Patent Grant
7908230
The present invention relates to techniques for fracture optimization. More particularly, the present invention relates to fracture optimization where one or more environmental variables are not known with certainty.
Fracturing of earth formations is well known in the oilfield and other areas to improve the producibility and/or the injectivity of a well. The treatment of a well with a fracture can be an expensive procedure, with a high variability of results dependent upon the characteristics of the target formation. The control parameters defining the fracture treatment (e.g. including fluids, proppants, or acids utilized, pumping rates, etc.) are largely but not completely controllable. However, many important characteristics of the formation (or the environmental variables), for example the permeability or the in-situ stresses, are not always known with certainty. Therefore, it is important to design the controllable aspects of the fracture treatment accounting for the characteristics of the formation. Presently available optimization routines can find optimized parameters when the environment variables are known, but do not provide confidence that a true optimum is being designed where one or more environment variables are unknown. A method for optimizing fracture treatments that allows for environmental variables of varying certainty is desirable.
A method for optimizing fracture treatments includes interpreting a nominal pump schedule corresponding to a nominal value for each fracture control parameter. The method further includes interpreting environmental variables, and interpreting probability distributions for each of the environmental variables that is uncertain. The method further includes defining an objective function such as a net present value of each fracture treatment over a 365 day period following the fracture treatment. The method includes determining an optimal value for each fracture control parameter according to the objective function by determining the fracture control parameter values that yield the best mean net present value given the variability in the environmental variables as described by their probability distributions.
For the purposes of promoting an understanding of the principles of the invention, reference will now be made to the embodiments illustrated in the drawings and specific language will be used to describe the same. It will nevertheless be understood that no limitation of the scope of the invention is thereby intended, such alterations and further modifications in the illustrated embodiments, and that such further applications of the principles of the invention as illustrated therein as would normally occur to one skilled in the art to which the invention relates are contemplated and protected.
Certain functional units described herein have been labeled as modules to more particularly emphasize their implementation independence. Modules may be implemented as instructions or logic executable by a processor and stored on a computer readable medium. For example, a module may be implemented as a hardware circuit comprising transistors, logic chips, or other discrete components configured to execute the operations of the module. In certain embodiments, a module may be implemented as instructions on a programmable hardware device. An identified module may comprise one or more physical or logical blocks of computer instructions that may reside together or in disparate locations, which, when joined logically together comprise the module and achieve the stated purpose.
The fluid mixing and pumping devices of the system 100 shown in
The system 100 further includes a controller 120. The controller 120 of the system 100 performs optimization and communicates a modified pump schedule to the fluid mixing and pumping devices. The controller 120 may be within a fracture control vehicle (not shown), for example a truck with a computer in back in communication with the various mixing and pumping devices and with various sensors distributed around the system 100. The controller 120 may be distributed in locations away from the wellhead 112. For example, and without limitation, the controller 120 may include a computer in a sales office (not shown) that performs an optimization and determines a modified pump schedule. The modified pump schedule may then be communicated to the wellhead 112 location, where the fluid mixing and pumping devices perform a fracture treatment according to the modified pump schedule.
The controller 120 includes modules that functionally execute the operations of optimizing a fracture treatment. The controller 120 includes a nominal pump schedule module, an environment description module, an objective selection module, a fracture optimization module, and a fracture planning module. The specific operations of exemplary embodiments of the controller 120 are described in detail in the section referencing
In certain embodiments, the system 100 further includes a display device 122 such as a computer monitor, computer printout, monitoring tool capable of reading parameters from a computer memory, or other device capable of displaying information. The display device 122 shows a first simulated fracture according to a nominal pumping schedule and a second simulated fracture according to a modified pumping schedule. In certain embodiments, the display device may display an objective function result for the nominal pumping schedule and the modified pumping schedule—for example a net present value (NPV) calculation for a fracture treatment according to the nominal pumping schedule and an NPV calculation for a fracture treatment according to the modified pumping schedule. The display device 122 may further display an indicator of a limiting factor that may be affecting the modified pumping schedule. For example, a practitioner may have included a maximum wellhead 112 pressure limitation to the controller 120, and in certain instances the wellhead 112 pressure limitation may prevent the modified pumping schedule from achieving an otherwise optimal pumping rate. A practitioner may utilize such limitation information in making various determinations such as whether an upgrade to mitigate the limitation is an economically recommended action.
