at the end of the wellbore storage, then the
shape of the transient responses for the pressure change and derivative will enable the estimation of both the
fracture conductivity and fracture-face skin. Further, nonlinear regression (type curve) analysis will enable the
determination of the fracture half-length, even for FCD <1.

In highly-permeable reservoirs, the pressure variation in late time may be small enough to justify a high-
resolution gauge. The pressure variation for the time from the onset of the radial flow to twice the time is given
by

Eqn (13)

where m is the semilog slope of pressure versus time during the drawdown radial flow. The gauge resolution
should be smaller than this value to ensure an accurate analysis.

The Gulf Coast example illustrates these principles. First, the wellbore storage for surface shut-in is estimated
as a worst case using gas compressibility as the wellbore fluid compressibiltiy. For a 6000-ft wellbore with 4-in.
tubing, and with a bottomhole flow pressure of 2800 psi, the wellbore storage is estimated as 0.03 bbl/psi. For a
skin = 0, Eq. 12 implies that the end of the wellbore storage would occur at about 0.8 hr. If there is no free gas
in the wellbore, the wellbore storage duration would be about 0.024 hr. The actual duration may be expected to
be between these values. If the test is conducted with downhole shut-in, the duration will be less by a factor of
10 or more.

The onset of radial flow is estimated using Eq. 11 to be at 0.23 hr. As such, downhole shut-in is recommended
to ensure unique results from the pressure transient analysis. For this case, 0.3 m is about 10 psi, showing that a
high-resolution gauge is not required for a buildup test.

Figures 10 and 11 demonstrate that with downhole shut-in, a unique determination of the reservoir
permeability, total skin, fracture length, fracture conductivity, and fracture-face skin is possible for this case,
and 2 hr is sufficient for the buildup test duration. If the fracture length is longer, then the onset of the radial
flow would be later, and the buildup duration must be increased. The shaded areas on these figures highlight
the portion of the transient data between the end of wellbore storage and the onset of radial flow. This portion
of the data distinguishes the behavior of a low conductivity fracture from that of a fracture with fracture skin.

Figure 10 shows that as the fracture-face skin is reduced during cleanup, the pressure change and derivative
responses become closer togetherbecause the derivative response moves upward and the pressure change drops
as the fracture-face skin is reduced.

Figure 11 shows that the behavior for a given fracture face skin value of 0.5, for dimensionless conductivities
ranging from 0.01 to 2 is quite distinct from behavior observed for different values of fracture face skin, even
though the range of total skin values is similar. As fracture conductivity increases, the pressure change drops,
but so does the pressure derivative in the transition between the end of wellbore storage and the onset of radial
flow. Thus, as long as wellbore storage duration is short enough and the test is long enough to observe this
transition, unique estimates for the desired parameters are possible.

If only a Horner analysis is performed to determine the permeability and total skin, it is not possible to
determine the fracture half-length, fracture conductivity, nor fracture-face skin. Of course, subsequent
improvements in production behavior may indicate whether the fracture-face skin is reducing over time.

Although these results were simulated for a particular case, the discussion applies in general. As for the
composite skin analysis, even an extremely high fracture-face skin value equal to 5 combined with a

6
dimensionless fracture conductivity of 0.01 results in a positive skin less than 6. If an analysis of published
examples were performed without the use of the log-log diagnostic plot, perhaps the analyst may have selected
the wrong portion of the data for the straight line analysis, particularly if the reservoir permeability were fairly
low and the test very short. Alternatively, if the analyst were to interpret the late time behavior as boundaries,
the permeability and skin determined would both be erroneously large and the resultant skins could approach
values reported in the literature. Because the transient behavior for the fracture face is irtually identical to that
of intersecting sealing boundaries, incorrect model selection could yield these results. Again, a correct analysis
requires the use of a model for the finite conductivity fracture with the fracture-face skin. Ning et al.(21) gave
an example of a posttreatment test interpretation that offers an explanation for why, initially, a well test
interpretation suggested a large positive skin. In the Valhalla field, Alberta, a posttreatment test was performed
in a pumped well with surface shut-in. Preliminary analysis indicated a reservoir permeability of 261 md and a
skin factor of 19. However, the computed test radius of the investigation for this permeability indicated that the
wellbore storage had masked all transients sensing the oil zone near the well, and that the radial flow observed
at the end of the wellbore storage was in the waterflood swept zone. Once this was understood, a permeability
of 52.2 md was recomputed using 1 cp for the water viscosity. A subsequent test in the same well with downhole
shut-in reduced the duration of the wellbore storage to 7 hr, compared to 40 hr in the first test. This test
observed both the swept and oil zones that were previously masked by the wellbore storage. The permeability in
the oil zone was computed as 76 md, with a skin of -1. The test with the downhole shut-in enabled the
determination of mobility in both the oil and swept zones.

