You are on page 1of 23

Well Completion Considerations

Casing

It is common to fracture-treat a well down casing and run tubing into the well after
the treatment. But even if it is necessary to perform the treatment through tubing,
the annulus is often "live". Therefore the casing has to tolerate the maximum
pressure occurring during the treatment. When designing a casing string or checking
existing casing, we have to consider the worst scenario, including possible screenout.
Such safety considerations determine the maximum allowable surface treating
pressure.

Zonal isolation is of primary importance in modern fracturing. To place the fracture in


the target layer, the well must be cemented and the primary cement must provide a
satisfactory seal around the production casing or liner. Occasionally, flaws in the
primary cement job have to be corrected by "squeezing" additional cement behind
the casing.

Tubing

The diameter of the well’s tubing string is a critical factor in fracturing operations as
well as in production. The production tubing should be specially designed to handle
the fluid injection if such a treatment is being considered in the well completion. Too
small a tubing diameter results in excessive friction loss, which increases horsepower
requirements or restricts injection rate. Either of these conditions could increase the
treatment’s total fluid volume requirements or could possibly even lead to a
screenout. The minimum recommended tubing size for a frac job is 2 7/8 in. EUE (2
3/8 in. EUE for very shallow wells), while 3 1/2 in. OD tubing is a fairly standard size
for a frac string.

Normally, a tubing grade of N-80 or above is required for fracturing. Pressure is


sometimes held on the annulus above a packer to provide a tubing-burst safety
factor. Other factors to consider when using a packer on a fracturing treatment,
especially on deeper wells, are

the effects of fluid temperature acting on the tubing

the ballooning effect caused by the high internal pressure, causing


shortening of the tubing

the lengthening of the tubing caused by the frictional drag of the fluid
velocity as it is pumped through the tubulars

The ballooning and frictional lengthening effects are canceled as soon as the
pumping is stopped, but the temperature effects continue until the wellbore
temperature returns to normal. The calculations should determine the proper hook
weight to minimize forces acting on the packer and tubing. Alternative equipment,
such as slip joints, can also be used to compensate for this movement. The above
considerations are particularly important on deep and hot wells, where the effective
tubing movement may be quite large, sometimes in excess of 20 feet.

Perforations
Both overbalanced and underbalanced perforation techniques are available.
Perforation diameter, density and phasing may significantly affect treating pressures
and even production rates. One important concern is shear degradation of the
fracturing fluid through perforations.

Multiple sets of perforations can be treated simultaneously by diverting techniques.


One diverting technique, known as limited-entry, implies a limited number of
perforations and uses a high injection rate. The perforation friction causes a pressure
increase inside the well and helps to utilize available perforations in all the individual
target zones. Ball sealers and packers are also used for treatment diversion.

Wellhead

The fracturing pressure will probably be the highest pressure to which the wellhead is
ever subjected. The wellhead equipment must have a pressure rating adequate to
accommodate the anticipated fracturing pressure plus a significant margin for error.
It may be necessary to install a special wellhead just for the frac job and change it
later, or use special high-pressure wellhead isolation tools (available for rental in
most areas) that can be run through the master valve to allow the use of standard
wellheads. The latter is generally the most economical alternative.

Basic Design
It is advantageous to start any fracturing treatment design from the point of view of
the reservoir. We should first resolve such important issues as the type and amount
of proppant placed into the pay layer and the corresponding optimal length and
width, without considering the technical details of inducing the fracture and placing
the proppant. Once we determine the amount of proppant required and the desired
half length, the next step is to select the fluid system and slurry injection rate.

(For a discussion of the equations used in determining these parameters, refer to the
IPIMS section titled "Quantitative Description of Fracture Growth," which appears
under the heading "Hydraulic Fracturing Fundamentals.")

At this point we assume that we have sufficient information to start the calculations.
That is, we assume that we know the fracture height hf, the plane strain modulus E’,
the injection rate qi, the viscosity , the Carter leakoff coefficient CL and the spurt loss
coefficient Sp. We also assume a specified target length, xf. (Non-Newtonian rheology
will be considered later.)

Pumping time—The first basic design step is to determine the pumping time, te, using
the combination of a width equation such as PKN and a simple material balance. This
part of a typical design procedure is summarized as follows:

1. Calculate the wellbore width at the end of pumping from the PKN (or any
other) width equation:

2.

3. Convert wellbore width into average width:


4.

5. Assume a = 1.415 (or a similar value for other geometries, i.e., 1.478 for
the KGD model and 1.377 for the Radial model).