In certain embodiments, the nominal pump schedule module 202 may interpret the nominal pump schedule 204 by calculating a pump schedule according to theoretical conventions. For example, a user may provide user inputs 205 such as a pump rate, a total proppant mass, a maximum proppant concentration, and total injected volume. The nominal pump schedule module 202 may then calculate a set of intermediate quantities 206 that are utilized to define the nominal pump schedule 204, and analytically generate a pump schedule that is utilized as the nominal pump schedule 204. The reference “Reservoir Stimulation” by Economides and Nolte in chapter 8 by Meng (Meng), incorporated herein by reference, illustrates analytically generating a nominal pump schedule based on the pump rate, a total proppant mass, a maximum proppant concentration, and total injected volume. More detail of one example of this method is provided in the section referencing
The nominal pump schedule 204 corresponds to a nominal value 209 for each fracture control parameter 208. For example, the fracture control parameter 208 may be a pumping rate in barrels per minute (bbl/min), and the nominal value 209 for the pumping rate may be a multiplier or a parameter value. In the example, the nominal value 209 for the pumping rate may be 20 bbl/min (i.e. a specific value) or a multiplier. Where the nominal value 209 is a multiplier, the nominal pumping schedule 204 may have a pumping rate (e.g. 20 bbl/min), and the nominal value 209 (typically 1.0 as nominal to avoid confusion, although other values may be utilized) is multiplied by the pumping rate. In the example, if the nominal value 209 is adjusted to 0.5, the pumping rate is cut in half (i.e. 10 bbl/min).
Each fracture control parameter 208 that is available for optimization has a nominal value 209. The nominal value 209 may be a continuous number (e.g. 20 bbl/min), a multiplier, or a discrete selection. For example, the proppant type may be a fracture control parameter 208, and the selections may be limited to discrete choices (e.g. 20/40 sand or 20/40 ceramic proppant). Each stage of the nominal pumping schedule 204 may have individual values for the fracture control parameters 208, or some fracture control parameters 208 may be applied globally to all stages. For example, each stage may be allowed to have an individual fluid volume, but be required to have a common (but variable) pumping rate. Without limitation, available fracture control parameters 208 include the fluid pump rate, fluid volume values, proppant concentration values, the fluid selection (i.e. base fluid type and/or additives), the proppant selection, a gel loading value, and an acid concentration value. Other fracture control parameters 208 are understood in the art and contemplated within the scope of the present application.
In certain embodiments, the controller 120 further includes a fracture constraint module 210 that interprets a fracture limit criterion 212. The fracture limit criterion 212 may be any parameter related to the system 100 that should not be exceeded during a fracture treatment. For example, the fracture limit criterion 212 may include a maximum wellhead 112 pressure, a maximum bottomhole pressure, a minimum pumping stage time, or any other limitation that should be reflected in the pumping schedule. In one embodiment, the fracture limit criterion 212 includes a minimum bottomhole pressure to ensure a reservoir stays above a bubble point pressure. Any number of fracture limit criterion 212 may be available, and the fracture constraint module 210 may interpret the fracture limit criterion 212 by accepting a value from a practitioner, looking up a value in a computer memory location, reading a value from a data communication, and the like. For example and without limitation, the fracture constraint module 210 may interpret a maximum pump rate according to horsepower values published by datalinked pumps 110, the fracture constraint module 210 may interpret a maximum wellhead pressure according to saved information including a tubing burst pressure, and/or the fracture constraint module 210 may accept values from a supervising engineer as fracture limit criterion 212.
The fracture control parameters 208 may be limited to certain data ranges, for example by the controller 120 or the nominal pump schedule module 202, but the implementation of ranges for the fracture control parameters 208 during interpretation of the fracture control parameters 208 may be separate from any limitations by the fracture limit criterion 212. The fracture constraint module 210 provides the fracture limit criterion 212 to the fracture optimization module 228.
In certain embodiments, the controller 120 further includes an environment description module 216 that interprets a plurality of environment parameters 218 including at least one uncertain parameter 220. The environment description module 216 further interprets an uncertainty description 222 for each uncertain parameter 220.
Environment parameters 218 include any parameters not within the ordinary sphere of control for a fracture treatment. For example, environment parameters 218 may include tubing and casing diameters, well depths, formation descriptions (e.g. in-situ stress, porosity, permeability, etc.) for each layer of the formation, rheology data for available fluids (e.g. viscosity descriptions, leakoff coefficients, etc.). In certain embodiments, the uncertain environment parameter(s) 220 include a reservoir layer thickness value, a reservoir layer temperature value, a Young's modulus value for a reservoir layer, a fracture toughness value for a reservoir layer, and/or a slip allowance at the interface between two reservoir layers. The slip allowance defines whether slip at the interface between two reservoir layers is allowed (i.e. modeled) or not allowed (i.e. not modeled). The values of any reservoir layer may be uncertain and of interest, for example the in-situ stress of a target production zone and of any barrier zones may all be of interest, and may be uncertain. In certain embodiments, the uncertain parameters 220 will be limited to a few of the more critical parameters, although a sensitivity analysis could be performed to determine which uncertain parameters 220 are more critical to analyze for optimization—i.e. which uncertain parameters 220 cause the greatest potential changes in the objective function 226 resulting from the variability due to uncertainty.
