6ilaii

,,.

Societyd PetroleumEngineers ~

SPE 36878
Long-Term

Hydraulic

Fracture Conductivities

Under Extreme Conditions

Marin Cikes, SPE, lNA-Naftaplin

CcpyrIght 1996 Soctety of Petroleum Engineers, Inc

Thm paper was prepared for presentatmn at the 1996 SPE European Petroleum Conference
held m M!Ian, italy, 2224 October 19%

Introduction
Hydraulic fracturing treatments are required to ensure
economic production rates from wells completed in low- to
moderate-permeability
formations for a long period of time.
The relationship between the productivity improvement factor,
by hydraulic
fracture
stimulation
and the
obtained
dimensionless fracture conductivity, C,,), of the propped
fracture, has been published first by Prats. A series of
important contributions in the understanding of the behavior
of hydraulically fractured wells was provided by Cinco et af.2
and Cinco and Samaniego. ] Since then, Cinco and his COworkers have produced a number of additional works.4-6 It
follows from all that works that the productivity improvement
to the dimensionless
fracture
factor is proportional
conductivity, C,,), which is defined as:

This paper was selected for presenlatmn by an SPE Program Committee follow!ng rewew of
!nformataon ccntamed m an abstract subm!tled by the author(s) Conlenls of lhe paper, as
presented, have not been rew%wed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject 10
correchon by the author(s) The materml, as presented, dws not necessarily reflecl any
POSIIIWIof the SocIoty of Pelroleum Engineers, tts offIc8rs. or metm%rs Papers presented at
SPE meehngs are subject 10 pubkatlon rewew by Ed[forlal Commttees of the Soc!ety of
Petroleum Engineers Perm!swon 10 copy IS restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words
Illustrabons may not be cnpmd Ttw abstract should ccmtaln Cnnsphwous
acknowkdgmenl of where and by whom the paper was presented Write Ltbrarmn, SPE, P O
Box t133W13 Richardson, TX 7S083-3836 U S A fax 01.214.952.9435

Abstract
Proppants for hydraulic fracturing are subjected to very severe
conditions of stress, temperature and chemical environment
while they are expected to maintain their structural integrity
for a period of many years. The performance of these
proppants over time at simulated in-situ conditions has been a
topic of laboratory investigation for several years, but in many
cases the real conditions exceed the capabilities of the
laboratory apparatus. In order to determine the proppant
behavior under real reservoir conditions, production history
and numerous pressure buildup tests of eight fractured wells
have been analyzed. The reservoir conditions of these wells
are so severe, that it was almost impossible to simulate them in
laboratory. The formation temperature is 179-195 C (354-383
F), while the reservoir pressure varies between 44.5 and 50.0
MPa (6453-7250 psi). The producing fluid is large gravity
(0.825 to 1.047 to air) sour gas (up to 22 Y. C02 and up to
0.02 A H2S), while the producing water is practically
deionized. The proppants are high strength zirconium oxide
and sintered bauxite, while the amount of injected proppant
varies between 100 and 628 tons (2.2E+05 to 1.38E+06 Ibm).
The net closure stress is in the range of 30 to 50 MPa (43507250 psi). The production time of these hydraulically
fractured wells varies between five and ten years. Emphasis in
this paper is given to the results of production history and
pressure buildup tests analysis, as well as to the relationships
of calculated fracture conductivity and reservoir conditions
over time.

Cfl, = k,wf/kxf

. ................................................... (I)

AS it can be seen, for given fracture length, x,, and

k,
the dimensionless
fracture
reservoir
permeability,
to
proppant-pack
conductivity,
C,,), is proportional
permeability, k,, and fracture width, w,, or simple to fracture
conductivity, k,w,. The fracture conductivity may be increased
by enlarging the propped fracture width, which means by
application of high proppant concentration, or by improving
proppant-pack
permeability.
Many factors influence the
M%
effective proppant-pack permeability, kf, e.g. proppzfnt
grain size, effective closure stress acting on the proppant pack
and formation face, formation temperature and chemical
environment, non-Darcy flow effects in the fracture, damage
from fracturing-fluid residue remaining atler fracture cleanup,
multiphase flow effects, well production history, etc.
Although the permeability of a lightly stressed proppant
pack can be found theoretically as a function of the porosity of
the pack, $, and the mean diameter of the proppant grains, d50,
that is:

kf ccd;o$s ,

..