6. Solve the following equation for te:

Selecting as the new unknown, a simple quadratic equation has to be solved

1) Calculate injected volume

and fluid efficiency

We may refine the above simple design by considering several factors, such as
deviation of permeable and fracture heights and non-Newtonian rheology.

If the permeable height, hp is less than the fracture height, it is convenient to use
apparent leakoff and spurt loss coefficients. The apparent leakoff coefficient is the
"true" leakoff coefficient (the value with respect to the permeable layer) multiplied by
the factor rp shown in Table 1.

PKN KGD Radial ( Figure 1, Ratio of permeable to

fracture area: radial geometry)


Figure 1

Table 1: Ratio of permeable to total surface, rp

There are several ways to incorporate non-Newtonian behavior into the width
equations. A convenient procedure is to add one additional equation connecting the
equivalent Newtonian viscosity with the flow rate. Assuming Power Law behavior for
the fluid, we can calculate the equivalent Newtonian viscosity for the average cross
section. After substituting the equivalent Newtonian viscosity into the PKN width
equation we obtain

(1)

Proppant schedule—Once we know the pumping time, we can establish a proppant


schedule. Our goal is to determine the pad volume and the particular curve of
proppant concentration versus time that we have to follow during pumping. To carry
out the design suggested by Nolte (1986), we need to specify just one additional
parameter: ce, the maximum proppant concentration that is technically possible for
the injected slurry.

Ideally, the proppant schedule results in a uniform proppant concentration in the


fracture at the end of pumping, with the value of the concentration equal to ce. We
derive the schedule from the requirements that

the whole length created should be propped

at the end of pumping, the proppant distribution in the fracture should be
uniform

the schedule curve should be of the form of a delayed power law, with the
exponent and fraction of pad () being equal.

It is important to notice that once we know the maximum proppant concentration and
the height, length and width at the end of pumping, we can calculate the total mass
of proppant that will be placed into one wing by

(2)

We should use this equation to select the injection rate and fluid rheology
corresponding to the specified design goal of placing the proppant of mass 2M into
the formation. At this stage, M and xf are already specified and ce is usually

constrained by technical limitations; is thus the only parameter that we can


adjust, which we do by changing the fluid rheology and the injection rate.

A general procedure for determining the proppant schedule is as follows:

1) Calculate the exponent of the proppant concentration curve :

2) Calculate the pad volume and the time needed to pump it:

and

3) Calculate the required proppant concentration (mass/unit injected slurry


volume) curve, which is given by
where ce is the maximum proppant concentration of the injected slurry.

4) Calculate the mass of proppant placed into one wing:

5) Calculate the propped width:

where p is the porosity of the proppant bed and p is the true density of the
proppant material.
Note that in the above procedures, the injection rate qi refers to the slurry (not clean
fluid) injected into one wing. The obtained proppant mass, M, also refers to one wing.
The concentrations are given in mass per unit volume of slurry, and any other type of
concentration (e.g., added mass to unit volume of "neat" fluid) has to be converted
first.

More complex proppant schedule procedures may take into account proppant
movement (both in the lateral and the vertical directions), variations in the slurry
viscosity with time and location (due to temperature, shear rate and solid content
changes), width required for free proppant movement, etc.

If the resulting propped width and also the amount of proppant differ from the design
goal, we may consider using another type of fluid and/or consider using equipment
providing a higher maximum proppant concentration.

Other design considerations — There are several other checks we have to conduct
during the initial treatment design. For instance, at the end of the pad injection, the
current hydraulic width should be large enough to accommodate proppant (a width of
three proppant diameters is considered sufficient).

A considerable part of a treatment’s costs relate to pump horsepower. The product of


surface treating pressure and injection rate provides the theoretically required
pumping power:

(3)

The theoretical energy requirement is the power multiplied by injection time:

(4)

To obtain the actual power and energy requirements, we have to account for the
mechanical, electrical and other efficiencies of the equipment.

The predicted surface treating pressure is the sum of the closure pressure plus the
friction losses in the tubulars and through the perforations, minus the hydrostatic
head:
(5)

Pumping costs should be a function of both the power and the energy requirements.

(All of the calculations outlined in this section can be easily programmed. Setting up
a customized fracture-design program is advantageous when we need to compare
bids from different service companies or make quick decisions at the location. It also
helps us to understand the output and underlying approximations of larger, more
complex, fracture simulator software packages.)

Material Selection
The proppant selected for a fracturing treatment must be capable of holding the
fracture faces apart so that formation fluids can flow through the fracture with a
minimal loss of energy, and it must be long lasting. From a practical standpoint, it
should be capable of being placed using pumping equipment and a fluid system that
are currently available. It should also be readily available, safe to handle, and
relatively inexpensive.

