Determining the Most Effective Diversion Strategy Using Pressure Based Fracture Maps : A Meramec STACK Case Study
- Jeff Kopp (Reveal Energy Services, Inc.) | Charles Kahn (Reveal Energy Services, Inc.) | Charlee Allen (Chaparral Energy, Inc.) | Jake Huchton (Chaparral Energy, Inc.) | Clark Robinson (Chaparral Energy, Inc.) | Erica Coenen (Reveal Energy Services, Inc.)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition, 5-7 February, The Woodlands, Texas, USA
- Publication Date
- Document Type
- Conference Paper
- 2019. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 4.1.2 Separation and Treating, 4.1 Processing Systems and Design, 5.3.2 Multiphase Flow, 1.10 Drilling Equipment, 2 Well completion, 1.10 Drilling Equipment, 2.4 Hydraulic Fracturing, 4 Facilities Design, Construction and Operation, 2.5.2 Fracturing Materials (Fluids, Proppant)
- Meramec, offset pressure monitoring, Diverter, pressure-based fracture maps, Diverter pods
- 44 in the last 30 days
- 882 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 8.50|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 25.00|
This paper discusses a STACK (Sooner Trend Anadarko Basin Canadian and Kingfisher Counties) case study that determined the effectiveness of different diversion techniques, including pods, sand ramps with sand slugs, rate cycling, and utilization of the completions order to control fracture growth. A secondary goal of this study was to evaluate the suitability of pressure-based fracture maps and oil and water phase tracers in monitoring diverter effectiveness.
Effectiveness of a given diverter technique and diverter drop was evaluated using the two techniques on a 3-well pad. The three wells were completed using a combination of:
4 pods per treatment interval
6 pods per treatment interval
8 pods per treatment interval
high-volume proppant loading per treatment interval
The effectiveness of the diverter drop was evaluated using each of the diagnostic techniques listed above. The pressure-based fracture analysis uses the pressure response recorded in an isolated stage in the monitor well to compute fracture geometry and the rate of growth of the fracture dimensions. The effectiveness of a given diverter drop is classified into one of four possible categories: stop dominant fracture growth, impede dominant fracture growth, no impact on growth of dominant fracture and accelerate the growth of dominant farcture. These results were then compared with the analysis from oil and water phase tracers and treatment pressure analysis.
Successful (effective) diversion was observed on 82 % of the stages with pods compared to 64% successful diversion where sand ramps were used. In addition, stages using 8 pods for diversion had a 15% reduction in average fracture half-length compared to stages using 4 pods. Fracture height was better controlled through the order of completions of the stages between 3 wells. Completing the middle well in the upper part of the zone ahead of the two outer wells in the lower part of the zone, controlled the vertical height growth of the two outer wells.
The offset pressure-based analysis proved to be as effective in accurately diagnosing the diverter effectiveness and provided a significant cost and timing advantage compared to other diagnostic techniques.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||13|