. . . . . ...... ........... . . (2)

the fracture conductivity dependence on effective closure

stress, formation temperature, chemical environment, etc., can
not be assessed theoretically, Empirical relations based on

61

MARIN CIKES

extensive proppant conductivity measurements over a wide

range of conditions are required. The majority of these
measurements have been carried out in ideal laboratory
conditions, with low liquid flow rate (negligible non-Darcy
flow effects) at low temperature and short measurement
times.s However, continuing advances in transient pressure
analysis on hydraulically fractured wells have allowed a postfrac estimation of the effective fracture conductivity. z-b
Typically, a post-frac analysis calculated a value significantly
lower than was predicted by laboratory fracture conductivity
measurements on the same proppant,9- The post-frac values
usually differ by a factor of 0.1 to 0.5 times the laboratory
data. Occasionally the factor is closer to 1.0, but factors of
0.02 have also been calculated. The importance of the
fracture conductivity for the successful fracture stimulation
was stressed in the state-of-the-art paper published at that
time.2 Those were some of the reasons why, in the past ten
years, much progress has been made toward developing more
realistic methods for determining fracture conductivity,
One of the first long-term tests on fracture conductivity at
simulated reservoir conditions reported some decline in
proppant permeability with time at elevated temperature.~ The
test variable covered in the next investigation were (l) closure
stress versus time, (2) test temperature (24- 135 C [75-275
F]), (3) combined effect of closure stress and elevated
temperature versus time, (4) oxygen content of test fluid, and
(5) presaturation of test fluid with silica.4 Later investigation
has extended temperature range up to 149 C (300 F), with
the use of equipment capable to simulate the whole process of
hydraulic
fracturing
including
cleanup
phase.5 The
importance of obtaining realistic fracture conductivity data for
treatment design is also reported. b Recently published works
cover the other effects on fracture conductivity such as nonDarcy flow effects, effect of repeated production cycles,8
and effect of proppant failure and fines migration.9 To the
best of my knowledge, no data on fracture conductivity at
formation temperature higher than 149 C (300 F) in
presence of sour gas and deionized water have been reported.
However, hydraulic fracture treatments in such conditions
have been perforrned.20 In preparing these treatments, an
attempt to perform the long-term test on fracture conductivity
at 200 C (392 F) was unsuccessful because it exceeded the
capabilities of the laboratory apparatus. Due to that reason the
best commercially available proppants, zirconium oxide and
sintered bauxite, were selected. Today, nearly ten years later,
there are many data on production parameters and pressure
buildup tests in producing wells, so it can be tried to determine
the proppant behavior under real reservoir conditions in the
very long period of time. This paper presents transient
pressure analysis results of producing fractured wells, with
emphasis on the calculated effective fracture conductivity as a
function of producing time.

SPE 36878

Reservoirs Physical Properties

The hydraulically fractured wells are producing from specific
formations of three different reservoirs in north Croatia:
Molve, Kalinovac and Stari Gradac. Geological and physical
properties of these reservoirs are described in Refs. 20-22, and
will not be repeated here. Reservoir data for all three fields
are summarized in Table 1. The reservoirs are more or less
naturally fissured, overpressurized,
with extremely high
temperature gradients.
Physical properties
of reservoir
fluids and their
composition are summarized in Table 2. The reservoir fluid of
Molve field is a wet sour gas with GOR of 14,300 m3/m3
[79,300 scf/STB] and GWR of 20,000 m3/m3 [111,000
scf/STB]. The Kalinovac and Stari Gradac fields are gascondensate reservoirs with high dewpoint pressure (Table 1).
GOR and G WR for Kalinovac field are 1,110 m3/m3 [6,160
scf/STB] and 33,330 m3/m3 [ 184,800 scf/STB] respectively,
while Stari Gradac has GOR of 910 m3/m3 [5,050 scf/STB]
and GWR of 12,500 m3/m3 [69,400 scf/STB]. Producing water
in all three fields represents mainly water-vapor condensate
from gas, with very low mineral content (TDS=900
mg/dm3).22

Fracture Treatments Characteristics

Fracture treatment designs and executions are described in
Ref. 20. Only few crucial parameters should be mentioned
here for the wells which are selected for detailed analysis,
These selected wells and related parameters are given in Table
3. Relatively low values for fracture conductivities follow
from pessimistic approach that, as rule of thumb, uses onl
2/
10% of proppant permeability obtained in laboratory testing.

