SPE DISTINGUISHED LECTURER SERIES is funded principally through a grant of the SPE FOUNDATION The Society gratefully acknowledges those companies that support the program by allowing their professionals to participate as Lecturers. And special thanks to The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers (AIME) for their contribution to the program.
Application of Low Viscosity Application of Low Viscosity Fracturing Fluids- -Water Water Frac’s Frac’s Fracturing Fluids Presented By: Larry K. Britt Presented By: Larry K. Britt NSI Technologies, Inc. NSI Technologies, Inc. 918- -496 496- -2071 2071 918
Water As A Fracturing Fluid: What We Know Or Think We Know? History of Water Frac’s Frac’s � History of Water � Water as a Fracturing Fluid � Water as a Fracturing Fluid � Clean vs vs Dirty Dirty � � Clean Residual Fracture Width � � Residual Fracture Width Development of Water Frac Guidelines � Development of Water Frac Guidelines � Reservoir Quality Considerations � � Reservoir Quality Considerations Geomechanical Considerations � Geomechanical Considerations � � Fracture Design Considerations � Fracture Design Considerations Water Frac Application Review � Water Frac Application Review �
Water Frac History Water Frac History The History Of Water Fracs Is As Long As The History Of Fracturing Itself!
Water Frac History Water Frac History The History Of Water Fracs Is Both Long And Interesting!
Water Frac History Water Frac History Water Fracs Fracs In Hugoton Not Better Or Cheaper? In Hugoton Not Better Or Cheaper? Water XL XL 1988 Paper On TW TW The Hugoton Field N 2 N 2 Nitrogen Foam 100 M-Gal 60Q foam pumped at 75 bpm Pad Volume was 36% of the Total Job 12/20 Sand Proppant pumped at 1 to 5 PPG Slick Water 140 M-Gal 20# Slick Water pumped at 100 bpm Pad Volume was 23% of the Total Job 12/20 Sand Proppant pumped at 0.5 to 2.5 PPG Borate X-Link Gel (30# HPG) 100 M-Gal 30 ppt HPG, borate X-Link gel at 60 bpm Pad Volume was 35% of the Total Job 12/20 Sand Proppant pumped at 1 to 5 PPG
Water Frac History Water Frac History Water Fracs Fracs Lower IP Shallower Decline Than Gel! Lower IP Shallower Decline Than Gel! Water X-Link Frac 1,100,000 lb 1,500 X-Link Frac No Better Than Gel Fracs 520,000 lb MCFPD 1,000 Water Frac 1,000 82,000 lb 6-Month Cum, MMCF 500 300 500 Gel Fracs 200 100 Water Fracs 100 200 300 400 500 50 TIME (days) 30 20 10 SPE 49104 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Cumulative Frequency “Water Frac Results From 50 Cotton Valley Wells”
Water Frac History Water Frac History Water Fracs Fracs In ETCV Not Better, Cheaper? In ETCV Not Better, Cheaper? Water "Normalized" Water Fracs Production Data 600 SPE 60285 Gel Fracs 500 “Comprehensive MCFPD 400 Evaluation Of Fractured Gas 300 Wells Utilizing 200 Production Data” 100 Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Water Frac History Water Fracs Fracs In ETCV Cheaper? In ETCV Cheaper? Water A Review Of Gel And Water Fracs: Parameter Description Cross -linked Gel Fracs Treated Water -Fracs Average Pump Rate, BPM 29.0 25 Average Pad Fraction, % 34.9 41.5 Average ISIP, psi 2844 2604 Average Sand Pumped, mlbs 526.6 71.0 Max. Sand Concentration, ppg 6.3 2.3 Average Treating Pressure, psi 2286 4245 Number of Stimulation Stages 3.3 3.5 Cost Reduction Results From Material Scheduling And Alliance Contracts!
