+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Hydraulic Fracturing

Hydraulic Fracturing

Date post: 25-Feb-2016
Category:
Upload: sloan
View: 40 times
Download: 2 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
Hydraulic Fracturing. 60 Years of Hydraulic Fracturing 1949 to 2010 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Popular Tags:
15
Hydraulic Fracturing
Transcript
Page 1: Hydraulic Fracturing

Hydraulic Fracturing

Page 2: Hydraulic Fracturing

60 Years of Hydraulic Fracturing1949 to 2010 On March 17, 1949, a team comprised of Stanolind Oil Company and Halliburton personnel converged on a well about 12 miles east of Duncan, OK, to perform the first commercial application of hydraulic fracturing. Later the same day, Halliburton and Stanolind personnel fractured another well near Holliday, TX. The technique had been developed and patented by Stanolind (later known as Pan American Oil Company, then Amoco, and now BP) and an exclusive license issued to Halliburton to perform the process. In 1953, the license was extended to all qualified service companies. Since that day in 1949, hydraulic fracturing has done more to increase recoverable reserves than any other technique, and is a “must” for commercial production from most North American reservoirs…

Page 3: Hydraulic Fracturing

Hydraulic Fracturing – Essential Technology• Well over 1,500,000

wells hydraulically fractured (since 1949)

• >40,000 NA wells fractured in 2011

• > 125,000 NA fracture treatments in 2011

• > $20 Billion NA market

• Essential for most unconventional resources– Gas shales (and oil)– Tight sands

Page 4: Hydraulic Fracturing
Page 5: Hydraulic Fracturing
Page 6: Hydraulic Fracturing

Stimulate the Well Optimize each stage with appropriate stimulation

design. Monitor Each Stage in real time

Page 7: Hydraulic Fracturing

What Do Fractures Really Look Like?

Simple Fracture Complex Fracture

Complex FractureWith Fissure Opening

Complex FractureNetwork

Simple Fracture Complex Fracture

Complex FractureWith Fissure Opening

Complex FractureNetwork

SWN Wright 1-3 Model Geometry

10500

10750

11000

11250

11500

11750

12000

5 500GR_STGC

Logs : Wright1-3REPAIR.las

10500

10750

11000

11250

11500

11750

12000

Rocktype

FracproPT Layer Pro...

Shale

Bossier

250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750

Concentration of Proppant in Fracture (lb/ft²)

0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.0

Proppant Concentration (lb/ft²)

500 m

Page 8: Hydraulic Fracturing

Downhole Microseismic Monitoring

Treatment WellObservation Well

Typically 12-3C Level @ 40 ft

Observation DistanceDepends on Seismic Attenuation

Perforated Interval

• Microseismic Monitoring Is Applied Earthquake Seismology (Seismology 101)

– Based On Principles Known For Decades

– Has Been Used Since Mid-1970’s (Hot Dry Rock)

– Primary Difference Is The Use Of A Downhole Array

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500

Page 9: Hydraulic Fracturing

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

1 501 1001 1501 2001 2501 3001 3501 4001

Dept

hs (f

t)

Frac Stages (sorted on Perf Midpoints)

Barnett Shale Mapped Frac Treatments/TVDsDeepest Water Well Depth Frac Top Perf Top Perf Mid Perf Btm Frac Btm

Mapped microseismic height for Barnett shale• Top: shallowest microseism; Bottom: deepest microseism• Aquifers: USGS deepest water wells by county

Smallest height growth at shallow depths

Large spikes are likely fault interactions

Archer Bosque BrownClay Cooke CulbersonDenton Eastland ErathHarmon Hill HoodJack Johnson MontaguePalo Pinto Parker ReevesSomervell Stephens TarrantWise

Page 10: Hydraulic Fracturing

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901

Dept

hs (f

t)

Frac Stages (sorted on Perf Midpoints)

Marcellus Shale Mapped Frac Treatments/TVDsDeepest Water Well Depth Frac Top Perf Top Perf Mid Perf Btm Frac Btm

Armstrong Belmont BradfordButler Cameron CentreClearfield Clinton DoddridgeElk Forest GreeneHarrison Lycoming MarshallMc Kean Nicholas PotterPutnam Schuyler SusquehannaTaylor Tioga UpshurWashington Westmoreland Wetzel

Mapped microseismic height for Marcellus shale• Top: shallowest microseism; Bottom: deepest microseism• Aquifers: USGS deepest water wells by county

Smallest height growth at shallow depths

Page 11: Hydraulic Fracturing

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1 101 201 301 401

Dept

hs (f

t)

Frac Stages (sorted on Perf Midpoints)

Woodford Shale Mapped Frac Treatments/TVDs

Deepest Water Well Depth Frac Top Perf Top Perf Mid Perf Btm Frac Btm

Andrews AtokaBlaine CanadianCarter ClevelandCoal CulbersonGarfield HughesJohnston PittsburgReeves Winkler

Mapped microseismic height for Woodford shale• Top: shallowest microseism; Bottom: deepest microseism• Aquifers: USGS deepest water wells by county

Smallest height growth at shallow depths

Page 12: Hydraulic Fracturing

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

140001 101 201 301 401 501 601 701

Dept

hs (f

t)

Frac Stages (sorted on Perf Midpoints)

Eagle Ford Shale Mapped Frac Treatments/TVDsDeepest Water Well Depth Frac Top Perf Top Perf Mid Perf Btm Frac Btm

Atascosa Burleson

De Witt Dimmit

Fayette Frio

Gonzales Karnes

La Salle Live Oak

Maverick Mc Mullen

Webb

Mapped microseismic height for Eagle Ford shale• Top: shallowest microseism; Bottom: deepest microseism• Aquifers: USGS deepest water wells by county

Smallest height growth at shallow depths

Page 13: Hydraulic Fracturing

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

140001 101 201 301 401 501 601 701

Dept

hs (f

t)

Frac Stages (sorted on Perf Midpoints)

Eagle Ford Shale Mapped Frac Treatments/TVDsDeepest Water Well Depth Frac Top Perf Top Perf Mid Perf Btm Frac Btm

Atascosa Burleson

De Witt Dimmit

Fayette Frio

Gonzales Karnes

La Salle Live Oak

Maverick Mc Mullen

Webb

Mapped microseismic height for Niobrara• Top: shallowest microseism; Bottom: deepest microseism• Aquifers: USGS deepest water wells by county

Smallest height growth at shallow depths

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

1 51 101 151 201 251 301 351 401 451 501

Dept

hs (f

t)

Frac Stages (sorted on Perf Midpoints)

DJ Basin (CO, WY) Mapped Frac Treatments/TVDsDeepest Water Well Depth Frac Top Perf Top Perf Mid Perf Btm Frac Btm

Adams

Laramie

Weld

Page 14: Hydraulic Fracturing

Conclusions• Decades of study and monitoring of thousands of

fracture treatments have demonstrated:– Fracture treatments in shales do not grow into aquifers

• Microseismic data• Simple volumetric calculations

– Fracture growth vertically is inhibited by layering & interfaces

• Mineback, laboratory, numerical, and field studies– Fracture growth in the near-surface region is limited by

horizontal components• Tiltmeter data, stress measurements

– Faults can influence fracture growth, but do not provide pathways for fracture fluid to reach the surface

– From a mechanics perspective, hydraulic fracturing is safe!

Page 15: Hydraulic Fracturing

Common Fracturing Chemicalstypically used at <0.1% concentration

Common Additives Used in Slick Water Fracturing

Composition CAS Number Percentage of shale fracs that use this additive. (This in NOT concentration)

Alternate Use

Friction Reducer Polyacrylamide 9003-05-8 Near 100% of all fracs use this additive

Adsorbent in baby diapers, flocculent in drinking water preparation

Biocide Glutaraldehyde 111-30-8 80% (decreasing) Medical disinfectant

Alternate Biocide Ozone, Chlorine dioxide UV,

10028-15-6 10049-04-4

20% (increasing) Disinfectant in municipal water supplies

Scale Inhibitor Phosphonate & polymers

6419-19-8 and others 10 – 25% of all fracs use this additive

Detergents and medical treatment for bone problems.

Surfactant Soaps, alchohols various 10 to 25% of all fracs use this additive

Dish soaps, cleaners


Recommended