S

Hydraulic Fracturing Design for

Optimum Well Productivity

Frank E. Syfan, Jr., PE, SPEE

Syfan Engineering, LLC
February 26, 2015
Outline

 Critical Fracture Design Parameters

 Rock Mechanics
 Fracture Mechanics
 Fluid Systems
 Proppant Selection
 Case Histories:
 Case A: Marcellus Shale
 Case B: Eagle Ford Shale
 Case C: Bakken
 Case D: Cotton Valley
 Summary
 Conclusions

2
Critical Fracture Parameters
Rock Mechanics
 Mineralogy
 Content: Quartz, calcite, clay (??)
 Shales: Many are not in strictest geological sense!
 Poisson’s Ratio
𝝏𝜺𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒔
𝒗=−
𝝏𝜺𝒂𝒙𝒊𝒂𝒍
 Modulus of Elasticity (Young’s Modulus)
𝑺𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝝈
𝒎 ≝ =𝑬
𝑺𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏 𝜺
 In-Situ Stress
𝒗
𝝈𝑯 = 𝝈 − 𝑷𝒑 + 𝑷𝒑 + 𝝈𝝉
𝟏−𝒗 𝒗

3
Critical Fracture Parameters
Fracture Mechanics
 Fracture Face Skin
𝝅𝒀𝒙 𝒌𝒓
𝑺𝑭𝒂𝒄𝒆 = −𝟏
𝑿𝒇 𝒌𝑫
 Choked Fracture Skin
𝒉 𝟏 𝒉 𝝅
𝑺𝒄𝒉 = 𝒍𝒏 −
𝑿𝒇 𝑪𝒇𝑫 𝟐𝒓𝒘 𝟐
 Half-Length & Width
 What is optimum length?
 Perkins & Kern (1961)
 Fracture Conductivity!!!
 wkf
 CfD

4
Critical Fracture Parameters
Fluid Systems
 Fluid & Additive Design
 Slickwater DOESN’T Work Everywhere!
 Chemical and Fluid Compatibility
 Gel Stability and Breaker Tests
 Temperature Ranges
 Nano-Fluid Non-Emulsifiers
 Polyacrylamide Breakers
 ISO 13503-1, 13503-3, 13503-4

5
Critical Fracture Parameters
Proppant Selection

Ceramic

Resin
Coated

a-Qtz

6
 Critical Fracture Parameters
Proppant Selection

Ceramics RC Ceramics
Bauxite

13+ Intermediate
RC a-Qtz
Incr. Closure Pressure, Kpsi

12
LWC
Premium

Economy
Intermediate
8
a-Qtz
5
4

0
Incr. Cost & Performance
7
Critical Fracture Parameters
Proppant Selection
 The Ideal Proppant
 Crush resistance / high strength
 Slightly deformable, not brittle
 No embedment
 Low specific gravity
 Chemical resistance
 No flowback
 Complete system compatibility
 Ready availability
 Cost effective
 Reality: The Ideal Proppant Doesn’t Exist!!

8
Critical Fracture Parameters
Proppant Selection
 Infinite vs. Finite Conductivity
 Formation Permeability
 Depth/Closure Stress
 Formation Ductility/Embedment
 What is Brinell Hardness?

9
Critical Fracture Parameters
Proppant Selection
 Median Particle Diameter
 Cyclic Stress
 Multi-Phase Flow
 Proppant Flowback
 Non-Darcy Effects
 Beta Factor

10
Critical Fracture Parameters
Conductivity
 Fracture Conductivity – Wkf
 Single Most Important Factor to Achieve!
 Dimensionless Conductivity
 Fracture Flow Capacity Divided by Reservoir Flow
Capacity.
 Considered “Infinite” the fracture deliverability
exceeds reservoir deliverability with negligible
pressure loss.

k f wf
C fD 
k x f
11
Critical Fracture Parameters
Conductivity: McGuire & Sikora (1960)
 Dimensionless Productivity  Dimensionless Productivity
Index vs. Dimensionless Index vs. Dimensionless
Conductivity Conductivity
 (Square Reservoir)  (Rectangular Reservoir – 1/10)

12
 Critical Fracture Parameters
Fines

Intermediate Strength
Ceramic – 8,000 psi

12/20 Hickory/Brady – 6,000 psi

RC Proppant – 8,000 psi

StimLab Proppant Consortium, 1997 – 2006 13

Critical Fracture Parameters
Depth/Closure Stress
 Brown vs. Northern White?
 API 19C (ISO 13503-2) Guidelines Are Specific!!
 Sieve Distribution
 Krumbein Factors
 Turbidity
 Acid Solubility
 K-Value (Also Called Crush Resistance)
 Point Where Fines >10.0%
 Relative Number Only!!

14
Critical Fracture Parameters
Median Particle Diameter
 SPE 84304 (2003)
 Particle Sieve Distribution Variations

Field Samples – 20/40 N. White @ 25X

0.545 0.703 mm
mm

Courtesy: PropTester – Houston TX 15

Critical Fracture Parameters
Median Particle Diameter
Each Proppant Sample Passes ISO 13503-2 Guidelines!
45 MPD = 0.710 mm
40
MPD = 0.543 mm
35
% Particle Distribution

30

25

20

15

10

0
16 20 25 30 35 40 50 PAN
Sie v e Size

Public Domain Job Sample

Flow Capacity Decreases

Courtesy: PropTester – Houston TX 16
Critical Fracture Parameters
Median Particle Diameter
10,000

Published Data
Conductivity (md-ft)

MPD = 0.710 mm

1,000
Actual Data
MPD = 0.543 mm

100
2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

Closure Stress (psi)

