Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Abstract
The primary objective of hydraulic fracturing is to create a
propped fracture with sufficient conductivity and length to
maximize or at least optimize well performance. In permeable
reservoirs where transient flow is short lived, a fracture with a
Dimensionless Fracture Capacity, FCD, of 2 is required to meet
the design objective. In low permeability formations where
transient flow can be extensive and where fracture fluid
cleanup requires additional conductivity, an FCD in excess of
10 is desired. As a result, reservoir permeability becomes/is a
key fracture design and analysis parameter. In higher
permeability applications, permeability is determined simply,
inexpensively, and routinely through conventional well testing
techniques. Conventional well testing in tight formation gas
reservoirs has not been proven as effective, can be expensive
(cost of lengthy tests and production deferment), and is quite
simply not routinely utilized. These reservoirs are often non
productive without fracture stimulation and post fracture
stimulation testing requires extensive shut-in time as the time
to pseudo radial flow is proportional to the square of the
fracture half-length. As a result, the development and routine
use of any technique to determine permeability in these tight
formation gas reservoirs has great value.
In addition, without adequate well testing techniques and
capabilities in tight gas reservoirs, the engineer is left with the
use of log derived values of permeability which can often
overstate in-situ permeability by factors of five to ten.
Determination of in-situ permeability not only aids the well
completion and stimulation but can be used to calibrate the log
and core derived estimates of permeability improving
performance predictions and field development. Prior papers
have developed the use of After Closure Analysis techniques
in permeable reservoirs, this paper will show the application
Larry K. Britt, Jack Jones, Harmon Heidt, Imtiaz Adil, Patrick Kelly, Dan Sparkes, and Bruce Collin
SPE 90865]
SPE 90865
Application of After Closure Analysis Techniques to Determine Permeability in Tight Formation Gas Reservoirs
Larry K. Britt, Jack Jones, Harmon Heidt, Imtiaz Adil, Patrick Kelly, Dan Sparkes, and Bruce Collin
1200
1000
800
12 00 0
0 .6
10 00 0
0 .5
8 00 0
0 .4
6 00 0
0 .3
200
20
40
60
Time, Days
80
100
0
120
0 .2
G
4 00 0
P
( 0 3
400
3/ )
600
Rate, MscfD
SPE 90865]
Qs c (N )
2 00 0
0 .1
0
0
20
40
60
80
10 0
12 0
Time (Hrs .)
SPE 90865
Application of After Closure Analysis Techniques to Determine Permeability in Tight Formation Gas Reservoirs
pressure behavior.
Test 3: Impulse Test with Nitrogen
The next test conducted on a nearby well was an impulse
injection test with nitrogen. This test was chosen because it
was believed that it would better address the wellborereservoir communication issue. Once again, a service rig had
to be utilized to execute this test. In addition, an elaborate test
string was utilized to complete all functions at once as
required. The TCP guns, packer, and other elements of the test
string were tripped in the hole. The cement displacement
water was circulated out of the hole and displaced with
nitrogen. Attempts were made to orient the perforating guns in
the direction of maximum horizontal stress and set the packer
simultaneously. After 2 days, the operation was stopped and
the packer was set with the guns in the incorrect orientation. A
wellhead isolation tool had to be installed at surface due to the
high pressures needed for the test. The well was pressured up
with nitrogen to well in excess of reservoir pressure. This
detonated the pressure actuated TCP guns and initiated the
test. Once again, there was no definitive indication that the
guns had detonated as no pressure losses were visible on the
surface gauges for the first several hours. The well was left
shut in for 6 days and remained in wellbore storage throughout
the test. As a result, no permeability information was obtained.
The cost of the test was $128,000. This cost included the
associated well work described previously in addition to the
rental of a tree saver for the extremely high test pressures.
Figure 5: Log-Log diagnostic Plot (Test 4 CCDST)
102
Storage 1
101
101
102
103
104
20.0
ta , hr
BHP (MPa)
10-1
25.0
10-2
30.0
35.0
10-1
500
1000
1500
2000
T ime (min)
2500
3000
3500
Larry K. Britt, Jack Jones, Harmon Heidt, Imtiaz Adil, Patrick Kelly, Dan Sparkes, and Bruce Collin
50 100
1.0
0.50
dP/dP'
2.0
5.0
0.20 0.50 1.0 2.0
0.20
0.020 0.050
10
20
19.5
5.0
PRes
0.0020
0.0100
0.050
5.0 10
20
50 100 200
More Smoothing
M-R (MPa) =
kh/mu =
kh (md-ft) =
k (md) =
P(t) vs FL
828.9
0.53
0.01
0.003
25
P(t) MPa
30
35
Radial Flow
Pi (MPa) =
19.20
Volume (CuM) = 0.34
SPE 90865]
20
50000
dP
5.0
dP'
0.042
1000
2000
2.0
0.035
1.0
0.028
dP/dP'
0.021
0.50
0.014
FR or FL
500
0.20
0.007
20000
0.000
10000
-0.007
FR:828.9 FL:0.0
5000
-0.014
dP/dP'
2.0
5.0
10
20
50
100
200
500
1/F-L^2
P(t) vs FR
P(t) vs FL
M-R (KPa) =
kh/mu =
kh (md-ft) =
k (md) =
190070.0
5.32
0.11
0.008
25000
P(t) KPa
30000
Radial Flow
Pi (KPa) =
17999.97
Volume (CuM) =
2.00
20000
0.2
0.0
0.4
FR or FL
FR:190070.0
FL:0.0
0.6
SPE 90865
Application of After Closure Analysis Techniques to Determine Permeability in Tight Formation Gas Reservoirs
Larry K. Britt, Jack Jones, Harmon Heidt, Imtiaz Adil, Patrick Kelly, Dan Sparkes, and Bruce Collin
160
140
P* = 10469.715 KPa
kh = 0.234 md-ft
k
= 0.071 md
Skin = 71.456
Flow Eff = 0.078
120
100
12000
60
20000
28000
10
dP/dP'
5.0
dP'
5.0
dP
9.9
1.0
0.50
0.20
0.50
1.0
2.0
5.0
10
20
1/F-L^2
Less Smoothing
More Smoothing
100 200
P(t) vs FR
12
Radial Flow
Pi (MPa) =
9.88
Volume (Liters) = 30.00
M-R (MPa) =
kh/mu =
kh (md-ft) =
k (md) =
0.4
22.40
0.34
0.102
2.0
11
5.0
10
P(t) MPa
20
13
50
14
P(t) vs FL
10
0.50 1.0
dP/dP'
2.0
2.0
test even though the shut-in time to flow time (tsi/ti) ratio was
only 4.
Figures 11A and 11B show the log-log diagnostic plot and
horner analysis for method 1. As shown, the data was
transitioning from wellbore storage to pseudo-radial flow at
the end of the test. Further, the horner analysis with the
downhole gas flow rate assumption (Method 1) indicated a
reservoir permeability of 0.07md.
0.50 1.0
300
200
Time (min)
100
5000000
0.0100
0 4000
Pressure (KPa)
SPE 90865]
80
0.0020 0.0050
1.0
2.0
5.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
FR or FL
FR:0.4 FL:0.0
2.0
2.5
SPE 90865
Application of After Closure Analysis Techniques to Determine Permeability in Tight Formation Gas Reservoirs
5.0
0.50
10
1.0
dP/dP'
20
2.0
dP'
0.20
5.0
50
dP/dP'
1.0
2.0
5.0
10
1/F-L^2
L
thi
thi
25
Radial Flow
Pi (MPa) =
11.70
Volume (CuM) = 33.66
M-R (MPa) =
kh/mu =
kh (md-ft) =
k (md) =
43.1
429.50
6.44
0.131
15
20
P(t) MPa
30
35
P(t) vs FL
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
FR or FL
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
FR:43.1 FL:0.0
Larry K. Britt, Jack Jones, Harmon Heidt, Imtiaz Adil, Patrick Kelly, Dan Sparkes, and Bruce Collin
SPE 90865]
2.0
dP/dP'
1.0
10
0.20
20
50
0.50
100 200
500 1000
dP'
5.0
5000
dP/dP'
5.0
2.0
5.0
10
20
50
1/F-L^2
100
200
500
1000
9000
P(t) vs FR
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
P(t) vs FL
Radial Flo w
Pi (psi) =
5610.00
Volume (M-Gal) = 0.43
6000
P(t) psi
10
-0.2
0.0
0.2
FR or FL
0.4
0.6
FR:106261.0 FL:0.0
100
GR, AP I Units
200 0
0 .5 0
Ne utro n, P hi
1 .0 0 0
5 0 .0 0
Re s is tivity, Ohm s
100
SPE 90865
3.
4.
5.
Application of After Closure Analysis Techniques to Determine Permeability in Tight Formation Gas Reservoirs
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the management of BP and BPCanada Energy Company for permission to publish this work.
In addition, the authors wish to thank Dr. Ken Nolte for his
continued development and tireless advocation of this valuable
technology.
Nomenclature
A = area, L2
F (t ) = time function, Eq. 18, dimensionless
L(t ) = time function, Eq. C-5, dimensionless
N = number of spatial cells, dimensionless
P = defined by C-28, T
R(t ) = time function, Eq. C-9, dimensionless
E ' = plane strain modulus, M / LT 2
C R = reservoir fluid-loss coefficient, L / T1/2
11
h f = fracture height, L
h0 = initial fracture height, L
k = permeability, L2
x = distance from wellbore, L
w = fracture width, L
m H = Horner slope, M / LT 2
m L = linear-flow slope, p vs F, M / LT 2
m LL = log-log slope, App. D (dimensionless)
m R = radial flow slope, p vs F2, M / LT 2
p = pressure, M / LT 2
p * = corrected slope of G-plot, M / LT 2
p D = dimensionless reservoir pressure
p R = pressure of reservoir beyond filtrate, M / LT 2
pc = fracture closure pressure, M / LT 2
p f = fracture pressure, M / LT 2
pi = initial reservoir pressure, M / LT 2
q i = injection rate, L3 / T
t = time since pumping began, T
t D = dimensionless time for radial flow (App. D)
t R = time of recession (App. B) and of ramp (App. D), T
t a = apparent time, or time of fracture arrival, T
t c = time of fracture closure, T
t knee = time of transition-flow knee, T
t p = time of pumping, T
x f = final fracture half-length, L
x f a = apparent value of, xf, L
x t = fracture half-length at time, t, L
t = t t p , time since end of pumping, T
t c = t c t p , time for closure period, T
12
Larry K. Britt, Jack Jones, Harmon Heidt, Imtiaz Adil, Patrick Kelly, Dan Sparkes, and Bruce Collin
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
SPE 90865]
SPE 90865
Application of After Closure Analysis Techniques to Determine Permeability in Tight Formation Gas Reservoirs
13
38. Nolte, K. G., Maniere, J. L., and Owens, K. A.:AfterClosure Analysis of Fracture Calibration Tests, paper SPE
38676, 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Tx, October 5-8, 1997.
39. Nolte, K. G.:Background for After-Closure Analysis of
Calibration Tests, unsolicited SPE paper 39407 (July,
1997).
40. Gulrajani, S. N., Vasudevan, S., and Ganguly,
U.:Enhanced Calibration Treatment Analysis for
Optimizing Fracture Performance: Validation and Field
Examples, paper SPE 50611, 1998 SPE Eurpean
Petroleum Conference held in The Hague, The
Netherlands, 20-22 October, 1998.
41. Nolte, K. G.:Determination of Fracture Parameters from
Fracturing Pressure Decline, paper SPE 8341, 1979 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas,
NV, Sept. 23-26.
42. Nolte, K. G.:Fracturing Design Considerations Based on
Pressure Analysis, paper SPE 10911, 1982. Publishedin
SPEFE (Feb. 1988) 22.
43. Nolte, K. G. and Smith, M. B.:Interpretation of Fracturing
Pressures, JPT (Sept. 1981) 1767-75.
44. Talley, G. R., Swindell, T. M., Waters, G. A., and Nolte, K.
G.:Field Applicaion of After-Closure Analysis of Fracture
Calibration Tests, paper SPE 52220, 1999 SPE MidContinent Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, March 28-31, 1999.
45. Chipperfield, S. T. and Britt, L. K.:Application of AfterClosure Analysis for Improved Fracture Treatment
Optimization: A Cooper Basin Case Study, paper SPE
60316, 2000 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Low
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium held in Denver, CO,
March 12-15, 2000.
46. Gulrajani, S. N., Tibbles, R. J., and Nolte, K.
G.:Evaluation of Calibration Treatments for Frac-Pack
Completions in Offshore West Africa, paper SPE 38192,
1997 European Formation Damage Symposium, The
Hague, Netherlands, June 2-3.
47. May, E. A., Britt, L. K., and Nolte, K. G.:The Effect of
Yield Stress on Fracture Fluid Cleanup, paper SPE 38619
presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 5-8.
48. Neghaban, S., Britt, L. K., Phinicie, T. H., and Nolte, K.
G.:The Effect of Yield Stress On Fracture Fluid Cleanup,
Inclusion of Gravity Effects, paper SPE 49038 presented
at the 1997 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, TX, Oct. 5-8, 1997.
49. Willberg, D. M., Card, R. J., Britt, L. K., Samuel, M. M.,
England, K. E., Cawiezel, K. E., and Krus, H.:
Determination of the Effect of Formation Water on
Fracture Fluid Cleanup Through Field Testing in the East
Texas Cotton Valley, paper SPE 38620 presented at the
1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, Oct. 5-8.
14
Larry K. Britt, Jack Jones, Harmon Heidt, Imtiaz Adil, Patrick Kelly, Dan Sparkes, and Bruce Collin
SPE 90865]
Table 1: Case History One- Summary of Tests, Results, Costs, And Assessment of TFG Permeability Test Criteria
Tst
#
Test Type
Perm
md
Core
Perm
md
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.011
0.011
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.0078
0.008
0.0068
0.0125
0.0047
0.007
0.0552
0.010
0.015
0.008
0.076
Actual
Cost
M$
5
0
84
128
106
62
15
15
7
7
7
7
7
Cost
Production
Deferrment
Timeliness
Operational
Simplicity
Very Good
Excellent
Very Poor
Very Poor
Very Poor
Poor
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Poor
Excellent
Fair
Fair
Very Poor*
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Very Poor
Very Poor
Good
Good
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Poor
Very Poor
Poor
Excellent
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
* PID was aborted without results, extension of shut-in time to nearly seven months resulted in significant production deferment
Injection
Rate,
BPM
Injection
Time,
min
Cumulative
Time,
min
Stage
Volume,
Bbls
Cumulative
Volume,
Bbls
1
2
3
4
2.00
1.00
0.67
0.50
1
2
3
4
1
3
6
10
2
2
2
2
2
4
6
8