UNDER
FRACTURING CONDITIONS
E.J.L. Koning
(,< s ^ v
->l*
!,
.f
WATERFLOODING UNDER FRACTURING CONDITIONS
PROEFSCHRIFT
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor in de technische wetenschappen aan
de Technische Universiteit Delft, op gezag van de rector magnificus,
Prof. Drs. P.A. Schenck, in het openbaar te verdedigen voor een commissie,
aangewezen door het College van Dekanen, op dinsdag 27 september 1988 te
10.00 uur
door
Eric Jan Leonardus Koning
Doctorandus in de Wiskunde en Natuurwetenschappen
geboren te Haarlem
TR diss
1664
- II -
- Ill
- V -
CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Waterflooding
1.3. Organisation
References
7
CHAPTER TWO
Summary
10
2.1. Introduction
11
14
2.2.1. Assumptions
14
14
17
18
20
22
23
27
30
T
2.3. Solution for the pressure and temperature fields
30
30
32
38
47
59
64
- VI -
73
2.9. Conclusions
73
List of symbols
75
References
77
78
81
84
89
93
97
CTT
101
CHAPTER THREE
ANALYTICAL MODELLING OF FRACTURE PROPAGATION
Summary
103
105
3.1 Introduction
106
109
3.2.1 Assumptions
109
109
114
116
120
120
121
129
131
3.4.1 Assumptions
131
132
- VII -
133
139
139
145
147
148
List of symbols
150
References
152
154
Appendix 3-B A numerical method for calculating poroand thermo-elastic stress changes
163
168
CHAPTER FOUR
A PRESSURE FALL-OFF TEST FOR DETERMINING FRACTURE DIMENSIONS
171
Summary
172
4.1 Introduction
173
175
4.2.1 Assumptions
175
175
179
183
183
4.3.2 Discussion
191
4.4 Conclusions
193
List of symbols
194
References
196
- VIII -
198
202
CHAPTER FIVE
A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO WATERFLOODING UNDER FRACTURING CONDITIONS
207
Summary
208
5.1
Introduction
209
5.2
An example
209
5.3
210
5.4
Preliminary investigations
210
5.5
214
5.6
214
215
217
217
217
221
221
230
232
5.9 Conclusions
233
List of symbols
235
References
237
238
SUMMARY
243
SAMENVATTING
247
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
'
251
- 1 -
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Waterflooding
1.2. Waterflooding under fracturing conditions
1.2.1. Scope and definition
1.2.2. Objectives of thesis
1.2.3. Previous work
1.2.4. New elements in thesis
1.3. Organisation
- 2 -
INTRODUCTION
1.1 WATERFLOODING
- 3-
- 4-
4
A major step forward was the construction by Hagoort et al. of a
numerical model that could simulate the growth of a vertical fracture of
constant height in a simple, vertically homogeneous reservoir. They studied
fracture propagation as a function of reservoir and injection/production
conditions. One of the important conclusions of this study was that the
leak-off from the fracture into the reservoir should essentially be modelled
as two-dimensional in the plane of the reservoir. Therefore previously
developed analytical models with a one-dimensional description of leak-off
are generally inadequate for modelling waterflood-induced fractures.
Later, Hagoort presented a broad and innovative study on the subject in
his thesis "Waterflood-induced Hydraulic Fracturing" . Apart from the
numerical simulation model, analytical calculations of sweep efficiency for
a 5-spot containing a fractured injector with a fixed fracture length were
presented. The calculations were also extended to stratified reservoirs. The
effect of reservoir pressure on rock stress and fracture propagation
pressure were discussed using two-dimensional poro-elastic stress
calculations. Finally, a first step towards the. monitoring of fracture
length by pressure fall-off testing was presented. The technique consists of
recording the downhole fluid pressure during an interruption of injection.
The declining fluid pressure with time can be analysed to get an indication
of fracture length.
Recently, the effect of a change in temperature on reservoir rock
stress and on fracture propagation was analysed by Perkins and Gonzalez .
They showed that injection of large amounts of cold water into reservoirs
with a good permeability can eventually result in thermal fracturing of the
rock due to a decrease in rock stress by cooling. With a simple semianalytical model they showed that thermal fractures can reach a considerable
length. They also showed that the common practice of calculating pressure
and temperature-induced changes in rock stress using two-dimensional rather
than three-dimensional poro- and thermo-elasticity, greatly underestimates
the stress changes for large lateral penetration depths of pressure or
temperature.
- 5 -
- 6 -
1.3 ORGANISATION
This thesis is written in five self-contained chapters that can be read
independently of the others.
Chapter 2 deals with the calculation of the stress field around an
unfractured wellbore. The numerical method presented here was published
earlier in Ref. 7. The analytical methods will be published in Ref. 8.
Chapter 3 describes the modelling of fracture propagation and its
effect on sweep efficiency. Most of this chapter was published in Ref. 9.
Chapter 4 describes the method of determining fracture length from a
fall-off test. This chapter was published in Ref. 10. Recently, an extension
of the method together with a field application was published in Ref. 11.
Finally, Chapter 5 concludes this thesis with practical design rules
for field implementation.
- 7 -
- 9 -
CHAPTER TWO
THE PORO- AND THERMO-ELASTIC STRESS FIELD AROUND A WELLBORE
Summary
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Solution for the stress field
2.2.1. Assumptions
2.2.2. Notation and basic equations
2.2.3. Solution with Goodier's displacement potential
2.2.4. The particular solution in cylindrical coordinates
2.2.5. Complete formulation of the problem
2.2.6. Method of solution
2.2.7. Asymptotic expansion of the stress solution
2.2.8. Simplified solution method
2.2.9. Numerical method to evaluate Ao
0T
2.3. Solution for the pressure and temperature fields
2.3.1. Temperature field
2.3.2. Pressure field
2.4. Analytical solution for thermo-elastic stress variations
2.5. Analytical solution for poro-elastic stress variations
2.6. Fracture initiation pressure
2.7. Evaluation of two field cases
2.8. Other applications
2.9. Conclusions
List of symbols
References
Appendix 2-A - Basic equations
Appendix 2-B - The particular stress solution in cylindrical coordinates
Appendix 2-C - The complete stress solution in cylindrical coordinates
Appendix 2-D - Asymptotic expansions of the stress solution
Appendix 2-E - Simplified solution method
Appendix 2-F - Numerical method to evaluate Ac
Appendix 2-G - Solution for the pressure distribution
- 10 -
SUMMARY
Changes in reservoir pressure or temperature can change the stress
field in the reservoir rock. Such changes in the stress field influence the
conditions under which fracturing of the reservoir rock can occur. They also
influence the geometry and direction of propagation of induced fractures.
This chapter presents new analytical and numerical methods for
calculating the stress field around a single vertical well in an infinite
reservoir. Poro- and thermo-elastic variations in the stress field resulting
from axisymmetric changes in reservoir pressure and temperature are
incorporated. The methods are general in the sense that no use is made of
the assumption of plane strain. The formulae presented allow application of
arbitrary axisymmetric pressure and temperature fields.
Simple analytical formulae for thermo-elastic stress variations are
presented for temperature distributions with a step profile. Simple
analytical formulae for poro-elastic stress variations are presented for
quasi, steady-state pressure profiles including discontinuities in fluid
mobility.
Analytical expressions for the fracture initiation pressure including
poro- and thermo-elastic effects are presented.
The numerical and analytical methods are used to evaluate the change
in fracturing conditions for two realistic field cases. The first is a
high-permeability reservoir in which a large thermo-elastic reduction in
rock stress occurs following the injection of cold water. Thermal fractures
may be induced under such conditions. These fractures are likely to remain
contained within the cooled reservoir region.
The second case is a low-permeability reservoir for which the
poro-elastic increase in rock stress due to the rise in pore-pressure is
dominant with respect to the cooling effect. The fracture initiation
pressure of the reservoir has therefore increased. The stresses in cap and
base rock have decreased because of cooling. The induced stress gradients
may force created fractures to grow vertically into cap and base rock.
- 11 -
2.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter an analysis is made of the factors that influence the
stress field in the reservoir rock surrounding a wellbore. In principle,
knowledge of this stress field allows one to determine the downhole fluid
injection pressure at which tensile failure or fracturing of the rock
occurs.
This so-called fracture initiation pressure is an important parameter
in selecting a suitable downhole pressure during injection. The injection
pressure should be lower if fracturing is to be prevented, for instance to
avoid communication with other reservoir zones. Or, it should be higher if
fracturing is desired, for instance to increase the injection capacity of
the well.
Since the concept of stress is generally considered to be a difficult
one, we start out with some introductory remarks on the definition of
stress. For a more complete introduction see, for instance, Ref. 1.
Consider a slightly deformed material body in equilibrium. Owing to
the deformation internal forces have been generated. Imagine an arbitrary
point inside the body blown up to form an infinitesimal cube. The sides of
this cube are subject to forces which hold it in equilibrium. A cube can be
found with an orientation such that the sides of the cube only experience
forces that are normal to its six surfaces. Since the cube is in
equilibrium, there are three independent forces, one for each pair of
opposite surfaces.
These forces taken per unit area are called the three principal
stresses in the point. If a cube with a different orientation is chosen, for
instance, such that its sides line up with the axes of a given Cartesian
coordinate system, the three principal stresses can be decomposed into their
components parallel to the coordinate axes. This then generally results in
nine nonvanishing components, three for each pair of opposite surfaces.
These nine components are called the elements of the stress tensor in the
point under consideration. Since the cube is prevented from rotating, there
can only be six independent components.
- 12 -
- 13 -
should be small with respect to the in-situ tectonic stresses so that non
linear effects on material constants such as Young's modulus and Poisson's
ratio may be neglected if the latter are taken at their in-situ values.
The linearity of the theory enables us to calculate the stresses
induced by poro-elastic effects, thermo-elastic effects and wellbore loading
separately. The combined effect is then obtained by simply adding the
respective stress components.
In the past poro-elastic effects have been included in the calculation
2-4
of the stress field around a wellbore
. However, these works relied on the
assumption that the induced poro-elastic deformations occur only in the
horizontal plane of the reservoir. This so-called assumption of plane strain
allows the vertical variation of the stresses to be neglected and results in
a considerable simplification of the differential equations involved.
Although in most cases the assumption of plane strain is acceptable
when calculating the stresses induced by the loading of the wellbore
(Section 2.2.7 of this work), this assumption is generally not valid when
poro- or thermo-elastic stresses are considered.
This was first demonstrated by Perkins and Gonzalez . They considered
combined poro- and thermo-elastic stresses for disc-shaped regions of
uniform change in pressure and temperature. It was concluded that as long as
the penetration depth of the pressure or temperature front is small compared
to the reservoir height plane strain conditions would prevail. However, as
the fronts advance during injection the state of rock deformation changes
from horizontal strain initially, to vertical strain when the penetration
depths have become large with respect to the reservoir height. The
horizontal stress may differ by as much as 100% between the case of
horizontal and vertical strain even though the pressure or temperature
inside the disc remained constant.
In their work Perkins and Gonzalez did not provide expressions for the
stresses induced by a more realistic pressure profile. Moreover, the effect
of a wellbore and an analysis of the fracture Initiation pressure were not
included.
This chapter attempts to address these remaining problems. In Section
2.2 new analytical expressions for the tangential stress are presented for
an arbitrary axisymmetric pressure or temperature profile. No assumption of
plane strain has been made. In Section 2.3 simple but realistic expressions
for the pressure and temperature field are derived.
- 14 -
In Sections 2.4 and 2.5 these expressions are used in the general
formulae of Section 2.2 to derive closed form analytical expressions for the
poro- and thermo-elastic change in tangential stress. In Section 2.6 an
analysis of poro- and thermo-elastic effects on fracture initiation pressure
is presented. Both open and cased hole are considered. In Section 2.7 the
change in tangential stress is calculated for two realistic field cases. In
Section 2.8 other applications of the solution for the stress field are
discussed. Finally, in Section 2.9 the conclusions are presented.
(2.1)
i,j=l,2,3
where:
Ap
AT
= change in temperature
- 15 -
FIG. 2.1
- 16 -
Aa. .
c..
3
= trace of stress tensor = Z A a.
X1
1-1
= strain tensor
5..
Ao
i]
% = -3
where c, and c
(c
b-v
ir
(1
-^}
(2 2)
ij
i]
- 17 -
oAT =a Ap + a AT
pr
T
(2.3)
(2.4)
The sign convention in Eq. (2.1) and (2.4) takes compressive stresses and
strains as positive.
Eq. (2.4) can be inverted to express the stresses in terms of the
strains. If the strains are then expressed in terms of a displacement vector
and the stresses are substituted into the equations of equilibrium, three
differential equations in the three components of the displacement vector
result. For given Ap and AT and for given boundary conditions for the
stresses the solution for the stress field is determined. The development of
the differential equations is given in Appendix 2-A.
(2.5)
2
2
2 1/2
R = [(x-x') + (y-y') + (z-z) ] '
(2.6)
with
The particular
solution for the stress tensor denoted as Aa. - is obtained
r
13T
from (2.5) by:
a2
Aa. - = - T z 0 + AAT 6. .
13T
1+u 9x.9x.
13
1 3
(2.7)
(2.8)
- 18 -
and A
(2.9)
A = T- 2
p
1-u
12
= T 2 - ^ (1
l-v
c
a
)
c '
b
(2.10)
and
Ea
m = ^
T
1-
(2.11)
(2.12)
(2.13)
Because of symmetry the displacement vector has only a radial and a vertical
component, given by, respectively:
u = - 3 0 ;
r
w = - 3 0
z
(2.14)
From Appendix 2-B the particular solution for the stresses is given by:
Ao - =
3 0 + AAT
rT
1+u r v
; Ao - = -~ 3 0 + AAT
zT
1+u z
(2.15)
- 19 -
Two limiting cases can now be considered. In the first case we assume
that the vertical variation of AT inside the reservoir zone is small.
If furthermore the penetration depth of the pressure and temperature
variations are small with respect to the reservoir height, the only
displacement will be in the horizontal plane and:
w = - 3 0 = 0
(2.16)
z
Then (2.13) can be readily integrated, giving
r
u = - 9 <t> = T ^ a r
l-i) r
(2.17)
r
w
Aa
rT
= +
A r
~2 '
r r
dr
'r'
AT
w
A
Ao - = -
r
Ao
Ao
= AAT(r,z)
- = 0
rzT
The expressions in (2.18) are the well-known plane strain results for the
1
stresses .
In the second limiting case we assume that the radial variation of AT
is small. When furthermore the penetration depths become very large with
respect to the reservoir height, there will be displacement in the vertical
direction only and therefore:
u = - 9 0 = 0
r
giving from (2.13) and (2.15)
(2.19)
- 20 -
Ac - = Aa.- = AAT(r,z)
rT
0T
'
(2.20)
Aa - = Aa - = 0 .
zT
rzT
We call (2.19) the condition of vertical strain.
From the above it is clear that during fluid injection into a
reservoir the conditions for poro- and thermo-elastic stresses can change
from plane strain to vertical strain. In Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of this
chapter this will be demonstrated with explicit examples.
= p -p. is
21
IMPERMEABLE
PERMEABLE
~ri
r-1
FIG. 2.2
- 22 -
Ao
Aa
r
rz
= Ap
} -v
|.|<f
=0
(2.21)
Aa
= 0
r
Aa
rz
} r.V
|.|f
=0
(2.23)
- = 0
rzT
lim Aa..- =
r->
r = r , -0 < z < +
w
(2.24)
lim Aa. - = 0
I z I *
- 23 -
Ao
= Ap
Ao - O
rz
Ao = O
r
(2.25)
} -. | . | f
Ao = O
rz
lim Ao. . =
lim Ao.. = 0
Problem (2.25) is relatively well known and was first solved by Tranter .
7
His result was extended by Kehle to account for the shear stresses exerted
on the formation by the frictional force of the packers. Kehle found that
for realistic cases this effect can be neglected.
The solution to problem (2.24) has, to our knowledge, not been
published in the literature. We have determined Ao. - by decomposing it into
the particular solution and a solution to the homogeneous equations of
elasticity,
(2.26)
13
IJT
ijT
- 24 -
; Aa.
Aa. -- satisfies
satisfies "tract
"traction-free" wellbore
Component
Generating potential
Aa.
Love potential
Love potential
Goodier's displacement
ID
o
Aa i jT
ljT
potential
- 25 -
(2.27)
where h is the reservoir height and H the step function defined as:
H(a-x) = 1
x < a
(2.28)
= 0
x > a
A(J
0T
" 2 ^2
r
+ f dr.r.AT(r.,. {
r
(z
, '+
+ r' )
(z
where
N(z,
1
z
z_
-,r) =
, .^ +
~
. -_
' 2
, 2
2,1/2
, 2
2,1/2
(z+ + r )
(z_ + r )
(2.30)
and
z+ = | + z
(2.31)
- 26 -
*T
AS
<2'32>
HT
where
AS
, 2'
(z
,2,3/2*
+ r' )
<2'33>
the term with the modified Bessel function K (kr) (see Appendix 2-D) is
neglected, we find:
Ap
Aa = - ~Y
r 2
(-f-)
N(z, - , r)
(2.34)
d
N(Z
r) =
' 2~'
1
TJl
l//L
[u^ + l]
[u_
(2>35)
/2
+1]
where
d/2 + z
u =
+
(2.36)
'
e w>
" ~f
N(z
' 2' V
(2.37)
where:
P
w
u^ '
2 > V
- 27 -
M(z, - . r) =
~
jji
[u/ + 1] '
+
[u_
+ 1]J/2
(2.38)
values of 2r /d. Poisson's ratio was taken as 0.2. The plot shows Aoa up to
a
io (t
' - - *\,
W = f
}
2r
r<
0.01
(2.39)
|.|f
o
8
The result ACT (r ) = - Ap is the same as the well-known result obtained
0 w
w
under plane strain conditions. In the latter case it is assumed that the
loaded interval d is infinitely long.
We have shown that the solution for Aa. can be safely approximated by
the first term in its asymptotic series expansion, as long as 2r /d < 0.1.
However, since we are dealing with an asymptotic series the complete range
of validity of this first term approximation may be substantially larger.
This complete range of validity can only be determined by comparing (2.34)
with a numerical evaluation of the exact expression for ACT.. Since however,
the condition 2r /d < 0.1 is satisfied for most practical cases we have not
investigated this matter any further.
2.2.8 Simplified solution method
If 2r/h < 0.01 then from the previous subsection N(z,-,r) becomes a
step function. Under this condition the particular solution (2.29) becomes
in the neighbourhood of the wellbore (r ~ r ):
Aa
0T
" \
dr r A
|z| < |
r r
w
(2.40)
=AS H i (z,
with AS - defined in (2.33).
|z|>|
28
o.o
_-5U=L=
2rw /h 0.01
2r w /h = 0.1
2r w /h= 1.0
-02
UPTOFIRST ORDER
UP TO SECOND ORDER
-0.4
-0.6
-1.0
0.8
1.2
1.6
1.8
2.0
2Z/h
FIG. 2.:
- 29 -
We now observe that for |z| < h/2 Eq. (2.40) consists of the well-known
plane strain expression (2.18) plus the term AS -.
Taking, for convenience, the distance between the packers as being
equal to the reservoir height (h=d), we have for the complete tangential
stress field near the wellbore:
Aan = Aan- + Ao- + Laa
9
6T
0T
6
= (
r 2
r
S
i ) {AS
Ap }
dr,r,AT r
7
HT " w " ~2
( ')
r r
w
(2.41)
+ AAT(r) + AS H T
|z| < |
r 2
= ()
AS - + AS r
HT
HT
"
|z| > r
' ' 2
for
In Appendix 2-E it is shown that (2.41) could have been obtained from the
plane strain expression for the particular solution (2.18) and from the
simple plane strain solution to the homogeneous equations of elasticity
provided that the combined plane strain solution is subjected to the
boundary condition
Aa
r
lim
-00
= AS -
-<z<+
(2.42)
|z| < |
(2.43)
=AS v - ( z)
|z|>|
- 30 -
where
ASv-(z) = - 2ASH(z)
(2.44)
A(7
= AS t -
VT
- co < z < +
(2.45)
In Chapter 3 the above interpretation is used in calculating the poroelastic stresses around a vertical fracture. The poro-elastic stresses at
the fracture wall are calculated in plane strain. Eq. (2.42) with a slightly
adapted version of (2.33) is then used to account for deviations from plane
strain.
- 31 -
H
T D = erfc Wr
}
2(l-RD )
2
A
D TD +
D
= erfc {
~
2/(rD(l-RD2,)
= 0
(2.46)
where
T - T
res
=
D
T. . - T
mj
res
4a t M
s
s
T
D =
2
2
h M
r
R
(2.47)
r
D = R
c
M
. 1/2
R = l
M h?rJ
c
r
r
and
T
= injection time
= reservoir height
is the radius of the temperature front and obeys the simple convective
heat balance:
- 32 -
At R
AT = it R
2
h M AT
c
r
(2.48)
'
Pe =
TTT >:> x
s
(2 49
- >
where Pe is the dimensionless Peclet number. Condition (2.49) means that the
radial velocity of the temperature front is much greater than the vertical
velocity of the temperature transients in cap and base rock. Therefore, with
isotropic thermal conductivities and approximately equal thermal
diffusivities in the reservoir and cap and base rock, radial temperature
transients may be neglected. Using the expression for R in (2.47), (2.49)
c
becomes:
M
M ffha
.s
s
(2.50)
for
different values of r . This plot shows that for r < 0.05 the step function
is a good approximation to the temperature profile inside the reservoir.