Sand is the least expensive proppant available. The superior-performing Northern


White Sand generally commands a slightly higher price than the Texas Brown Sand.
Intermediate Strength Proppant (ISP) products generally cost about three to eight
times as much as sand, and sintered bauxite 10 to 20 times more expensive than
sand. Additionally, service companies usually include a small surcharge for pumping
larger and premium proppants to defray the increased wear on their pumping
equipment.

The fact that sand looses part of its permeability at higher closure stresses does not
automatically mean that we must select a more expensive proppant above a certain
closure stress limit. We could always consider compensating for the loss in
dimensioned conductivity by designing for larger widths (i.e., larger areal proppant
concentration). The correct decision will involve a detailed cost analysis of the
available options. One possible compromise is to use a less expensive proppant for
the major part of the treatment, and then "tail in" with high-quality proppant at the
end.

The fluid selection process involves careful consideration of the fluid’s primary
functions, which include fracture initiation, fracture propagation, proppant transport,
and post-treatment return to the wellbore. The most important concern should be
sufficient proppant transport and leakoff control. The use of complex and expensive
fluid systems is not always justifiable. For instance, while expensive additives might
provide excellent leakoff control in a homogeneous matrix, they would be much less
effective in formations where fluid loss is governed by a natural fracture network.

Equipment Selection
The basic equipment components required to perform a frac treatment are high-
pressure pump trucks, blender(s), and storage equipment. Most frac treatments also
employ a wide array of auxiliary support equipment. For an offshore situation in
which the equipment must be temporarily installed on a flat barge, the equipment
should be skid-mounted rather than mounted on trucks, to keep the center of gravity
as low as possible.

Pump Trucks The pump trucks used for fracturing have high-horsepower prime
movers, each of which drives one or more positive displacement, high-efficiency
triplex pumps mounted on a heavy-duty oilfield chassis. The fluid end of each pump
is designed to operate over a sizable pressure range, with the transmission system
giving a relatively constant horsepower performance. The fluid end of the pumps can
easily be changed to extend the performance range of the pumps.

Some pumping equipment is operated from remote control panels to facilitate overall
treatment control and improve safety conditions. The output performance of these
units is typically in the 800-1500 horsepower range, with some units having two
prime mover/pumps installed on the same truck chassis. Because of the extreme
operating conditions encountered when pumping proppant/fluid slurries at high
pressures, at least one extra unit should be available as a standby for most jobs. For
some jobs with long pumping times, as much as 100% excess horsepower should be
kept in reserve, ready for use.

Frac Boats A preferred solution for offshore operations is to use a special frac boat
with all the necessary equipment permanently installed and plumbed for efficient
operation. Several frac boats are currently in use in various locations around the
world and have already effectively extended the safe and economic application of
fracture stimulation, including acid fracturing, to the more difficult offshore
environment. These boats typically incorporate the latest technological advances in
sophisticated monitoring equipment, as well as the special automated blending
operations control that is essential to the use of continuous-mix fluid systems.

Storage and Mixing units typically include multiple compartments to allow a variety
of proppants to be used on each treatment. Because excellent fracture conductivity is
the ultimate objective of all frac treatments, correct handling and blending of the
proppants are among the most critical elements of on-site operations. Fluid storage
facilities have not changed considerably in the last few years, the industry mainstay
being a 500-barrel frac tank, sometimes with an axle to facilitate movement to the
location. These tanks can be manifolded together to allow high-rate fluid transfer
with a minimal labor requirement. Recent advancements in the associated monitoring
equipment allow the fluid level of each tank to be monitored continuously from a
central point as a cross-check of the volume of fluid pumped.

Most fracturing treatments use fluids that are specially mixed on location prior to the
actual pumping operation, and then stored in large frac tanks until needed. This is
impractical, however, for exceptionally large treatments or for offshore locations
having limited storage facilities. The viscosity of frac fluids may start to deteriorate
slowly within a few minutes after being mixed. Sometimes, due to unforeseen job
delays, it is necessary to discard considerable amounts of expensive fluids. The total
optimal surface storage time is highly dependent upon bacterial content and
temperature. During the summer, fluid properties may deteriorate after one or two
days unless a bactericide is added. A bactericide extends the surface life of the fluid
as well as limiting the buildup of bacteria in the reservoir. If there is doubt, the fluid
properties should be re-tested before use.

It is not advisable to add gelling agents to previously gelled fluids, because the
partially viscous fluid is very inefficient at hydrating the dry polymer gel particles. As
a result, the partially wetted polymer encapsulates other particles of completely dry
polymer, creating "fisheyes" of unhydrated polymer. These fisheyes are highly
undesirable, since some of them may be large enough to permanently plug the
formation and the propped fracture.

