PREVENTING POWER BLACKOUT WHILE FRACTURING

TECHNICAL FIELD

This disclosure relates generally to the field of hydraulic fracturing operations of a subsurface formation and more particularly to the field of preventing power blackouts during hydraulic fracturing operations.

BACKGROUND

In hydrocarbon recovery operations, fluid and sand may be pumped into a wellbore to hydraulically fracture a subsurface formation. A fracturing spread may include electric fracturing pumps configured to pump fluid and sand into the wellbore. The pressure from the fluid may fracture the subsurface formation, creating a conduit for the fluid in the subsurface formation to flow to the wellbore and ultimately to the surface. Sand may be pumped with the fluid and placed into the fractures to support said fractures. The fracturing spread may also include power units configured to supply power to the electric fracturing pumps and other electronics within the fracturing spread.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Implementations of the disclosure may be better understood by referencing the accompanying drawings.

FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a fracturing spread configured for hydraulically fracturing subsurface formations in one or more wells, according to some implementations.

FIG. 2 is a flowchart depicting example operations for preventing power blackouts of a fracturing spread, according to some implementations.

FIG. 3 is a flowchart depicting example operations for determining rate setpoints, according to some implementations.

FIG. 4 is a flowchart depicting example operations for preventing power blackouts of a fracturing spread, according to some implementations.

FIG. 5 is a block diagram depicting an example computer, according to some implementations.

DESCRIPTION

The description that follows includes example systems, methods, techniques, and program flows that embody aspects of the disclosure. However, it is understood that this disclosure may be practiced without these specific details. For instance, this disclosure refers to determining if a fracturing spread is at risk of a power blackout while hydraulically fracturing a subsurface formation. Aspects of this disclosure can also be applied to preliminary hydraulic fracturing operations to prevent power blackouts. For clarity, some well-known instruction instances, protocols, structures, and operations have been omitted.

Example implementations relate to preventing power blackouts during hydraulic fracturing operations. A fracturing spread may include one or more power units that supply power to components of a fracturing spread, such as one or more electric fracturing pumps. In some implementations, the power units may not supply enough power to the electric pumps to keep the pumps running (i.e., pumps keep pumping fluid and/or a sand slurry into the wellbore). For example, the electric pumps may increase rate, requiring more power. Alternatively, one or more power sources may stop supplying power to the fracturing spread. If no action is taken, the power units may fail, and the hydraulic fracturing operations may end. The abrupt stop in hydraulic operations when there is a power blackout and the pumps stop running may result in an increase in non-productive time (NPT), potential damage to the wellbore, potential damage to the pumps, etc. For example, an abrupt stop in pumping when power is no longer supplied to an electric frac pump may result in damage to the pump due to the rotational inertia of the pump components. In some implementations, it may take a long time to restart the power units and bring power back online. Conventional approaches may utilize controllers on individual pumps within the fracturing spread. However, there may be no coordination between pumps, resulting in situations where one pump may decrease its flow rate to reduce power usage and another pump may increase its flow rate when it detects an increase in available power.

In some implementations, the available capacity of the power units and the actual power usage of one or more electric pumps may be utilized to detect potential power blackouts of the fracturing spread and generate actions to prevent the power blackouts. The available capacity may be determined for one or more power units within a fracturing spread. Power units may include generators, the electric grid, or a combination of sources to supply power to one or more electric pumps and other components within the fracturing spread. The actual power usage may be determined for each electric pump within the fracturing spread. In some implementations, the available capacity and the actual power usage may be compared to determine if the fracturing spread is at risk of a power blackout. For example, if the comparison indicates the actual power usage is approaching and/or is greater than the available capacity, the fracturing spread may be at risk of a power blackout. If a potential power blackout is detected, one or more actions may be generated to mitigate the power blackout. Actions may include a communicating a warning message to one or more users, an automated rate reduction communicated to a control system, etc. For example, if there is a potential power blackout, a rate reduction may be recommended and communicated to a user (such as an engineer, pump operator, etc.) to reduce the flow rate output by the electric pumps and subsequently reducing the power usage by the electric pumps.

