Production Operations

WELL STIMULATION TECHNIQUES

(Hydraulic fracturing)

By

Amit Verma
Assistant Professor-senior scale
Petroleum Engineering Dept.
UPES, Dehradun

Acknowledgement:
R Meenakshi Sundaram
ONGC (GGM – Production Rtd.)
What is hydraulic fracturing?

Applying Hydraulic Pressure to the Wellbore Causes the Rock to Fail and a Fracture to Initiate
 OBJECTIVES
• To bypass near wellbore damage and return a well to its
natural productivity.
• To extend a conductive path deep into a formation and thus
increase productivity beyond the natural level.
• Elevate Production to an Economic Level
• Accelerate Recovery of Reserves
Objective of HF is to increase well productivity by creating a highly conductive path,
relative to the matrix permeability, from the wellbore to the formation
 Hydraulic Fracturing
Water laced with chemicals is pumped down to fracture the shale
and releases the gas, which can be pumped up.
Assume average height for calculation purpose
And friction pressure losses as 8.2 kPa per meter of depth
Perforation Orifice coefficient = 0.9
Calculate fracturing fluid surface injection pressure in kPa
Leak-off: One of the key issues in designing a fracture treatment is accurate knowledge of how rapidly fluid
will leak out of the fracture into the reservoir. Without this information, it would be impossible to design a
treatment that provides a specified fracture geometry. Mini-fracture treatments are performed to estimate
the leakoff coefficient
 Job stages
1. Pad fluid (viscous fluid to initiate fracture)

2. Sand Slurry (viscous fluid with sand / proppant to prop the created fracture)

3. Flush (to clear the tubing from sand slurry)

Pad stage: Pad stage breaks down the blocked perforations and
initiates fracture. Proper volumes of fluids are required to be pumped
since small pads may not develop sufficient width for placement of
proppant thereby potentially causing screen-outs. Excessive pad may
delay closure for a significant period of time, allowing proppant
convection out of zone.
Pad is created because fracturing fluid injection rate is higher than
the flow rate at which the fluid can escape into the formation. After
the pad grows to a desirable size, the slurry stage is started.
screen out: A condition that occurs when the solids carried in a treatment fluid, such as proppant in a fracture fluid,
create a bridge across the perforations or similar restricted flow area. This creates a sudden and significant restriction to
fluid flow that causes a rapid rise in pump pressure.

Tortuosity: A measure of deviation from a straight line. It is the ratio of the actual distance traveled between two
points, including any curves encountered, divided by the straight line distance. Tortuosity is used by drillers to
describe wellbore trajectory, by log analysts to describe electrical current flow through rock and by geologists to
describe pore systems in rock and the meander of rivers.

Offset Well:
An existing wellbore close to a proposed well that provides information for planning the proposed well. In planning
development wells, there are usually numerous offsets, so a great deal is known about the subsurface geology and
pressure regimes. In contrast, rank wildcats have no close offsets, and planning is based on interpretations of
seismic data, distant offsets and prior experience. High-quality offset data are coveted by competent well planners
to optimize well designs. When lacking offset data, the well planner must be more conservative in designing wells
and include more contingencies.
Injection falloff test:
The measurement and analysis of pressure data taken after an injection well is shut in. These data are often the easiest
transient well-test data to obtain. Wellhead pressure rises during injection, and if the well remains full of liquid after
shut-in of an injector, the pressure can be measured at the surface, and bottomhole pressures can be calculated by
adding the pressure from the hydrostatic column to the wellhead pressure. Since most water-injection wells are
fractured during injection, and injection wells often go on vacuum, the fluid level can fall below the surface. Dealing with
this complication requires reverting to bottomhole pressure gauges or sonic devices.

Injection fall-off (IFO) testing typically refers to testing done in either Water disposal wells or injector wells for pressure
maintenance or secondary/tertiary recovery methods.