Many of the fluid systems used today, and others currently under development, are
designed to allow the continuous mixing of all the necessary additives as the fluid is
pumped downhole. Special mixing systems are usually used to provide quality
control. Alternatively, certain other fluids are designed for use in a modified
continuous-mix mode, where additives can be safely added continuously to the
partially batch-mixed system.

Blender The most critical piece of equipment in fracture stimulation is the blender.
This unit transfers the frac fluid from the storage tanks, blends the proportionate
amount of proppant and chemical additives with the fluid, and pressurizes the suction
of the high-pressure pumps with this slurry. Since all the fluid and proppant must go
through this single unit, its continuous operation is essential to the success of every
frac treatment. The modern blender includes the following components:

a suction pump to transfer fluid

control devices to meter the simultaneous addition of several liquid and solid
additives

a complete manifold system to allow fluid selections to be changed at will

a densiometer to determine the exact proppant concentration

a system to maintain a continuous discharge pressure at the suction end of


the triplex pumps

a monitoring system to ensure that everything is functioning properly

Operational Considerations
Operational restrictions may impose limits on the hypothetically optimum treatment.
Operating conditions encountered offshore frequently impose additional economical
and unique logistical considerations on the fracturing program design.

Surface Location

The size and shape of the surface location that is required for a fracturing treatment
is quite different from that needed to drill the well. Surface locations used for drilling
deep wells are generally large enough to accommodate all the frac pumps and
associated equipment. But the smaller sites that are characteristic of shallow wells
frequently impose severe space restrictions, especially if the rig is still on location.
Whenever practical, the rig should be moved off the location to make more room
during a frac treatment. Alternatively, it should be shut down during the pumping
operation for safety purposes.

Industry safety standards define the minimum distances to be maintained between


the wellhead and potential ignition sources. They specify that the storage facilities for
treating fluids should be located a safe distance from the wellhead, and from
potential ignition sources if the frac fluid is flammable. There must be sufficient space
available for spotting the blender, proppant storage facilities, frac pumps, pumping
manifold, and recording/command center, and still enough room for personnel to
move easily around the equipment. The equipment that will be in operation during
the treatment should be located upwind of the well to further minimize fire hazards.
The site should also have enough room for logging equipment or other specialty
equipment involved in the overall completion program.

Sometimes it is necessary to enlarge the location prior to a fracturing treatment, or


to use space adjacent to the hard pad. The cost of any special preparations, as well
as other eventualities (such as pulling heavy equipment out of the mud because the
road or location was not adequately prepared), must be taken into account when
finalizing the treatment costs.

The injection rate for most fracturing treatments today ranges from 15 to 40 barrels
per minute (bpm), with a maximum possible rate of about 150 bpm. Higher-rate
treatments are pumped down open casing, but most treatments are directed down
large-diameter tubing, or simultaneously through the casing and tubing. The
minimum pump rate for fracturing depends primarily on individual formation
characteristics and treating fluids. It is typically around five to eight barrels per
minute.

Because large-diameter tubing is frequently impractical for production purposes,


special "frac" strings are often used. When fracturing sensitive formations, this
practice should be delayed until after cleanup in order to return the fracturing fluid as
soon as possible and thereby minimize damage to the formation.

Treatments may be pumped through either the tubing or casing annulus, or through
both simultaneously, to minimize friction losses. When pumping through both the
tubing and the annulus, the rates having the same friction losses would be combined
to determine the total injection rate possible. If the treatment is pumped down the
annulus, the pressure limit on the casing must be considered. When designing the
production casing for a new well that has even a slight chance of requiring fracture
stimulation, the pressure rating should be high enough to accommodate a typical frac
treatment to be pumped via the annulus.

Tubing that has been used in rod pumping wells should never be used for fracturing
because of possible rod wear, which would reduce tubing strength. New tubing
should be cleaned with acid. Any old production tubing must be thoroughly cleaned
prior to use as a frac string because of the possible presence of scale or paraffin
deposits that could come loose and interfere with the frac. Tubing may be
conveniently cleaned in-place by scouring it with sand. A small volume of sand-water
slurry circulated down the tubing and then reverse-circulated at a high rate has been
used very successfully to clean tubing.

Timing

A successful fracture treatment is the result of detailed planning and thorough


pretreatment organization. The key element is good communication between all
involved participants, including the service company, rig supervisor, trucking
contractors, downhole tool service company, suppliers of frac tanks, logging
company, and the company representative.
The time required for each facet of the operation depends on the job’s size and
complexity, and on local conditions. For example, transporting frac water to a remote
location may require up to two weeks, while the same size job in an active region
with many water trucks available may take only a day or two.