This is the convective limit in which the amount of heat given off by cap
and base rock is small with respect to the amount of heat given off by the
reservoir.
33
FIG. 2.4
34 -
where
Ap = p ( r , t )
- p
k.
= fluid mobility (X = )
M
= reservoir height
= injection rate
= injection
time
00
-g
ds)
2
For r /47jt < 0.02 ( 2 . 5 1 ) can be approximated by:
2 * ^
q
- - l n f R
e
(2.52)
with
R = 1.5 /(Tjt)
e
(2.53)
Eq. (2.52) has the form of the steady-state solution with a time-dependent
exterior radius. We therefore call (2.52) the quasi steady-state
approximation.
Introducing the dimensionless quantities:
D=Re
=
^D
(2
' 54 >
2jrhXAp.
q
A p D = - In r Q
(2.55)
Fig. 2.5 compares (.2.55) with the line source solution (2.51). It is shown
that for r
> 0.6 the accuracy of (2.55) becomes less than 13%. However, for
35
7.0
UNE-SOURCE
QUASI STEADY-STATE
6.0 -
1.2
1.4
FIG. 2.5
- 36 -
T4p2
x ; l n r - 2 ^ e x p w)>El("^J
(2 56)
R2
2
2?rh .
1 1
. _F .
r
Ap 3 = - - T- exp (T^)-Ei(-T^)
with Ap., X., i=l,2,3 the pressure differences and mobilities in the cold
flooded zone, the warm flooded zone and the oil zone, respectively, TJ is the
hydraulic diffusivity in the oil zone. R
J
4rjt (2.57)
2
f - < 0.02
the'following expression is a good approximation to (2.56)
R
X,
R
Xn
R
Ap, = In + r~ In - + r In ID
r
X
R
X_
R
2
c
3
F
X
X,
A
Ap
3D
r3
R
F
R
1
ln
2jrhX
with Ap. =
JD
and R
Ap., j = 1,2,3
*}
given in (2.53).
37
SCHEMATIC R E P R E S E N T A T I O N OF P R E S S U R E P R O F I L E
WITH V E R T I C A L D I S P L A C E M E N T F R O N T S .
FIG. 2.6
- 38 -
rD
2
4a t M
= |
1- < 0.05
h M
r
(2.59)
Furthermore, if we neglect the temperature change in cap and base rock due
to conduction, we simply have:
AT(r,z) = AT.H(^ - |z|).H(R -r)
(2.60)
ST
ST
+A
Vr
r 2
= (7*) AS H T
r
dr'ATfr'Jr'.Nfz,-^) + y i ( r ) H ( j - |z|)
2r r
w
z_
dr'r' AT(r'). {
(z 2 + r-V /2
}
(z
2
+
(2.61)
r'2)3/2
where:
AS_ =
HT
4
dr'AT(r')r'
{ r
-r +
^ ^, ]
v
'
, 2
.2 3/2
, 2
,2 3/2n
r
(z
+ r' )
(z + r' )
w
+
-
v(2.62)
'
- 39 -
0TD
AAT
T
tc
(2.63)
z
R
c
D ~ 2R
Aa
w
D
,1
AS
~2
wD
" N< W
i i
1 )
^V^D'*
r
< 1
(2.64a)
2
wD 2
>
1
AS
wD
-1(r> ^ v w
HTD
D*
(2 64b)
r_
where:
A
N(
(z D+2 ++ r \l/2
)
D '
v
(a)
'
z
2 %
(zD- + r D ')1/2
(2
'65)
(b)
(c)
'
z = h + z
D+
D D
^TD^wD
"
2AS
HTD
+ H(h
D - lsDl>
(2
is not included.
'66)
- 40 -
) with a numerical
Appendix 2-F.
The results are shown in Figs. 2.7a-2.7f. Here Aortm was made
3
0TD
dimensionless with respect to |AT| rather than AT and therefore, since the
dimensionless change in stress is negative for r < 1, a cooled reservoir is
represented. For comparison, the analytical plane strain solution is also
shown (see Eq. (2.73) below).
From the figures there is excellent agreement between the analytical
and numerical solution within the cooled region. For smaller dimensionless
reservoir heights the results become less accurate close to the temperature
front (Fig. 2.7g). Close to the front outside the cooled region the relative
error can become as large as 20%. Within the cooled region the absolute
stress level is higher so that with approximately the same absolute error
the relative error inside is much smaller than the relative error outside
the cooled region.
In Ref. 5 Perkins and Gonzalez investigated the change in tangential
stress induced by a cylindrical inclusion of constant temperature. They did
not consider the presence of a wellbore. They provided an expression for the
change in tangential stress averaged over the cooled region. This expression
was obtained by curve fitting to numerical results.
We calculate the average change in tangential stress by putting
r
wD =
(2
- 67)
(2.68)
41
1.0
NUMERICAL SOLUTION
PLANE STRAIN SOLUTION (ANALYTICAL)
ASYMPTOTIC SOLUTION (ANALYTICAL)
h 0 =10.
z D =0.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
1.0
T"
0.8
0.6
NUMERICAL SOLUTION
PLANE STRAIN SOLUTION (ANALYTICAL)
ASYMPTOTIC SOLUTION (ANALYTICAL)
hD = 10
rWD = 0.06
rD =0.1
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
0.0
2.0
FIG. 2.7b
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
1.0
42
NUMERICAL SOLUTION
PLANE STRAIN SOLUTION (ANALYTICAL)
ASYMPTOTIC SOLUTION (ANALYTICAL)
t.0
0.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
0.8
-1.0 "0.0
_1_
_1_
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
1.0
0.8 h
NUMERICAL SOLUTION
PLANE STRAIN SOLUTION (ANALYTICAL)
ASYMPTOTIC SOLUTION (ANALYTICAL)
h 0 1.0
r w 0 = 0.0'
0.006
0.1
0.6
Q.4
0.2
0.0
j _
-1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
43 -
NUMERICAL SOLUTION
PLANE STRAIN SOLUTION (ANALYTICAL)
ASYMPTOTIC SOLUTION (ANALYTICAL)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
J_
1.6
1.8
2.0
1.0
1
h0
0.8
NUMERICAL SOLUTION
PLANE STRAIN SOLUTION (ANALYTICAL)
ASYMPTOTIC SOLUTION (ANALYTICAL)
0.1
rWD 0.0006
0.6
=0.1
0.4
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
44
20.0
h =1.0
rw0= 0.006
16.0
12.0
<
Z
LU
O
OC
O
cc
o:
Ld
8.0
<
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
FIG. 2.7 g
I.U
1i i i i 111
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
1i i i i 111
1rr M i l ]
co
CO
1 1
CO
0.9
_I
<
zUJ
hO
_i
z
o
CO
z
UJ
2
O
/./
o
z<
X
/ '//
y
i
t A
0.7
/:
'/.'"
'/ *
/ /
0.6
*/
*s
z
UJ
' . /
0.8
z
<
(
en
to
UJ
t:
,''~Ss^
''
'
0.5
"
n A
'
,-J
10
10"
'
1 11
10
1 1 1ll
10'
A hi A 1 V T t f * A 1
1 _J - 1 - L U . l l
10
1/hc
FIG. 2.8
D F C I ft T CftO
l_J_-l. 1 1 1
105
- 45 -
with AS
and
for h
<2'69>
is also accurate at
least for 2 r /h < 0.1. This is confirmed by the fact that the functional
w
relationship between r and h in (2.69) is the same as that between r and d
w
w
in the first term of Ao. (Eq. (2.37)). A conservative criterion for the
o
DO
WO
following results:
- 46 -
1 (plane strain)
AS
HTD
^HTD
lZDl ' h D
(3)
(b)
} h Q > 100
AS
HTD
' 2 DI * h D
S mT , = T
HTD
4
(C)
|zj t h
' D'
D
(2
'701
(d)
'
} 10 < h < 100
S = " 7
HTD
4
0TD
A"
|zj 4. hn
' D'
D
- 0TD " 4
(e)
(a)
D =
I DI
fh
r
2
}(-T2)
(b)
(2.71)
STD
"
1
4
AaafT,(r ) = 1
0TD wD
A
flmT,(r ) = 1.5
0TD wD
I Z DI * h D
(c)
z = 0
D
(a)
|z ! t h
' D'
D
(b)
}
Aa. (r ) = - ;
0TDv wD'
2
(2.72)
|z| * h n
' D'
D
(c)
v
A^ ( p s ) - A(PS> - i ,fwDx2 * I
0TD
" A<7TD ~ 2 ( ~ > + 2
D
n <
(2.73)
* " 2
2>
r
D
D "
- 47 -
1 (vertical strain)
AS.
HTD
< h.
(2.74)
AS
=0
HTD
> h.
Ao
< h.
Aa
0TD = 1
0TD
wD
( )
D
= 0
(2.75)
> h.
Aartm^(r ) = 2
TD wD
< h.
(2.76)
*WW
> h.
We see from these limits that inside the reservoir the stress changes
double as the state of deformation goes from plane strain to vertical
strain. In the plane strain case the stress change at the vertical reservoir
boundary is 50% larger than a bit further inside the reservoir for
10 < h
< 100.
(r
values of h.
Ap
r
D = - In rDn
with
r =
D t
(2.77)
48
FIG. 2.9
- 49 -
R = 1.5 /(rjt)
e
When (2.77) is substituted into the poro-elastic counterpart of (2.61) the
integrals can be easily evaluated.
We introduce the dimensionless variables:
z
,
h
R ' ftD = 2R
e
e
.-
2ffhX
A-
%>D = a T ^
HpD
qA
<2-79>
Hp
Q< V V 1 * ~ < V W
(r
~2
rD
^ DA
D 1}
+
VW
(rD>
(2 80)
'
I> }
1)
where
A
PD!rwD>
AS
HPD = 1
' N( WW
z
Q(z
,h , r
) = asinh
~ ,
D+
r,
D - D
z
+ asinh
(2.81)
- 50 -
/ 2
with asinh x = ln(x + /(x + 1)), N defined in (2.65b) and H the step
function in (2.28).
At the wellbore (2.80) becomes:
As for the thermo-elastic case, a few wellbore radii out into the
oir Aaa
_ = (r n_/r_)
_ becomes
become very
reservoir
/r )
As
J small and Aan _ becomes
0pD
wD n D
HpD
0pD
identical to the particular solution Ao,
0pD*
Range of validity of asymptotic expressions
As in the previous section, we have first compared the analytical
solution for Aafl
2-F. The results are shown in Figs. 2.10a-2.10f. The figures show that there
is excellent agreement between the analytical and numerical solutions both
within and outside the reservoir. In fact, the curves for the numerical and
analytical solution coincide completely in Figs. 2.10a and 2.10b and almost
completely in Figs. 2.10c-2.10f. For comparison the analytical plane strain
solution is also shown (see Eq. (2.87) below).
. o
For Ao. _ we have at the wellbore:
0pD
A o (r \ = AS
0pD
wD
HpD
(2.83)
Ac. (r )
dp
vi
A Ap(r )
p
w
(2.84)
7 N(z,h,r ) - T Ufz^fh,,^ )
4
D D wD
4
D D wD
where from (2.81) and (2.77):
u(
W r D }
m y y i ) - Q(zD>hD>rwD)
T7T
{2 85)
'
wD
Fig. 2.11 shows the function - U for 2r /h = 0.01 and for various values of
2
1
h . For comparison, the function N(z ,h ,1) is also shown. The latter
51
PRESSURE
STRESS (NUMERICAL)
STRESS (ANALYTICAL)
STRESS (PLANE STRAIN)
rwD 0.003
hD 1.0
z = 0.0
V.
0.00
_i_
0.05
0.10
FIG. 2.10a
0.15
0.20
0.25
_l_
_1_
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
o O
PRESSURE
STRESS (NUMERICAL)
STRESS (ANALYTICAL)
rwD 0.003
1.0
r 0.1
o O
....J.'BJH
M M W W I
0.0
0.2
0.4
FIG. 2.10b
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
52
10.0
9.0
'wD
PRESSURE
STRESS (NUMERICAL)
STRESS (ANALYTICAL)
STRESS (PLANE STRAIN)
0.0003
h =0.1
zD
8.0
=0.0
7.0
6.0
a
a.
b*
5.0
<
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.00
0.05
0.10
FIG. 2.10c
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
8.0
PRESSURE
STRESS (NUMERICAL)
STRESS (ANALYTICAL)
r w0 = 0 . 0 0 0 3
7.0
6.0
hD
=0.1
rn
= 0.1
5.0
a
a.
b
<
o.o
-1.0
j _
-2.0
0.00
0.02
0.04
FIG. 2.10d
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
O.U
0.16
0.18
53
10.0
9.0
r w0 = 0 . 0 0 0 0 3
hD
0.01
8.0 It
zD
= 0.0
PRESSURE
STRESS (NUMERICAL)
STRESS (ANALYTICAL)
STRESS (PLANE STRAIN)
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.00
-i_
_1_
_1_
0.05
0.10
0.15
FIG. 2.10e
_1_
_l_
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
8.0
7.0 h
PRESSURE
STRESS (NUMERICAL)
STRESS (ANALYTICAL)
rwD 0.00003
0.01
rn =
6.0
0.1
5.0
4.0 h
3.0
-1.0
_i_
-2.0
0.000
_i_
0.002
0.004
0.006
j _
0.008
0.010
j _
0.012
_i_
_L
0.014
0.016
Z
FIG. 2.10f
_l_
0.018
0.020
54
i n
\ * \
08
\ l
^ ~ "* ** -
^ \
\.
^**^^
OS
A\
Ai
Ml
N/2
\ \\
K^-
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.6
h 0 = 01
^ *
'
**-*^
*xs*^
0.0
h 0 * 1.0
""N.
iV
\
\
h0-lO
Mi
1"& t
0.2
"""*-
^ ^*x
"--^^.
> ^ x ^
"""
*
""*--'..
^-..
~~~
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.8
Z.0
2z/h
FIG. 2.11
- 55 -
1 (plane strain)
wD
SpD(rwD)
~A7
T~ = 1
~ =
Ap(r )
r
D wD
(2.86)
Away from the vertical reservoir boundary inside the reservoir, the plane
strain expression for the stress is recovered:
pS)
Aai
=i
Ap (r ) - 4^ + K(^"V
0pD
2 F D l D'
t '
{^ Ap
(r ) +4Jl]
* V wD;
(2.87)
( r D < 1)
which at the wellbore becomes:
Al^U
0pD
h
1 = Ap rr )
(2.88)
*D V WD
wD'
1 (vertical
strain)
AS
HpD
A P Jr n ) = 2
rH
A D f wD', = 0
^ W
'V < hD
| z j > hn
D
(2.89)
- 56 -
VD (r wD ) = 2 ,
, .
< h
' Z DI
Ap(r
r
n)
D wD
D
(2.90)
Ap(r
n)
*l> wD
I 2 DI
>h
HTD
= 0.45
for h =
D
= 0.1
(a)
ir
(2.91)
c
HpD
Ap
f o r h = = 0.1
D
2R
e
= 0.125
D ( r wD>
(b)
= 0.
%1D = <r>'ASHPD
+ A
eiD(r)-H(f - M>
57
ho = 10.
h D = 0.1
h 0 = 0.001
_ ^
"O
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
_J_
1.0
1.2
1.4
16
18
2.0
2Z/h
DIMENSIONLESS PORO-ELASTIC STRESS CHANGE AT WELLBORE
FIG. 2.12
- 58 -
r
Aa
0p2D
4S
" T '
HpD
+ A >
^ Q ( ^ r ) J (^ - ^ ) Q(.f, V
X
R < r < R
c - F
(2.92)
Sp3D
AS
>
HpD
+ A
P 3 D ( r ) ' H ( I - M>
-,
4
R < r < R
F e
% 4 D " <r>
0(^0^)
i^ o , 4v
r
AS
HPD
(z^,r){-^(^)
R 2 Xn
Xn
4 'r
( ^ ) 2 (^Ap 1D (r w ) + )
X,
2
r > R
e
1)
- 59 -
where
2ffhX
AS
AS
HpD
qA
Hp
4 A p iD ( r w J
N(Z
(1
" xj>
<Z'I'V
(2.93)
(
h
+
- < 'I'V
xj " xj> <"'f'V
4 xj
Q(z,-,r) = asinh + asinh
bo.
2irhX
-r. ~
baQ .
0piD
qA
0pi
i = 1,2,3,4.
oa
(2.94)
- *;"<v p<v - w
where a
* T
(2 95)
- 60 -
*A W
W
A
(2 96)
8i
v v = V ( r w> + A v r w >
'
ST ( V
with p. the initial reservoir pressure and a. the initial tangential stress
around the wellbore at pressure p. and initial reservoir temperature T
r
"i
res
(a)
|z| < J
' '
2
Aa = - Ap(r w )
(b)
(2.97)
(c)
where we have assumed for simplicity that the interval over which the
wellbore is radially loaded by Ap is sufficiently long for (2.97c) to hold
(see Section 2.2.7).
Substitution of (2.96) and (2.97) into (2.95) gives for the fracture
initiation pressure:
, , = 0i + ( 1 - V^P i
pfi(z)
V T * 2AS HP * 2AS HT + T
J^TJ
,|z|
, <h -
(2.98)
11
(2.99)
- 61 -
+ AS
at the time just before this change is made. ASm and AS can be calculated
HT
Hp
from the expressions in Sections 2.4 and 2.5. The same reasoning applies
when a change is made to a new injection temperature so that AT + AT'. Eq.
(2.98) can be used with the term AAT replaced by AAT* but with AS
T
T
HT
evaluated just before the change and at the old injection temperature. In
time, of course, AS
and As
and AS
continue to change slowly with time. If fracturing has not yet occurred,
will it occur later and at what time?
To answer this question an expression for p(r ,t) has to be entered on
the left-hand side of (2.99). The expressions for AS
and As
from
Sections 2.4 and 2.5 have to be entered into p. and (2.99) has to be solved
for the time t, at which the equality sign holds. Since p(r ), AS
and AS m
depend on time in a non-linear way this must be done with a Newton iteration
procedure. If no zero is found, future fracturing will not occur at the
rate q.
- 62 -
in the well at the same pressure and temperature as the reservoir, we have,
using the solution (2-E-7) from Appendix 2-E with C = S . and
1
2
Hi
C
= r
(P
ei
rSHi):
= 2S
Hi " p i
(2
'100)
fi
Hi
+ AS
Hp
+ AS
HT) - V i * V
r^j-
+ T
<2-l0l>
fi
Hi - V i * V
V ^
* T
(2 102)
P
For very large penetration depths As
= A AT and AS
= A Ap.
HT
2 T
Hp
2 p
Substitution into (2.101) gives:
2SIT. + A Ap - A p. + 2AmAT + om
P
For arbitrary penetration depths AS
and AS
P(r ) < P
w
min)
fl
2S. - A p. + 2A,AT + o m
- ~Si
.
T
A
2 -A
P
(2.104)
- 63 -
0i
- Shi
+ S
Hi
+ 2(S
hi " SHi>
COS29
(2
" ^
-105>
Hi
(2<106)
- 2SH. - p s
(2.107)
- p
on the
formation. During injection however the pore pressure adjacent to the cement
rises and the point may be reached where the net radial stress exerted on
the cement bond becomes zero or negative and separation of cement and
formation is induced.
If this occurs open hole fracturing conditions again apply. For deeper
reservoirs where vertical fractures can be induced separation of cement and
formation is likely to occur before fracturing of the formation. Thus Eq.
(2.98) can still be used to calculate the pressure at which the formation
parts.
- 64 -
CS
Hi " (SHi +
Vi)] " a
A =
= e
= 0:
(2
-108)
reservoir.
With estimates for T, , u and with S. equal to the pressure of the
dep
Vi
overburden the magnitude of the horizontal stresses can be approximated with
Eq. (2.109). It should be noted however, that Eq. (2.109) may give wrong
answers even in tectonically relaxed areas. The reason is that the burial
history of the reservoir and the associated change in elastic constants
during geologic time is not taken into account. The preferred way of
determining S . is through in-situ stress measurements by creating
microfractures. A more extensive discussion can be found in Chapter 5,
section 5.5.
- 65 -
Injection rate, m /d
Sandstone
Limestone
reservoir
reservoir
8000
60
730
730
Reservoir height, m
120
50
2
-15
Effective permeability to water, m *10
250
1.0
1000
4.0
1.0
0.7
Warm
0.3
0.4
0.3
2.6
0.12
0.30
0.25
0.25
Porosity
0.24
0.24
-1
-4
Total compressibility, (bar) *10
0.86
0.50
, kj/m C
2100
2100
"
"
"
"
Oil viscosity
to oil
,
,
"
"
"
of injection water
"
4200
4200
"
"
"
2100
2100
2.5
2.5
-70
-30
A T , bar/C
1.0
0.9
A , bar/bar
P
0.5
0.4
- 66 -
w 2
(7V
1.
The results after two years of injection are shown in Figs. 2.13.a2.13c. As the reservoir has good permeability the change in pressure and the
corresponding poro-elastic stress increase are small. The thermo-elastic
stress reduction induced by the large degree of cooling is clearly
dominating. Because of conduction, cooling and a corresponding lowering of
stress have also occurred in cap and base rock. Taking the initial all-round
horizontal stress to be S. = 500 bar, the initial reservoir pressure p. =
Hi
1
450 bar and a tensile strength of zero, we find from (2.101) that at the
beginning of injection (AS
= 0, AS
= 0) fracturing occurs at a
HT
HP
bottomhole pressure of 470 bar. If the penetration depth of the cold front
becomes large with respect to the reservoir height, AS
* - A AT and
and AS
(2.101) has to be solved for the fracturing time using a Newton iteration
procedure.
