EP2198115B1 - Method of using pressure signatures to predict injection well anomalies - Google Patents
Method of using pressure signatures to predict injection well anomalies Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- EP2198115B1 EP2198115B1 EP08799094.1A EP08799094A EP2198115B1 EP 2198115 B1 EP2198115 B1 EP 2198115B1 EP 08799094 A EP08799094 A EP 08799094A EP 2198115 B1 EP2198115 B1 EP 2198115B1
- Authority
- EP
- European Patent Office
- Prior art keywords
- pressure
- fracture
- formation
- signature
- decline
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Active
Links
- 238000002347 injection Methods 0.000 title claims description 64
- 239000007924 injection Substances 0.000 title claims description 64
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 title claims description 39
- 230000015572 biosynthetic process Effects 0.000 claims description 71
- 230000007423 decrease Effects 0.000 claims description 47
- 238000003860 storage Methods 0.000 claims description 32
- 238000005520 cutting process Methods 0.000 claims description 22
- 239000000243 solution Substances 0.000 claims description 17
- 230000004044 response Effects 0.000 claims description 16
- 238000009530 blood pressure measurement Methods 0.000 claims description 4
- 239000013535 sea water Substances 0.000 claims description 4
- 230000000007 visual effect Effects 0.000 claims 1
- 206010017076 Fracture Diseases 0.000 description 135
- 208000010392 Bone Fractures Diseases 0.000 description 129
- 238000005755 formation reaction Methods 0.000 description 64
- 238000005553 drilling Methods 0.000 description 28
- 239000012530 fluid Substances 0.000 description 27
- 230000035882 stress Effects 0.000 description 24
- 239000002002 slurry Substances 0.000 description 14
- 239000002699 waste material Substances 0.000 description 13
- 239000007787 solid Substances 0.000 description 10
- 230000001052 transient effect Effects 0.000 description 8
- 208000005156 Dehydration Diseases 0.000 description 6
- 238000004891 communication Methods 0.000 description 5
- 230000009471 action Effects 0.000 description 4
- 238000004458 analytical method Methods 0.000 description 4
- 230000004888 barrier function Effects 0.000 description 4
- 239000004568 cement Substances 0.000 description 4
- 230000000694 effects Effects 0.000 description 4
- 238000007789 sealing Methods 0.000 description 4
- 238000004088 simulation Methods 0.000 description 4
- 230000001419 dependent effect Effects 0.000 description 3
- 230000007246 mechanism Effects 0.000 description 3
- 230000002028 premature Effects 0.000 description 3
- 230000008569 process Effects 0.000 description 3
- 239000000725 suspension Substances 0.000 description 3
- 230000009286 beneficial effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000008901 benefit Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000012512 characterization method Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000007906 compression Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000006835 compression Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000001143 conditioned effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000013461 design Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000002706 hydrostatic effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000007774 longterm Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000004519 manufacturing process Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000012544 monitoring process Methods 0.000 description 2
- 239000002245 particle Substances 0.000 description 2
- 230000035515 penetration Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000035699 permeability Effects 0.000 description 2
- 239000011435 rock Substances 0.000 description 2
- 238000012360 testing method Methods 0.000 description 2
- 208000002565 Open Fractures Diseases 0.000 description 1
- 208000013201 Stress fracture Diseases 0.000 description 1
- 239000002253 acid Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000033228 biological regulation Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000015556 catabolic process Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000008859 change Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000018044 dehydration Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000006297 dehydration reaction Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000007613 environmental effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000011156 evaluation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000012065 filter cake Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000009472 formulation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000000499 gel Substances 0.000 description 1
- 231100001261 hazardous Toxicity 0.000 description 1
- 239000002920 hazardous waste Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000000463 material Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000005259 measurement Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000005012 migration Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000013508 migration Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000000203 mixture Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000000737 periodic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 229920000642 polymer Polymers 0.000 description 1
- 239000011148 porous material Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000012545 processing Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000000047 product Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000001902 propagating effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000005086 pumping Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000009467 reduction Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000012552 review Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000004576 sand Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000003068 static effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000008646 thermal stress Effects 0.000 description 1
Images
Classifications
-
- E—FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS
- E21—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; MINING
- E21B—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; OBTAINING OIL, GAS, WATER, SOLUBLE OR MELTABLE MATERIALS OR A SLURRY OF MINERALS FROM WELLS
- E21B21/00—Methods or apparatus for flushing boreholes, e.g. by use of exhaust air from motor
-
- E—FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS
- E21—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; MINING
- E21B—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; OBTAINING OIL, GAS, WATER, SOLUBLE OR MELTABLE MATERIALS OR A SLURRY OF MINERALS FROM WELLS
- E21B21/00—Methods or apparatus for flushing boreholes, e.g. by use of exhaust air from motor
- E21B21/06—Arrangements for treating drilling fluids outside the borehole
- E21B21/063—Arrangements for treating drilling fluids outside the borehole by separating components
- E21B21/065—Separating solids from drilling fluids
- E21B21/066—Separating solids from drilling fluids with further treatment of the solids, e.g. for disposal
-
- E—FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS
- E21—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; MINING
- E21B—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; OBTAINING OIL, GAS, WATER, SOLUBLE OR MELTABLE MATERIALS OR A SLURRY OF MINERALS FROM WELLS
- E21B21/00—Methods or apparatus for flushing boreholes, e.g. by use of exhaust air from motor
- E21B21/01—Arrangements for handling drilling fluids or cuttings outside the borehole, e.g. mud boxes
-
- E—FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS
- E21—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; MINING
- E21B—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; OBTAINING OIL, GAS, WATER, SOLUBLE OR MELTABLE MATERIALS OR A SLURRY OF MINERALS FROM WELLS
- E21B41/00—Equipment or details not covered by groups E21B15/00 - E21B40/00
- E21B41/005—Waste disposal systems
- E21B41/0057—Disposal of a fluid by injection into a subterranean formation
-
- E—FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS
- E21—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; MINING
- E21B—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; OBTAINING OIL, GAS, WATER, SOLUBLE OR MELTABLE MATERIALS OR A SLURRY OF MINERALS FROM WELLS
- E21B49/00—Testing the nature of borehole walls; Formation testing; Methods or apparatus for obtaining samples of soil or well fluids, specially adapted to earth drilling or wells
- E21B49/008—Testing the nature of borehole walls; Formation testing; Methods or apparatus for obtaining samples of soil or well fluids, specially adapted to earth drilling or wells by injection test; by analysing pressure variations in an injection or production test, e.g. for estimating the skin factor
Definitions
- Embodiments disclosed herein generally relate to methods of determining the fracture behavior of a disposal formation during a CRI (cuttings re-injection) operation.
- a drill bit In the drilling of wells, a drill bit is used to dig many thousands of feet into the earth's crust. Oil rigs typically employ a derrick that extends above the well drilling platform. The derrick supports joint after joint of drill pipe connected end-to- end during the drilling operation. As the drill bit is pushed further into the earth, additional pipe joints are added to the ever lengthening "string" or "drill string". Therefore, the drill string includes a plurality of joints of pipe.
- Fluid "drilling mud” is pumped from the well drilling platform, through the drill string, and to a drill bit supported at the lower or distal end of the drill string.
- the drilling mud lubricates the drill bit and carries away well cuttings generated by the drill bit as it digs deeper.
- the cuttings are carried in a return flow stream of drilling mud through the well annulus and back to the well drilling platform at the earth's surface. When the drilling mud reaches the platform, it is contaminated with small pieces of shale and rock that are known in the industry as well cuttings or drill cuttings.
- a "shale shaker" is typically used to remove the drilling mud from the drill cuttings so that the drilling mud may be reused.
- the remaining drill cuttings, waste, and residual drilling mud are then transferred to a holding trough for disposal.
- the drilling mud may not be reused and it must be disposed.
- the non-recycled drilling mud is disposed of separate from the drill cuttings and other waste by transporting the drilling mud via a vessel to a disposal site.
- Drill cuttings contain not only the residual drilling mud product that would contaminate the surrounding environment, but may also contain oil and other waste that is particularly hazardous to the environment, especially when drilling in a marine environment.
- One method of disposing of oily-contaminated cuttings is to re-inject the cuttings into the formation using a cuttings re-injection (CRI) operation.