In some implementations, the actions may be executed to prevent the power blackout. For example, the aforementioned actions generated based on the comparison of the available capacity and the actual power usage may be initiated, modified, or stopped. Examples of actions include reducing rate output by the electric pumps, adjusting chemical concentrations to reduce surface treating pressure, etc. For instance, the available capacity and the actual power usage may indicate a potential power blackout of the fracturing spread. Accordingly, a new friction reducer concentration may be generated and subsequently implemented into the hydraulic fracturing operations to reduce the surface treating pressure to reduce the actual power usage of the electric pumps and prevent a power blackout.

Example System

FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a fracturing spread configured for hydraulically fracturing subsurface formations in one or more wells, according to some implementations. The fracturing spread described herein may be part of a larger system for drilling and fracturing well. The fracturing spread 100 may include a wellhead 102 that is connected to a wellbore. The wellbore (not shown) may be fluidically connected to one or more subsurface formations for the purpose of hydrocarbon recovery. Although FIG. 1 shows only one wellhead 102, there may be any suitable number of wellheads 102 and wells.

The wellhead 102 may be connected to a manifold 104 via piping 106. The piping 106 may include one or more pipes between the wellhead 102 and the manifold 104. The manifold 104 may include a plurality of valves 108 and various internal piping (not shown) for performing hydraulic fracturing operations.

The manifold 104 may be connected to one or more fracturing pumps (“frac pumps”) 112. The manifold 104 also may be connected to a blender 116 via piping 118. The blender 116 may be connected via piping 128 to one or more chemical containers 120, water containers 122, and acid containers 124. The blender 116 also may be connected to a sand conveyor 130, where the sand conveyor 130 may be connected to the container of fracturing sanders 132.

The fracturing spread 100 may also include a power unit 101 configured to provide power to the frac pumps 112. In some implementations, one or more of the frac pumps may be electric frac pumps, and each of the electric frac pumps may be powered by the power unit 101. If there are multiple electric frac pumps in the fracturing spread 100, there may be one power unit 101 that may supply power to the electric frac pumps, each electric frac pump within the fracturing spread 100 may have a dedicated power unit 101, there may be multiple power units 101 that supply power to respective subsets of electric frac pumps, etc. In some implementations, the power unit 101 may provide power to other components in the fracturing spread 100 such as the blender 116, sand conveyor 13, etc. The power unit 101 may include any suitable components that may supply power for the fracturing spread such as one or more generators (such as a natural gas generator, a diesel generator, a combination of the like, etc.), an electric grid, etc. and/or a combination of power sources.

The fracturing spread 100 also may include a control system 134 configured to control one or more of the components of the fracturing spread 100. In some implementations, the control system 134 directly controls the equipment. However, the control system 134 may interact with various equipment controllers (not shown) and sensors to perform operations of the fracturing spread 100. For example, the fracturing spread 100 may include separate controllers (not shown) for the frac pumps 112, manifold 104, blender 116, and wellhead 102. The control system 134 may transmit commands to these separate controllers to change configurations (such as valve position, flow rate, chemical concentration, etc.) of the frac pumps 112, manifold 104, blender 116, chemical containers 120, etc. wellhead 102.

The control system 134 may include a simulator 136. The simulator 136 may simulate operations (such as hydraulic fracturing operations) performed by various configurations of the fracturing spread 100. For example, the simulator 136 may determine if the fracturing spread 100 is at risk of a power blackout. As a more specific example, the simulator 136 may generate a power condition based on the capacity of the power unit 101 and the actual power usage of the fracturing spread 100. The simulator 136 may perform the simulation before the fracturing spread 100 is operational. By simulating particular operations of the fracturing spread 100, the control system 134 may determine that certain operations may result in a power blackout before the operations commence.

The control system 134 also may utilize the simulator 136 while the fracturing spread 100 is performing hydraulic fracturing operations. For example, as the fracturing spread 100 performs operations for hydraulic fracturing, the control system 134 may determine the actual power usage of the frac pumps 112 and the available capacity of the power unit 101. If the simulation indicates that the actual power usage may result in a power blackout, the control system 134 may generate one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout. The control system 134 also may send a warning message indicating the potential power blackout. For example, the control system 134 may determine that the fracturing spread 100 may experience a power blackout based on the available capacity of the power unit 101 and the actual power usage of the frac pumps 112. Hence, the control system 134 may suggest adjusting a fracturing parameter (such as a rate setpoint, a chemical setpoint, etc.) that may prevent the power blackout. The control system 134 may send the command to components of the fracturing spread 100 (such as a valve controller) to execute the command by implementing the suggested fracturing parameters into the hydraulic fracturing operations. As another example of real-time simulation, the control system 134 may continuously detect power conditions (available capacity and the actual power usage) and run simulations to determine whether those power conditions may lead to a power blackout. If conditions may lead to a power blackout, the control system 134 may determine one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout and execute the aforementioned actions.

