Closing the Gap: Fracture Half Length from Design, Buildup, and Production Analysis
R. D. Barree, Barree & Associates; S. A. Cox, J. V. Gilbert, M. Dobson, Marathon Oil Company
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 5 8 October 2003.
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
It is commonly observed that hydraulically fractured wells
perform as though the effective fracture half-length were
much less than the designed half-length. This observation has
been explained by various models including poor fracture
height containment, poor proppant transport, proppant falling
out of zone (convection), ineffective proppant pack cleanup,
capillary phase trapping, multi-phase flow, gravitational phase
segregation, and non-Darcy flow, with combinations of any of
these mechanisms. With recent improvements in diagnostic
measurements of fracture geometry, some of these
explanations have lost credibility, but the problem of low
effective fracture length persists.
This paper presents detailed evaluation of hydraulically
fractured well behavior using continuous production analysis,
pressure transient (buildup) analysis and fracture treatment
evaluation using actual field data from a tight-gas reservoir in
the Rocky Mountain Region. The various analyses explain the
observed producing behavior of the well and lead to a
consistent determination of the actual effective fracture halflength compared to the physically created or propped length.
Problems relating to semantics and inconsistent fracture and
reservoir description, especially the physical processes
encompassed by various analytical techniques, will
be addressed.
Methods will be outlined for predicting the useful effective
length from available proppant conductivity data. The process
outlined helps to close the gap between designed frac length
and producing length and points out the causes for remaining
system bottlenecks that limit post-frac well productivity.
Finally, the understanding of these mechanisms provides a
means to arrive at an economic optimum fracture treatment
design for a reservoir, once key parameters are known.
Introduction
The integration of fracture design lengths with actual well
performance can provide valuable insight into the
effectiveness of the fracture stimulation. This process requires
the effective integration of several analytical tools. The
evaluation process starts with the pre-stimulation design and
ends with an evaluation of the wells production performance.
The actual rate and pressure response from the stimulation
should be history matched to determine the placed fracture
half-length. The resulting length should then be compared to
both the pre-job estimates and to actual well production
performance. Several analytical techniques are currently
available to perform post production analysis including
pressure transient testing and production analysis. Production
analysis is a technique which incorporates the wells rate and
flowing pressure into a type curve matching process to provide
a consistent post stimulation analysis. The resulting well
performance can then be evaluated by comparing the wells
producing capacity with its actual performance.
The
evaluation of past performance has proven to be the best
method of improving future performance.
In many cases the resulting fracture half-length calculated
from post production analysis is much shorter than planned.
This discrepancy can be a source of contention between the
team responsible for completing the well and the team
responsible for the optimization of field performance.
Frequently, these discrepancies can be quantified through a
comprehensive, consistent analysis of the available
information. Identifying the problems that result in short
effective fracture lengths allows appropriate design changes to
be made to improve future well performance.
The example well case-histories described represent a
subset of a more extensive field study. In general, the study
identified the need for a change in the stimulation design in
the field which has been successfully implemented and has
resulted in significant production performance improvements.
Well selection criteria for case study
The two wells selected for this case study each have a
comprehensive data set including detailed fracture stimulation
records, long term production histories, including flowing
pressures and rates, and pressure transient tests. Both wells
produce from sandstone formations, but not the same
reservoir. Reservoir and completion properties for each well
are summarized in Table 1. Both wells produce from a single
zone during the evaluation period. Long-term production
shows the influence of boundary dominated flow behavior.
