Hydraulic Fracturing

Production performance of fractured wells

Design and execution of hydraulic fracturing treatments
Fluid tank
Role of hydraulic fracturing

Intermediate, high k reservoir

Role of hydraulic fracturing

Low k reservoir
 Fracture geometry

Vertical fracture Horizontal fracture

 Fracture geometry

longitudinal transverse
Fracture geometry
 Fracture geometry

Tight sand or shale formations, stimulated reservoir volume

 Narrow and long

Low permeability

High permeability
Wide and short
 Conditions for hydraulic fracturing

1. Low permeability reservoirs

2. Medium or high permeability: sand control

Stimulation mechanism of hydraulic fracturing

1. Bypass damage zone

2. Chang flow pattern from radial to bilinear or elliptical flow

Hydraulic Fracturing design optimization

1. Fracture parameter optimization

2. Fracturing treatment parameter optimization

• Fluid
• Proppant
• Pump schedule (pump rate, volume, proppant
concentration)
• Pipe
• flowback
Fracture parameter optimization

• Numerical simulation

• Analytical solution
Numerical simulation
Numerical simulation
Numerical simulation
 Analytical solution
length x f
conductivity k f w
equivalent s f

kf w
Dimensionless conductivity C fD 
kx f

kx f 
Relative capacity (Prat) a  C fD 
2kf w 2a

Optimal fracture parameters means match between the fracture capability

and the reservoir capability
Pseudolinear flow
Formation linear flow

Pseudoradial:
cylindrical flow to an wellbore
rw  rw e S f
 Prat

rw
Prat rwD  Pseudoradial flow
xf
rw  rw e  S f
 Analytical solution

Effect of fracture parameter on production

1
Pseudoradial flow J D ,pss 
re xf
ln  0.75  ln  sf
xf rw

V f  2x f whf
0.5
 k fV f 
xf   
 2C fD khf 
1
J D ,pss 
k fV f xf
ln re  0.75  0.5 ln  0.5 ln C fD  ln  sf
2khf rw
Cinco-Ley and Samaniego
 Analytical solution

When C fD  1.6

xf
0.5ln C fD  ln  sf reaches minimum 1.619
rw

1
J D _ Max 
 hk 
ln(0.472re )  0.5ln    1.619
V k
 f f 
1
Vf k f  2
x f   
Optimal C fD  1.6  1.6hk 

Means: high k reservoirs need a short and wide (high conductivity) fracture
Low k reservoirs need a long and narrow (low conductivity) fracture
 Economidies & Valko
Unified fracture design

4x f k f w 2k fV f
Proppant number N p  I x C fD 
2

kx e2
kV r
Penetration ratio I x  2x f / x e
 Analytical solution
1 1
JD  
re x  0.472re 
ln  0.75  ln f  s f ln   f (C fD )
xf rw  xf 
1

ln(0.472re )  ln(x f )  f (C fD )
1
1 V k  2
 xf   f f 
 1
  C fD hk 
  Vf kf  2 
ln(0.472re )  ln     f (C fD )
C hk
  fD  
 
1

1 V k 
ln(0.472re )  ln f f   f (C fD )
2  C fD hk 
1

 hk 
ln(0.472re )  0.5 ln   0.5 lnC fD   f (C fD )
V f k f 
 Analytical solution 1
J D _ Max 
 hk 
ln(0.472re )  0.5 ln   1.619
V f k f 
When C fD  1.6 
1
 hkx e2 
0.5 ln C fD   f (C fD )
ln(0.472re )  0.5 ln   1.619
2 
V k
 f f e x
1
reaches minimum 1.619  V r  hx e2
 V k 
ln(0.472re )  0.5 ln r 2   1.619
V f k f x e 
1 1

Vf k f  2
 4V k   1 
x f    ln(0.472re )  0.5 ln r   0.5 ln 2   1.619
 4V f k f   xe 
 1.6hk 
1 4V k
 N prop  f 1wing f
 1  Vr k
ln(0.472re )  0.5 ln   ln(2)  lnx e   1.619

 N prop 
1
 re2  x e2
x e2
ln(0.472 )  0.5 lnN prop   ln(2)  lnx e   1.619

1

)  ln(2)  1.619  0.5 lnN prop 
0.472
ln(

1

0.99  0.5 lnN prop 
 Economidies & Valko

4x f k f w 2k fV f
N p  I x C fD 
2

kx e2
kV r

 1
if N p  0.1
 0.99  0.5 lnN p 

  0.423  0.311N p  0.089(N p )2 
6
J D _ Max    exp   if N p  0.1
  1  0.667N p  0.015(N p ) 
2


