Primary funding is provided by

The SPE Foundation through member donations and a contribution from Offshore Europe
The Society is grateful to those companies that allow their professionals to serve as lecturers Additional s support pport pro provided ided b by AIME

Society of Petroleum Engineers Distinguished Lecturer Program www.spe.org/dl 1

Fracturing for Sand Control: How Hydraulic Fracturing has Changed S d Control Sand C t l
Raymond Tibbles
Schlumberger Oilfield Services

Society of Petroleum Engineers Distinguished Lecturer Program

www.spe.org/dl

Sand Control Goal

The big three goals of Sand Control
Stop/minimize production of formation solids Maximize M i i production d ti rate/ t / minimizing i i i i impairment Maintain performance over well life

Has fracturing improved our ability to d li delivered d these th goals. l A And d can it continue ti to do so in the future?
3

Main SC Completion p Types yp

Non Frac
Cased Hole Gravel Pack (CHGP) Open Hole Gravel Pack (OHGP) Stand St d Alone Al Screen S (SAS) Formation Consolidation

Fracturing F t i
Screenless Frac Pack High Hi h R Rate t W Water t P Pack k (HRWP) Frac Pack Frac F followed f ll db by Expandable E d bl S Screen
4

Screenless Frac Pack Completions

Indirect Vertical Fracture Indirect Vertical Fracture + Intelligent Perforating
Weak Competent

Optimized Perforating and Fracturing W or WO Resin Consolidation

Propped Fracture

Weak Layer Competent Layer

Propped Fracture

Weak Competent Weak Competent

Piltun-Asstokhsky Sakhalin SPE 68638

Jauf Reservoir Saudi Arabia SPE 73724

Main Pass 41 SPE 107440 Yegua Formation 5 SPE 96289

HRWP Completions
Application
Wells where height growth is a concern Equipment for frac pack is not available
Sandstone

Multiple pad/slurry stages create short fractures.

6

Frac Pack Completions

Application: Most if not all cased hole completions Single g Stage g of fracturing g fluid (pad) followed by multiple slurry stages ( (ramped d prop conc.) ) with ith tip screenout design. Key design requirement is a wide highly conductive f t fracture.
7

Sandstone

Does Exceeding g Frac Pressure Make a Difference?

Fracturing Reliability g Improves p y

Failur res/We ell Life e ( (failure es/yea ar x 100)
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Data courtesy of George King (June 2003)

Fracturing actu g Improves p o es Production oduct o

120%
Reference # Wells

Cum mulativ ve Probability

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0% 50% 100%

Frac p pack Gravel Pack HRWP

IPTC 11166 SPE 103779 SPE 110359 SPE 111455 SPE 30093 SPE 30115 SPE 30470 SPE 31475 SPE 36423 SPE 36459 SPE 38592 SPE 39478 SPE 63107 SPE 68753 SPE 73722 SPE 77434 SPE 78322 SPE 84259 SPE 86530 SPE 87199 SPE 96307 Grand Total

4 8 2 1 17 7 36 17 12 8 10 10 4 25 35 6 4 10 1 31 7 255

150%

200%

Flow Efficiency
10

5000 bopd Chance to get 3000 bopd? p

24.8% max 6600 bopd

50.2% max of 8400 bopd 37.3% max of 6600 bopd

11

Causes of Low Productivity in G Gravel l Packs P k

Low gravel permeability in the perforation tunnels.
Crushed zone; Gravel/sand mixing; Post-perforating P t f ti fluid fl id l loss pills ill

Fines migration over time

12

Reality of Packed Perforations

Ideal Perforations The Cold Hard Truth

A B C

A B C

Region A

Region B

Region C

Region A

Region B

Region C

13

Fines Migration in a Gravel Pack

(data supplied by NS Operator)
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 200 14 12 10 6
PI (bl (blpd/psi) d/ i) Skin Factor

PI (blpd/psi)

4 2 0 600

400

Time (days)
50% of the PI is lost in the first year. (26 lb/ft gravel)
14

Skin n

What Does Fracturing g Do To Help? p

Ensures that the critical area of the perforation tunnel is full of clean gravel free of formation sand or debris High perm gravel in perfs Increases I the th reservoir i contact t t area.
Decreases fluid velocity y in the reservoir Reduced tendency for fines migration

