Frac-and-Pack Completion

  • Davorin Matanović
  • Marin Čikeš
  • Bojan Moslavac
Chapter
Part of the Springer Environmental Science and Engineering book series (SPRINGERENVIRON)

Abstract

A relatively short, highly conductive fracture created in a reservoir of moderate to high permeability will breach near-wellbore damage, reduce the drawdown and near-wellbore flow velocity and stresses, and increase effective wellbore radius. Fracturing treatments of this type have two stages: fracture created, terminated by tip-screenout, and fracture inflation and packing. Such a two-stage treatment is the basis of a number of well-completion methods, collectively known as frac-and-pack. This technique has been successfully applied, with a range of fracture sizes, to stimulate wells in various reservoirs worldwide.

This chapter discusses the criteria for selecting wells to be frac-and-packed. It is shown how a systematic study of the inflow performance can be used to assess the potential of frac-and-packed wells, to identify the controlling factors, and to optimize design parameters. It is also shown that fracture conductivity is often the key to successful treatment. This conductivity depends largely on proppant size; formation permeability damage around the created fracture has less effect. Appropriate allowance needs to be made for flow restrictions caused by the presence of the perforations, partial penetration, and non-Darcy effects.

The full potential of this completion method can be achieved only if the design is tailored to the individual well. This demands high-quality input data, which can be obtained only from a calibration test.

Keywords

Hydraulic Fracture Fracture Length Fracture Width Fracture Conductivity Skin Factor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Nomenclature

AL

Leakoff area, m2

Ao

Fracture area at TSO, m2

APC

Average areal proppant concentration, kg/m2

B

Formation volume factor, m3/m3

CfD

Dimensionless fracture conductivity

CL

Fluid loss coefficient, m/s1/2

c

Proppant concentration, kg/m3

cl

Proppant concentration in liquid, kg/m3

cm

Average proppant concentration loading, kg/m3

cs

Proppant concentration in slurry, kg/m3

ct

Total compressibility, Pa−1

dp

Perforation tunnel diameter, m

h

Reservoir net thickness, m

J

Productivity index, m3/(s × Pa)

k

Reservoir permeability, m2

kck

Choked or damaged fracture permeability, m2

kf

Fracture permeability, m2

kfl

Permeability of damaged region, m2

kp

Perforation tunnel permeability, m2

Lp

Perforation tunnel length, m

Mfip

Total proppant mass, kg

Mtso

Total proppant mass at TSO, kg

N

Number of perforations

n

Number of moles

np

Number of perforations per unit length, m−1

p

Reservoir pressure, Pa

pD

Dimensionless pressure

pe

Reservoir pressure at outer boundary, Pa

pi

Initial reservoir pressure, Pa

psc

Standard conditions pressure, Pa

pwf

Bottomhole flowing pressure, Pa

q

Flow rate, m3/s

qi

Pump rate, m3/s

ql

Fluid leakoff rate, m3/s

R

Universal gas constant, J/(K × mol)

r

Radius, m

re

Reservoir radius, m

rD

Dimensionless radius

rs

Near wellbore damage radius, m

rw

Wellbore radius, m

rw

Effective wellbore radius, m

rwD

Dimensionless effective wellbore radius

SL

Spurt-loss coefficient, m

s

Skin factor

sf

Fracture skin factor

spf

Perforation flow skin factor

sck

Choked fracture skin factor

sfl

Fluid leakoff skin factor

spp

Partial penetration skin factor

so

Other possible skin factors

T

Absolute temperature, K

Tsc

Standard conditions temperature, K

tD

Dimensionless time

ti

Pumping time, s

to

Total time to TSO, s

V

Volume, m3

Vci

Clean fluid volume, m3

VF

Total (two-wing) fluid volume, m3

Vf

Total fracture volume, m3

Vi

Slurry volume, m3

VL

Leakoff volume, m3

wck

Choked or damaged fracture width, m

wf

Fracture width, m

xck

Choked or damaged fracture half-length, m

xf

Propped fracture half-length, m

yfl

Depth of damaged region, m

Z

Real gas deviation factor

Δp

Pressure gradient, Pa

Δppf

Perforation pressure drop, Pa

Δp(to)