They are most often employed when either a new wells is drilled and completed for this purpose or more commonly a
pre-existing production well is converted into a disposal/injection well. The IFO is the mirror image of a Pressure Build-
Up (PBU) on a producing well and analysis can derive the same types of fundamental wellbore/reservoir information on
an injector well that you can with a producing well...skin, permeability and reservoir pressure.
• Tree Saver: A pressure isolation sleeve that passes through one
or more production valves and isolates the wellhead from high
fracturing pressures.
 step rate test
A test performed in preparation for a hydraulic fracturing
treatment in which an injection fluid is injected for a defined
period in a series of increasing pump rates. The resulting data are
used to identify key treatment parameters of the fracturing
operation, such as the pressure and flow rates required to
successfully complete the treatment.
 step up test

• A series of constant-rate injections (“Steps”) increasing from

low to high, designed to determine the Formation Parting
Pressure (FPP).
• Formation Parting Pressure is the pressure which will initiate
formation fracture.
• Fracture is undesirable when it leads to by-passing productive
pay and channeling directly to adjacent producers.
 step up test
• Several studies recently demonstrated that a fracture will
propagate if injection is above the FPP. In addition to this
uncontrolled fracture extension, injection above the FPP may
also cause fracturing out of pay. These factors may lead to
premature breakthrough of injected fluids, poor sweep
efficiency, reduced recovery, and loss of costly injection fluids.
 step up test
• On the other hand, injection far below the FPP may result in
injection volumes much lower than the allowable maximum
and a reduced rate of oil recover. A reliable estimate of the
FPP is therefore critical in conducting secondary and tertiary
recovery projects.
• That’s why calculation of formation parting pressure becomes
important using step rate test.
 Step rate (up) test procedure
1) The well should be shut in long enough prior to testing such that the bottom
hole pressures approximate shut-in formation pressures. If the shut-in well flows to
the surface, the wellhead injection string should be equipped with a gauge and the
static surface pressure read and recorded.

2) A series of successively higher injection rates are determined using guidelines

below, and the elapsed time and pressure values are read and recorded for each
rate and time step. Each rate step should last exactly as long as the preceding
rate. If stabilized pressure values are not obtained within the rate steps
suggested below, the test results may be considered as inconclusive. (60 min for
formation permeability < 10 millidarcies, and 30 min for perm > 10 millidarcies.)
 Step rate (up) test procedure
3) Suggested injection rates (percent of maximum anticipated injection rate):
5% , 10%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%
4) Injection rates should be controlled with a constant flow regulator that has been
tested prior to use. A throttling device is not considered sufficient.
5) Flow rates should be measured with a calibrated turbine flowmeter.
6) Record injection rates using a chart recorder or a strip chart.
7) Measure pressures with a down hole pressure bomb (manometer). If a surface
gauge is used, the test pressures must be corrected for the estimated friction loss
at each particular flow rate.
8) Measure and record injection pressures with a gauge or recorder (for immediate
test results). Record each time step and corresponding pressure.
 Step rate (up) test procedure
9) A plot of injection rates and the corresponding stabilized pressure values should be
graphically represented as a constant slope straight line to a point at which the
formation fracture, or “breakdown”, pressure is exceeded. The slope of this subsequent
straight line should be less than that of the before-fracture straight line

10) If the formation fracture pressure has definitively been exceeded, as evidenced by
at least two injection rate-pressure combinations greater than the breakdown
pressure, the injection pump can be stopped, and the line valve closed and pressure
allowed to bleed-off into the injection zone. There will occur a significant
instantaneous pressure drop (Instantaneous Shut-in Pressure or ISIP), after which the
pressure values will level out. This ISIP value must be read and recorded. The ISIP
obtained in this manner may be considered to be the minimum pressure required to
hold open a fracture in this formation at this well.
 Step rate (up) test procedure
11) Once the ISIP is obtained, the SRT is concluded

12) In the event that the breakdown pressure was not obtained at the maximum
test injection pressure utilized, the test results may indicate that the formation is
accepting fluids without fracturing.
Numerical concepts
A table is attached for your reference
 Step down test
• This type of analysis is performed prior to a main frac job. It is
used to quantify perforation and near-wellbore pressure losses
(caused by tortuosity) of frac'd wells, and as a result, provides
information pertinent to the design and execution of the main
frac treatments.
• Step-down tests can be performed during the shut-down
sequence of a fracture calibration test.
 Step down test
• To perform this test, a fluid of known properties (for example,
water) is injected into the formation at a rate high enough to
initiate a small frac.
• The injection rate is then reduced in a stair-step fashion, each rate
lasting an equal time interval, before the well is finally shut-in. The
resulting pressure response caused by the rate changes is
influenced by perforation and near-wellbore friction.
• Tortuosity and perforation friction pressure losses vary differently
with rate. By analyzing the pressure losses experienced at different
rates, we can differentiate between pressure losses due to
tortuosity and due to perforation friction.
Step down test
 Step down test
• For step-down tests, it is essential to keep as many variables controlled as
possible, so that the pressure response during the rate changes is due largely to
perforations and tortuosity, and not some other factors.
• It is recommended to maintain relatively short periods for each injection rate, so
that the frac remains substantially the same for each injection period.
• Short injection periods also help prevent the frac from closing prematurely
before the test is complete.
• When the injection rate is changed, the pressure does not change in a stair-step
fashion; it takes some time for pressure to stabilize after a change in rate.
• To make sure the effect of this pressure transition does not obscure the
relationship between the injection rate and pressure, injection periods of the
same duration are used.
 Step down test
• Step-down test analysis is done by plotting the pressure / rate
data points with the same time since the last rate change on a
pressure-rate plot, and matching the pressure loss model
(given by the equations in slide no. 58) to these points.
• On the basis of the model, the perforation and tortuosity
components of the pressure loss are calculated, and the
defining parameters are also estimated.
data grid where the user inputs data points to use in the step down analysis
history plot of step-
down test analysis