Courtesy: PropTester – Houston TX 17

Critical Fracture Parameters
Beta Factor
 A Quantity Relating Pressure Loss In The Fracture to
Liquid or Gas Production Rates (velocities).
 Governed by Forchheimer’s Equation
 Darcy Effects
 Non-Darcy Effects
• Inertial Effect
• 2 - Dominate!
• PSD Effects Beta

Pfrac  fluid .v fluid

   fluid v fluid
2

X frac k frac

18
Outline

 Critical Fracture Design Parameters

 Rock Mechanics
 Fracture Mechanics
 Fluid Systems
 Proppant Selection
 Case Histories:
 Case A: Marcellus Shale
 Case B: Eagle Ford Shale
 Case C: Bakken
 Case D: Cotton Valley
 Summary
 Conclusions

19
Case History A: Marcellus Shale
Reservoir & Fracture Parameters Fracture & Reservoir Match
Description Value Description Value
Reservoir Depth, ft 7.876 Reservoir Permeability, nD 583.0
Reservoir Thickness, ft 162 Permeability-Thickness, md-ft 0.094
Hydrocarbon Porosity, % 4.2 Propped Length, ft 320
Pore Pressure, psi 4.726 Fracture Conductivity, md-ft 3.77
Temperature, oF 175 Dimensionless Conductivity 20.2
Drainage Area, ac 80
Choked Skin, dim +0.096
Aspect Ratio (xe/ye) ¼
Equivalent Fractures 6
BHFP, psi 1,450 – 530
Lateral Length, ft 2,100
Number of Stages 7
Clusters per Stage 5

SPE 166107 20
Case History A: Marcellus Shale

Predicted Gas Production Rate Predicted Cum. Gas Production

SPE 166107 21
Case History A: Marcellus Shale

SPE 166107 22
 Case History B: Eagle Ford Shale
Reservoir & Fracture Parameters Fracture & Reservoir Match
Description Value Description Value
Reservoir Depth, ft 10,875 Permeability-Thickness, md-ft 0.0049
Reservoir Thickness, ft 283 Propped Length, ft 131
Hydrocarbon Porosity, % 5.76 Fracture Conductivity, md-ft 0.86
Pore Pressure, psi 8,350 Dimensionless Conductivity 382
Temperature, oF 285 Choked Skin, dim +0.0254
Drainage Area, ac 80
Equivalent Fractures 40
Aspect Ratio (xe/ye) ¼
BHFP, psi 3,900 – 1,500
Lateral Length, ft 4,000
Number of Stages 10
Clusters per Stage 4

SPE 166107 23
Case History B: Eagle Ford Shale

Predicted Gas Production Rate Predicted Cum. Gas Production

SPE 166107 24
Case History C: Bakken Shale

Reservoir & Fracture Parameters

Description Value Description Value

Reservoir Depth, ft 9,881 Drainage Area, ac 640
Reservoir Thickness, ft 46 BHFP, psi 1,500
Rsvr. Permeability, D 0.002 Effective Frac. Length, ft 420
Porosity, % 5.0 Frac. Conductivity, md-ft 200
Pore Pressure, psi 4,900 Dimensionless Conductivity 238
Temperature, oF 209 Lateral Length, ft 5,000
Rsvr. Compressibility, 1/psi 2.0 E-05 Transverse Fractures 12
Rsvr. Viscosity, cP 0.30

SPE 166107 25
Case History C: Bakken Shale

Predicted Oil Production Rate Predicted Cum. Oil Production

SPE 166107 26
Case History D: E. TX Cotton Valley

Reservoir & Fracture Parameters

Description Value Description Value

Reservoir Depth, ft 9,000 BHFP, psi 1,500
Reservoir Thickness, ft 100 Effective Frac. Length, ft 1,500
Rsvr. Permeability, D 0.001 Frac. Conductivity, md-ft 114
Porosity, % 7.0 Dimensionless Conductivity 76
Pore Pressure, psi 6,000 Lateral Length, ft 2,000
Temperature, oF 285 Transverse Fractures 7
Drainage Area, ac 640

SPE 166107 27
Case History D: E. TX Cotton Valley

Predicted Gas Production Rate Predicted Cum. Gas Production

SPE 166107 28
Outline

 Critical Fracture Design Parameters

 Rock Mechanics
 Fracture Mechanics
 Fluid Systems
 Proppant Selection
 Case Histories:
 Case A: Marcellus Shale
 Case B: Eagle Ford Shale
 Case C: Bakken
 Case D: Cotton Valley
 Summary
 Conclusions

29
Summary

 Proper fracture design and ultimately, fracture

optimization, cannot and will not happen without
sound engineering practices!
 Without sound engineering, initial production rates,
ultimate recovery, NPV, and rate-of-return will be
compromised.
 At the End of the Day……

SPE 166107 30
Conclusions

 Understanding the rock mechanics is essential to

consistently achieving high conductivity fractures.
 McGuire and Sikora (1960) holds true regardless of
reservoir type and ultimately dictates reservoir and
production performance.
 Fracture conductivity and dimensionless fracture
conductivity ultimately govern the initial production
rates and ultimate recoveries regardless of the type
of reservoir lithology.

SPE 166107 31
Conclusions

 Case A (Marcellus Shale) and Case B (Eagle Ford

Shale) matches, illustrate the importance of
achieving high conductivity transverse fractures in a
horizontal wellbores.
 Increasing fracture conductivity, regardless of
reservoir type, results in a significant positive impact
on ROR and NPV.

SPE 166107 32
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
TO THE FORT WORTH SPE
SECTION FOR INVITING ME TO
MAKE THIS PRESENTATION.

QUESTIONS??

33