Net pressure at TSO, Pa

μ

Fluid viscosity, Pa⋅s

ρp

Proppant particle density, kg/m3

ρp

Proppant bulk density, kg/m3

φ

Reservoir porosity, fraction

References

  1. Aggour TM, Economides MJ (1996) Impact of fluid selection on high-permeability fracturing. In: Paper SPE 36902. SPE European petroleum conference, Milan, 22–24 Oct 1996Google Scholar
  2. Al-Hussainy R, Ramey HJ Jr, Crawford PB (1966) The flow of real gases through porous media. J Pet Technol, Volume 18, Number 5 (May 1966), 624–636Google Scholar
  3. Balen RM, Meng H-Z, Economides MJ (1988) Application of the net present value (NPV) in the optimization of hydraulic fractures. In: Paper SPE 18541. SPE Easter regional meeting, Charleston, 1–4 Nov 1988Google Scholar
  4. Barree RD, Rogers BA, Chu WC (1996) Use of frac-pack pressure data to determine breakdown conditions and reservoir properties. In: Paper SPE 36423. 71st annual technical conference and exhibition (ATCE) of SPE, Denver, 6–10 Oct 1996Google Scholar
  5. Brown JE, King LR, Nelson EB, Ali SA (1996) Use of a viscoelastic carrier fluid in frac-pack applications. In: Paper SPE 31114. SPE formation damage symposium, Lafayette, 14–15 Feb 1996Google Scholar
  6. Chapman BJ, Vitthal S, Hill LM (1996) Prefracturing pump-in testing for high-permeability formations. In: Paper SPE 31150. International symposium on formation damage control, Lafayette, 14–15 Feb 1996Google Scholar
  7. Chudnovsky A, Fan J, Shulkin Y, Dudley JW, Shlyapobersky J, Schraufnagel R (1996) A new hydraulic fracture tip mechanism in a statistically homogeneous medium. In: Paper SPE 36442. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Denver, 6–9 Oct 1996Google Scholar
  8. Cinco-Ley H, Samaniego-V F (1981a) Transient pressure analysis for fractured wells. J Pet Technol, Volume 33, Number 9 (September 1981), 1749–1766Google Scholar
  9. Cinco-Ley H, Samaniego-V F (1981b) Transient pressure analysis: finite conductivity fracture case versus damaged fracture case. In: Paper SPE 10179. 56th annual fall technical conference and exhibition, San Antonio, 4–7 Oct 1981Google Scholar
  10. Cinco-Ley H, Samaniego-V F, Dominguez-A N (1978) Transient pressure behavior for a well with a finite-conductivity vertical fracture. SPEJ, Volume 18, Number 4 (August 1978), 253–264Google Scholar
  11. Dusterhoft R, Vitthal S, McMechan D, Walters H (1995) Improved minifrac analysis technique in high-permeability formations. In: Paper SPE 30103. SPE European damage symposium, The Hague, 15–16 May 1995Google Scholar
  12. Earlougher RC Jr (1977) Advances in well test analysis, Monograph Series. SPE, RichardsonGoogle Scholar
  13. Ebinger CD (1996) New frac-pack procedures reduce completion costs. World Oil (April 1996), 71&75Google Scholar
  14. Economides MJ, Watters LT, Dunn-Norman S (1998) Petroleum well construction. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  15. Fan Y, Economides MJ (1995a) Fracture dimensions in frac&pack stimulation. In: Paper SPE 30469. SPE annual technical conference & exhibition, Dallas, 22–25 Oct 1995Google Scholar
  16. Fan Y, Economides MJ (1995b) Fracturing fluid leakoff and net pressure behavior in frac&pack stimulation. In: Paper SPE 29988. International meeting on petroleum engineering, Beijing, 14–17 Nov 1995Google Scholar
  17. Gringarten AC, Ramey HJ Jr (1974) Unsteady-state pressure distributions created by a well with a single infinite-conductivity vertical fracture. SPEJ, Volume 14, Number 4 (August 1974), 347–360Google Scholar
  18. Guppy KH, Cinco-Ley H, Ramey Jr HJ, Samaniego-V F (1982) Non-Darcy flow in wells with finite-conductivity vertical fractures. SPEJ, Volume 22, Number 5 (October 1982), 681–698Google Scholar
  19. Hainey BV, Troncoso JC (1992) Frac-pack: an innovative stimulation and sand control technique. In: Paper SPE 23777. SPE international symposium on formation damage control, Lafayette, 26–27 Feb 1992Google Scholar
  20. Hannah RR, Park EI, Porter DA, Black JW (1994) Combination fracturing/gravel-packing completion technique on the Amberjack, Mississippi Canyon 109 Field. SPE Prod & Facil, Volume 9, Number 4 (November 1994), 262–266Google Scholar