Courtesy: IHS Welltest

enter initial estimates of the
parameters used in the step down
analysis model
Step Down Plot tab
displays the analysis
results graphically
• A frac site is a well orchestrated symphony of mechanical
equipments, horsepower and men. It is loud, dusty and busy. It
is the exciting intersection of high technology, brute force and
great potential.
• The mobile factory that carries out the hydraulic fracturing
stimulation operation is commonly referred to as a frac spread.
• Frac blenders stand by to process the powders, chemicals, gels
and liquids pumped downhole.
• mobile data acquisition and control center or data van – the
brains of the operation where engineers and supervisors
monitor and direct a job as it is being pumped.

• Moving inwards, is the heart of the operation – some 5-50

tractor trailer-mounted frac pumps parked within inches of
each other. This is the brute force that pumps the fracturing
fluid (a blend of water and sand) downhole at extremely high
pressures to fracture the formation.
• Each frac pump has a power end (the motor which turns the
pistons) and a fluid end (the housing for the pistons that
pressurizes the frac fluid into the treating iron).

• Treating iron is comprised of the valve, manifold and pipe

apparatus that feeds the frac fluid to the wellhead from
pumping and mixing equipment.

• Several dozen coverall-clad workers move around the site.

After double, triple and quadruple checking every bolt, valve,
storage container level and sand belt, the fracing begins.
• Fracing a well can take several days depending on how many
stages are being completed.
• Frac fluid (water, sand and chemicals) is blended at the surface
before being pumped into the well at extremely high
pressures, cracking the rock stage by stage. Typical
unconventional wells require 10,000+ psi down hole to open
up the rocks.
• Contrary to popular belief in the public, the chemicals used in the fracing process
are not generally present to erode the rocks.

• The chemicals’ purpose is to gel the solution and allow proppants (sand or ceramic
spheres) to be suspended in the mix.

• The fissures created in the fracing process are held open by the proppant, which is
left behind when the fluid is released form the well

• These fissures allow what was once rock as hard tough as granite to flow
hydrocarbon.
 Pump
• Horse Power
– Pumping Rate
– Pressure
– Calculation of HHP
requirement
• Manifold
– Connect Lines from all pump
to single source
• Frac Van
– Data acquisition
– Pump Control
– Overall monitoring
• For context, unconventional rocks often have permeability less
than the cement that is used to seal the well casing.
• While conventional formations could be compared to a soft
sandstone, unconventionals feel more like the granite
countertops in your kitchen – hydraulic fracturing stimulation
is absolutely necessary to unlock the source-rock riches the
industry is pursuing today.
 What is the impact of hydro fracturing
1. Typical production increase is 2 to 10 fold

2. A great deal of todays oil & gas development is economic only with hydraulic fracturing

3. Fracturing provides significant economic improvements even if conventional reservoir

4. More than $ 10,000,000 USD is economic value from hydraulic fracturing

FRACTURING FLUID COMPONENTS
A complete design of fracturing fluid must include the following components to direct field operations.
 Specification of fracturing fluid and proppant.
 Fluid volume and proppant weight requirements.
 Fluid injection schedule.
 Predicted injection pressure profile.
 Spurt loss occur only for wall buildings and until filter cake is established.
 Fluid loss in formation is a more steady process than spurt process.
 It affects transporting,suspending and deposition of proppant.
 The viscosity should be control in a range suitable for treatment.
 The second major variable is viscosity.
 A fluid viscosity being too high can result in excessive injection pressure.
Guar derivatives called hydroxypropyl guar (HPG) and carboxymethylhydroxypropyl guar (CMHPG) are
used because they provide lower residue, faster hydration, and rheological advantages because less
gelling agent is required if the guar is crosslinked.
 Water based fluids
1. Polymer is hydrated in water
• Polymer chain becomes linear
• Specific pH range for hydration