Example Operations

Examples operations are now described.

FIG. 2 is a flowchart depicting example operations for preventing power blackouts of a fracturing spread, according to some implementations. FIG. 2 includes a flowchart 200 for continuously monitoring power conditions of a fracturing spread and mitigating power blackouts. The operations of the flowchart 200 may be repeatedly performed during hydraulic fracturing operations. For example, the operations may be run continuously (e.g., every control tick), at scheduled time instants, and/or triggered by other modules or users. Operations of flowchart 200 of FIG. 2 are described in reference to the control system 134 of FIG. 1. Additionally, the operations of flowchart 200 are described in reference to the power unit 101 and the frac pumps 112 of FIG. 1. Operations of the flowchart 200 start at block 202.

At block 202, the control system 134 may determine the available capacity of one or more power units. The power units may include one or more generators, the electric grid, or a combination of the like. In some implementations, the available capacity may be determined by reading data provided by the power unit. For example, the power unit may be configured to communicate the available capacity to the control system 134.

In some implementations, if the data from the power unit is unavailable, the available capacity may be determined by the condition of the fuel supply to the power unit. For example, if the power unit includes one or more natural gas generators, the available capacity may be based on properties of the gas fueling the generators. Gas properties of the supply gas may include the gas supply pressure and the methane number. In some implementations, when the power unit includes the electrical grid, the available capacity may be determined by the available capacity of the grid and/or the configuration of the transformers between the grid and the fracturing spread.

At block 204, the control system 134 may determine the actual power usage of the one or more electric pumps. The actual power usage may be the sum of the power usage from each respective electric pump within the fracturing spread. The actual power usage from each electric pump may be determined by reading the data provided by the switchgears of the respective pumps. For example, each electric pump may be configured to communicate the actual power usage, via the switchgear, to the control system 134. In some implementations, the actual power usage may include power usage from other components of the fracturing spread such as the blender, sand conveyor, etc.

In some implementations, the actual power usage may be determined by the hydraulic horsepower of all electric pumps within the fracturing spread. For example, the hydraulic horsepower for all electric pumps, represented by Phyd (using Equation 1 below), may be defined as follows:

$\begin{matrix} P_{hyd} = \sum_{i}^{N} Δ p_{i} \times q_{i} / η_{i} & (1) \end{matrix}$

- where N is the number of electric pumps, Δp_i, q_iand n_iare the pressure difference between outlet and inlet, pump rate and efficiency of i-th pump, respectively. In some implementations, if all of the frac pumps in the fracturing spread are electric, the hydraulic horsepower may be determined by multiplying the slurry rate by the surface treating pressure.

At block 206, the control system 134 may determine if the fracturing spread is at risk of a power blackout. In some implementations, the available capacity may be compared to the actual power usage to generate a power condition of the fracturing spread, where the power condition indicates if the relationship between the actual power usage and the available capacity. For example, the power condition may include a ratio of the actual power usage to the available capacity and/or a difference between the actual power usage and the available capacity. The resulting power condition may be compared against at least one threshold value. If the power conditions are greater than one or more thresholds, the fracturing spread may be at risk of a power blackout. The threshold values may indicate the severity of the risk of a power blackout. For example, a first threshold value may indicate a low risk (such as the actual power usage is 80% of the available capacity if the threshold is based on a ratio of the actual power usage to the available capacity), a second threshold value that is higher than the first threshold value may indicate a moderate risk (such as the actual power usage is 90% of the available capacity if the threshold is based on a ratio of the actual power usage to the available capacity), and a third threshold that is higher than the second threshold value may indicate a severe risk (such as the actual power usage is 99% of the available capacity if the threshold is based on a ratio of the actual power usage to the available capacity). For instance, the ratio of the actual power usage to the available capacity is 90% may be greater than a second threshold value, indicating a moderate risk of a power blackout. The threshold values may be customized depending on the power condition (e.g., ratio value of the actual power usage and the available capacity, difference between the actual power usage and the available capacity, etc.). For example, a power unit may include a plurality of generators. If the power condition was an absolute value (e.g., the difference between the actual power usage and the available capacity), the threshold may be set to a power value similar to the sum of power supplied by the plurality of generators if one generator were to fail such that the fracturing spread may operate on the plurality of generators and not blackout if one of the generators were to fail. Any suitable threshold(s) may be utilized to determine if the fracturing spread is at risk of a power blackout.

In some implementations, a function, such as ƒ(P_used, P_available), may be utilized to determine if the fracturing spread is at risk of a blackout. The function may be determined analytically, empirically, and/or from historical data. For example, historical power data, such as from the hydraulic fracturing operations on the current wellbore, past wellbore, and/or a combination of the like, may be utilized to determine the relationship between the actual power usage and the available capacity and output the probability of a power blackout. For instance, if more than one generator of a plurality of generators fails, the function may determine that more generators will fail and output a probability (e.g., 80%) that the fracturing spread may blackout. The output of the function (i.e., the power condition) may be compared against one or more thresholds (such as the aforementioned thresholds) to determine if the fracturing spread is at risk of a power blackout. In some implementations, the function output may be binary (e.g., 0 or 1) to indicate if a power blackout is going to occur.

If it is determined that the fracturing spread is at risk of a power blackout, then operations proceed to block 208. Otherwise, operations return to block 202 to continue to monitor the fracturing spread for a potential power blackout.

At block 208, the control system 134 may determine one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout. Actions may include generating a warning message. For example, a warning message of a potential blackout may be sent to one or more users. In some implementations, the warning message may include multiple levels depending on the risk severity (e.g., the thresholds described in block 206). For example, the first level warning message may indicate that the fracturing spread is at a low risk of a power blackout and a second warning message may indicate the fracturing spread is at a moderate risk of a power blackout and actions may be required. In some implementations, a warning message may be displayed on the graphical user interface. For example, a pop-up message with the title of “Power Warning” and text including “actual power usage too high-risk of shutdown” may be displayed on a graphical user interface. Additionally, the actions may include a suggested fracturing parameters. Fracturing parameters may include rate setpoints, chemical setpoints (e.g., friction reducer concentrations), etc. For example, a suggested rate setpoint may be a lower flow rate from one or more pumps to reduce the surface treating pressure and subsequently reduce the actual power usage of the fracturing spread. The suggested rate setpoint may be determined by adjusting the flow rates output by each of the pumps such that surface treating pressure is reduced to a target surface treating pressure that corresponds to a lower target power usage. The suggested rate setpoint may be for all pumps in the fracturing spread, one or more subsets of pumps in the fracturing spread (e.g., electric pumps), or individual pumps in the fracturing spread to mitigate and/or prevent the power blackout. Similarly, the chemical setpoints may be communicated to the user to reduce the surface treating pressure and subsequently reduce the actual power usage of the fracturing spread. For example, a friction reducer concentration in the slurry may be increased to reducer the surface treating pressure and reduce the actual power usage of the fracturing spread. The fracturing parameters setpoints may be communicated to one or more users to potentially implement into the hydraulic fracturing operations. Moreover, fracturing parameters may be determined and automatically implemented into the hydraulic fracturing operations. For example, rather than suggesting the rate setpoint to a user to implement into hydraulic fracturing communications, the control system 134 may directly implement the new fracturing parameters to the fracturing spread, a subset of frac pumps, and/or individual frac pumps. In some implementations, there may be more than one action determined. For example, a warning message and one or more suggested fracturing parameters may be generated.

At block 210, the control system 134 may execute the one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout. Actions, such as implementing the suggested fracturing parameters, may be implemented into the hydraulic fracturing operations to reduce the risk of a power blackout. For example, the rate setpoint and/or the chemical setpoint may be implemented into one or more frac pumps in attempts to reduce the surface treating pressure and subsequently reduce the actual power usage of the fracturing spread.

At block 212, the control system 134 determines if the risk of a power blackout has been mitigated. The control system 134 may determine if the power conditions described in block 206 have decreased to less than one or more aforementioned threshold values, indicating the risk of the power blackout is fully mitigated. If there is still a risk of a power blackout after the one or more actions have been executed (e.g., the power conditions are still greater than one or more thresholds), then operations return to block 202 to repeat the mitigation process until the risk is fully mitigated. Otherwise, operations for flowchart 200 are complete.

FIG. 3 is a flowchart depicting example operations for determining rate setpoints, according to some implementations. FIG. 3 includes a flowchart 300 for determining rate setpoints for one or more electric pumps and implementing the rate setpoints into the hydraulic fracturing operations. The operations of the flowchart 300 may be performed as part of block 208 and 210 of FIG. 2. Operations of flowchart 300 of FIG. 3 are described in reference to the control system 134 of FIG. 1. Additionally, the operations of flowchart 300 are described in reference to the power unit 101 and the frac pumps 112 of FIG. 1. Operations of the flowchart 300 start at block 302.

At block 302, the control system 134 may determine a suggested rate setpoint. For example, the suggested rate setpoint for the fracturing spread, represented by Q_suggest(using Equation 2 below), may be defined as follows:

$\begin{matrix} Q_{suggest} = \frac{P_{available}}{p_{expected}} \times r & (2) \end{matrix}$

- where P_availableis available power capacity, p_expectedis expected treating pressure, and r is a ratio such that new power usage will not trigger the condition in which the power condition between the new power usage and the available capacity may not trigger operations in blocks 204 and 206 of FIG. 2 (e.g., be greater than one or more thresholds).

In some implementations, p_expectedmay be a function of Q_suggest. Thus, the equation may be solved iteratively. For example, a model between p_expectedand Q_suggestmay be determined as p_expected=KQ_suggestwhere K is a constant. Then, Q_suggestmay be solved as Q_suggest=√{square root over (P_available×r/K)}.

At block 304, the control system 134 may communicate the suggested rate setpoint to supervisory controller of the fracturing spread. The supervisory controller may be a component within the control system 134 or separate from the control system 134.

At block 306, the control system 134 may determine, via the supervisory controller, rate setpoints for each pump that satisfies the suggester rate setpoint. Each electric pump within the fracturing spread may have similar or different rate setpoints. The aggregate of respective rate setpoints may be the total rate setpoint determined in block 302. For example, there may be 10 electric frac pumps within the fracturing spread, and the fracturing spread is at risk of a power blackout with the current rate of 90 barrels per minute (BPM) (i.e., 9 BPM from each of the 10 electric frac pumps). It is determined in block 302 that the suggested rate setpoint to mitigate the risk of a power blackout is 80 BPM. To achieve 80 bpm, each of the 10 electric frac pumps may have a rate setpoint of 8 BPM (i.e., decreasing the rate of each electric frac pump by 1 BPM), decreasing rate, resulting in a 10 BPM decrease in flow rate of the fracturing spread from the 10 electric frac pumps to meet the 80 BPM rate setpoint. In some implementations, each electric frac pump may have a different rate setpoint, and/or no setpoint. If the fracturing spread includes a mixed fleet (i.e., electric frac pumps and diesel frac pumps), then the suggested rate setpoint may serve as a constraint in the supervisory controller. That is, the supervisory controller may determine setpoints for each pump such that the total pump rate satisfies the desired total rate of the fleet and the sum of rates of electric pumps does not exceed the suggested rate setpoint.

At block 308, the control system 134 may communicate the rate setpoints to the respective pump controllers.

At block 310, the control system 134 may adjust parameters on each pump, via the respective pump controller, to track the rate setpoint. Parameters may include voltage and/or current of the power supply of direct current (DC) motors of a pump, frequency of alternating current (AC) motors of a pump, etc. In some implementations, the motors may be controlled by a variable-frequency drive (VFD). Accordingly, parameters may include motor output shaft speed setpoint (i.e., rotations per minute (RPM) setpoint).

FIG. 4 is a flowchart depicting example operations for preventing power blackouts of a fracturing spread, according to some implementations. FIG. 4 includes a flowchart 400 for determining if a fracturing spread is at risk of a power blackout prior to beginning hydraulic operations. The operations of the flowchart 200 may be repeatedly performed before a hydraulic fracturing operation begins, a stage of the hydraulic fracturing operation begins, or any other suitable time before fracturing parameters are implemented into hydraulic fracturing operations. For example, the operations of the flowchart 400 may be run before each stage of a hydraulic fracturing operations to ensure the fracturing spread is not at risk of a power blackout while fracturing the respective stage of the wellbore. Operations of flowchart 400 of FIG. 4 are described in reference to the control system 134 of FIG. 1. Additionally, the operations of flowchart 200 are described in reference to the power unit 101 and the frac pumps 112 of FIG. 1. Operations of the flowchart 400 start at block 402.

At block 402, the control system 134 may determine operation parameters. The operations parameters may be the estimated parameters that occur during the specified time of the hydraulic fracturing operations such as the entire operation, each stage, a portion of a stage, prior to increasing rate on one or more pumps, etc. The operation parameters may include estimated pump rate, estimated surface treating pressure, etc. For example, the subsurface formation fracture gradient, casing diameters and/or length in the wellbore, area restrictions and/or pressure constraints in the pipes of the fracturing spread, etc. may indicate what the surface treating pressure may be during hydraulic fracturing operations. The estimated rate may be from a hydraulic fracturing plan of the wellbore.

At block 404, the control system 134 may determine the estimated available capacity of the power source prior to hydraulic fracturing operations. The estimated available capacity may be determined analytically, empirically, and/or with historical data. For example, the data provider of a power unit may provide the available capacity when operating. Alternatively, or additionally, the reading on the data provider of the power units during past hydraulic fracturing operations may be utilized to determine the estimated available capacity.

At block 406, the control system 134 may determine the estimated power usage of the fracturing spread. The estimated power usage may be based on the operation parameters. For example, the hydraulic horsepower from each electric pump within the fracturing spread may be generated based on the pump rate from each respective pump and the estimated surface treating pressure. The estimated power usage may also incorporate auxiliary power requirements such as power that may be used by the control system, blender, etc.

At block 408, the control system 134 may determine if the fracturing spread is at risk of a power blackout. The operations to determine the risk may be similar to the operations described in block 206 of FIG. 2. For example, the estimated available capacity and the estimated power usage may be compared. The fracturing spread may be at risk of a power blackout if the estimated power condition is greater than one or more thresholds. If the fracturing spread is at risk of a power blackout, then operations proceed to block 410. Otherwise, the operations of the flowchart 400 are complete.

At block 410, the control system 134 may adjust the operation parameters. The operation parameters (such as pump rate) may be adjusted to reduce the estimated power usage for the fracturing spread. For example, the operations parameters may be adjusted to reduce the surface treating pressure (such as decreasing the rate setpoint), which may subsequently reduce the power usage from each electric pump in the fracturing spread. Operations then return back to block 404 to determine if the fracturing spread may be at risk of a power blackout with the new fracturing parameters.

Example Computer

FIG. 5 is a block diagram depicting an example computer, according to some implementations. FIG. 5 depicts a computer 500 for preventing power blackouts of a fracturing spread. The computer 500 includes a processor 501 (possibly including multiple processors, multiple cores, multiple nodes, and/or implementing multi-threading, etc.). The computer 500 includes memory 507. The memory 507 may be system memory or any one or more of the above already described possible realizations of machine-readable media. The computer 500 also includes a bus 503 and a network interface 505. The computer 500 can communicate via transmissions to and/or from remote devices via the network interface 505 in accordance with a network protocol corresponding to the type of network interface, whether wired or wireless and depending upon the carrying medium. In addition, a communication or transmission can involve other layers of a communication protocol and or communication protocol suites (e.g., transmission control protocol, Internet Protocol, user datagram protocol, virtual private network protocols, etc.).