The freshly cleaned fluid storage tanks are the first pieces of equipment to be set on
location. They should be spotted by the fracturing supervisor in a level area of the
location that meets the company's safety standards and allows the proper setup for
the proppant and pumping equipment. They should be filled with the type of fluid
recommended by the fracturing service company representative, making sure there
is enough for an extra stage of flush or for other unplanned contingencies.

For treatments involving large amounts of proppants, the storage facilities will be
large portable tanks that are filled after being set on the location. These may take
several hours or days to load, depending on the job size and remoteness of the well
location. On small treatments, the proppant is usually transported to the location in
trucks along with the pumping equipment, and poured from these trucks directly into
the blender for mixing. The pumping equipment is normally brought to the location
on the morning of the job and hooked up in a few hours while the frac fluid premix is
underway. Exceptionally large treatments or critical operations may require an extra
day to set up all the equipment. In certain areas, it is recommended that the frac
fluid be heated to formation temperature to reduce paraffin formation and other
damaging conditions.

The actual pumping operation may require only a few minutes or a few hours, but
preparing for a frac job may take several weeks.

Safety and Quality Control

Safety is of paramount importance throughout the fracture treatment. All service


companies have stringent standards for pumping operations that must be adhered to
by all site personnel. These standards may differ depending on the type of fluid being
pumped.

A fracturing treatment is normally pumped at high surface pressures. A maximum


treating pressure that will protect the tubular goods (and/or prevent fracture growth
through defined barriers) should be established prior to the treatment.

Because of the high complexity of the materials and equipment used in hydraulic
fracturing, quality control has emerged as a major issue. The role of quality control is
to ensure that all the fluids meet the design specifications. On-line quality control
involves, but is not restricted to, pH and viscosity measurements.

Fracture Calibration Treatment


The information obtained from a minifrac calibration treatment includes the closure
pressure, pc, the leakoff coefficient and possibly the condition of the perforations and
the near-wellbore region. The strategic locations registered on a typical pressure
response curve during a calibration treatment are shown in Figure 1 (Fracture-related
pressure points: (1)
Figure 1

breakdown pressure; (2) fracture propagation pressure; (3) instantaneous shut-in


pressure; (4) closure pressure; (5) fracture reopening pressure; (6) closure pressure
from flow-back; (7) asymptotic reservoir pressure; (8) rebound pressure). The falloff
part of the pressure curve is used to obtain the leakoff coefficient for a given fracture
geometry. The original concept of pressure decline analysis (Nolte, 1979) is based on
the observation that during the closure process, the rate of pressure falloff provides
useful information on the intensity of the leakoff process. By contrast, during the
pumping period, the pressure is affected by many other factors, and hence the
influence of leakoff is masked.

If we assume that the fracture area has evolved with a constant exponent and
remains constant after the pumps are stopped, at time (te+t) the volume of the
fracture is given by

(1)

where Ae = fracture face area (one wing, one face), SP = spurt loss coefficient, CL =
leakoff coefficient, the dimensionless shut-in time is defined as

(2)

and the two-variable function: introduced by Nolte is the generalization of


the opening time distribution factor. For computational purposes, we can use the
following approximations of the g-function for various exponents  (d=tD):
Dividing Equation 1 by the surface area of one face, the fracture width at time t after
the end of pumping is given by

(3)

The first term on the right-hand-side is the would-be width. To obtain the actual
width, we subtract the spurt width and the leakoff width from the would-be width.
The leakoff width increases even after the pumps are stopped, and the g function is
the mathematical description of this process. As seen, the time variation of the width
is determined by the g (t D,) function, the length of the injection period and the leak-
off coefficient, but is not affected by the fracture area.

Unfortunately, the decrease of average width cannot be observed directly; but


according to linear elasticity theory, the net pressure during closure is directly
proportional to the average width:

(4)

The coefficient Sf is the fracture stiffness, expressed in Pa/m (psi/ft). Its inverse, 1/Sf,
is sometimes called the fracture compliance. Table 1 gives expressions of the
fracture stiffness for the PKN, KGD and Radial fracture geometries.