6 if N p ~ 100
 
 1.6 if N p  0.1

   0.583  1.48 ln N p 
C fDopt(N p )  1.6  exp  if 0.1  N p  10
  1  0.142 ln N p 

N p if N p  10

0.5
 k fV f 
x f ,opt   

 2C fD ,opt kh 
0.5
 C fD ,opt kV f 
w opt   

 2k f h 
Fractured well performance for unconventional tight
sand or shale reservoirs
 Fractured well performance for unconventional tight
sand or shale reservoirs

1. Analytical model of the production from each fracture

2. Multiple sink solutions
3. Decline curve analysis
4. Reservoir simulators including fracture networks
Fractured well performance for unconventional tight
sand or shale reservoirs
Fractured well performance for unconventional tight
sand or shale reservoirs
Design and execution of hydraulic fracturing treatments
In-situ stress
 In-situ stress

σz

σH

σh

Three principal stress

In-situ stress
In-situ stress
 In-situ stress

Minimum horizontal stress

In-situ stress
 Stress distribution

Stress concentration
near the wellbore

x  y  a2   x  y  3a 4 
  1  2   1  4  cos 2
2  r  2  r 
  

σθ－circumferential stress; a－wellbore radius

r－radius; θ－angle

r＝a θ ＝0，180o σθ＝σθmin=3σy－σx

θ＝90o，270o σθ＝ σθ max=3σx－σy
 Breakdown pressure

pbd  3 H ,min   H ,max  T0  p

Fracture direction
Fracture always perpendicular to the minimum stress
σz
（1）σz=min(σx ,σy ,σz) horizontal fracture

σx
σy
（2）σx(σy)=min(σx ,σy ,σz) vertical fracture
Fracture direction
Fracture direction

Horizontal fracture

Vertical fracture
Pressure response during fracturing treatment
Pressure response during fracturing treatment
Two sets of laws for fracture propagation
1. Fundamental principles such as the laws of
conservation of momentum, mass, and energy
2. Criteria for propagation
Pump schedule

1. Pad fluid: create fracture, cool off surfaces of the fracture

2. Slurry: (Fluid + proppant): proppant carrying

3. Postflush: displace slurry in the pipe

Fracture geometry model
1. 2D
2. Pseudo 3D
3. 3D

One dimensional fluid flow

2D, Pseudo 3D
Two dimensional fluid flow
3D
2D model
1. PKN Lf>>hf
2. KGD Lf<<hf
3. Radial or penny-shaped: formation thick enough or
treatment small enough, no vertical barrier felt;
horizontal fracture
 PKN

Lf>>hf
 KGD

Lf<<H
 PKN

Hydraulic fracture width

Pn(x )
2(1   2 )hf Pn(x )
hf w max(x ) w max(x ) 
E
 PKN

W max L

x
 2hf p n(x ) dp n 64 qi
w max(x )   
E dx w max
3
hf

dp n 8q i E  3 32E 3 q i x f
  p n4,w  0 4 
dx hf4 p n3 hf4

1/ 4 1/ 4 1/ 4
 512   qi x f   qi x f 
w max,0       3.57 
    E   E 
1/4
 xf  x 
w max(x )  w max,0  
 xf 
  4
W  W max(0)
4 5

W max L
1/4
 qi x f 
w  3.57   x

 E 

 4
 
4 5
Fracture geometry and net pressure

2hf ( p f   min )
w max  w  w max
E
Fluid efficiency   V f / Vi

  1

w Af  q it Af  2x f hf
qit
xfw  1 /( 2n   2 )
w  C 1x f
2hf
( 2n   2) /(2n   3)

 1 /(2n   2 )
x f C 1x f  
5.615q it
2Af
xf 
1  5.615qit 

C 1  2hf 

 2hf ( p f   min )
w max  w  w max
E

( 2n   2) /(2n   3)
1  5.615qit 
w  C 1x f1 /(2n   2) xf   
C 1  2hf 

C1 1 /(2n   2) E 
p n  p f   min  xf
 / 4 2hf

p n  C 2t 1 /(2n   3)
 qi t
  0 Af  rp Ratio of permeable
C L rp h to hf

5.615qi t
xf 
2hC L

C1 1 /(2n   2) E 
p n  p f   min  xf
 / 4 2hf

p n  C 3t 1 /(4(n   1))
n approximately 0.5, the power of t
falls between ¼ ~1/6
KGD   1 p n  t  n  /(n   2)

