|Theme||Visible||Selectable||Appearance||Zoom Range (now: 0)|
Using planar fracture models to match treatment pressure and improve understanding of the fracture geometry generation is not a new concept. Knowledge gained from this exercise has historically been used to improve engineered fracture completions and production, and maximize net present value (NPV); however, at some point during the progression from vertical to horizontal wellbores, many within the industry have forgotten about the learnings that can still be gained from current fracture models. Engineered completions have been largely replaced by spreadsheet efficiencies relevant to operations rather than production in too many cases. Some images of unconventional well stimulation treatments portray fractures growing in every direction, forming patterns that resemble shattered windshields, and have often excluded the known physics related to rock geomechanics, reservoir properties, and geology. Excuses to dismiss modeling are numerous and are gaining the reasoning of conformists.
Unconventional resource plays might or might not contain large numbers of natural fractures; but, current fracture models can still be used to gain insight into the fracture geometries being generated. While the development of complex fracture models continues to evolve, the industry can still gain insight to fracture geometry and resulting production using current planar fracture modeling. Caveats to this process are that it requires: Valid measured data to establish model constraints. The engineer to understand the basic physics of how fractures are generated and when (and when not) to twist the "knobs" in the model. The engineer to understand which "knobs" should be used based on real diagnostics information. The actual single well production to be an integral part of the process.
Valid measured data to establish model constraints.
The engineer to understand the basic physics of how fractures are generated and when (and when not) to twist the "knobs" in the model.
The engineer to understand which "knobs" should be used based on real diagnostics information.
The actual single well production to be an integral part of the process.
This paper demonstrates the results of honoring data measurements from a multitude of potential sources, including downhole microseismic data, downhole deformation tiltmeters, offset pressure monitoring, DTS, DAS, diagnostic fracture injection test (DFIT) analysis, injection as well as production data with bottomhole pressure measurements, etc., and the resulting observations and conclusions. Several industry examples are discussed to help frame the vast amount of information possible to help engineers do a better job of including more diagnostics into routine operations to provide additional insight and ultimately result in improved models and completion designs.
This paper is not intended to merely demonstrate the results of the work but to spark an interest in bringing more intense engineering back to fracture stimulation modeling for horizontal completions.