Fracture stimulation data includes the treating-pressure
SPE 84491
Rock Type
Initial Reservoir Pressure, psia
o
Reservoir Temperature, F
Thickness, ft
Porosity
Initial Water Saturation
Wellbore Radius, ft
Gas Specific Gravity
o
Condensate API
Formation Compressibility, 1/psi
Water Compressibility, 1/psi
Formation Depth, ft
Well 1
Well 2
Sandstone Sandstone
3,500
2,500
190
190
24
37
0.11
0.11
0.35
0.35
0.354
0.354
0.62
0.62
55
55
3E-06
3E-06
3E-06
3E-06
9,570
8,450
A
10000
B
A
B
B
40
9000
C
10
9
8000
8
30
7000
6000
5000
20
4000
5
4
3000
3
10
2000
1000
00:50
5/21/2003
01:00
01:10
01:20
01:30
Time
01:40
01:50
5/21/2003
SPE 84491
A
B
A
B
A
GOHFER Slurry Rate (bpm)
12000
A
C
A
C
B
30
C
12
10000
25
10
8000
20
6000
15
4000
10
2000
10:40
10:50
5/21/2003
11:00
11:10
11:20
11:30
Time
Ticket #:
11:40
5/21/2003
StimWin v4.3.0
21-May-03 10:40
p wD =
khm( p )
.... (3)
1422Tq (t )
Where
(c )
(c )
q(t )dt
=
g i
zi Gi
[m( p)] ..(1)
2 pi
0.006328 kt ..(4)
(ct )i A
100
Kh = 3.27 md-ft
Xf = 200 ft
10
Boundary Dominated
Uniform Flow
Boundary Dominated
Linear Flow
PwD
t DA =
0.1
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
tDA
SPE 84491
0.9
Actual
Analytical
0.8
0.7
0.6
1/PwD
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
0.02
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.1
Kh = 3.3 md-ft
Boundary Dominated
Flow
Inifite Acting
Pseudo Radial Flow
0.1
1/PwD
PwD or PwD'
Actual
Analytical
0.1
10
0.16
QDA
100
0.04
0.1
0.1
0.0
Actual PwD
Actual PwD'
Analytical PwD
Analytical PwD'
0.1
0.0001
0.0
0.0
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
0.02
0.04
0.06
tDA
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
QDA
100
Kh = 3.27 md-ft
Xf = 22 ft
10
PwD or PwD'
0.08
1
Actual PwD
Actual PwD'
Analytical PwD
Analytical PwD'
0.1
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
tDA
10
100
SPE 84491
2500
Forecast Rate
1000
kh = 31.45 md-ft
skin = 0.5
2500
Actual Rate
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
10
Actual PwD
Actual PwD'
Analytical PwD
Analytical PwD'
0.1
0.01
0.001
0
0
0.01
0.1
10
100
200
100
400
500
600
0
700
Time (Days)
tDA
2500
Forecast Rate
t Dxf =
Actual Rate
1200
Bottomhole Pressure
2000
1500
800
600
1000
400
500
200
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time (Days)
250
300
350
0
400
Pressure (psia)
1000
Rate (Mscf/D)
300
Pressure (psia)
Rate (Mscf/D)
PwD or PwD'
100
0 . 006329 kt
c t x
3 ....(5)
2
f
SPE 84491
1.E+09
m(p)
1.E+08
m(p)'
regression
1.E+07
1.E+06
1.E+05
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
t, hours
m(p)
1.E+08
m(p)'
regression
k f v
(6)
Fnd = 1 +
1.E+07
1.E+06
1.E+05
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
t, hours
SPE 84491
1.30
Fluid:
1460.0
86.7
0.063
0.134
12.1
0.008
0.015
0.00364
5.16
34.5
0.998
1.19
46.8
45.0
1430.
0.17
120.0
0.158
5820.
Conductivity
Loss
0.47
0.84
0.468
0.194
0.036
0.375
FCD =
k f wf
.(7)
kr X fd
X fa =
X fd
FCD
1 .0 +
1 .7
1.01
..(8)
Fluid:
Pack permeability (d):
Internal Pack width (in):
External Pack width (in):
Gas velocity (cm/sec):
Oil velocity (cm/sec):
Water velocity (cm/sec):
Beta (atm*sec2/g):
Non-Darcy factor:
Conductivity (md*ft):
1700
0.999
1.15
49.4
5
2570
0.26
15
0.016
5420
SPE 84491
5000
1000
4500
900
4000
3500
800
700
3000
600
2500
500
2000
400
1500
300
1000
200
500
100
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
BH Pressure (psi)
0.026
0.333
0
400
Time (Days)
1000
GPA Rate, MSCF/day
Actual Rate, MSCF/day
PBU Rate, MSCF/day
PDK Rate, MSCF/day
WBHP psia
4500
4000
900
800
3500
700
3000
600
2500
500
2000
400
1500
300
1000
200
500
100
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
BH Pressure (psi)
Overall Multiplier
Xf loss to Tip Plugging
Conductivity
Loss
0.4
0.869
0.494
0.149
Damage Mechanism
Width Loss
Rel Perm Effect
Regained Perm
Non-Darcy Loss
0
700
Time (Days)
Conclusions
The integration of available completion, reservoir and well
performance information using appropriate analytical tools
results in a consistent evaluation method which can be used to
evaluate post fracture-stimulation production performance.
