.
.=. .
SPE 28803
Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Fracturing High Permeability Formations
Jam= L. Hunt and M. Y. SoIiman, Halliburton Energy Servicaa
SPE Memb-sm
-M K=. CCCWd Pdr=+sum
EnalnmIs,Inc.
lhlspap9rvamp+upardfc#pmawMbnaltheS= Ma PmilicOiihti
~ Pwr W= SES=JdfLVPI=s.Y*ih W an SPE PWJIII C-mImiiteofdbwiw rmt.wd Inhrrnstion amtaimxlh an akrmactwbmmd byths
CUMPX(S).Ccmrenrs
drk FWU, as pm.mted, hava KC Lwn rwimwJ by UM scddy d Pe4!deumEcg;nJMsac-d.. wbjed to comed!-an by tlw
auttw(5).Thematmial,
anWaenWi b ~ neeswiiy Meet my@Um
toanat!wactd
notmweti!anwovmds, lllMratii mayrdbe c@d. Tlmabsrmcr
V.imnltlmpaperkpruaenw. wlirePut4kalk.ar.%mger,
sE, mb0xs3ssx, ru,sw&m7x 75asx?&s USA. Tekx720SSSSPEW
Abatrast
High pefm&bi~& formations are not usually
the realm of hydraulic fmsturing. However, reccmtly
there has been a reaurgemx of interest in stimulating
these resewoirs. Reasons for the intarsst include
fmsturing past damaged zones, sontrolllng and
preventing sand production, and generally providing
batter oontrolover the wdlbore.
In studying this problem, several factors
need to be sqw.idered. One factor is the productivity
imprOvam&t Aspect of the fraotw-ing treatment.
Under sartain conditions, fiasturing San provide a
significant produstlon increase even in a very highly
permeable formation. Therefore, pmdustion versus
time is important. A sesend considerationis pressure
as a funstion of distanse. This faster is important in
the sand productionaspest. Fracturing can dscrssse
the pressuredropand gradient within the formation
and thus sand pfodustion csn be controlled or even
prevented.
This paper presents results of a study
performed to investigate the effest of various
parsm&ters on well and fratiure performari.% ina
high permeabilii resewoir. These psfsmeters
include forfnaflon parrnssbilii, degrW_and depth of
damage, fraoture Isngth, fraoture conductiv%y,and
frasture fsoe damage. Conclusions from the study
previde guidelines for candidate selsction and
frasture design as well as insight into the effect of
585
I!iE!!
Society of PetroleumEngineers
Ccnfwenca
M int.%!kaume,
/watml!.a,
7-10Nwamtu. 1SS4.
dlhn SoddyofFntmkum EIwInaem,Pennlsskmtow k rmmcred
slwu!dmntalncau@swm .~~tidmandtv
stimulation of high permeability resewoirs.
introduction
Frccpackis the hydraulic fmoturing of high
permsabliii (generclly > 10 md) formations to
increase wsil prOdUtiMty and control ssnd
pmdustion. Fracturing %specta of the fmcpack
;:;:~sv. been discmsed mcent[y in the
However, the reservoir engineering
aspects and justifisstion for fmcpack have not bean
extensively studied. The reservoir engineering
aspacts of fracturing low permeabili& formations
have bssn wdely ~documanted throughout the
petroleum Iiieratura. However, fracturing high
permeabiMy formations differs from fmeturing low
penneabilii formations. To ensure the success of a
fmcpack treatment, the sandldate well neada to be
tiosarf sarafully with mnsiderstion given to rook
meshani~, resawoir engineering and operational
aspests of the rhspack procass.
Generally, hydraulic fracturing ia usualiy
thought of aa a technique to increase productivityor
sstablish production in low permeability resewoirs.
However, benefds can be realized by fracturing highiy
permeable formations that have formation damage
anfflor sand production tendencies. A well that has
redused permeabilii several feet or tens of feet sway
from the wellbore em be made more productive by
fracturing through this damaged zone to contast
2%. ReservoirEngineering Aspects of Fracturing High Permeability Formations
undamaged reservoir. Reservoir flulds are thus
previded an unrestricted pathway from undamaged
resewoir to the wellbore. The conductivitywfthin the
fracture can be maximized so that pressure drop
along the fracture itself can be bald to a minimum. In
the case of a well with aand productiontendencies, a
hydrsutic frs$ture.. decrrasa+. the, .prgssu~? $rOP
neceaaary to produce the well at a given rate and
changes the flow regime around the well such that
sand production is minimizad or eliminated. Thus the
well may be produced at a rate higher than the
unfractursd criiicsl sand pr6ducing rate.
Operationally, fracturing high permeability
formation is differerrt from fracturing low
permeabilii formations due to the expected high
Ieak-eff rate, which iidluen- fracturing pressur6 as
a functionof time. In addition, be&use of the
desired high fr@ure conductivity,the CUflcaptof tiP
screen-out is applied. in tip screen-ou#, the fracture
is designed in such a way that by the time the
fracture reach.% the desired length, the lading pad
volume has leaked off into the formation, ArTerthe
pad volume has leaked off, the presence of the
proppant-laden-fluid at the leading edgeof the
fracture infilates the acrean-out process. Contlnuad
injection of the proppant laden fluid causaa the
fractura to widan or balloon, reaching a greatar than
average width and high proppant concentration (a
packeft fracture). During the packing period, the
fr@uring pressure ia exp cted to sharply increa e.
.5 ...8
A typical Nolte-Smith plot is gwen m Figure 1 .
The initial pressure increase, shown in Figure 1, is
due to fracturq initiation and. the s@rt of @tire
propagation. The prasaure increaae is than followed
by a pressure decline that reauite from excessive
fluid loss as the fracture length extends. Once the
pad volume leaks off into the formation and the
proppant-laden-fluid reaches the tip, the tipscresn-
out process atarts. The response is manifested in
the rapid pressure increase late in the treatment
history. The tip-screenout fracturing tachnique has
been successfully applied in the field. Martins and
Stewart7 repoIt@ that tip-screenout succaaded in
more than doubling productivity of treated wells in
the Ravenapum field. Other authora2@,8 have
reportad squally imprasslve results.
Many wells that appear to be good
candidate for fracpack are wells that are drilled In
poorly consolidated formations. The failure behavior
ofsuch formgtiona is different from that of competent
566
SPE 28803
formations. Under radial flow conditions with tha
anticipated high preaaure drop near the wellbore, the
drag force on the sand could axceed the cohesive
strength of the rock causing formation failure and
resulting in sand production. This well instability
cauaea severe operational problems and a reduction
of formation perrneabiiii around the wellbore.
Fricpaik reduces the sanding tendency of a poorly
consolidated formation by reducing the preaaure
gradient around the wellbore and by acting as a
gravd pack that supports and holds the formation
sand in place.
Migration of fines toward the wellbore
causes a reduciion in permeability in the region
around the wellbore. Drilling/completion and
production processes rriay also cause permeability
raduction In the near wallbore region. The resulting
depth of damage may extend from aa Iiffle as a few,
inches to s uch as several tens of feet into the
fomation,$lr?
Production proceaaes, such as fines
migration and paraffin deposition, are expectad to
yfeld graater depth and degree of damage than are
drilling and completion processes. .Such deep
damage cannot be removed by atidting, leaving
fracturingaa the only alternative.
Therefora, fracturing high parmaabiiity
formations requires the understanding of the impact
of some parameters that are not usually considered
when fracturing low permeability forrrrationa. The
first such parameter is the effect of a damaged
ragion on fracturad system productivity. The
damaged region can be Visualized as an inner
circuiir ragion of radu~ permeabilii e%tendirrg
rlom the wellbore to some radial distan~ outside
the inner region ia undamagad reservoir permeability.
This is generally referrag to as a radial composita
system. Anether parameter is the presence of a
damaged fracture face having reduced permeability
causad by the expected high leak-off of fracturing
fluid. A third important parsmeter is the effect of the
fracture on pressure profile around the wellbore.
Because of the high formation perrneabilii,
if is expected that a ralatiiely long fra~ (hundreds
of fact) would be ineffective. Prats stated that
below a threshold dimensionless conductivity (Cm =
0.16) a fracture may ba ineffedive. In other words,
only the fraction of the fracture that yields that
minimum dimensionless conductivity may be
effective. The excess fracture length that causas a