The fracture half-length created in this well was estimated at 3.6 m, but the damage zone radius was estimated
at 3 m due to the loss of paraffin-saturated hot oil lost to the formation and an existing hydraulic fracture, prior
to refracturing. Using Eq. 6, the estimated damaged skin value (assuming kr = 76 md, k1 = k2 = k3 = 20 md,
and the depth of the fracture-face damage = 0.36 m) is sd = 2.1. For FCD = 1, the undamaged fracture skin
would be -2.1, giving a total damaged fracture skin of 0. The skin of -1 may imply either that the dimensionless
fracture conductivity is greater than 1, the actual fracture half-length is longer
than the assumed 3.6 m; or that the radial or fracture-face damage or both is less, due to greater than assumed
damage permeabilities or smaller than assumed invasion depth. This case illustrated unusual conditions
considering the large magnitude of the radial damage radius and the small half-length of the created fracture,
giving a ratio of b2/xf = 0.833, yet still a negative total skin was observed.

7
Conclusions

By combining the effects of radial damage and fracture-face damage caused by an invasion normal to the
created fracture, this study showed the following conclusions:

1. As also concluded by others, maximizing the fracture conductivity is the first priority in designing fracture
treatments in highly-permeable formations.

2. Initial productivity impairment due to fracture-face invasion will diminish over time for a suitably designed
treatment.

3. The theory derived in this work will rarely predict a positive skin following a proppant treatment, and worst
case scenarios predict the skin will be less than 5, even before the fracture-face damage has been cleaned up.
Positive skins exceeding 20 can only be observed for dimensionless fracture conductivities less than 0.01.

4. A properly designed well test can uniquely determine the fracture half-length, fracture conductivity, and
magnitude of the fracture-face skin, provided the analysis is done with a model for a finite conductivity fracture
with fracture-face skin. Large positive skins cannot be explained by this model. Downhole shut-in may be
required, and gauge sensitivity should be considered. The test can be conducted at any time, but the magnitude
of the observed fracture-face skin will depend on the duration and effectiveness of the cleanup prior to testing.

Nomenclature

aD =radial dimensionless damage ratio = equivalent radial dimensionless


damage ratio = equivalent damage radius for pseudoradial flow
b1 =radial damage radius
b2 = fracture-face damage depth
Bo = oil formation volume factor
ct = total reservoir compressibility
C = wellbore storage coefficient
FCD = dimensionless fracture conductivity
h = formation thickness
= equivalent permeability for the region adjacent
to the hydraulic fracture
k1 = permeability in the equivalent radial damage zone
k2 = permeability in the zone of fracture-face invasion (outside
the radial damage zone)
k3 = permeability in the zone of fracture-face invasion
(inside the radial damage zone)
kd = permeability in the radial damage zone
kf = fracture permeability
kr = reservoir permeability
m =slope on semilog plot of radial flow regime
p = pressure drop from initial reservoir pressure to
wellbore flowing pressure
ps = pressure drop across the skin region
q = well flow rate
rw = wellbore radius
= equivalent wellbore radius
s = skin factor
sd = damaged skin factor
sf = skin accounting for finite conductivity fracture
with no fracture-face skin and no radial damage
Nomenclature (Cont.)

st = total composite skin


torf = time of the onset of radial flow tend,

8
wbs = time of the end of wellbore storage effects
w = fracture width
xf = fracture half-length
w = units conversion factor
= formation porosity
= formation fluid viscosity

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express their appreciation to Dowell a Division of Schlumberger Technology Corporation
for permission to publish this work.

References

1 Smith, M.B., Miller, W.K. II, and Haga, J.: "Tip Screenout Fracturing: A Technique for Soft, Unstable
Formation," SPEPE
(May 1987) 95-103.

2 Reimers, D.R. and Clausen, R.A.: "High-Permeability Fracturing at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska," paper SPE 22835
presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, Dallas, TX, Oct. 6-9.

3 Martins, J.P., Collins, P.J., and Rylance, M.: "Small Highly Conductive Fractures Near Reservoir Fluid
Contacts: Application to Prudhoe Bay," paper SPE 24856 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical
Conference & Exhibition,
Washington, D.C., Oct 4-7.

4 Monus, F.L., Broussard, F.W., Ayoub, J.A., and Norman, W.D.: "Fracturing Unconsolidated Sand Formations
Offshore Gulf of Mexico," paper SPE 24844 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference &
Exhibition, Washington,
D.C., Oct. 4-7.

5. Hainey, B.W. and Troncoso, J.C.: "Frac-Pack: An Innovative Stimulation and Sand Control Technique,"
paper SPE 23777 presented at the 1992 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, LA, Feb. 26-
27.