The analytical techniques presented in this paper have been
used as a basis for recommending operational changes
concerning fracture treatments performed in this field. Figure
16 demonstrates the results of the stimulation improvements
by showing the first 21 months production for recent infill
wells, compared to the same producing period for older offset
wells. The new wells are the 3rd and 4th infill wells per section,
but their performance is still better than the offset wells. The
improvement in well performance obtained by implementing
treatment design changes suggested by this analysis process
SPE 84491
1800
8 Recent Completions
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
27 Offset completions
600
400
200
0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
References
1. Barree, R. D.: A Practical Numerical Simulator for ThreeDimensional Fracture Propagation in Heterogeneous Media,
paper SPE 12273 presented at the Reservoir Simulation
Symposium held in San Francisco, CA, November 15-18, 1983.
2. Barree, R. D. and Conway, M. W.: Experimental and Numerical
Modeling of Convective Proppant Transport, paper SPE 28564
presented at the SPE 69th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in New Orleans, LA, U.S.A., 25-28
September 1994.
3. Barree, R. D. and Winterfeld, P. H.: Effects of Shear Planes and
Interfacial Slippage on Fracture Growth and Treating Pressures,
paper SPE 48926 presented at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana,
27-30 September.
4. McGowen, J. M., Barree, R. D. and Conway, M. W.:
Incorporating Crossflow and Spurt-Loss Effects in Filtration
Modeling Within a Fully 3D Fracture-Growth Simulator, paper
SPE 56597 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 3-6
October 1999.
5. Gidley, J. H., Holditch, S. A., Nierode, D. E., and Veatch, R. W.:
Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE Monogaph
Volume 12, Chap 14, SPE, Richardson, Texas, 1989.
6. Cox, S. A., Gilbert, J. V., Sutton, R. P., and Stoltz, R. P: Reserve
Analysis for Tight Gas, paper SPE 78695 presented at the 2002
SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Lexington Kentucky,
23-26 October.
7. Fraim, M.L. and Wattenbarger, R.A.: Gas Reservoir Decline
Curve Analysis Using Type Curves with Real Gas Pseudopressure
and Normalized Time, SPEFE (Dec 1987) 671-82.
8. Palacio, J.C. and Blasingame, T.A.: Decline-Curve Analysis
Using Type Curves Analysis of Gas Well Performance Data,
paper SPE 25909 presented at the 1993 Rocky Mountain Regional
Meeting/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium and Exhibition,
Denver, 26-28 April.
9. Agarwal, R.G., Gardner, D.C., Kleinsteiber, S.W. and Fussell,
D.D.: Analyzing Well Production Data Using Combined-TypeCurve and Decline-Curve Analysis Concepts, SPEREE (October
1999) 478.
10. Gardner, D.C, Hager, C.J. and Agarwal, R.G: Incorporating
Rate-Time Superposition Into Decline Type Curve Analysis,
paper SPE 62475 presented at the 2000 Rocky Mountain Regional
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of
Marathon Oil Company and its permission to publish this
paper, with the associated field data. We would also like to
acknowledge the work of Stim-Lab, Inc. for its development
of the Predict-K model and its continue efforts to understand
fracture clean-up and damage mechanisms.
Nomenclature
A = drainage area, ft
cg = gas compressibility, psi-1
cw =
ct =
FCD=
Gi =
k =
m( p) =
m ( p ) =
m ( p ) =
a
d
i
f
r
Subscripts
= apparent
= design
= initial
= fracture
= reservoir