As can be seen from Fig. 13c, the injection of cold water has resulted
in a steep stress gradient at the vertical boundaries of the cooled zone.
Therefore, a fracture is likely to remain vertically contained within this
zone. The figure shows furthermore that also at the radial boundary of the
cooled zone a steep stress barrier has been induced.
The thermo-elastic stress reduction was also calculated using the
assumption of plane-strain. It is clear from fig. 2.13b that the assumption
of plane strain seriously underestimates the magnitude of the stress
67
80.0
20.0
60.0 -
15.0
40.0 -
10.0
20.0
5.0
0.0
-20.0
-5.0
-40.0
-10.0
-60.0
- -15.0
-80.0
0.0
O
JQ
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
220.0
-20.0
240.0
SANDSTONE RESERVOIR
80.0
20.0
60.0 -
15.0
40.0 -
10.0
20.0 -
5.0
O
0.0
-20.0
-5.0
-40.0
-10.0
-60.0 -
- -15.0
-80.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
220.0
-20.0
240.0
<
68 40.0
-i
40.0
r
AT
20.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
-20.0
-40.0
-40.0
-60.0 -
-60.0
-80.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
FIG. 2.13c
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
_L_
200.0
_1_
220.0
-20.0
-80.0
240.0
40.0
ANALYTICAL
NUMERICAL
20.0
0.0
-20.0
-40.0
-60.0
-80.0
0.0
FIG. 2.14a
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
_I_
200.0
220.0
240.0
O
O
69
80.0
I"
-T
r ' - r - -1
ANALYTICAL
NUMERICAL
60.0 -
40.0
20.0 -
0.0
-20.0
if
-40.0
-60.0
11
11
-80.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
-.. i
140.0
/1
/ 1
/ 1
/
11
*
1
160.0
180.0
.)
200.0
..1
220.0
240.0
10.0
--i
-i
"r
9.0 8.0
7.0 -
6.0
5.0 -
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0 1
0.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
1
180.0
L
200.0
1
220.0
240.0
- 70 -
reduction. The reason is that after two years of injection the radius of the
cold front (175 m) is quite large with respect to half the reservoir height
(60 m), giving a rather small dimensionless reservoir height of
h/2R
= 0.34.
c
In Figs. 2.14a-2.14c the numerical calculations are compared with the
71
120.0
120.0
100.0 \-
100.0
80.0
80.0
60.0 -
60.0
40.0
40.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
-20.0
-20.0
-40.0
-40.0
0.0
4.0
8.0
12.0
16.0
20.0
24.0
28.0
32.0
36.0
40.0
40.0
LIMESTONE RESERVOIR
"I
30.0
10.0
20.0
0.0
i
i
i
//
*
-10.0
-20.0
Afftfp
Aa0T
Aff0p+A<T0-j-
-30.0
0.0
4.0
8.0
12.0
16.0
20.0
24.0
28.0
32.0
36.0
40.0
72
40.0
30.0
O
XI
V)
(/)
ui
20.0
cc
\
to
10.0
z
ui
o
z
<
0.0
o
z
-10.0
_ 20.0
<
Aff 0 T
Aagp+AffflT
-30.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
1S.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
FIG. 2.15c
- 73 -
that of Lauwerier. The stress field around a production well can also be
calculated with these new formulae. Finally, the derived Goodier and Love
potential functions can be used to calculate the displacements rather than
the stresses.
2.9 CONCLUSIONS
1. A simple analytical expression has been derived for the tangential stress
resulting from radial loading of the wellbore over an interval d. The
expression is shown to be valid at least for 2r /d < 0.1 with r the
w
w
wellbore radius. For 2r /d < 0.01 the result becomes equal to the wellw
known plane strain result.
2. Simple analytical expressions have been derived to calculate the change
in stress state of the reservoir resulting from axisymmetric changes in
reservoir pressure and temperature. The new analytical expressions do not
rely on an assumption of plane strain. The boundary conditions at the
injection well are properly incorporated. For realistic pressure and
temperature profiles the new formulae are shown to be accurate for
arbitrary penetration depth and at least for 2r /h < 0.1 with h the
reservoir height. The latter condition is satisfied for most field cases.
3. For 2r /h < 0.01 the new analytical solutions can be derived from
well-known plane strain solutions if the latter are subjected to a
modified boundary condition at infinity. This boundary 'condition may be
interpreted as an apparent change in far-field stress.
- 74 -
4. If the lateral pressure and temperature penetration depths are large with
respect to the reservoir height the poro- and thermo-elastic stress
changes may become twice as large as predicted by the plane strain
solutions.
6. Cooling of the reservoir following the injection of cold water may induce
thermal fracturing. If the radius of the cold front is still small with
respect to the reservoir height fracturing occurs first near the top and
bottom of the reservoir.
- 75 -
LIST OF SYMBOLS
poro-elastic constant
thermo-elastic constant
Young's modulus
reservoir height
c
R
F
R
e
r
r
w
S
or
S
wc
S.
Hi
S, .
hi
S.
vertical coordinate
Vi
Greek
a
6..
Kronecker delta
e. .
strain tensor
i:
Poisson's ratio
AT
Ap = p-p.
AT=T-T
Ao. .
- 76 -
Aa
Subscripts
T
thermo-elastic
poro-elastic
dimensionless
Superscripts
o
ps
plane strain
- 77 -
REFERENCES
1. Timoshenko, S.P. & Goodier, J.N., Theory of Elasticity.
McGraw Hill Book Company Inc., New York, 1951.
2. Geertsma, J., Problems of rock mechanics in petroleum production
engineering.
Proc. First Congr. of the Intl. Soc. of Rock Mech., Lisbon 1966,
Vol. I, p. 585.
3. Medlin, W.L. & Masse, L., Laboratory investigation of fracture initiation
pressure and orientation.
SPE-6087, 1976.
4. Rice, J.R. & Cleary, M.P., Some basic stress diffusion problems for
fluid-saturated elastic porous media with compressible constituents.
Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 1_4, No. 2 (May 1976),
p. 227.
5. Perkins, T.K. & Gonzalez, J.A., Changes in earth stresses around a
wellbore caused by radially symmetrical pressure and temperature
gradients.
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (April 1984), p. 129.
6. Tranter, C.J., On the elastic distortion of a cylindrical hole by a
localised hydrostatic pressure.
Quart. Appl. Math., vol. 4, p. 298, 1946.
7. Kehle, R.O., The determination of tectonic stresses through analysis of
hydraulic well fracturing.
J. Geophys. Res., 1964, vol. 69, p. 259.
8. Hubbert, M.K. & Willis, D.G., Mechanics of hydraulic fracturing.
Trans. AIME, 1957, vol. 210, p. 153.
9. Manual IMSL Library.
10. Prats, M., Thermal recovery.
SPE Monograph Series, vol. 7 (1982), p. 49.
11. Earlougher, R.C., Advances in well test analysis.
SPE Monograph Series, vol. 5 (1977).
12. Nowacki, W., Thermoelasticity.
English edition, Pergamon Press, 1962.
13. Luke, Y.L., Integrals of Bessel functions, p. 317.
- 78 -
APPENDIX 2-A
BASIC EQUATIONS
The linear stress/strain relations for combined poro- and thermoelastic deformations are:
e.. = [(l+u)Ao.. - uAofi. . ] - aAT 6..
i]
E v
l]
i]
i]
(2-A-l)
where Ao. . is the change in total stress with respect to the initial stress
state at AT = 0. The trace Ao is given by:
Ao = Aa..
i-1
"
The combined pressure and temperature effect has been generically denoted
as:
aAT = a Ap + a m AT
p *
T
(2-A-2)
. =2
p
(1
- S,
(2.A_3)
c, '
b
(2-A-4)
v
with e = Z e...
i=l X1
Expressing the strain tensor in terms of the displacement vector:
e..=-r{9.u.+3.u.}
i]
2 12
31
with 0. = -
1 ox.
1
(2-A-5)
- 79 -
gives:
3 u + 3 u
3 u 6
+
Aa..
-3- 1+ T^T"
^ k
- ]
13 = - T77I"T
2(l+o) 1 -]
l-2o ^ k
13 T^T"
l-2uAT 8. .13 (2-A-6)
3.Aa. . = 0
1 ID
results
(2-A-7)
in:
(2-A-8)
v
u. = - 3.0
1
(2-A-9)
(2-A-10)
(2-A-ll)
This equation for the displacement potential is Poisson's equation which has
the well-known particular solution:
<t> = T~ 7 ^ a dx'dy'dz' AT(x',y',z') ^
4ff 1 0
with
(2-A-12)
- 80 -
(2-A-13)
'
(2-A-14)
(2-A-16)
(2-A-17)
- 81 -
APPENDIX 2-B
THE PARTICULAR STRESS SOLUTION IN CYLINDRICAL COORDINATES
When AT has axial symmetry, i.e.
AT = AT(r,z)
(2-B-l)
= U
' U2
' U 3
= W
(2-B-2)
u = - 3 0 ; w
r
= -30
z
(2-B-3)
2
; c = - 3w = 3 0
z
z
z
6 a = - _ = - 3 0
6
r
r r^
; e
rz
(2-B-4)
=--{3u+3w}
2
z
r
= 330
r z
Ao - = t 3 0r + AAT
rT
l+i) r
E
2
Aa - = - 3 0 + AAT
zT
1+u z
(2-B-5)
Ao,
m
fl
0T
= 7T~
1+u r 3 r0 + AAT ;
AorzT
- = 7 - 3r 37.0
1+v
"
(2-B-6)
v
- 82 -
0(r,z)
OS
+00
= - dr'
ir
r
w
r'cos k(z-z')
(kr')
K (kr)
o
(2-B-7)
CD
+ - dr'
n
r
with m = -
l-o
+00
00
dz'
-e
(kr)
a.
KQ(X)
= - K^x)
K (x)
K,(x) = - K (x)
1
l'(x) = I (x)
o
l
(2-B-8)
Ix(x)
I.(X) = I (X) -
"1
o
+oo
oo
I (kr)
+ - dr' dz' dk AT(r',z')r'k cosk(z-z') K (kr')[I (kr) - ]
r
-oo
o
(2-B-9)
- 83 -
r
+
Aa- =
&1!
+ ff
K (kr)
I (kr') -^-j
o
kr
I,(kr)
d r ' d z ' dk A T ( r ' , z ' ) r ' k c o s k ( z - z ' ) K ( k r ' ) - i ;
o
kr
r
-o
o
+ AAT(r,z)
rzT
d r
'
r
'
* dz'
-o
'
dk
+00
00
AT(r',z')r'k2sink(z-z')
(2-B-10)
I ( k r ' ) K (kr)
w
OD
(2-B-ll)
sink(z-z')
K (kr') I (kr)
Aa = Ao - + Aofl- + Aa - = 2AAT
rT
0T
zT
so that Aa - can be obtained from (2-B-12), (2-B-9) and (2-B-10).
(2-B-12)
*
'
- 84 -
APPENDIX 2-C
THE COMPLETE STRESS SOLUTION IN CYLINDRICAL COORDINATES
For given AT the stresses are determined by the boundary conditions at
the wellbore and at infinity. The wellbore-model and the corresponding
boundary conditions are discussed in Section 2.2.5. The problem is solved by
decomposing the stress tensor as follows:
(2-C-l)
where Ao..- is the solution to the "traction-free" wellbore problem and Ao. .
r
13T
13
is the solution to the homogeneous equations of elasticity satisfying
boundary conditions of uniform radial wellbore loading over a limited
interval.
The boundary conditions for the "traction-free" wellbore problem are
given by:
Ao - = 0, Ao - = 0
rT
rzT
r = r , Izl <
w ''
(2-C-2)
IJT
(2-C-3)
IJT
(2-C-4)
- 85 -
aa = 3 (uV2 - - 3 ) *
B
z
r r
(2-C-5)
v
a
= 3 ((l-u)V2 - 32) $
rz
r
z
with
V 2 = 3 2 + - 3 + 32
r
r r
z
(2-C-6)
v
Ac
+00
00
(a)
(2-C-7)
go
+00
jW
(b)
-"
_00
The problem is solved if Aa. - can be obtained from a Love function such
IJT
that:
Af
rT(Vr''Z'Z,)
+A f
rzT (rw'r''z'z')
+ A2f
- 86 -
00
^-r
, o
(2-C-9)
(3
v
+ - 3 ) K (kr) = k 2 K (kr)
r r' o
o
K*(x) = - K,(x)
o
1
K l( x) = - Ko(x) -
(2-C-10)
K (x)
- l r
where the prime means differentiation with respect to x, Eq. (2-C-9) can be
verified by direct substitution into (2-C-4).
From (2-C-5) we obtain:
3(kr)
---TT-
K (kr)
F 4 (kr) = 2(1-0)
Q(
kr
and
K (kr)
^ m = ! dk[B(r',k)
+ C(r ' ,k) (l-2u)K (kr)] cosk(z-z')
CTT
kr
o
o
(2-C-13)
- are determined.
- 87 -
V, V ]
kr
w
(2-C-14)
B F3(krw)
A
2
CF4(krw, = - r'k K ^ k r ' )
(kr
I {kr
)
l-, w
F(kr )}
V-. V ] F ( k r )
r
B = - r ' k K ( k r ' ) ,, t {
[I (kr )
ir
o
D(kr )
o
w
w
kr
w
w'
kr
w
A
2
1
,
^ ^ ' w '
C = - - r ' k K (kr*) r - { [ I (kr )
] F.(kr )
ir
o
D(kr )
o
w
kr
3
w
w
w
w
w'
l(krw)
F n ( k r )}
kr
1 w
(2-C-15)
with
D(kr ) = F n ( k r ) F . ( k r ) - F . ( k r ) F , ( k r )
w
1
w 4
w
2
w
3 w
= - K ^ ( k r ) + K?(kr ) [ 1 + 2 ( l - u ) ( k r ) " 2 ]
o
w
1
w
w
(2-C-15),
( 2 - C - 1 3 ) and ( 2 - C - 7 a ) r e s u l t i n :
o>
+oo
CD
A a - = - - d r ' d z ' dk A T ( r ' , z ' ) r ' k
T
(2-C-16)
it
-co
>
K (kr' )
cosk(z-z')
v
'
2nt.
(kr ) D(kr )
w
w
(2-C-17)
K(kr)
*
kr
W(kr
}
w
"
( 1 - 2 )
K
0
(kr)^
with
W(kr ) = ( k r ) 2 [ I ( k r )K ( k r ) + I ( k r )K ( k r ) ]
w
w
l w l w
o w o w
+ 2(l-w)[I1(kr
l
)K,(kr
l
) - 1]
From Egs. (2-B-10) and (2-C-17) the tangential stress field for the
'traction-free'
(2-C-18)
- 88 -
ST
= Ao
+ Aa
ei
(2-C-19)
over
an interval d.
The boundary conditions are:
Aa
= Ap , Aa
=0
r
w
rz
Aa = 0
, Ao z = 0
r = r ,
w
IzI< r
' '- 2
r - rw,
|z| > f
(2-C-20)
used above. Using our notation and taking compressive stresses as positive,
his result for the tangential stress becomes:
AP
W -
*e - ~ -r '
dk F(k z d)
l(krw)
l(kr)
w
K (kr)
KQ(krw)
kr
w
K
kr
i< w
+ (l-2u)
. KQ(kr)}
(2-C-21)
w
where
d
d
sink ( + z) + sink ( - z)
F(k,z,d) =
(2-C-22)
and D(kr ) as defined in (2-C-16).
w
Finally, the complete solution for the tangential stress field can be
obtained by combining (2-B-10), (2-C-17) and (2-C-21) into:
Loe
= Aae-
+ Aa =_Ao&- + *o-
+ Ao
(2-C-23)
- 89 -
APPENDIX 2-D
ASYMPTOTIC EXPANSIONS OF THE STRESS SOLUTION
Asymptotic expansion for the particular solution
We consider the case that AT is constant over the reservoir height and
zero outside of the reservoir:
AT(r,z) = AT(r) . H(| - |z|)
(2-D-l)
I (kr)
+ - dr' dk r' AT(r') F(k,z,h)k2K (kr*) ,
it
o
kr
r
o
(2-D-2)
+ AAT(r,z)
with
F(k,z,h) =
sin(kz ) + sin(kz_)
;
(2-D-3)
and
z+
h
= - + z
h
; z_ = - - z
, _ _ .,
(2-D-4)
Io(x) -> 1
}
(2-D-5)
Il(x) - i x
we expand the first term in (2-D-2) to lowest order in r'/h and the second
term to lowest order in r/h which results in:
- 90 -
r
A(7
0T
" ff
dr
r
w
'
S dk
(k'z'h) ^ ( k r )
(2-D-6)
as
Aa
oo
f / dr'r' AT(r') {_ , ^ ^
zA
/2 +
^2
A A
, }^ ++ AAT(r,z)
z + r ' )
+ r' ) '
'
with
N(z, ^
2 ,r)
' '
z
. 2 A 2,1/2
[z+ + r ]
z
. 2 A 2.1/2
[z_ + r ]
(2-D-8)
z+/r
z_/r
[(z + /r) 2 + 1 ] 1 / 2
[(z_/r)2 + 1 ] 1 / 2
rT
2 H S dr'r'
r r
w
A
+4
dr'r' AT(r') {
j
u u r , ,.
r
+
,2.3/2
(z+r')
}
, 2A
(z
,23/2
+ r' )
(2-D-9)
where
h ,r) =
M(z, -
Z A
V -r
2
S/Z
((z / r ) + 1)
and N defined in (2-D-8).
--
((z / r ) 2 + 1 ) J / 2
(2-D-10)
- 91 -
Asymptotic expansion for Ag.Using (2-D-l) the integral over z' in (2-C-17) can be carried out,
resulting in:
<
">
k K (kr' )
9
Ao- = - J dr' dk AT(r')r' F(k,z,h)
-
r
o
(kr ) D(kr )
w
w
w
K (kr)
( kr
W(krw) - (l-2i>) KQ(kr)}
(2-D-ll)
Ko(x) * - in - - 7
}
X 1
(2-D-12)
K.(x) - 1
x
where 7 = 0.5772 is Euler's constant.
If the Bessel functions containing ;r
v ,i
(krw )
D(krw ,)
2(1-0)
(a)
'
(2-D-13)
W(kr )
w
(kr ) D(kr )
w
w
- - 2 <kr w') 2
(b)
Ao- = ^
(^)
"
(2-D-14)
- 92 -
Aff
0T
= (
r 2
7 i ) ASHT(Z)
(2-D-15)
where
(z
-
(2-D-16,
it
dk F(k,z,d)k K,(kr)
1
o
(2-D-17)
Ap
r 2
(T)
.H(, j ,r)
term,
resulting in:
Ap
Aa(r=r ) = - - dk (F(k,z,d)k K (kr )
a
w
IT
1
w
o
Ap
+ rr
ir
1-v
>
r 2 dk F(k,z,d)k2 K (kr )
w
o
w
o
(2-D-18)
Ap
v
+ ;
l-
w
N(Z
d
' 2 ' r w'
w
d
r~ M(z, - ,r )
2 v
2 w'
- 93 -
APPENDIX 2-E
SIMPLIFIED SOLUTION METHOD
According to Section 2.2.7 if 2r/h < 0.01 the function N/2 becomes a
step function and the function M becomes negligibly small. N and M are
defined in (2-D-8) and (2-D-10) respectively. Under this condition and close
to the wellbore (r - r ) we have from (2-D-7) and (2-D-9) for the particular
solution:
Ao
m = T 2 / dr'r' AT(r') + AS HT
-(z
rT
r r
w
|z| < 2
(2-E-l)
1*1 >2
HTV
|z| <
(2-E-2)
i
"
AS
W >2
HT(Z)
Aa
rT
lira {
r-*
Ao 0T
AS -(z)
HTV '
|z| < J
(2-E-3)
- 94 -
2r /h < 0.01, where for simplicity the loaded interval is taken as being
equal to the reservoir height (h=d). This suggests that we can solve the
complete stress problem using plane strain solutions only and (2-E-3) as a
boundary condition at infinity. In the following we demonstrate that this is
indeed the case.
The complete solution for the stress field consists of the sum of the
particular solution and a solution to the homogeneous equations of
elasticity.
We now write this as:
Ac. . = Aa. .- + Ao?.
i]
(2-E-4)
ij
13T
If we solve the problem in plane strain and incorporate (2-E-3) we have the
following boundary conditions:
Ao
Ac
= Ap
w
=V H
= 0
r
Ao
lim {,
= AS HT
r+ L9
os <
(a)
(b)
z < + oo
(2-E-5)
(c)
Note that because we are solving in plane strain, the boundary condition
Ao
(a)
^am
h
r
M <|
Aafl- = A a - = 0
T
rT
(b)
|z| > X
' ' 2
(2-E-6)
(c)
(2-E-7a)
- 95 -
(2-E-7b)
r
where the constants C
C
2 = A SHT
and application of boundary condition (2-E-5a) to (2-E-6a) and (2-E-7a)
gives:
: = r
1
w
(Ap - AS -)
*w
HT
(2-E-8)
(2-E-9)
1*1 > 2
r 2
r
Ao& = - (-p) (Apw - ASH-) - dr'r' AT(r')
r r
w
+ AAT(r) + AS H -
'|z|
'
< 2
\z\
>~
(2-E-10)
<
(2-E-ll)
r 2
= K( ) AS - + AS t '
HT
HT
|z| > 2
(2-E-12)
- 96 -
Aaz-
= AAT(r) + ASy-(z)
|z| < |
(2-E-13)
= ^v?(z)
|z|>
where
AS v -(z) = - 2AS H (z)
(2-E-14)
Here, As - can be interpreted as an apparent change in the vertical farfield stress which has also to be incorporated as a boundary condition at
infinity (r -* ) when solving in plane strain.