PKN KGD Radial

 4/5 2/3 8/9


=

Table 1: Proportionality constant, Sf and suggested for basic fracture geometries

Combining Equations 3 and 4 yields:

(5)

Equation 5, first derived by Nolte, shows that the pressure fall-off in the shut-in
period will follow a straight-line trend

(6)

if plotted against the g-function (i.e., transformed time). The g-function values should
be generated with the exponent, , considered valid for the given model. The slope of
the straight line, mN, is related to the unknown leak-off coefficient by:

(7)

Substituting the relevant expression for the fracture stiffness, we can estimate the
leakoff coefficient can shown below:

Minifrac Analysis by the Nolte-Shlyapobersky method

Leakoff coefficient, CL:

PKN geometry:

KGD geometry:

Radial geometry:
Fracture extent:

PKN geometry:

KGD geometry:

Radial geometry:

Fracture width, we:

PKN geometry: (Vi/xfhf) – 2.830CL(te)1/2

KGD geometry: (Vi/xfhf) – 2.830CL(te)1/2

Radial geometry: [Vi/(Rf2/2)] – 2.754CL(te)1/2

Fluid efficiency:

PKN geometry:

KGD geometry:

Radial geometry:
Note that the estimated leakoff coefficient for the PKN geometry does not depend on
unknown quantities, since the pumping time, fracture height and plane strain
modulus are assumed to be known. For the other two geometries, the procedure
results in an estimate of the leakoff coefficient that is strongly dependent on the
fracture extent (xf or Rf).

The effect of the spurt loss is concentrated in the intercept of the straight-line with
the g = 0 axis, therefore:

(8)

Unfortunately, we do not know the would-be width (Vi/Ae) because the fracture extent
is not known. As suggested by Shlyapobersky (1987), Equation 8 can be used in a
reverse manner to obtain the unknown fracture extent if we assume that the spurt
loss is negligible. Refer to the "estimated fracture extent" relationships shown above
for the three basic models. Note that the no-spurt loss assumption also results in an
estimate of the fracture length for the PKN geometry, but this value is not used for
obtaining the leakoff coefficient. For the other two models, the fracture extent is
obtained first and then the value is used in interpreting the slope.

Once the fracture extent and the leakoff coefficient are known, the average width
and the fluid efficiency are easily calculated, as shown above.

It is not acceptable to take the fluid efficiency from a minifrac treatment and use it as
an input variable for designing the main treatment, because the fluid efficiencies in
the minifrac and main treatment are different. The only parameter that is
transferable is the leakoff coefficient itself, but we need to use caution in interpreting
it. The bulk leakoff coefficient determined from the above method is apparent with
respect to the whole fracture area. If we have information on the permeable height
hp, and it indicates that only part of the fracture area falls into the permeable layer,
then we should convert the apparent leakoff coefficient into a "true value" with
respect to the permeable area only. We can do this simply dividing the apparent
value by rp , which is given in Table 2 .

PKN KGD Radial ( Figure 1, Ratio of permeable to fracture


area: radial geometry)

Table 2: Ratio of permeable to total surface, rp


The conventional minifrac interpretation determines a single overall leakoff
coefficient. If the quality of data permits, more complex models and more than one
leakoff related parameters might be determined from a minifrac analysis. The
discussion of such procedures is out the scope of this treatise. The interested reader
may consult the special literature.

Main Treatment

Stage Design

The productivity ratio that results from a fracture treatment depends on the final
distribution pattern of the proppant. In a packed vertical fracture, this final
distribution pattern depends primarily on

the fracturing fluid viscosity and type (i.e., drop-out type versus transport-
type)

the fluid flow velocity

the proppant size, density and concentration

We may calculate the settling velocity of an individual proppant particle using the
generalization of Stokes’ law for shear thinning fluids. If the settling velocity
multiplied by the total time available for settling is of the order of the fracture height,
the fluid is dropout type. If this product is much less, the fluid is transport-type.

For a dropout type fluid, it is very difficult to find a reasonable proppant schedule.
When the more viscous sand-transport type of fluid is used, the proppant particles
settle only slightly during pumping. Ideally the final proppant pack will be evenly
distributed along the whole fracture in both the lateral and vertical directions. To
achieve this, the proppant concentration in the injected fluid has to be gradually
increased throughout the pumping period, because proppant stages pumped early
lose more fluid than the ones pumped at the end of the treatment. In addition, a
considerable volume of fluid has to be pumped without any proppant before the
proppant carrying stages. That fluid volume is called pad. The subsequent step-by-
step increase of proppant concentration is called a ramped proppant schedule.

If the proppant schedule is designed correctly, the proppant concentration at the end
of pumping is uniform within the whole fracture and equal to the proppant
concentration of the slurry injected at the last moment. The width of the pack after
closure on the proppant will be more uniform, essentially being similar to the
hydraulically induced width profile. The proppant schedule can be continuous, but it
is reasonable to divide the treatment into several discrete stages (say from 5 to 15)
and approximate the continuous schedule by stairs or "ramps."

