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
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
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
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
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
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
Models – 2D – 1961 to 1981
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
w HSimple GeologyGood ConfinementLong FracturesViscous Fluids
w LSimple GeologyTall/Short FracturesViscous Fluids
w RSimple GeologyRadial FracturesViscous FluidsFrac-Packs
Fracture ModelingThe VERY Beginning
Slide 7
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
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.
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
Models – Pseudo 3D – 1981 to ???“Reasonable Geology”, Conventional/Tight Gas, MHF, Minimal Natural Fracturing
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
Amoco Frac-HT ProgramCommercially Available onGE Time Sharing Service,1981
Settari & Clearly, 1984
Still in Common Use!
Models – Planar 3D – 1984 to Present
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
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”
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
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
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
Do Models Work ?Case 1 – Fracture Geometry
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
Microsoft werPoint Presentat
Do Models Work ?Case 1 – Fracture Geometry
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
Do Models Work ?Models vs. Productive Length
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
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
Do Models Work ?Case 2 – Fracture Geometry
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
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
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
Multiple, Simultaneous Fractures
Natural FracturesHorizontal WellWellbore Effects
???
Slide 19
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
After *After *
* After Xiaowei Weng, ARMA, 50th Geomechanics Symp., Houston, 2016
Planar Fractures – Extra Fluid Loss?“Complex” Fractures?
Does it Matter?
Slide 20
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
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
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
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
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
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
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
“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
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
BUT, Is “Complexity” Good?
After Cipolla, et al, SPE 168596
New Generation ModelsExamine Basic Physics
Slide 25
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
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
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.
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 ….
Microsoft werPoint Presentat
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
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
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
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
InteractionWith
NaturalFractures
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.
V = H-max = h-min Open Natural Fractures
New Generation ModelsEffects of Natural Fractures
Slide 30
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
“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
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
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
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
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
Keynote • Fracture Models Everywhere – What To Do? • Michael B. Smith
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