Far-Field Proppant Detection Using Electromagnetic Methods: Latest Field Results

Abstract

Summary More than 100 billion lbm of proppant are placed annually in wells across the globe, with the majority in unconventional reservoirs. The location of the proppant in these horizontal wells and formations is critical to understanding reservoir drainage, well spacing, and stage spacing. However, for many years proppant detection has primarily been limited to near-wellbore measurements. A novel method to detect proppant in the far field has been developed and is the subject of this paper. The proppant-detection method developed uses electromagnetic (EM) methods. This technology entails using a transmitter source and an array of electric- and magnetic-field sensors at the surface. A current signal with a unique wave form and frequency is transmitted to the bottom of the wellbore via a standard electric-line (E-line) unit. In addition, an electrically conductive proppant is pumped into the stage(s) of interest. The electric and magnetic fields are measured both before and after the detectable proppant stages, and a novel analysis method is then used to process and invert these differenced data to create an image of the propped reservoir volume (PRV). This technology is the product of years of development of computer models capable of forward modeling this technique. Once this modeling was completed, an initial field test was performed in west Texas (WTX), with a preliminary analysis of this work presented in a previous paper (Palisch et al. 2016). Since that paper, however, additional processing of the data has yielded a much-more-detailed image of the proppant location in this Bone Springs well. In addition, a subsequent field application has been performed in a major basin in the northeastern US. Multiple stages received detectable proppant of varying stage volumes, and the analysis has also shown a detailed image of the proppant location in that wellbore. Furthermore, the initial field test in WTX used only electric-field sensors, whereas this latest test used both electric- and magnetic-field receivers. The authors’ numerical simulations coupled with the field results indicate the percentage difference between prefracture and post-fracture results is two times higher using magnetic- vs. electric-field sensors. This paper will review the technology development and methods, will present the latest imaging from the initial WTX test, and will describe the latest learnings from the most-recent field test. This paper should be beneficial to all completions and development personnel who are interested in knowing where proppant is in their fractures. This technology has the potential to assist in understanding well drainage and spacing, stage and perforation-cluster spacing, vertical fracture coverage, and the effect of fracture-design changes.

A fast MoM solver for wire‐to‐surface junctions in layered uniaxial media

“…It is observed that the relative change of the magnetic field is about two orders larger than that of the electric field. This observation is consistent with that observed in the field experiment . The change in surface response promises to provide an economical way to monitor fracturing in deep subsurface regions.…”

“…This observation is consistent with that observed in the field experiment. 40 The change in surface response promises to provide an economical way to monitor fracturing in deep subsurface regions.…”

A review on proppant transport modelling

“…• Subsurface detection technique for tracking proppants (Palisch et al, 2017) can be used for calibrating the proppant transport modelling in field problems.…”

An Array Multi-Physics Acquisition System with Focus on Reservoir Monitoring

“…As the oil gets depleted and the anomalous (light blue) zone approaches the producer well, a non-zero Bx and Bz emerge, which can be analyzed to determine the distance to the waterfront. Further applications include monitoring hydraulic fracturing which is one of the next frontiers, and EM is surprisingly effective in this (Palish et al 2017). Note that the electric field shows mostly early-time anomaly, while the magnetic field always displays anomalous response.…”