Screenout Problems

Regardless of the type of fluid used, fluid loss will cause the proppant concentration
in a small segment of the slurry to gradually increase as it moves away from the
wellbore.
When a particular segment of the slurry becomes very concentrated, or the fracture
width at a given lateral location is too small to allow the proppant to be displaced
further, a screenout will occur. A screenout condition may happen at any point within
the fracture or, in the worst case, even within the wellbore. A tip screenout, which
takes place at or near the extremity of the fracture, results in a much slower pressure
increase than a screenout near the wellbore. A tip screenout may be a desirable
condition, especially in high permeability fracturing. Near-wellbore or wellbore
screenouts , on the other hand, should be avoided by any means.

Excessive leakoff (i.e., higher than that used in the design model) is the most
common cause of screenouts. Other factors responsible for screenouts include
sudden height growth, perforation problems, multiple strands, near-wellbore
tortuosity, and insufficient proppant-carrying capacity of the fluid or insufficient
injection rate.

Most of the time, we may prevent screenouts from occurring by using a sufficient
volume of pad fluid. We should pump enough pad fluid to create a fracture width at
the leading edge of the proppant slurry that is adequate to allow two or three
proppant particles to be carried side by side. Overdesigned pad volumes should be
avoided, however, because they increase the load on the formation and lead to
additional fluid and pumping costs.

When a tip screenout occurs, pumping may be continued. The additional proppant
will inflate the width of the already created fracture, at least in soft formations. Even
in hard rock, the pressure may increase slowly enough so that we can pump enough
solids-free flush fluid to clear the wellbore before reaching the maximum pressure
limit.

When a wellbore screenout occurs, we must shut down the pumping operation
immediately because of the surface limitation on pressure. If the fracture void that
has been formed at this time does not already contain enough proppant to
satisfactorily prop the fracture, the resulting well performance will be very poor. The
subsequent cleanup— not to mention the transportation or disposal costs of the
unused material— is expensive.

As a general rule, we should not overflush the proppant-carrying stages, nor should
we stop and restart proppant addition during a fracturing operation, especially when
using a frac fluid that has excellent proppant-suspension properties. This could cause
the creation of a proppant-free section within the fracture, which could "heal" in a
fashion similar to that shown in Figure 1 (Effect of overflushing proppant ) thereby
effectively forming a choke in the fracture and severely restricting flow.
Figure 1

Treatment Monitoring

Monitoring equipment is available that allows continuous, real-time recording of all


relevant treatment information in a mobile command post at the well site. The
standard monitoring equipment records the total injection rates and surface treating
pressures. Some specialty units continuously monitor and record the proppant
concentration and the rheological properties of the frac fluid in addition to the
injection rate and the surface pressures for both the tubing and casing.

Since on-line bottomhole pressures are rarely available, by far the most important
information during the treatment is the surface treating pressure. A log-log plot of the
treating pressure is often called a Nolte-Smith plot. A qualitative interpretation of the
log-log plot is based mostly on the log-log slope. A steady positive slope on the order
of 0.25 is interpreted as unrestricted (normal) fracture propagation. An abrupt
increase in the fracture surface (e.g., due to fast height growth into another layer) is
diagnosed if the slope changes to a negative value. An increasing slope approaching
the value of unity is considered a sign of restricted tip propagation. An even larger
than unit slope indicates the fast fill-up of the near-wellbore region and the wellbore
itself. The fracturing engineer uses this information to detect a screenout situation
and to determine if it is happening at the fracture tip or near the wellbore. Depending
on the location of the screenout, the type of formation (hard or soft), and the
established surface pressure limit, the engineer may intervene and, if necessary,
prematurely stop the treatment.

Shut-in and Clean-up

Following the treatment, the well is shut in for several hours to allow the fracture to
close and the fluid viscosity to break. Fractures, particularly in tight reservoirs, may
require long periods to close, and during the shut-in period, excessive near-wellbore
proppant settling may occur. Such proppant settling causes a "choke" effect and
should be avoided.

If proppant settling is a potential problem, a technique called forced closure is


applied. It consists of flowing back the well quickly and hence "trapping" the
proppant near the wellbore before settling may occur. As a consequence, the
proppant bridges behind the perforations, and a "reverse packing" occurs. Immediate
flowback has the additional benefit of producing back a substantial part of the gel,
even in underpressured wells. The buildup of pressure produced in the formation by
the fracturing treatment also helps to clean up the well.

Aggressively flowing back a well requires caution, because proppant may be carried
out through the perforations. Experience shows that overbreaking of the fracturing
gel can be more detrimental because of the near-wellbore settling of proppant.
Aggressive flow back is indicated for energized fluid and foam treatments to take
advantage of the energy stored in the compressed gas. Some CO2 treatments,
however, are allowed to soak for several days prior to flowback, in order to gain
additional advantage from the penetration of CO2 into the formation.