- 97 -
APPENDIX 2-F
A NUMERICAL METHOD TO EVALUATE Ao.0T
In Appendix 2-A it was shown that the particular solution Aaa- could
0T
be obtained from the displacement potential:
dx'dy'dz' QT(X''Y''z'?
0(x,y,z) = ^
(2-F-l)
with
2
2
2 1/2
R = f(x-x') + (y-y') + (z-z') ] '
(2-F-2)
0(r,z) = f-
Z7T
+00
X K(X)
(2-F-3)
r -<*>
with
X - [
^
- ]
(z-z') + (r+r')
1 / 2
(2-F-4)
K(X) =
da
. 2 .1/2
rn .2
o [1-X sin a]
am = 7T~ - 3 0 + AAT
T
1+v r r
(2-F-5)
Using
M _ EiXi . MM
/?--i
dX
<
X V
2 F 6
>
- 98 -
2
2
where X' = 1-X and E the complete elliptic integral of the second kind,
(2-F-5) becomes:
OP
Aff
0T
A
" Ti
+OP
! dr
AT
r' 1/2
w
(2-F-7)
with
=
2 2
2
r' -r + S(z-z')
2
'2
(r-r') + (z-z')
(2-F-8)
09
00
'
(2-F-9) '
where
z-z'
= z-z'
z > z'
(2-F-10)
= z'-z
z < z'
dk k J (kr) J (kr') =
o o r '
o
5 r-r')
(2-F-ll)
(3
+ - 3 ) J (kr) = - k J (kr)
r r
o
o
Aa
ow
A
~ ! dr'
r
w
+
!
dz
2 -k I z-z' I J l ( k r )
' / dk AT(r',z')r'k e '
' -
J (kr') + AAT
-oo
o
(2-F-12)
- 99 -
6(.,_) = - f
r+e
r_6
dr'
z+e
_
-klz-z'l J l ( k r )
dz' dk AT(r,z')r'k e K | Z z ' -^r
J (kr')
Z
'62
(2-F-13)
dk J,(kr) J (kr') = 1
o
r
o
r' < r
1
2r'
r' = r
=0
(2-F-14)
r' > r
we find:
r
5(
V 2
} =
"
AAT r z
r'
' dr' ~i
( ' ^
r
"el
(2-F-15)
r+e
+ AAT(r,z)
r-e
-ke
dr'r' dkk e
o
J (kr)
J (kr')
Kr
o
{- - dk e
o
J^k) JQ(k)}
(2-F-16)
oo
I = dk e
o
J (k) J (k) = - \
-^
K (
-^
) + \
/(e. + 4r )
/(e. + 4r )
(2-F-17)
- 100 -
Using
lim {K(X) - In -i-} = 0
2
x +i
"
(2-F-18)
we have:
lim
-*n
I = ; - - ( ; In 16 - x lnx}
2
IT
(2-F-19)
with
x =
/2
2
(2 + )
(2-F-20)
5(.,_) = ^ ~ ~ x In fr
(2-F-21)
- 101 -
APPENDIX 2-G
SOLUTION FOR THE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION
We assume that in an infinite reservoir slightly compressible oil is
displaced piston-like by incompressible injection fluid. The flooded zone
consists of two regions of different constant mobility. In the cold region
the mobility is determined by the viscosity of injection fluid at the
injection temperature and in the warm region by the viscosity of injection
fluid at the original reservoir temperature (Fig. 4). This leads to the
following set of differential equations,
- 3 (r3 ) Ap, = 0
r r r l
r < r <R
w
- c
- 3 (r3 ) Ap = 0
r r
r
*2
R < r < R
c - P
- 3 (r3 ) Ap,
= - 3 Ap.
r r
r r3
17 t 3
R < r <
F -
(2-G-l)
2hX, r3 Ap, = q
1
r 1
lim Ap
Ap
= Ap
r =r
w
= 0
2
}
r = R
c
(2-G-2)
Ap 2 = Ap 3
= *F
Xr3 Ap_
= Xr3 Ap^
2 r e2
3 r *3
where Ap = p-p^ and Ap.,X., j=l,2,3 are the pressures and mobilities,
3
'
- 102 -
respectively:
M
= C
w t
M~ hjr]
r
1/2
(2-G-3]
R
1
at,l/2
0(1-S -S ) hffJ
or wc
where S
is the residual oil saturation in the flooded zone, S
is the
or
wc
connate water saturation and 0 is the porosity. The other symbols are
defined in Section 2.3.1.
Solutions to (2-G-l) are sought in the form:
Ap
Ap =F
(2-G-5)
Ap
^
2Th Ap.
= j - in r
1
= 1 ln ,
+ j - in r - - 5- exp ()
2
c
3
Fexp 1 1
r2 r-ir3
T"
AP
- 2 X^
6XP
2
, F ,E l (. ,
W-
W> *
-^>
. Ei(- )
'
(2, G 6)r,
Bl(
" 4^>
2
Fv
1/2
, -
i s a constant and
Arjt
""
- 103 -
CHAPTER THREE
ANALYTICAL MODELLING OF FRACTURE PROPAGATION
CONTENTS
Summary
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Fracture propagation in an infinite reservoir in the absence
of reservoir stress changes
3.2.1 Assumptions
3.2.2 One-dimensional leak-off
3.2.3 Two-dimensional leak-off - Pseudo-radial solution
3.2.4 Two-dimensional leak-off - Elliptical solution
3.3 The effect of poro- and thermo-elastic stress changes on
fracture propagation pressure
3.3.1 Definition of fracture propagation pressure
3.3.2 Analytical calculation of poro-elastic stress
changes at the fracture wall
3.3.3 Numerical calculation of poro-elastic stress changes
at the fracture wall
3.4 Fracture propagation in an infinite reservoir under the
influence of reservoir stress changes
3.4.1 Assumptions
3.4.2 Consistency checks
3.4.3 Two field cases
3.5 Fracture propagation in a pattern flood.
Effect on sweep efficiency
3.5.1 Zero voidage in the absence of reservoir stress changes
3.5.2 Zero voidage with reservoir stress changes
3.5.3 General flooding conditions and the use of a reservoir
simulator
3.6 Conclusions
List of symbols
References
- 104 -
- 105 -
SUMMARY
Analytical modelling of waterflood-induced fracture propagation is
discussed. A model is presented with a complete two-dimensional description
of fluid leak-off into the reservoir. A dimensionless injection rate is
defined and it is shown that for values of this number smaller than 0.61 the
fracture propagates with pseudo-radial leak-off. This means that the
pressure transients are travelling radially in the plane of the reservoir.
An approximate three-dimensional calculation of poro-elastic stress changes
at the fracture face is performed analytically for a fracture surrounded by
a pseudo-radial pressure profile including elliptical discontinuities in
fluid mobility. The results are compared with numerical calculations and are
shown to be correct for ratios of fracture half-length to reservoir height
smaller than 10. The numerical method can be easily incorporated into
numerical fracture/reservoir simulators such as developed in the past. If a
thermal simulator is used, the same method can be employed to calculate
thermo-elastic stress changes. An analytical model for waterflood-induced
fracture growth with pseudo-radial leak-off under the influence of poro- and
thermo-elastic changes in reservoir stress is presented. Two realistic
examples are given to illustrate the model. The effect of fracture growth on
pattern flood sweep efficiency is discussed. It is shown that for balanced
injection and production, fracture growth with pseudo-radial leak-off does .
not influence sweep efficiency, regardless of fracture orientation.
Analytical methods are presented for calculating the final fracture length
and injection pressure at water breakthrough. Finally, the use of numerical
fracture/reservoir simulators is discussed.
- 106 -
3.1 INTRODUCTION
In the previous chapter a study was made of the conditions under which
fractures are created at an injection well. This chapter investigates the
factors that influence the growth of such an induced fracture. Knowledge of
these factors may help us to decide whether fracturing of injection wells is
beneficial or detrimental to the performance of the displacement process in
a given reservoir.
Unlimited fracture growth can have a number of undesirable
consequences. First, if a fracture grows rapidly into the reservoir it will
distort the geometry of the displacement fronts. Depending on the position
of the production wells this may result in premature breakthrough of
injection fluid and consequently in a poor sweeep efficiency of the process.
Second, if a fracture propagates vertically into another reservoir, loss of
injection fluid may occur. Third, the successful application of a tertiary
follow-up process may be impaired by the presence of large fractures.
However, if fracture growth is limited, fracturing offers the advantage
of a large increase in injection capacity of the well without jeopardising
the efficiency of the displacement process. The increased injectivity
permits the reduction of the number of injectors. This can result in a
considerable reduction in well costs. In addition, the favourable
injectivity may obviate the need for expensive equipment to filter the
injection fluid.
Over the last two decades an overwhelming amount of literature has been
published dealing with many different aspects of hydraulically induced
fractures (for a recent review article see Ref. 1). The majority of these
papers, however, deals with fractures that are created with the specific
purpose of stimulating a production well. Such fractures are induced by
pumping a special fracturing fluid at high rates into the formation. The
fluid is designed to minimise leak-off from the fracture into the reservoir
and to act as a carrier for propping material. The proppant is injected to
ensure that the fracture remains open during the production stage of the
well. The available literature chiefly focuses on aspects such as well
productivity, fracture geometry, vertical fracture containment, fracturing
fluid rheology and proppant transport. The leak-off from the fracture into
- 107 -
- 108 -
- 109 -
(3.1)
- 110 -
GEOMETRY OF FRACTURE
FIG. 3.1
- Ill -
where
p.
Ap
V
= P f -p. with p
k
0MCfc
= permeability
- viscosity
= total compressibility
4>
= porosity
2
erfc = complementary error function (erfc(x) = -j-
2
s
e ds)
x
Applying Darcy 's law to (3.1) gives, for the one-dimensional leak-off per
fracture area:
k 3E
9y y = o
k _Ap_
1_
M /(ff*,)
y/t
i<^,
q = q^
where q is the constant injection rate and q
(3.3)
is the total leak-off rate.
By integrating (3.2) over the fracture area and accounting for the time
since leak-off began at a particular distance x along the fracture length,
(3.3) becomes:
4khApL(.t) . 1
~~T, 7 ' 771 TTT d x
uV(irr\)
/[t-r(x)]
(3.4)
L = a i/t
(3.5)
- 112 -
x2
with a an, as yet, unknown constant. This gives r(x) = . Substituting this
a
into (3.4) and integrating gives
a
(3
2jrkhAP
'6)
Ti^y and
q
D
(3 7)
= i^z;
(3.8)
We shall call (3.8) the Carter solution since the above analysis is similar
to that given by Carter in Ref. 5. The difference is that Carter considered
the complete volume balance:
dV
<
3 =^
(3 9)
'
dT"
V f = jrwhL
(3.10)
and from (3.5) and (3.6) the dimensionless rate of change of fracture volume
is given by:
dV.
AV
=
/q = - ^ - ./f1-)
V
/q
fD
dt
4 kAp "ljrt'
-3
Since w is very small (of the order of 10 m), AV
(3 11)
(J-J--U
rapidly becomes much
- 113 -
reservoir rock stress are neglected, this pressure is constant and equals
the in-situ horizontal reservoir rock-stress S . Rock mechanical changes in
propagation pressure will be discussed in Section 3.3.
The assumption of one-dimensional leak-off perpendicular to the
fracture is justified if
3E / / IE 1
3x 3y
(3.12)
2/(r?(t-^))
a
L
= Ap erfc(^
y
2)
(3.13)
where (3.7) has been used together with the following definitions:
xD = I
and
yD = J
(3.14)
The pressure penetration front, defined as the line where the pressure
difference (3.13) is 1% of its maximum Ap, is given by the ellipse:
<>">
C o n d i t i o n (3.12) i s t h e r e f o r e s a t i s f i e d
(3.16)
if:
(3.17)
- 114 -
LD
(3.18)
f" i i 5 k T
,3.0|/(T?t.
ln(
>
,,
ln4
(3 19)
'
L = 3.0 exp(- ^ ^
Ap) /(?t)
(3.20)
or with (3.7):
L
= 3.0 exp(-)
(3.21)
- 115 -
1.0
LD=5.
L0=10.
LD=50.
Lo=10O.
LD=L/SQRT(77t)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
FIG. 3.2
- 116 -
Again L behaves according to Eq. (3.5), but now with a much smaller a. We
shall call (3.21) the 2-D pseudo-radial solution. From (3.10) and (3.20),
the dimensionless rate of change of fracture volume becomes:
AV
fD = f * f '<?> eXP(-^5
(3 22)
3.2.4 Two-dimensional
_ _
_ leak^off - Elligtcal_solution
Hagoort et al. observed that, in an infinite reservoir, L is always
proportional to the square root of time, even in the region intermediate
4
between (3.17) and (3.18). In Ref. 2 and also in Hagoort's thesis , a graph
is presented of L
as a function of q
that
! J. >. r
, . 0 . 1 3 4 . , , 0 . 8 6 6 . , -_ . ,
D= 2 V ( i r t D ) l e r f < - ~ J l ) + e r f ( _ 7 i ) } - 0 . 0 6 7 Ei(
0 . 0 1 8 0 . . 0 . 7 5 0 .
)-0.433 E i (
)
D
(3.23)
where
Ap
D-
^r12*kh
and
s = It
(3 24)
vs. q
and
t * -^D
LD2
(3.25)
we have,
=
a~~
2 L2 *erf(-134 V
q
erf(0.866 LD)}
- 0.067 Ei (- 0.018 L
(3.26)
- 117 -
Using the properties of the error function and the exponential integral:
erf(x) - 1
} x 1
(3.27)
Ei(-x) - 0
erf(x) - ^
} x 1
Ei(-x) -* -
Jn(yx)
where 7 = 0.5772, it can be shown from (3.26) that Carter's solution (3.8)
is retrieved for L
retrieved for L
1.
In Fig. 3.3, Eq. (3.26), which we call the 2-D elliptical solution, is
shown together with the Carter and the 2-D pseudo-radial solution. In Fig.
3.4 the 2-D elliptical solution is compared with the graph in Hagoort's
thesis on p. 132. The agreement is everywhere within 10%.
7
According to Gringarten et al. , the linear flow period is valid for
t < 0.016, which gives, from (3.25), for the range of validity for the
Carter model:
L
D > Tb^?
= 7 9
(3 28)
or from (3.8)
q D > 4.5
(3.29)
> 3.0, which gives as the range of validity for the 2-D pseudo-
radial model:
<
7O
= 0 58
(3 30)
or from (3.21)
qD <
0.61
(3.31)
- L18 T
1 I I I II
1I
M I N I
1 l/l I I |J
L D =L/SQRT(77t)
q D =q/x/27rkhAp
2 - D ELLIPTICAL
2-DPSEUOO-RADIA
1-D (CARTER)
' i i iI
.-1
10
' '
10"
10'
I I I 11
10*
qD
FRACTURE PROPAGATION FOR VARIOUS LEAK-OFF MODELS
FIG. 3.3
10
119
1r-irTTrr
_
_
,.
-
i yy
i i i
S'
s/s'
sf'
# / ' #
9
Iff r_
.*
*
#
#
Sf
//
//
//
//
//
II
1
II
--1
10 :r
2-D ELLIPTICAL"
HAGOORT
1-D (CARTER)
~
,-2
10
_L
,-1
10
,
-
i. i_ 1.1 L i 1.1
icP
i i i i
10'
FIG. 3.4
- 120 -
leak-off model is 2-D pseudo-radial. If, instead, the 1-D Carter model is
used, a fracture length is predicted that is too large by 86% or more. The
difference becomes rapidly larger as q decreases.
pf - SH =
(3 32)
fer
.K
is a material constant.
simple models such as in Section 3.2 the fracture propagation pressure can
therefore be approximated by:
- 121 -
Pf = S H
(3.33)
(3.34)
, i.e. they
- 122 -
Ap(
*> * i S h
ln
(3
' 36 >
= b
(3.37)
= R
m
P(i
'
_3M_ l n
2jrkh
3.0 / W
)
L cosh + L sinh$'
(3.38)
- 123 -
4 = 1.5
FIG. 3.5
- 124 -
(3.39a)
Ao(p^
xpD
(3.39b)
'
= J Ap fo) + 7
2 *D ' 4
where
Aa
, .
xp 2)rkh
= .
xpD
A
qu
with an analogous definition for the y-component and
(3.40)
A
Ao
Ap(o) =
r
D
P (
* 2jrkh
qu
(3.41)
(3.42)
(axial)
AS
where
HPD
(axial)
=2
PD(V
Q (
- I
< V
(3
-43)
- 125 -
Q(u) = 2 asinh j -
(3.44)
is given by:
Apaxial) = l n ^
(3.45)
a. + b.
r. - - ^ -
i = 1,2
(3.46)
so that we have
a
_llh
(elliptical, =
r
(3.47)
+ b
(3.48)
- 126 -
AS
HpD
2 APD(0)
4Q
Q(
(3
f>
'49)
with
2R
ApD(o) = In - ^
(3.50)
yPD
Ao
2 APD(0) - + A S H P D
(3
= T; Ap(o) + 7 + AS
xpD
2 *DV
4
HpD
w i t h ASIT from
'51a)
(3.51b)
(3.49)
HpD
Using asinh(x) = ln(x + /(x + 1)) we can show that taking the plane
strain limit of (3.49) results in
limAS
HPD=
(3
'52)
2R
e
so that in this limit the plane strain solution (3.39) is indeed recovered
from (3.51).
The stress changes can also be calculated in the presence of a zone of
cold injection fluid, a zone of warm injection fluid and an oil zone. If it
is assumed that the fronts separating these zones are ellipses confocal with
the fracture tips and that the fluid mobilities are constant within each
zone, the generalisation of (3.38) becomes:
a + b
2irh A , v%
1 . ,
c
c
,
Ap U ) = l n (
g-iut)
q
l
K
L cosht + L sinh
, ,
(a>
F
(3.53)
27rh .
,..,
Ap2 a) - r me
F *
127
L coshi + L s i n h | )
. + _,_ 1
2
2jrh .
. ,v
1 .
,3.0i/(T?t),
,.v
(b)
3.0 (nt)
,%
(c)
with Ap.,X., i=l,2,3 the pressure change and fluid mobility in the cold
flooded, warm flooded and oil zone respectively, TJ is the hydraulic
diffusivity1 in the oil zone, a
(a)
(3.54)
(P
A o ^ = \ Ap fo) + R
xpD
2 'ID
(b)
where
e
R =
1
2
c
(
l+e '
c
, X,
e
e
1 J.
F
c
2X 'l+e
" l + e 1
2
F
c
2 X3 ( 2
(3.55)
i + ep}
and
'F
c,F
(3.56)
Aa
y,xpD
Ao
T^E
A
2ffXnh
L_ . A
q
Ap,2jrXnh
L_
= _1
ID
q
In Chapter 2, section 2.5 it was shown that the apparent change in farfield stress for the axisymmetric equivalent of (3.53), i.e. with circular
zones of different constant mobility, is given by:
- 128 -
(axial)
i,
AS
HpD
(3.57)
X
Q(Re)
+b
R .-> C ^ F , CfF
c,F
2
Ap
(3.58)
'
fr
(3
'53a)
= - Apn Vfo) - R + AS
ypD
2 ^1D '
HpD
(3.59)
Aa , = - Ap,
fo) + R + AS
xpD
2 ell>
HpD
with
AS
HPD " \
AP
1D(0) " \
Q(
2>
(1
" xj> Q ( ! T - ^ )
(3.60)
1
+
I X" ' X^
F * bF
- 129 -
It is shown that the analytical results for Ao are within 1% and for
ypD
Ao ^ within 5% of the numerical results for L/h 1.0. For L/h > 1.0 the
xpD
analytical results become less accurate, the difference with the numerical
results being 10% for Ao
The reason for this loss of accuracy lies in the procedure by which the
analytical expressions (3.51) were obtained from the plane strain
expressions. This procedure was originally developed for the axisymmetric
case in Chapter 2, section 2.2.8 and was shown to be valid for r /h < 0.01.
It is therefore to be expected that the analytical results become less
accurate for larger values of L/h, but it is quite surprising that they are
good within 10% for L/h up to as much as 10. In line with expectations the
plane strain results increasingly underestimate the stress changes with
decreasing3 h. For li = 0.01 and L/h = 1.0 the correct result for Ao is
D
D
ypD
1.9 times larger than the plane strain result.
We conclude that for practical purposes the analytical formulae for
Ao
and Ao
(see Appendix
130
Num.
h
2R
e
0.01
L/h
1.0
Anal.
Num.
Anal.