James L. Hunt and M. Y. Soliman
ffacture to go below the threshold dimensionless
conductivitywill have no effect on well performance.
Thus a fra@ack usually invoives the creation of a
short fracture. .To achieve the threshold
dimensionlessconductivity,high fracture conductltity
is sought.
The fallowing sections datail some of the
reservoir engineering aspacta of fracturing high
permeability formations. Specifically, four topics are
presentd candidate selection guidelines, production
improvement, sand control and pressure distribution.
A numerical model was used in studying production
improvement, sand control and pressure distribution.
The effects of permeability, wellbore damage,
fracture half-length, fracture conductivityand fracture
damage are ccmsiderad. Finally, conclusions are
presentad so that spadfic guidelines may be applied
when attempting to optimize a fracpack treatment.
Fraapack Candidate Selection
The discussion above indicates that
fracpack candidates may be loosely divided into two
groups based on the treatment% primary goal,
whether it is production anhancament or sand
control.
For production enhancement, the treatment
candidates am
Moderate or high permeabilii formation with
deep damage. In such formations acidting
would be ineffdive.
. Formations that do not respond favorably to
acid treatments.
. Formations with moderate permeability.
Casaa where a large treatmentia not advised
due to height or length restrictions as in the
case of the preaenca of an underlying acquifer
or nearby injactkmwe!ls..
. Wells that have lost productivity due to pora
ml[apse around the wellbore. A fracpack
treatment bypasses the damagad zone and
subsequently reduces the pressure drop
necessary to produce the formation. This
reducesthe chance for further pore collapse.
For sand control purposes, the treatment
candidates ara
587
~pE28803
3
. Poorly consolidated formations for which
fracpack may act as a farm of gravel pack
without the aasociatad likely positive skin.
Formations with low cohesive force, for wtlich
it is necassirj to reduce the pressure gradient
associated with the desired flow rate.
A study was performed to gain a batter
understanding of the effect of various reservoir and
fracture parameters on well performance. The effects
of reservoir parmaabiiii, wellbore damage, fracture
length, fracture conductivity, and fracture damage
were considered. The study was performs using a
!2
single-phase 3-D numerical simulator The
simulator is a fintie difference mode! incorporating a
cylindrical coordinate system and was chosen for ita
ability to model a radially composite reservoir
containing a vertical fracture. The damaged zone
was modaiad by an inner circular region of reduced
penneabilii extending from the wellbore to some
radial distance. Outside the inner region waa
undamaged reservoir permeability. A fracture was
extended from the wellbore to various distances in
both the inner and outer zones. In an actual well,
damage (rsducad permeability) may axtend from
several i ch a o several tens of feet away from the
~,,bore~,lfi,ll
Two general f#pes of data were generatad
from the simulation runs productivity va. time and
pressura VS. distance. These data were usad in the
sections on production improvement and sand
control, respectively. The productivity VS. time data
were ganarated by assuming that the well was
produced at a constant bottomhole flowngprassure.
Production increase was calculated by dividing
cumulative production for stimulated condtions by
curmdativa production for unatimuleted condtions.
Pressure vs. distance data are representad by a
pressure profile along a vertical plane in the resewoir
vs. distance from the center of the wellbore and were
gararated by assuming that the weil was operating
under constantflow rate ccmditiona.
Data for the pressure distribution study are
represented by a Z4mansional plot of simulator
block pressures and by a 2-dimensional contour plot
of iaopotentials and streamlines. These data were
generatad by aasumlng the well was operating under
4 R-oir Enginsaring Aspects of Fracturing High Permeability Formations
constant flew ratecendtions.
Reserveir, fluid, and fracture parameters
used in the numarkal model study are presented aa
Table 1. Table 2 prasenta the specific variables usad
in the pressure distributionstudy. The values of these
paramatwa ware chosen so as to provide a
representative example of a typical well that exhibits
the effect of each parameter studied.
P?OdSICtiLMEnhancensatst
In many wells, productivity may be
impmvad by a variaty of metheds, the most cemmon
of which are hydraulic fracturing and acidting. In low
permeabilii formations, pmductiity can be
enhanced by hydraulic fracturing, thereby cresting a
more favmable flow pattern than for the unfmctured
caae. In affeot, the wellbore is extend@ along the
length of the fracture allewing greater productivity.
In the caae of high pemseabiiii formations,
fracturing la uaad to eliminate the effact of damage
near the wall. For a damaged well, hydraulic
fracturing oan increaae productivity, swan in highly
permeable formations, by axtanding the fracture
through the damaged zone to contact undamagsd
raaarvoir. This provides an unimpaired pathway for
rwervoir fluids to reach the wellbore.
PenneabMy and Welbere Damage
Figure 2 ahewa the expacted production
increase when a 150 fl fracture with 8000 md-ft
conductivity is appliad in an urrdsvnagad reservoir
having the referenced fmmation penneabilities. The
figure shows that productionincrease is aignificardat
Ie+v permaabilii, howaver, production increase
diminishes as pamwabilii increasea. Attem@s to
incraase production by fracturing undamaged
formations with large permeabilii (ie., greater than 1
Darcy) appear te be futile. The effact of fracturing
(w%h attainable high conductivities) Is Iesa at high
permeabiWy, and consaquantly, production increase
ia Insignifiwrt Men highly permeable, undamagad
formations are fmcturad.
~, When fracturing damagad, high permeabiMy
formations, a dflerent conclusion results. Figuraa 3
and 4 show the axpacted production increase for a
100 md formation with different amounts of wellbore
58S
SPE28803
damage. Both figures show that production increaaa
is significantwhen the effest of damage near the well
(akin factor) is eliminated. In Figure 3, the damaged
zone is removed, possibly by acidRing, and is
replacad by undamagad formation. Actually, h is
unlikely that daap damage can be removed by
aoidkdng, but, to illustrate the point, it ia assumad
that the resdts can be achievad. The figure shows
that production increase ia significant when a
severely damaged region, or high skin, Is removed.
The production increaae, although much leas, is still
signilbnt when smaller akin is removed. Production
lnoreaae becemaa insignificant at very small skin
values. Skin fact r values were calculated using
Hawkinasquationywith ~and rs.
Figure 4 shows the resulting prediction
increase when a 40 ff frsdure tih 8000 md-ft
conductivity is placed in the formation with the
referenced amounts of damage. Note that it is much
more likely that the affect of deep damage can be
eliminated by fracturing rather than by acidizing. The