The computer 500 also includes a processor 511 and a controller 515 which may perform the operations described herein. For example, the processor 511 may determine the available capacity of one or more power sources and the actual power usage of one or more electric pumps. The processor 511 may also determine if fracturing spread is at risk of a power blackout based on the available capacity of one or more power sources and the actual power usage of one or more electric pumps, and generate one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout. The controller 515 may execute one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout. The processor 511 and the controller 515 can be in communication. Any one of the previously described functionalities may be partially (or entirely) implemented in hardware and/or on the processor 501. For example, the functionality may be implemented with an application specific integrated circuit, in logic implemented in the processor 501, in a co-processor on a peripheral device or card, etc. Further, realizations may include fewer or additional components not illustrated in FIG. 5 (e.g., video cards, audio cards, additional network interfaces, peripheral devices, etc.). The processor 501 and the network interface 505 are coupled to the bus 503. Although illustrated as being coupled to the bus 503, the memory 507 may be coupled to the processor 501.

While the aspects of the disclosure are described with reference to various implementations and exploitations, it will be understood that these aspects are illustrative and that the scope of the claims is not limited to them. In general, techniques for preventing power blackouts of a fracturing spread as described herein may be implemented with facilities consistent with any hardware system or hardware systems. Many variations, modifications, additions, and improvements are possible.

Plural instances may be provided for components, operations or structures described herein as a single instance. Finally, boundaries between various components, operations and data stores are somewhat arbitrary, and particular operations are illustrated in the context of specific illustrative configurations. Other allocations of functionality are envisioned and may fall within the scope of the disclosure. In general, structures and functionality presented as separate components in the example configurations may be implemented as a combined structure or component. Similarly, structures and functionality presented as a single component may be implemented as separate components. These and other variations, modifications, additions, and improvements may fall within the scope of the disclosure.

Various modifications to the implementations described in this disclosure may be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, and the generic principles defined herein may be applied to other implementations without departing from the spirit or scope of this disclosure. Thus, the claims are not intended to be limited to the implementations shown herein but are to be accorded the widest scope consistent with this disclosure, the principles and the novel features disclosed herein.

Certain features that are described in this specification in the context of separate implementations also may be implemented in combination in a single implementation. Conversely, various features that are described in the context of a single implementation also may be implemented in multiple implementations separately or in any suitable sub combination. Moreover, although features may be described as acting in certain combinations and even initially claimed as such, one or more features from a claimed combination may in some cases be excised from the combination, and the claimed combination may be directed to a sub combination or variation of a sub combination.

Similarly, while operations are depicted in the drawings in a particular order, this should not be understood as requiring that such operations be performed in the particular order shown or in sequential order, or that all illustrated operations be performed, to achieve desirable results. Further, the drawings may schematically depict one more example process in the form of a flow diagram. However, some operations may be omitted and/or other operations that are not depicted may be incorporated in the example processes that are schematically illustrated. For example, one or more additional operations may be performed before, after, simultaneously, or between any of the illustrated operations. In certain circumstances, multitasking and parallel processing may be advantageous. Moreover, the separation of various system components in the implementations described should not be understood as requiring such separation in all implementations, and the described program components and systems may generally be integrated together in a single software product or packaged into multiple software products. Additionally, other implementations are within the scope of the following claims. In some cases, the actions recited in the claims may be performed in a different order and still achieve desirable results.

EXAMPLE IMPLEMENTATIONS

Implementation #1: A method for preventing a power blackout of a fracturing spread configured to hydraulically fracture a subsurface formation comprising: determining an available capacity of one or more power units that supply power to one or more electric pumps of the fracturing spread; determining an actual power usage of the one or more electric pumps; determining if the fracturing spread is at risk of the power blackout based on the available capacity and the actual power usage; determining one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout; and executing the one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout.

Implementation #2: The method of Implementation #1, wherein the power units include one or more generators and an electric grid.

Implementation #3: The method of Implementation #1 or #2 further comprising: comparing the available capacity to the actual power usage to generate a power condition; determining if the power condition indicates the one or more electric pumps is at risk of the power blackout; and determining the one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout.

Implementation #4: The method of Implementation #3, wherein the power condition includes a ratio of the available capacity and the actual power usage, a difference between the available capacity and the actual power usage, and function of the available capacity and the actual power usage, and wherein the power condition is compared against a threshold to determine if the one or more electric pumps is at risk of the power blackout.

Implementation #5: The method of any one or more of Implementation #1-4, wherein the one or more actions include sending a warning message to users, suggesting fracturing parameters to the users, or communicating the fracturing parameters to a control system to implement into hydraulic fracturing operations.

