Advertisement

Experimental Study of Discontinuous Proppant Placement in Conductivity

  • Guoqing Xu
  • Xianyou Yang
  • Yang Shi
  • Yun Jiang
  • Futao Li
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Series in Geomechanics and Geoengineering book series (SSGG)

Abstract

Most of the existing hydraulic fracturing adopts continuous placement of proppant. However, there are few studies about discontinuous proppant placement. In order to evaluate the effect of discontinuous proppant pillar in conductivity, conductivity experiments are done to testify by using sandstone and shale rock cells. The result shows that, for ceramic sands and coated sands, in low closure pressure which is less than 40 MPa, it has extremely higher conductivity, and the conductivity declines as the pressure increases higher than 40 MPa which indicates that the highway constructed by pillars is the main factor to affect the conductivity. It has little difference with continuous placement of proppant when it is in high pressure. For high sand concentration, it is easy to get high conductivity. However, the increase rate will decline with the increase of closure pressure, while when the resin coated sand is placed in monolayer pillar, the conductivity could be 1–2 orders of magnitude higher than homogeneous proppant placement which indicates that under the premise of obtaining the same conductivity using less proppant could lead to higher conductivity so that we can save material and time for treatment.

Keywords

Discontinuous placement Proppant pillar Conductivity Closure pressure Proppant 

References

  1. 1.
    Ahmed M, Hussain A, Ahmed M (2011) Optimizing production of tight gas wells by revolutionizing hydraulic fracturing. In: SPE project and facilities challenges conference at METS. Society of petroleum engineers, 2011Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ajayi BT, Walker KJ, Wutherich K, Sink J (2011) Channel hydraulic fracturing and its applicability in the marcellus shale. In: SPE Eastern Regional meeting. Society of petroleum engineers, 2011 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gillard MR, Medvedev OO, Hosein PR, Medvedev A, Penacorada F, Huteau E (2010) A new approach to generating fracture conductivity. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Society of petroleum engineers, 2010Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Inyang U, Nguyen P, Cortez J (2014) Development and field applications of highly conductive proppant-free channel fracturing method. In: SPE unconventional resources conference. Society of petroleum engineers, 2014Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tinsley J, Williams J Jr (1975) A new method for providing increased fracture conductivity and improving stimulation results. J Petr Technol 27(11):1319–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ejofodomi EA, Cavazzoli G, Morris J, Prioul R (2014) Application of channel fracturing in the Vaca Muerta Shale Formation. In: SPE Latin America and Caribbean petroleum engineering conference. Society of petroleum engineers, 2014Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Medvedev AV, Kraemer CC, Pena AA, Panga MKR (2013) On the mechanisms of channel fracturing. In: SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference. Society of petroleum engineers, 2013Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yudin AV, Sadykov A, Oparin M, Efremov A, Doktor SA, Katrich NM, Vinohodov MA, Chebykin NV, Garus I, Rudnitsky A (2012) Channel fracturing in the remote Taylakovskoe oil field: reliable stimulation treatments for significant production increase (Russian). In: SPE Russian oil and gas exploration and production technical conference and exhibition. Society of petroleum engineers, 2013Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guo T, Zhang S, Qu Z, Zhou T, Xiao Y, Gao J (2014) Experimental study of hydraulic fracturing for shale by stimulated reservoir volume. Fuel 128:373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yudin A, Tarakanov I, Klyubin A, Ablaev A, Zharikov M, Vashkevich A, Yaskin I, Sabirov L (2014) Channel fracturing improves stimulation efficiency by 30% in the achimov gas condensate formation (Russian). In: SPE Russian oil and gas exploration & production technical conference and exhibition. Society of petroleum engineers, 2014Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Qu ZQ, Zhou LP, Qu GZ (2015) Experimental evaluation on influencing factors of flow conductivity for channel fracturing proppant. Petr Geol Recovery Effic 22(1):122–126Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yan X, Huang ZQ, Xin YP, Yao J, Li Y, Gong L (2015) Theoretical analysis of high flow conductivity of a fracture induced in HiWay fracturing. Acta Phys Sin 64(13):0134703 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang J, Hou J (2016) Theoretical conductivity analysis of surface modification agent treated proppant II—channel fracturing application. Fuel 165:28–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lehman LV, Parker MA, Blauch ME, Haynes R, Blackmon A (1999) Proppant conductivity—what counts and why. In: Paper SPE 52219 presented at the SPE mid-continent operations symposium, Oklahoma City, 29–31 March 1999Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fredd CN, McConnell SB, Boney CL, England KW (2000) Experimental study of hydraulic fracture conductivity demonstrates the benefits of using proppants. In: Paper SPE 60326 presented at the SPE rocky mountain regional/low permeability reservoirs symposium, Denver, CO, 12–15 March 2000Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nguyen PD, Weaver JD, Parker M, McCabe M, Hoogteijling M, Horst MJ (2002) A novel approach for enhancing proppant consolidation: laboratory testing and field applications. In: Paper SPE 77748 presented at the SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29 Sept–2 Oct 2002Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nguyen P, Dusterhoft R, Clarkson B (2005a) Control of formation fines to provide long-term conductivity in weak, unconsolidated reservoirs. In: Offshore technology conference. Offshore technology conference, 2005aGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nguyen PD, Weaver JD, Rickman RD, Parker MA (2005b) Controlling formation fines at their sources to maintain well productivity. In: SPE international improved oil recovery conference in Asia Pacific. Society of petroleum engineers, 2005bGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    RP 61 (1989) Recommended practices for evaluating short term proppant pack conductivity. API, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guoqing Xu
    • 1
  • Xianyou Yang
    • 1
  • Yang Shi
    • 1
  • Yun Jiang
    • 1
  • Futao Li
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development (RIPED)BeijingChina

Personalised recommendations