Environment parameters 218 may literally be controlled parameters (e.g. the tubing diameter) but where environment parameters 218 are controlled parameters, they are parameters that in the given context it is not desirable to alter. For example, the tubing string is controllable, but utilizing the same tubing diameters in multiple wells is a highly preferred practice. In certain embodiments, for example where the potential of a well is such that a cost of using a specific tubing size for the well is nominal, the tubing string may be a fracture control parameter 208 rather than an environmental parameter 218. Interpreting environment parameters 218 includes at least accepting user inputs, using default values, looking up data based on user inputs or defaults, and accepting network or datalink communications. Additionally, environment parameters 218 may be generated from tests (e.g. a miniature frac performed before a major treatment), log data, or the like.
In certain embodiments, the uncertainty description 222 is a statistical description of possible values for the corresponding uncertain environment parameter 220. For example, the uncertainty description 222 may be a probability distribution describing a range of values, or the uncertainty description 222 may be a list of discrete values for the uncertain environment parameter 220 with an estimate of the chances for each value. For example, a given reservoir layer in a field may have local natural micro-fractures, and it may be known that 25% of the time a low permeability value is present and 75% of the time a higher permeability value is present, with no other specific information available before a fracturing treatment is performed. In the example, the uncertainty description 222 is a 0.25 probability of K1 (the low permeability) and a 0.75 probability of K2 (the high permeability).
In one embodiment, the uncertainty description 222 is a mean and standard deviation describing a normal distribution (i.e. “Gaussian distribution”) for the uncertain environment parameter 220. In certain embodiments, the uncertainty description 222 is a triangular probability distribution for the uncertain environment parameter 220, with a peak at the most likely occurrence value, and the slopes on the high and low side of the peak defined by known data around the variance of the uncertain environment parameter 220. In certain embodiments, the uncertainty description 222 includes a log normal distribution, a bimodal distribution, or any other distribution function or description based on available data for the parameter.
In certain embodiments, the controller 120 further includes an objective selection module 224 that defines an objective function 226. The objective function 226 defines the standard by which to “optimal” is defined for a specific embodiment. For example, economics are often important to a project and an NPV (e.g. over a specified period following the fracture treatment, for example, 365 days) may be used as the objective function 226. Other examples of objective functions 226 include a total hydrocarbon production at a specified time, which may be a total hydrocarbon production rate at a certain date, a total hydrocarbon production amount over a specified period following a fracture treatment, or any other hydrocarbon production criteria understood in the art.
Further examples of objective functions 226 include a hydrocarbon recovery amount (i.e. percentage recovery from the well spacing area), which may be the recovery of hydrocarbons from the well spacing area by a certain date, over a specified period following a fracture treatment, recovery over the life of the well, or any other recovery criteria understood in the art. In another example, near the completion of a field using a special proppant (e.g. sintered bauxite) that may not be otherwise utilized in the geographic area, it may be “optimal” to maximize hydrocarbon recovery per unit of proppant, thereby enabling maximum hydrocarbon recovery without ordering more of the proppant that is no longer needed, yielding an objective function 226 of hydrocarbon recovery per pound proppant. The examples provided are not intended to be limiting, as the possible objective function 226 criteria are numerous and project specific.
The controller 120 further includes a fracture optimization module 228 that determines an optimal value 230 for each fracture control parameter 208 according to the objective function 226, the environment parameters 218, and the uncertainty description 222.
In certain embodiments, the fracture optimization module 228 further constrains the optimal value 230 such that a simulated fracture is in accordance with the fracture limit criterion 212. For example, the pumping rate fracture control parameter 208 may have a nominal value 209 of 20 bbl/min, and the practitioner may allow the fracture optimization module 228 to determine a pumping rate between 10 bbl/min and 35 bbl/min (see, e.g., the lower bounds 410 and upper bounds 412 in the section referencing
The example is provided merely to illustrate the effect of the fracture limit criterion 212, but is necessarily simplified and real situations are typically more complex. In a further example, if proppant concentration and fluid gel loading are also available as fracture control parameters 208, the fracture optimization module 228 also checks the state space of proppant concentrations and gel loadings to ensure the optimal values 230 are determined. In the further example, a reduction of gel loading (in some gel loading ranges) would decrease fluid viscosity and therefore reduce wellbore pressure, while an increase in proppant concentration may also reduce the wellbore pressure (due to hydraulic head changes), indicating that the fracture optimization module 228 may find a more complex set of optimal values 230, but while observing the fracture limit criterion 212.