  0 p n  t  n  / 2(n   1)

Radial   1 p n  t  n  /(n   2)

  0 p n  t 3n  / 8(n   1)
 Injection Schedule

Pad fluid: create fracture, cool off surfaces of the fracture

Slurry (Fluid + proppant): proppant carrying
Postflush: displace slurry in the pipe

Nolte proposed
1    V fracture
V pad  Vi   Fluid efficiency 
1    V fluid
 2C C C
C
C C  C2C2  4C2  C2  C2 

1 1 1 1
  
C C C C

C Viscosity controlled leakoff coefficient

C Compressibility controlled leakoff coefficient
C Cake controlled leakoff coefficient
c
Leakoff velocity v
t
 Fracture geometry evolution

Vi  V f  V L

qite  Af w  K LC L(2Af )rp te

KL: opening time distribution factor

rp Ratio of permeable h to hf
 Nolte’s power law assumption

AD  A / Ae t D  t / te AD  t D

te te
Ae CL Ae CL
VLeakoff  2  dtdA  2  dtdA
0
t  0
A 
1/

t  te  
 Ae 

V Leakoff  ( )
KL  KL  g 0( ) 
2AC L te (  3 / 2)
  ( )
KL  g 0( ) 
(  3 / 2)

4 
KL    (1   )
3 2
 Fracture geometry evolution
1. Assume xf
2. Calculate the wellbore width at the end of pumping from PKN
1/4
 q i x f 
w w ,0  3.57 
 E 
3. Convert the max width into average width w  w w ,0

4. Assume a kL =1.5 or use calculated kL, solve the material

balance for injection time
qite  Af w  K LC L(2Af )rp te
5. Calculated injected volume V i  q ite
2hf x f w
6. Calculate fluid efficiency  
Vi
 Pump schedule design

7. Use  to check kL. If not converged, go to step 4 using the

calculation as new estimation
1 8 
kL     (1   )
2  3 

8. Repeat (use new KL to repeat step 4-7)

 Proppant schedule M  cf Vi

c / cf
M p  2x f hf w p(1   p ) p

M  c f V i
Proppant schedule
 Proppant schedule M  c f V i

c / cf ti 1
M  qi  c(t )dt  Vic（
f 1 - fpad） y( )d
0 0

1
1  fpad
（1 - fpad） x dx 


0
1
1
  (1  f pad )
1

Nolte’s proposition f pad  

1
 
1
 
 t  t pad 
Proppant schedule c p(t )  cf  

te  t pad 

Average slurry concentration 

1 te  t  t pad 
cp 
te  t pad t cf   dt

pad
ti  t pad 
cf

1

M p  c p(Vi  V pad )
Proppant concentration in the fracture (After closure): the mass of
proppant on unit surface area

Mp
Cp 
2x f hf

Cp
wp 
(1   p ) p
 Proppant schedule
1. Calculate  at the end of pump

2. Calculate the exponent of the proppant concentration curve

1
 
1
3. Calculate the pad volume and the time needed to pump it
V pad  Vi f pad  
t pad  ti
4. Calculate required final proppant concentration
M p  2x f hf w p(1   p ) p cf  M /(V i )
5. The required proppant concentration  t  t pad 


c  cf  

te  t pad 
 Fracturing fluid

 Water based fracturing fluid

 Oil based fracturing fluid
 Foam fracturing fluid
 Emulsion fracturing fluid
Fracturing fluid
 Fracturing fluid

  KD n   (KD n-1 ) D  a D
Proppant
 Proppant

Proppant type
① Natural sand
② Man-made proppant
③ Resin-coated sand
 Proppant

Natural sand
① Low strength
② H<2000m formation, closure
stress low than about 35MPa
 Proppant
Man-made proppant
① Low density:1800kg/m3
② Intermediate density: 2000～3000kg/m3
③ High density: >3000kg/m3

Characteristics:
① High strength 56～105MPa
② High density
③ Apply to deep formation, high closure stress
Fracture conductivity

Q L
K f W  1.67 um 2 ·
cm
H  P
 , mPa.s viscosity
Q, ml / min Pump rate
H , cm Height of core slab
L, cm Distance of the two pressure ports
P, KPa Pressure drop
Fracture conductivity

20/40 mesh
Fracture conductivity

mesh