- the basic steps in the process include the identification of an appropriate stratum or formation for the injection; preparing an appropriate injection well; formulation of the slurry, which includes considering such factors as weight, solids content, pH, gels, etc.; performing the injection operations, which includes determining and monitoring pump rates such as volume per unit time and pressure; and capping the well.
- GEEHAN THOMAS ET AL "The cutting edge in drilling-waste management", OILFIELD REVIEW, ELSEVIER, AMSTERDAM, NL, (20020101), vol. 14, no. 3, ISSN 0923-1730, pages 54 - 67 , and US 2005/203723 concern simulation of CRI operations according to the preamble of claim 1.
- inventions disclosed herein relate to a method of designing a response to a fracture behavior of a formation during re-injection of cuttings into a formation, the method including obtaining a pressure signature for a time period, interpreting the pressure signature for the time period to determine a fracture behavior of the formation, determining a solution based on the fracture behavior of the formation, and implementing the solution.
- embodiments disclosed herein relate to a method of assessing a subsurface risk of a cuttings re-injection operation, the method including obtaining a pressure signature for a time period, interpreting the pressure signature to determine a fracture behavior of the formation, characterizing a risk associated with the determined fracture behavior of the formation, and implementing a solution based on the characterized risk.
- embodiments disclosed herein relate to interpreting pressure behavior of CRI operations. In another aspect, embodiments disclosed herein relate to assessing potential risk and impact on a subsurface drilling system and surrounding formation.
- Batch processing of slurry i.e., injecting conditioned slurry into the disposal formation and then waiting for a period of time after the injection
- the pressure in the disposal formation typically increases due to the presence of the injected solids (i.e., the solids present in the drill cuttings slurry).
- the slurry to be injected should be maintained within calculated parameters to reduce the chances of fracture plugging.
- rheological parameters are often checked on a periodic basis to ensure that the slurry exhibits predetermined characteristics. For example, some systems incorporate a continual measurement of slurry viscosity and density prior to injection.
- Important containment factors considered during the course of the operations include the following: the location of the injected waste and the mechanisms for storage; the capacity of an injection wellbore or annulus; whether injection should continue in the current zone or in a different zone; whether another disposal wellbore should be drilled; the required operating parameters necessary for proper waste containment; and the operational slurry design parameters necessary for solids suspension during slurry transport.
- Modeling of CRI operations and prediction of disposed waste extent are beneficial to address these containment factors and to ensure the safe and lawful containment of the disposed waste.
- Modeling and prediction of fracturing is also beneficial to study CRI operation impact on future drilling, such as the required well spacing, formation pressure increase, etc.
- a thorough understanding of storage mechanisms in CRI operations is key for predicting the possible extent of the injected conditioned slurry and for predicting the disposal capacity of an injection well.
- storage mechanisms may refer to modes or methods in which slurry is stored in a formation, including, for example, methods of injection into a formation, methods of injection into a fracture, fracture growth, and changes in fracture geometry.
- a subsequent batch injection may cause reopening of an existing fracture and may create a secondary branched fracture away from the near-wellbore area.
- This situation may be determined from local stress, pore pressure changes from previous injections, and formation characteristics.
- the location and orientation of the branched fracture may also depend on stress anisotropy. For example, if a strong stress anisotropy is present, then the fractures are closely spaced, however if no stress anisotropy exits, the fractures are widespread. How these fractures are spaced and the changes in shape and extent during the injection history may be an important factor in determining the disposal capacity of a disposal well.
- Modeling and simulating CRI operations and fracturing of the formation typically do not provide instantaneous or real-time results during the CRI operations. Further, models and simulations of the CRI operation do not reveal causes for the fracture behavior of the formation.
- Embodiments disclosed herein provide a method of observing, identifying, and interpreting common pressure signatures observed during CRI operations. Further, embodiments disclosed herein may provide a method for designing a response to a fracture behavior of a formation during CRI operations.
- injection pressure monitoring coupled with in-depth pressure analysis may assist in diagnosing the fracture behavior during the pumping and shut-in periods, and in estimating key fracture and formation parameters.
- continuous fracture diagnostics may assist in tracking long-term progression of mechanical parameters, for example, fracture length, width, and direction, and assessing an overall impact posed by injected waste on the disposal and surrounding formations.
- a primary objective of CRI is attaining an environmentally safe and trouble-free subsurface disposal of the drilling waste by means of intermitted batch injections. Accordingly, the importance of pressure analysis as an effective tool for subsurface risks identification and characterization is essential. In-depth interpretation of varied pressure signatures repeatedly observed during cycle injections may be used to reveal and understand the nature of the subsurface risks, characterize possible causes, and comprehensively assess future impact on the subsurface system. Proper and timely pressure signature interpretation may help in securing seamless CRI operation, extend the life of the injection well, and maximize well disposal capacity. Conversely, a lack of subsurface waste injection experience combined with neglect of distinct pressure signatures may potentially lead to unexpected loss of injectivity, which may increase the cost of well re-completion or result in extra injection well drilling.
- pressure signature interpretation may provide a better understanding of non-ideal pressure behavior observed in CRI operations, may assess potential risk and impact on the subsurface system, and may provide a solution or action based on the determined fracture behavior of the formation.
- pressure signatures from CRJ operations may be interpreted to better understand and address non-ideal pressure behavior observed in CRI operations. Additionally, the operator may be able to assess potential risk and impact on the subsurface system caused by the CRI operations.
- pressure signatures may include a graphical representation of a plurality of pressure measurements taken over a period of time. Such graphical representations of pressure signatures are shown in Figures 2-6 .
- pressure signatures may include a plurality of pressure measurements taken over a period of time and displayed in tabular form.
- a pressure signature may include any output known in the art for conveying a plurality of pressure measurements taken over a period of time.
- a pressure signature may be determined for a pre-selected time period of CRI operation, shown at 120.
- the pressure signature may be determined by any means known in the art and may be taken at varying intervals during, for example, injection, post shut-in, fracture closure, or continuously during CRI operations.
- the pressure signatures obtained may then be interpreted for each time period to determine a fracture behavior of the formation, shown at 122.
- the pressure signatures may be compared to pressure signatures identified as representing a subsurface condition or fracture behavior of the formation, as described below.
- a pressure signature obtained immediately after shut-in may include a substantially straight line on a pressure decline.
- the operator may determine that the wellbore storage pressure decline indicates that fluid communication between the wellbore and fracture has been restricted (discussed in more detail below with respect to Figure 3 ).
- a solution may be determined 124 and subsequently implemented 126. For example, if the operator determines that a restriction between the wellbore and the formation has occurred, seawater may be injected downhole to prevent solid settling and/or to relieve stress in the formation, thereby reducing or removing the restriction.
- the subsurface risk associated with the fracture behavior may be characterized in a range of low to high risk or on a number scale representing a low to high range of risk.
- a pressure signature may be interpreted and a fracture behavior of the formation determined. The operator may then classify or characterize the risk of such fracture behavior. For example, if the operator determines that a fracture includes a horizontal component, the operator may assess the risk of the horizontal component of the fracture intersecting a trajectory of a planned well. In this example, the operator may characterize the fracture behavior as a high risk, because it may frustrate drilling of a planned well.
- the pressure signature may be interpreted as representing a normal pressure decline.
- the operator may characterize the fracture behavior as a low risk.
- the solution determined based on the fracture behavior of the formation may include taking no action, such as for example continuing the CRI operation.
- the subsurface risk associated with the fracture behavior may include determining, for example, the well disposal capacity associated with the fracture behavior, expected pressure changes due to the fracture behavior, and expected geometry changes of the fracture.
- FIG. 1 shows a pressure signature that represents an example of a normal pressure decline.
- a normal pressure is determined by the fracture closure and formation transient response, and indicates open (or unrestricted) communication between the fracture and the wellbore.
- fracture closure period indicates open (or unrestricted) communication between the fracture and the wellbore.
- transient formation period two distinct periods are distinguished during the pressure decline: fracture closure period and transient formation period.
- Fracture behavior during the fracture closure period is governed by fluid-loss characteristics (i.e., fluid volume lost from the fracture to the formation) and the material balance relation.
- the pressure decline during fracture closure period reflects both fracture length and height change.
- the fracture penetration initially increases before eventually receding back toward the wellbore.
- Initial fracture extension generally occurs because of redistribution of stored slurry volume from a large width of the fracture near the wellbore to a fracture tip region.