2. pH Buffer Added for Crosslink

• Specific pH range for crosslinker
3. Crosslinker Added
• Crosslink bonds give massive viscosity

135
 Foam based fluids
• CO2 water-based foams
• CO2 density close to water
• More an emulsion than a foam
• High CO2 solubility in water
• Good cleanup
• N2 based foams
• Low density and high friction (high WHTP)
• Less efficient proppant transport
• Useful in low pressure gas reservoirs for lift
• Added flowback energy for cleanup in tight zones
• Binary foams (CO2 + N2)
• Benefits of CO2 solubility
• Disadvantages of N2 density

138
 Crosslink Delay
• Crosslinking (at surface) of Frac fluid increases
 Viscosity
 Friction pressure/ pumping pressure

• Delay in crosslinking will reduce pumping pressure

• Optimisation of delay time is vital

• More delay : Proppant transportation Problem
• Less delay : Increase in pumping pressure
• Optimum time will be 2/3rd of travel time to reach formation

142
 Xlink time
• Required Equipment
 Waring Blender and a rheostat to control speed
 Balance to weigh out chemicals
• Main use is to adjust crosslink time to well and
treatment conditions
 Primarily fluid temperature and tubing transit
time
• Very sensitive to contaminants in the water
 Altered crosslink time may or may not reduce
ultimate crosslinked fluid viscosity

143
 New Fluid systems
• High temperature frac fluid
• Visco-elastic surfactant (VES) based fluid
• Reduced polymer system
• Liquid gel concentrates

144
 High Temperature frac fluid
• Existing fracturing fluid not suitable for high temp. Wells
(>125C)
• Frac fluid developed at WSS, Ahmedabad for temp. upto 150C
• Fracturing in Deep/Ultradeep wells
 Optimisation of crosslink delay time
• Fracturing in High Temperature wells
 Enhancing stability of frac fluid
 Optimisation of breaker dosing

145
 Gellants (Polymer)
• Guar gum
• Made from guar beans
• High molecular weight
mannose and galactose sugars
(polysaccharides)
• High residue (6-10%)
but can be reduced
by processing

146
 Gellants (Polymer)
• Hydroxypropyl Guar, HPG
• Derivative of guar
• Lower residue (2-4%) and more soluble in alcohol
• Similar formation damage to guar
• More stable at higher temperatures (>150C)
• Carboxymethyl-Hydroxypropyl Guar, CMHPG
• Popular as a high temperature base gel
• Frequently crosslinked with Zr

• Carboxymethyl Guar, CMG

• Yields viscosity in fresh water
• Intolerant to salts

147
 Water based Polymer
• Hydroxyethylcellulose, HEC
• Glucose backbone
• Cleaner fluid than guar or HPG
• Difficult to crosslink

• Xanthan gum
• Biopolymer, produced metabolically by microorganism Xanthomonas
• Behaves as power law fluid even at low shear rates (whereas HPG fluid
becomes Newtonian)
• At shear rates less than 10 s–1,xanthan based fluid can suspend sand better
than HPG
• More expensive than guar or cellulose derivatives
• Used less frequently

148
 Significance of n’, k’
• Rheological behaviour predicts the performance of fracturing
fluid based n, k’ values

n’ describes the flow pattern

n=1 the fluid is Newtonian,
n >1 dilatant nature (Viscosity increases with
shear)
n<1 the fluid is shear thinning

153
 Rheological variation
• Variation in High shear experienced by
the fluid during pumping through
tubulars & perforation tunnels
• Once in fracture, shear significantly
reduces, but fluid temperature
increases until it eventually reaches
formation temperature
• Shear experienced by a specific fluid
volume increases with time
• Formation temp. gradient experienced
by fluid is highest at the beginning of
the treatment and decreases thereafter

154
 Frac fluid Stability
• Frac fluid must be stable with
• Formation Temperature
• Viscosity (50-70%) should be maintained for 2 – 3 hrs

• Frac fluid instability leads to

• Reduced viscosity of fluid
• Reduced proppant carrying capacity
• Failure to create required Fracture dimensions

155
FRACTURING FLUID TRATMENT EXECUTION
How do you perform the Fluid Efficiency test?
TIME 
k – formation permeability, mD
Fracture performance under pseudo radial flow
 The pseudo radial flow behavior can be predicted by a simple and easy-to-use relationship
provided by Cinco-Ley and Samaniego (1981). An equivalent wellbore radius is calculated for the
fracture, assuming that the fracture is not close to any boundaries and fully covers the reservoir
interval. The equivalent wellbore radius is convertible to a fracture skin factor (Sf). The skin factor
for a given Fcd can be calculated from graph in previous slide using the line (Sf + ln(xf/rw)).

where t is the time since production started (hr.), Ct the total compressibility (1/psi),
xf is the fracture half length (ft); µ is the fluid viscosity (cP)
 If the fracture volume (i.e. proppant volume) is fixed, the half-length x width will be a constant for a
fracture of given height. There is an optimum combination of half-length and width for a fixed fracture
volume that minimizes the skin (greatest productivity). This occurs at the minimum of:
Q1. Calculate skin factor after hydraulic fracturing job from Cincoley Samaniego correlation. Also calculate the
time (in days) for pseudo radial flow to develop. Following data is given for the fractured well :-

Dimensionless time from Gringarten Et Al type curve for vertically fractured well is 3
 Hydraulic Fracture Growth
1 - Fracture initiation as pumping of
Time Frac length fluid is started
during 2 - Fracture propagation with fluid
Frac width 3 – Proppant (usually sand) enters
fracture
treatment hydraulic fracture as it is
suspended in the fracturing fluid
4 - Proppant advances further into
the fracture as pumping continues
5 – Proppant advances further in the
fracture and may reach the tip of
the hydraulic fracture as fluid
continues to leak into the
permeable formation
6 – Pumping of the fluid/proppant
mixture is stopped and fluid
continues to leak away into the
permeable formation
7 – Formation closes on proppant
and a conductive path remains in
the reservoir
Hydraulic Fracture Growth
1 - Fracture initiation as pumping
of fluid is started
2 - Fracture propagation with fluid
3 – Proppant (usually sand)
enters hydraulic fracture as it is
suspended in the fracturing fluid
4 - Proppant advances further
into the fracture as pumping
continues
5 – Proppant advances further in
the fracture and may reach the
tip of the hydraulic fracture as
fluid continues to leak into the
permeable formation
6 – Pumping of the fluid/proppant
mixture is stopped and fluid
continues to leak away into the
permeable formation
7 – Formation closes on proppant
and a conductive path remains in
Proppant Selection
Since proppants are used to hold open the fracture after the hydraulic
pressure used to generate the fracture has been relieved, their material
strength is of crucial importance.

The propping material has to be strong enough to bear the closure stress;
otherwise, the conductivity of the crushed proppant bed will be considerably
less than the design value (both the width and the permeability of the
proppant bed decrease).

Other factors considered in the selection process are size, shape, and
composition. There are two main categories of proppants: naturally occurring
sands and manmade ceramic and bauxite proppants.

Sands are used for lower-stress applications in formations at approximately

6000 ft and, preferably, considerably less. Man-made proppants are used for
high-stress situations in formations generally deeper than 8000 ft.
Between these two values, the magnitude of the stress is the deciding factor.
Three ways to increase the fracture conductivity are:
(1)increase the proppant concentration to produce a wider fracture,

(2)use larger proppant size to produce a more permeable fracture, or

(3)change the proppant type to gain more strength.

Economic Impact of Well Stimulation
Selection of the optimum size of a stimulation treatment is based primarily on
economics. The most commonly used measure of economic effectiveness is the
net present value (NPV). The NPV is the difference between the present value
of all receipts and costs, both current and future, generated as a result of the
stimulation treatment.
Future receipts and costs are converted into present value using a discount rate
and taking into account the year in which they will appear. Another measure of
the economic effectiveness is the payout period; that is, the time it takes for
the cumulative present value of the net well revenue to equal the treatment
costs. The NPV (as other equivalent indicators) is sensitive to the discount rate
and to the predicted future hydrocarbon prices.
As with almost any other engineering activities, costs increase almost linearly
with the size of the stimulation treatment but (after a certain point) the
revenues increase only marginally or may even decrease. Therefore, there is an
optimum size of the treatment that will maximize the NPV
Q1. A shale gas reservoir has undergone hydraulic fracturing. Using the inflow equations, drainage area concept and
fracture conductivity defined skin factor following data is given below.
Wellbore radius = 0.35 inch
Drainage radius = 1790 ft.,
Skin factor = –5
What would be the fold of increase in well productivity after fracturing job?

(a) 4 times
(b) 3 times
(c) 1.5 times
(d) 2 times
Thank You For Your Kind Attention

180