15

Fracturing Puts More Gravel Th Through hP Perforations f ti

G Generally ll accepted t di industry d t value l f for gravel packing perforations: 25 lb/ft of perforations. f ti One NS Operator p HRWP Avg: g 112 lb/ft of perforations. S Same NS O Operator t Frac F Pack P k Avg: A 516 lb/ft of perforations
16

Fracturing Increases Reservoir Contact

Gravel Pack 3 ft Half Length Frac 30 ft Half Length Frac

200 ft2

H = 92 feet Rw = 8.5 inch Perf diameter = 0.83 inch Shot density = 21 spf

1100 ft2 82% Reduction In Sand Face Velocity

11000 ft2 98% Reduction In Sand Face Velocity

17

More Area Means No Fines Migration

Form Fluid Ve elocity (ft t/sec) 0.00050
GP

0.00040 0.00030 0.00020 0 00010 0.00010 0.00000 0 2000 4000 6000

HRWP Frac Pack Fines

8000

10000

Flow Rate (blpd)

Every formation has a different critical fines movement velocity. This is one case where it was 0.00029 ft/sec 18

Impact of Gravel Volume

( il well (oil ll case i in a l low bh bhp reservoir) i)
Norm malized PI (blpd/psi/ft) 0.35 0.3 0.25 02 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 lbs gravel placed/ft of perforations
HRWP Frac Pack Frac & Pack Linear (Frac Pack)

For this e example ample there appears to be a link between gravel mass and Normalized PI. This is not always the case.

19

Better Understanding is Improving Results

(SPE 71658 Morales et al)

Near wellbore temperature cool down from injection of pre-frac and frac-pack fluids.
300 1st Calib 280 260 Acid 240 220 200 180 190oF 160 140 120 1900 2000 12000

2nd Calib

10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 BHP (psi)

BHT ( OF )

2100 Time (min)

2200

2300
20

Temperature cool down inside the fracture (after Sinclair)

1 0.8 0.6 TD 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 X/L
21

T Ti TD = Tr Ti

90% 70% 10% 50% 30% 20% 5% 0.6 0.8 1

New Techniques Fluid Selection

Cool-Down C lD B Based d Fl Fluid id Selection Improved success rate of achieving Tip Screenout (TSO) Allows optimization polymer y and of p breaker loading
300 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 12000
1st Calib Acid 2nd Calib

10000 8000 BH HP (psi)

BHT ( O OF )

190 F

6000 4000 2000 0

1900

2000

2100 Time (min)

2200

2300

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Rate (M MMCFD)

Conventional Cool Down Technique

Bottom hole temperature profile during treatment Fluid Designed at 190O F

A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3*
*Tubing Limited

Well

22

Facing Up To The Challenges?

Unwanted adjacent water and gas Brown fields/depleted reservoirs High permeability formations Multi lobes Thicker zones ( > 500 ft) w/ Multi-lobes Emerging area deep water. UltraDeep water
Deeper Absence Ab of f stress t barriers b i Higher Pressure Higher Temperature
23

Is Fracturing Out of Zone Really a Problem?

Soft rocks and standard design limits height growth.
Low Youngs Modulus TSO inhibits growth Low efficiency frac fluids.

Proper precautions minimize even severe risk. (SPE 73776 Guichard et al.) al ) SPE 85259 deals with one of the most t difficult diffi lt cases.
24

Height Control in Unfavorable Case

Perforate the whole zone Frac out of zone

Limit the perforation p height and control the fracture height

SPE 95987 8 ft shale with water below S Small frac f pad Small slurry stage Fracture did not break through the shale

Tracer Log
25

Fracs Deliver in Brown Fields

Well Data
Casing: 5 inch Deviation: 33 deg KH 5100 md-ft KH: d ft Depth:7550 ft BHST: 200 F Perforation:
Density: 24 spf

Treatment Data
Fluid: 30 lb borate xlink Gravel: 16/20 LWC Placed: Pl d 1243 lbs/ft lb /ft

Results
Produced P d d via i ESP Post FP PI/Pre FP PI: 1.04 Post FP Skin: -0 0.5 5

26

High Permeability Concerns

SPE39475: limit frac packs p Oil Kf < 900 md Gas Kf < 150 md. OH GP for the highest g rate wells SPE 111455: Frac Packs are the best solution for high permeability formation if the wellbore is properly aligned with the fracture fracture.
27

Cased Hole Frac-Packs Frac Packs

Openhole Horizontal or Openhole Frac-Pack or Openhole p GP Above Frac Pressure?