- the height recedes from any higher stress barriers because of pressure reduction in the fracture (i.e., net pressure).
- a fracture height growth into higher stress barriers e.g., containment zone
- a concave downward pressure decline signature indicates the fracture height growth does not reach a higher stress fracture containment zone.
- a concave upward pressure decline signature indicates significant fracture height growth into the higher stress barrier zones.
- a subsurface event may be determined from such pressure decline signatures,
- a concave upward pressure decline signature may signify a fluid redistribution in a fracture from higher stress zones (due to height recession) into a main fracture body.
- a redistribution of fluid in a fracture from a higher stress zone into a main fracture body typically occurs when the net pressure becomes equal to approximately 0.4 times a stress difference between injection and a higher stress barrier zone.
- Fluid efficiency and a fluid leak-off coefficient may be estimated from the pressure decline signature by utilizing a specialized G-function of time, commonly referred as the G-plot. (See, for example, U.S. Patent No. 6,076,046 , issued to Vasudevan.)
- the G-slope application has the same uncertainties as those observed with the interpretation of conventional well test data.
- the pressure decline during a transient formation period relates to an injection formation response.
- the pressure response during this transient formation period becomes less dependent on the mechanical response of an open fracture and more dependent on the transient pressure response within the injection formation.
- the character of the transient formation period pressure decline is determined primarily, if not entirely, by the response of the injection formation disturbed by the fluid leak-off process (migration of the fluid into the fracture face).
- the reservoir may initially exhibit formation linear flow followed by transitional behavior and finally long-term pseudo -radial flow.
- the pressure decline during the transient formation period provides information that is traditionally determined by a standard well test (i.e., transmissibility and formation pressure), and it completes a chain of fracture pressure analyses that provides a complete set of data required for developing a unique characterization of an effect from the fracturing process.
- a normal pressure signature for a CRI operation typically does not represent any potential risks for the subsurface system and may be considered as a safe pressure signature.
- a normal pressure signature may be used to evaluate the fracture behavior during closure and to estimate main fracture and formation parameters.
- a pressure signature during a CRI operation that, similar to Figure 2 , represents a normal pressure decline may indicate to an operator that the fracture behavior of the formation does not suggest a risk for the subsurface system. Therefore, the operator may continue the CRI operation without taking any further action.
- Figure 3 shows a pressure signature for a CRI operation immediately after shut-in.
- a wellbore storage pressure decline signature indicates a restriction between the wellbore and formation,
- the restriction may be caused by sealing between the wellbore and formation by, for example, viscous fluid from a previous injection or from solids fall-off and settling.
- the restriction may also be caused by a mechanical restriction accidentally induced in the injection point by, for example, cement.
- the wellbore storage pressure response may also be a result of fluid compression or expansion in a confined volume.
- the formation sealing prevents adequate fluid communication between the fracture and the wellbore, and creates confined volume within the wellbore.
- the duration of the wellbore storage pressure decline period depends on the severity of artificial restriction as well as wellbore fluid compressibility, and may be clearly characterized by the straight line, indicated at 302, on the pressure decline occurring immediately after shut-in. The pressure decline during this period no longer represents fracture response and fracture parameters cannot be determined.
- a wellbore storage pressure signature revealed immediately after shut-in represents a warning signal of an artificially induced restriction in the injection point. Due to potential sealing of the injection interval, the wellbore storage pressure behavior observed immediately after shut-in represents a higher risk for potential well plugging. The risks for potential well plugging worsens when particle settling is experienced during an injection suspension period. Considering that well plugging causes most failures in CRI projects, any wellbore storage pressure behavior, as well as a root cause for the partial sealing of the injection interval, observed immediately after shut-in must be closely monitored, evaluated, and thoroughly investigated.
- a pressure signature during a CRI operation that, similar to Figure 3 , represents a wellbore storage post shut-in pressure decline may indicate to the operator that fluid communication between the wellbore and the fracture has been restricted.
- the operator may, therefore, perform seawater injection to prevent solid settling and/or to relieve stress in the formation.
- acid may be pumped downhole to dissolve the mechanical restriction and restore normal communication between the wellbore and the fracture.
- this type of the pressure signature represents a high risk of the well or fracture plugging; hence, the pressure signatures need to be closely monitored and corrective action promptly implemented.
- a fracture storage pressure signature generally exhibits a linear relation between pressure and time (i. e. , a straight line portion on the pressure decline indicated at 404) during a post fracture closure period.
- Fracture storage pressure decline typically results from the pressure bouncing, shown at 406, within the confined fracture boundary after closure.
- the fracture boundary confinement may result from a filter cake at the fracture face created by previous injections (e.g., residual polymers and solid particles) or damage to the fracture face.
- TSO tip screen-out
- the fracture storage pressure mainly occurs due to fluid compression or expansion in confined fracture volume, where the fracture may effectively transmit the pressure and has higher permeability in comparison to the injected formation.
- the fracture storage pressure is usually observed after the fracture mechanically closes on the cutting solids, thereby allowing fluid and pressure to redistribute inside the fracture.
- Factors affecting fracture storage duration may include permeability and pressure contrast between the fracture and injected formation, and severity of the damage originated at the fracture face.
- a pressure signature during a CRI operation that, similar to Figure 4 , represents a fracture storage pressure decline may indicate to the operator that the fracture face may be damaged, thereby causing fracture confinement.
- the operator may, therefore, re-assess the fluid leak-off from the fracture to the formation using a G- function plot, and evaluate the fracture confinement by performing additional fracture simulation with updated fluid leak-off and main fracture parameters (e.g., fracture closure pressure).
- a pressure signature representing a decline pressure rebound is shown.
- a surface pressure re-bound indicated at 508, has been observed during post shut-in pressure decline, when injections were suspended for a long period.
- Simultaneously drilling or production activity in the injection well during a CRI operation may increase the amplitude of a pressure rebound.
- the pressure decline initially drops below the fracture closure pressure and continues declining until welibore fluid starts to heat up, thereby affecting the hydrostatic pressure in the wellbore.
- the wellbore fluid may heat up due to heat generated during drilling and/or oil production.
- the hydrostatic head decreases, thereby causing an increase in surface pressure (i.e., a pressure re-bound effect).
- the amplitude of the pressure increase during a re -bound period is proportional to the increase of fluid temperature in the wellbore.
- the fracture may not be re-initiated, because of the thermo -elastic impact on the formation.
- the temperature variation in the wellbore changes the state of stress, especially in a near- wellbore area.
- formation heat-up during a suspended period induces an additional stress component in the horizontal plane, while formation heat-up in the near- wellbore area increases the normal stress.
- wellbore fluid heat-up may lead to a higher breakdown pressure required to overcome additional thermal stress in the near wellbore area to initiate the fracture,
- the risk associated with excessive wellbore fluid heat-up is primarily related to higher injection pressure on surface and inability to inject within pre-defined surface pressure limits.
- the near-wellbore thermo-elastic stress component may be reduced by maintaining regular seawater injections during extended suspension periods, which effectively cools the static wellbore fluid. As a result, less pressure is required to initiate the fracture after a suspended period and the surface injection pressure may be maintained below maximum limits.
- overburden refers to the formation or rock overlying an area or point of interest in the subsurface. If the injection pressure is less than the overburden stress, a fracture may propagate only in the vertical plane. However, in a situation when injection occurs in conditions of shallow depth or in formations in tectonically active thrusting environments, the overburden stress may be a minimum principal stress. In such shallow depth conditions, the fracture may propagate in both the vertical and horizontal planes. This geometry is called a T-shape fracture and occurs when an injection pressure is slightly larger than the overburden stress.
- the pressure response during such a period where the injection pressure is slightly larger than the overburden stress provides a diagnostic basis for determining whether the fracture plane is entirely vertical or includes a horizontal component as well.
- the horizontal component (propagation in a horizontal direction) occurs when the fracture pressure is substantially constant and approximately equal to or above the overburden stress of the formation, as shown in Figure 6 . After the injection pressure exceeds overburden, the penetration of the vertical component becomes less efficient, because the propagating horizontal component prevails.