In certain embodiments, the fracture optimization module 228 determines the optimal value 230 for each fracture control parameter 208 by defining a set of specific values for each uncertain environment parameter 220, and determining the optimal value 230 for each fracture control parameter 208 as the values that provide a best value from the objective function 226. The set of specific values for each uncertain environment parameter 220 are defined according to the uncertainty description 222 (e.g. as a statistical description of possible values) for the corresponding uncertain environment parameter 220. In certain embodiments, the set of specific values for each uncertain environment parameter 220 include a set of specific values approximating a distribution of values of the corresponding uncertain environment parameter 220, where the distribution of values of the corresponding uncertain environment parameter 220 is defined according to the uncertainty description 222.
For example, if the uncertainty description 222 is a plurality of discrete values, wherein the uncertain environment parameter 220 holds a first value 75% of the time and a second value 25% of the time, the fracture optimization module 228 defines the set of specific values such that 75% of the specific values are the first value and 25% of the specific values are the second value. In another example, if the uncertainty description 222 is a triangular probability distribution, the fracture optimization module 228 defines a relatively greater number of the specific values at values with near the peak occurrence, and a relatively smaller number of the specific values at values away from the peak occurrence. In another example, if the uncertainty description 222 is a normal probability distribution, the fracture optimization module 228 defines a varying number of values according to the distribution, such as about 64% of the values occurring within +/−1 standard deviation of the mean.
In certain embodiments, the fracture optimization module 228 selects a multiplicity of random specific values, each random specific value determined according to the uncertainty description 222. For example, a reservoir layer permeability may be uncertain, with an estimated mean value of 0.1 mD with a standard deviation of 0.05 mD, while the reservoir thickness may be uncertain, with an estimated mean value of 12 feet and a standard deviation of 0.5 feet. The fracture optimization module 228 may select 100 values of reservoir layer permeabilities determined according to a Gaussian distribution defined by the mean value of 0.1 mD with a standard deviation of 0.05 mD, and randomly pair those values to 100 values of reservoir thickness determined according to a Gaussian distribution defined by the mean value of 12 feet and a standard deviation of 0.5 feet (e.g. as a Monte Carlo style simulation).
In certain embodiments, the fracture optimization module 228 selects specific values that are only representative of the distribution. For example, the fracture optimization module 228 may select 5 values of each uncertain environment parameter 220 that provide a representation of the unknown scatter in the parameter 220. For example, where the uncertain environment parameter 220 comprises a porosity mean value of 12% porosity, with a standard deviation of 2%, the fracture optimization module 228 may select values of 14.5%, 13.3%, 12%, 10.7%, and 9.4% as specific values for simulation with the porosity value. The five selected points in the example are the 90%, 75%, 50%, 25%, and 10% cumulative distribution points for the Gaussian distribution having a mean and standard deviation of 0.12 and 0.02 respectively. The example points are shown merely for illustration, and the selection of points for a given embodiment, including the number and value of the points, are selections dependent upon the risks and other factors specific to a given embodiment of the present application.
In certain embodiments, the fracture optimization module 228 determines the outputs of the objective function 226 according to the specific values for the uncertain parameters 220. In one example, the reservoir layer porosity is the unknown environment parameter 220, and the fracture optimization module 228 selects the values 14.5%, 13.3%, 12%, 10.7%, and 9.4% as specific values representative of the uncertainty description 222 for the reservoir layer porosity. In the example, the objective function 226 is an NPV over a 180-day period following the fracture treatment. The fracture optimization module 228 iterates through the state space of potential fracture control parameter 208 values, determining which set of fracture control parameter 208 values provide the best NPV value across the range of reservoir layer porosity values. In the example, a first pump rate 25 bbl/min provides a mean and std. dev. NPV of $1,000,000 and $25,000 (respectively) while a second pump rate 50 bbl/min provides a mean and std. dev. NPV of $1,100,000 and $80,000. If the best NPV value is defined (by a practitioner, by default, or by a response to a prompt at the display device 122) as the greatest mean value, then the second pump rate is determined to provide a superior NPV value to the first pump rate. If the best NPV value is defined as the mean value less two standard deviations, then in the example the first pump rate is determined to provide a superior NPV value to the second pump rate.
The operations of optimizing the pump schedule can follow standard optimization techniques. For one example, a set of values for the fracture control parameters 208 may be checked and an NPV determined. If a next iteration from the set of values for the fracture control parameters 208 improves the NPV by a threshold amount, then the pump schedule is not determined to be optimized and another iteration is performed. If the next iteration of the set of values for the fracture control parameters 208 does not improve the NPV by the threshold amount, then the pump schedule is determined to be optimized and another iteration is not performed. Standard checks may further be utilized to ensure that the optimization is not merely a local optimum (e.g. ensuring that a significant portion of the fracture control parameter 208 allowable space is tested, etc.). The performance of such an optimization is within the skill of one in the art based with the disclosures herein, and further detail is not provided to avoid obscuring aspects of the present application.