Anal.
xpD
Ao<P^
xpD
ypD
ypD
Aa(P^
ypD
ApD(o)
0.01
6.82
6.82
4.85
6.32
6.32
4.35
9.21
0.1
5.66
5.66
3.70
5.16
5.16
3.20
6.91
1.0
4.32
4.42
2.55
3.93
3.92
2.05
4.60
2.28
2.51
1.40
2.17
2.01
0.901
2.30
0.01
4.56
4.56
3.70
4.06
4.06
3.20
6.91
0.1
3.40
3.41
2.55
2.90
2.91
2.05
4.60
1.0
2.06
2.16
1.40
1.67
1.66
0.901
2.30
0.01
2.65
2.65
2.55
2.15
2.15
2.05
4.60
0.1
1.49
1.49
1.40
0.996
0.994
0.901
2.30
10
0.1
xpD
Anal.
- 131 -
The numerical method used in Ref. 3 differs from the one we used in
that it divides the reservoir into small adjacent cylinders rather than into
small parallelepipeds. The analytical results for the stresses exerted by
one cylinder is known and the calculation is performed by summing over all
contributing cylinders.
Since our method uses Cartesian grid blocks it has the advantage
that it can be easily incorporated into numerical fracture/reservoir
simulators such as developed in Ref. 2 and refined in Ref. 10. The
application for such simulators will be discussed further in the next
section.
- 132 -
and S
a.
linear algebraic equation for the fracture half-length for every time t.
This equation is solved with a simple Newton iteration procedure.
This model is similar to the one proposed by Perkins and Gonzalez in
Ref. 3. The main difference is in the calculation of the poro-elastic
stresses. Perkins and Gonzalez have calculated Aa
from the formulae for
yp
Aa
-* A .
HI
and rj can
- 133 -
4a t M
r D = " f " -*j < 0.05
h
M
r
where a
(3.61,
are the volumetric heat capacities of the fluid-filled reservoir rock and
of the surrounding formation, respectively.
We define (3.61) also as a criterion in the case of elliptic symmetry.
3.4.3 Two_field_cases
Fracture propagation has been evaluated for two realistic field
cases. Both cases deal with waterflooding in which the temperature of the
injection water is lower than the original reservoir.temperature. The two
cases correspond to the ones considered in Chapter 2, section 2.7. The input
data are given in Table 3-II.
Hicjh-germeabilHy sandstone_reservoir
The first case is a high permeability sandstone reservoir into which
cold water is injected at a temperature 70 C below the reservoir
temperature. The development in time of the bottomhole pressure (BHP), the
fracture half-length and the axes of the fluid fronts are shown in Figs. 3.6
and 3.7. The combined poro- and thermo-elastic stress changes Aa = Aa
+
y
yp
Aa _ and Ao = Aa
+ Aa m are also shown. Since the reservoir has good
3
yT
x
xp
xT
permeability, the change in pressure and the corresponding poro-elastic
increase in stress are small. The large degree of cooling causes an overall
decrease in horizontal stress and results in thermal fracturing. The actual
fracture initiation has not been modelled here. Instead, it was assumed that
a fracture with half-length L = 0.3 m was already present. The fracture
starts propagating when the pressure is high enough for the fracture
propagation criterion (3.32) to be satisfied. As the fracture propagates the
cold front becomes more elliptical and the thermo-elastic change Aa
becomes larger than Aa _. It was discussed in Ref. 3 that this creates the
yT
possibility that at some moment the horizontal stress in the x-direction
becomes lower than that in the y-direction so that the direction of fracture
growth becomes indeterminate.
To check whether the model is consistent we first apply criterion
(3.30). The fracture length after 100 days is 46 m. Taking the hydraulic
- 134 -
Injection rate, m /d
Sandstone
Limestone
reservoir
reservoir
8000
60
730
730
500
220
450
160
Reservoir height, m
120
50
2
-15
Effective permeability to water, m *10
oil f
250
1.0
1000
4.0
1.0
0.7
Warm
0.3
0.4
0.3
2.6
0.12
0.30
0.25
0.25
Porosity
0.24
0.24
-1
-4
Total compressibility, (bar) *10
0.86
0.50
, kJ/m . C
2100
2100
"
"
Oil viscosity
,
,
"
"
of injection water
, "
4200
4200
"
"
2100
2100
2.5
2.5
-70
-30
A . bar/ C
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.4
10
10
fp *
A , bar/bar
P
1/2
Critical stress intensity factor, bar.m
135
500
100
INITIAL PRESSURE = 450 bar
490
o
a:
(A
gup
FRAC LENGTH
MAJOR AXIS,COLD FRONT
MINOR AXIS, COLD FRONT
80
480
60
470
40 5
CO
Ui
IX.
OL
yo
I
O
O
m 460
20
450
20
FIG. 3.6
40
60
TIME OF INJECTION (days)
80
100
-100
500
INITIAL PRESSURE = 450 bar
-80
Ac
MAJOR AXIS
o
.a
<g - 6 0
400 J,
hZ
MINOR AXIS
300 g
z<
xo
to
:
lo
- 4n 0u
10
200
Ld
100
Ld
CO
-20
20
FIG. 3.7
40
60
TIME OF INJECTION (days)
80
100
- 136 -
= 0.004, hence
AV
= 0.003. The
Low-germeabilitv^ limestone_reservoir
The second field case that we have evaluated is a low permeability
limestone reservoir into which cold water is injected at a temperature 30 C
below the reservoir temperature. The results are shown in Figs. 3.8 and 3.9.
As, for the sandstone reservoir the presence of a fracture with L = 0.3 m was
taken as the initial condition. For the present case, however, the injection
pressure at the beginning of injection is sufficiently high for the fracture
to propagate. The moderate degree of cooling and the sharp rise in pore
pressure results in a net increase in horizontal reservoir stress. As can be
seen from Fig. 3.9, the horizontal stresses initially grow rather quickly in
magnitude. This is because the penetration depth of the pressure front
travels faster than the penetration depth of the cold front and therefore
the poro-elastic increase in stress grows faster than the opposing thermoelastic decrease in stress. Although the reservoir stresses increase with
time, the bottomhole pressure decreases slightly. This is because the
right-hand side of Eq. (3.32) decreases faster than the stress increases.
Again we apply (3.30) to check whether the model is consistent. The
fracture length after 100 days is 7.2 m. Taking the hydraulic diffusivity in
the oil zone gives for L
satisfied. Since the mobility of the cold water and the oil are almost the
same we may assume for the calculation of q
only cold water.-From Fig. 3.8 the average bottomhole pressure during
propagation is 228 bar, thus Ap = p-p. = 68 bar. This gives q = 0.22 and
3.0 exp(-l/q )= 0.037. Equation (3.31) is therefore satisfied. From (3.22)
-3
we have t(AV = 0.01) = 1.04 hours if it is asssumed that w = 10 m. At
- 137
234
20
BHP
FRAC LENGTH
MAJOR AXIS.COLD FRONT
MINOR AXIS.COLD FRONT
232
o
INJECTION RATE = 60
XI
a:
V)
(/>
ce
a.
16
nf/d
230
12
Ul
228
tO
CD
226
224
40
60
TIME OF INJECTION (days)
FIG. 3.8
80
100
10
50
INITIAL PRESSURE = 160 bar
iO"\i
40
INJECTION RATE = 6 0 m / d
o
XI
V)
MAJOR AXIS
MINOR AXIS
a
o
o
ei
6 -
ui
oz
<
I
o
(/)
V)
u.
O
to
20
40
60
80
100
- 138 -
- 139 -
= in 0 . 5 4 ^
(3.62)
= 1000).
w
This error arises because the producers are not equidistant from the
injector.
- 140 -
(h
-f)
/ \
/
/d
/
\
/
/
\
X
\
/
/
/
\ /
<
X = INJECTOR
= PRODUCER
FIG. 3.10
- 141 -
^ ^ E > . ln1>08 f
qu
(3<63)
(3.64)
<3 = o , u^A
^D
2ffkh Ap
where Ap = pf-p. and p
(3.65)
v
p^jAzt
L
(3.67)
Since the pressure transients are travelling radially into the reservoir
- 142 -
= 3.0 L2/TJ
(3.68)
Hagoort
(3.69)
constant length and unit mobility ratio. He considered various values of L/d
for two extreme fracture orientations. Pig. 3.11a shows the case for
diagonal fractures (pointing towards a producer) and Fig. 3.11b shows the
case for parallel fractures (pointing in between two producers). Both
figures are reproduced from Hagoort's thesis. The figures show that sweep
efficiency at water breakthrough is not affected, regardless of fracture
orientation, for L/d < 0.25. This is in accordance with (3.69).
For a fracture propagating in the pseudo-radial mode, pseudo-radial
flow is already present almost from the moment of fracture initiation.
Therefore, in any pattern, pseudo-radial flow prevails before the onset of
steady-state. We conclude that for this mode of propagation sweep efficiency
is not influenced by the fracture, regardless of its orientation.
Non-unit mobility ratios
Suppose a low mobility waterbank displaces the oil. If the wells are
producing at a fixed bottomhole pressure, the average reservoir pressure
will rise as the low mobility fluid bank advances. Therefore the fracture
continues to grow, even with zero voidage. It will become stable if the
fluid with the lowest mobility, i.e. the cold water, breaks through in the
producers.
- 143 -
0.8
0.4
3
O
1
3
O
0.2.
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
cumulative Injccllon , W|
1.2
1.4
.8
1.6
2.0
FIG. 3.11a
144
l:U
Cl ft
\J.O
N
\
o c >U. .
A
ui/
,\
-\
A\
\x
0 4
U.*T
0.2
~" m'
-,; , .
0
1.0
J-*~*
^<^X^'
n o
U. o
ex
0.6
o
u
w
S
.>
fractured
r\ A
0 . 't
L /C
1 = 0 ? ?
f
Lf/c i = 0 . 6 5
E
3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
cumulative Injection , VY.
._
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
FIG. 3.11b
2.0
- 145 -
p = p + - 2 - (f) In 0.54
^
*w
2irh k'ww
r
w
v(3.70)
where q = q for a 5-spot and q = 1/3 q for a 9-spot with equal rates for
P
P
corner and side wells, q is the injection rate. The subscript denotes warm
water.
If at water breakthrough the constant pressure square surrounding the
injector is mainly filled with cold water, the fracture length at
breakthrough can be obtained from (3.64) provided q
9
q^ =
is taken as:
()
(3.71)
2jrh(pf - p)
with p from (3.70) and the subscript cw denoting cold water properties.
= S
Hi
+ A
(P P
(3
- i>
'72)
with S. the initial horizontal rock stress at reservoir rpressure rp. and A
Hi
p = S + ha
+ Ao _
f
H
yp
yT
(3.73)
- 146 -
(3.74)
where c has a value in the range 0.5 < c < 1.0 depending on the ratio of
h/d with h the reservoir height. In most cases c will be close to 0.5.
Taking c = 0.5, substituting into (3.73) and solving for p , we find:
2S
Pf = ~
+ 2Aa
- A p
2^H
(c = 0>5)
*"
(3.75)
If we assume that the cold-water front has become more or less circular by
the time warm water breaks through, Aa
in Chapter 2:
Aa
S
A AT
T
= 1 - 7 4 + v( l / h j 2 ] 1 / 2 - 1 / h J
4
' D'
' D
(3.76)
= 0.54 d. If the input value of the injection time is taken as the time
that is expected for water to break through in the producers the analytical
model then gives the fracture length at breakthrough.
- 147 -
into
= Jjt/A, TJ is the
with A .
- 148 -
3.6 Conclusions
1. An analytical model of fracture growth in an infinite reservoir and in
the absence of reservoir stress changes has been presented. The only rock
mechanical parameter incorporated in this model is the horizontal
reservoir stress. It is shown that leak-off from the fracture into the
reservoir is one-dimensional perpendicular to the fracture face for
dimensionless injection rates greater than 4.5. The leak-off is 2-D
pseudo-radial for dimensionless injection rates smaller than 0.61. In the
latter case a one-dimensional description will lead to an overestimation
of fracture length by a factor of two or more.
2. The three-dimensional poro-elastic stress changes at the fracture face
induced by a 2-D pseudo-radial pressure profile that includes elliptical
discontinuities in fluid mobility have been calculated analytically. For
small ratios of reservoir height to pressure penetration depth the 3-D
stress changes are significantly larger than those calculated under an
assumption of 2-D plane strain.
3. A numerical method has been presented for calculating poro- and thermoelastic changes in reservoir rock stress. A comparison with the
analytical results for the poro-elastic stresses shows that the
analytical results are applicable for ratios of fracture half-length to
reservoir height smaller than 10.
4. Characteristic features of waterflood-induced fracture growth in an
infinite reservoir under the influence of three-dimensional poro- and
thermo-elastic reservoir stress changes have been modelled analytically.
Dimensionless numbers pertaining to leak-off distribution, rate of change
of fracture volume and steepness of the temperature front have been
introduced as a check on the consistency of the model.
5. The injection of cold water into permeable reservoirs can induce
fractures of considerable length. Thermal fracture propagation induced by
cooling can be recognised from a continously increasing injectivity index
of the injector.
6. For balanced injection and production, sweep efficiency at water
breakthrough is not affected by fracture growth for dimensionless
injection rates smaller than 0.61, regardless of fracture orientation. In
the definition of dimensionless injection rate the effects of reservoir
stress changes and non-unit mobility ratios can be taken into account.
- 149 -
- 150 -
List of symbols
a
A
P
A
poro-elastic constant
e
e
c
VaF
thermo-elastic constant
erf
error function
erfc
Young's modulus
Ei
exponental integral
g. .
metric tensor
reservoir height
permeability
fracture half-length
p.
q
q.
4
r
w
R
injection rate
total leak-off rate from fracture into reservoir
wellbore radius
radius of temperature front
S
H
S
or
S
wc
t
T. .
injection temperature
r
AT =
T-T
fracture volume
fracture half-width
in]
- 151 -
Greek
a
5..
Kronecker delta
JO
c..
strain tensor
ID
7}
hydraulic diffusivity
fluid mobility
viscosity
Poisson's ratio
porosity
elliptical coordinate
a. .
stress tensor
Subscr ipts
1
oil zone
dimensionless
cold front
flood front
P
T
poro-elastic
thermo-elastic
- 152 -
REFERENCES
1. Veatch, R.W.Jr., Overview of current hydraulic fracturing design and
treatment technology - Part I.
JPT (April 1983), pp. 677-687.
2. Hagoort, J., Weatherill, B.D. & Settari, A., Modelling the propagation
of waterflood-induced fractures.
SPEJ (Aug. 1980), pp. 293-303.
3. Perkins, T.K. & Gonzalez, J.A., The effect of thermo-elastic stresses on
injection well fracturing.
SPEJ (Feb. 1985), pp. 78-88.
4. Hagoort, J., Waterflood-induced hydraulic fracturing.
Ph.D. Thesis, Delft Technical University, 1981.
5. Carter, R.D., Appendix to "Optimum fluid characteristics for fracture
extension" by G.C. Howard and G.R. Fast,
Drill, and Prod. Prac, API (1957), p. 267.
6. Kucuk, F. & Brigham, E.W., Transient flow in elliptical systems.
SPEJ (June 1981), pp. 309-314.
7. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J. & Raghavan, R., Unsteady-state pressure
distribution created by a well with a single infinite conductivity
vertical fracture.
SPEJ (Aug. 1974), pp. 347-360.
8. Olesiak, Z., On a method of solution of mixed boundary-value problems of
thermoelasticity.
Journal of Thermal Stresses (1981), 4, pp. 501-508.
9. Muskat, M., The flow of homogeneous fluids through porous media.
McGraw Hill (1946), p. 185.
10. Nghiem, L.X., Forsyth, P.A. & Behie, A., A fully implicit hydraulic
fracture model.
JPT (July 1984), pp. 1191-1198.
11. Kumar, A. & Ramey, H.J., Well-test analysis for a well in a constant
pressure square.
SPE 4054, 1972.
12. Sneddon, I.N. & Berry, D.S., The classical theory of elasticity.
Encyclopedia of Physics, ed. S. Flgge, vol. IV, Springer-Verlag
(1958), p. 12 and p. 85
- 153 -
- 154 -
APPENDIX 3-A
CALCULATION OF PORO-ELASTIC STRESSES IN ELLIPTICAL COORDINATES
The poro-elastic linear stress - strain relations in a general
curvilinear coordinate system are given by:
E<1
E
Aa. . = 7T~ ( +7~T~ e g. .) + T H ? - Ap g. .
i]
1+u
i] l-2o
'13
l-2u
'13
where a
o = (^J
p
E
and c
(3-A-l)
'
(1 - - 2 )
c,
b
(3-A-2)
and c, are the compressibilities of the grains and of the bulk matrix
12
:
Ao l j .= 0
(3-A-3)
Aa. . = g.,g. . Ao
13
ik ] ^
(3-A-4)
(3-A-5)
- 155 -
Ea
A = E
p
1-
(3-A-6)
0.
with m = *-
= (9
kJ
* f / ) . k = " m Ap
(3-A-7)
*- a .
(1-u) p
The covariant derivative .. is given by
;i]
2
0 . . = 7 : <t> - T. . ~
; i ]J
- i
:
i] - k
3x a3x
3x
<t>
(3-A-8)
k
with T.. being the affine connection. The latter is related to the metric
13
13
tensor by :
kJ
^-\J
rK. = % 3g *(-^
i]
2
' ]
ox
^iJ
^ii
+ - r 1 )
,i
. k '
3x
3x
(3-A-9)
*
The displacements generated by the potential <f> are given by
u.
= -^rx <t>
1
a
ox
(3-A-10)
3
In the following we will consider plane strain conditions (u =0).
This reduces the problem of determining 0 to two (horizontal) dimensions. In
1
2
a two-dimensional orthogonal curvilinear coordinate system (x , x ) the
infinitesimal line element is given by:
ds
ii
2 1 2
= g..dx dxJ = h (dx ) + h
2 2 2
(dx )
(3-A-ll)
* The strain tensor- is given by e..= 0 ... To prove that this tensor
together with (3-A-7) and (3-A-5) is a solution to (3-A-3) and (3-A-l)
requires the results that <j> .
. = 6
elements of the Riemann tensor are zero (see Ref. 14). This is the case
for Euclidean spaces.
- 156 -
12
:
_m _ 1
m
mm
h _m
m dx
(3-A-12)
, 3h
_m _ _,m _ 1_
m
mn
nm
h .n
i 9x
_n _
mm
h
3h
_ra
m
, 2 ,n
h
dx
n
where m,n are different and repeated indices are not summed. In a confocal
elliptial coordinate system
(,TJ)
L2
i3
(cosh2{ -
COS2TJ)
"
0
,
L
hence h = h
From (3-A-12):
2
L
= [ (cosh2 -
I _ 2 _ 2 _
II " 12 " 21
_1 _ _1 _ 2 _
12
21 ~ 22
As is customary
12
(cosh2 - cos2rj)
(3-A-13)
1/2
COS2TJ)]
= h.
1 _ L2sinh2S
22
u2
2h
(3-A-14)
2 _ L sin2n
11
2
2h
displacement as:
Aau =
Ao
*
A
(
=
l l
777
Aa
22
(h2)
%*
A0
12
(3 A 15)
" "
- 157 -
* ^
"i
\-t2"2
From (3-A-5), (3-A-8), (3-A-14) and (3-A-15) we have
L_ sin2q M i . a A n
2 h4
3r,J +
VP
Aa
Afl
OT
" 1+ V
.
A<
Bv2
ft
,1
h4
h4
"
L 2 s i n h 2 { 30,
sin2?? 30
if " F ~
9?
,
(3 A 16)
~ -
g2
0 + ft = - mh
3*?
Ap
(3-A-17)
(3-A-18)
<sr
Equation (3-A-17) becomes:
2
2
3 0
3 0
r ^ + r ^ = - mh2Ap
...2
.2
3
3^7
0 <, I I
3202
320 r - + -r- = 0
-v2
. 2
3*
3r)
f > *
e
(3-A-19)
e
(3-A-20)
- 158 -
regions. The inner region forms the area that is affected by the change in
pressure. We have to define a separate potential in the outer region to
ensure continuity of the displacements across .
We seek a solution in the form
*!
2
mr2 *
*i
mT
J d
" 2
l ' <3{2cosh2$2Ap(2)d{2- =Ui- Ap(ncos2rj
o
o
+ K
0
= K
-2{
e
cos2rj + K cosh2{ COS2TJ
e~2'cos2r? + K
(3-A-21)
(3-A-22)
= 0
= 0, 0 ^ TJ < 2JT
(3-A-23)
=0
$ > 0, rj = 0 A n = ir
must be continuous at { =
- ~
(3-A-24)
- 159 -
r2
" T i dT
AP
U=0
1^
AP
h =l
COsh2
*e
(3-A-25)
e
K4 = -
/ d{ COsh2{ A p U ) d*
o
%P
" Aip
(3-A-26)
Aa
p ( * = 0 )
2 V P ( 0 ) " ^ f K l " fc ?2 K2
<3"A"27>
i A p l{=o = f ? A p . = " i ? l
(3 A 28)
" "
e
Putting Aa ({O) = Aa
P
yp
quantities in (3.40) and (3.41), we obtain:
bo{PV
ypD
= Apfo) - 7 (1 - e
2
(3-A-29)
The major and minor axes of the ellipse separating the parts of the
reservoir affected by pressure and unaffected by pressure are given by
respectively:
a = L cosh
e
e
(3-A-30)
b = L sinh st
e
e
b
Defining e =
we have
e
a
e
- 160 -
-2{
(1
"
S)=
(3_A 31)
4"
e
(p
Putting
({=0) we finally
have from (3-A-26), (3-A-29) and
J
3 Aa ^ = Aa
xpD
rjpD s
(3-A-31):
Aa ( p s ) = X Ap
(o) - ^ (*-)
ypD
2 y D v ' 2 vl+e '
(3-A-32)
Aa ( p S ) = i Ap (o) + l l(-^-)xpD
2 * V ' 2 l+e ;
c
e
Since in (3.38) it was assumed that a = b = R (t), with R given in
e
e
e
e
(3.37), we have that e = 1 and (3.39a) and (3.39b) result from (3-A-32).
e
As discussed in the text, we must modify (3-A-32) to account for
deviations from plane strain conditions. Following Chapter 2, section 2.2.8,
this is done by imposing the additional boundary condition:
lim (Aa _, Aa _)
= AS
.