Transmisibility (kh) 1000 mD-ft

Oilfield Review, Review Summer 2001 (BP, (BP Chevron, Chevron EniAgip, EniAgip M M-I I, Repsol-YPF, Schlumberger, Shell, Stone Energy, Texaco)
28

High g Rate Limitions

Pressure Loss in Perforation tunnel (Forchheimer)

0.888 L Q Q 13 P = + 9.110 L KA A
Where: A = Perf Cross-Sectional Area (Ft2) B = Inertia Coefficient (Ft-1)

90

10

P
K L Q

= = = = = =

Differential Pressure (psi) Permeability (Darcies) Length Of Perforation (ft) Viscosity (Centipoise) Flow Rate (B/D) Density Of Fluid (lb/Ft3)

High Rate Gas Skin (SPE 68753)

400 Damage e Skin

Avg Damage Skin

( (Deviation and Partial completion p skins removed)

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0

Sd HRWP Sd FP

All Cases
FP = 18 HRWP = 55*

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Permeability (mD)

Less than 1 Darcy

FP = 18 HRWP = 31* 31

Rat te Dependent Skin Coe eff (1/MSC CFD)

1 0.1 0.01 0.001

D HRWP D Frac Pack

*Neglected 800 Skin

0.0001 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 30 5000 Permeability (mD)

Frac Packs Can Deliver High Production Rate Completions

Gas
SPE106854 BP Trinidad and Tobago:
FP 75-150 MM/day (100 600 mD) OH GP: 72 320 MM/day (100 1700 mD)

Oil
SPE 78322 Total Angola: g
FP 15,000 25,000 bopd (800-2700 mD)

SPE 84415 ConocoPhillips USA:

FP two wells 22 22,400 400 bopd/well

FP Non documented GOM 40,000 bopd SPE 48977 BP North Sea:

OH Horizontal 30,000 bopd
31

Other Options in Emerging Deep Water

Rig Based Fracturing
Dependent on available deck space Inhibits many rig operations Limited rates and volumes

Supply Boat Based Fracturing

Limited Rates and Volume but more flexibility Minimum impact on rig operations

32

Modular Supply Vessel Operation

(900m2 deck area)
650,000 lbm of proppant 10 000 psi 10,000 i MWP 40 BPM max rate 9,000 HHP 200,000 gals batch mixed gel stored below deck Connected to Rig via 4 10,000 psi Coflexip hose c/w EQD on TR12 Reel

33

Lower Tertiary - Miocene and Paleogene

Water Depth 4 10,000 ft

> 1500 ft TVD 15,000 ft 33, 000 ft BHP 13 ppg 15.2 ppg BHT 160 OF 310 F
34

Challenges and Solutions

Temperature: No problem we have fluids to handle 400+ degrees F. High Pressure:
20000 psi treating equipment - does the market justify the cost? High density frac fluids to help but there are limits. SPE 116007 reported surface pressure reductions from 22 to 39% with an average surface pressure reduction of 34%

p 2fV = L D

T Temperature t and d Pressure: P Still struggling t li to provide a high density fluid that can work at 325+ F
35

Facing Up To The Challenges?

Unwanted adjacent water and gas Brown Bro n fields/depleted reser reservoirs oirs High permeability formation Gas Oil Emerging Area Deep Water UltraDeep p Water Plays y Deeper Higher Pressure Higher Temperature

36

Conclusions
Sand Control fracturing completions have clearly shown increased productivity in many different environments. Many of the challenges to using fracturing have already been overcome
Unwanted water/gas High permeability formations Application in developing areas

Some challenges g still require work or may y not be applicable

Ultra high permeability (especially in gas wells) High pressure especially in combination with temperature above 325 F
37

Questions?

38

Your Feedback is Important p

Enter your section in the DL Evaluation Contest by completing the evaluation form for this presentation or go online at:
http://www.spe.org/events/dl/dl_evaluation_contest.php

Society of Petroleum Engineers Distinguished Lecturer Program www.spe.org/dl 39