Fracture Modeling Fracture Models EVERYWHERE – What To Do? · Fracture Modeling The VERY Beginning – “Fraccing” Is NOT New! Slide 2 Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere

Fracture ModelingFracture Models EVERYWHERE – What To Do?

Michael B. Smith, NSI Technologies

Fracture ModelingThe VERY Beginning – “Fraccing” Is NOT New!

Slide 2

Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith

Perkins & Kern2-D

Gertsma deKlerk 2-D

Carter1-D

Kristianovic

Firs

t Ser

ious

Atte

mpt

s to

Use

Mod

els

Pseudo 3DModels

Good Results WithNO

Fracture Models !

Please, lets notgo back there!

Quotations

Slide 3


Quotation, Operations Managerfor Unconventional Asset forMajor Oil Company:“We see no value in fracturemodeling for these unconventionalformations.”

Phone Conversation, VP Drilling & Completions,Large E&P Company inUnconventional Plays:“We have cut our cluster/ stage spacing in ½ while pumping3X more proppant and aredoing much better. We no longerbelieve in fracture interference.” “Which do you think contributes?”“We don’t know but we are notgoing to change.”

Models – The BeginningKristianovic, 1955 1‐D Model (No Material Balance)

You tell me “L” & “PNet”, I can then calculate “w” Later Formed Basis for Gertsma‐deKlerk 2D Model


Models – The BeginningCarter, 1957 1‐D Model (Fluid Loss & Material Balance)

You tell me “H” & “w”, I can then calculate “L”

Endured as “Carter Loss”, qLoss = dA C/t

4 2P

f

Loss P Loss

Q Tx

C H T H Spurt w H


Models – 2D – 1961 to 1981


w HSimple GeologyGood ConfinementLong FracturesViscous Fluids

w LSimple GeologyTall/Short FracturesViscous Fluids

w RSimple GeologyRadial FracturesViscous FluidsFrac-Packs

Fracture ModelingThe VERY Beginning

Slide 7


Perkins & Kern2-D

Gertsma deKlerk 2-D

Carter1-D

Kristianovic

Firs

t Ser

ious

Atte

mpt

s to

Use

Mod

els

Pseudo 3DModels

First Widespread Use RevealedShortcoming of 2-D Models

PNet = f(H) but H=f(PNet)

Stresses & Fracture Height Growth

Simonson (’76)added “rigor” to Harrison (’54) idea of higher stress shale giving height confine‐ment. Provided basis for P3D Models to come.


Models – Pseudo 3D – 1981 to ???“Reasonable Geology”, Conventional/Tight Gas, MHF, Minimal Natural Fracturing


Amoco Frac-HT ProgramCommercially Available onGE Time Sharing Service,1981

Settari & Clearly, 1984

Still in Common Use!

Models – Planar 3D – 1984 to Present


Abou-Sayed, A. S., Sinha, K. P., & Clifton, R. J. (1984, January 1). Evaluation of the Influence of In-Situ Reservoir Conditions on the Geometry of Hydraulic Fractures Using a 3-D Simulator: Part 1-Technical Approach. Society of Petroleum Engineers

Microsoft werPoint Presentat

Do Models Work ?“Fractures Are Always Shorter Than Models Say”


Case 1 – Tight GasPseudo-3D vs. Gridded Planar 3D TVD

ft

9600

9650

9700

Gamma Ray API0 15075.00

DTC ms/ft240 40.00140

DTS ms/ft240 40.00140

DEN g/cc1.95 2.952.45

Corr_Stress psi5000 90007000

Stress Test psi5000 90007000

Static_E MMpsi0 10.005.00

PHI frac0 0.200.10

Log_k md0.0010 1.00

Water Mini-Frac Water + XL Gel, Hybrid Frac DataCore (for Modulus Testing)LogsStress TestsWater Mini-FracPost Mini-Frac Temperature LogsBottomhole Pressure

(Mini-Frac & Frac)Microseismic

Do Models Work ?Case 1 – PNet Data


Do Models Work ?Case 1 – Fracture Geometry





Do Models Work ?Models vs. Productive Length


Case 2 – Tight GasModel xf vs. Productive xf

XL Gel Mini-Frac XL Gel Frac DataCore (for Modulus Testing)LogsStress TestsGel Mini-FracPost Mini-Frac Temperature LogsBottomhole Pressure

(Mini-Frac & Frac)6 month Post-Frac PBU

TVDm

4500

4550

4600

4650

GR GAPI0 200100

DT US/F240 40.00140

DTS US/FFRACFLAG

RHOB G/C31.95 2.952.45

TNPH V/V0.45 -0.150.15

Static_E MMpsi0 10.005.00

Log_Stress psi9000 1400011500

Corr_Stress2 psi9000 1400011500



Average kfw 1200 md-ft

Analysis after 158-day PBU

Analysis SummaryFrac: 1,035,000 lb bauxite w/453 M-Gal Gel

Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture** Simulation Data **

Model Match Confidence Level: High

Well. storage = 0.092 BBLS/PSIA

Permeability = 0.2 MD

Frac. half length Xf = 636 FEET (194 M)

