.

-’
$~E 9021

UNSOLICITED

Modifications to Production Increase Calculations

for a Hydraulically Fractured Well

By: M. Y. Soliman
 .

,’ ‘

JPT Form

Modifications to Production Increase Computations for a

Hydraulically Fractured Well

Discussion

Production increase of a well due to a vertical fracture

is affected by propped length~ prop- heicht, width and
~ermeability of the fracture. If a steaty-state condition of
~roduction Is assumed, the production increase may be defined
as the ratio of production rate aftex fracturing to the rate
before fracturing at the same pressure differential. The
assumed steady state condition requires constant pressure
outer and inne’rboundaries. These bound conditions are
a~ , Prats2, and
employed in models used by Tinsley ~.
Mao 3. Thus, the results from these ‘~=”nodels can be compared
on an equal basis.
Following is a ~rief discussion of ‘dese three methods.
Since Prats and Mao models only consider a fracture with propped
height equal to formation thickne~s, all comparisons presented
in this article aref of necessity~ restricted to this specific
case.
Tinsley Method
The production increase curves ?resenSed by Tinsley +. Q.
show productivity index ratio versus ‘fract~~e relative capaczty.”
The term “fracture relative capacity- has a dimension of length
(ft).
An immediate improvement of Tinsley et. ~. production in-
crease curves is achieved if the x-axis i=expressed in the
dimensionless fozm.
The “fracture relative capacity- plotted on tilex-axis of
Tinsley curves is developed using Eqzations 2 and 5 in
Reference 1 and reproduced below:

Yf 21T p (2)
‘=
‘f 7.07 kfAf = p
 .

~ JPT Forum Page 2

In Tinsely’s study, the resistance of the fractured

system (yf~)~ the radial system (yi)~ and the fracture (yf)
.
were measured.
Y~ Yi
Next, —
Yfs
was plotted versus —
P ()
. Using equations

1 an~ 2, these values were translated into their physical

meaning in petroleum engineering literature.
Yi ‘f (3)
—“q
Yfs

(4)

Tinsley’s cumes could be modified by redefining the x-

Yi
and y-axes. If ~ is plotted along the x-axis (instead of
Y“
~ ), the x-axis will be redefined in the more desired
dimensionless form;

Yi
~ = () ‘fwf
2nkixf
(5)

= ~ Cr hfD in reD

This modification will eliminate the need for use of

scaling factor in the x-axis. It will als~ shift the curves
with respect to the x-axis. This shift causes the shape of
the curves to coincide with other production increase curves;
i.e. Prats and Mao.
(
From Darcy’s ,law,the flow rate of an unfractured well
‘e , while that of a fractured well should
is a function of in ~
● x= ()
depend on ~ . In Ti%sley’s production increase cur!~es,the
‘e
influence of ‘f
Te
is represented by different curves, each
— ‘~.
corresponding to a given r 8 but these curves do not consider
~ e

1=
 .

JPT Forum “ Page 3

r
the effect of in
()
~In particular, the data obtained with
.
r
the potentiometric ;odel is a function of the # of the model.
r .
Had # of this model been different~ the result: wou+~ ~ave
been different. In fact, one should expect that if ‘~
“w
corresponds to (1/~)1, and(~)jto(l~~); ~”;~l

re
In
()
q
r
2 (6)
in
()
+
‘1

In this equation the subscript (1) could be the actual

value in the potentiometric model, while subscript (2) could
correspond to any other condition:
r
et. Q. gives the best fit with ~
The data of Tinsley, —
w
of approximately 500. Thus, for the purpose of correction of
Tinsley’s curves, the >of the potentiometric model will be
assumed to be around 508. This same value will also be used in
comparing the corrected curves with data generated by Prats and
Mao.
The modified production increase curves are presented in
Figs. 1 - 4.
Comparison to Prats and Mao
Prats developed a simplified analytical model.’ The assump-
tions used are the same as those used in the development of
et. al., except that:
Tinsley, ——
v.
1. ‘e is 22 while Tinsley
Prats solution suggests that — ‘
uses 1.25. ‘f

2. ‘f = 1 in Prats
q
 .