resulting production increases exceed their damage
mmeval counterparts of Figure 3. Thus, placement
of a fracture extending beyond the external radiua of
tha damaged ragion in a high pafmaebliii formation
yialds a production increase that Is at least as large
as the resulting production inomase for mmplate
removal of the damaged region.
Which treatment, acid~lng or fracturing, is
better for stimulating production from a damaged,
high penneabitii zone? The anawar to this question
depends on which treatment can satisfactorily
eliminate the effect of wellbore damage at the least
test As already discussad, acidzing may not
provide the required penetration to mmova deep
damage. An acid treatment may alao leave spent
acid or incompatible reaction by-products in the
formation, thus creating an additional source of
damage. Likmse, the fracture may ba difricult to
create beoause of large fluid leakoff, howaver, a
pmpady designad treatment will overcome this
problem. These consideration should be addresaed
duringthe dasign phase of the stimulation treatment
Therefore, in high permeabilii formations,
fracturing trestmenta are expected to yield an
insignificant production improvement when there is
Mtle or no wellbore damage. Howevar, properly
designed fracturing treatments are axpeoted to yield
significant production improvement whan wellbore
. .
.,4 . James L Hunt and M. Y. Soliman
damage exkts. The degree of production
improvement increases as wellbore damage
increases.
Fracture Ha/f-Length
Figure 5illustratesthe effect of frssture half.
length on curnula!ive production for vsrious times
after frastmtng. This csse haa been simulated fara
damaged formation (r$= 10, ~=0,05*lc s= 65),
and assumas all fracturas have 8000 md-fl
conductivity. A sharp increase in production oscure
around a fracture half-length of 10 ft. This diatancs is
alao the extent of the internal mmposite radius.
Fradturea lees than10 ft remairi ii the damag&J
region adjacent to the well, while fr@uras grsafsr
than 10 fl In length propagate out 6f the region into
undamaged reservoir. It is avidant from Figure 5 that
a large improvement in production occurs when the
fracture is propagated bey6nd the damaged region.
Figure 5 also indicstes that fractures propagated
significantly beyond the....ex&fna[. rsdius of the
damaged region do not yield a significant production
improvement over .t~ose propagated orIly slightly
beyond the damag~ region.
As Sstcd earlisr, in low permeabilii
formations, fractures effastively axtend the wellbore
into the formstion. Therefore, extension of the
fracture ia critisal in low @nmability formation. [n
the high permscbiiity formations discussed here, the
fracture is a conduit between the well and the
undamagad portion of the formation. It is importsnt
to genefste enough length to penstrate into the
undamegad portionof the formation. Actually, this is
an important conclusionbemuse it maybe dificult to
generate significant length in high permeability
formations due to high leakoff.
Since the fiacpack should be deeignsd to
axtend beyond wellbore damage, an important
rcoommendation is that high permeability walls
should be testad prior to fracturing to determine
extent of damage. A properly designad pre-frac well
test is helpful bacause it indisstea formation
permeabiiii, skin, and hsterogeneitieq this
information indicates the necessity of a frscture.
Also, an analysis of transient dsta using a radlaliy
composite model may indicate the depth of wellbore
damage. If a frscture IS necessary, permeabilii,
amount of damage, and depth of damage define the
desirsd length of the fracture. If the formation
589
SPE28803
5
mntains low permeability throughout, the objective of
the fracture treatment should be to generste iarge
ticture length. Ccmversety,if the formation centsins
high permeabilii with near wallbore damage, the
objective should be to .@tur.e beyond the damaged
region. A p%p&ly designed well test sen be uaad to
determine the fracture objastiie. Pm- and post-frsc
testing of sempeaite systems is discusaad in a Ister
aaciion.
Fticture Conductivity
Figure 6 illustrates the effect of frssture
mndustivity on production increase. This case has
baen simulated for significantwellbore damage (S =
85) and moderste wellbore damage (S =13.5), and
the frasture extands beyond the damagad rsgion (xf
= 40 R, rs = 10 fl). The curvas plstasu at relatively
low frasture conduatiiitias. The moderately damaged
ssse begins to plstesu at about 500 md-fl whiie the
highly damagsd case plateaus at about 2000 md-ft.
Based on inner region permeability and xf = 40 ft,
CfD for the highly damaged caae ia 10 while ~ for
the rnodafately damaged case is 0.625. For a given
conductivityvalue, the highly damaged csse exhibits
a greater production increase than the moderately
damagsd csse, as expacted. It is surprising that a
greater conduatiiity la not required to significantly
improve production in damagad, high permeabilii
formations,
As stated earlier, [n the high permeability
fmmatlona discussed here, the fracture aervea as a
conduit between the well and the undamaged portion
of the formstlon. It is impoftant to generste enough
conductivity to make this conduit effactive. A
m&m Considemtion s h* lendutiwi~
tYPi~W decline durfng pmdudion The practical
solution ia that, initially, high frscture conductivity is
daairad so that an adequate conductivity can be
malntsinad throughout production. A properly
designed fracpack trestment should take thla effect
into acmunt.
Fracture Damage
Damage of the formation around the
fracture may be .=pectsd when a high permeabilii
formation is frasturad basauae fluid leakoff during
treatment is significant. Figures 7 and 6
demonstrate the affect of frccture damage on
production increase and cumulative production. The
6 Reservoir EngineeringAspects of Fracturing High Parmaabiiii Formations
fracture damage was modeled by a zone of reduced
permeability parallel to the fracture face axtanding
one foot into the formation, As expict~, increasing
fracture damage reduces the production
improvement. However, production improvement is
stiii aigniticant even wth iarge fracture damage,
especially as producingtime increhaes.
Figure 6 shows that fracture damage has to
be severe before irnprovad production ia aignlricantiy
iimti+. Figure 8 shows the cumulative productionat
two and twelve months for ahm~eof perm-&r6illty
ratioa, calculat~ by diyiding the, ~a~ure damage
permeabiMy by formation permea~lity (penetration
of fracture damage is 1 ft into the formation). The
figure ahowa that a permeability redustion of 10-
times makea a small difference at two months,
however, thepenneabilii reduction haato be 100-
times orgreelerto make adifferenceaflerl year of
production.
.Frariuredg_rnagaunless severe, does not
cause, ~ignificant production problem~ in a high
permeability formation with wellbore damage. A
significant dasrease in production improvement
occurs only..whamthe_amoUnt of_fracture @m.g9.e is
Iarge,,that i:, yh?npe~ea~riwithbl 1 foot of~e
f&fure is reduced to l/l OOth-of fomration
pafnf~biiity or when frasture damage penatratea far
Intothe formation. Similar conclusionswere reached
in an aarlier work de ~ng with fracturing of low
%