  21. Horner DR (1951) Pressure build-up in wells. In: Third world petroleum congress, The Hague, Sec. II, pp 503–523Google Scholar
  22. Howard GC, Fast CR (1970) Hydraulic fracturing. Monograph, vol 2, Henry L. Doherty Series. Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, New York/DallasGoogle Scholar
  23. Hunt JL, Chen C-C, Soliman MY (1994) Performance of hydraulic fractures in high permeability formations. In: Paper SPE 28530. 69th annual technical conference and exhibition, New Orleans, 25–28 Sept 1994Google Scholar
  24. Kirby RL, Clement CC, Asbill SW, Ely JW (1995) Screenless frac pack completions utilizing resin coated sand in the gulf of Mexico. In: Paper SPE 30467. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Dallas, 22–25 Oct 1995Google Scholar
  25. Lacy LL, Rickards AR, Ali SA (1997) Embedment and fracture conductivity in soft formations associated with HEC, borate and water-based fracture designs. In: Paper SPE 38590. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, San Antonio, 5–8 Oct 1997Google Scholar
  26. Lacy LL, Rickards AR, Bilden DM (1998) Fracture width and embedment testing in soft reservoir sandstone. SPE Drill & Complet, Volume 13, Number 1 (March 1998), 25–29Google Scholar
  27. Mathur AK, Ning X, Marcinew RB, Ehlig-Economides CA, Economides MJ (1995) Hydraulic fracture stimulation of highly permeable formations: the effect of critical fracture parameters on oilwell production and pressure. In: Paper SPE 30652. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Dallas, 22–25 Oct 1995Google Scholar
  28. Matthews CS, Russell DG (1967) Pressure buildup and flow tests in wells. Monograph, vol 1, Henry L. Doherty Series. Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, New York/DallasGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayerhofer MJ, Economides MJ, Nolte KG (1991) An experimental and fundamental interpretation of fracturing filter-cake fluid loss. In: Paper SPE 22873. 66th annual technical conference and exhibition of SPE, Dallas, 6–9 Oct 1991Google Scholar
  30. Mayerhofer MJ, Ehlig-Economides CA, Economides MJ (1995) Pressure transient analysis of fracture-calibration tests. J Pet Technol, Volume 47, Number 3 (March 1995), 229–234Google Scholar
  31. McGowen JM, Vitthal S (1996) Fracturing-fluid leakoff under dynamic conditions. Part 1: development of a realistic laboratory testing procedure. In: Paper SPE 36492. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Denver, 6–9 Oct 1996Google Scholar
  32. McGowen JM, Vitihal S, Parker MA, Rahimi A, Martch WE Jr (1993) Fluid selection for fracturing high-permeability formations. In: Paper SPE 26559. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Houston, 3–6 Oct 1993Google Scholar
  33. McGuire WJ, Sikora VJ (1960) The effect of vertical fractures on well productivity. J Pet Technol, Volume 12, Number 10 (October 1960), 72–74Google Scholar
  34. McLarty JM, DeBonis V (1995) Gulf coast section SPE production operations study group - technical highlights from a series of frac-pack treatment symposiums. In: Paper SPE 30471. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Dallas, 22–25 Oct 1995Google Scholar
  35. Meese CA, Mullen ME, Barree RD (1994) Offshore hydraulic fracturing technique. J Pet Technol, Volume 46, Number 3 (March 1994), Technology Today Series, 226–229Google Scholar
  36. Meyer User’s Guide (2010) Meyer fracturing simulators. Meyer & Associates, Natrona HeightsGoogle Scholar
  37. Mullen ME, Stewart BR, Norman WD (1994) Evaluation of bottomhole pressures in 40 soft rock frac-pack completions in the Gulf of Mexico. In: Paper SPE 28532. Annual technical conference and exhibition, New Orleans, 25–28 Sept 1994Google Scholar
  38. Nolte KG (1979) Determination of fracture parameters from fracturing pressure decline. In: Paper SPE 8341. 54th annual fall technical conference and exhibition, Las Vegas, 23–26 Sept 1979Google Scholar
