Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Complexity of Minifrac Tests and Implications for in-Situ Horizontal Stresses in Coalbed Methane Reservoirs
View through CrossRef
Abstract
Minifrac tests are used to obtain key parameters of reservoirs for geomechanical modeling and hydraulic fracture treatment design. An ideal minifrac test can clearly indicate the leak-off pressure, fracture propagation pressure, shut-in pressure and fracture closure pressure. Repeated minifrac tests in the same interval provide additional value by verifying the fracture parameters with similar results. However, minifrac tests of two wells conducted in a coal seam in a coalbed methane (CBM) reservoir in China showed unconventional results - the fracture profile is less distinguishable for the fracture behaviors, and the subsequent test cycles in each well exhibited higher pressures than the precursors.
A close examination of the test results with laboratory experiments and field microseismic monitoring results indicates that the discrepancies in pressure responses are correlated to the constitution of the coal seam. The coal seam contains many cleats, and the minifrac tests in most cases had opened these cleats instead of initiating new fractures. Opening a cleat whose plane is in line with the maximum horizontal stress orientation requires the least pressure but could be inhibited by connecting cleats with any other orientation that needs higher pressure to open or slide, which could lead to opening more cleats from different sites towards different directions. Eventually, multiple zigzag hydraulic fracture paths instead of a single planar fracture would be induced. The zigzag paths and simultaneously opening of multiple fracture paths will cause a stress increase in their vicinity, resulting in higher treating pressures for further advances. This implies that the magnitude of minimum horizontal stress Shmin shall be the least magnitude seen amongst the leak-off and fracture closure pressures of all tests, 0.0143 MPa/m for the case study.
A conceptual model has been put forward to reveal the hydraulic fracturing in coalbeds. The mechanisms possibily contributing to the high treating pressure in hydraulically fracturing coalbeds have been explained from the geomechanics point of view, including poroelastic effects, fracture tortuosity effects and multiple fracture opening effects. This paper describes how the physical coal seam model reacts to fluid injection, which assists understanding the nature of minifrac tests and avoids the misinterpretation of the results. The approach can further help to quantify accurately the minimum horizontal stress magnitude from the complex minifrac tests, and hence contributes considerably to accurate geomechanical modelling and fracture treatment design for any CBM reservoirs.
Introduction
With horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing increasingly becoming economical and practical in developing shale gas, tight sand gas and coalbed methane reservoirs, knowledge of the minimum horizontal stress (Shmin) is critical in optimizing well trajectories and fracture treatment design (Ramakrishnan et al., 2009). Although there are a few methods available to assess the Shmin magnitude, the micro-fracture (microfrac) and mini-fracture (minifrac) as well as the extended leak-off test (XLOT) remain the most reliable methods (De Bree and Walters, 1989; White et al., 2002; Howkes et al., 2005; Lin et al., 2008). These methods are similar in principle: to obtain a fracture closure pressure by creating a pair of small fractures through injecting fluid in an isolated wellbore section (Fig. 1), followed by a shut-in process to allow the fracture to close. The fluid pressure varies corresponding to the fracture behavior during a complete test and the variation can indicate the moments of fracture creation, propagation and closure associated with fluid injection and shut-in process. The pressure at the time the fracture closes is termed the fracture closure pressure and is equivalent to the minimum horizontal stress. Repeated minifrac tests provide additional value by verifying the pressure parameters with similar results.
Title: Complexity of Minifrac Tests and Implications for in-Situ Horizontal Stresses in Coalbed Methane Reservoirs
Description:
Abstract
Minifrac tests are used to obtain key parameters of reservoirs for geomechanical modeling and hydraulic fracture treatment design.
An ideal minifrac test can clearly indicate the leak-off pressure, fracture propagation pressure, shut-in pressure and fracture closure pressure.
Repeated minifrac tests in the same interval provide additional value by verifying the fracture parameters with similar results.
However, minifrac tests of two wells conducted in a coal seam in a coalbed methane (CBM) reservoir in China showed unconventional results - the fracture profile is less distinguishable for the fracture behaviors, and the subsequent test cycles in each well exhibited higher pressures than the precursors.
A close examination of the test results with laboratory experiments and field microseismic monitoring results indicates that the discrepancies in pressure responses are correlated to the constitution of the coal seam.
The coal seam contains many cleats, and the minifrac tests in most cases had opened these cleats instead of initiating new fractures.
Opening a cleat whose plane is in line with the maximum horizontal stress orientation requires the least pressure but could be inhibited by connecting cleats with any other orientation that needs higher pressure to open or slide, which could lead to opening more cleats from different sites towards different directions.