In individual cases, additional actions might be necessary to get the well on


production. For instance, it might be advantageous to blow high-pressure gas, if
available, through the created fracture.

Wells containing proppant after the treatment should be cleaned out. Coiled tubing
with nitrogen foams is often used for this purpose. A cheaper, but still effective
method is to break up proppant with a "notched" collar and reverse out with brine.

Treatment Evaluation
Post-job evaluation involves

routinely collecting and analyzing all information relating to the fracture


treatment

periodically evaluating the well’s post-frac performance in relation to those


of other wells in the field

comparing the predicted treatment results with the actual post-frac


performance

identifying problems that occurred and determining how they could have
been avoided

A thorough evaluation of each treatment enables us to incorporate improvements


into subsequent treatments in the same or similar fields, and prevent the recurrence
of identical problems.

Post-Treatment Fracture Height Determination

Temperature surveys, which are used to determine the fracture height at the
wellbore, are among the most useful tools employed in post-treatment evaluation. A
temperature survey is conducted shortly after pumping is completed. It measures the
change in bottomhole temperature that has taken place because of the large volume
of fluid injected into the formation. More and more often, this method is being
replaced or supplemented by radioactive tracer logging. Both techniques have been
successfully used to determine fracture height, although they are both subject to
errors in interpretation, mostly because they provide information only on the fracture
height at the wellbore and not in the formation.
Post-Treatment Determination of Fracture Conductivity and
Length

In low permeability formations, it is often not possible to run a pressure transient test
before the fracturing treatment, because the well will not produce without fracturing.
In such a case, a pressure buildup test of the fractured well is used to obtain the
permeability and the fracture extent simultaneously. Unfortunately, this is an ill-
posed problem in the sense that many different combinations of the unknown
parameters give a good fit. In high permeability formations, the permeability is
usually known and the primary goal of a post-treatment test is to evaluate the
created fracture.

The transient behavior of a vertical well intersected by a finite conductivity fracture


for infinite- acting reservoir is well known due to the works of Cinco-Ley et al. (1978,
1981).

Figure 1

Figure 1 (Log-log plot of dimensionless pressure for a vertically fractured well. After
Cinco-Ley and Samaniego, 1978) shows the log-log plot of the dimensionless
pressure and the "time-log derivative" parameterized by the dimensionless fracture
conductivity. In the so called bilinear flow regime, where the flow is determined by
both the reservoir and fracture properties, the plot shows a quarter slope because in
this flow regime the dimensionless pressure can be expressed as

(1)

where tDxf is the dimensionless time based on the fracture half-length:

(2)

Once we identify such a regime, we can construct a specialized plot of the pressure
versus the quarter root of time. The slope, mbf, of the straight line fitted is a
combination of the reservoir and fracture properties:

(3)

It is obvious from the above equation that we cannot simultaneously determine the
formation permeability and the fracture conductivity from this regime. Knowing the
formation permeability, we can determine the dimensioned fracture conductivity
(kfw) from the slope, but not the fracture extent. Our suggestion is to assume CfD =
1.6, determine an equivalent dimensioned fracture conductivity based on Equation 4,

(4)

and calculate an equivalent fracture length according to:

(5)

Comparing the equivalent fracture length to the design length may provide valuable
information on the success of the fracturing job.

The bilinear flow period ends before tDxf = 0.01, which may be a very short time for
higher permeability reservoirs. If we cannot identify the bilinear flow regime from a
well test, the best approach is to determine the Productivity Index from pseudo-radial
flow analysis, assuming either infinite-acting or pseudo-steady-state behavior. The
Productivity Index can be obtained from a build-up test, a multiple-rate test, or else
from production data.

We would hope that the post treatment Productivity Index indicates an improvement
with respect to the theoretically undamaged (zero-skin) behavior. If there is no such
improvement, we cannot evaluate the treatment in terms of having created a
fracture. Still, the treatment may prove economically successful simply by having
reduced the skin to a smaller positive value. Assuming that the Productivity Index
indicates a negative skin, and accepting proppant permeability and formation
permeability values, we can determine the theoretical volume of proppant that we
have to place into the formation to obtain the same Productivity Index. Comparing
the theoretically necessary volume of proppant with the volume of proppant actually
injected, we obtain an overall efficiency-type indicator. In addition, we can break
down the theoretically necessary volume into a length and width using the optimum
dimensionless fracture conductivity. We can then visualize the created effective
fracture length, the same way as we did above for the bilinear flow analysis.

You might also like