Water Frac History Water Frac History Always Been Used In Naturally Fissured Reservoirs! Always Been Used In Naturally Fissured Reservoirs! 600 600 AT INTERSECTION AT INTERSECTION MWX-3 MWX-3 450 450 North (ft) North (ft) Multi-Well Site N74W N74W Mesaverde Formation 300 300 MWX2 MWX2 150 150 HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL MONITOR MONITOR WELL WELL 0 0 -450 -450 -300 -300 -150 -150 0 0 150 150 300 300 West-East (ft) West-East (ft)
Water Frac History Water Frac History Summary: Summary: � Long History Of Application Long History Of Application � � Lower IP, Shallower Production Decline? Lower IP, Shallower Production Decline? � � Gels Generally As Good Or Better? Gels Generally As Good Or Better? � � Water Water Fracs Fracs Cheaper Cheaper - - “More Economic?” “More Economic?” � � Good For Good For Some Some Fissured Reservoirs! Fissured Reservoirs! �
Water As A Fracturing Fluid: What We Know Or Think We Know? History of Water Fracs Fracs � History of Water � Water as a Fracturing Fluid � Water as a Fracturing Fluid � Clean vs vs Dirty Dirty � � Clean Residual Fracture Width � � Residual Fracture Width Development of Water Frac Guidelines � Development of Water Frac Guidelines � Reservoir Quality Considerations � � Reservoir Quality Considerations Geomechanical Considerations � Geomechanical Considerations � � Fracture Design Considerations � Fracture Design Considerations Water Frac Application Review � Water Frac Application Review �
Water as a Fracturing Fluid Water as a Fracturing Fluid Multiple, Conflicting Desires Multiple, Conflicting Desires � Breaking Breaking � √ √ � Easy to Mix Easy to Mix � � Cheap Cheap � � Additive Sensitivity Additive Sensitivity � √ √ � Environmentally Environmentally � � Cleanliness Cleanliness � √ X � Fluid Loss Fluid Loss � � Compatibility Compatibility � √ � Low Pump Pressure Low Pump Pressure X � � Formation Formation � � Safety Safety � � Formation Fluid Formation Fluid � X /√/ X � Viscosity ??? Viscosity ??? � � Reservoir Pressure Reservoir Pressure � � Poor Proppant Transport Poor Proppant Transport � � Height Containment Height Containment � � Poor Fracture Width Poor Fracture Width �
Water As A Fracturing Fluid Water As A Fracturing Fluid It’s Clean It’s Clean
What Affects Proppant Pack Permeability? What Affects Proppant Pack Permeability? � Residual Material in Fracture Residual Material in Fracture � � Gel Residue Gel Residue � � Damaged Proppant Damaged Proppant � � Formation Fines Formation Fines � � Degradation of Proppant Degradation of Proppant � � Flow/Reservoir Considerations Flow/Reservoir Considerations � � Viscosity Viscosity � � Capillary Pressure Capillary Pressure � � Non Non- -Darcy Flow Darcy Flow � � Multi Multi- -Phase Flow Phase Flow � � Darcy versus Yield Darcy versus Yield- -Power Law Power Law �
The Effect of Residual Material in Fracture? The Effect of Residual Material in Fracture? � Gel Residue Gel Residue � A 20% Porosity Reduction � Damaged Proppant Damaged Proppant � Results in a 60% Loss in Permeability! � Formation Fines Formation Fines � � Proppant Degradation Proppant Degradation �
Why Does it Matter? Why Does it Matter? Typical East Texas Fracture Stimulation: Typical East Texas Fracture Stimulation: (527 mlbs mlbs 20/40 Jordan Sand, 138 20/40 Jordan Sand, 138 mgals mgals of 30# /mgal Guar) of 30# /mgal Guar) (527 Volume of Porosity Volume of Porosity = (527,000 lbs/22 lbs/gal) * (0.4/(1 = (527,000 lbs/22 lbs/gal) * (0.4/(1- -0.4)) 0.4)) = 15,970 gals = 15,970 gals Residual Polymer = 0.05 * 138,000 gals = 6,900 gals Residual Polymer = 0.05 * 138,000 gals = 6,900 gals Proppant Fines = 0.032 * (527,000 lbs/22 lbs/gal) = 766 gals Proppant Fines = 0.032 * (527,000 lbs/22 lbs/gal) = 766 gals Formation Fines = 0.0 Formation Fines = 0.0 = = 0 gals 0 gals Proppant Degradation = 0.0 = 0 gals Proppant Degradation = 0.0 = 0 gals Damage Volume = 7,666 gals Damage Volume = 7,666 gals Fractional Reduction in Porosity= 0.48 Fractional Reduction in Porosity= 0.48
Why Does it Matter? Why Does it Matter? Because we are Paying for Length and Conductivity! Because we are Paying for Length and Conductivity! � Reduced Reduced k k f w Increases $$! Increases $$! f w � A 48% Porosity Reduction Results in a 90% Loss in Permeability! � Reduced Reduced k k f w Reduces Reduces x x f ! � f w f ! � F F CD = 2 Optimum (Prats Prats) ) CD = 2 Optimum ( � � k k f w Impact on Effective Impact on Effective x x f � f w f
What Affects Proppant Pack Permeability? What Affects Proppant Pack Permeability? � Residual Material in Fracture Residual Material in Fracture � � Gel Residue Gel Residue � � Damaged Proppant Damaged Proppant � � Temperature Degradation of Proppant Temperature Degradation of Proppant � � Formation Fines Formation Fines � � Flow/Reservoir Considerations Flow/Reservoir Considerations � � Viscosity Viscosity � � Capillary Pressure Capillary Pressure � � Non Non- -Darcy Flow Darcy Flow � � Multi Multi- -Phase Flow Phase Flow � � Darcy versus Yield Darcy versus Yield- -Power Law Power Law �
The Effect of Flow/ Reservoir Considerations? The Effect of Flow/ Reservoir Considerations? Damage Mechanism Damage Mechanism � Viscosity Viscosity � � Capillary Pressure Capillary Pressure � � Non Non- -Darcy Flow Darcy Flow � � Multi Multi- -Phase Flow Phase Flow � � Darcy versus Yield Power Law Darcy versus Yield Power Law �
Recommend
More recommend