Implementation #6: The method of Implementation #5, wherein the fracturing parameters include a suggested rate setpoint and a suggested chemical setpoint.

Implementation #7: The method of Implementation #5 or #6, wherein the suggested fracturing parameters are determined based on the available capacity and expected treating pressure.

Implementation #8: The method of Implementation #7 further comprising: determining an estimated available capacity of the one or more power units prior to the hydraulic fracturing operations; determining an estimated power usage of the one or more electric pumps prior to the hydraulic fracturing operations; determining if the one or more electric pumps will be at risk of the power blackout during hydraulic fracturing operations based on the estimated available capacity and the estimated power usage; and adjusting operation parameters to mitigate the power blackout.

Implementation #9: A non-transitory, computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by a processor to perform operations comprising: determining an available capacity of one or more power units that supply power to one or more electric pumps of a fracturing spread, wherein the fracturing spread is configured to hydraulically fracture a subsurface formation; determining an actual power usage of the one or more electric pumps; determining if the fracturing spread is at risk of a power blackout based on the available capacity and the actual power usage; determining one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout; and executing the one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout.

Implementation #10: The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of Implementation #9, wherein the power units include one or more generators and an electric grid.

Implementation #11: The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of Implementation #9 or #10 further comprising: comparing the available capacity to the actual power usage to generate a power condition; determining if the power condition indicates the one or more electric pumps is at risk of the power blackout; and determining the one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout.

Implementation #12: The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of Implementation #11, wherein the power condition includes a ratio of the available capacity and the actual power usage, a difference between the available capacity and the actual power usage, and function of the available capacity and the actual power usage, and wherein the power condition is compared against a threshold to determine if the one or more electric pumps is at risk of the power blackout.

Implementation #13: The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of any one or more of Implementation #9-12, wherein the one or more actions include sending a warning message to users, suggesting fracturing parameters to the users, or communicating the fracturing parameters to a control system to implement into hydraulic fracturing operations.

Implementation #14: The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of Implementation #13, wherein the fracturing parameters include a suggested rate setpoint and a suggested chemical setpoint.

Implementation #15: The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of Implementation #13 or #14, wherein the fracturing parameters are determined prior to the hydraulic fracturing operations or during the hydraulic fracturing operations.

Implementation #16: A system comprising: one or more electric pumps of a fracturing spread, wherein the fracturing spread is configured to hydraulically fracture a subsurface formation; one or more power units configured to supply power to the one or more electric pumps; a processor; and a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to, determine an available capacity of the one or more power units; determine an actual power usage of the one or more electric pumps; determine if the fracturing spread is at risk of a power blackout based on the available capacity and the actual power usage; determine one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout; and execute the one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout.

Implementation #17: The system of Implementation #16, wherein the power units include one or more generators and an electric grid.

Implementation #18: The system of Implementation #16 or #17 further comprising: comparing the available capacity to the actual power usage to generate a power condition; determining if the power condition indicates the one or more electric pumps is at risk of the power blackout; and determining the one or more actions to mitigate the power blackout.

Implementation #19: The system of Implementation #18, wherein the power condition includes a ratio of the available capacity and the actual power usage, a difference between the available capacity and the actual power usage, and function of the available capacity and the actual power usage, and wherein the power condition is compared against a threshold to determine if the one or more electric pumps is at risk of the power blackout.

Implementation #20: The system of any one or more of Implementation #16-19, wherein the one or more actions include sending a warning message to users, suggesting fracturing parameters to the users, or communicating the fracturing parameters to a control system to implement into hydraulic fracturing operations.

Use of the phrase “at least one of” preceding a list with the conjunction “and” should not be treated as an exclusive list and should not be construed as a list of categories with one item from each category, unless specifically stated otherwise. A clause that recites “at least one of A, B, and C” can be infringed with only one of the listed items, multiple of the listed items, and one or more of the items in the list and another item not listed.

As used herein, the term “or” is inclusive unless otherwise explicitly noted. Thus, the phrase “at least one of A, B, or C” is satisfied by any element from the set {A, B, C} or any combination thereof, including multiples of any element.

PREVENTING POWER BLACKOUT WHILE FRACTURING

Information

Publication Number

Date Filed

Date Published

Inventors

Original Assignees

CPC

International Classifications

Abstract

Description

Claims