Frac.conduct. = 535 MD-FEET

Fracture-skin = 0.003

Perm-Thickness = 7.2 MD-FEET

Current PressuresLG (20/07/2010) Pr = 7207.66 PSIAUG (20/07/2010) Pr = 7165.68 PSIAGradient = 41.98 PSIA/381.89 FT = 0.11 PSIA/FTExpected Final PressuresLG (4287 m TVDss) P* = 7336 PSIAUG (4171 m TVDss) P* = 7295 PSIA Datum (4400 m TVDss) P* =7490 PSIAModel Match PressuresLG (4287 m TVDss) P* = 7389 PSIADatum (4400 m TVDss) P* =7544 PSIA

Rinv (20/07/2010) at 3800 hr = 2370 FEET (0.72 KM)Current PBU slope = 1.5 PSIA/DAYDarcy Skin = -6.3

-1000. 0 . 1000. 2000 . 3000. 4000 .

-200

0.40

00.

1000

0.

Time (hours)

rat

es M

SC

F/D

-1000. 0 . 1000. 2000 . 3000. 4000 .20

00.

3000

.40

00.

5000

.60

00.

7000

.

pres

sure

PS

I

10 -4 10 -3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 10 3

10-5

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

Delta-T (hr)

DP

& D

ER

IVA

TIVE

(M

PSI

2/C

P/M

SC

F/D

)

F inite Conductivity Vertical Fracture

** Simulation Data ** well. s torage = 0.091563 BBLS/PSI permeability = 0.20021 MD Half.Length = 636.67 FEET Frac.conduct. = 353.24 MD-FEET fracture-skin = 0. Perm-Thickness = 7.2074 MD-FEET Initial Press. = 7389.95 PSI Datum Press. = 7544.38 PSI Smoothing Coef = 0.0100,0.0100

KZN-6

100 101 102 103 104 105 106

500.

1000

.15

00.

2000

.

(Tp + dT)/dT

M(P

) MP

SI2

/CP

2010/02/09-0930 : GAS (PSEUDO-PRESSURE)

Horner

Pressure

Rate

Measured Data

Fitted Model Data

Do Models Work – Unconventionals?A New Generation


Multiple, Simultaneous Fractures

Natural FracturesHorizontal WellWellbore Effects

???

Slide 19


After *After *

* After Xiaowei Weng, ARMA, 50th Geomechanics Symp., Houston, 2016

Planar Fractures – Extra Fluid Loss?“Complex” Fractures?

Does it Matter?

Slide 20


Planar Fractures – Extra Fluid Loss?“Complex” Fractures?

Does it Matter?NATURAL_FRACTURE_PRESSURE Time:108.79 Depth:12059.68

Y

500

1000

1500

X500 1000 1500 2000 2500

“Modeling of Interaction of Hydraulic Fractures in Complex Fracture Networks,” SPE 152052, Wu, R., et al SPE Hydraulic Fracturing technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, 6-8 February, 2012.

Slide 21


URTeC: 2447719, “The Role of Natural Fractures (Joints) in the Marcellus Shale During Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation Using Full 3D Modeling,” Leonardo Cruz*, Baker Hughes Inc., Pengcheng Fu, Lawrence Livermore Nationa Laboratory, Ghazal Izadi, Baker Hughes Inc., Daniel Moos, Baker Hughes Inc., Judith Sheridan, Baker Hughes Inc., Randolph R. Settgast, and Frederick J. Ryerson, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, prepared for presentation at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference held in San Antonio, Texas, 1-3 August 2016

h = 10 MPa

New Generation ModelsNon-Planar

Slide 22


ARMA 16-0284, “The Effects of Stress Changes and Natural Fractures on Hydraulic Fracture Interactions,” Mack, M.G., 50th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium, Houston, Texas, USA, 26-29 June 2016.

IPTC-17043, “Interaction of Multiple Non-Planar Hydraulic Fractures in Horizontal Wells,” Guanshui, Xu, et al, International Petroleum Technology Conference, Beijing, China, 26-28 March, 2013.

What If StudiesExamine effects ofspacing & differenceH-max - h-min

on ideal fracturespacing.

H-max - h-min = 0.4 MPaV = H-max = h-min

Fracture InterferenceComplexity & Non-Planar vs. Planar 3D

Slide 23


“Simultaneous Multifracture Treatments: Fully Coupled Fluid Flow and Fracture Mechanics for Horizontal Wells,” Wu, Kan and Olson, Jon, SPE Journal, 2014.

h-min = H-max

H=100’, Spacing = 50’

You Cannot CREATE “Complexity”With Hydraulic Fracturing, You Can Only ENHANCE It!

