Quick
Search: 		  
advanced search
 GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help 
  Petroleum Geoscience   Signup for GSW Email News
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Petroleum Geoscience; February 2007; v. 13; no. 1; p. 3-16; DOI: 10.1144/1354-079306-700
© 2007 Geological Society of London
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nelson, E. J.
Right arrow Articles by McGowen, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Original Article

Using geological information to optimize fracture stimulation practices in the Cooper Basin, Australia

Emma J. Nelson1,2, Simon T. Chipperfield3, Richard R. Hillis1, John Gilbert3 and Jim McGowen4

1 Australian School of Petroleum, The University of Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia
2 Present address: BP Exploration, Chertsey Road, Sunbury-on-Thames, Middlesex TW16 17LN, UK (e-mail: Emma.Nelson@bp.com)
3 Santos Ltd, 91 King William Street, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia
4 Halliburton Australia, 3 Graham Street, Export Park, South Australia 5950, Australia

Fracture stimulation treatments of tight formations in the Cooper Basin can be associated with hydraulic fracture complexity that results in abnormally high treating pressures, low proppant placement and poor economic success. Pre-completion (image log and rock testing data) and post-completion data (fracture stimulation pressure decline plots) were reviewed in 13 treatment zones from the Cooper Basin. Rock strength, image log and stimulation data were available for seven of those zones.

From this analysis, a distinct relationship between rock properties (shear and tensile rock strength), geological weaknesses (natural fractures and other fabrics) and fracture stimulation complexity (net pressure, near-wellbore pressure loss and pressure-dependent leak-off) was observed. It is proposed that high in situ stress (Shmingreater double equals0.8 psi ft–1; 18.1 MPa km–1), a large contrast in tensile strength between intact rock (T>1015 psi (7 MPa)) and pre-existing weaknesses in the reservoir (T~0) promote the propagation of fracturing fluid along multiple fracture pathways, and thus abnormally high treating pressures, low proppant placement and poor economic success during fracture stimulation treatments in the Cooper Basin.

The methodology used to predict in situ stress and hydraulic fracture complexity herein presents a potential generic approach that can be used in similar basins where hydraulic fracture complexity is a problem or where conventional stimulation practices are unsuccessful.

KEYWORDS: image logs, rock strength, fracture stimulation, in situ stress






JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Geological Society of London