Hydraulic Fracturing Section 13
Perforating for Fracturing
13.
Perforating for Fracturing
The single biggest influence on the effectiveness of a hydraulic fracture treatment is the position, number, size and phasing of the perforations. Many times this is outside of the control of the Frac Engineer, as a high proportion of treatments are carried out on existing wells that have already been perforated. However, if a well or an interval is new, the Frac Engineer can often greatly increase the effectiveness of a treatment by perforating for fracturing, rather than in a more conventional manner.
13.1
Controlling Fracture Initiation
Perforations can be used to control the point of fracture initiation, as illustrated in Figure 13.1a, below. On the left-hand side, there is an interval that has been perforated across its entire section. When the treatment commences, fracture initiation takes place. At this point, it should be remembered that fractures are initiated by pressure, not by rate. As Frac Engineers, we often use rate to create pressure (as a consequence of Darcys law), but its the pressure that makes the fracture. As the pressure increases, a fracture will initiate when the pressure rises above the breakdown pressure of the weakest point along the perforated interval. This can be in at the top of the zone (frac A, below), in the middle of the zone (B) or at the bottom of the zone (C). There can also be more than one fracture wherever the fluid pressure exceeds the breakdown pressure, a fracture will be initiated. Multiple fractures (see Section 7.5) can result in poor fracture conductivity and early screenouts.
Fig. 13.1a The Effect of Perforations on Fracture Initiation
If the interval is perforated as shown in the left-hand side of Figure 13.1a, the point at which the fracture or fractures initiate is beyond the control of the Frac Engineer. Fracs A and C have substantial sections propagated outside the interval. This results in poor coverage of the interval and a considerable amount of wasted proppant. There is also a risk that Frac A could penetrate into a gas cap or that Frac C could penetrate into a water zone. Alternatively, the interval could be perforated as shown in the right-hand side of Figure 13.1a. In this example, the zone has been perforated over a very short interval (5 to 10 ft). This controls the point at which the fracture initiates, and dramatically reduces the chances of multiple fractures forming. If this short perforated interval is in the center of the zone, then
Page 13.1
Rev 0
Hydraulic Fracturing Section 13
Perforating for Fracturing
there is a good chance that the fracture will propagate both up and down, covering the entire section and using the proppant efficiently. Alternatively, if there is a water zone close by, the interval can be perforated towards the top. This causes the fracture to initiate near the top, reducing the chances of the fracture penetrating down into the water. Of course, once the interval has been fractured, there is nothing - other than cost to stop a second perforation run being made to cover the rest of the interval. However, if the treatment has been effective, the fracture will be many times more conductive than the formation. Consequently, any perforation that is not directly connected to the fracture will be unproductive:We have recognized point-source perforating improves your ability to successfully stimulate an interval........to improve our completions and ultimate recoveries. We have learned from perforating for stimulation that it does not take 100 ft of perforations to produce a 100 ft zone. We have proven that 5ft placed in the proper place will outperform all 100 ft. Robert Lestz, Production Engineer, Chevron Harts E&P, February 2000 Another example of perforating to control fracture initiation, is the case when multiple zones are treated simultaneously in a single treatment. The conventional method is to try a limited entry treatment (see Section 7.5), but these are unreliable and difficult to control.
Figure 13.1b Perforating for Zonal Coverage
Figure 13.1b illustrates this concept. Conventionally, each productive section of the formation is perforated individually. When this well is fractured, a portion of the fluid (dependent upon a number of variables) will enter each of the intervals, as in the left-hand side of Figure 13.1b. Limited entry fracturing is all about controlling how much fluid goes into each interval, and can be very unreliable. However, if the well has not already been perforated, the best method is to perforate a small section in the center of the formation, and allow the fracture to connect up all of the individual intervals (right-hand side of Figure 13.1b). Under any circumstances, a treatment that produces a single fracture is much easier to predict and control than a treatment that produces multiple fractures. Once again, a small section (5 to 10 ft) of perforations is shot. These need to be placed roughly in the center of the interval to be covered, or slightly towards the bottom, depending
Page 13.2
Rev 0
Hydraulic Fracturing Section 13
Perforating for Fracturing
upon the stress regime. Consequently, this may even mean deliberately perforating a nonproductive formation, such as a shale. It can often be quite hard to convince an oil or gas company to deliberately do this.
13.2
Controlling Tortuosity
In order to minimise tortuosity, it must be as easy as possible for the fracture to propagate from the perforations. Every single perforation is a potential source of fracture initiation, so one of the steps taken is to reduce the number of perforations to an absolute minimum, consistent with the anticipated production rate. This in turn means big holes. Another important factor is the phasing of the perforations. Ideally, this should be 1800, with the guns orientated so that they shoot perpendicular to the maximum horizontal stress. This way the holes are lined up with the direction of fracture propagation, minimising any changes of direction between the hole in the casing and the main fracture. Most of the time it is not possible to orientate the guns in this fashion however, it is still best to use 1800 phasing, rather than 1200, 900 or 600, as there is a greatly reduced chance of producing multiple fractures. Figure 13.2a illustrates this:-
Figure 13.2a Perforation Strategy for Vertical Wells
Deviated Wellbores
Hydraulic fractures tend to propagate on a vertical or near vertical plane (see Section 6). On a vertical well, this means that the fracture will propagate along or close to the wellbore. This minimises the formation of multiple fractures, as the compression of the rock on either side of the fracture will make it harder for parallel fractures to grow. However, on a deviated or horizontal wellbore, the horizontal distance between potential points of fracture initiation is much greater, making it much easier to produce tortuosity and/or multiple fractures. Consequently, it is common practice for highly deviated or horizontal wells, to perforate a very short section of the formation (+/- 2 ft or less), with as many big holes as possible. This is shown in Figure 13.2b (for a horizontal well):-
Figure 13.2b Perforation Strategy for Horizontal Wells
Page 13.3
Rev 0
Hydraulic Fracturing Section 13
Perforating for Fracturing
13.3
Perforating for Skin Bypass Fracturing
Skin Bypass Fracturing (SBF - see Section 2.4) is a special type of small-scale fracturing operation designed to penetrate through skin damage, and to provide effective stimulation without the cost and logistics of larger-scale treatments. Whilst it is true that SBFs may not necessarily offer such a large production increase as conventional fracturing, the stimulation is still effective, and is usually more than adequate to justify the cost of the treatment. As with any type of fracturing, the position of the perforations can have a significant effect on the results of the treatment.
Figure 13.3a The Effect of Fracture Initiation Point on Skin Bypass Fracs
With reference to Figure 13.3a, it is easy to see how the point of fracture initiation can effect a fracture not designed to cover the entire height of the formation, such as in skin bypass fracturing. Obviously, fracture B will produce more stimulation than fractures A or C. If the entire section of the formation is perforated, it is usually not possible to control the point of fracture initiation (although a sand fill can be used to ensure that the fracture doesnt initiate towards the bottom). Therefore, when planning a perforation strategy, it would be better to shoot holes over a small, central section, than over the entire interval.
Figure 13.3b Multiple Skin Bypass Fracs Over a Large Interval
Page 13.4
Rev 0
Hydraulic Fracturing Section 13
Perforating for Fracturing
Figure 13.3b shows a different approach to perforating for SBFs. Over a large section, one of the most cost effective methods of stimulation is to carry out several small consecutive treatments, as listed below (with reference to Figure 13.3b) Zone Lower Step 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 Action Perforate bottom zone Frac lower zone Recover fluids Isolate lower zone by placing sand fill Perforate middle zone Frac Middle zone Recover fluids Isolate middle zone by placing sand fill Perforate upper zone Frac upper zone Recover fluids Remove sand fill Place on production
Middle
Upper
All
This method ensures maximum coverage of the interval for minimum of effort, although it does involve three separate perforating runs and the use of coiled tubing to remove the sand fill.
References
Behrmann, L.A.: Perforating Requirements for Fracture Stimulations, paper SPE 39453, presented at the SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette LA, Feb 1998. Rae, P., Martin, A.N., and Sinanan, B.: Skin Bypass Fracs: Proof that Size is Not Important, paper SPE 56473, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio TX, Oct 1999. Behrmann, L.A., and Nolte, K.G.: Perforating Requirements for Fracture Stimulations, paper SPE 59480, SPE Drilling and Completions, December 1999, pp 228 234. Venkitaraman, A., Behrmann, L.A., and Chow, C.V.: Perforating Requirements for Sand Control, paper SPE 65187, presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference, Paris, Oct 2000.
Page 13.5
Rev 0
