0
Research Papers: Petroleum Engineering

Interpretation of Hydraulic Fracturing Pressure in Tight Gas Formations1

[+] Author and Article Information
Gun-Ho Kim

3S Laboratory for Petroleum
Research in Well Stimulation,
Department of Energy and Mineral
Engineering and EMS Energy Institute,
Penn State University Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: gunhokim@dsme.co.kr

John Yilin Wang

3S Laboratory for Petroleum
Research in Well Stimulation,
Department of Energy and Mineral
Engineering and EMS Energy Institute,
Penn State University Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: john.wang@psu.edu

This paper was originally presented as SPE 141525 at the 2011 SPE Production and Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, OK, March 27–29.

2Now with Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering, Inc., Seoul 100-210, South Korea.

Contributed by the Petroleum Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received May 22, 2013; final manuscript received December 26, 2013; published online March 6, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Hong-Quan (Holden) Zhang.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 136(3), 032903 (Mar 06, 2014) (8 pages) Paper No: JERT-13-1159; doi: 10.1115/1.4026460 History: Received May 22, 2013; Revised December 26, 2013

The interpretation of hydraulic fracturing pressure was initiated by Nolte and Smith in the 1980s. An accurate interpretation of hydraulic fracturing pressures is critical to understand and improve the fracture treatment in tight gas formations. In this paper, accurate calculation of bottomhole treating pressure was achieved by incorporating hydrostatic pressure, fluid friction pressure, fracture fluid property changes along the wellbore, friction due to proppant, perforation friction, tortuosity, casing roughness, rock toughness, and thermal and pore pressure effects on in-situ stress. New methods were then developed for more accurate interpretation of the net pressure and fracture propagation. Our results were validated with field data from tight gas formations.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Coefficient of discharge versus time (case study 1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Coefficient of discharge versus time (case study 2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

pperf versus time (case study 1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

pperf versus time (case study 2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Treatment data (case study 1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Treatment data (case study 2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

pnet plot without considering factors (case study 1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

pnet plot without considering factors (case study 2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

phyd versus time (case study 1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

phyd versus time (case study 2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Effect of proppant on pfric (case study 1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Effect of proppant on pfric (case study 2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

pnet plot after considering factors (case study 1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

pnet plot after considering factors (case study 2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

pnet plot at a constant injection rate (case study 1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

pnet plot at a constant injection rate (case study 2)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In