H D
-*
*P
'JP0
P
Since AS
AS
is simply added to the solutions obtained from (3-A-16), (3-A-21) and
HpD
(3-A-22). Boundary condition (3-A-23) is still satisfied since, from the
argument of symmetry, the superposition of a uniform stress field does not
affect the displacement perpendicular to the line {=0, O^rj <2tr and >0, TJ=0
Arpff}.
We note here that whereas the solution in (3-A-32) is valid for a
e
and b corresponding to any ellipse confocal with the fracture, the
correction term AS
is only applicable in the case that the pressure
profile is pseudo-radial, i.e. a = b .
^
*
e . e
In the presence of elliptical discontinuities in fluid mobility, the
pressure distribution is given by (3.53). To determine the poro-elastic
stresses for this case we define 4 potential functions:
_L2
<t>i = -
I
2
d cosh2* Ap()d -
Ap(|) COS2TJ
i = 1,2,3
(3-A-33)
- 161 -
0 4 = K < 4 ) e"2cos2rj + K^ 4) J
where
O { <, l
c
*c " * * *F
Ap
Ap
(3-A-34)
Ap = {
and
Ap3
p < | ^
f * e
flood fronts respectively and i=l,2,3 for in the cold water, warm water
and oil zone, respectively. The potential functions satisfy:
2
3 0.
at2
2
3 0.
+
9r?
3204
3204
3?
= - mh Ap.
i=l,2,3
(3-A-34)
(l,
1
_ rail
16
2
( D = _ SU^
2
16
^2
^ 1
d
{
l
dAp
dAp,
_^2, _ _ ^ 1 , }
d* ' {
d{ l{ i
c
c
dAp3
dAp^
16
2 dAp
+, mil
d* ' { F i
d* l { F
-2{
3i
i?"^ru
-2
e
e
-2JF
6
- 162 -
K <2) =
(3)
K
mL2
dAp
dAp
2,
**!.
dAp
dAp
-mL2 f d{A p 2 , |
2 dAp
-2
i - - ir ir o ir -ir i - ir 1 ?, } c o,s h 2 | c
mL 2
i ,1
-2|
*Pl,
^2
dAp 3
dAp 2
16
-2*
6
d 'l
e
,,.
dAp
T 2 dApn
T2
(4)
mL
lli
mL ,__12i
K
T = ~ 77
77" ~ 77" t~TT"L
3
16
d{ 'o
mL2
dAp 3
16
dj
dAp 2
-1
dAp,
*l i -.
._..
7 7 L J cosh2{
d{
1 COsh2
'%
c
mL2
c
dAp 3
l
V IT ~W i
2
K^4)= - *p- Je d{ cosh2 cosh2 Ap({)
COSh2{
e
(3-A-36)
i f = " 1^x7
i - 1.2,3
(3-A-37)
- i (1 - s"2t'P>
c,F
13*3.,
- 163 -
APPENDIX 3-B
A NUMERICAL METHOD FOR CALCULATING PORO- AND THERMO-ELASTIC STRESS CHANGES
In Cartesian coordinates (xi'x2'x^
t n e e<
Juation
for tne
displacement
a2
a2
1 +
(
9x
2
3x
a2
+
2 } * = " "^P
3X
(3-B-l)
4 ' d x i d x 2 d x 3 Ap(x^,x',x^) |
(3-B-2)
where
2
2
2 1/2
R =-[(x1-x|) + (x2-x^) + x3-x^) ] '
(3-B-3)
*ijP= y i ? '
W*
A
3
P(xi'x2'x3} aTaxT I
1 3
+ Ap 6 . . }
(3-B-4)
13
l'X2
X
i^ a i
. dk
X
i" a i
X +a
2 +a 2
3 3
dk2
dk3
2 "a2
3 "a3
- 164 -
. girlr K* r v 2
+
+ ( k )2 +
v2
(3
"B_5)
3 l
.
-aL
dk x
*2
*3
dk 2
-a2
-a3
a2
dk 3
i r 5 r
(x3-x3-k3)2]"1/2}
The
2
2
(
x
x
k
)
+
2
2
[ x ^ - k ^
D
+ A Ap(X;L,x2x3)
(3-B-6)
integrals
a
<
,u > =
"ai
dk x
dk 2
"a2
dk 3
2
g]rgir
"a3
2
2
2 -1/2
. [(u1-k1)z + (u2-k2)z + (u3-k3T] x/
xp
and Aa
,
Va2
I,,
1 1 = atan
Vai
U
r
yp
3~ 3 3
+l,+2,+3
atan
2"a2
Vai
3 +a 3
r
+l,+2,-3
, U 2 + a 2 U3~a3
, U 2 +3 2 U 3 +3 3
- atan
+ atan
U
U
l~ a i r+l,-2,+3
l"ai r+l,-2,-3
(3-B-7)
- 165 -
.
Va2
- atan
Vai
. U2_a2 U3+a3
+ atan
r
-l,+2,+3
V a i r-l,+2,-3
V
U +a
,
2 2
+ atan
3'a3
, U2+a2
atan
-l,-2/+3
3+a3
'-1,-2,-3
where
r
l,2,3 "
[ (
V V
+ {
V 2
-* u
2
)
2 1/2
<V 3
(3 B 9)
" "
2
(3-B-10)
a *-* a
1
2
If the pressure distribution Ap is symmetrical in the line x =0, then
this line becomes a boundary of no displacement in the x -direction for the
displacements generated by (3-B-2). According to the discussion leading to
(3.34), it follows that Ao
2 =0,
can
height. Since the pressure profile has elliptical symmetry, the boundary
condition of zero displacement in the x -direction at the fracture face is
automatically satisfied if the summations in (3-B-6) are carried out across
the complete horizontal reservoir plane. The values for Ap(x ,x ,x,) are
calculated in the centre of each grid block from the formulae in (3.36).
These formulae can be expressed in Cartesian coordinates through
cosh + sinh = 1
v S 1
(3-B-ll)
- 166 -
2
1/2
cosh{ + sinhg = v+ (v -1)
v > 1
where
[(,W,
v = {
x A V / 2 +x22+Xl2+L2 1/2
\
2L
(3-B-12)
of the grid
- 167 -
FIG. 3.B-1
- 168
APPENDIX 3-C
CALCULATION OF THERMO-ELASTIC STRESSES AND OF THE AXES OF THE ELLIPTICAL
FLUID FRONT
We define the following dimensionless quantities:
xTD
xT
AJT '
T
yT
yTD " A AT
J
T
(3-C-l)
with a
Eo
m = ,
T
1-U
(3-C-2)
e
A
VD=
(1 + e
^e" +
1 + 0 . 5[1 . 45(h
c)_1
0.9+
xTD
1
l+ec
(1
c
+
+
0.9+
D
0.77 4]
<3"C-3}
DC
* ec)~1
h
2
D
1.36
C
(3
"C-4:
- 169 -
2
V. = ir L h s i n h . cosh.
i=c,F
(3-C-5)
and
M
v
c
sr
qt
3 c 6)
- '
r
V
F * I-B'-S )
or wc
qt
(3
-C"7)
2 " * i * 7?7'
i=c,F
(3-C-8)
ffL
i=c,F
(3-C-9)
- 170 -
- 171 -
CHAPTER FOUR
A PRESSURE FALL-OFF TEST FOR DETERMINING FRACTURE DIMENSIONS
Summary
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Calculation of the pressure fall-off with a closing fracture
4.2.1 Assumptions
4.2.2 Integral equation for the dimensionless pressure function
4.2.3 Solution for the dimensionless pressure function
4.3 Analysis of a pressure fall-off test
4.3.1 Four methods to determine fracture length
4.3.2 Discussion
4.4 Conclusions
List of symbols
References
Appendix 4-A Solution for dimensionless pressure function in Laplace space
Appendix 4-B Relationship between fracture closure constant and fracture
length
- 172 -
SUMMARY
- 173 -
4.1 INTRODUCTION
In the previous chapter the propagation of waterflood-induced fractures
was studied with relatively simple models. Two important conclusions from
this study are a) the conventional Carter model of one-dimensional leak-off
perpendicular to the fracture is generally inadequate, b) changes in
reservoir pressure and temperature can have a significant effect on the
reservoir rock stress and therefore on the fracture propagation pressure.
A quantitative prediction of fracture length with these models should
be treated with some care. This is because, on the one hand, they rely on
many simplifying assumptions and, on the other hand, a great number of input
data are required. A method of determining the dimensions of a growing
fracture at certain moments during its propagation is therefore useful in
gauging these models. After such a calibration, a reliable assessment of
growing fractures on the sweep efficiency of the pattern-flood in question
can be made.
In injection wells, pressure fall-off tests are conducted to obtain
information on reservoir properties and possible well damage. Such a test
consists of shutting in the well after a suitable injection period and
recording the subsequent drop in pressure as a function of time. The
required information is then extracted by comparing the measured pressure
profile with the theoretically predicted one.
For fractured injection wells, fall-off tests can be used to determine
fracture length. The early time data immediately after shut-in can be
related to fracture length since initially fluid flow and pressure behaviour
are completely dominated by the presence of the fracture.
1 2
The literature on fall-off tests for fractured wells ' deals with
stationary propped fractures which do not exhibit any closure behaviour
during the pressure fall-off.
For waterflood-induced fractures such closure behaviour may well
dominate the early time pressure behaviour and therefore a suitable
theoretical model must be applied to analyse these pressure data..
- 174 -
- 175 -
dp
-dT
= C
where V
(4
f ^
' X)
4
* Hagoort called C f the fracture storage constant in line with the
mathematical analogy with wellbore storage. However, since C may be
confused with the actual fracture storage constant for a non-closing
propped fracture, we adopt a different terminology here.
- 176 -
fi
6p
(t
"X)dX
.
sh
(4.2)
where 5p. = p,-p. and q. is the total leak-off from the fracture into the
f
f
4
er
reservoir. 5p_
is the constant rate solution for an infinite conductivity
fracture of half-length L(t . ) and for an injection rate q . Duhamel's
J
*
sh
o
superposition principle
"
dVf
(4.3)
d T
where q is the injection rate from the well into the fracture. In Chapter 3
it is shown that during propagation dVf/dt usually becomes negligibly small
after a few hours of injection. If the injection rate into the well is
constant, Eq. (4.3) therefore becomes approximately
q =s q
= constant
(propagation)
(4.4)
d Pf
= - C f r-
(during closure)
(4.5)
For times t > t . , Eq. (4.2) therefore becomes (with the constant rate
sh
solution for q = q):
- 177 -
t
.
t C
sn
r
Spf(t) = J |^ 5p^ (t-X)dX - [-| ~
o
t u
5p (X)] f^ 5p^r(t-X)dX
(4
sh
which can be rewritten as:
t .
t
C
Pf(t) = f^ 6p"(t-X)dX - [1 + ~ ~ 8p (X)] f^ 5p"(t-X)dX
o
t u
sh
(4
The first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (4.7) can be integrated to
give:
5 p " (t-X)dX = 8p"(t)
(4
o
We now introduce the following dimensionless variables:
2irX h
p
fD
(A
~T~
2TTX
Ap (At) =
2jrX h
P
fD(V
-T"
~T~
(p
sh " Pf ( t sh
+ At)
>
2JTX h
6p (t)
~T~
(P r(t)
" Pi>
' T
JJ
n
- ~2 ^sh5
L
fD
2
2*rL h ( 0 C t ) 1
where:
X,
1
k
- 178 -
u
h
= viscosity
= reservoir height
0MC
= porosity
= total compressibility
cr
We multiply Eq. (4.7) with -1 and add Sp. ( t ) = p . - p. to both
-
5p = -
Sli
SO
fD (At D>
'
D[1 c
- fD axl p f D ( V ] i c f r r PfD(AtD-xD)dXD
D
( 0
A t
<
At
D(cl))
(4 10)
'
we have
fD
(t
D(sh)> - P f D ( t D ( s h ,
+ A
( 4
-U)
(4
-12)
fD<AV "
jt
[1 C
" fD d f DP fD (X D )[ iiTT
v
D
( 0 < A t
<
fD(AtD-VdXD
^(Cl)
= 0 for At
> At
(At
D>AtD(cl)>
<4'13)
- 179 -
(c t *) 1
(cfc0)2
K =
\
K = r
A
2
(4.14)
vs At
D(cir
In Fig. 4.3 a derivative type-curve plot is shown of d(p
)/d(ln At )
180
FIG. 4.1
- 181 10 i
At D
FIG. 4.2
FRACTURE CLOSURE
TRANSITION PERIOD
MOBILITY DISCONTINUITY AT | 0 = 5
MOBILITY (DIFFUSIVITY) RATIO:0.33
"-
102
10'
" " i
103
1<-
10"
At D /C f D
FIG. 4.3
10s
- 182 -
d(PD)
d (In At n )
4n= 0.5
10'
i 11111|
i 11111 I
10'
i i 11 111
i i 111 11
10
10
i 111iiI
10"
Atr
DERIVATIVE-TYPE CURVE PLOT FOR VARIOUS POSITIONS OF THE
ELLIPTICAL MOBILITY DISCONTINUITY
111|
i
b
10
i i 111111
10b
- 183 -
Pseudo-radial flow is reached inside the inner zone when the derivative
reaches the value 0.5. After transition to the outer zone the constant value
0.5 K is reached. Fig. 4.4 shows a log-log plot of the logarithmic
derivative of p, vs At for various values of { . This plot shows that if
r
fD
D
o
the fracture is close to the front (small ), pseudo-radial flow is not
attained in the inner region.
q=
dp
(4 15)
- f^f
'
for various fracture geometries. The fracture models considered are the
9
Christianovic-Geertsma-de Klerk model (CGK) , applicable to fractures for
- 184 -
which 2L/hf
2L/h
9
1, the Perkins-Kern-Nordgren model (PKN) , for fractures with
is the
fracture height at the wellbore. Fig. 4.5 shows the CGK and PKN geometries,
Fig. 4.6 shows the ellipsoidal geometry.
The fracture length can be determined graphically as follows. Estimate
the fracture height h , form a new dimensionless closure constant,
fD
(4
. 3,n 2,
hf (l-o )
'16)
where v and E are Poisson's ratio and Young's modulus, respectively. The
superscript (rm) denotes rock mechanical and serves to distinguish this
definition of the dimensionless closure constant from that in (4.9).
dp
f
C, = -q/ - TT is determined from the linear plot of p vs At. Enter Fig. 4.7
t
at
and determine 2L/h for a particular fracture geometry. This then gives a
value for L.
Alternatively, if h
may be assumed and Fig. 4.7 then gives a value for c!l
from which h
can
fn m ) '
the value
of 0.67.
Method 2a
Linear formation flow becomes visible if: (i) the fracture closes at a
small dimensionless closure time At
185
CGK-MODEL
PKN-MODEL
FRACTURE MODELS WITH RECTANGULAR FRACTURE AREA
FIG. 4.5
- 186 -
Z-AXIS
- 187 -
10'
-1
r ir-n-n
I I
r"
i ' i
i > i i |
CGK
PKN
ELLIPSOID
10
r
/..'
10"
10
10"
-iU.'
10"
10"
'
'
IQ"
I I I I I
10"
2L/hf
10'
10z
FIG. 4.7
- 188 -
From the permeability of the semi-log analysis and from the fluid and
relative permeability data ( M A 0 C ) can be estimated. Then from Eq. (4.17)
the quantity 2hL is obtained. Although Eq. (4.17) is conventionally derived
for a rectangular fracture area, it can be used for a fracture area of any
geometry if 2hL is replaced by the corresponding expression for this area.
We therefore have
h = h
(4.18)
h = | hf
(ellipsoid)
(4.19)
and
D(C1)
linear formation flow takes place before the fracture closes. In his thesis
Hagoort presented an analytical expression for p f
is given by:
pf
= /(ffAt
/(ffAt D) -
rrfD
,2,
" e"
e*3 A t DD erfc
))
(1 erfc (0/At
(0/Atg))
(4.20)
where
& = Z^T^fD
(4.21)
The other quantities are defined in Eq. (4.9). If the analysis is restricted
to the time that formation flow is still linear, type-curves can be
generated either from Eq. (4.20) or by using the method given in Appendix
4-A. A match with the field plot gives values for L and Cf . Since only
linear formation flow is considered, again either Eq. (4.18) or Eq. (4.19)
can be used, depending on the geometry being studied.
- 189 -
Note that Eq. (4.20) does not consider the presence of an elliptical
discontinuity in fluid mobility. It can therefore be used only when i
large enough for linear flow to occur in the inner region.
are known.
f f hsinh{
1/2
cosh*
o
i = C
'
<4'22)
0(1-S -S )
or we
(4.23)
qt
(4.24)
- 190 -
*f
(At
{ln
> 5* r
+ s}
<4-25>
At
ln
+ b
^T^
1
where a , b
ln
2
3.<V(T),At)
a+b
o
X_
a + b
2 ,
o
o
=r
ln
ln
a + b
o
o
r~ ~ -J7
,. __,
(4 27)
In Chapter 3, Appendix 3-C, we showed that, for a temperature or a floodfront elliptical discontinuity in mobility, the sum of the major and minor
axes is given by:
1/2
a + b = L F. '
o
o
i
i = c,F
(4.28)
with
2V.
2V
2
1/2
F. = j - + [ ( Y )
+ 1]
JTL h
JTL h
(4.29)
where V. is defined in Eqs. (4.23) and (4.24). L can be determined from the
non-linear algebraic equation that results after combining Eqs. (4.27)(4.29). If the front is sufficiently far away from the fracture, such that
it is almost circular, the solution for L simplifies F. to:
\
L = 2R exp C- r [S + ln(R /r )]}
o
X_
o w
(4.30)
- 191 -
V. 1/2
= (-J)
i = c,F
(4.31)
jrh
L = 2r
exp(-S)
(4.32)
4.3.2 Discussion
To obtain a measure of the fracture height h, at the wellbore is
sometimes difficult. If cold water is injected a temperature log can be run
in the hole. From this log, the height of the cooled region can be
determined. If, because of cooling, the reservoir rock stress has decreased
significantly, the height of the cooled region may then be used as an upper
limit for h
(L -x )
From the discussion at the beginning of Section 4.2.2 it follows that this
is also the leak-off distribution at the time of shut-in. As discussed in
method 1, the leak-off will not change appreciably during the early-time
since shut-in. The condition of zero fracture flow at the wellbore and high
- 192 -
4o t
%
h
M2
"f < 0.05
M
r
(4.34)
The fracture closes if the fluid pressure in the fracture has become
equal to the in-situ horizontal rock stress. The absolute pressure at which
closure is observed therefore provides a value for the in-situ stress.
- 193 -
4.4 CONCLUSIONS
In principle, a pressure fall-off test provides four methods for
determining fracture length.
1. In the first flow period the fracture closes according to its
compressibility. The pressure varies linearly with time. By using rock
mechanical principles, the slope of the straight line gives a value for
the fracture length.
2. The second flow period is determined by either linear formation flow or a
combination of fracture closure and linear formation flow. In the first
case the usual square-root time analysis and in the second case typecurve matching result in a value for the fracture length.
3. The third flow period is determined by the transition from the inner
fluid region to the outer fluid region. The length, pressure level and
onset of this transition flow can be used to obtain a type-curve match
with a logarithmic derivative plot. The match provides a value both for
the elliptial coordinate, , of the fluid front and for the fracture
length. A heat or volume balance together with { gives an additional
estimate for the fracture length. This value should be in agreement with
that from the type-curve match.
4. The fourth flow period is determined by pseudo-radial flow in the outer
fluid zone. From a Horner plot the mobility in this fluid zone and,
subsequently, the skin can be determined. The skin can be related to
fracture length if the presence of an elliptical inner zone with
different mobility is properly taken into account.
If more than one of the four methods can be used, consistent results
should give a reliable estimate of the fracture length. Additionally, the
in-situ horizontal rock stress can be determined from the test. It is given
by the absolute pressure at which closing of the fracture is observed.
Finally, the test may provide information on whether the fracture closes
tightly or whether it remains highly permeable after closure. This
information is important when injection below the fracture opening pressure
is considered in order to minimise the effect of the fracture on sweep
efficiency.
- 194 -
LIST OF SYMBOLS
A
o
c
Ce_2n
C,
Young's modulus
E(k)
Fek
zn
h
permeability
fracture half-length
p.
p,
p ,
pressure at shut-in
formation thickness
6 Pf
P f -P.
cr
opf
constant rate solution for infinite conductivity fracture
* p f = psh " p f
q
injection rate
qj
q.
S__
t
t .
sh
At
injection time
time at which the well is shut-in
t-t
u
sh
time since shut-in at which the fracture closes
At. ..