Post-Frac Pressure Transient Analysis

Four out of eight producing wells, with the longest producing
history and with the best pressure buildup data, are selected
for the post-frac pressure transient analysis, The analysis is
performed by matching the buildup response with the type
curves generated by numerical simulator, as well as by using
analytical
solutions or specialized
plots.24 For these
heterogeneous, naturally fissured reservoirs, double-porosity
reservoir model is indicated,2325 but in many cases a good
match is obtained with homogeneous reservoir model, so they
are used interchangeably. As we are dealing with two gascondensate wells, a compositional model should be used,26 but
the one-phase model is applied for all wells. Due to that, the
analysis results should be taken with caution, when the
bottom-hole flowing pressure (BHFP) drops below the
dewpoint.
One of the pressure buildup tests performed in the well
Molve-25 is used as an example of this analysis. Postfracture
production rates and wellhead flowing pressure of this well is
shown in Fig. 1. The pressure buildup test data are given in

62

SPE 36078

LONG-TERM HYDRAULIC FRACTURE CONDUCTIVITIES

Table 4, while the reservoir fluid properties can be find in

Table2. Reservoir data for Molvefield are given in Table 1,
but specifically for this well they are as follows:
perforated interval: 3362 -3412 m[ll,031 - ll,195ft];
. net thickness: 100 m [328 ft];
porosity: 100/0.
The well was tested during 1988th year. From several prefrac pressure buildup tests the reservoir permeability of
O.15x10-3 pm2 [0.15 md] was extracted, while the extrapolated
reservoir pressure was about 45 MPa [6,525 psi]. The fracture
treatment was performed in June 1989 that was followed by
cleanup procedure. After measuring postfracture production,
the well was closed for first post-frac pressure buildup test.
The last flow rates for gas, condensate and water, as well as
bottom-hole flowing pressure (BHFP), can be found in Table
5 together with main results of pressure transient analysis.
Complete results of this analysis are given in Figs. 2-5.
Fig. 2 is log-log plot of real gas pseudopressure differences
and their derivative,
matched with model of finiteconductivity fracture in homogeneous, infinite reservoir. From
the match points, calculated values for fracture half-length,
dimensionless fracture conductivity and reservoir permeability
are 54 m [ 177 ft], 0.778 and 0.586x 10-3 pm2 [0.586 md]
respectively. According to Eq. 1, fracture conductivity of
25x10-] pm2m [25 md.m] is calculated. Comparing with the
designed values, the effective fracture length and conductivity
seems unrealistic, while the apparent increase in post-frac
reservoir permeability over the pre-frac permeability of
O.15x10-3 pmz [0.15 md] suggests fracture height growth
and/or intersection of natural fractures resulting in an increase
in permeability-thickness
product. An attempt, to get match
pre-frac
permeability,
resulted
in
using the constant
unrealistically long fracture of 1987 m [6,520 ft]. Due to that
reason, the model of double-porosity reservoir with pseudosteady state of flow is applied, instead of homogeneous
reservoir. 2324Keeping the reservoir permeability constant at
value of O.15x10- pmz [0.15 red], good match is obtained, but
error amounts to 10OO/.for each variable (Fig. 3). Although the
calculated fracture half-length is closer to the designed value,
the effective fracture conductivity is nearly the same as in case
of homogeneous reservoir. Comparing with the pre-frac
analysis using same model, the storativity ratio, u, is too high
and interporosity flow parameter, 1, is too low.
Because of unreliable results, obtained by type-curve
matching procedure, for further analysis the specialized plots
are utilized. Fig. 4 is a specialized plot for bilinear flow, that is
linear plot of real gas pseudopressure vs. quarter root of time.~
From the bilinear-flow straight Iifle slope, mhfi using equation

= &~,h(k,w,)2(@+y4

and fracture length previously found by type-curve matching

using homogeneous reservoir model, dimensionless fracture
conductivity of 1.634 is calculated, from which follows
effective fracture conductivity of 5 1.7x10-3 ~mzm [5 1.7
mdm]. However, using the pre-frac permeability of O.15x 10-3
pm2 [0.15 red], the value of effective fracture conductivity
should be I02x10-3 ~mzm [102 mdm].
Fig, 5 is a specialized plot for pseudolinear flow, that is
linear plot of real gas pseudopressure vs. square root of time.6
From the pseudolinear-flow straight line slope, m,fi using
equation

fiPt)qT

UNDER EXTREME CONDITIONS

PM
f

= h~)xf (nk$~c,

~t2

.......... ...... ........... ........... (4)

the product of square root of reservoir permeability and

fracture length can be calculated. As in case of bilinear flow,
for permeability and fracture length found by type-curve
matching, effective fracture length of 71.86 m [236 ft] is
calculated, while, using the pre-frac permeability of O.15x 103
pm2 [0.15 red], the value of effective fracture length should be
142 m [466 ft]. Assuming that the pre-frac permeability
represents real value, the calculation in specialized plots
analysis utilizing that value is accepted as correct.
The same procedure is applied to the wells Molve- 15,
Kalinovac-3 and Stari Gradac- 1. The results of all analyses,
accompanying with the last flow rates for gas, condensate and
water, as well as with bottom-hole flowing pressure are
summarized in Table 5.

Discussion of Results
As it is shown in detailed analysis of one test in the well
Molve-25, type-curve matching technique does not give the
unique results concerning the effective fracture half-length
and fracture conductivity. Similar conclusion can be done for
the rest of eighteen analyses of the four wells (Table 5).
Generally, for all the wells the post-frac permeability is
higher than pre-frac value. For Molve- 15, Kalinovac-3 and
Stari Gradac- 1, the pre-frac permeabilities have values of
O.lx 103pm2 [0.1 red], 0.2x10-3 ~m2 [0.2 red], and 0.05x 103
pm2 [0.05 md] respectively, while the post-frac permeabilities
are few times higher (Table 5), With the time the
permeabilities usually decrease accompanying with decrease
in fracture conductivity and changing fracture length. After
some period of time (8 years for Kalinovac-3 and 5 years for
Stari Gradac- 1), some wells even stopped to behave as
fractured wells, although they had some negative skin factor.
Any other conclusion from these results could be doubtful.
The results of specialized plots analysis could be a base for
some concrete conclusions (Table 5). Generally, these results
suggest that effective fracture half-length does not differ
significantly from designed value, while the effective fracture
conductivity differs significantly, not only from laboratory

(3)

the product of square root of reservoir permeability and

fracture conductivity can be calculated. For the permeability

63

MARIN CIKES

SPE 36678

lower than designed value, which used only 10% of proppant

permeability obtained in laboratory testing.
3. l%e initial fracture conductivity fiu-ther decreases with
producing time, what could be correlative with increase in
effective fracture closure stress, but also with the time which
the proppant spent under extreme reservoir conditions.
4. Further investigation is necessary to resolve discrepancy
between post-frac calculated
fracture conductivity
and
laboratory measured data.

measured data, but also from designed value, which used only
10% of proppant permeability obtained in laboratory testing.
For the Molve- 15, the effective
fracture
half-length
is
significantly lower than designed and what would be expected

after pumping 628 Mg [1,383,260 Ibm] of proppants. As the

effective fracture conductivity is significantly lower than
designed value, and also lower than in other three cases, the
explanation for short and low conductive fracture could be in
low crush resistance of the proppant, utilized in this well
(Zirconium
Oxide). Even low initial fracture conductivity
further decreased with time as effective fracture closure stress
increased. The last value (after 8 years) should not be taken in
account due to high water cut.

Nomenclature
q= total compressibility, Pa- [psi-]
Cj[, = dimensionless
fracture conductivity
dj(, = mean diameter ofproppant grains, m [ft]
h= reservoir thickness, m [tl]
k= formation permeability, m2 [red]
k,= fracture permeability, m2 [red]
m(p) = real gas pseudopressure, PaJs
mbf= slope of strai$ht line for bilinear flow, Pak54
[psiz/cp/hr4]
roll= slope of strai ht line for pseudolinear flow, Pa/s32
&
[psi2/cp/hr ]
P,>= st&dard pressure, Pa [psi]
q. flow rate, m3/s [Mscf/D]

For the well Molve-25, the effective fracture half-length is

close to designed value and practically did not change with the

time, The effective fracture conductivity is slightly lower than

designed value but more or less stable in time, except the last
value (after 6 years).
Except for the

first value (after cleanup), which is

unreliable, the effective fracture half-length and fracture
conductivity for the well Kalinovac-3 are significantly lower
than designed values. Similar as for well Molve- 15, fracture
length and fracture conductivity
decreased
with time as
effective fracture closure stress increased, but this correlation
is not exact. Again, the last value (after 8 years) should not be

T= absolute temperature, K [R]

T,,= standard temperature, K [R]
~, = fracure width, m [ft]
~, = fracture half-length, m [ft]
p= viscosity, Pas [cp]
~= porosity, fraction

taken into account due to high water cut.

In case of Stari Gradac- I well, the effective fracture halfIength is higher than designed, but the effective fracture
conductivity is slightly lower than designed value. An
important notice is that the well was closed after cleanup for
more than one year, which means that production started atler
second pressure buildup test. Nevertheless, both the effective
fracture
between

half-length
and fracture conductivity
decreased in
these two tests. The question is what the cause was

References
1. Prats, M: Effect of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir Behavior --

for these changes: the lower bottom-hole flowing pressure

and, consequently, the higher effective fracture closure stress
at the second test, or the time which the proppant spent under
extreme reservoir conditions had the main role. Next two tests
indicate severe decrease in fracture conductivity, but it has to
be taken with caution, because the bottom-hole flowing
pressure was fare bellow dewpoint pressure causing two-phase
flow.

2.

3.
4.

5.

Conclusions
1. Pressure transient analysis performed by matching the
buildup response with the type curves does not give the unique
results concerning effective fracture half-length and fracture
conductivity. The analytical solutions or specialized plots
analysis should be used instead, but that requires knowing of
reservoir permeability from pre-frac test.
2. The effective fracture half-length, obtained by the
specialized plots analysis, does not differ significantly from
designed value, while the effective fracture conductivity is

6.

7.
8.

64

Incompressible Fluid Case, SPE.J (June 1961) 105; Trans.,

AIME (1961) 222.
Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego-V., F. and Dominguez-A., N.:
Trarsient Pressure Behavior for a Well with a FiniteConductivity Vertical Fracture, SPEJ (August 1978) 253.
Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V., F.: Transient Pressure
Analysis for Fractured Wells, JPT (September 1981) 1749.
Guppy, K. H., Cinco-Ley, H. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: Effect of
Non-Darcy Flow on the Constant-Pressure Production of
Fractured Wells, SPEJ (June 1981) 390.
Guppy, K. H., Kumar, S. and Kagawan, V.D.: Pressure
Transient Analysis for Fractured Wells Producing at Constant
Pressure, SPEFE (March 1988) 169.
Cinco-Ley, H., Samarriego-V., F. and Rodriguez, F.:
Application of the Pseudolinear-Flow Model to the PressureTransient Analysis of Fractured Well, SPEFE (Sept. 1989)
438.
Cutler, R.A. et al : Fracture Conductivity Comparison of
Ceramic Proppants, SPfiJ (April 1985) 157.
Gidley, J.L. et al.: Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing,
Monograph Volume 12, Henry L Doherty Series, SPE of

SPE 36878

LONG-TERM HYDRAULIC FRACTURE CONDUCTIVITIES

AIME, New York, Dallas ( 1989) 109.

9

Secombe,

J.C. and Anderson,

26.

G. E.: Selection

of a Fracture

Proppant in a Tight Gas Field, Bauxite vs. Sand, Wamsutter

Are& Wyoming,
paper SPE 10827 presented at the 1982
SPEIDOE
Unconventional
Gas
Recovery
Symposium,
10

Pittsburgh, May 16-18.

Soliman, MY.,
Venditto,

12

C.T.

and Steanson,

The Key to Successful

1985) 2163.

13

14

Selection:

JPT (December

Fracture Stimulation,

International
Meeting
on Petroleum
Engineering,
Beijing,
China, March 17-20.
McDaniel, B. W.: Conductivity
Testing of Proppants at High
Temperature and Stress, paper SPE 15067 presented at the
Regional

April 2-4, 1986.

Penny, G. S.. An
Conditions

and

Meet!ng

Evaluation
Fracturing

Depth, m
Net thickness, m
Porosity, fraction
Permeability, 103 ~m2
Initial pressure, MPa
Temperature, C
Minimal horizontal
stress, MPa
Dewpoint pressure at
reservoir temperature,
MPa

of the SPE, C3akland, CA,

of the Effect
Fluids

Technical Conference and Exhibition

September 27-30, 1987.

of Environmental

Upon

the

Lcmg-Term

Gidley, J.L.: A Method for Correcting

18

Conductivity
for Non-Darcy Flow Effects, SPEPE (November
1991)391.
IIolditch,
S.A. and f31akeley, D. M.: FIow Characteristics of

Dimensionless

SPEF&F (February 1995) 21.

Cikes, M. and Economies,
Naturally

M. J.:

Economies,

22
23

Fracturing

Fissured, Gas-Condensate

M. J., Cikes, M. ef al: The Stimulation

Gas-Condensate Well,

Prooeriies

24

25

of

Gas Gravity (to air)

Temperature, C
Pseudo-Critical P, MPa
Pseudo-Critical T, K
Gas Viscosity, cp
Total compressibility,
MPal
co m Dosition (mole O/iJ
H2S
Nz
Coz
CH4
C2H6
C3He
I-C4H10
n-CdHIO
i-C5Hq2
n-C~H12
CeH14
C7H15
CaH1a
CgH20
CIOHZZ.

lligh-

Reservoirs,
of a Tight,

SfEFE

Double-Porosity

(March

Behavior,

Ben Naceur, K. and Economies,

M. J.: Production
From
Naturally
Fissured
Reservoirs
Intercepted
by a Vertical
Iiydraulic Fracture, SPEFE (December 1989) 550.
Beier, R. A.. Pressure-Transient
Model
for a Vertically
Fractured Well in a Fractal Reservoir,

55-66

54-55

65-69

36.7

35.9

MQ!!fE

KalinovaG

Skad

GEt!dw

Cikes, M. et u/.: A Successful Treatment of Formation Damage

Caused by High-Density Brine, .SPEPE(May 1990) 175.
[[ouze, O. P., Home R.N. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: PressureTransient
Response of an lntini[e-Conductivity
Vertical
Fracture in a Reservoir
With
SPEFE (September 1988) 5 If)

3325-3560
30-50
0.04-0.06
0.2-0,35
44.5-47,5
180

TABLE 2- RESERVOIR FLUIDS PROPERTIES AND

COMPOSITIONS

SPEPE (May 1992) 226.

Very-High-Temperature
1989) 63.

3307-3378
33-1oo
0,07-0.1
0.1-0.2
46.0-46.5
179

m
G@tdFsQ
3785-3690
41-55
0.04-005
0,05-0.2
47.5 -50.0
195

Fracture

1[ydraulic Fracture Proppants Subjected to Repeated Production

Cycles, SPEPE (February 1992) 15.
Gidley, J.L., Penny, G,S. and McDaniel,
RR.: Effect of
Proppant Failure on Conductivity
of Propped Fractures,

Tcmperature,
21

= kg
=m2
= Pa

of the SPE, Dallas, TX,

17

20

=0

TABLE 1- RESERVOIRS DATA

Kalinovac
N!.QL!e

Conductivity
of Proppants, paper SPE 16900 presented at the
62nd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE,
Dallas, TX, Sep[ember 27-30, 1987
16, Parker, M.A. and McDaniel,
B. W.: Fracturing
Treatment
Design Improved by Conductivity
measurement Under In-Situ
paper SPE 16901 presented at tbe 62nd Annual
Conditions,

19

= m3
= Pa
= Pas
=m
= m3

Cobb, S.L. and IFarell, J.J.: Evaluation of Long-Term Proppant

Stability,
paper SPE 14133 presented at the SPE 1986

56th California

15

R. E,: Proppant

Jones, JR. and Raghavan, R.: Interpretation

of Flowing Well
Response in Gas-Condensate Wells, SPEFE (September 1988)

S1 Metric Conversion Factore

bbl x 1.589873
E01
E+05
bar x 1.0
Cpxl.o
E03
ft X 3.048
E-01
ft3 x 2.831685
E-02
F (F-32)/l .8
Ibm x 4.535924
E-01
md x 9.869233
E16
psi x 6.894757
E+03

J.J. and SIusher, G. L.: Evaluating

Conference, Midland, TX, March 1984.

Reinicke, K.M. ef al.: Interpretation
of Buildup Data Obtained
From MHF Wells [n Northern Germany, ./P7 (December 1985)
2173.
Montgomery,

578.

Fractured Well Performance Using Type Curves, paper SPE

12598 presented at the 1984 Permian Basin Oil & Gas Recovery
11

UNDER EXTREME CONDITIONS

.YPEFE (June 1994) 122.

65

0.8253
179
4.95
209.8
0.024

0.9467
180
4.59
231.88
0.0279

1.047
195
4.48
239.75
003

0.0143

0.0125

00107

0.007
1.64
21.647
71.17
3,359
1.017
0.254
0.227
0.088
0.057
0.109
0.061
0.041
0.044
0.279

0,007
1.382
12,218
70.373
6.762
2.325
0.619
0.724
0.374
0.323
0.715
0.796
0.553
0.452
2.386

0.0174
0799
8.732
69.918
7.421
2,402
0.727
0.886
0.485
0.447
1.12
1.221
0.931
0.559
4.334

MARIN CIKES

SPE 36878

TABLE 3- DESIGNED FRACTURES PARAMETERS

Kalmovac-t
Molve-25
Mk!l
m
Mw.&15

TABLE 4- BUILDUP TEST DATA FOR WELL

MOLVE-25

Gda!21
Fracture
length, m
Fracture
Conductivityy,
103 pmzm
Proppant
Concentration
kglmz
Proppant
Pumped, Mg
Proppant
Type
Proppant
Size, mm

400

140

280

MQlM4J5
After Cleanup
After 2 years
After 3 years
After 4 years
After 8 years
MQ@25
After Cleanup
After 2 years
After 3 years
After 5 years
After 6 years
~
vac-~
After Cleanup
After 3 years
After 4 years
After 6 years
After 8 years
Stari Gradac -1
After Cleanup
After 1 year
After 5 years
After 7 years

160

127

122

174

137

8.4

6.9

12.3

8.5

628
Zirconium
Oxide

196
Sintered
Bauxite

321
Sintered
Bauxite

164
Sintered
Bauxite

0.42-0.84

0.42-0.84

0.42-0.84

0.42-0.64

TABLE 5- PRODUCTION
Wel I Name and
Time of
Analvsis

Shut-in Time

Pressur?

Shut-in Time

0.0

12
14
16
20
24
30
36
42
48
54
60
66
72
80
91
100
110

398.8
401.5
403.3
404.3
404.4
403.9
403.2
404.8
405.6
405.9
406.1
406.3
406,4
406,5
406.6
406,8
406.8
4069
4072
407.2
407.4
407,6
407.8
408.4
409
409.2
409,6
410.2

0.01
0,02
0,04
0,1
0.23
0.4
0.42
0.44
0,47
0.51
0.54
0.59
0.67
0.76
0,81
0.66
1
1.33
1.67
2
2,46
3
4
5
5.64
8
10

410.5
411
41f.4
411,9
412.2
412,7
413.4
414
414.4
4149
415.4
4~5.6
416
416,3
416.7
416.6
417.2
4~7.4
417.6
417.9
418.3
418.7
419.1
419,25
419.4
419.6
419.8
420.2

120
130
145
160
175

190
205
220
240
260
275

DATA AND PRESSURE TRANSIENT ANALYSIS RESULTS

Gas

Ion
Rate.
Co n densate

m~~
W-

!lKEPJ
m

&

L%;

xfJl

kf~r+

440,000
234,670
207,620
179,500
110,000

25
16.77
12,48
9.6
4.2

15
11.17
22,32
16.73
28.4

36.92
32.69
29.2
28.88
15.45

46.44
48.03
48.04
48.19
47.57

0.42
0.23
0,2
0.15
0,0007

19.8
26.6
25.6
34.8
164

253,200
254,400
234,600
227,400
274,000

9.4
22.56
21.28
16.9
19,97

10,2
9.12
10,56
10.19
14.66

39.88
33.52
32,16
27.07
23,05

42.29
38.59
35,88
34.17
29.63

0.59
03
0.67
0.25
0.72

132,300
97,000
104,200
93,100
28,000

120
75.1
88.7
86.0
21.0

7
5.5
4.7
5.16
39.0

43.31
40.87
36.94
30.3
21.74

46,31
45.22
43.31
38.96
38.32

81,890
134,800
42,200
23,000

77.55
137,56
50.1
27.0

14.1
13.78
4.0
4.0

44.75
37.36
23.31
14.22

50.18
53.04
46.62
40.72

Product

ihQJ!@

66

Cu

Mat

chtng
XLCO

y$3m2m

8,000
6,000
127
103
4.2

236
205
191
124
42

49
20
12
12
15

54
101
46.5
98.6
13,6

25
38
17
38
2.8

142
145
102

102
86
88

2.27
1.31
0.88
0.69
0,24

0,67
14.2
15
7.2
s=-2.6

0.056
0.009
0.093
0.067

183
266
S=-3.O
S=O.5

133

109

139

60

218
93
12
7.9

535 ?
183
166
96
46

429

100
60

191
92
132
85

116
97
11
22

99
73
16
18

SPE 36878

LONG-TERM HYDRAULIC FRACTURE CONDUCTIVITIES

UNDER EXTREME CONDITIONS

.....
r

35

~1

WHFP

#\

-CONDENSATE

-.

30

- WATER

l\
I

+ ,,

1-

1
/.
I
r-k ---

/\
,

C
\

4
I
I

/./.

\ /\\

\l

-.

I
I

---i

1000

500

1500

2000

2500

PRODUCING TIME (days)

Fig. 1- Post-frac production history for well Molve-25

f!aftuli
Cwaw
F,*Id
*11

L.a.-L09

P lot

M3L2WF1

lN,-WTIVLIM

T@st

MST

FRW

PKIVE

ht.

28,07

.!989.

W-25

1%.s.s

Na+twltn

Loq-Loq
cOmP,rN

PW,l

Field
*1

KCWICCU

Plot

mzwss

lW-WWTAFIIN

lest

PO?JTFRACP2W 1

KIW

ht.

2e.07.

P!fx-2s

1989.

e..

HECWWICA

Hatch

.a117E-s

Match

. 94bSE-6

106
.

.
1

.
.

..

-$

1./

A
-2

10-

10

Flcu

Po!-ind

ht.
Rat.
P

399.0

10

102

bt,h

)htch

. J692E-5

1862E-

1 *-1

Z@
F1..

IJ1.1

bar

c a

Sta-lw
Hal?

1M9th

W
cm

e
s

lg.

b,.

Fin.

tELL

*1*

Im-lgtll

c
x=
9CD

cm
skins

e.xw

ti.

k.h

*
3299

2s0.939

mob)litw

In...

-b41-2/,p

*ig.

PSS

Frac

<cd

6.DW

131.332

1.22293
0
a
15.07,0?

d..

e,

15W1

&,3214

k,mu
R

on...
L& mbda

-1?96

k-l

Idinit.

XIJwmv

StW.w

58.6292
n.

k,mu

83!

Z-Phi

ESEW21R

0.1

CI!596

0. 7?774

k.h
k

Inv..i

WI.

F...

bar

9wt.ar

54.

+< D
%1

R-ab, l,tw

cd

In+in Lt.

BmmruY

Prvswe

Wzdag

398.0

SEWIR

bar

11

@ WS/dav

-LU,-2T<P

Wav

422.725
e.

10

11

,1

%,-

W&

248

%oothllw

~,

Clwla
dt-e

10

111.246

e, 5349
2715E-4

SfiPHIR

VI .60

Fig. 3- Log-log plot of pressure response of the well Molve-25,

matched with the model of finite-conductivity fracture in doubleporosity, infinite reservoir with pseudo-steady stats of flow, and
match results.

Fig. 2- Log-log plot of pressure rssponss of the well Molve-25,

matched &th
the model of finite-conductivity
fracture
in
homogeneous, infinite reservoir, and match results.

67

MARIN CIKES

Naft.Plin

Flwtble

cm.ny

Test

l!KVf

*11

Date

WY-25

m.?.

FQST

FRiX

N8?t.plm

ma-l

Plot

MI-* TwL]N

Fi,ld

SPE 36878

Flexible

CoI19arW

PBU/1

F,.ld

20.07.1999.

*11

MECWICI?J.

0.91E

[NwN13FTW

Plot

rw_2wF 1

IN

T.,t

POST FRfu PUJ,l

tWU2

D.t*

28.87.

MM-25

GWJW

lm.

ttECl!ANICIX

*07

12.9E+L27

0. C2EW2?
Y
;
0. EJ%.e?
:
0. ax.e7

0, E5E+07

. .

.
0, S5E+e?
T

-s

Flexible

LiIW

~ -18

-1
l/4r(

Flow Period #
Rat ,
Rat. Clung.
P * dt-B

1
&2)!

Flw

2
0 kWda
260 h~,dav
39S.8 bar
i

Intwc.pt
.&.
~
->

426.

U
Rat .

-13
KR

-12

-11

-10

-9

2
0

O!n3/da

2b8

R dt=O

-14
r(m),

Flm3.dw

398,8

bar

m(,

k.xF.

?99

0.3s63

x+-

54.0506

+<d

1.6S4S9

-)

Fig. 4- Linear plot of real gas pseudopressure

superposition tires for WWIIMolve-25.

$2074.95

t
xF

E,

96E+87

3i591

.29

lfk-O.5S.53d

-1W6

Sw(r(dt))

s 1.,,

Intcrc.,

.?2S2+S7
kf.

Period

Rat Chmg.

v, SuP(l/+(dt))
Sbv . 19if*

.(P)

-15

H>14

lm-.qth

Xi

71.%32

SW141R Vl, &@

vs. quarter root of

Fig. 5- Linear plot of real gas pseudopressure

superposition time for well Molve-25.

vs. square root of