The NPV may be determined according to expected production increases due to a fracture treatment, the cost of the fracture treatment, and the expected discount rates for money or the return on alternate available investments. Determining the cost of a fracture treatment is a mechanical step for one of skill in the art, and in one example can be made based on price book data stored in a computer readable format. The NPV determinations for injection wells can be made based on benefits from injection cost reductions, predicted benefits from offset well production increases, or similar parameters defining the benefits of the fracture treatment for the injection well.
In certain embodiments, the best value of the objective function 226 is the greatest mean value, e.g. the greatest mean NPV. In certain embodiments, the best value of the objective function 226 is the objective function 226 result with the lowest standard deviation, or the objective function 226 result with the highest risk-adjusted value. The highest risk-adjusted value indicates the value which, given a variance below the mean, provides the most desirable outcome. Consider a first value of the objective function 226 with a mean value of $200,000 NPV and standard deviation of $50,000 NPV, and a second value of the objective function 226 with a mean value of $175,000 NPV and a standard deviation of $20,000 NPV. Based on the greatest mean NPV, the first value of the objective function 226 would be optimal, and therefore the optimal value 230 would be whatever set of values for the fracture control parameters 208 yielded the first value of the objective function 226.
Based on a lowest downside risk evaluation with a 1 standard deviation variance below the mean, the first value of the objective function 226 has a risk adjusted value of $150,000 (i.e. $200k−$50k) and the second value of the objective function 226 has a risk adjusted value of $155,000 (i.e. $175k−$20k), and therefore the optimal value 230 would be whatever set of values for the fracture control parameters 208 yielded the second value of the objective function. The highest risk-adjusted value can be evaluated at a point λ, which may be selected by a practitioner and utilized as in the expression F=μ−λσ. In the expression, F is the objective function 226 result for comparison, μ is the mean value, σ is the standard deviation value, and λ is a risk aversion factor indicating the limit of acceptable risk.
In certain embodiments, the fracture control parameters 208 comprise multipliers for pump schedule values and/or pump schedule values directly.
In one example, the nominal pump schedule module 202 interprets a nominal pump schedule 204 including stage-by-stage values, and the pumping rates, proppant concentrations, and fluid volumes have global multipliers nominally equal to one (1). The fracture control parameters 208 in the example include the global multipliers, and the fracture optimization module 228 adjusts the nominal pump schedule 204 by changing the global multipliers. For example, the nominal pump schedule 204 may include a pumping rate of 30 bbl/min and proppant concentration stages of 1.0 pounds proppant added (PPA) to 5.0 PPA in 1 PPA increments. In the example, assume the fracture optimization module 228 determines a multiplier of 1.5 is the optimal value 230 for the pump rate, while a multiplier of 0.95 is the optimal value 230 for the proppant concentrations. In the example, the fracture optimization module 228 calculates a modified pump schedule 232 based on the nominal pump schedule 204 and the optimal values 230 for each fracture control parameter 208. The modified pump schedule 232 in the example includes a pumping rate of 45 bbl/min and proppant concentration stages of 0.95 PPA to 4.75 PPA in 0.95 PPA increments.
In one example, the nominal pump schedule module 202 interprets the nominal pump schedule 204 by calculating intermediate quantities 206 from a nominal pump rate, a proppant maximum concentration, and a total proppant mass, and further interprets the nominal pump schedule 204 by generating an analytical nominal pump schedule 204 from the intermediate quantities 206. In the example, the fracture optimization module 228 calculates the stage sizes and combines stages with similar proppant sizes to determine optimal values 230 for the fracture control parameters 208 (all pumping rates, proppant concentrations, and fluid volumes in this example). One of skill in the art will recognize that an analytically determined pumping schedule allows the number of proppant stages to be a fracture control parameter 208. The fracture optimization module 228 may be constrained to generate a pumping schedule with features such as monotonically increasing proppant concentration, constant pumping rate, and so forth according to known best practices and practical constraints. The fracture optimization module 228 may calculate the modified pumping schedule 232 based on the optimal values 230 for the fracture control parameters 208.
In certain embodiments, the controller 120 includes a report module 234 that provides information to a display device 122, that records information to a memory location, and/or that communicates information over a network or other communication device. The information includes the optimal values 230, the modified pump schedule 232, a limit indicator value 236 indicating whether a fracture limit criterion 212 constrained the optimal values 230, the nominal pumping schedule 204, and/or the objective function results 238. In certain embodiments, the fracture optimization module 228 calculates the 232 modified pump schedule based on the nominal pump schedule 204 and the optimal values 230 for each fracture control parameter 208, and determines a limit indicator value 236 indicating whether the optimal value 230 for the fracture control parameter 208 is constrained by the fracture limit criterion 212. In certain further embodiments, the report module 234 generates a report including: the nominal pump schedule 204, the modified pump schedule 232, a result of the objective function 238, and the limit indicator value 236.
In certain embodiments, the fracture control parameters 208 are controlled by adjusting a multiplier 310. In the embodiment illustrated in
The gel concentration 308 is typically held constant as a practical matter. However, real-time gel hydration devices are known in the art, and gel concentration 308 is allowed to vary by stage in certain embodiments, for example to lower fluid viscosity and limit fracture height growth. A fracture limit criterion 212 determining how quickly gel loading 308 may be changed accommodates any limitations of a real-time hydration device to ensure a fracture treatment with optimal values 230 is also a fracture treatment that can realistically be performed.
In certain embodiments, the fracture optimization module 228 explores the state space of the inputs 401 within the lower bounds 410 and upper bounds 412 for the parameters 401. However, the lower bounds 410 and upper bounds 412 for the parameters 401 are not the same as the fracture limit criterion 212. The fracture limit criterion 212 may be any parameter value constraint, and may be related to the fracture control parameters 208 or the user inputs 205, but may also be unrelated to the fracture control parameters 208 or the user inputs 205. For example, a maximum height growth of a fracture in the reservoir is appropriate for a fracture limit criterion 212, but is not a value available for a lower bound 410 or upper bound 412. The lower bounds 410 and upper bounds 412 are specifically associated with the user inputs 205. The user inputs 205 may be provided by a user, determined from a previous fracture treatment, determined according to rules of thumb, or by any other means understood in the art.
The nominal pump schedule 204 (refer to
The nominal pump schedule 204 of
The method 900 further includes an operation 910 defining an objective function and an operation 912 determining an optimal value for each fracture control parameter according to: the objective function, the plurality of environment parameters, and the at least one uncertainty description. The method 900 further includes an operation 914 determining the optimal value for each at least one fracture control parameter as the value that provides a best value from the objective function.
In certain embodiments, the method further includes an operation 916 interpreting a fracture limit criterion, wherein determining the optimal value for the fracture control parameter further comprises constraining the optimal value such that a simulated fracture is in accordance with the fracture limit criterion. In certain embodiments, the method includes an operation 918 performing a hydraulic fracture on a well with an actual pump schedule based on the optimal value for each fracture control parameter.
In certain further embodiments, the method includes an operation 1012 interpreting a fracture limit criterion, wherein the operation 1010 determining the optimal value for the fracture control parameter further includes constraining the optimal value such that a simulated fracture is in accordance with the fracture limit criterion. In certain further embodiments, the method further includes an operation 1014 calculating a modified pump schedule based on the nominal pump schedule and the optimal value for each fracture control parameter, an operation 1016 determining a limit indicator value indicating whether the optimal value for the fracture control parameter is constrained by the fracture limit criterion, and an operation 1018 generating a report including: the nominal pump schedule, the modified pump schedule, a result of the objective function, and the limit indicator value.
As is evident from the figures and text presented above, a variety of embodiments according to the present invention are contemplated.
Certain embodiments include a system comprising a controller. The controller includes a nominal pump schedule module configured to interpret a nominal pump schedule corresponding to a nominal value for each at least one fracture control parameter. The controller further includes an environment description module configured to interpret a plurality of environment parameters including at least one uncertain parameter, the environment description module further configured to interpret at least one uncertainty description, each uncertainty description corresponding to one of the uncertain environment parameters. The controller further includes an objective selection module configured to define an objective function, and a fracture optimization module configured to determine an optimal value for each at least one fracture control parameter according to: the objective function, the plurality of environment parameters, and the at least one uncertainty description. The controller further includes a fracture planning module configured to calculate a modified pump schedule based on the nominal pump schedule and the optimal value for each at least one fracture control parameter. The controller further includes a fluid mixing means that prepares a fracturing fluid according to the modified pump schedule, and a pumping means that pumps the prepared fracturing fluid into a well according to the modified pump schedule.
In certain embodiments of the system, the fracturing fluid comprises one of a hydraulic fracturing fluid and an acid fracturing fluid. In certain further embodiments, the objective function comprises a net present value (NPV), a total hydrocarbon production at a specified time, and/or a hydrocarbon recovery amount. In certain further embodiments, the system includes a display means that shows a first simulated fracture according to the nominal pumping schedule and a second simulated fracture according to the modified pump schedule.
Certain embodiments include a method comprising interpreting a nominal pump schedule corresponding to a nominal value for each of at least one fracture control parameter. The method further includes interpreting a plurality of environment parameters including at least one uncertain environment parameter, and interpreting at least one uncertainty description, each uncertainty description corresponding to one of the uncertain environment parameters. The method further includes defining an objective function and determining an optimal value for each at least one fracture control parameter according to: the objective function, the plurality of environment parameters, and the at least one uncertainty description.
