Fracture Conductivity Damage Assessment and Remediation
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Conventional methods fail to accurately diagnose and differentiate between conductivity loss along the entire length of a fracture and near-well-bore area in subterranean formations, leading to inappropriate remedial operations in hydrocarbon-producing wells.
Innovation Solution
A method and system that determine the existence of fractures, measure parameters, assess conductivity damage, and select remediative actions using sensors, processors, and computer programs to identify and address conductivity issues specifically in the near-well-bore area.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Measurement precision
If conventional diagnostic regimes are used to evaluate fracture conductivity, then a general assessment of fracture damage can be obtained, but the ability to differentiate between conductivity loss along the entire fracture length versus near-well-bore area is lost
Solution Approach 1:
The fracture is divided into multiple segments along its length, with each segment evaluated independently for conductivity damage. This segmentation allows the diagnostic regime to distinguish between near-well-bore damage and distributed damage along the fracture, providing spatial information that was previously lost in conventional single-zone assessments.
Solution Approach 2:
The diagnostic approach transitions from a single-point or bulk fracture assessment to a multi-dimensional evaluation that incorporates depth or distance along the fracture as an additional dimension. This enables differentiation between damage located near the well-bore versus along the entire fracture length, resolving the information loss problem.
2Ease of repair
If refracturing operations are performed based on conventional damage assessments, then remedial action can be taken, but the operations may be unjustified when conductivity loss is distributed rather than localized
Solution Approach 1:
The diagnostic regime identifies specific local zones within the fracture where conductivity damage is most severe, rather than treating the entire fracture uniformly. This local quality assessment enables targeted remedial operations that are both justified (when damage is localized) and effective (by concentrating treatment where needed), avoiding unnecessary refracturing when damage is distributed.
3Ease of manufacture
If uniform fracture conductivity is assumed in fracture design, then simplified design procedures are used, but productivity is adversely impacted when near-well-bore conductivity is reduced
Solution Approach 1:
The diagnostic and remedial framework supports designing fractures with non-uniform conductivity distribution, placing higher conductivity zones near the well-bore where they are most critical for productivity. This local quality approach maintains simplicity in overall fracture design while enabling targeted conductivity enhancement where it matters most, thereby preserving productivity.
Data Source
AI summary
Methods, computer programs, and systems for evaluating and treating previously-fractured subterranean formations are provided. An example method includes, for one or more of the one or more layers, determining whether there are one or more existing fractures in the layer. The method further includes, for one or more of the one or more existing fractures, measuring one or more parameters of the existing fracture and determining conductivity damage to the existing fracture, based, at least in part, on one or more of the one or more measured parameters of the existing fracture. The method further includes selecting one or more remediative actions for the existing fracture, based, at least in part, on the conductivity damage.