(cl)
AT
V,
fracture volume
fracture half-width
- 195 -
Greek
a
ij
diffusivity
mobility ratio
s/4
tf
viscosity
Poisson's ratio
porosity
elliptial coordinate
diffusivity ratio
Subscripts
1
inner region
outer region
temperature front
dimensionless
fracture
flood front
sh
shut-in
- 196 -
REFERENCES
1. Clark, K.K., Transient pressure testing of fractured water injection
wells.
JPT, (June 1968), pp. 6.
2. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J.Jr. & Raghavan, R., Unsteady-state pressure
distribution created by a well with a single infinite conductivity
vertical fracture.
SPEJ (Aug. 1974), pp. 347-360.
3. Nolte, K.G., Determination of fracture parameters from fracturing
pressure decline.
SPE 8341, 1979.
4. Hagoort, J., Waterflood-induced hydraulic fracturing.
Ph.D. Thesis, Delft Technical University, 1981.
5. Van Everdingen, A.F. & Hurst, W., The application of Laplace
transformation to flow problems in reservoirs.
Transactions AIME (Dec. 1949), pp. 305-324.
6. Kucuk, F. & Brigham, E.W., Transient flow in elliptical systems.
SPE (June 1981), pp. 309-314.
7. Obut, S.T. & Ertekin, T., A composite system solution in elliptical flow
geometry.
SPE 13078, 1984.
8. Stehfest, H., An algorithm for numerical inversion of Laplace
transforms.
Communications ACM (Jan. 1970), pp. 47-49.
9. Geertsma, J. & Haafkens, R., Comparison of the theories to predict width
and extent of vertically hydraulically induced fractures.
Transactions ASME (March 1979), pp. 8-19.
10. Green, A.E. & Sneddon, I.N., The distribution of stress in the
neighbourhood of a flat elliptical crack in an elastic solid.
Proceedings Cambridge Phil. Soc. (1950), Vol. 46, pp. 159-163.
11. Muskat, M., The flow of homogeneous fluids through porous media.
McGraw Hill (1946), p. 185.
12. McLachlan, N.W., Theory and applications of Mathieu functions.
Oxford University Press, London, 1947.
13. The Group Numerical Analysis, On the computation of Mathieu functions.
Journal of Engineering Math. (1973), vol. 7, pp. 39-61.
197 -
- 198 -
APPENDIX 4-A
SOLUTION FOR DIMENSIONLESS PRESSURE FUNCTION IN LAPLACE SPACE
32p
32p
J- + Y ~ 2
3
9P
(cosn 2
*~
cos2r
) J~
3rj
(4-A-2)
where
2irkh ,
"qTT
(p p J
- i
(4-A-3)
t
.-*-*<j>uc.
T2
Lt
(p
n>
Pn ( s )
(4-A-4)
0 p
,2-
0 p
-2 + - ~
ar
= f (cosh 2| - COS2J7) P n
(4-A-5)
St)
- 199 -
and F
f 4 ^" 6 )
ce (7/,X) = Z A
*n
r=0
(X) cos2rrj
r
OB
,
Fek
2n
ce (0,X)ce_ (f ,X)
,
,v ,
, ,^n
2n
2n 2
_ ,2n.N.
($,-X)
= (-1)
Z
A X .
r 2n/% ,2
. 2r
it[h
(X)]
r=0
I (Ae~*) K (Ae*)
(A-4-7)
the algorithm of Ref. 13. I and K are modified Bessel functions of the
r
r
first and second kind, respectively. Note that Fek
Ce
relationships:
2ir
m? n
(4-A-8)
m=n
- 200 -
2ir
i
ce
0
(4-A-9)
in the presence
7
of an elliptical discontinuity in fluid mobility is given by :
PfD = " { 1 6 X 2 * ^ ^
n=0
on(X,[C2nCe2n^w'-X>
+ F
2nFek2n<*w'"X>]^
<4"A-10>
where X = s/4. The functions Ce_ and Fek_ are defined in (4-A-7). is
v
2n
2n
' sw
the coordinate of the inner boundary. The prime denotes differentiation with
respect to .
The constants C. and P. are obtained from:
2n
2n
A
m
^n
A
=
2n
22 A 33 - A 23 A 32
det(A)
(4 A
11}
23 A 31 " A 21 A 33
det(A)
with
det(A) = A n ( A 2 2 A 3 3 - A 2 3 A 3 2 )
+ A12(A23A31-A21A33)
(4-A-12)
and
A
il
= [ ( - l ) n ( 2 X ) / A ^ n ( X ) ] Ce ( | , - X )
o
^n w
= [ ( - l ) n ( 2 X ) / A ^ n ( X ) ] Fek
O
Li.
21
Ce
22
Fek
(|
t-TL
,-X)
W
2n^o'"X)
2n^o'"X)
(4-A-13)
23
-Fek2n(o'-q)
A . . = icCe' ( { , - X )
31
2n o
- 201 -
A 3 2 = KFek'n({o,-X)
33
"
Fek
2n ( o'- q )
to A
these periodic functions drop out in Eq, (4-A-ll). we have omitted them
here.
Solution with closing fracture
Equation (4.12) is a convolution-type integral equation that also
occurs in the analysis of ordinary wellbore storage problems . Taking t
Laplace transform of Eq. (4.12) and solving for p. gives:
PfD< S)
~cr. v
PfD<s>
,
2-cr, |
1+C
fD S P fD ( S )
(4
"A"14)
- 202 -
APPENDIX 4-B
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FRACTURE CLOSURE CONSTANT AND FRACTURE LENGTH
Assuming a uniform pressure p f inside the fracture, we have:
dVf
dt~
dVf
=
dpf
(4-B-l)
(4-B-2)
For a fracture of the CGK type (Fig. 4.5) the volume is given by,
= h
it w(o) L
(4-B-3)
9
with w(o) the half-width at the wellbore given by :
w(o) = 2 ( 1 ~"
L (Pf-SH)
(4-B-4)
Assuming that the height and length of the fracture remain constant during
the pressure decline and assuming that the pressure decline is sufficiently
fast that poro-elastic changes in S can be neglected, Eqs. (4-B-2), (4-B-3)
H
and (4-B-4) give:
CCGK = 2ff
1 1 ^
h f L2
(4.B.5)
For a fracture of the PKN type (Fig. 4.5) the volume is given by:
h
f
= 2L ir j=- w(o)
(4-B-6)
9
where the half-width at the wellbore is now given by :
w(o) = *
2
' hf (Pf~SH)
(4-B-7)
- 203 -
giving,
PKN
(1-u ) T . 2
Cf
= ff -*- * L h f
,,,
(4-B-8)
- 1 '^
its " f V
with a and b the major and minor axis respectively of the elliptical
fracture area. E(k) is the complete elliptical integral of the second kind
and
2
b2
k = 1 - Sj
(4-B-10)
a
From Eqs. (4-B-9) and (4-B-10) we have:
i
elpsd
U
f
.i
2 ilzv}
3 *
E
.2 L h -
f
E(k)
2
K
h, 2
_f
1(
2L'
h
f
L >
elpsd _ 4
f
" 3
ff
(1-u) 2 V _
E
E(k)
(4-B-ll)
.2 _
2L 2
k - l ( )
h
f
Y >L
(4-B-12)
Expressions (4-B-4), 4-B-7) and (4-B-9) are valid for a uniform pressure p f
and a uniform rock stress S.
H
When the fracture length or height extends across a discontinuous change in
S, the expressions (4-B-4) and (4-B-7) for the half-width become different.
H
Suppose, for example, that the fracture extends vertically into cap and base
rock so that h
H = SH1
204
M
(4-B-13)
= S
Izl > -
H2
' '
14
,
w(o) = = i hf.
(4-B-14)
^Pf-Sni) " \ ( S ^ - S ^ t c o s - V j - u I n C 1 ^ 1 - " >)}]
where
u = z~
h
f
(4-B-15)
gal. nail hf
(1.B.U)
(4-B-17)
(rm)
fD
__V
. 3 2X
hf (1-u )
d Pf
where C f = - q/^T-
(4-B-18)
'
- 205 -
From Eqs. (4-B-5), (4-B-8), (4-B-ll) and (4-B-12) a plot of C** ' vs
2L/h, can be made for the various fracture geometries (Fig. 4.7). This plot
can be used to determine L or h
- 207 -
CHAPTER FIVE
A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO WATERFLOODING UNDER FRACTURING CONDITIONS
Summary
5.1 Introduction
5.2 An example
5.3 Conditions for a successful process
5.4 Preliminary investigations
5.5 Basic data gathering
5.5.1 Measurements of in-situ stress, fracture orientation
and elastic moduli
5.5.2 Injectivity test and fall-off testing
5.5.3 Matching with propagation model
5.6 Determination of optimal reservoir pressure, injection rate
and well pattern
5.6.1 Determination of maximum reservoir pressure
5.6.2 Determination of maximum injection rate
5.6.3 Fractured well pattern and reduction in the number of wells
5.7 Full-scale implementation
5.8 Special applications
5.9 Conclusions
List of symbols
References
- 208 -
SUMMARY
- 209 -
5.1 INTRODUCTION
In the previous chapters the physics of fracture initiation and
propagation were described in detail. A method for monitoring fracture length
by conducting a fall-off test was discussed.
This chapter shows how the concepts developed so far can be applied in
practice.
It is outlined what the advantages may be of waterflooding under
fracturing conditions and how the process should be designed in order to
control the fracture growth.
5.2 AN EXAMPLE
Let us consider a tight chalky limestone reservoir with a permeability of
a few millidarcies. The reservoir contains light oil with a viscosity of the
order of a few centipoise. There is a bottom water layer but almost no aquifer
support. The latter circumstance, together with the favourable water-oil
mobility ratio, makes the reservoir a good candidate for waterflooding.
For this low-permeability reservoir hydraulic fracturing would be an
effective method of increasing the flow capacity of injection and production
wells significantly. Such an increase' could lead to a reduction in the number
of wells at a certain total field offtake or to accelerated oil production at
a certain number of wells.
Fracturing of the production wells, however, entails the risk of creating
a fracture that extends into the bottom water layer, which would result in
increased water production . Moreover, the limestone may be rather soft, so
that the fracture would eventually close around the proppant.
- 210 -
1) The fracture should grow sufficiently slowly for the waterflood sweep
efficiency not to be adversely affected.
2) The fracture propagation pressure should be low enough to keep the
fracture vertically contained within the reservoir zones of interest.
T>
2jrkh(p - P i )
(5.1)
v<p
J/p
"VS*
211 -
%'AP
Vo
.V*P
/4P
'*p
*?
CONFINED 5-SPOTS
BALANCED CONDITIONS : L= p
X = INJECTOR
= PRODUCER
v,
Vjpg
FIG. 5.1
- 212 -
where:
= injection rate
= reservoir height
is less than 0.61, the pressure transients travel radially into the
(5.2)
, may be
(5.3)
where:
d
r = wellbore radius
w
S = skin of injector
- 213 -
H
injectivity by injecting under fracturing conditions is found to be:
max
s= 2
< ->
3 K
^ziz K 5
< s = +1 >
<5-4>
~max
q
where the logarithmic term was taken as 7.
We see from (5.4) that injecting under fracturing conditions, as far as
unimpaired sweep efficiency is concerned, results, in most cases, in a
considerable improvement in injectivity.
With regard to vertical fracture containment the situation is more
difficult. If cap and base rock consist of thick shales, there is a good
chance of vertical containment. However, as was shown in Chapter 3,
section 3.4.3, the reservoir rock stress may increase considerably, during
injection into low-permeability reservoirs, as a result of poro-elastic
effects whereas the stress in cap and base rock may be lowered as a result
of conductive cooling. The altered stress gradients may eventually result in
vertical fracture growth through cap and base rock.
A special case in which vertical containment can be assumed with
reasonable certainty is for permeable reservoirs where fracturing is
preceded by the injection of large amounts of cold water. In this way the
cooling can induce a considerable lowering of the initial stress with
respect to cap and base rock whilst at the same time the poro-elastic
increase is small owing to the good permeability (see Chapter 2,
section 2.7).
If the initial conditions are not optimal for vertical fracture
containment it may be considered to lower the reservoir pressure in order to
lower the reservoir rock stress level. Of course, a lower reservoir pressure
results in a reduced productivity of the wells. However, waterflooding under
fracturing conditions at a lower reservoir pressure may still be very
advantageous. As will be shown in the following, a proper assessment can
only be made after all basic data have been gathered.
- 214 -
- 215 -
With the array sonic logging tool the dynamic elastic moduli of the
rock can be determined . Ideally, one should like to use these for a direct
calculation of the in-situ stress. It should be noted however, that
generally these constants are different from those measured under static
conditions. The latter are more relevant for investigating the stress state
in a rock. Quite apart from this difference, it is not recommended to
compute the in-situ stresses using the in-situ values of the elastic moduli
since this ignores the burial history of the formation (see Chapter 2,
section 2.6). However, if in the same field the difference in the dynamic
elastic moduli for two adjacent layers is measured as uniform across the
field, then, most likely, the same holds for the difference in stress.
Therefore, sonic logging can be a powerful method for investigating the
lateral uniformity of stress contrasts across the field.
5.5.2 Injectivity test and fall-off testing
In the same well in which the stress measurements were made an
injectivity test should be carried out to determine the characteristics of
fracture propagation. Preferably the well is a new well in a virgin part of
the reservoir, so that the measured stress is the actual initial stress
unaltered by changes in pressure or temperature.
The well should be perforated over the full reservoir interval in order
to initiate a fracture across the total reservoir height. This facilitates
the interpretation of the injectivity test and the accompanying fall-off
tests considerably.
First, a reference case for fall-off testing should be established by
performing a fall-off test after injection below the fracture initiation
pressure. This fall-off can be analysed for kh and skin in the usual way.
Before the well is shut in, a base case spinner survey should be made to
determine the flow distribution along the reservoir interval.
Then an injectivity test should be performed at the rate that is
desired in the actual waterflood. Of course, this rate should not exceed
q
as given in Eq. (5.2). The water should have the quality and
- 216 -
active tracer and array sonic logging. It has been recently suggested that
the latter method should be able to detect fracture height as a result of
9
the interference of the shear-wave propagation by the fracture . For all
three methods reference logs should be run before fracturing. During the
test the logging should be repeated at regular intervals. In some cases it
may be possible to perforate the casing at a suitable depth opposite the
caprock. Propagation of the fracture upto this level would then be
visible
- 217 -
(5.5)
/(Vsh>
where n is the hydraulic diffusivity in the outer fluid zone and t . the
2
sn
total injection time, then according to Chapter 3, aection 3.2.4, flow
around the fracture was pseudo-radial. This means that no effect on sweep
efficiency is expected if injection and production in the pattern are
balanced. It also means that it should be possible to match the propagation
pressure as a function of time with the analytical model of Chapter 3,
section 3.4. The prediction for fracture length should, of course, agree
with the results of the fall-off tests.
A match with the propagation pressure in time should give reliable
values for A
yp
IC
+ Ao m +
yT
(*,)
(5.6)
- 218 -
where:
S
H
La
yp
Ac
yT
K
L
Ao
yP
where A
=c
' V (p f " p)
(5>7)
yp
fracture becomes stable. At that stage the pressure penetration depth, R ,
e
is of the order of half the well spacing, d. In Table 3-1, Chapter 3,
section 3.3.2, the poro-elastic stress change at the fracture wall is given
as a function of h/(2R ) with h the reservoir height. The value of c can be
e
inferred from this table by calculating the ratio La /Ap (o) where La
1
ypD *D
ypD
is the dimensionless poro-elastic stress change and Ap (o) is the
dimensionless pressure rise in the fracture respectively. When the fracture
becomes stable we have h/(2R ) ~ h/d and for typical values of this ratio
e
between 1.0 and 0.1, c ranges between 0.4 and 0.7.
From (5.6) and (5.7) the pressure propagation pressure at reservoir
S
H " C V + AvT + K T C / , / ( , r L )
pressure p can be Pwritten:
5 8
*t = -
i-
<->
- 219 -
H " SHi
+ A
AP
(5 9
' >
where Ap = p - p..
The fracture propagation pressure, p. at reservoir pressure p. can be
obtained from (5.8) by replacing S with STI. and p with p.. We thus find
H
Hi
from (5.8) and (5.9) for the difference in propagation pressure at reservoir
pressure p and p.:
(1-c) A
Pf
=p
f T^T^
Ap
(5 10)
P
Since cA
pressure, p.
. . . . , ,
i.
J.
at reservoir pressure p. .
This should be done as follows. Estimate the maximum penetration depth that
the pressure transients will reach. As discussed above this will typically
be half the well spacing. Modify the model such that after the pressure
penetration depth, R , has reached this maximum, R is kept constant at this
e
e
value. Run the model for the period of time that is expected for water
breakthrough to occur in the pattern. Of course, the modification of the
model should be such that, after steady-state has been reached, the
calculation of the pressure difference between the fracture and R , takes
e
only the discontinuities in fluid mobility contained within R into account.
e
It may be, therefore, that at the end of the run only cold water is
contained within R . This way of using the analytical model is similar to
that described in Chapter 3, section 3.5.2 where it was used to determine
the fracture length at water breakthrough.
- 220 -
Initially/ of course, the well spacing is not known and therefore the
model should be run for an expected range of well spacings.
It should be noted that the calculated maximum propagation pressure,
pf
, may never be reached during the actual injectivity test, for instance
i.
i.1.
= P
(1-c) A Ap
p
1-C A
max
f +
, c .. n ,
'11}
(5
As was discussed above, c typically ranges between 0.4 and 0.7. For c = 0.5
we have:
A
-max
max
p A
Pf
= Pf
+ JZ^~ A P
P
. _n.,
(5.12)
From the in-situ stress measurements the horizontal rock stress in cap and
c/b
base rock, S
, is known. Vertical fracture containment at reservoir
H
pressure p is guaranteed if
(5.13)
From (5.11) and (5.13) we can determine the maximum reservoir pressure,
p
, for which the maximum propagation pressure satisfies (5.13). Putting
-max _ S_c/b . , c ,, .
, , .
- .
c
p.
u
in (5.11) and solving for
p gives:
r
ti
-max
_L
=p
1cA
i T^TT
, c/b
(S
H "
max,
.c
(5 14)
-max
P
^
= P
p
A
/ f ,c/b
(S
"
max,
f 5
( 5
'15)
..
- 221 -
propagation into cap and base rock will not occur. On the other hand, for
large initial stress contrasts, (5.14) may be used to determine the rise in
reservoir pressure that is allowed before fracturing into cap and base rock
occurs.
If the vertical fracture growth was monitored during the injectivity
test then the maximum injection pressure may have been established for which
the fracture propagated into cap and base rock but not far enough to
establish communication with other reservoirs. In that case this pressure
c/b
can be used in (5.13) rather than S
.
H
propagates in the pseudo-radial mode or,, in other words, for which the sweep
efficiency is unaffected. From Section 5.4, Eq. (5.2) we have:
(5.16)
is defined in (5.6).
wp
the
- 222 -
_
-max
R =3
%
(5.17)
, can be
A detailed_example
Let us return to our example in Section 5.2 in more detail. It was
assumed that at the prevailing reservoir pressure, p., the maximum injection
rate, q
= 3
(5.18)
-max
q
According to Section 5.4 this is typical for the situation where the
unfractured well had a skin of S = -2.
In Appendix 5-A we have calculated the ratio of producers to fractured
injectors, R, as a function of the change in reservoir pressure Ap, with
- 223 -
Ap = p-p.. We have also calculated the reduction in the number of wells that
can be obtained by injecting under fracturing conditions at reservoir
pressure p compared to the number of non-fractured wells required at
reservoir pressure p..
We introduce the following definitions:
N
F.
Ap
APn =
D
with p f
= ,
r^
(Pf
in
AP
(5.19)
( P i _ P w )
-Pi)
producers.
From the appendix we have:
F
= (1 + A p D ) - 1
F. = (3 - 1.98 A p D ) _ 1
(5.20)
(5.21)
Using (5.20) and (5.21) the ratio of producers to fractured injectors and
the reduction in the number of wells can be obtained from:
F
R = -fi
(5.22)
N - N
- = 1 - 0.5 (F. + F )
N
i
p
(5.23)
- 224 -
was used to determine the maximum allowable injection rate under fracturing
conditions in accordance with Section 5.6.2. In translating p f
to
different reservoir pressures Eq. (5.10) was used in Section 5.6.1 with
c = 0.5 and A = 0.5 as typical values.
P
It should be noted that the reduction in the number of wells is
determined by comparison with the optimal non-fractured case. It may not
always be possible to operate the reservoir at the corresponding optimal
reservoir pressure in which case the reduction in the number of wells as
calculated in (5.23) is too pessimistic.
The ratio of producers to fractured injectors and the reduction in the
number of wells as a function of the dimensionless change in reservoir
pressure have been plotted in Pig. 5.2 . The dotted curves represent
Eq. (5.22) and (5.23). For certain values of Ap
non-integer values. For instance, at Ap
that the injection rate into a fractured injector balances the production
rate of 2.5 producers. This injection rate is the maximum, as calculated
from Eq. (5.16), section 5.6.2, that guarantees pseudo-radial flow. Higher
injection rates would influence the sweep efficiency, unfortunately no
regular well pattern can be constructed for which R = 2.5. Since higher
injection rates are not allowed, the only solution to obtain a regular well
pattern at this particular reservoir pressure, is to lower the injection
rate to twice the production rate per well. The penalty, of course, is that
more injection wells have to be drilled to maintain balanced conditions and
therefore ,the reduction in the number of wells becomes smaller.