  39. Nolte KG (1986) Determination of proppant and fluid schedules from fracturing pressure decline. SPE Prod Eng, Volume 1, Number 4 (July 1986), 255–265Google Scholar
  40. Prats M (1961) Effect of vertical fractures on reservoir behavior – incompressible fluid case. SPE J (June 1961), 105–118Google Scholar
  41. Prats M, Hazebroek P, Strickler WR (1962) Effect of vertical fractures on reservoir behavior – compressible fluid case. SPEJ, Volume 2, Number 2 (June 1962), 87–94Google Scholar
  42. Raghavan R (1976) Well test analysis: well producing by solution-gas drive. SPEJ, Volume 16, Number 4 (August 1976), 196–208; Transactions of AIME, 261Google Scholar
  43. Roodhart LP (1985) Fracturing fluids: fluid-loss measurements under dynamic conditions. SPEJ, Volume 25, Number 5 (October 1985), 629–636Google Scholar
  44. Roodhart LP, Kuiper TOH, Davies DR (1988) Proppant-pack and formation impairment during gas-well hydraulic fracturing. SPE Prod Eng, Volume 3, Number 4 (November 1988), 438–444Google Scholar
  45. Roodhart LP, Fokker PA, Davies DR, Shlyapobersky J, Wong GK (1994) Frac-and-pack stimulation: application, design, and field experience. J Pet Technol, Volume 46, Number 3 (March 1994), 230–238Google Scholar
  46. Saucier RJ (1974) Considerations in gravel pack design. J Pet Technol, Volume 26, Number 2 (February 1974), 205–212Google Scholar
  47. Shlyapobersky J, Wong GK, Walhaugh WW (1988) Overpressure calibrated design of hydraulic fracture simulations. In: Paper SPE 18194. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Houston, 2–5 Oct 1988Google Scholar
  48. Singh P, Agarwal RG (1990) Two-step rate test: new procedure for determining formation parting pressure. J Pet Technol, Volume 42, Number 1 (January 1990), 84–90Google Scholar
  49. Smith MB, Miler II WK, Haga J (1987) Tip screenout fracturing: a technique for soft, unstable formations. SPE Prod Eng, Volume 2, Number 2 (May 1987), 95–103Google Scholar
  50. Stewart BR, Mullen ME, Ellis RC (1995) Economic justification for fracturing moderate to high permeability formations in sand control environments. In: Paper SPE 30470. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Dallas, 22–25 Oct 1995Google Scholar
  51. Tiner RL, Ely JW, Schraufnagel R (1996) Frac packs – state of the art. In: Paper SPE 36456. 71st annual technical conference and exhibition (ATCE) of SPE, DenverGoogle Scholar
  52. Valko P, Oligney RE, Schraufnagel RA (1996) Slopes analysis of frac & pack bottomhole treating pressures. In: Paper SPE 31116. SPE formation damage control symposium, Lafayette, 14–15 Feb 1996Google Scholar
  53. van Everdingen AF (1953) The skin effect and its influence on the productive capacity of a well. Pet Trans, AIME, Volume 198:171–176Google Scholar
  54. van Everdingen AF, Hurst W (1949) The application of the Laplace transformation to flow problems in reservoirs. Pet Trans, AIME, Volume 186:305–324Google Scholar
  55. van Poolen HK, Tinsley JM, Saunders CD (1958) Hydraulic fracturing – fracture flow capacity vs well productivity. Pet Trans, AIME, Volume 213:91–95Google Scholar
  56. Vitthal S, McGowen JM (1996) Fracturing fluid leakoff under dynamic conditions part 2: effect of shear rate, permeability and pressure. In: Paper SPE 36493. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Denver, 6–9 Oct 1996Google Scholar
  57. Wattenbarger RA, Ramey HJ Jr (1969) Well test interpretation of vertically fractured gas well. J Pet Technol, Volume 21, Number 5 (May 1969), 625–632Google Scholar
  58. Wong GK, Fors RR, Casassa JS, Hite RH, Shlyapobersky J (1993) Design, execution and evaluation of frac and pack (F&P) treatments in unconsolidated sand formations in the Gulf of Mexico. In: Paper SPE 26563. 68th annual technical conference and exhibition of SPE, Houston, 3–6 Oct 1993Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davorin Matanović
    • 1
  • Marin Čikeš
    • 1
  • Bojan Moslavac
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering Petroleum Engineering DepartmentUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations