Successful Implementation of High Viscosity Friction Reducers from Laboratory to Field Scale: Middle Bakken Case Study
- Mohammed Ba Geri (Missouri University of Science and Technology) | Abdulaziz Ellafi (University of North Dakota) | Bruce Ofori (Missouri University of Science and Technology) | Ralph Flori (Missouri University of Science and Technology) | Huosameddin Sherif (Missouri University of Science and Technology)
- Document ID
- Unconventional Resources Technology Conference
- SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, 22-24 July, Denver, Colorado, USA
- Publication Date
- Document Type
- Conference Paper
- 2019. Unconventional Resources Technology Conference
- 20 in the last 30 days
- 1,836 since 2007
- Show more detail
|SPE Member Price:||USD 9.50|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 28.00|
Recent studies have presented successful case studies of using HVFR fluids in the field. Reported cost reductions from using fewer chemicals and less equipment on the relatively small Marcellus pads when replacing linear gel fluid systems by HVFR. The investigation provided a screening guideline of utilizing HVFRs in terms of its viscosity and concentration. The study notes that in field application the average concentration of HVFRs is 2.75 gpt (gal per 1,000 gal)
Three different scenarios were selected to study fluid type effect using 3D pseudo simulator; as a first scenario; fracture dimensions as a second scenario; the last scenario was proppant type. The first scenario consists of two cases: utilizing HVFR-B as new fracture fluid in 20% of produced water was investigated in scenario I (base case). Comparison between HVFR and linear gel in the Middle Bakken was investigated in Case II of the first scenario. At the second scenario, fracture half-length was studied. Proppant distribution impact by using HVFR in Bakken formation was analyzed as the third scenario. The final scenario investigated the pumping flow rate influence on proppant transport of using HVFR. The concentration of HVFR-B was 3 gpt and the proppant size was 30/50 mesh. The treatment schedule of this project consists of six stages. The proppant concentration was increased gradually from 0.5 ppt to 6 ppt at the later stage.
In the case of using HVFR-B the fracture half-length was approximately 1300 ft while using linear gel created smaller fracture half-length. In contrast, using linear gel makes the fracture growth increase rapidly up to 290 ft as showed. To conclude, using HVFR-B created high fracture length with less fracture height than linear gel. Additionally, in using HVFR-B, the average fracture height was approximately 205 ft while using linear gel created increasing of the fracture growth rapidly up to 360 ft which represent around 43% increasing of the fracture height. In studying the impact of fracture half-length on proppant transport, increasing fracture half-length from 250 ft to 750 ft leads to the fracture growth rapidly up to 205 ft
Studying the impact of proppant size effect on proppant transport, we observed changing fracture conductivity across fracture half-length. Thus, the fracture height increasing with decreasing proppant mesh size. Fracture height increased from 193 ft to 206 ft by changing proppant mesh size from 20/40 to 40/70 mesh. With flow rate impact on proppant transport, it was observed that, the fracture height increases by increasing the pump rate. Utilizing HVFR-B in the fracture treatment provides higher absolute open flow rate (AOF) which is around 2000 BPD. On the other hand, the outcomes of using linear gel has less AOF that about 1600 BPD. Also, Increasing the Xf and proppant mesh size leads to increase the AOF.
This project describes comparison of the successful implementation of utilizing HVFR as an alternative fracturing system to linear gel.
|File Size||579 KB||Number of Pages||18|