permeability fommtions Deep damage extending
from the fraature may be avoided by properly
designing the fraature. treatment to .minimk?
excessive fluid ioss. For practical PUQOSSS, a
properly designed and condusted fracpack treatment
should result irr no productivity Impairment due to
frasfure face damage.
Sand Contpf
Sand production is a iimiting problem in
some high permeability formations, especially those
that are unconsolidated. Sand production reduces
the effectiveness of production equipment, and if
uncontroiied, may eventually besome a costly
problem due to damaged equipment. For these
reasons, among other% many sand producing weils
have been completed with gravel pack
Unforkmately, gravel pack may sometimes raetrict
production much like a region of welibore damage,
therefore, the full patential of some graval packed
590
SPE 28803
wells is not reaikd.
One of the factors reiafed to the potential for
aand production isthemagnitude andlor gradient of
the pressure drop crectad in the formation during
production. Fines migration into the region
surrounding the weiibore results in permeabilii
raduction In that region duetopora-throat plugging.
As damage. forms around the wellbore, the tendency
form a production standpoint is to increaae
drawdown to maintain thewelis rata. As drawdown
incXeis&., the pressure gradient aiso increases and
the damaged ragion propagates out into the
resefioir, exacerbtihg the ptiblem. A aigniftcant
degree of wellbore damage may result. For this
reason, it is importantto examine pressure profiles of
high perrneabilii formations under varioua producing
conditions.
Rate and Wellbore Damage
The producingrati at the weii affecis the
magriitude and gradient of pressure drop during
production. Higher rata$ yield Iargerpreaaure drop
andelaaper pressure gradients hstheresefvoir. it is
expsxfed that there iaan upper limit on the rate at
which a well aan be flowad without any sand
produciion~ ~
The amount of permeabili~ redustirm in a
dama@d region also affects the magnituda and
gradient of pressure drop during production. When a
weli is produced at a constant rate, as is the case in
figure 9, the pressure drop will be larger and the
pressure gradienta will be steeper through a region
with large permeability redustion. Assuming that the
mechanic@properties of the damaged region remain
the same as those of the undamaged region, and
assuming that the amount of damage has Iittie effect
on the mechanical properties of the roak, t is
expeded that a wall with significant damage in the
formation has a better chance of producing sand.
Consaquentiy, rate should be limited to control
pressure drop and gradient when weiibore damage
exists.
Fracturing
Piacament of a frasture in the formation
aignificantiy altera the. producing pressure Profiie.
Figure 10 mntraata pressure profiles for various
reservoir conditions. The figure includas profiles
. .
,
James L. Hunt and M. Y. SoIiman
already shown in Figure 9. The bottommoat curve,
showing the largest pressure drop, is for an
unfrsctumd, damaged formation (S = 30).
Progressing upward, the next curve is for an
unfractured, undamaged formation. This curve
indicates a constant pressure change throughout the
reservoir. The topmost curvas were generatsd by
aasuming that a fracture is placed in the damaged
formation assumad in the botfommosf curve. Note
that there are two fracture profiles one indicates the
preaaure profile down the plane of the fracture, and
the other indicatea the pressure profile perpendicular
to the plane of the fracture.
Here, the most important observation is that
the fracture decreases the pressure drop in the
formation relative to both a damaged and an
undamagad wellbore condtion. Tha pressure drop in
the damaged zone exceeds pressure drop in the
fractured zone by 30 psi at the external radius of the
damaged region and 1000 psi at the wellbore. Ah,
the pressure gradients throughout the fracture case
are relatively small, even at the tip of the fracture
where the Iargast pressure drop is expected. Another
important point is that the pressure profile does not
significantly change as the profiling axis is rotated
around the wall. This finding is verified by the
similarity of the two pressure profilesfor the fractured
well.
The fractured well pressure drop in Figure
10 is also less than the correspondingpressure drop
for the unfractured, undamaged well. In this
instance, the bast solution for limiting sand
productionappears to be fracturingthe formation. In
addition, fracturing a damaged wall would enable the
productionimprovements discussed previously.
Fracture Length
The effect of fracture length on pressure
drop after producing the well at constant rate for
three months is shown in Figure 11. For reference,
the pressure profilas from Figure 10 for an
unfractumd wall with and without wellbore damage
are includad. In the fmcture pr~sure profiles, the
pressure drop is largeat and the gradients am
steepest for a fracture half-length of 5 ft. Obviously,
this IS becauae the fracture has not bean propagated
bayond the 10 ft damaged region when xf = 5 ft. All
of the remaining curves for fracture half-lengths that
exceed the external radiua of the damaged ragion
591
7
show small prassure drop and shallow pressure
gradient.
Sand prodktiori may be very likely for xf =
5 ft because the pressure drop is significant and
pressure gradients are fairly steep from the tip of the
fracture to the outer limit of the damaged region. It
follows that the possibility of sand production is
minimized when the fracture is propagated beyond
the damaged region. Therefore the fracture should
be axtended beyond the external radius of the
damaged region to obtain optimum production
improvement and to minimize sand production.
Fr&dure ConducMy
The effect of fmobdre conductivity on
pressure drop aftar producing tha well at constant
rate for three months is shown In Figure 12. The
pressure profilas for an unfmctured well with and
without wallbore damage are included. in the
fracture profiles, the pressure drop is greatest and
the pmasure gradients are steepest at lower
conductivity. For conduetivities above 2000 md-ft,
the pressure drop and gmdienta are relatively small
throughouttha fmciure and formation.
Because of small pressure drop and
gradient, corrductivitiesabove 2000 md-ft are most
likely to praverd sand production. Generally, high
fracture conductivities are desired to minimiza
pressure drop and gradient within the reservoir
during pmducfion.
Fracfura Damaga
Figures 13 and 14 ahow the effect of
fracture damage on pressure drop and gradiant after
producing the well at constant rate for 3 months.
Spacirically, Figure 13 shows the pressure profile
along the plane of the fracture, and Figure 14 shows
the pressure profile perpendicularto the plane of the
fracture. As expected, larger fracture damage
increases the prassure drop and pressure gradient.
The pressure gradient is most savere at the tip of the
fracture, therefore the potential for sand productionis
greatast at this point.
The pressure drop and gradient do not
become significant until severe fmcture damage is
encountered. For a 204imes reduction of
permeability adjacant to the fracture, pressure drop

8 Reservoir EngineeringAspesta of Fracturing High Psrmesbllity Formations
and gradient are almost the same aa far an
undamaged fracture. The pressure drop and
gradient becomes noticeable at permeability
reductions exceeding 2004imes. signirlcsnt fracture
damage, that is, permeabilii mduotion exceeding
100-times within 1 foot of the fraoture or permeability
reduction extending far tistancss into the formation,
should be avoided.
RaeerveI > I%eeum Dist?ibutierr
The numerical simulator was ussg to
generate pressure distribution in the reservoir ss a
function of time far constant bottomhole flowing
pressure production. A fracture hslf-length of 20 ft
and a damagsd zene radius of 10 fi were assumed;
ether input parameters are presentsd in Table 2.
Data are presented for a timestep of 0.824 hours of
production, however the general trend of the
distribution remains the ssme over a much longer
time frame. The timestep of 0.S24 hours was chosen
ss a representative timestep fer clarity and detail of
the various fsaturss of the pressure distribution.The
number of grid blocks were optimizsd to provide
enough data points for a smooth pressure
distribution. In Figures 15 and 16, one quadrcnt of
the raaervoir is represented with the wsilbore at the
origin and with the frssture alignad along the x-axia.
Figure 15 shows a 3dlmensional view of
the pressure distributionin the reservoir,while Figure
16 shews a sentour map of both isopotentials snd
representative atreamiinaa. Sofh plots show that
most of the prassure drop in the resew%ir occurs
inside the damaged region. Due to the presence of
the frsature, the pressure distribution inside the
reservoir is aaymmetrissl. The pressure grsdient
along the fracture diraotion changes slower than that
perpendicular to the fracture until the end of the
frscture is reachad. In other words, the pressure
gradient in the direction of the fracture is controlled
by the pressnce of the fracture. In the direction
perpendicular to the frssture, the pressure
distributionis controlled by the damaged region.
Figures 15 and 16 indicate that the majority
of the resewoir fluid will enter the pati of the fracture
that penatrstes the higher permeability region. Chen
and Raghavan17 reaantly raaohed a similar
conclusion. This illustrates the need to hsve the
frsature long enough to penetrate the damaged
I 592
. .
SPE 28803
region. This also punctuates the nesd to conduct a
pr#racture well test to determine the depth of
damage and design the fracpack trsatment
accordingly.
Anothar interesting phenomenon that doea
not usually occur in fluid flow is illustrated in Figure
16. The right hand side of Figure 16 shews
isopetentials and streamlines that resemble those in
a typical high permeability formation with a short
r%acture.The isopotentials are sasentially circular
with streamlines moving toward the fracture. Near
the damaged arcs howaver, the streamlines actually
show fluid traveling away from the wellbore. This
occurs beoause of the low permeabilii inside the
damaged region: The path of least resistance ia for
fluid to travel inside the high permeability region,
even if it means going around the damaged zone
until k reachea the fracture, then travaiing inside the
fracture toward the wellbore..
Conclusions
1) Fracturing of damaged, high permeability
formation should increase pmduotion and change
the expected pressure profile in the formation,
possibly prsvenfing sand production. Thus,
fracturing is a viable completion option far high
permeabi~i formations where wellbore damage
andlor the petential for sand productionexists.
2) When fracturing a high parmesbiiii
formation, the fracture should be designed to extend
beyond th6 external radius of the damaged region.
Fractures that fail to extend beyond the damaged
region will not improve productionto optimum Isvels
and will not significantly decrease the potential for
sand production. It is unnecessary to generate
significant fracture length beyond the external radius
of the damaged ragion. However, k is always
prudent to inslude a safety factor in the fracture
dasign.
3) To properly design a frsature treatment,
it is important to run a prs-frsc well tsst to determine
formation permeabilii, amount of wellbore damage,
and extent of wellbore damage. These parsmetera
detefmine the nscesaw of a fracture, and optimum
length and mnduativity of the fraoture.
4) When flscturing a high permesbilii
 SPE28803