- the horizontal fracture component increases the area available for fluid loss, decreases fluid efficiency, and limits the fracture width. Excessive fluid loss in the horizontal component and limited fracture width may lead to premature screen-out or fracture plugging during injection. Horizontal fractures may provide extended coverage area with larger disposal capacity. However, due to the risk associated with a horizontal fracture intersecting trajectories of planned offset drilling wells, such horizontal fractures may need to be thoroughly evaluated.
- the magnitude of the overburden stress may be estimated from density logs and compared with the magnitude of the injection pressure as part of the pressure analysis.
- a pressure signature during a CRI operation that, similar to Figure 6 , represents injection above overburden may be used to determine the geometry of the fracture in the formation.
- the operator may determine a solution to reduce excessive fluid loss and/or increase fracture width to prevent premature screen-out or fracture plugging during injection. If the pressure signature indicates that the fracture may include a horizontal component, then the operator may, for example, re-design trajectories of future wells to avoid intersecting the horizontal component of the fracture. Additionally, the operator may perform detail pressure signature interpretation on a regular basis to avoid premature screen-out, particularly in the near-wellbore area or at an intersection between vertical and horizontal components of the fracture.
- embodiments disclosed herein provide a method of determining a fracture behavior of a formation during a CRI operation. Further, embodiments disclosed herein may provide a method of optimizing well disposal capacity by allowing an operator to determine fracture behavior or formation and subsurface events during CRI operations. In yet other embodiments disclosed herein, a method for determining a solution and implementing a solution based on a fracture behavior determined by interpreting a pressure signature is provided.
- embodiments disclosed herein may provide operators a method of addressing non-ideal pressure behavior during CRI operations and a method of assessing potential risks and impacts of the CRI operation on subsurface systems and formation,
Landscapes
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Geology (AREA)
- Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
- Mining & Mineral Resources (AREA)
- Environmental & Geological Engineering (AREA)
- Geochemistry & Mineralogy (AREA)
- Fluid Mechanics (AREA)
- General Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Mechanical Engineering (AREA)
- Chemical & Material Sciences (AREA)
- Analytical Chemistry (AREA)
- Processing Of Solid Wastes (AREA)
- Investigating Strength Of Materials By Application Of Mechanical Stress (AREA)
- Consolidation Of Soil By Introduction Of Solidifying Substances Into Soil (AREA)
- Measuring Fluid Pressure (AREA)
- Investigation Of Foundation Soil And Reinforcement Of Foundation Soil By Compacting Or Drainage (AREA)
- Underground Structures, Protecting, Testing And Restoring Foundations (AREA)
Description
- Embodiments disclosed herein generally relate to methods of determining the fracture behavior of a disposal formation during a CRI (cuttings re-injection) operation.
- In the drilling of wells, a drill bit is used to dig many thousands of feet into the earth's crust. Oil rigs typically employ a derrick that extends above the well drilling platform. The derrick supports joint after joint of drill pipe connected end-to- end during the drilling operation. As the drill bit is pushed further into the earth, additional pipe joints are added to the ever lengthening "string" or "drill string". Therefore, the drill string includes a plurality of joints of pipe.
- Fluid "drilling mud" is pumped from the well drilling platform, through the drill string, and to a drill bit supported at the lower or distal end of the drill string. The drilling mud lubricates the drill bit and carries away well cuttings generated by the drill bit as it digs deeper. The cuttings are carried in a return flow stream of drilling mud through the well annulus and back to the well drilling platform at the earth's surface. When the drilling mud reaches the platform, it is contaminated with small pieces of shale and rock that are known in the industry as well cuttings or drill cuttings. Once the drill cuttings, drilling mud, and other waste reach the platform, a "shale shaker" is typically used to remove the drilling mud from the drill cuttings so that the drilling mud may be reused. The remaining drill cuttings, waste, and residual drilling mud are then transferred to a holding trough for disposal. In some situations, for example with specific types of drilling mud, the drilling mud may not be reused and it must be disposed. Typically, the non-recycled drilling mud is disposed of separate from the drill cuttings and other waste by transporting the drilling mud via a vessel to a disposal site.
- The disposal of the drill cuttings and drilling mud is a complex environmental problem. Drill cuttings contain not only the residual drilling mud product that would contaminate the surrounding environment, but may also contain oil and other waste that is particularly hazardous to the environment, especially when drilling in a marine environment.
- One method of disposing of oily-contaminated cuttings is to re-inject the cuttings into the formation using a cuttings re-injection (CRI) operation. The basic steps in the process include the identification of an appropriate stratum or formation for the injection; preparing an appropriate injection well; formulation of the slurry, which includes considering such factors as weight, solids content, pH, gels, etc.; performing the injection operations, which includes determining and monitoring pump rates such as volume per unit time and pressure; and capping the well.
- Accordingly, there exists a need for methods of determining the fracture behavior of a disposal formation during a CRI operation. GEEHAN THOMAS ET AL, "The cutting edge in drilling-waste management", OILFIELD REVIEW, ELSEVIER, AMSTERDAM, NL, (20020101), vol. 14, no. 3, ISSN 0923-1730, pages 54 - 67, and
US 2005/203723 concern simulation of CRI operations according to the preamble of claim 1. - It is an object of the present invention to provide a method of designing a response to a fracture behavior of a formation during re-injection of cuttings into the formation. This object can be achieved by the features as defined by the independent claims. Further enhancements are characterised by the dependent claims. In one aspect, embodiments disclosed herein relate to a method of designing a response to a fracture behavior of a formation during re-injection of cuttings into a formation, the method including obtaining a pressure signature for a time period, interpreting the pressure signature for the time period to determine a fracture behavior of the formation, determining a solution based on the fracture behavior of the formation, and implementing the solution.
- In another aspect, embodiments disclosed herein relate to a method of assessing a subsurface risk of a cuttings re-injection operation, the method including obtaining a pressure signature for a time period, interpreting the pressure signature to determine a fracture behavior of the formation, characterizing a risk associated with the determined fracture behavior of the formation, and implementing a solution based on the characterized risk.
- Other aspects and advantages of the invention will be apparent from the following description and the appended claims.
-
-
Figure 1 shows a method of pressure signature interpretation and anomaly identification. -
Figure 2 shows a normal pressure signature for a CRI operation immediately after shut-in. -
Figure 3 shows a pressure signature representing a wellbore storage pressure decline behavior, -
Figure 4 shows a pressure signature representing a fracture storage pressure decline behavior. -
Figure 5 shows a pressure signature representing a decline pressure rebound. -
Figure 6 shows a pressure signature on a log plot representing injection above overburden. - In one aspect, embodiments disclosed herein relate to interpreting pressure behavior of CRI operations. In another aspect, embodiments disclosed herein relate to assessing potential risk and impact on a subsurface drilling system and surrounding formation.
- Batch processing of slurry (i.e., injecting conditioned slurry into the disposal formation and then waiting for a period of time after the injection) allows fractures to mechanically close and, to a certain extent, dissipates the build-up of pressure in the disposal formation. However, the pressure in the disposal formation typically increases due to the presence of the injected solids (i.e., the solids present in the drill cuttings slurry).
- The slurry to be injected should be maintained within calculated parameters to reduce the chances of fracture plugging. To monitor the slurry, rheological parameters are often checked on a periodic basis to ensure that the slurry exhibits predetermined characteristics. For example, some systems incorporate a continual measurement of slurry viscosity and density prior to injection.
- Release of hazardous waste into the environment must be avoided and waste containment must be assured to satisfy stringent governmental regulations. Important containment factors considered during the course of the operations include the following: the location of the injected waste and the mechanisms for storage; the capacity of an injection wellbore or annulus; whether injection should continue in the current zone or in a different zone; whether another disposal wellbore should be drilled; the required operating parameters necessary for proper waste containment; and the operational slurry design parameters necessary for solids suspension during slurry transport.
- Modeling of CRI operations and prediction of disposed waste extent are beneficial to address these containment factors and to ensure the safe and lawful containment of the disposed waste. Modeling and prediction of fracturing is also beneficial to study CRI operation impact on future drilling, such as the required well spacing, formation pressure increase, etc. A thorough understanding of storage mechanisms in CRI operations is key for predicting the possible extent of the injected conditioned slurry and for predicting the disposal capacity of an injection well. As used herein, storage mechanisms may refer to modes or methods in which slurry is stored in a formation, including, for example, methods of injection into a formation, methods of injection into a fracture, fracture growth, and changes in fracture geometry.
