Five things you didnt want to know about hydraulic fractures

Mike Vincent mike@fracwell.com

Fracwell LLC

Microseismic image: SPE 119636

Outline
Why we need to frac The bad news
5 things you didnt want to know

The good news

Compensating for some of these problems can significantly improve production and profitability!

Where Do we find Oil and Gas?

(NOT IN UNDERGROUND LAKES!)

Why Fracture Stimulate?

Top View

Unstimulated Wells: Require high reservoir permeability for sufficient hydrocarbon flow

Hydraulic Fractures: Accumulate hydrocarbons over enormous area, achieving economic flowrates from low permeability formations

Side View

Figures not to scale!

Reservoir Contact
Overhead, map view of 5 laterals drilled from one wellhead.

Tiny Frac - 20,000 lbs of proppant

Multi-Lateral 15,000 ft of drilled length in 5 laterals <24,000 ft2 of reservoir contact

Fracture Stimulated Completion: 200 ft half-length, 50 ft height 2 wings * 2 faces * 200 ft * 50 ft = 40,000 ft2 3700m2 of contact

Propped fractures touch more rock than multi-lateral wells It is more cost-effective to touch rock with a fracture than with a drill bit

Transversely Fractured Horizontal Wells let you Repeat this!

One small transverse frac = 40,000 ft2 Bakken = 6,000,000 ft2

3700m2 of contact

560,000m2 of contact >1,000,000m2 of contact

Barnett style complex network >10,000,000 ft2

Technology Progression
1,000,000

Reservoir Contact m2

100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10

0.1 0.01 0.001

1 0 Cemented Vertical Uncemented Uncemented Vertical Horizontal Biwing Fracture Multiple Transverse Fractures 0.0001

Increasing our reservoir contact by 1,000,000 fold has allowed pursuit of reservoirs with thousands of times lower perm

In low perm reservoirs, fractures are often the most critical component of our completion

However, they are the most poorly optimized element!

Reservoir Perm mD

Reservoir Contact Economic Gas Reservoir Perm Economic Oil Reservoir Perm

10 1

Convenient Assumptions
Fracs
Simple (bi-wing), planar, vertical, hydraulically continuous, highly conductive

Reservoir
Homogenous reservoirs (or simplified layering)

Fluid Flow
Simple fluid flow regimes

Do we envision fracs correctly?

We picture fracs as perfect vertical planes without restriction to hydrocarbon flow

Fracs are very narrow ribbons, massively long!

Frac length frequently thousands of times greater than the wellbore diameter
10

SPE 128612

Realistic Conductivity Reductions

20/40 proppants at 6000 psi
2.1

7000
7000

Chinese Sand Jordan Sand

5715

Effective Conductivity (md-ft) (D-m)

1.8

6000

CarboLITE
Effective conductivities can be less than 1% of API test values
98.6% 0.029 D-m reduction 99.7% 0.001 D-m reduction

1.5

5000

1.2

4000

3481

0.9

3000

0.6

2000

1500 1137

1243

99.9% 0.0001 D-m reduction

479
5

0.3

1000

500 182

672
72

225
24

49

14
1.4

144
0.6

130
0.3

96

0
API Test Modified 50"Inertial Hour Test Flow" with Non-Darcy Effects Lower Multiphase 50% Gel Fines Cyclic Achieved Flow Damage Migration / Stress Width (1 Plugging lb/sq ft) Conditions: YM=5e psi, 50% gel damage, 250F, 1 lb/ft , 6000 psi, 250 mcfd, 1000 psi bhfp, 20 ft pay, 10 blpd
6 2

References: ST Sand: SPE 14133, 16415, CL: Carbo typical, LT: Stim-Lab PredK 2002, SPE 24008, 3298, 7573, 11634, CARBO Tech Rpt 99-062, Run #6542, StimLab July 2000, SPE 16912, 19091, 22850, 106301, 84306

11

YM=34e3 MPa, 50% gel damage, 121 C, 5 kg/m2, 41 MPa, 7000 m3 /d, 7 MPa bhfp, 6 m pay, 1.6 m3l/d

Does Conductivity Degrade?

McDaniel , SPE 15067

All published lab data show proppants continue to crush, compact, rearrange over time and lose conductivity. SPE 12616, 14133, 15067, 110451,128612, 134330, 136757, Hahn, Drilling Vol 47, No 6, April 1986

Some proppants are more durable than others. But none are constant Why dont engineers recognize this?

Relatively simple, extremely wide fracture

Extends 9500 feet at surface, average width exceeding 7 feet!

We have created hydraulic fracs 2200 ft half-length but less than 0.1 inches wide

13

Pollard (2005) Northeast Ship Rock Dike, New Mexico

Outcrop actually comprised of >30 discrete echelon segments separated by intact host rock

Even this dike appeared discontinuous in outcrop. Are you certain your frac is continuous?