. James L. Hunt and M. Y. $oIim?n 9

formation, a minimum fracture conductivity Is h Formation thickness, fl

raquired to improve production and decrease k . Fomation permeability, md
pressure drop in the formation. Generally, high kf . Fra&tureperrneabir~, md
. Permeability of wellbore
fraotura aenductlvitiaa are daaired to minimize k
prasaure drop and gradient within the reservoir damage (skin) region, md
during production. kfi . Pernreabilii of fracture
damage (fracture skin) region,
5) Fraoture conductivitymay dacline during md
preduotion. llrereforti, to assure that production k@ =. Permeability ratio, fracture
improvement Is maintained and sand production is damage region perrneabilii
minimized over the life of the well, the initial divided by formation
conductivity should be greater than the minimum OermeabiMv
raquirad to improve production and decrease kfw . ;rafiie m;ductivity, md-ff
pressure drop in the formation. Np . Cumulative oil productionfrom
beginning of production,STB
6) Fracture damage Iimita production P . Pressure, psia
improvement and increasea the pressure drop and Pi . Initial reservoir preaaure, paia
gradients, however, the degree of fracture damage Pm =. Bottomhole flowing pressure,
must be aevara before a pronounced effmt ia psia
detected. Permeability reduction in the near-fracture q . Surface productionrate, STB/D
vicinity must be great or damage must penetrate re . External radiua of the formation,
deap into the formation before a significantdecline in R
produdion improvement and a pronbuncad pressure rs . External radius of damage (skin)
drop result. Deep damage eway from the fractura ragion surroundingweil, R
can be minimized by properly designingthe frecpack rw . Weilbore radius, ft
treatment. s . Skin (Wellbore Damage)
. Productiontime, months
tP
7) During production, the majority of the w . Fracture width, i?
raaewoir fluid will enter the part of the fracture Xf . Fracture half-length, ft
outaide the damaged region when the frdure
. Fluid viscosity, cp
axtanda beyondthe damaged region.
: . Porosity, fraction
8) When a fracture exlends beyond the
damaged ragion, reaewoir fluid tends not to travel
directly taward the wellbore. Insteed fluid tends to Subecript
travel around the damaged region to the fraoture,
then inside the fracture to the wellbore. At some damaged . Indicates
points in the reservoir, fluid actually moves away damaged conditions
from the wellbore. . Indicatea stimulated
oondtions
undamaged . Indicates undamaged
condtions
unstimulated . Indicatea unatimulated
B. = 01[ formation volume factor, res condtiona
bbUSTS
Cm = Dlmensionleeafracture
conductivity,(kfw)/(iwf) Acknowledgements
co = Oil cOmpraaaibiMy,I/psi
%= Total compreasibilii, I/psi The authors thank Halliburton Energy
d~ = Distance fracture damage Services for perrniaaion to prepare and present this
csdendsinto formation from paper.
fracture face, ft