- Once the required shut-in time for fracture closure is computed from the fracturing simulation, a subsequent batch injection may cause reopening of an existing fracture and may create a secondary branched fracture away from the near-wellbore area. This situation may be determined from local stress, pore pressure changes from previous injections, and formation characteristics. The location and orientation of the branched fracture may also depend on stress anisotropy. For example, if a strong stress anisotropy is present, then the fractures are closely spaced, however if no stress anisotropy exits, the fractures are widespread. How these fractures are spaced and the changes in shape and extent during the injection history may be an important factor in determining the disposal capacity of a disposal well.
- Modeling and simulating CRI operations and fracturing of the formation typically do not provide instantaneous or real-time results during the CRI operations. Further, models and simulations of the CRI operation do not reveal causes for the fracture behavior of the formation. Embodiments disclosed herein, however, provide a method of observing, identifying, and interpreting common pressure signatures observed during CRI operations. Further, embodiments disclosed herein may provide a method for designing a response to a fracture behavior of a formation during CRI operations.
- To increase safety during CRI operations, the pressure response during injection and post shut-in pressure decline periods may be continuously monitored. Readily implemented injection pressure monitoring coupled with in-depth pressure analysis may assist in diagnosing the fracture behavior during the pumping and shut-in periods, and in estimating key fracture and formation parameters. In addition, continuous fracture diagnostics may assist in tracking long-term progression of mechanical parameters, for example, fracture length, width, and direction, and assessing an overall impact posed by injected waste on the disposal and surrounding formations.
- A primary objective of CRI is attaining an environmentally safe and trouble-free subsurface disposal of the drilling waste by means of intermitted batch injections. Accordingly, the importance of pressure analysis as an effective tool for subsurface risks identification and characterization is essential. In-depth interpretation of varied pressure signatures repeatedly observed during cycle injections may be used to reveal and understand the nature of the subsurface risks, characterize possible causes, and comprehensively assess future impact on the subsurface system. Proper and timely pressure signature interpretation may help in securing seamless CRI operation, extend the life of the injection well, and maximize well disposal capacity. Conversely, a lack of subsurface waste injection experience combined with neglect of distinct pressure signatures may potentially lead to unexpected loss of injectivity, which may increase the cost of well re-completion or result in extra injection well drilling.
- Methods of interpreting pressure signatures are presented below. Interpretations of the five most common pressure signatures frequently observed and identified during injection from globally varied CRI projects are presented below. The use of pressure signature interpretation may provide a better understanding of non-ideal pressure behavior observed in CRI operations, may assess potential risk and impact on the subsurface system, and may provide a solution or action based on the determined fracture behavior of the formation.
- Pressure signatures from CRJ operations may be interpreted to better understand and address non-ideal pressure behavior observed in CRI operations. Additionally, the operator may be able to assess potential risk and impact on the subsurface system caused by the CRI operations. In one embodiment, pressure signatures may include a graphical representation of a plurality of pressure measurements taken over a period of time. Such graphical representations of pressure signatures are shown in
Figures 2-6 . In other embodiments, pressure signatures may include a plurality of pressure measurements taken over a period of time and displayed in tabular form. One of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that a pressure signature may include any output known in the art for conveying a plurality of pressure measurements taken over a period of time. - Referring to
Figure 1 , in one embodiment, a pressure signature may be determined for a pre-selected time period of CRI operation, shown at 120. The pressure signature may be determined by any means known in the art and may be taken at varying intervals during, for example, injection, post shut-in, fracture closure, or continuously during CRI operations. - The pressure signatures obtained may then be interpreted for each time period to determine a fracture behavior of the formation, shown at 122. In one embodiment, the pressure signatures may be compared to pressure signatures identified as representing a subsurface condition or fracture behavior of the formation, as described below. For example, a pressure signature obtained immediately after shut-in may include a substantially straight line on a pressure decline. Upon comparing the obtained pressure signature to an identified pressure signature, the operator may determine that the wellbore storage pressure decline indicates that fluid communication between the wellbore and fracture has been restricted (discussed in more detail below with respect to
Figure 3 ). - Based on the fracture behavior or subsurface behavior interpreted from the
pressure signature 122, a solution may be determined 124 and subsequently implemented 126. For example, if the operator determines that a restriction between the wellbore and the formation has occurred, seawater may be injected downhole to prevent solid settling and/or to relieve stress in the formation, thereby reducing or removing the restriction. - In one embodiment, the subsurface risk associated with the fracture behavior may be characterized in a range of low to high risk or on a number scale representing a low to high range of risk. For example, in one embodiment, a pressure signature may be interpreted and a fracture behavior of the formation determined. The operator may then classify or characterize the risk of such fracture behavior. For example, if the operator determines that a fracture includes a horizontal component, the operator may assess the risk of the horizontal component of the fracture intersecting a trajectory of a planned well. In this example, the operator may characterize the fracture behavior as a high risk, because it may frustrate drilling of a planned well. In other embodiments, the pressure signature may be interpreted as representing a normal pressure decline. As such, the operator may characterize the fracture behavior as a low risk. Thus, the solution determined based on the fracture behavior of the formation may include taking no action, such as for example continuing the CRI operation. In other embodiments, the subsurface risk associated with the fracture behavior may include determining, for example, the well disposal capacity associated with the fracture behavior, expected pressure changes due to the fracture behavior, and expected geometry changes of the fracture.
- Normal pressure (or conventional pressure decline) is frequently observed during post shut-in periods.
Figure 2 shows a pressure signature that represents an example of a normal pressure decline. A normal pressure is determined by the fracture closure and formation transient response, and indicates open (or unrestricted) communication between the fracture and the wellbore. Generally, two distinct periods are distinguished during the pressure decline: fracture closure period and transient formation period. - Fracture behavior during the fracture closure period is governed by fluid-loss characteristics (i.e., fluid volume lost from the fracture to the formation) and the material balance relation. The pressure decline during fracture closure period reflects both fracture length and height change. The fracture penetration initially increases before eventually receding back toward the wellbore. Initial fracture extension generally occurs because of redistribution of stored slurry volume from a large width of the fracture near the wellbore to a fracture tip region. Simultaneously, the height recedes from any higher stress barriers because of pressure reduction in the fracture (i.e., net pressure). By looking at the shape of the pressure decline of the pressure signature, a fracture height growth into higher stress barriers (e.g., containment zone) may be identified. For example, a concave downward pressure decline signature indicates the fracture height growth does not reach a higher stress fracture containment zone. In contrast, a concave upward pressure decline signature indicates significant fracture height growth into the higher stress barrier zones.
- In accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure, a subsurface event may be determined from such pressure decline signatures, For example, a concave upward pressure decline signature may signify a fluid redistribution in a fracture from higher stress zones (due to height recession) into a main fracture body. A redistribution of fluid in a fracture from a higher stress zone into a main fracture body typically occurs when the net pressure becomes equal to approximately 0.4 times a stress difference between injection and a higher stress barrier zone. Fluid efficiency and a fluid leak-off coefficient may be estimated from the pressure decline signature by utilizing a specialized G-function of time, commonly referred as the G-plot. (See, for example,
U.S. Patent No. 6,076,046 , issued to Vasudevan.) However, the G-slope application has the same uncertainties as those observed with the interpretation of conventional well test data. - The pressure decline during a transient formation period, or the pressure following fracture closure, relates to an injection formation response. The pressure response during this transient formation period becomes less dependent on the mechanical response of an open fracture and more dependent on the transient pressure response within the injection formation. The character of the transient formation period pressure decline is determined primarily, if not entirely, by the response of the injection formation disturbed by the fluid leak-off process (migration of the fluid into the fracture face). During this transient formation period, the reservoir may initially exhibit formation linear flow followed by transitional behavior and finally long-term pseudo -radial flow. The pressure decline during the transient formation period provides information that is traditionally determined by a standard well test (i.e., transmissibility and formation pressure), and it completes a chain of fracture pressure analyses that provides a complete set of data required for developing a unique characterization of an effect from the fracturing process.
