压裂几何测试

在 SPE 水力压裂技术会议期间,行业专家寻找他们最大的测试“裂缝几何形状”的答案。

德克萨斯州伍德兰兹——高中数学老师是对的——几何学最终在以后的生活中确实是需要的。至少对于石油和天然气运营商来说是这样。  

裂缝几何形状在流动路径的演变中起着重要作用,并且对于裂缝执行和后续后处理井性能也很重要。在 2 月 7 日举行的 SPE 水力压裂技术会议上,行业高管寻找破解压裂几何形状评估密码的新方法。但在问题得到解决之前,必须做出一些让步。

“我们永远无法完美地描述地下裂缝的扩展,”赫斯的首席工程顾问克雷格·西波拉 (Craig Cipolla) 告诉观众。

即便如此,操作人员仍在尽最大努力通过收集的大量数据来描述井的裂缝几何形状。

“如果你无法对你想要建模的事物进行一些测量,那么你就无法对任何事物进行建模,” Devon Energy Ventures经理凯尔·豪斯特维特 (Kyle Haustveit)补充道。

收集的一些诊断数据包括偏移压力、微震日志、地球化学数据和 PVT(压力、体积和温度)数据。运营商利用这些数据创建了模型来实现“最佳压裂设计”,Liberty Energy技术总监 Michael Mayerhofer告诉观众。

然而,在尝试测量压裂几何形状时会出现问题。即使有测量和数据,如今,有效的支撑几何形状很少被测量。因此,迈尔霍费尔在研究过程中提出的一个大问题是,支撑剂有效产生的几何形状是否会随着所产生的裂缝长度的测量而变化。

“看起来他们在有效产生的长度或几何形状与创建的长度或几何形状之间有一个相当恒定的因素或比率,”他说。“因此,这非常重要,我们希望能够为每个流域的行业生成某种参考目录,并了解这些比率可能是多少,因为进行诊断更具成本效益测量水力几何形状,然后您可以按照该比例缩放有效生产的几何形状。”

西波拉认为,由于侧向长度、体积曲线、高度和微震数据等可用测量数据,接近它至少是“不合理的”。

“有了这套测量工具——相当大的工具箱——但我们错过了一些东西,它试图帮助我们了解真正产生的是什么,电导率是多少,甚至比这更重要的是,电导率是多少”沿着这条生产裂缝的剖面,”西波拉说。

自 20 世纪 40 年代末首次使用支撑剂以来,绘制支撑剂图一直是整个行业的目标。试图绘制裂缝几何形状的操作员已经使用了裂缝诊断,其中包括分析水力压裂处理之前、期间和之后的数据,以确定所创建和支撑的裂缝的形状和尺寸。

“需要校准裂缝和储层模型才能从压裂诊断中产生更重要的价值,”迈尔霍夫说。“在进行敏感性研究时了解模型的表现至关重要。”

Cipolla 指出需要升级支撑剂运输模型。

“我认为,推进支撑剂传输模型并结合我们越来越多地看到的一些相对粗略但有价值的现场测量可能是我们所缺少的唾手可得的成果,”他说。“我们讨论过这个问题,我们断断续续地工作了很长时间,这非常非常困难。” 但现在至少我们了解了这个范围是什么样的。”

SPE 完井技术总监凯伦·奥尔森 (Karen Olson) 对此表示同意,并描述了传感器使这一想法变得司空见惯的未来。

“我一直在设想一种我们可以泵送的传感器,它足够小,它说,‘业’就在这里,顺便说一句,我承受了很大的压力,而且它很热,它给了你X、Y、Z 位置。“如果我们有小传感器球,我们可以将其扔进沙子中,然后将其发回并告诉我们物体在哪里,那就太好了。”

奥尔森并不觉得这样的梦想与现实相去甚远。该行业拥有实现这一目标所需的工具。

“我不认为这真的需要那么多努力,因为我们拥有如此强大的计算能力,”她说。

原文链接/hartenergy

Fracturing’s Geometry Test

During SPE’s Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Conference, industry experts looked for answers to their biggest test – fracture geometry.

THE WOODLANDS, Texas— High school math teachers were right—geometry does end up being needed later on in life. At least, it does for oil and gas operators.  

Fracture geometry plays a significant role in the evolution of flow paths and is important to fracture execution and subsequent post-treatment well performance. At SPE’s Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference on Feb. 7, industry executives looked for new ways to crack the code in evaluating frac geometry. But before the problem can be solved, some concessions have to be made.

“We're never going to perfectly describe fracture growth in the subsurface,” Craig Cipolla, Hess’ principal engineering advisor, told the audience.

Even so, operators are doing their best to describe a well’s fracture geometry through the copious amounts of data they gather.

“You can't model anything if you don't have some measurement of the thing you’re trying to model,” Kyle Haustveit, manager of Devon Energy Ventures, added.

Some of the diagnostic data gathered includes offset pressure, microseismic logs, geochemical data and PVT (pressure, volume and temperature) data. Using this data, operators have created models to achieve the “optimum frac design,” Michael Mayerhofer, director of technology at Liberty Energy, told the audience.

However, problems pop up when trying to measure frac geometry. Even with measurements and data, effective propped geometry is rarely measured nowadays. Because of this, a big question that came up for Mayerhofer during his research was whether the proppant’s effectively produced geometry will scale with the measure of created fracture length.

“It seemed like they had a fairly constant factor or ratio of that effectively producing length or geometry versus the created one,” he said. “So that would be very important, some kind of a reference catalog that we can hopefully generate as an industry in each basin and get an idea of what those ratios could be, because it’s much more cost effective to do diagnostics that just measure the hydraulic geometry and then you can just scale the effectively producing one with that ratio.”

Cipolla believes it isn’t “unreasonable” to at least get close because of available measurements such as lateral length, volume curves, height and microseismic data.

“We’ve got this suite of measurements—a pretty large toolbox—but we missed something that is trying to help us understand what’s really producing, what's the conductivity, and even more important than that, what is the conductivity profile along this producing fracture,” Cipolla said.

Mapping proppant has been an industry-wide goal since proppants were first implemented in the late 1940s. Operators attempting to map fracture geometry have used fracture diagnostics, which involves analyzing data before, during and after a hydraulic fracture treatment to determine the shape and dimensions of the created and propped fracture.

“Calibrated fracture and reservoir models are required to generate more significant value from frac diagnostics,” Mayerhofer said. “An understanding of how models perform when conducting sensitivity studies is critical.”

Cipolla noted the need to upgrade the proppant transport model.

“I think that advancing proppant transport models and tying in some of these relatively gross but valuable field measurements that we’re seeing more and more might be the low hanging fruit that we’re missing,” he said. “We’ve talked about it and we’ve been working on it off and on for a long time, and is very, very difficult. But now at least we’re understanding what the range looks like.”

Karen Olson, SPE’s completions technical director, agreed, describing a future where sensors make that idea commonplace.

“I keep envisioning a sensor that we can pump that’s small enough and it says, ‘I’m here, and by the way, I’ve got this much pressure on me and it’s this hot and it gives you an X, Y, Z location.’ It’d be great if we had little sensor balls that we can throw in the sand and send it back and tell us where things are.”

Dreams such as these don’t feel that far from reality to Olson. The industry has the necessary tools to make it happen.

“I don’t think it really would take that much effort because we have so much computing power,” she said.