14

Pollard (2005) Northeast Ship Rock Dike

Observations of Fracture Complexity

Physical evidence of fractures nearly always complex

NEVADA TEST SITE - HYDRAULIC FRACTURE MINEBACK

Multiple Fractures
Initiation At Perforations Multiple Perforations Provide Multiple Entry Points For Fracture Initiation Five Separate Fractures Are Visible In These Fractures Initiated From Horizontal Wellbore 12 Perforations Total
6 Top & Bottom

I would have modeled/predicted a single frac with much higher conductivity than 5 narrow fracs added together [This actually is a bad outcome!]

Multiple Strands in a These fractures are narrow, you are looking Propped Fracture at an angle to the exposed frac face (Vertical Well)

NEVADA TEST SITE HYDRAULIC FRACTURE MINEBACK

Multiple Strands in a Propped Fracture (Vertical Well)

18 Mesaverde MWX test, SPE 22876

7100 ft TVD [2160m] 32 Fracture Strands Over 4 Ft Interval HPG gel residue on all surfaces Gel glued some core together (>6 yrs elapsed post-frac!) All observed sandof (20/40 Physicalfrac evidence RCS) pulverized <200 mesh fractures nearly always complex A second fractured zone with 8 vertical fractures in 3 ft interval observed 60 feet away (horizontally)

Is complexity solely attributed to rock fabric?

Chudnovsky, Univ of Ill, Chicago Unconsolidated 200 mesh sand, 35 lb XLG, Flow SPE 63233

19

Many other examples! [TerraTek, Baker, Weijers, CSM FAST consortium]

Fracture Complexity Due To Joints

Physical evidence of fractures nearly always complex

NEVADA TEST SITE HYDRAULIC FRACTURE MINEBACK

10

Laminated on every scale?

Figure 2 On every scale, formations may have laminations that hinder vertical permeability and fracture penetration. Shown are thin laminations in the Middle Bakken [LeFever 2005], layering in the Woodford [outcrop photo courtesy of Halliburton], and large scale laminations in the Niobrara [outcrop and seismic images courtesy of Noble]

21

SPE 146376

Rational Expectations?
Failure to breach all laminae?

Some reservoirs pose challenges to effectively breach and prop through all laminations

Will I lose this connection due to crushing of proppant in horizontal step?

Narrower aperture plus significantly higher stress in horizontal steps?

Woodford Shale Outcrop

Our understanding of frac barriers and kv should influence everything from lateral depth to frac fluid type, to implementation

11

Fractures Intersecting Stacked Laterals

Bakken Three Forks
Inability to create an effective, durable fracture 30 feet tall?! Drill redundant well in each interval since frac has inadequate vertical penetration/conductivity?!
Lateral separation 250 feet at toe/heel, crossing in middle

23 ft thick Lower Bakken Shale Fraced Three Forks well ~1MM lb proppant in 10 stages 1 yr later drilled overlying well in Middle Bakken; Kv<0.000,000,01D (<0.01 D) kv/kh~0.00025 even after fracing!
23

Modified from Archie Taylor SPE ATW Aug 4 2010

Uniform Packing Arrangement?

Pinch out, proppant pillars, irregular distribution?

Is this ribbon laterally extensive and continuous for hundreds of meters as we model?
24

12

With what certainty can we explain this production?

2000 1800 1600 Stage Production (mcfd) 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 100 200 300 Production Days
SPE 106151 Fig 13 Production can be matched with a variety of fracture and reservoir parameters
25

Actual Production Data

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 600 Cumulative Production (MMscf) Cumulative Production (MMscf)

400

500

Nice match to measured microseismic, eh?

2000 1800 1600 Stage Production (mcfd) 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 100 200 300 Production Days
SPE 106151 Fig 13 Production can be matched with a variety of fracture and reservoir parameters
26

Actual production data Long Frac, Low Conductivity

500' Xf, 20 md-ft, 0.5 uD perm, 23 Acres 4:1 aspect ratio

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 600

400

500

13

Is this more accurate? Tied to core perm

2000 1800 1600 Stage Production (mcfd) 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 100 200 300 Production Days
SPE 106151 Fig 13 Production can be matched with a variety of fracture and reservoir parameters
27

Actual production data Long Frac, Low Conductivity

500' Xf, 20 md-ft, 0.5 uD perm, 23 Acres 4:1 aspect ratio

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 600 Cumulative Production (MMscf) Cumulative Production (MMscf)

Medium Frac, Low Conductivity

100' Xf, 20 md-ft, 5 uD perm, 11 Acres 4:1 aspect ratio

400

500

Can I reinforce my misconceptions?