Eventually, multiple zigzag hydraulic fracture paths instead of a single planar fracture would be induced.
The zigzag paths and simultaneously opening of multiple fracture paths will cause a stress increase in their vicinity, resulting in higher treating pressures for further advances.
This implies that the magnitude of minimum horizontal stress Shmin shall be the least magnitude seen amongst the leak-off and fracture closure pressures of all tests, 0.
0143 MPa/m for the case study.
A conceptual model has been put forward to reveal the hydraulic fracturing in coalbeds.
The mechanisms possibily contributing to the high treating pressure in hydraulically fracturing coalbeds have been explained from the geomechanics point of view, including poroelastic effects, fracture tortuosity effects and multiple fracture opening effects.
This paper describes how the physical coal seam model reacts to fluid injection, which assists understanding the nature of minifrac tests and avoids the misinterpretation of the results.
The approach can further help to quantify accurately the minimum horizontal stress magnitude from the complex minifrac tests, and hence contributes considerably to accurate geomechanical modelling and fracture treatment design for any CBM reservoirs.
Introduction
With horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing increasingly becoming economical and practical in developing shale gas, tight sand gas and coalbed methane reservoirs, knowledge of the minimum horizontal stress (Shmin) is critical in optimizing well trajectories and fracture treatment design (Ramakrishnan et al.
, 2009).
Although there are a few methods available to assess the Shmin magnitude, the micro-fracture (microfrac) and mini-fracture (minifrac) as well as the extended leak-off test (XLOT) remain the most reliable methods (De Bree and Walters, 1989; White et al.
, 2002; Howkes et al.
, 2005; Lin et al.
, 2008).
These methods are similar in principle: to obtain a fracture closure pressure by creating a pair of small fractures through injecting fluid in an isolated wellbore section (Fig.
1), followed by a shut-in process to allow the fracture to close.
The fluid pressure varies corresponding to the fracture behavior during a complete test and the variation can indicate the moments of fracture creation, propagation and closure associated with fluid injection and shut-in process.
The pressure at the time the fracture closes is termed the fracture closure pressure and is equivalent to the minimum horizontal stress.
Repeated minifrac tests provide additional value by verifying the pressure parameters with similar results.
Related Results
The Classification and Model of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs
The Classification and Model of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs
Abstract Coalbed methane has been explored in many basins worldwide for 30 years, and has been developed commercially in some of the basins. Many researchers have described the ch...
Comparisons of Pore Structure for Unconventional Tight Gas, Coalbed Methane and Shale Gas Reservoirs
Comparisons of Pore Structure for Unconventional Tight Gas, Coalbed Methane and Shale Gas Reservoirs
Extended abstract
Tight sands gas, coalbed methane and shale gas are three kinds of typical unconventional natural gas. With the decrease of conventional oil and gas...
A Method to Improve Computational Efficiency of Productivity Evaluation with Rectangular Coalbed Methane Reservoir
A Method to Improve Computational Efficiency of Productivity Evaluation with Rectangular Coalbed Methane Reservoir
Computational efficiency is the key factor to be considered in the productivity evaluation of rectangular coalbed methane reservoir. There are three main factors affecting the calc...
Determining Permeability in Coalbed Methane Reservoirs
Determining Permeability in Coalbed Methane Reservoirs
ABSTRACT
The major objective of this paper is to identify the most generally applicable method to analyze pressure transient tests in coalbed methane reservoirs. The...
Nanoscale pore structure in anthracite coals and its effect on methane adsorption capacity
Nanoscale pore structure in anthracite coals and its effect on methane adsorption capacity
Although significant amounts of methane are present in anthracite coal seams, coalbed methane resources cannot be extracted effectively and quickly. This study mainly focused on in...
Resources Conditions of Coalbed Methane Districts in China
Resources Conditions of Coalbed Methane Districts in China
Abstract The China National Administration of Coal Geology accomplished an assessment of coalbed methane resources of China in 1988. The total amount of coalbed methane resources ...
Comparison of Methane Control Methods in Polish and Vietnamese Coal Mines
Comparison of Methane Control Methods in Polish and Vietnamese Coal Mines
Methane hazard often occurs in hard coal mines and causes very serious accidents and can be the reason of methane or methane and coal dust explosions. History of coal mining shows ...
Pool‐Forming Stages and Enrichment Models of Medium‐ to High‐Rank Coalbed Methane
Pool‐Forming Stages and Enrichment Models of Medium‐ to High‐Rank Coalbed Methane
Abstract:The pool‐forming mechanism of coalbed methane has its own characteristics. In this paper, based on studies on the typical coal‐bearing basins in China, it is pointed out t...

