Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
Volume 50,
Number 5,
May 2011,
pp. 36-52
Summary
Restimulation treatments have been attempted in a wide variety of
reservoirs, and more than 140 papers have been published documenting the
success and failure of these efforts. A database of these published examples
has been compiled and analyzed to identify the mechanisms responsible for
production improvement following restimulation with propped fractures
(refracs). A portion of this database was recently published (Vincent 2010),
and specific field examples were highlighted to demonstrate that refrac
treatments can improve production by numerous mechanisms, including
- Enlarged fracture geometry
- Improved pay coverage through increased fracture height in vertical
wells
- Greater lateral coverage in horizontal wells or initiation of more
transverse fractures
- Increased fracture conductivity compared with initial frac
- Restoration of fracture-conductivity loss caused by embedment, cyclic
stress, proppant degradation, gel damage, scale, asphaltene precipitation,
fines plugging, and other factors
- Increased conductivity in previously unpropped or inadequately propped
portions of fracture
- Use of more-suitable fracturing fluids
- Reorientation caused by stress-field alterations, leading to contact of
"new" rock
This paper will briefly review restimulation attempts in six Canadian
reservoirs of interest to the local audience, and will then present a
more-detailed review of restimulation of horizontal wells in the unconventional
Bakken oil formation. In addition to a summary of published results, this paper
will introduce a significant amount of previously unpublished data regarding
refrac treatments of horizontal laterals completed in the Middle Bakken. This
study will identify several additional concerns and opportunities with
restimulating horizontal wellbores that were not previously identified in
literature reviews. This organized summary of field results and references will
provide significant value to readers evaluating or designing restimulation
treatments.
© 2011. Society of Petroleum Engineers
View full textPDF
(
2,981 KB
)
History
- Original manuscript received:
19 August 2010
- Meeting paper published:
20 October 2010
- Revised manuscript received:
21 February 2011
- Manuscript approved:
23 February 2011
- Published online:
22 April 2011
- Version of record:
9 June 2011