2000 1800 1600 Stage Production (mcfd) 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 100 200 300 Production Days
SPE 106151 Fig 13 Production can be matched with a variety of fracture and reservoir parameters
28

Actual production data Long Frac, Low Conductivity

500' Xf, 20 md-ft, 0.5 uD perm, 23 Acres 4:1 aspect ratio

200 180 160 140 120 100 80

Medium Frac, Low Conductivity

100' Xf, 20 md-ft, 5 uD perm, 11 Acres 4:1 aspect ratio

Short Frac, High Conductivity, Reservoir Boundaries

50' Xf, 6000 md-ft, 10 uD perm, 7 Acres 4:1 aspect ratio

Even if I know it is a simple planar frac, I cannot prove whether it was inadequate reservoir quality, or inadequate completion with a single well

History matching of production is surprisingly non-unique. 60 Too many knobs available to tweak 40 We can always blame it on the geology
20 0 600

400

500

14

5 Things You Didnt Want to Know

1. Complex Flow Regimes
100x higher pressure losses

2. Conductivity Degrades 3. Heterogeneous Reservoirs

Dependant on fracs to connect reserves

4. Complex Frac Geometry

Require commensurate increase in conductivity

5. Non-unique interpretations

Removing the Uncertainty

If we require a production match of two different frac designs, we remove many degrees of freedom lock in all the reservoir knobs! Attempt to explain the production results from initial frac AND refrac
143 published trials in SPE 134330 100 Bakken refracs 136757

Require simultaneous match of two different frac designs in same reservoir!

200+ trials in SPE 119143
30

15

Field Studies Documenting Production Impact with Increased Fracture Conductivity

>200 published studies identified, authored by >150 companies

Oil wells, gas wells, lean and rich condensate Carbonate, Sandstone, Shale, and Coal Well Rates 1 to 25,000 bopd 0.25-100 MMSCFD
31

Well Depths 100 to 20,000 feet

SPE 119143 tabulates over 200 field studies

Dataset Limitations
Intentional
Eliminated most field examples with dramatic fluid rheology changes Are production gains attributed to proppant transport (frac length), differing gel cleanup, differing frac heights?

Unintentional
Its just my literature review. Certainly I missed some excellent papers

Publication Bias
Industry rarely publishes failures Nonetheless I summarize 10 examples of exceptions to the rule
32

A tabulation of 200 papers in SPE 119143

16

Production Benefit
In >200 published studies and hundreds of unpublished proppant selection studies, Operators frequently report greater benefit than expected using: Higher proppant concentrations More aggressive ramps, smaller pads Screen outs Larger diameter proppant Stronger proppant Higher quality proppant More uniformly shaped & sized proppant Frac conductivity appears to be much more important than our models or intuition predict!
33

A tabulation of 200 papers in SPE 119143

We are 99.9% certain the Pinedale Anticline was constrained by proppant quality
Effect of Proppant Selection upon Production
900 Production Rate 100 days post-frac (mcfd) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

Averages based on 95 stages ISPBS and 54 stages ISP 20/40

Versaprop ISP-BS
ISP 20/40 CarboProp

70% increase in productivity achieved with a more uniformly sized proppant!

SPE 106151 and 108991

Reservoir Sub-Interval (Lower Lance and Mesa Verde)

Av er ag e

V3

LL 3

LL 2

LL 1

V2

V4

V5

V1 M

V0

17

Can we learn from refracs?

Gas Condensate wells in DJ Basin up to 5 restimulations

Pagano, 2006

Increase Conductivity in Refracs?

Dozens of examples in literature .
Stabilized Rate (MSCFD)
Well C Well D Well E

2500

4000

Production from Fracture (bfpd)

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500

Incremental Oil exceeds 650,000 barrels

Original Fracture (20/40 Sand) Phase I refrac (20/40 Sand) Phase III refrac (16/20 LWC)

First Refrac
Incremental Oil Exceeds 1,000,000 barrels

) y a 100 d / s e n 80 n o t ( e 60 t a R n 40 io t c u d o 20 r P
0 Well A

120
Initial Frac Refrac

2000

1500

1000

500

Well B

Second Refrac

0
Pre Frac

0 May-84 May-86 May-88 May-90 May-92 May-94 May-96 May-98 May-00

Date

Dedurin, 2008, Volga-Urals oil

10,000 gal 3% acid + 10,000 lb glass beads

80,000 gal + 100,000 lb 20/40 sand

75,000 gal + 120,000 lb 20/40 ISP

Pospisil, 1992 6 years later, 20 mD oil

3500 3000 Initial Frac in 1989: 48,000 lb 40/70 sand + 466,000 lb 12/20 sand

Ennis, 1989 sequential refracs, tight gas

500

Gas Water

May 1999 Frac: 300,000 lb 20/40 LWC

450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100

2000

5,000 lb 100 mesh + 24,000 lb 20/40 Sand

1500

1000

500 50 0
Jan-90 Jan-91 Jan-92 Jan-93 Jan-94 Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01

Shaefer, 2006 17 years later, tight gas 36

Vincent, 2002 9 years later, CBM

Water Rate, BWPD

Gas Rate, MCFD

2500

May 1995 Frac:

18

Summary
1) Incredible reservoir contact provided by hydraulic fractures 2) Bad News: Fracs are not optimized Fluid flow is complicated Frac geometry is tortuous Connection between the frac and wellbore is tenuous Laminated reservoirs depend on vertical frac continuity Many fractures collapse or heal 3) Great News: Fracs are not optimized Reservoirs are often capable of tremendous increases in productivity with improved frac design

Five things you didnt want to know about hydraulic fractures

.pdf version of slides mike@fracwell.com

Mike Vincent
Fracwell LLC

19