593
 .: ,.-: :.
10 Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Fracturing High Permeabilii Formations
Refareruea
1. Meese, CA., Mullen, M.E. and Barrae, R.D.:.
Offshore Hydraulic Fracturing Technique,
JPT, March 1994, 228-2%
2. ,. Roodhart, L.P., Fokker, PA., Davies, D.R.,
Frac-and- Pack .%mulatiorx Application,
Design, and Field Experience%, JPT, March
1994,230-38.. . American Petroleum Engineering Conference,
. ,...
3. Gidley, J.L., Holditch, S.A, Nierode, D.E. and
Veatctr, R.W., Jr.: Raoent Advancsa in
Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE Monograph
Volume 12, Richardson, TX, 1989.
4. Smith, M.B., Miller, W.K, 11,and Haga, J.: Tip
Screenout Fracturing A Technique for Soft,
Unstable Formations: SPEPE, May 1987, 95-
103.
5. Nolte, K.G. and Smith, MB.: Wterpretatlon of
Fracturing Pressures) JPT, Sept. 1981, 1767-
75.
6. Abass, H.H., Wilson, J.M., Venditto, J.J. and
Voss, R.E.:.!StimulatingWeak Formations
Using NW Hydraulic Fracturing and Sand
Control Approaches,SPE 25494, Production
Operations symposium, Oklahoma City, OK,
March 21-23, 1993.
7. Martins, J.P. and Stewart, D.R.: Tip Screenout
FracturingApplied to the Ravenspum South
Gas Field Development,SPEPE, Aug. 1992,
252-258.
8. Dusterhoft, R.G. and Chapman, B.J.:
FracturingHigh-Permeability Reservoirs
Incraases Productivity,O&@J, June 20, 1994,
4044.
9. Liu, X and Civan, F.: Formation Damage and
Skin Factor Due to Filter Cake Formation and
Fines Migration in the Near-Wellbore Region?
SPE 27364, SPE InternationalSymposium on
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, !A,
Fab. 7-10, 1994.
10. Paterson, S.tC and Holdtch, S.A: Analysisof
Factors Affaeting Drillstem Tests in Low-
Permeabilii Reaervoirav SPE 14501, SPE
I 594
.
. SPE 28803
Eastern Regional Maeting, Morgantewn, WV,
NOV. 6-8, 1985..
.-
11. Prata, M.: Eff&- of Vertical Fractures on
Resewoir Behavior- Incompressible Fluid
Case: SPEJ, June 1861, 105-118.
12. Prasad, R.K. and Coble, LE.: HodzontalWall
Performance Simulation, SPE 21Ci87,Latin
. Rio de Jana4ro,Oct. 14-19, 1990.
13. Krueger, R.F.: An Overview of Formation
Damage and Well Pmduetivity in Oilfield
Operations,JPT, Feb. 1986, 131-57.
14. Hawkins, M.F., Jr.: A Note on the Skin Effeet,
Trans., AIME(1956), 207,356-57.
.15. McDaniel, B.W. and Parker, ML. Accurate
Design of Fracturing Treatment Requires
ConductivityMeasurements at Siniulatad
Reservoir Conditions,SPE 17541, SPERocky
Mountain Ragional Meeting, Casper, WY, May
11-13, 1988.
16. Holdmch,S.A.: Factora Affecting Water
Blockingand Gas Flow from Hydraulically
Fracturad Gas Wells, JPT, Dao. 1979, 15M-
24.. .,
47. Chen, C.C. and Raghavan, R.: Modelinga
Fractured Well in a Composite Reservoir,
SPE 28393, SPE 89th Annual Technical
Confarance and Exhibition, Naw Orleans, IA,
Sept. 25-28, 1994.
 SPE28$03 .,.
,,.
,,.

Table 1
Values Appliad in Numericsd Simulator

Pi 4000 psi
+ 23 %
rq 1 and 10 ft
rw 0.35 r-t
w 0.5 inches
~ 25X 70:0 p.$i:
~ 3x 70-0 psi-
P 1.0 Cp
h soft
8. 7.2 res bbUSTB
re l&OO ft (f60 Acre Spscing)
PM 2S60 psi (for productivitystudy)
q 200,500, and 800 STB/D (for pressure profile)
k ~
k~ ~
s 0,4.2,8, 13.5, 20,30, 65, 104, and 330
Xf 5, 15,40, 80, 150 ft
kfw 100, 500, 2000,4000, 8000, and 20000 md-ft
d~ lfl
k~ 0.001k, 0.005%, O.Ol*k, 0.05*k, O.l*k, 0.2k,
0.3*k md
Note 1: Base values held constant during sensitivityanalysis of other variablea
are designatedwith bold, itsliclzad tti.
Note Z S was calsulatad by using Hawkins,Eqn.i 1 with ks and rs.