This effect is expressed by the solid curves in Fig. 5.2. The reduction
in the number of wells for these cases was calculated from
~ N = 1 - 0.5 F (1 + 1/R)
N
with F
(5.24)
well pattern can be constructed. The corresponding well patterns are shown
in Fig. 5.3.
225
-0-2
-04
-0-2
00
0-0
0-2
0-2
0-4
0-6
0-4
0-6
0-8
0-8
- 226 -
INVERTED
INVERTED 5-SPOT
R = 1
7-SPOT
R =2
INVERTED
INVERTED 13-SPOT
9-SPOT
R =5
R =3
= PRODUCER
/
= FRACTURED INJECTOR
R = RATIO OF PRODUCERS TO FRACTURED INJECTORS
IN A MULTIPLE PATTERN SYSTEM
- 227 -
= 0.45. This
curve has a maximum since according to Bq. (5.20) and (5.21) fewer producers
and more injectors are required as the reservoir pressure increases and vice
versa.
*
Fig. 5.2 this means that we must define a maximum dimensionless change in
reservoir pressure Ap
vertical containment and unimpaired sweep efficiency are located in the part
of the graph for which Ap
< Ap
, and the
critical stress intensity factor, KTr/ are small, so that we have from
Eq. (5.8), section 5.6.1:
max
=p
mm
2S. - A p.
Hi
pi
T^T~
p
= 1.33 S. - 0.33 p.
(5.25)
Hi
max
A
AP
->c/b
iZi
3S
4S
Hi * P i
=
* " ^
1.33(8,. - P.)
Pf
" Pt
Hi
*l
c/b
with S
the horizontal rock stress in cap and base rock.
(5
'26)
- 228 -
Since we had assumed that the II and PI are equal and that the
prevailing reservoir pressure, p., equals the optimum pressure for injecting
under non-fracturing conditions we have (see Appendix 5-A, Eq. (5-A-2)):
min ,
P<= + P.
p
with p
(5.27)
Assuming a gradient for S . of 0.17 bar/m and assuming that the wells
are produced by gaslift so that the bottomhole pressure has a typical
gradient of 0.016 bar/m, we find for p., from (5.27) and (5.25) a gradient
of 0.10 bar/m, i.e. the reservoir pressure, p., is practically hydrostatic.
For a typical range in gradients for the stress in cap and base rock, we
,. , max
find for AAp
:
S/b/depth
(bar/m)
s c/b /s
H
Apmax
Hi
0.170
1.00
- 0.78
0.175
1.03
- 0.61
0.180
1.06
- 0.44
0.185
1.09
- 0.28
0.190
1.12
- 0.11
0.195
1.15
0.06
0.200
1.18
0.22
Hi
=0.17 bar/m
depth
P
i
= 0.10 bar/m
depth
It can be inferred from the table above and from Fig. 5.2 that if,
initially, the horizontal rock stress in the reservoir and cap and base rock
are equal the lowering of the reservoir pressure to a level that guarantees
vertical containment does not result in a reduction in the number of wells.
c/b
However, when there is a moderate stress contrast, with S
/S . = 1.09, the
H
Hi
required lowering of the reservoir pressure still results in a reduction of
the number of wells of some 16%. The most suitable well pattern in this case
c/b
is the inverted 13-spot. With S_ /S. = 1.14 we find from Eq. (5.26) that
H
HI
Ap D
= 0. Therefore, with a stress contrast of 14% the prevailing reservoir
pressure is the optimal pressure for a fractured 9-spot giving a maximum
reduction in the number of wells of 33%. For larger contrasts with
c/b ,
S
/S
> 1.18 the reservoir pressure can be increased to obtain the
ii
HI
- 229 -
maximum reduction in the number of wells of 40%. The most suitable well
pattern in this case is the inverted 7-spot because it requires a lower
reservoir pressure than the 5-spot.
We see from the table above that Ap
p .- p
wi
wp
(5.28)
with q the steady-state injection rate into the pattern and p .-p
the
wi wp
difference between the bottomhole pressures in the injector and the
producer.
As was shown in Chapter 3, section 3.5.1, for a dimensionless injection
rate of q
~ N = 1 - C/C = 0.40
(5.29)
which agrees with the results of Fig. 5.2 for a fractured 5-spot at the
maximum injection rate that leaves sweep efficiency unimpaired.
Hagoort's method of only comparing conductivities for different ratios
of L/d has the disadvantage that the corresponding difference in reservoir
pressure is not explicitly considered. When the reservoir pressure is
explicitly calculated as in Pig. 5.2, it becomes apparent that a fractured
5-spot is not a realistic option since for an attractive improvement in
- 230 -
In the previous section it was shown how the reservoir pressure can be
determined for which the reduction in the number of wells is optimal while
the conditions of unimpaired sweep efficiency and vertical fracture
containment are satisfied. If there is only a moderate contrast between the
horizontal rock stress in the reservoir and that in cap and base rock the
reservoir pressure may have to be lowered. Whether this is a realistic
option depends of course very much on the bubble-point pressure of the oil.
If the reservoir is initially at or above bubble-point pressure, some
pressure depletion may in fact be advantageous to the oil recovery since, in
parts of the reservoir where the pressure is low enough, trapped gas and
residual oil may coexist after the water front has passed, resulting in a
lower residual oil saturation
- 231 -
c/b
to be constrained to a maximum S
, the horizontal rock stress in cap and
H
base rock. This maximum may be slightly higher if sufficient containment at
this higher pressure was inferred from the injectivity test. Suppose that
initially the reservoir pressure is lowered to a level p with p larger than
p
, the reservoir pressure that permits fracture growth at the fracture
c/b
propagation pressure S
. Since the injection pressure is constrained to a
n
maximum that is lower than the fracture propagation pressure at reservoir
pressure p, the injectivity will be reduced. This results in a situation of
temporary underinjection until the reservoir pressure reaches p
and the
- 232 -
If in the casing sequence a casing shoe is set into the cap rock, a
leak-off test may be performed, after drilling out the shoe, to measure the
formation strength. If this is done across the field, additional information
on lateral consistency of formation strength is obtained.
Line drive
If there is an indication that the direction of minimum in-situ stress
is the same across the field, this circumstance may be exploited to set up a
line drive pattern. Alternate rows of injectors and producers with the rows
parallel to the fracture orientation could result in a very high sweep
efficiency.
Such an indication of rectilinear horizontal stress trajectories could
come from measurements of microfrac orientation together with, for instance,
a clear trend in the orientation of a fault system.
Of course, for completely aligned fractures the constraint q
be dropped.
- 233 -
5.9 CONCLUSIONS
1) Waterflooding under fracturing conditions has a large potential for a
reduction in the number of wells.
2) Waterflooding under fracturing conditions can, in many cases, be designed
in such a way that sweep efficiency is unimpaired and vertical fracture
containment is ensured. Design formulae are presented for calculating the
optimum reservoir pressure, injection rate and well pattern.
3) The case of a reservoir at hydrostatic pressure, with a typical gradient
for the horizontal reservoir rock stress of 0.17 bar/m is investigated in
detail for unit mobility ratio. With the stress in cap and base rock
exceeding that in the reservoir by 14% or more, the most attractive
options are a fractured 7-spot and a fractured 9-spot with a maximum
reduction in the number of wells of 40% and 33% respectively.
- 234 -
5) The fact that 7-spots and 9-spots are the most attractive options
reflects the fact that only the injectors are fractured. If both
injectors and producers are fractured the maximum reduction in the number
of wells is 67% with the fractures in the producers of the same length as
the stable fracture length at the injectors. For a stress contrast of 14%
or more a doubly fractured 5-spot would be the preferable pattern in this
case.
8) The value for the in-situ stress in cap and base rock should serve as a
maximum for the downhole injection pressure. Lateral uniformity of this
stress should be checked with sonic logging and, if possible, with
leak-off tests.
- 235 -
LIST OF SYMBOLS
poro-elastic constant
P
conductivity
reservoir height
II
injectivity index
F.
permeability
fracture half-length
l
total number of producers and fractured injectors at reservoir
pressure p
PI
productivity index
p.
pf
p,
A p D = (P-P.)/(P.-PW)
Ap = p - P i
q
max
q
injection rate
. . .
,. .
- 236 -
g
q
rw
R
SIT
.
Hi
SHc/b
Greek
X
Aa
Aa
fluid mobility
poro-elastic stress change at fracture face
thermo-elastic stress change at fracture face
- 237 -
REFERENCES
1) Breckels, I.M. & van Eekelen, H.A.M., Relationship between horizontal
stress and depth in sedimentary basins.
JPT (September 1982), p. 2191.
2) Abou-Sayed, A.A., Brechter, C.E. & Clifton, R.J., In-situ stress
measurements by hydrofracturing: A fracture mechanics approach.
J. Geoph. Res. (June 1978), p. 2851.
3) Daneshy, A.A., Slusher, G.L., Chisholm, P.T. & Magee, D.A., In-situ
stress measurements during drilling.
JPT (August 1986), p. 891.
4) Griffin, K.W., Induced fracture orientation determination in the Kuparuk
reservoir.
SPE 14261, 1985.
5)
6) Newberry, B., Nelson, R., Cannon, D. & Ahmed, U., Prediction of vertical
hydraulic fracture migration using compressional and shear wave
slowness.
SPE 13095, 1985.
7) Koning, E.J.L. & Niko, H., Application of a special fall-off test method
in a fractured North Sea water injector.
SPE 16392, 1986.
8) Dobkins, T.A., Improved methods to determine hydraulic fracture height.
JPT (April 1981), p. 719.
9) Hsu, K., Brie, A. & Plumb, R.h.i
- 238 -
APPENDIX 5-A
DETERMINATION OF THE RATIO OF PRODUCERS TO FRACTURED INJECTORS
AND THE REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF WELLS
(5-A-l)
Let p' denote the reservoir pressure at which the maximum injection rate
into a non-fractured injector equals the maximum production rate from a
producer. It follows from (5-A-l) that:
p. =
where p
(p
min
+ pw)/2
(5-A-2)
is
pi
= p'
(5-A-3)
- 239 -
The maximum injection rate into a non-fractured injector and the maximum
production rate are given by, respectively:
~max _
min
, __
q
= (Pf
~ PL) - II
, _ . ..
(5-A-4)
q = (p. - p ) . PI
p
l
w
(5-A-5)
,c > e
(5-A-6)
Since the optimum non-fractured well pattern is a 5-spot we have for the
total number of wells, N, at reservoir pressure p.
N = 2N
P
in which N
(5-A-7)
(5-A-8)
. ., _ ,.
0.61 rtV =
II
- 240 -
min
mm
. __ .
p.
= p. + 0.33 Ap
_
(5-A-10)
with Ap = p - p..
With the above assumptions we can now calculate the required quantities*.
We have for the maximum production rate at reservoir pressure p:
q p = (P - Pw) PI
(5-A-ll)
q = q + Ap . PI
P
P
(5-A-12)
so that
(5-A-13)
II_A
~max
q
Ap.
a _Ap.
min
p. - p
Pf
Pt
i
w
(5-A-14)
(5-A-15)
F = (1 + Ap) _ 1
r
p
D
(5-A-16)
so that:
- 241 -
(5-A-17)
(5-A-18)
0 > g l 2ffhX 0 # 6 g A p
= 3 - 1.98 Ap
~max
D
q
(5-A-19)
(5-A-20)
3-1.98 Ap
<5"A-21>
"^Tnr1
At Ap
*D
N - N
,
c N
- = 1 - 0.5
N
,
.
= 1 - 0.5 F
+ F )
1
P
= 1 - 0.5{(3 - 1.98Ap ) _ 1 + (1 + Ap D ) -1 }
(5-A-22)
- 243 -
SUMMARY
When an oilfield is exploited by simply producing oil and gas from a
number of wells, the reservoir pressure, in many cases, drops rather quickly
and so does the production rate. Therefore, water is often injected to
maintain the reservoir pressure. The injection wells are located in such a
way that as much oil as possible is driven to the producers before they
experience water breakthrough.
Recovering oil by water injection is called waterflooding. The
efficiency with which the water sweeps the oil to the producers without
bypassing it is called the sweep efficiency.
A major saving of the exploitation costs of an oilfield can be obtained
by a reduction in the number of wells. The required number of injectors can
be reduced by increasing their injection capacity. An effective way of doing
this is by rupturing the permeable reservoir rock surrounding the wellbore.
The communication of a well with a fracture in the rock results in a
considerable enlargement of the surface area of injection. As a consequence,
with the same pressure gradient, a dramatic increase in injection rate can
be obtained.
Rupturing of the reservoir rock can be effected by injecting at a
pressure that is higher than the rock stress and the tensile strength that
keep the rock particles together. Continued injection at this pressure
causes the fracture to propagate into the reservoir. Water injection in this
manner is called waterflooding under fracturing conditions.
As opposed to the advantage of a reduction in the number of wells,
there is the disadvantage of possible excessive fracture growth that may
adversely affect the sweep efficiency of water injection. A fracture that
comes too close to a production well will cause premature water
breakthrough. Moreover, if the fracture is vertical, excessive vertical
growth may establish communication with other reservoirs, resulting in loss
of injection water or, even worse, loss of oil.
- 244 -
- 245 -
- 246 -
- 247 -
SAMENVATTING
Wordt een olieveld ontgonnen door eenvoudigweg olie en gas te
produceren uit een aantal putten dan zal dat veelal leiden tot daling van de
reservoirdruk en, dientengevolge, van de produktiesnelheid. Daarom wordt
vaak water geinjecteerd om de reservoirdruk zoveel mogelijk te handhaven. De
injectieputten worden zodanig geplaatst dat zoveel mogelijk olie naar de
produktieputten wordt gestuwd voordat water hierin doorbreekt. Oliewinning
door waterinjectie wordt waterstuwing genoemd. De fractie van het reservoirvolume dat uiteindelijk door het genjecteerde water bestreken wordt, heet
het veegvermogen.
Een van de grootste besparingen op de ontginningskosten van een
olieveld kan bereikt worden met een vermindering van het aantal putten. Het
vereiste aantal injectieputten kan verminderd worden door een vergroting van
hun injectiecapaciteit. Een effectieve manier om dit te bereiken is door het
splijten van het permeabele reservoirgesteente om de put. De verbinding van
een put met een scheur in het gesteente zorgt voor een belangrijke
vergroting van het injectieoppervlak. Zodoende kan met dezelfde drukgradient
een aanzienlijke verhoging van de injectiesnelheid worden verkregen.
Splijting van het reservoirgesteente kan bereikt worden door te
injecteren met een druk die hoger is dan de gesteentespanning en de
rekkracht die de gesteentedeeltjes bij elkaar houden. Onder voortdurende
injectie bij deze druk zal de scheur zich uitbreiden in het reservoir. Men
spreekt dan van waterstuwing bij splijtingscondities.
Tegenover het voordeel van een kleiner aantal putten staat het nadeel
dat overmatige scheurgroei het stromingspatroon en daardoor het veegvermogen
van waterinjectie ongunstig kan beinvloeden. Komt een scheur te dicht bij
een produktieput dan zal dit tot een vroege waterdoorbraak leiden. Bovendien
kan, in het geval van een vertikale scheur, overmatige vertikale groei een
verbinding met andere reservoirs tot stand brengen. Dit kan resulteren in
verlies van injectiewater of erger nog, van olie.
De doelstellingen van dit proefschrift zijn:
a) het onderzoek van de mechanismen van scheurvorming en scheuruitbreiding
onder de invloed van voortdurende water injectie,
b) het vaststellen van de invloed van scheuruitbreiding op het veegvermogen,
- 248 -
- 249 -
Aangetoond wordt dat wanneer de injectiesnelheid laag genoeg is om scheuruitbreiding met deze zogenaamde pseudo-radiale stroming te bewerkstelligen,
het veegvermogen van water inject ie niet wordt beinvloed.
Drie-dimensionale poro- en thermo-elasticiteitstheorie zijn gebruikt
voor een analytische berekening van het effect van druk- en temperatuurs
veranderingen op het spanningsveld rond een zich uitbreidende scheur met
pseudo-radiale stroming. Het effect van de met het spanningsveld
veranderende snelheid van de scheuruitbreiding wordt gellustreerd aan de
hand van twee voorbeelden. Verder wordt een numerieke methode behandeld voor
het berekenen van druk- en temperatuursafhankelijke spanningsveranderingen
die eenvoudig ingebouwd kan worden in numerieke scheurgroei-simulatiemodellen zoals die in het verleden zijn ontwikkeld.
Hoofdstuk 4 behandelt een methode om de afmetingen van een aangebrachte
scheur te bepalen met een zogenaamde drukdalingstest. De techniek bestaat
uit het meten van de druk onderin de put tijdens een onderbreking van de
injectie. Aangetoond wordt dat in het drukverloop vier perioden zijn te
onderscheiden die elk onafhankelijke gegevens opleveren over de
scheurgrootte. Bovendien kan de in-situ gesteentespanning bepaald worden
door vast te stellen bij welke vloeistofdruk de scheur zich sloot. Deze
methode om scheurgrootte te bepalen is van belang voor het meten van de
scheurgroei in de praktijk en voor het ijken van theoretische scheurgroei
modellen.
Hoofdstuk 5, tenslotte, geeft een praktisch programma om tot een
ontwerp te komen van waterstuwing bij splijtingscondities voor een gegeven
veld waarin het veegvermogen onaangetast blijft en de vertikale
scheuruitbreiding beperkt is. Het programma bestaat uit:
- Meting van de in-situ gesteentespanning in het reservoir en aangrenzende
lagen om de mogelijkheid van vertikale scheuruitbreiding te onderzoeken.
De gesteentespanning in de aangrenzende lagen moet hoger zijn dan in het
reservoir om de vertikale groei te beperken.
- Een injectietest met regelmatige tussentijdse drukdalingstesten met het '
doel de parameters van het theoretische model te bepalen. Wanneer een
correcte beschrijving van de gemeten injectiedruk en scheurafmetingen is
verkregen kan de maximum scheuruitbreidingsdruk worden bepaald die zal
optreden in een patroon van injectie- en produktieputten waarin de
injectiesnelheid gelijk is aan de totale produktiesnelheid. Deze grootheid
moet kleiner zijn dan de horizontale gesteentespanning in de aangrenzende
- 250 -
- 251 -
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Most of this thesis is based on the work I did during my last two years
at Koninklijke/Shell Exploratie en Produktie Laboratorium (KSEPL).
I completed this thesis during subsequent leaves while already working for
Petroleum Development Oman (PDO).
I should like to thank the Management of KSEPL for permission to
publish this work and for providing me with the opportunity to produce this
thesis.
I am especially indebted to Helmut Niko of KSEPL, with whom I spent
many enjoyable and stimulating hours discussing the subject. Throughout
those two years Helmut was an enthusiastic critic and supporter. Helmut has
made several contributions to this work and wrote the computer programme for
the numerical inversion in Chapter 4.
I am grateful to Joost v.d. Burgh, Jan Geertsma and Rik Drenth, with
whom I had numerous instructive discussions.
I am also indebted to my successor at KSEPL, Ben Dikken, who read my
reports very critically. Ben has been most helpful in providing some of the
figures in this thesis.
I am grateful to Jacques Hagoort for critically reading the manuscript
and especially for his discussion of the last chapter.
I should like to thank my promotor Prof. Jan de Haan for his pleasant
and stimulating coaching and for his patience during the many times that the
communication from Oman fell silent.
Finally, I appreciate the great effort provided by the typingpool of
KSEPL, especially by Jopie Aarden, in completing the tremendous task of
typing those long strings of formulae.
STELLINGEN
2. Sommige oplossingen voor problemen in de poro- en thermo-elasticiteitstheorie met gemengde randvoorwaarden (zie bijv. Smith en Hagoort) kunnen
sterk vereenvoudigd worden door een met de Goodier verplaatsings
potentiaal gegenereerde oplossing te superponeren op een in de homogene
elasticiteitstheorie reeds bekende oplossing.
4. De door Nolte ontwikkelde methode om de drukdaling na een minischeurstimulatie te analyseren berust op enkele niet zonder meer
toelaatbare veronderstellingen. Het verdient dan ook aanbeveling het
geldigheidsgebied van deze veel gebruikte methode te bepalen.
- 3 -
- 2 -
onjuist.
opleveren.
7. Bij het bepalen van de in-situ gesteentespanning door het maken van
ontwerp van dit reductieproces is daarom alleen mogelijk indien een goed
heeft het voordeel boven andere methoden dat het expliciet de skin aan
- 2 -
- 3 -
onjuist.
opleveren.
7. Bij het bepalen van de in-situ gesteentespanning door het maken van
ontwerp van dit reductieproces is daarom alleen mogelijk indien een goed
heeft het voordeel boven andere methoden dat het expliciet de skin aan
STELLINGEN
2. Sommige oplossingen voor problemen in de poro- en thermo-elasticiteitstheorie met gemengde randvoorwaarden (zie bijv. Smith en Hagoort) kunnen
sterk vereenvoudigd worden door een met de Goodier verplaatsings
potentiaal gegenereerde oplossing te superponeren op een in de homogene
elasticiteitstheorie reeds bekende oplossing.
4. De door Nolte ontwikkelde methode om de drukdaling na een minischeurstimulatie te analyseren berust op enkele niet zonder meer
toelaatbare veronderstellingen. Het verdient dan ook aanbeveling het
geldigheidsgebied van deze veel gebruikte methode te bepalen.