In certain further embodiments, the method includes performing a hydraulic fracture on a well with an actual pump schedule based on the optimal value for each at least one fracture control parameter. In certain further embodiments, the method further includes interpreting a fracture limit criterion, wherein determining the optimal value for the fracture control parameter further comprises constraining the optimal value such that a simulated fracture is in accordance with the fracture limit criterion. In certain further embodiments, each uncertainty description comprises a statistical description of possible values for the corresponding uncertain environment parameter. In certain further embodiments, the uncertainty descriptions include a plurality of discrete values, a mean value and a standard deviation, a triangular probability distribution, and a probability distribution function.
In certain further embodiments, determining an optimal value for each at least one fracture control parameter includes defining a set of specific values for each uncertain environment parameter, and determining the optimal value for each at least one fracture control parameter as the value that provides a best value from the objective function. In certain embodiments, the best value from the objective function comprises a greatest mean net present value (NPV). In certain further embodiments, each uncertainty description comprises a statistical description of possible values for the corresponding uncertain environment parameter, and wherein the set of specific values for each uncertain environment parameter are defined according to the statistical description of possible values for the corresponding uncertain environment parameter.
In certain further embodiments, the uncertainty descriptions include a plurality of discrete values, a mean value and a standard deviation, a triangular probability distribution, and/or a probability distribution function. In certain embodiments, the set of specific values for each uncertain environment parameter includes a set of specific values approximating a distribution of values of the corresponding uncertain environment parameter, wherein the distribution of values is defined according to the at least one uncertainty description. The set of specific values for each uncertain environment parameter may include a multiplicity of random specific values, each random specific value determined according to the uncertainty description.
In certain further embodiments, the uncertain environment parameter(s) include an in-situ stress value for a reservoir layer, a permeability value for a reservoir layer, and/or a reservoir layer porosity value. In certain further embodiments, the uncertain environment parameter includes an in-situ stress value for a reservoir layer, a permeability value for a reservoir layer, a reservoir layer thickness value, a reservoir layer porosity value, a reservoir layer temperature value, a Young's modulus value for a reservoir layer, a fracture toughness value for a reservoir layer, and/or a slip allowance at the interface between two reservoir layers. In certain embodiments, the fracture control parameters include a fluid pump rate, at least one fluid volume value, and at least one proppant concentration value. In certain embodiments, the fracture control parameters include a fluid selection, a proppant selection, a gel loading value, and/or an acid concentration value. In certain embodiments, the nominal value for each fracture control parameter comprises one of a multiplier and a fracture control parameter value.
Certain embodiments include a method comprising interpreting a nominal pump schedule corresponding to a nominal value for each of a pump rate, a proppant maximum concentration, and a total proppant mass. In certain further embodiments, the method includes interpreting a plurality of environment parameters including a reservoir layer permeability and a reservoir layer in-situ stress, wherein the reservoir layer permeability and the reservoir layer in-situ stress are uncertain. In certain further embodiments, the method includes interpreting a first uncertainty description comprising a probability distribution for the reservoir layer permeability and a second uncertainty description comprising a probability distribution for the reservoir layer in-situ stress. The method further includes defining an objective function and determining an optimal value for the pump rate, the proppant maximum concentration, and the total proppant mass according to: the objective function, the plurality of environment parameters, the first uncertainty description, and the second uncertainty description.
In certain further embodiments, the objective function includes a member selected from the group consisting of a net present value (NPV), a total hydrocarbon at a specified time, and a hydrocarbon recovery amount. In certain further embodiments, determining an optimal value for the pump rate, the proppant maximum concentration, and the total proppant mass comprises defining a set of specific values for each of the reservoir layer permeability and the reservoir layer in-situ stress, and determining the optimal value for the pump rate, the proppant maximum concentration, and the total proppant mass as the values that provide a best value from the objective function. In certain embodiments, the best value from the objective function includes a greatest mean value, a lowest standard deviation value, and/or a highest risk-adjusted value.
In certain embodiments, an apparatus includes a nominal pump schedule module that interprets a nominal pump schedule corresponding to a nominal value for each of at least one fracture control parameter, and an environment description module that interprets environment parameters including an uncertain parameter. In certain further embodiments, the environment description module interprets an uncertainty description, each uncertainty description corresponding to one of the uncertain environment parameters. In certain embodiments, an objective selection module defines an objective function, and a fracture optimization module determines an optimal value for each fracture control parameter according to the objective function, the plurality of environment parameters, and/or the uncertainty description.
