Stress Analysis of Tubular Failures During Hydraulic Fracturing: Cases and Lessons Learned

Haghshenas, Arash; Hess, Joe; Cuthbert, Andrew John

doi:10.2118/184821-ms

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The casing stresses are further amplified due to thermal and pressure in volume fracturing of shale gas wells ). In addition, Haghshenas et al (2017) and pointed out that casing deformation is due to imposed additional load by fracture slip and weak bedding plane through the wellbore in the process of hydraulic fracturing. The studies of Mohammed et al (2020) and Yin et al (2018) show that creep load (slippage) lead to an increase of transverse displacement and stresses on the casing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An application of FEA and machine learning for the prediction and optimisation of casing buckling and deformation responses in shale gas wells in an in-situ operation

Mohammed

Bartlett

Oyeneyin³

et al. 2021

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An application of FEA and machine learning for the prediction and optimisation of casing buckling and deformation responses in shale gas wells in an in-situ operation

Mohammed

Bartlett

Oyeneyin³

et al. 2021

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Other authors focused on technologies used to detect and quantify casing failures (Hamilton and Pattillo 2019;McCarthy et al 2020;Robertson et al 2020). Additional papers have focused on the cause of casing deformations and failures (Denny 2012;Haghshenas 2017;Mazhar and Ighalo 2018;Robinson et al 2020). Most recently, data analytics have been used to predict casing failures (Noshi et al 2018;Carpenter 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Casing Failures with Signature Fracturing Treatment Pressure Behavior

Hoffman¹,

Wolfbrandt²,

Iriarte³

et al. 2020

Day 3 Wed, October 28, 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the challenges of unconventional resource development is the identifying and preventing casing failures caused by the hydraulic fracturing process. Multiple mechanisms may be responsible for casing deformation and/or failures, starting with the rock properties of the formation, the wellbore configuration, quality control of tubulars, and operational aspects during drilling and completion. This paper presents two case studies where casing issues were discovered during the drill out of frac plugs following multi-stage fracturing treatments. The objectives of these studies are (a) to determine the cause and nature of the casing failures, (b) to recommend changes to future completion programs to prevent similar operational issues, and (c) to develop a model that automatically identifies these failures. The subject wells are located in two very different basins: the Eagle Ford trend in the Brazos Valley (BV) area of south Texas and the Powder River Basin (PRB) in Wyoming. In both studies, the casing issues could be directly correlated to Abnormal Pressure Behaviors (APBs) observed during fracturing. A total of 486 stages, completed in 12 different wells, were reviewed using a cloud-based application that allows stages to be examined individually, or as groups. Since then, five additional wells have been added to the data set. After problem stages were identified, the completion team worked with the drilling engineers and geologists to determine the mechanisms causing the casing damage. Tight spots encountered during frac plug drill out in the BV wells directly correlated with stages completed in geological transition zones between the Eagle Ford and Woodbine formations. Once this was recognized, the team implemented operational contingencies to fracture designs for stages completed in BV transition zones. In the PRB wells, after reevaluating the post-mill inspection of the casing, the damage was found to be poor casing quality control. The location of casing deformations and/or failures directly correlated with stages that displayed evidence of frac plug failure. Moving forward, the PRB completion supervisors were made aware of potential issues, and alternative procedures were developed for both fracturing and drill out operations that utilized the questionable casing. As of this time, no additional casing issues have occurred. In these studies, identification of the problem stages was initially performed manually (stage-by-stage) using a cloud-based analytics platform (CBAP). During the process, it was recognized that the two types of problem stages had their own characteristic pressure signature. A machine learning algorithm was developed that automatically identifies plug failure, which is indicated by a sudden unexplained pressure drop in the absence of rate changes. Transition stages could be easily identified through the use of stage variance plots (e.g., comparing maximum/average rates and pressures across multiple stages and wells) and also through machine learning algorithms that identified unexpected pressure increases followed by sharp pressure drops.

show abstract

A new numerical method for evaluating the variation of casing inner diameter after strike‐slip fault sliding during multistage fracturing in shale gas wells

Liu

et al. 2019

Energy Science & Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Casing shear deformation has become a prominent problem in the process of completion in shale gas wells. It was believed that the slide of strike‐slip fault induced by multistage fracturing was the main reason. This paper presented a new numerical investigation for evaluating the casing inner diameter after strike‐slip fault sliding based on the microseismic data. A 3D finite element model, considering the mechanical anisotropy of shale and heat‐fluid‐solid coupling effect during multistage fracturing, was developed to calculate the variation of casing inner diameter after fault sliding under different engineering and geological conditions. The calculation result was verified by comparison with the measurement result of the multi‐finger caliper survey. Sensitivity analysis was carried out and the results showed that decreasing the sliding distance, maintaining high pressure, increasing the casing thickness, and increasing the elasticity modulus and decreasing the Poisson ratio of cement sheath were beneficial to protect the casing integrity. Finally, the engineering verification demonstrated that the numerical method has an accuracy up to 85.9%. Numerical model in this study was expected to provide a better understanding of casing shear deformation and an evaluation method of casing inner diameter after fault sliding during multistage fracturing in shale gas wells.

show abstract

Stress Analysis of Tubular Failures During Hydraulic Fracturing: Cases and Lessons Learned

Cited by 9 publications

References 5 publications

An application of FEA and machine learning for the prediction and optimisation of casing buckling and deformation responses in shale gas wells in an in-situ operation

An application of FEA and machine learning for the prediction and optimisation of casing buckling and deformation responses in shale gas wells in an in-situ operation

Identifying Casing Failures with Signature Fracturing Treatment Pressure Behavior

A new numerical method for evaluating the variation of casing inner diameter after strike‐slip fault sliding during multistage fracturing in shale gas wells

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About