- A normal pressure signature for a CRI operation typically does not represent any potential risks for the subsurface system and may be considered as a safe pressure signature. A normal pressure signature may be used to evaluate the fracture behavior during closure and to estimate main fracture and formation parameters. Thus, in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure, a pressure signature during a CRI operation that, similar to
Figure 2 , represents a normal pressure decline may indicate to an operator that the fracture behavior of the formation does not suggest a risk for the subsurface system. Therefore, the operator may continue the CRI operation without taking any further action. -
Figure 3 shows a pressure signature for a CRI operation immediately after shut-in. A wellbore storage pressure decline signature indicates a restriction between the wellbore and formation, The restriction may be caused by sealing between the wellbore and formation by, for example, viscous fluid from a previous injection or from solids fall-off and settling. The restriction may also be caused by a mechanical restriction accidentally induced in the injection point by, for example, cement. The wellbore storage pressure response may also be a result of fluid compression or expansion in a confined volume. The formation sealing prevents adequate fluid communication between the fracture and the wellbore, and creates confined volume within the wellbore. As shown inFigure 3 , the duration of the wellbore storage pressure decline period depends on the severity of artificial restriction as well as wellbore fluid compressibility, and may be clearly characterized by the straight line, indicated at 302, on the pressure decline occurring immediately after shut-in. The pressure decline during this period no longer represents fracture response and fracture parameters cannot be determined. - In most cases, a wellbore storage pressure signature revealed immediately after shut-in, represents a warning signal of an artificially induced restriction in the injection point. Due to potential sealing of the injection interval, the wellbore storage pressure behavior observed immediately after shut-in represents a higher risk for potential well plugging. The risks for potential well plugging worsens when particle settling is experienced during an injection suspension period. Considering that well plugging causes most failures in CRI projects, any wellbore storage pressure behavior, as well as a root cause for the partial sealing of the injection interval, observed immediately after shut-in must be closely monitored, evaluated, and thoroughly investigated.
- Referring still to
Figure 3 , a wellbore storage pressure response observed immediately after shut-in during a CRI project annular injection while cementing a 9 5/8-inch (24.45 centimetres) casing is shown. In this example, the actual cement level was higher than initially designed. Consequently, the cement bridged part of an open-hole injection interval and induced artificial restriction in the injection point. This is reflected immediately in the pressure signature by the wellbore storage pressure behavior (i.e., straight line portion indicated at 302) after shut-in and later confirmed by a cement evaluation log. - Thus, in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure, a pressure signature during a CRI operation that, similar to
Figure 3 , represents a wellbore storage post shut-in pressure decline may indicate to the operator that fluid communication between the wellbore and the fracture has been restricted. In one embodiment, the operator may, therefore, perform seawater injection to prevent solid settling and/or to relieve stress in the formation. Alternatively, acid may be pumped downhole to dissolve the mechanical restriction and restore normal communication between the wellbore and the fracture. Overall, this type of the pressure signature, as shown inFigure 3 , represents a high risk of the well or fracture plugging; hence, the pressure signatures need to be closely monitored and corrective action promptly implemented. - Referring now to
Figure 4 , a pressure signature representing a fracture storage pressure decline is shown. A fracture storage pressure signature generally exhibits a linear relation between pressure and time (i. e. , a straight line portion on the pressure decline indicated at 404) during a post fracture closure period. Fracture storage pressure decline typically results from the pressure bouncing, shown at 406, within the confined fracture boundary after closure. The fracture boundary confinement may result from a filter cake at the fracture face created by previous injections (e.g., residual polymers and solid particles) or damage to the fracture face. Similar fracture confinement may also be observed during tip screen-out (TSO) (i.e., when high concentrations of sand or proppant reach the tip of the fracture and halt further fracture extension), when fluid-loss induces insufficient fracture width, or when dehydration causes the solids slurry to bridge at the tip of the fracture. - During the fracture storage period, the pressure behavior is dominated by the fluid storage in the fracture, assuming that the welibore storage has a minor effect on overall storage response. The fracture storage pressure mainly occurs due to fluid compression or expansion in confined fracture volume, where the fracture may effectively transmit the pressure and has higher permeability in comparison to the injected formation. The fracture storage pressure is usually observed after the fracture mechanically closes on the cutting solids, thereby allowing fluid and pressure to redistribute inside the fracture. Factors affecting fracture storage duration may include permeability and pressure contrast between the fracture and injected formation, and severity of the damage originated at the fracture face.
- In accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure, a pressure signature during a CRI operation that, similar to
Figure 4 , represents a fracture storage pressure decline may indicate to the operator that the fracture face may be damaged, thereby causing fracture confinement. In one embodiment, the operator may, therefore, re-assess the fluid leak-off from the fracture to the formation using a G- function plot, and evaluate the fracture confinement by performing additional fracture simulation with updated fluid leak-off and main fracture parameters (e.g., fracture closure pressure). - Referring now to
Figure 5 , a pressure signature representing a decline pressure rebound is shown. In the embodiment shown, a surface pressure re-bound, indicated at 508, has been observed during post shut-in pressure decline, when injections were suspended for a long period. Simultaneously drilling or production activity in the injection well during a CRI operation may increase the amplitude of a pressure rebound. The pressure decline initially drops below the fracture closure pressure and continues declining until welibore fluid starts to heat up, thereby affecting the hydrostatic pressure in the wellbore. The wellbore fluid may heat up due to heat generated during drilling and/or oil production. As the temperature of wellbore fluid increases, the hydrostatic head decreases, thereby causing an increase in surface pressure (i.e., a pressure re-bound effect). - The amplitude of the pressure increase during a re -bound period is proportional to the increase of fluid temperature in the wellbore. Although the pressure increases during the re-bound period, the fracture may not be re-initiated, because of the thermo -elastic impact on the formation. In other words, the temperature variation in the wellbore changes the state of stress, especially in a near- wellbore area. Typically, formation heat-up during a suspended period induces an additional stress component in the horizontal plane, while formation heat-up in the near- wellbore area increases the normal stress. Thus, wellbore fluid heat-up may lead to a higher breakdown pressure required to overcome additional thermal stress in the near wellbore area to initiate the fracture,
- The risk associated with excessive wellbore fluid heat-up is primarily related to higher injection pressure on surface and inability to inject within pre-defined surface pressure limits. Thus, in one embodiment, the near-wellbore thermo-elastic stress component may be reduced by maintaining regular seawater injections during extended suspension periods, which effectively cools the static wellbore fluid. As a result, less pressure is required to initiate the fracture after a suspended period and the surface injection pressure may be maintained below maximum limits.
- Referring now to
Figure 6 , a pressure signature representing injection above overburden is shown on a log plot. As used herein, overburden refers to the formation or rock overlying an area or point of interest in the subsurface. If the injection pressure is less than the overburden stress, a fracture may propagate only in the vertical plane. However, in a situation when injection occurs in conditions of shallow depth or in formations in tectonically active thrusting environments, the overburden stress may be a minimum principal stress. In such shallow depth conditions, the fracture may propagate in both the vertical and horizontal planes. This geometry is called a T-shape fracture and occurs when an injection pressure is slightly larger than the overburden stress. - The pressure response during such a period where the injection pressure is slightly larger than the overburden stress provides a diagnostic basis for determining whether the fracture plane is entirely vertical or includes a horizontal component as well. The horizontal component (propagation in a horizontal direction) occurs when the fracture pressure is substantially constant and approximately equal to or above the overburden stress of the formation, as shown in
Figure 6 . After the injection pressure exceeds overburden, the penetration of the vertical component becomes less efficient, because the propagating horizontal component prevails. - The horizontal fracture component increases the area available for fluid loss, decreases fluid efficiency, and limits the fracture width. Excessive fluid loss in the horizontal component and limited fracture width may lead to premature screen-out or fracture plugging during injection. Horizontal fractures may provide extended coverage area with larger disposal capacity. However, due to the risk associated with a horizontal fracture intersecting trajectories of planned offset drilling wells, such horizontal fractures may need to be thoroughly evaluated. The magnitude of the overburden stress may be estimated from density logs and compared with the magnitude of the injection pressure as part of the pressure analysis.
- In accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure, a pressure signature during a CRI operation that, similar to
Figure 6 , represents injection above overburden may be used to determine the geometry of the fracture in the formation. The operator may determine a solution to reduce excessive fluid loss and/or increase fracture width to prevent premature screen-out or fracture plugging during injection. If the pressure signature indicates that the fracture may include a horizontal component, then the operator may, for example, re-design trajectories of future wells to avoid intersecting the horizontal component of the fracture. Additionally, the operator may perform detail pressure signature interpretation on a regular basis to avoid premature screen-out, particularly in the near-wellbore area or at an intersection between vertical and horizontal components of the fracture. - Advantageously, embodiments disclosed herein provide a method of determining a fracture behavior of a formation during a CRI operation. Further, embodiments disclosed herein may provide a method of optimizing well disposal capacity by allowing an operator to determine fracture behavior or formation and subsurface events during CRI operations. In yet other embodiments disclosed herein, a method for determining a solution and implementing a solution based on a fracture behavior determined by interpreting a pressure signature is provided.
- Advantageously, embodiments disclosed herein may provide operators a method of addressing non-ideal pressure behavior during CRI operations and a method of assessing potential risks and impacts of the CRI operation on subsurface systems and formation,
- While the invention has been described with respect to a limited number of embodiments, those skilled in the art, having benefit of this disclosure, will appreciate that other embodiments can be devised which do not depart from the scope of the invention as disclosed herein. Accordingly, the scope of the invention should be limited only by the attached claims.
Claims (13)
- A method of designing a response to a fracture behavior of a formation during re-injection of cuttings into the formation, the method characterized by obtaining a pressure signature for a time period, the pressure signature being a plurality of pressure measurements taken over the time period;
interpreting the pressure signature for the time period to determine a fracture behavior of the formation, wherein
interpreting the pressure signature comprises determining the pressure signature to be one of the group consisting of normal pressure decline, wellbore storage pressure decline, fracture storage pressure decline, decline pressure rebound, and injection above overburden;
determining a solution based on the fracture behavior of the formation; implementing the solution; and
obtaining a second pressure signature from a time period after implementing the solution and determining if the solution affected the fracture behavior. - The method of claim 1, further comprising characterizing a subsurface risk of the fracture behavior.
- The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the solution comprises determining a cause of the fracture behavior.
- The method of claim 1, further comprising generating a visual representation of the pressure signature.
- The method of claim 1, wherein the interpreting the pressure signature comprises comparing the pressure signature to a known pressure signature.
- The method of claim 5, wherein the known pressure signature comprises at least one of a group consisting of normal pressure decline, wellbore storage pressure decline, fracture storage pressure decline, decline pressure rebound, and injection above overburden.
- The method of claim 1, wherein the time period comprises a fracture closure period.
- The method of claim 1, wherein the time period comprises a post shut-in interval.
- The method of claim 1, wherein the solution comprises injecting sea water downhole.
- The method of claim 1, wherein the solution comprises continuing the cuttings re-injection operation.
- The method of claims 1, 5, 6, 9 or 10, wherein determining a solution comprises characterizing a risk associated with the determined fracture behavior of the formation.
- The method of claim 11, wherein the characterizing a risk associated with the determined fracture behavior of the formation comprises determining the possibility of the determined fracture behavior affecting a planned well.
- The method of claim 11, wherein the characterizing a risk associated with the determined fracture behavior of the formation comprises determining the well disposal capacity based on the fracture behavior.
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US97209207P | 2007-09-13 | 2007-09-13 | |
PCT/US2008/075087 WO2009035884A1 (en) | 2007-09-13 | 2008-09-03 | Method of using pressure signatures to predict injection well anomalies |
Publications (3)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
EP2198115A1 EP2198115A1 (en) | 2010-06-23 |
EP2198115A4 EP2198115A4 (en) | 2015-12-02 |
EP2198115B1 true EP2198115B1 (en) | 2017-08-02 |
Family
ID=40452407
Family Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
EP08799094.1A Active EP2198115B1 (en) | 2007-09-13 | 2008-09-03 | Method of using pressure signatures to predict injection well anomalies |
Country Status (12)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (1) | US20100314104A1 (en) |
EP (1) | EP2198115B1 (en) |
CN (2) | CN101849080A (en) |
AR (1) | AR068426A1 (en) |
AU (1) | AU2008299195B2 (en) |
BR (1) | BRPI0816851A2 (en) |
CA (1) | CA2699503C (en) |
CO (1) | CO6270163A2 (en) |
EA (1) | EA021727B1 (en) |
MX (1) | MX343973B (en) |
NO (1) | NO2198115T3 (en) |
WO (1) | WO2009035884A1 (en) |
Families Citing this family (19)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
WO2009105330A2 (en) * | 2008-02-22 | 2009-08-27 | M-I L.L.C. | Method of estimating well disposal capacity |
US8047284B2 (en) * | 2009-02-27 | 2011-11-01 | Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. | Determining the use of stimulation treatments based on high process zone stress |
WO2012178026A2 (en) * | 2011-06-24 | 2012-12-27 | Board Of Regents, The University Of Texas System | Method for determining spacing of hydraulic fractures in a rock formation |
PL408174A1 (en) | 2011-07-11 | 2014-12-22 | Schlumberger Technology B.V. | System and method for carrying out the well stimulation operations |
US20140231084A1 (en) * | 2011-11-09 | 2014-08-21 | Ramesh Varadaraj | Drill Cuttings Re-Injection |
US10578766B2 (en) | 2013-08-05 | 2020-03-03 | Advantek International Corp. | Quantifying a reservoir volume and pump pressure limit |
CA2937225C (en) | 2013-12-18 | 2024-02-13 | Conocophillips Company | Method for determining hydraulic fracture orientation and dimension |
CA2953727C (en) | 2014-06-30 | 2021-02-23 | Advantek International Corporation | Slurrification and disposal of waste by pressure pumping into a subsurface formation |
US10385670B2 (en) | 2014-10-28 | 2019-08-20 | Eog Resources, Inc. | Completions index analysis |
US10385686B2 (en) * | 2014-10-28 | 2019-08-20 | Eog Resources, Inc. | Completions index analysis |
WO2017039622A1 (en) * | 2015-08-31 | 2017-03-09 | Halliburton Energy Services Inc. | Integrated workflow for feasibility study of cuttings reinjection based on 3-d geomechanics analysis |
CN106371989A (en) * | 2016-05-06 | 2017-02-01 | 北京中电华大电子设计有限责任公司 | Efficient and secure attack fault injection method adopting batch processing mode |
GB2562752B (en) * | 2017-05-24 | 2021-11-24 | Geomec Eng Ltd | Improvements in or relating to injection wells |
MX2019015184A (en) | 2017-06-16 | 2020-08-03 | Advantek Waste Man Services Llc | Optimizing waste slurry disposal in fractured injection operations. |
CA3099730A1 (en) | 2018-05-09 | 2019-11-14 | Conocophillips Company | Measurement of poroelastic pressure response |
CN108952700B (en) * | 2018-08-21 | 2022-03-25 | 西南石油大学 | Method for determining anisotropic stratum well wall fracture pressure |
CN112211622B (en) * | 2019-07-11 | 2023-02-07 | 中国石油天然气股份有限公司 | Method and device for dividing oil reservoir pressure field |
CA3160203A1 (en) * | 2019-11-21 | 2021-05-27 | Conocophillips Company | Well annulus pressure monitoring |
US11790320B2 (en) * | 2020-06-25 | 2023-10-17 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Approaches to creating and evaluating multiple candidate well plans |
Family Cites Families (6)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US5050674A (en) * | 1990-05-07 | 1991-09-24 | Halliburton Company | Method for determining fracture closure pressure and fracture volume of a subsurface formation |
US6002063A (en) * | 1996-09-13 | 1999-12-14 | Terralog Technologies Inc. | Apparatus and method for subterranean injection of slurried wastes |
US6076046A (en) | 1998-07-24 | 2000-06-13 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Post-closure analysis in hydraulic fracturing |
US7440876B2 (en) * | 2004-03-11 | 2008-10-21 | M-I Llc | Method and apparatus for drilling waste disposal engineering and operations using a probabilistic approach |