JPT Forum Page 4

Prats solved his model for the steady state condition

using conformal mapping~ t~ansformation and Fourier series.
Mao presented results of a finite element numerical model.
The same model was used by B. Barker” to produce type curves
for a well intercepting a vertical fracture in a bounded
reservoir.
The simplest way to check the modified production increase
curves against Prats’ analytical solution is to compare the
limiting cases (i.e. infinite conductivity fracture) for
r
different ~ ratios. Table 1 presents such a comparison using
‘w re
a reservoir ~ ratio of 500. The close agreement is apparent
‘w
and demonstrates the validity of the production increase curves.
To further demonstrate the validity of the production increase
curves, calculations in Table 1 are repeated for a reservoir
r
# ratio of 1500. These results are presented in Table 2.
w
Again, results from both models are comparable.
The next step in this comparison is to examine a wide
range of fracture conductivities. To include results from Mao’s
‘e
numerical simulator reservoir ~ ratio had to be restricted to
G = 881wused by Mao. Figure 5 shows
497 to correspond with ~
w ‘f
results from the three models for different — ratios. The
‘e
good agreement between the three models is apparent and confirms
the validity of the modified production increase curves.
Conclusions

1. Both the x- and y-axes in Tinsley et. Q. production

increase curves are modified. Then modification.s
generalize these curves for easier and more correct
use.
2. The x-axis is redefined in the more general dimensionless
form* This correction eliminatesthe need for a scaling
factor.
 .

. .

JPT Forum Page 5

3. The production increase xatios in Tinsley ~. ~. curves

r“
axe only valid for ~ ratio of the model. To eliminate

this restriction, th~ y-axis is redefined.

hi
4. The modified production increase curves for ~ = ~00
f
closely match results from Prats and Mao except for
xf
high ~ with low fracture conductivity. V
‘e
5. Since the modified production increase curves consider the
ratio of propped fracture height to the formation thick-
ness, they are of more general use than other production
increase models.
 .

b.

JPT Forum Page 6

Nomenclature

A Cross sectional area, sq ft

c= ‘fwf
= ‘ixf

h Height, ft

‘fD Propped height to formation thickness ratio,

dimensionless
-1
J Productivity index, B/D-l/psi
k Permeability, darcies .

P specific resistance of fracture, ohm/ft

r Radius of drainage, ft
e
‘eD Drainage radius to wellbore radius ra=io,
dimensionless

‘w Wellbore radius, ft

P Viscw.:.cy,cp
w Width, ft
Length of fracture, wellbore to end, ft
‘f
Y Model resistance, ohm
Subscripts
f Fracture parameters
fs Fractured system
i Initial reservoir parameters
 .

JPT FOZUm Page 7

References
.
1. ‘1’insiey,
J. M.t Williams, J. R., Jr., Tin&r, R. L. and
Malone, W. T.: “Vertical Fracture Height -- Its Effect
on Steady State Production Increase”~ J. Pet. Tech.
2* Prats, M.: “Effect of Vertical Fracture on Reservoir
Behavior -- Incompressible Fluid Case”, Sot. Pet. Eng. J.
(dune, 1961), 105-1?’8.
3* Mao, Ming-Lung: “Performance of Vertically Fractured
Wells with Finite Conductivity Fractures”, Ph.D.
Dissertation Stanford University, 1977.
4. Barker, B. J.: “Transient Flow to Finite Conductivity
Fractures”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, 1977.

4-----
-,

*
 ,.

Page 8

Table 1
Comparison Between Modified Production
Increase Curves and Prats Model for
Reservoir ‘e
~ Ratio of 500
w

Modified Production
Prats Increase Curves Error %

0.8 6.782 7.170 -5.72

0.7 5.919 5.866 0.89
0.6 5.161 5.023 2.67
0.5 4.683 4.378 2.34
0.4 3.861 3.827 0.88
0..3 3.276 3.273 0.09
0.2 2.699 2.688 0.41
0.1 2.074 1.981 4.48

Table 2
Comparison Between Modified Production
Increase Curves and Prats Model for
r
Reservoir & Ratio of lSOO
w

‘f Modified Production
F Prats Increase Curves Error %
e

..
0.8 7.981 8.446 -5.83
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O*1
 .

●
✎

.“;”

...
 I I 1 I I 1 I I I 11

I I
1 I i I
1
I 1 I
1
I II
I
I 1 I 1 1 n I 1 1 m1

1- I I I I I 111111
I 1 r J t I
I
t
I I I I
111111
I I I I I II
I I

I
I
I
I
1

I
I
1

f
n
I
I
1
1
I
t
1
I
I
t
1
I
)
I
I
1
1.
I
II
41
II a

I I I I t f
1 \ I I

- , , 1

I I
i
I I
I
I

1 I
I I

s
k
 .
●

‘f
= 0.75
q

. ~“
‘e
..8 “
. .

. ..7
. .

. — — - - ..6

. ..5
—.
. -.4
. -.3
. ..2

■ m - :.1

J
. 103 :
104
10-A c= .
z-
Fig. 3 Production Increase
‘f = 0.75
q
 . .

m.

iu
m
m
al
 I

H----k-t---et ~

I
;.
-—..
;—.:
.—----- —--:

- —“
..— —

~.
.-
—.
9.

A-

(-) (*]