Table 2
Values Appliad for Praasure Distribution Study

P 4000 Si

lEE!E-
B
r
22%
26x f
1.0
si-

7.2 res bbVSTB

10 ft

B ~~
r 0.36 ft
r f500 ft
h 30 ft
P 2500 si
k 100 md
5 md
x 20 ft
c 40
Note Cm value based on inner region permeability.

595
 SPE28803

Fig. 1- Typical Fracturing Pressure Response Fig.2- Production Increase Due to Fracturing
for Fracpack Treatment (after Abass, et al.)

lWL J
x,-150 ft,kr#.8030,ndll
k-almd
... k-1.Oml
----- W-lend
I : ............. ----- k-immd
z ------- k-lCOQnM
%,.;
,,., k-10D30W
10, \n; .................
-......,
-%,,..,.,.
1 :
z ..-.--...-.,.-,,,
"'``"
"""""fi"'""" "`"''
..... ..............................................
. .... .... .... ...
-------
---------- -. . .... .... ...
..... ..,,
. . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . ..- ..-.,
..,,
i 01 I@ !qo ;- ,0.1 f 00 10I I@
Time, min. Ttme, months

Fig, 3- Production Increase Due to Damage Fig. 4- Production Increase Due to Fracturing
Removal

k.l CQmd
r.-le, k.o.m.ks.
-----,S-lr,k-msk s.@5
w k-i w,h-o,ol .ks. 3S0

z
! :,
102 ------- <A W,k-mz.k8.1s5
.....
.---
-----
-------
rg-iO,iw.M5.k5.s5
,,-t0,&a2.k8. IL15
r,-l,,h-ow .k8.lns
r,-t8,k,-0a5.k8-20
.-- ,A,,h-o.z.k$. 42 ., ,,-1,,k,-ol.ks .4,2
. -,, .. .... .... .... .... .... .... ,,,-..,.,,, ----- KuWabcf.-

I 1(7 ::------------------ -.-::..:

z
-.. .. ..
----------- . . . .. ....
-.. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. ...-----7.. ..,:,,,.
--------- .- .-. _ ----------...>, ~...>,> \ . .,.,.. .
. . .. .
lW I@
j IN I&l 1O$ 101 Ica !@ i 0-2 lcd I@ lW lIX I@
Ttme,months Time, months

I
 stt2M03 r

Fig. 5- Effect of Fracture Length for 10 ft Fig. 6- Effect of Fracture Conductivity for 10 ft
Damage Radius Damage Radius
ho,

/ L*
,..*`""""'""'""''""':""""""`""""''''"'""'`"'""""''"*"""""''''"'""'"""'
h ,. .
.....
....
...
...
...
...
...
..
ii-i OoKdxi-40rl

-
10 20 *O 40 50
I,ot
!
0
*,.,
. . . .

500
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4000 1600 2000 25(IO 3000 SWO 4000

...1

4500
Fracture HaJf-Ler@h,ft Fracture Conductivity, md-ft

Fig. 7- Effect of Fracture Face Damage I. 8- Effect of Fracture Face Damage on

Cumulative Production

k-i00m4k, -6ti,. -i0fi

I
+Im,
.... ... 2 m. il-40tl, kjw-8Wrrd-ltdu-lfl
--*-. e m,
--+-- 12m

~
Iw
Permeability Ratio, kf,/k
 1

;O+. oxn
I

.-15 I

IL
!sd emssaJd

,+ .0.0
I

@@J!!$WJd

598
 I
ig. 13- Effect of Fracture Face Damage on Reservoir Fig. 14- Effect of Fracture Face Damage on Reservoir

+
....+
.+
Pressure Distribution Pressure Distribution
4000
~.aMMw, q.mOmslD ~. a Mmh . Em STWD wt.: CH,lr[mllm
&PmJwdlcLw
tow
Nak mdmtkm u m m, Fm.lw, Phn9 a...
r,-i Oft, k.-0.l.k r.-lon..,. k.-
,,- .-.,./ . l.k >.. Frm?weW, 1
x,-40 tLk,w-WOOmd-11 m - -w. m.rr
G%-* n
#l1l$,llallll#
tlr$n888$B,881
m,,, w:,...,..
--.,., ~,-
,,,,,..,,.,,,,.,,,,.,,,,.,,....,,*.,! ------4! ,,

,- ~owww...w ,,

a
& ,,,+,,.x ,,.
~. 34ca
,,
~, ...... -
../r!..
+...
++..+...
+...
++i 5 ,/, --;-- ym#w#md
g
,.,
3:00 0 kti.0.0C6. k
s ,/ . ka-0,05. k
0. c1
./, kti-O,t .k
x ki, -0,3. k
.,.1 ./ M Rmhn, Skh II

~
23W 1
Iw Im lW 1 Oa iw ,01 t 0, I@
r
Distance from Center of Well, ft Distance from Crmtor of Wsll, ft

Fig. 15- Reservoir Pressure Distribution

XI -20 ft, r,- 10 ft t = 0.824 hrs Fig. 16- Reservoir Pressure Distribution
XI -20 ft, r, -10 ft, t = 0.824 hrs
40

W
=
~
:
~ ZO
.!?
0
>
10

0
0 10 20 30 40
X Distance (ft)