6. Roodhart, L.P., Fokker, P.A., Davies, D.R., Shlyapobersky, J., and Wong, G. K.: "Frac and Pack Stimulation:
Applicaton, Design, and Field Experience From the Gulf of Mexico to Borneo," paper SPE 26564 presented at
the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, Houston, TX, Oct. 3-6.

7. Wong, G.K., Fors, R.R., Casassa, J.S., Hite, R.H., and Shlyapobersky, J.: " Design, Execution and
Evaluation of Frac and
Pack (F&P;) Treatments in Unconsolidated Sand Formations in the Gulf of Mexico," paper SPE 26563
presented at the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition Houston, TX, Oct. 3-6.

8. A. Conway, Stim-Lab, personal communication.

9. Roodhart, L.P. "Fracturing Fluids: Fluid-Loss Measurements Under Dynamic Conditions," SPEJ (Oct. 1985)
629-636.

10. Mayerhofer, M.J., Economides, M.J., and Nolte, K.G.: "An Experimental and Fundamental Interpretation
of Fracturing Filter-Cake Fluid Loss," paper SPE 22873 presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical
Conference & Exhibition, Dallas,
TX, Oct. 6-9.

11. Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V., F.: "Transient Pressure Analysis: Finite Conductivity Fracture Case
Versus Damage Fracture Case," paper SPE 10179 presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference &
Exhibition, San Antonio, TX,

9
Oct. 5-9.

12. Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego-V., F., and Dominguez, N.: "Transient Pressure Behavior for a Well With a Finite
Conductivity Vertical Fracture," SPEJ (Aug. 1978) 253-264.

13. Fan, Y. and Economides, M.J.: "Fracture Dimensions in Frac&Pack; Stimulation," paper SPE 30469
presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, Dallas, TX, Oct. 22-25.

14. Hainey, B.W. and Troncoso, J.C.: Frac-Pack: An Innovative Stimulation and Sand Control Technique,
paper SPE 23777 presented at the 1992 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, LA, Feb. 26-
27.

15. Hannah, R.R., Park, E.I., Porter, D.A., and Black, J.W.: A Field Study of a Combination Fracturing/Gravel
Packing Completion Technique on the Amberjack, Mississippi, Canyon 109 Field, paper SPE 26562 presented
at the 1993 SPE
Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, Houston, TX, Oct. 3-6.

16. Chen, C. and Raghavan, R.: "Modeling a Fractured Well in a Composite Reservoir," paper SPE 28393
presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 25-28.

17. Ning, X., Marcinew, R.P., and Olsen, T.N.; "The Impact of Fracturing Fluid Cleanup and Fracture Face
Damage on Gas Production," CIM paper 95-43 presented at the 1995 Annual Technical Meeting of The
Petroleum Society of CIM in Banff,
Alberta, Canada, May 14-17.

18. Ehlig-Economides, C.A.: "Use of the Pressure Derivative for Diagnosing Pressure Transient Behavior," JPT
(Oct. 1988)
1280-1282.

19. Ehlig-Economides, C.A.: "Implications of the Test Area of Investigation in Nonradial Geometries," SPE
Advanced Technology Series, 3, October 1995.

20. Earlougher, Robert C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, SPE, Richardson, TX (1977).

21. Ning, X., Collins, J.L., Marcinew, R.P., Dumont, G.L., and Hogg, J.R.: "Postfracture Formation Evaluation
in the Valhalla Field, Alberta," CIM alternate paper for the 1995 Annual Technical Meeting of The Petroleum
Society of CIM in Banff, Alberta, Canada, May 14-17. Appendix Defining and , as in Chen and Raghavan,16
and defining , then assuming the square damage area approximates a circle of the same area, then , (A-1) and
Eq. 7 becomes . (A-2) With Eq. A-2 results very similar to those in Fig. 9 of Ref. 16 can be computed.

10
Fig. 1 Relation between fracture skin, fracture half-length, and fracture conductivity.(12)

Fig. 2 Conceptual model geometry showing the radial and fracture-face damage.

Fig. 3 Equivalent radial skin of damaged well wellbore and fracture face.

11
Fig. 4 Variation of composite damage skin with fracture-face permeability impairment ratio (k2/kr).

Fig. 5 Variation of total skin with fracture-face permeability impairment ratio k2/kr.

Fig. 6 Variation of total skin with fracture-face permeability impairment ratio, k2/kr.

12
Fig. 7 Variation of total skin with fracture-face permeability impairment ratio, k2/kr.

Fig. 8 Variation of total skin with fracture-face permeability impairment ratio, k2/kr.

Fig. 9 Well performance showing the effect of fracture-face clean up on the production rate of the well.

13
Fig.10 Effect of fracture skin on the pressure transient response, Gulf Coast example.

Fig. 11 Effect of fracture conductivity on the pressure transient response, Gulf Coast example.

14

You might also like