What Would Be the Impact of Temporarily Fracturing Production Wells During Squeeze Treatments?
- Abdul Al-Rabaani (PDO) | Eric Mackay (Heriot-Watt University)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Production & Operations
- Publication Date
- August 2011
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 262 - 269
- 2011. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 4.3.4 Scale, 4.1.2 Separation and Treating, 3 Production and Well Operations
- treatment, matrix, scale, squeeze, fracture
- 1 in the last 30 days
- 361 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 12.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
It is generally assumed that scale-inhibitor squeeze treatments in production wells are displaced radially into the formation because it is normal to pump these treatments below the fracture pressure. However, it is known that thermal stresses as a result of injecting cold fluids can result in thermally induced fractures (TIFs). This paper addresses the evidence of thermal fracturing during low-volume (less than 10,000 bbl) treatments, and asks: What would be the impact on squeeze life of treating a well that was fractured during treatment vs. a nonfractured well?
The process involves modeling fractured and unfractured treatments to identify advantages and disadvantages of temporarily fracturing a well during a squeeze treatment in terms of inhibitor placement. While inhibitor may be placed at a greater distance from the wellbore if the formation is fractured during the treatment, the surface area of rock contacted during the treatment may be less than is the case in radial displacements. Issues such as consolidated vs. unconsolidated formations, initial reservoir temperature, fluid temperature at the sandface during injection, injection rate, and fracture dimensions should be considered.
In general, this work demonstrates that there are clear advantages to temporarily fracturing a well during a squeeze treatment, depending on the inhibitor-return concentrations required to prevent mineral-scale formation.
|File Size||850 KB||Number of Pages||8|
Bale, A., Larsen, L., Barton, D.T., and Buchanan, A. 2001. ProppedFracturing as a Tool for Prevention and Removal of Formation Damage. Paper SPE68913 presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague,21-22 May. doi:10.2118/68913-MS.
Charlez, P., Lemonnier, P., Ruffet, C., Bouteca, M.J., and Tan, C. 1996.Thermally Induced Fracturing: Analysis of a Field Case in North Sea. Paper SPE36916, presented at the European Petroleum Conference, Milan, Italy, 22-24October. doi:10.2118/36916-MS.
Collins, I.R. 1997. Scale Inhibitor Impregnated Particles--FieldApplications. Presented at the 3rd International Conference on Advances inSolving Oilfield Scaling, Aberdeen, 22-23 January.
Davis, D. 2005. Production Technology. Lecture notes, Heriot-WattUniversity, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Mackay, E.J and Jordan, M.M. 2003. SQUEEZE Modelling: Treatment Design andCase Histories. Paper SPE 82227 presented at the SPE European Formation DamageConference, The Hague, 13-14 May. doi: 10.2118/82227-MS.
Martins, J.P., Kelly, R., Lane, R.H., Olson, J.B., and Brannon, H.D. 1992.Scale Inhibition of Hydraulic Fractures in Prudhoe Bay. Paper SPE 23809presented at the SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana,USA, 26-27 February. doi:10.2118/23809-MS.
Norris, M., Perez, D., Bourne, H.M., and Heath, S.M. 2001. MaintainingFracture Performance through Active Scale Control. Paper SPE 68300 presented atthe International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen, 30-31 January. doi: 10.2118/68300-MS.
Paige, R.W. and Murray, L.R. 1994. Re-injection of produced water--Fieldexperience and current understanding. Paper SPE 28121 presented at RockMechanics in Petroleum Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands, 29-31 August. doi: 10.2118/28121-MS.
Palsson, B. 2003. A Study on the Parameters Controlling (Matrix) Injectivityof Produced Water. PhD thesis, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Robertson, E., Mackay, E.J., Jordan, M.M., and Graff, C.J. 2001. Design ofScale Inhibitor Squeeze Treatments in Fractured Wells: Analysis and FieldApplication. Paper SPE 65371 presented at SPE International Symposium onOilfield Chemistry, Houston, 13-16 February.
Seright, R.S. 1996. A Review of Gel Placement Concepts. PRRC 96-21, http://baervan.nmt.edu/randy/.
Seright, R.S., Liang, J., and Seldal, M. 1998. Sizing Gelant Treatments inHydraulically Fractured Production Wells. SPE Prod & Fac 13 (4): 223-229. SPE-52398-PA. doi: 10.2118/52398-PA.
Stevens, D.G., Murray, L.R., and Shah, P.C. 2000. Predicting MultipleThermal Fractures in Horizontal Injection Wells; Coupling of a Wellbore and aReservoir Simulator. Paper SPE 59354 presented in the SPE/DOE Improved OilRecovery Symposium, Tulsa, 3-5 April. doi: 10.2118/59354-MS.
Svendsen, A.P., Wright, M.S., Clifford, P.J., and Berry, P.J. 1991.Thermally Induced Fracturing of Ula Water Injectors. SPE Prod & Oper 6 (4): 384-390. SPE-20898-PA. doi: 10.2118/20898-PA.
Webb, P.J.C., Nistad, T.A., Knapstad, B., Ravenscroft, P.D., and Collins,I.R. 1999. Advantages of a New Chemical Delivery System for Fractured andGravel- Packed Wells. SPE Prod & Fac 14 (3): 210-218.SPE-57421-PA. doi:10.2118/57421-PA.
Williams, D.B, Sherrard, D.W., and Lin C.Y. 1989. Impact of InducingFractures at Prudhoe Bay. J Pet Technol 41 (10): 1096-1101.SPE-16358-PA. doi:10.2118/16358-PA.
Wright, C.A., Weijers, L., Davis, E.J., and Mayerhofer, M. 1999.Understanding Hydraulic Fracture Growth: Tricky But Not Hopeless. Paper SPE56724 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,3-6 October. doi:10.2118/56724-MS.