In certain further embodiments, a fracture constraint module interprets a fracture limit criterion, and the fracture optimization module constrains the optimal value such that a simulated fracture is in accordance with the fracture limit criterion. In certain further embodiments, each uncertainty description includes a statistical description of possible values for the corresponding uncertain environment parameter. The uncertainty descriptions in certain embodiments include a plurality of discrete values, a mean value and a standard deviation, a triangular probability distribution, and/or a probability distribution function.
In certain embodiments, each uncertainty description includes a statistical description of possible values for the corresponding uncertain environment parameter, and the fracture optimization module determines the optimal value for each fracture control parameter by defining a set of specific values for each uncertain environment parameter. In certain further embodiments, the set of specific values for each uncertain environment parameter are defined according to the statistical description of possible values for the corresponding uncertain environment parameter. In certain further embodiments, the set of specific values for each uncertain environment parameter includes a multiplicity of random specific values, each random specific value determined according to the uncertainty description. In certain further embodiments, the fracture optimization module determines the optimal value for each fracture control parameter as the value that provides a best value from the objective function.
In certain embodiments, the uncertain environment parameter includes an in-situ stress value for a reservoir layer, a permeability value for a reservoir layer, a reservoir layer thickness value, a reservoir layer porosity value, a reservoir layer temperature value, a Young's modulus value for a reservoir layer, a fracture toughness value for a reservoir layer, and/or a slip allowance at the interface between two reservoir layers.
In certain embodiments, a computer program product on a computer readable medium that, when performed on a controller in a computerized device provides a method for performing the operations of interpreting a nominal pump schedule corresponding to a nominal value for each fracture control parameter, interpreting a plurality of environment parameters including an uncertain environment parameter, interpreting an uncertainty description, the uncertainty description corresponding to the uncertain environment parameter, defining an objective function, determining an optimal value for each fracture control parameter according to: the objective function, the plurality of environment parameters, and the uncertainty description. In certain further embodiments, the computer program product further provides a method for performing the operations of calculating a modified pump schedule based on the nominal pump schedule and the optimal value for each fracture control parameter. In certain further embodiments, the computer program product further provides a method for performing the operations of generating a report including: the nominal pump schedule, the modified pump schedule, and a result of the objective function.
In certain further embodiments, the computer program product further provides a method for performing the operations of interpreting a fracture limit criterion, wherein determining the optimal value for the fracture control parameter further includes constraining the optimal value such that a simulated fracture is in accordance with the fracture limit criterion. In certain further embodiments, the computer program product further provides a method for performing the operations of calculating a modified pump schedule based on the nominal pump schedule and the optimal value for each fracture control parameter, determining a limit indicator value indicating whether the optimal value for the fracture control parameter is constrained by the fracture limit criterion, and generating a report including: the nominal pump schedule, the modified pump schedule, a result of the objective function, and the limit indicator value.
While the invention has been illustrated and described in detail in the drawings and foregoing description, the same is to be considered as illustrative and not restrictive in character, it being understood that only the preferred embodiments have been shown and described and that all changes and modifications that come within the spirit of the inventions are desired to be protected. It should be understood that while the use of words such as preferable, preferably, preferred, more preferred or exemplary utilized in the description above indicate that the feature so described may be more desirable or characteristic, nonetheless may not be necessary and embodiments lacking the same may be contemplated as within the scope of the invention, the scope being defined by the claims that follow. In reading the claims, it is intended that when words such as “a,” “an,” “at least one,” or “at least one portion” are used there is no intention to limit the claim to only one item unless specifically stated to the contrary in the claim. When the language “at least a portion” and/or “a portion” is used the item can include a portion and/or the entire item unless specifically stated to the contrary.
The present document is based on and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/890,244, filed Feb. 16, 2007.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6196318 | Gong et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6776235 | England | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6847034 | Shah et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
| 6876959 | Peirce et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
| 6978832 | Gardner et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
| 6993432 | Jenkins et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
| 7013976 | Nguyen et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
| 7017665 | Nguyen | Mar 2006 | B2 |
| 7021379 | Nguyen | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7028774 | Nguyen et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7032667 | Nguyen et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7059406 | Nguyen et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7063150 | Slabaugh et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7063151 | Nguyen et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7066258 | Justus et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7073581 | Nguyen et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7082993 | Ayoub et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7111681 | Detournay et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7114560 | Nguyen et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
| 7114570 | Nguyen et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
| 7131493 | Eoff et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7134492 | Willberg et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7156194 | Nguyen | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7216711 | Nguyen et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
| 7237609 | Nguyen | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7451812 | Cooper et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
| 20030205376 | Ayoub et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20030225521 | Panga et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20070029085 | Panga et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 2004009956 | Jan 2004 | WO |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20080209997 A1 | Sep 2008 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60890244 | Feb 2007 | US |