Fracture InterferenceComplexity & Non-Planar vs. Planar 3D

Slide 24


BUT, Is “Complexity” Good?

After Cipolla, et al, SPE 168596

New Generation ModelsExamine Basic Physics

Slide 25


ARMA16-0283, “Impact of Fracture Interactions, Rock Anisotropy and Heterogeneity onHydraulic Fracturing: Some Insights from Numerical Simulations,” Ahmad Ghassemi, 50th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium. Houston, Texas, USA, 26-29 June, 2016


Wellbore Orientation

Effects

SpecialCompletionTechniques

When will this work?What Well Spacing?What Frac Spacing?

Stop $MM Experiments

Near Wellbore EffectsHydraulic Fracture Turning (3D)

Parameter Value

Model Size 3x3x3 m

E 35 GPa

KIC 2 MPa m1/2

σE 10 MPa

σN 18 MPa

σZ 26 Mpa

Q 1.0 m3/min

µ 1 cP

ARMA 15-0530, “Finite Element Modeling of Curving Hydraulic Fractures and NearWellbore Hydraulic Fracture Complexity.” Sherman, C.S., Aarons, L.R., and Morris, J.P., Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, Johnson, S., Applied Numerics, Savitski, A.A. and Geilikman, M.B., Shell International Exploration and Production Inc., prepared for presentation at the 49th US Rock Mechanics/ Geomechanics Symposium, San Francisco, CA, 28 June - 1 July 2015.

Courtesy, Lawrence Livermore National Labs

Understand Physics ImprovedCompletion Procedures to Avoid“Tortuosity”? Effects of TreatmentParameters: Rate, Viscosity ….


Hydraulic Fracture Turning (3D): Measurable Data

Fracture Aperture

0 µm

250 µm

Dead-end branch

Choke-pointBi-wing pattern

New Generation ModelsExamine Basic Physics

Slide 28


ARMA 15-0671, “Numerical Investigation of a Hydraulic Fracture Bypassing a NaturalFracture in 3D,” Fu, P., Cruz, L., Moos D., Settgast, R.R., Ryerson F.J., 49th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium, San Francisco, CA, USA, 28 June-1 July 2015.

“An experimental study on interaction between hydraulic fractures and partially-cemented natural fractures,” Fu, W, Ames, B. C., Bunger, A. P., Savitski, A.A., 49th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium, San Francisco, CA, USA, 28 June-1 July 2015.

InteractionWith

NaturalFractures

Interesting – To arrest hydraulic fracture propagation, natural fracture must be un-bonded over entire height of hydraulic fracture.

New Generation ModelsEffects of Natural Fractures

Slide 29


InteractionWith

NaturalFractures


V = H-max = h-min Open Natural Fractures

New Generation ModelsEffects of Natural Fractures

Slide 30


“Numerical Investigation if Complex Hydraulic Fracture Development in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,” SPE 173326, Kan, Wu, and Olson, Jon E., Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, TX, 3-5 February, 2015.

InteractionWith

NaturalFractures

Interesting – Small forces hydraulic fracture to cross naturalfractures higher and uneven pressure. A potential diagnostic?

New Generation ModelsAsymmetry

Slide 31


A

B

This has similar production

as this

BUT this

Is FAR BETTER for Reservoir DevelopmentSingle Stage Fracs?

New Generation ModelsWhere Can They Help?

Natural Fractures When Will they Dominate Geometry High Complexity When Will “Main”, Planar Fracture Form with Fluid Loss to DFN How Is This Affected by Treatment Parameters

(Do I Want Complexity?)

Near Wellbore Develop better Completion Procedures Effects of Rate, Viscosity, Perforation Pattern …..

Examine Spacing, Interference, Asymmetric Growth ….(Better Field Development)

“Special” Procedures (Zipper, etc.)

Slide 32


Fracture Models Everywhere – What to Do?My Thoughts – What Are Yours?

Pseudo-3D – It is 2016, Time to let go (They are wrong)

Planar-3D – Individual Well/Stage Treatment Design, Landing Depth Selection Conventional Reservoirs, Tight Oil/Gas Minimal Natural Fracturing

Planar-3D with DFN Fluid Loss – Individual Well/Stage Treatment Design, Landing Depth Selection Moderate Natural Fracturing Moderate to High h

New Generation Models – General Field Procedures, Determine WhereCases Suitable for Planar Models w/DFN Loss Moderate to High Natural Fracturing Low h

Slide 33


Slide 34

THANK YOU !

Acknowledgements:

Joe Morris & Team, Lawrence LivermoreNational Lab for Graphical Contributionsand Advanced Fracture Modeling ResultsUsing GEOS

Colleen Barton & Team, Baker Hughes for Advanced Fracture Modeling Results Using ARGOS

Documents

Fracture Modeling Fracture Models EVERYWHERE – What To Do? · Fracture Modeling The VERY Beginning – “Fraccing” Is NOT New! Slide 2 Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere