SPE 50421

Heavy Crude Production from Shallow Formations: Long Horizontal Wells Versus
Horizontal Fractures
Peter P. Valk and Michael J. Economides, SPE, Texas A&M University

Copyright 1998, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1998 SPE International Conference on
Horizontal Well Technology held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 14 November 1998.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
This paper studies the feasibility of producing heavy oil from
shallow formations using either long horizontal wells or short
horizontal wells fractured horizontally. The suggested
withdrawal configuration provides excellent well / fracture
communication and additional sand control. The problem of
optimum proppant placement is solved in two steps. First,
finite conductivity fracture performance is considered in
general terms. It is shown that the performance can be
described as a function of two dimensionless parameters.
Optimum conditions are derived. Then the solution is applied
to the horizontal fracture configuration. The performance is
compared to that of a "long" horizontal well.
Introduction
The uniqueness of many heavy crude formations is that they
are shallow and thus likely to accept horizontal fractures when
fracture treated. For any fractured well the performance
depends to a great extent on the character of the fracture-well
intersection. This issue has been less emphasized in the
literature, because a vertical fracture spreading out from a
vertical well provides excellent well-fracture communication.
If either the well or the fracture is not vertical, the intersection
becomes a great problem. Simple calculations shown in Ref 1
demonstrate that the emerging choke effect can be detrimental.
We can label such fracture-well configurations as
mismatching. A typical mismatch is a horizontal well with a
transverse vertical fracture. While in principle a carefully
oriented well may provide an alignment of the well and the
fracture to be created, in practice this is difficult to achieve
even if the orientation of the minimum stress is well known.

Similarly, a horizontal fracture intersecting a vertical well

is a mismatch, because of the same type of choke effect at the
intersection.
Once a formation is identified to accept a horizontal
fracture the appropriate well orientation is also horizontal. The
resulting configuration is not burdened by the intersection
problem, similarly to the well-studied vertical well / vertical
fracture case. It is a forgiving configuration with respect to the
uncertainties regarding the knowledge of the principal stresses
and their exact orientation.The benefit of horizontally
fracturing a horizontal well is not just the incremental
productivity index but, also and very importantly, the
additional control of sand production. Many shallow heavy
crude formations are largely unconsolidated. If during drilling
the well can be maintained in stable condition it can be
fracture treated back to back. The created fracture provides
sand control indirectly, by reducing drawdown in the vicinity
of the well and directly, by excerting back stress on the
formation.
Therefore, the fact that certain heavy crude formations
accept horizontal fractures is not a drawback, that rather an
advantage. In this paper we quantify this advantage in terms of
productivity. We make use of the similarity of the two
matching configurations: we describe the performance of a
horizontal well - horizontal fracture configuration using results
obtained for the well studied vertical well - vertical fracture
case.
Our investigation is restricted to pseudosteady state
behavior. Of course, since we are limiting the case to
pseudosteady state, we do not get the major early-time
benefits of transient behavior which is the main component of
NPV. Since this work is concerned about comparing
configurations, this is not an important issue, because the
relative performance of configurations is basically the same in
the various flow regimes. To our knowledge no case has ever
been demonstrated, where a certain withdrawal geometry, A,
worked better in transient flow regime while a certain other
withdrawal geometry, B, worked better for pseudosteady state
in the same drainage volume.
For a single well in a closed system the pseudosteady state
performance can be characterized by a single quantity, the
productivity index:

J=

P.P. VALK AND M.J. ECONOMIDES

q
2kh
J D ............................................ (1)
=
p p wf 1 B

where JD is called the dimensionless productivity index. For a

fully penetrating vertical well located in a bounded region the
dimensionless productivity index can be given in terms of the
shape factor as:

1 4 A

J D = ln
2
2 e C A rw

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

Hence the shape factor, CA is used extensively to describe

the performance. Once we widen the horizon of possibilities
by horizontal wells, fractured wells or any other withdrawal
geometry, it is less convenient to use shape factors because rw
might have no meaning. Many authors have attempted to
combine the effects of the withdrawal/drainage geometry by
introducing a varsity of means as apparent wellbore radius
and/or pseudo skin factor. The dimensionless productivity
index, JD is a more general performance index and can be used
for any configuration.
For any drainage volume and withdrawal geometry one
can express the late-time dimensionless pressure solution of
the constant rate production case in the form:

pD =

2kh
( pi pwf ) = 2tDA + 1/ J D ................... (3)
1 B q

For a fully penetrating vertical well in a bounded rectangular

rectangular reservoir (see Fig. 1) Ozkan1 derived

J D = 1 / a[x D , y D , x wD , y wD , y eD ] .................................... (4)

where the influence function is given as

1 y
y + y2
a[x D , y D , x wD , y wD , y eD ] = 2yeD D + D 2 wD
2 y eD
3 yeD

t
2 m cos (mx D ) cos (mx wD )
m =1 m

and

tm =

cosh[m ( yeD yD ywD )] + cosh(m [ yeD yD + ywD ])

sinh(myeD )
......................... (5)

Here (xwD; ywD) is the well location and (xD; yD) is a

conveniently selected point on the circumference of the well.
The reservoir dimension, xe is selected as the base for

SPE 50421

dimensionless length. Computational details related to the

calculation of the infinite sum are given in Appendix A.
In this work we consider technical optimization problems
which can be solved using Eq. 1. Technical optimization
means that we wish to maximize JD under well defined
constraints expressed in terms of basic reservoir, fracture and
well parameters.
Technical Optimization of a Matching Well-Fracture
System
For simplicity first we consider a vertical well intersecting a
rectangular vertical fracture which penetrates fully from the
bottom to the top of the formation (Fig. 2). The performance
of this configuration is known to depend on the x-directional
penetration ratio:

Ix =

2x f

...................................................................... (6)

xe

and on the dimensionless fracture conductivity:

C fD =

kf w
kx f

.................................................................. (7)

The key to formulating a meaningful technical

optimization problem is to realize that penetration and
dimensionless fracture conductivity (through width) are
competing for the same resource: the propped volume. Once
the reservoir and proppant properties and the amount of
proppant are fixed, one has to make the optimal compromise
between width and length.
For a bounded reservoir the constraint of fixed propped
volume means that

I x2C fD =

4k f x f w
kxe2

= const ......................................... (8)

In fact one way to interpret the quantity, Ix2CfD is to

consider it as the ratio of propped volume to reservoir volume
(multiplied by the permeability ratio). The optimal
compromise between penetration and width occurs where JD is
maximum under the constraint Eq. 8.
A convenient algorithm to calculate JD is described in
Appendix B. Figure 3 shows JD represented in a traditional
manner, as a function of CfD with Ix as a parameter. Similar
"productivity increase" graphs are numerous in the published
literature (Refs. 3-4). The curves flatten out at large CfD, and
the limiting values plotted as a function of penetration ratio
delineate the "infinite conductivity" fracture performance.
Figure 4 shows the dimensionless productivity index of the
infinite conductivity fracture. The other curve shown in the
figure describes the performance of a hypothetical well
located in the center of the square reservoir with a

SPE 50421 HEAVY CRUDE PRODUCTION FROM SHALLOW FORMATIONS: LONG HORIZONTAL WELLS VERSUS HORIZONTAL FRACTURES 3

dimensionless radius Ix /4. As seen from the figure, the

equivalent wellbore radius concept for an infinite conductivity
fracture (r'w = xf /2) is valid if the penetration ratio is less than
0.2.
Neither Fig. 3 nor Fig. 4 are very helpful to solve the
constrained optimization problem. For this purpose in Figure 5
we show the same results, but the individual curves represent
JD at a fixed value of Ix2CfD. Therefore, a given curve
represents the fracture performance at a fixed volume ratio.
As seen from the figure, for a low value of Ix2CfD (low
propped volume) the optimal compromise happens at
CfD = 1.6. This is not surprising, because we know that in an
unbounded reservoir CfD = 1.6 is the optimum, irrespectively
of the propped volume, as pointed out first by Prats5 .
The behavior at large Ix2CfD is not a surprise either. We
know that the absolute maximum for JD is 6/ = 1.909 (This
value is the productivity index for a perfect linear flow in a
square reservoir, see e.g. Ref 6.) When the propped volume
increases the optimal compromise happens at larger
dimensionless fracture conductivities because the penetration
cannot exceed unity.
In Fig. 5 we connected the optimum productivity indices
with a curved arrow. This arrow starts at CfD = and ends at
CfD = 1.6. Figure 5 also shows that with Ix2CfD = 1 we are
already "half way" to the theoretical maximum performance
and multiplying the propped volume can bring about only
limited performance increase. In fact when Ix2CfD = 1, the
optimum configuration is CfD = 2.1 and Ix = 0.69. In most
cases the available propped volume allows less than half
penetration, and hence the optimal value of the dimensionless
fracture conductivity is practically the limiting CfD = 1.6.
Performance of a Matching Well-Fracture System
Over a Drainage Area with Low Aspect Ratio
Up to this point we have assumed a square drainage area,
ye = xe. If the ratio ye /xe is less than unity, the theoretical
maximum of JD increases xe /ye times. For instance, for the
aspect ratio xe / ye = 1/10 the dimensionless productivity
index starts at 19 instead of 1.9, at least at full penetration and
infinite conductivity, as seen from Fig. 6. But even the infinite
conductivity fracture loses its advantage quickly if the
penetration decreases. This is shown on Fig. 7, where we
present the actual JD divided by the JD of the same fracture,
but in a square reservoir. For instance at half penetration,
Ix = 0.5, the infinite conductivity fracture in a low aspect ratio
reservoir, xe / ye = 1/10, already underperforms the infinite
conductivity counterpart located in the square reservoir. This
result is reasonable, because we know that an individual well
has lower productivity index in a low aspect ratio area than in
a square, and a low penetration fracture should follow the
same pattern.
Figure 8 is the same type of representation of the results
for xe / ye = 1/10, as Fig. 4 was for the square drainage area.
Instead of Ix2CfD we rather use (xe /ye)Ix2CfD as the curve
parameter, because now this latter quantity represents the ratio
of fracture volume to the reservoir volume, weighted by the

permeability ratio. If this dimensionless number is unity, again

we obtain a JD below 1 and the dependence on CfD follows the
same trend as in the square reservoir case, though the optimum
value is somewhat smaller. In fact what we obtain is that the
fracture to reservoir volume ratio determines both the value of
the optimum dimensionless productivity index and the way it
can be realized.
For realistic fracture to reservoir volume ratios JD is not
very different for a square or a low aspect ratio drainage area.
The very large increase in productivity index can be realized
only with unrealistically large propped volume to reservoir
volume ratios.
Horizontal Fracture Performance
To this point we have considered a vertical well intersecting a
rectangular vertical fracture but physical orientation is not
essential. The problem really solved is more general: a
fracture is located in a bounded region such that the well is
embedded in the fracture plane. In the direction of the well full
penetration can be assumed, and in the perpendicular direction
finite conductivity and partial penetration may play an
important role. In other words, if the performance of a
horizontally fractured horizontal well is to be described, we
can often "turn the reservoir 90 degrees up" and obtain a
configuration for which we have "ready-made" results.
Vertical to horizontal permeability anisotropy can be
incorporated into the aspect ratio.
As an example we consider the data presented in Table 1
and Fig. 9. The left-hand side of Fig. 9 shows the "Real"
configuration. The relatively short horizontal well is
horizontally fractured. The well direction is designated x. In
order to use our previous results we assume that the horizontal
fracture basically fully penetrates the reservoir in the "short" x
direction.
The right-hand side of the figure shows the conceptual
equivalent configuration which is obtained from the original
picture by 90o rotation and (to account for permeability
anisotropy) stretching. The dimensioned productivity indices
of the two configurations are the same, because the two
configurations should produce the same amount of oil. The
dimensionless productivity index of the "Real" configuration
is therefore the JD of the "Conceptual" configuration,
multiplied by the ratio of the "Conceptual" to "Real" reservoir
thickness.
The "Conceptual" configuration has the
aspect ratio:
ye / xe = 160.5/20 = 0.2
penetration ratio:
Ix = 2400 / 2000 = 0.4
dimensionless fracture conductivity:
CfD = (kf w) / (k xf) = (120,0000.1) / (25400) = 1.2

P.P. VALK AND M.J. ECONOMIDES

volume ratio:
(xe / ye) Ix2 CfD = 1
From Fig. 4 this volume ratio would result in a JD = 0.82
for a square drainage area. From Fig. 8 we see that for a low
aspect ratio (1/10) the same volume ratio would result in a
JD = 0.72 so we conclude that the dimensionless productivity
index of the "Conceptual" configuration will be about
JD = 0.75 . The productivity index is
J = 2 k h / (887.22 B ) JD =
2 6.283 25 1000 / (887.22 1.2 500) 0.75 =
0.442 BOPD / psi
The dimensionless productivity index of the "Real"
configuration is JD = 7.5 which gives back the same
Productivity Index in real terms.
"Long" Horizontal Well Performance
The competitive configuration to the previous horizontal
fracture is a "long" horizontal well. In our case we consider a
fully penetrating horizontal well along the longer, 2000 ft,
dimension as shown in Fig. 10 and in Table 2.
We can use the concept of equivalent vertical
configuration again. The right hand side of Fig. 10 shows the
"Conceptual' configuration.
The calculation for the "Conceptual" configuration is a
straightforward application of the algorithm outlined in
Appendix A.:

such a fracture is more difficult in higher than in lower

permeability formation.
For traditional ithdrawal geometries (vertical, horizontal or
deviated well), the severity of a heavy crude formation can be
characterized by the permeability to viscosity ratio. From the
point of view of the suggested configuration (short horizontal
well fractured horizontally), the permeability itself is also an
independent factor of severity. For instance, while a
10 md / 10 cp formation and a 1000 md / 1000 cp formation
are approximately of the same severity as far as a vertical well
is considered, the same horizontal fracture behavior would
require 100 times more proppant (and fracture width) in the
second case.
From these calculations we can conclude that good
candidates for the suggested configuration are

shallow formation, or otherwise proven to accept

horizontal fractures

low permeability/viscosity ratio (on the order of one

md/cp)

moderate permeability

In high permeability formation the long horizontal well is

the more attractive withdrawal geometry. (Though secondary
sand control considerations may dictate other compromise.)
The fracture design should be based on the fracture to
reservoir volume ratio weighted by the permeability ratio.
Individual consideration of penetration or dimensionless
fracture conductivity alone may mislead the design (as in the
case of any other fracturing treatment.)

JD =1 / a( 0.5, (rw+ye/2) / xe, 0.5, (ye/2)/xe, ye/xe ) =

1 / a( 0.5, 0.2 + 0.3 / 1000, 0.5, 0.2, 0.4 ) = 0.15
J = 2 k h / (887.22 B ) JD =
= 2 6.283 25 2000 / (887.22 1.2 500) 0.15 =
0.163 BOPD / psi
For instance, if we assume 1000 psi drawdown, the short
horizontal well fractured horizontally will produce 442 BOPD
while the "long" horizontal well will produce 163 BOPD.
Discussion and Conclusions
This work shows that the horizontal well horizontal fracture
configuration is attractive, because it is not burdened by the
problems of well fracture communication and benefits from
the fact that reservoir thickness is usually less than the
(shorter) side of the drainage area.
Unfavorable vertical to horizontal permeability ratio does
not decrease essentially the attractiveness of the configuration.
A careful examination of the presented example reveals,
however, an important limiting factor. To create an effective
finite conductivity fracture, the dimensionless fracture
conductivity has to be on the order of unity. The realization of

SPE 50421

Nomenclature
a = influence function
Bo = oil formation volume factor, RB/STB
CA = reservoir shape factor (single well)
CfD = dimensionless fracture conductivity
h = formation thickness, ft
Ix = penetration ratio
J = productivity index, BOPD/psi
JD = dimensionless Productivity Index
k = effective permeability, md
kf = fracture permeability, md
Lx = horizontal well length, ft
Ly = horizontal well length, ft
rw = wellbore radius, ft
q = oil flow rate, STB/D
p = average reservoir pressure, psi
pwf = flowing bottomhole pressure, psi
pD = dimensionless pressure
pi = initial reservoir pressure, psi
tDA = dimensionless time w.r.t. area
xf = fracture half length, ft

SPE 50421 HEAVY CRUDE PRODUCTION FROM SHALLOW FORMATIONS: LONG HORIZONTAL WELLS VERSUS HORIZONTAL FRACTURES 5

xe
ye
xw
yw
w

= size of study area in x-direction

= size of study area in y-direction
= individual well x-coordinate
= individual well y-coordinate
= propped fracture width, ft
= Euler's Constant = 0.57721566
= fluid viscosity, cp
= porosity, fraction
= conversion factor (for field units 887.22)

where:

tm
cos(mx D ) cos(mx wD )
m =1 m

S = 2
and:

tm =

cosh[m ( yeD yD ywD )] + cosh(m [ yeD yD + ywD ])

sinh(myeD )

The infinite sum S is replaced by a finite approximation

consisting of three parts:

S = S1 + S 2 + S3
References
1. Mukherjee, H. and Economides, M.J. "A Parametric
Comparison of Horizontal and Vertical Well Performance,"
SPEFE (Jun. 1991) 209-216.
2. Ozkan, E.: "Performance of Horizontal Wells," Ph.D.
Dissertation, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, (1988).
3. McGuire, W.J. and Sikora, V.J.: "The Effect of Vertical
Fractures on Well Productivity," Trans. AIME (1960) 219, 401405.
4. Soliman, M.Y.: "Modifications to Production Increase
Calculations for a Hydraulically Fractured Well," JPT (Jan.
1983) 170-178.
5. Prats, M: "Effect of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir Behavior,
Incompressible Fluid Case," SPEJ (June 1961) 105-118.
6. Miller, F.G.: "The Theory of Unsteady-State Influx of Water in
Linear Reservoir," Journal of the Institute of Petroleum, Vol. 48,
No 467, (Nov. 1962) 365-379.
7. Cinco-Ley, H. and Meng, H.Z.: Pressure Transient Analysis of
Wells with Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture in Double
Porosity Reservoirs, paper SPE 18172 presented at the 63rd
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston,
TX, Oct. 2-5, 1988.

Appendix A: Calculation of the Influence Function

The procedure required to calculate the influence function is
shown below:
1. Making use of the symmetry of this problem, we calculate:
a[x D , y D , x wD , y wD , y eD ] =

a 1 [max( x D , x wD ), max( y D , y wD ), min( x D , x wD ), min( y D , y wD ), y eD ]

2. We exchange the variables x and y if it is convenient:

a1 [x D , y D , x wD , y wD , y eD ] =

a 0 [xD , y D , x wD , y wD , y eD ], if x D x wD > y D y wD
0
otherwise
a [y D , x D , y wD , xwD ,1 / yeD ],
0

3. The function a is calculated as:

a 0 [x D , y D , x wD , y wD , y eD ] =

1 y
y + y2
2yeD D + D 2 wD
2 yeD
3 y eD

+ S

where:
k

tm
cos[mxD ]cos[mxwD ]
m =1 m

S1 = 2
S2 =

tk
2
2
ln [1 cos ( (x D + xwD ))] + [sin ( ( xD + x wD ))]
2

tk
2
2
ln [1 cos ( ( xD xwD ))] + [sin ( ( xD x wD ))]
2

and:
k

1
cos[mx D ]cos[mx wD ] .
m =1 m

S 3 = 2t k

The first part is the usual finite approximation stopping after

the k-th term in the summation. The second and third parts are
obtained from the identity:

1
m cos[mx ]cos[mx ] =
D

m=1

wD

1
2
2
ln [1 cos( ( xD + xwD ))] + [sin ( ( xD + xwD ))]
4
1
2
2
ln [1 cos( ( xD xwD ))] + [sin ( ( xD xwD ))]
4

and from the fact that tm alone converges "fast". The advantage
of this algorithm is that only a few hyperbolic functions have
to be evaluated. The number of terms, k, is usually less than
100.
Appendix B: Calculation of the Finite Conductivity
Fracture Performance
Because of symmetry one quarter of the reservoir and the
fracture is considered. The origin is placed into the center of
the fracture. The x-dimension of the considered part is taken
as unity. The fracture is replaced by nw wells distributed
evenly. The fluxes into the individual wells are considered
unknowns. The necessary number of equations are obtained
from the requirement that pressure drop between two
neighboring wells is proportional to the flow rate in the
fracture. One additional equation is obtained setting the
drawdown unity at the origin. The problem-parameters are:
ye, , Ix , CfD. In addition we need a computational parameter:
nw.

P.P. VALK AND M.J. ECONOMIDES

A pseudocode-type description of the algorithm is given

below:
Location of the wells:
xw()
first: Ix/(2*nw)
last: Ix*(1-1/(2*nw))
for j=1,nw
yw(j)=0

SPE 50421

SI Metric Conversion Factors

cp 1.0
E-03 = Pas
ft 3.048
E-01 = m
in. 2.54*
E+00 = cm
md 9.869 233E-04 = m 2
psi 6.894 757E+00= kPa
bbl 1.589 873E-01 = m3
*Conversion factor is exact.

Observation points:
x0()= xw()
y0()= yw() = eps
Influence of the wells in the origin:
for j=1,nw
a00(j)=a(0,0,xw(j),yw(j),ye)
Influence of the wells on each other:
for i,j=1,nw
B(i,j)=a(x0(i),y0(i),xw(j),yw(j),ye)
Coefficient matrix:
for i=2,nw, for j=1,nw
if i<j
A(i,j)=-B(i,j)+B(1,j)-(4*Pi/CfD/Ix)*(x0(i)-x0(1))
if i>=j
A(i,j)=-B(i,j)+B(1,j)-(4*Pi/CfD/Ix)*(x0(j)-x0(1))

Table 1. Input Data for Horizontal Fracture Example

Reservoir dimensions
xe = 1,000 ft
ye = 2,000 ft
h = 100 ft
Permeability
kh = 25 md
Vertical anisotropy
kv/kh =1/16
Viscosity
= 500 cp
Formation volume factor
Bo = 1.2 bbl/STB
Horizontal well,
Lx = 800 ft
In the x direction, centered
yf = 400 ft
Horizontal fracture,
kf =120 D
Along the whole x length,
w = 0.1 ft
Two symmetric wings in the y direction

(First column:)
for j=1,nw
A(1,j)=a00(j)
Right hand side:
rh(1)=1 (unit drawdown)
for i=2,nw
rh(i)=0
Solution: flux vector:
qw(1:nw)
Sum of flux:
qf
Dimensionless productivity index::
JD = 4*qf
We note that this algorithm is the pseudosteady state version
of the well-known Cinco-Ley - Meng7 algorithm.

Table 2. Input Data for Long Horizontal Well Example

Reservoir dimensions
xe = 1,000 ft
ye = 2,000 ft
h = 100 ft
Permeability
kh = 25 md
Vertical anisotropy
kv/kh =1/16
Viscosity
= 500 cp
Formation volume factor
Bo = 1.2 bbl/STB
Horizontal well,
Ly =2,000 ft
In the y direction, centered
rw = 0.3 ft

SPE 50421 HEAVY CRUDE PRODUCTION FROM SHALLOW FORMATIONS: LONG HORIZONTAL WELLS VERSUS HORIZONTAL FRACTURES 7

(xe, ye, ze= h)

(xe, ye, ze= h)

2xf

(xw,yw)
(0, 0, 0)

(0, 0, 0)

x
Fig. 1 Notation for productivity Index calculation

Fig. 2 Notation for finite conductivity fracture calculation

Dimensionless Productivity index, J D

Ix = 1
0.9
0.8

ye = xe

1.5

2xf

0.7
0.6

xe
0.5

0.4
0.3
0.2

0.5
0.1
0.01

0
0.01

0.1

1
10
100
1000
Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity, CfD

10000

Figure 3 Fracture performance as a function of dimensionless fracture conductivity and penetration (squared drainage area)

P.P. VALK AND M.J. ECONOMIDES

SPE 50421

Dimensionless Productivity Index, J D

2
1.8

Equivalent wellbore radius concept:

J D = 2/ln(4/(exp( )*30.88*(Ix/4)^2))

1.6
1.4

Infinite Conductivity

1.2
1
ye = xe

0.8

2xf

0.6
0.4

xe

0.2
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Penetration, Ix
Figure 4 Infinite conductivity fracture performance (squared drainage area)

Dimensionless Productivity Index, JD

ye = xe

1.5

2xf

Ix = 2xf / xe

(Ix)2CfD = 10.0

CfD = kf w / (k xf)

5.0

2.0

xe

1.0
0.5

0.5

0.1

0.2

0.01

0
0.1

1.6

Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity, CfD

Figure 5 Fracture performance at selected propped volumes (square drainage area)

10

SPE 50421 HEAVY CRUDE PRODUCTION FROM SHALLOW FORMATIONS: LONG HORIZONTAL WELLS VERSUS HORIZONTAL FRACTURES 9

Dimensionless Productivity Index, J D

100
Ix = 2xf / xe

ye = 0.1 xe
2xf

CfD = kf w / (k xf)

Ix = 1

xe

10

0.8

0.6

1
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.01

0.1
0.01

0.1

10

100

1000

10000

Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity, CfD

Figure 6 Low aspect ratio fracture performance as a function of dimensionless fracture conductivity and penetration

10

P.P. VALK AND M.J. ECONOMIDES

SPE 50421

10
Productivity Index Ratio,
JD (ye / xe = actual) / J D (ye / xe = 1)

ye

ye / xe = 1/10

2xf

8
xe

7
6

Ix = 2xf / xe

CfD = kf w / (k xf) = Infinity

4
3

ye / xe = 1/5

2
1
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Penetration, Ix
Figure 7 Performance of infinite conductivity fractures, drainage area of low aspect ratio versus square drainage

Dimensionless Productivity Index, JD

3
ye = 0.1 xe
2xf

2.5

(xe/ye)(Ix)2CfD =10

xe

Ix = 2xf / xe
CfD = kf w / (k xf)

1.5

1
1

0.5
0

0.2
0.1
0.01

0.1

0.5

10

Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity, CfD

Figure 8 Performance of infinite conductivity fractures, low aspect ratio versus square drainage area

100

SPE 50421 HEAVY CRUDE PRODUCTION FROM SHALLOW FORMATIONS: LONG HORIZONTAL WELLS VERSUS HORIZONTAL FRACTURES11

y
y

Real
xe = 1,000 ft
ye = 2,000 ft
h = 100 ft

kh/kv=16
Lx = 800 ft
yf = 400 ft

Conceptual
xe = 2,000 ft
ye = 100*16 0.5 ft
h = 1000 ft
xf = 400 ft

Figure 9 "Real" and equivalent "conceptual" configuration for a horizontal fracture

Real
xe = 1,000 ft kh/kv = 16
ye = 2,000 ft Ly = 2,000 ft
h = 100 ft

Conceptual
xe = 1,000 ft
ye = 100 160.5 ft

h = 2,000 ft

Figure 10 "Real" and equivalent "conceptual" configuration for "long" horizontal well