US8091625B2 (en) * | 2006-02-21 | 2012-01-10 | World Energy Systems Incorporated | Method for producing viscous hydrocarbon using steam and carbon dioxide |
CA2823116A1 (en) * | 2010-12-30 | 2012-07-05 | Schlumberger Canada Limited | System and method for performing downhole stimulation operations |
-
2008
- 2008-09-03 EP EP08799094.1A patent/EP2198115B1/en active Active
- 2008-09-03 BR BRPI0816851 patent/BRPI0816851A2/en active Search and Examination
- 2008-09-03 CN CN200880107170A patent/CN101849080A/en active Pending
- 2008-09-03 WO PCT/US2008/075087 patent/WO2009035884A1/en active Application Filing
- 2008-09-03 NO NO08799094A patent/NO2198115T3/no unknown
- 2008-09-03 MX MX2010002779A patent/MX343973B/en active IP Right Grant
- 2008-09-03 EA EA201070362A patent/EA021727B1/en not_active IP Right Cessation
- 2008-09-03 AU AU2008299195A patent/AU2008299195B2/en not_active Ceased
- 2008-09-03 CN CN201410356336.1A patent/CN104265211A/en active Pending
- 2008-09-03 CA CA2699503A patent/CA2699503C/en active Active
- 2008-09-03 US US12/677,719 patent/US20100314104A1/en not_active Abandoned
- 2008-09-12 AR ARP080103969A patent/AR068426A1/en not_active Application Discontinuation
-
2010
- 2010-03-12 CO CO10029656A patent/CO6270163A2/en not_active Application Discontinuation
Non-Patent Citations (1)
Title |
---|
None * |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
MX2010002779A (en) | 2010-04-07 |
CO6270163A2 (en) | 2011-04-20 |
AU2008299195A1 (en) | 2009-03-19 |
EP2198115A1 (en) | 2010-06-23 |
EP2198115A4 (en) | 2015-12-02 |
CA2699503C (en) | 2015-05-05 |
CN104265211A (en) | 2015-01-07 |
CN101849080A (en) | 2010-09-29 |
CA2699503A1 (en) | 2009-03-19 |
EA201070362A1 (en) | 2010-10-29 |
EA021727B1 (en) | 2015-08-31 |
US20100314104A1 (en) | 2010-12-16 |
AR068426A1 (en) | 2009-11-18 |
BRPI0816851A2 (en) | 2015-03-17 |
WO2009035884A1 (en) | 2009-03-19 |
MX343973B (en) | 2016-11-30 |
AU2008299195B2 (en) | 2012-08-23 |
NO2198115T3 (en) | 2017-12-30 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
EP2198115B1 (en) | Method of using pressure signatures to predict injection well anomalies | |
US9803467B2 (en) | Well screen-out prediction and prevention | |
Finger et al. | Handbook of best practices for geothermal drilling | |
Hossain et al. | Drilling Engineering Problems and Solutions: A Field Guide for Engineers and Students | |
Wang et al. | The key to successfully applying today's lost circulation solutions | |
US6766254B1 (en) | Method for updating an earth model using measurements gathered during borehole construction | |
US20090188718A1 (en) | Methods of detecting, preventing, and remediating lost circulation | |
MX2014012049A (en) | Methods and systems for real-time monitoring and processing of wellbore data. | |
CA2716018A1 (en) | Method of estimating well disposal capacity | |
Hafezi | Real-time detection of drilling problems & issues during drilling by listing & using their signs both on the surface and downhole | |
Jayah et al. | Integrated technology approach to explore carbonate reservoirs in Malaysia enhances PMCD potentials and enables successful prospect evaluations | |
EP3821107A1 (en) | Systems and methods to identify and inhibit spider web borehole failure in hydrocarbon wells | |
US11519265B2 (en) | Well system including a downhole particle measurement system | |
Abd Rahim et al. | Overcoming subsurface and batch drilling challenges in a heavily faulted deepwater environment | |
Patel et al. | Managing drilling risk using an integrated approach to real-time pore pressure prediction | |
Alireza et al. | Reducing consumed energy while drilling an oil well through a deep rig time analysis | |
Guo et al. | Increased assurance of drill cuttings reinjection: challenges, recent advances, and case studies | |
Fragachan et al. | Mitigating Risks from Waste Subsurface Pressure Injection and Decline Analysis | |
Gaurina-Medjimurec | The underground injection of drilling waste | |
Gaurina-Medjimurec et al. | Lost circulation | |
Fragachan et al. | Pressure monitoring: key for waste management injection assurance | |
Gaurina-Medjimurec et al. | Risk due to pipe sticking | |
Oyeneyin | Fundamental Principles of Management of Reservoirs with Sanding Problems | |
Noah et al. | Comprehensive Wellbore Instability Management by Determination of Safe Mud Weight Windows Using Mechanical Earth Model, Meleiha Field, Western Desert, Egypt | |
Murrey et al. | fracture design, execution, and evaluation in retrograde condensate reservoirs: case history of the angsi field, offshore Malaysia |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
PUAI | Public reference made under article 153(3) epc to a published international application that has entered the european phase |
Free format text: ORIGINAL CODE: 0009012 |
|
17P | Request for examination filed |
Effective date: 20100408 |
|
AK | Designated contracting states |
Kind code of ref document: A1 Designated state(s): AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR HR HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC MT NL NO PL PT RO SE SI SK TR |
|
AX | Request for extension of the european patent |
Extension state: AL BA MK RS |
|
DAX | Request for extension of the european patent (deleted) | ||
RA4 | Supplementary search report drawn up and despatched (corrected) |
Effective date: 20151030 |
|
RIC1 | Information provided on ipc code assigned before grant |
Ipc: E21B 47/10 20120101ALI20151026BHEP Ipc: E21B 49/00 20060101ALI20151026BHEP Ipc: E21B 43/12 20060101ALI20151026BHEP Ipc: E21B 21/06 20060101ALI20151026BHEP Ipc: E21B 21/00 20060101AFI20151026BHEP Ipc: E21B 41/00 20060101ALI20151026BHEP |
|
17Q | First examination report despatched |
Effective date: 20161207 |
|
GRAP | Despatch of communication of intention to grant a patent |
Free format text: ORIGINAL CODE: EPIDOSNIGR1 |
|
INTG | Intention to grant announced |
Effective date: 20170407 |
|
RIN1 | Information on inventor provided before grant (corrected) |
Inventor name: NOLTE, KENNETH, G. Inventor name: OVALLE, ADRIANA, P. Inventor name: SHOKANOV, TALGAT, A. Inventor name: FRAGACHAN, FRANCISCO |
|
GRAS | Grant fee paid |
Free format text: ORIGINAL CODE: EPIDOSNIGR3 |
|
GRAA | (expected) grant |
Free format text: ORIGINAL CODE: 0009210 |
|
AK | Designated contracting states |
Kind code of ref document: B1 Designated state(s): AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR HR HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC MT NL NO PL PT RO SE SI SK TR |
|
REG | Reference to a national code |
Ref country code: GB Ref legal event code: FG4D |
|
REG | Reference to a national code |
Ref country code: CH Ref legal event code: EP Ref country code: AT Ref legal event code: REF Ref document number: 914691 Country of ref document: AT Kind code of ref document: T Effective date: 20170815 |
|
REG | Reference to a national code |
Ref country code: IE Ref legal event code: FG4D |
|
REG | Reference to a national code |
Ref country code: DE Ref legal event code: R096 Ref document number: 602008051415 Country of ref document: DE |
|
REG | Reference to a national code |
Ref country code: NL Ref legal event code: MP Effective date: 20170802 |
|
REG | Reference to a national code |
Ref country code: AT Ref legal event code: MK05 Ref document number: 914691 Country of ref document: AT Kind code of ref document: T Effective date: 20170802 |
|
REG | Reference to a national code |
Ref country code: LT Ref legal event code: MG4D |
|
REG | Reference to a national code |
Ref country code: NO Ref legal event code: T2 Effective date: 20170802 |
|
PG25 | Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo] |
Ref country code: NL Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20170802 Ref country code: FI Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20170802 Ref country code: AT Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20170802 Ref country code: HR Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20170802 Ref country code: SE Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20170802 Ref country code: LT Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20170802 |
|
PG25 | Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo] |
Ref country code: PL Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20170802 Ref country code: LV Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20170802 Ref country code: ES Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20170802 Ref country code: BG Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20171102 Ref country code: IS Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20171202 Ref country code: GR Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20171103 |
|
REG | Reference to a national code |
Ref country code: DE Ref legal event code: R119 Ref document number: 602008051415 Country of ref document: DE |
|
PG25 | Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo] |
Ref country code: DK Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20170802 Ref country code: RO Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20170802 Ref country code: CZ Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20170802 |
|
REG | Reference to a national code |
Ref country code: CH Ref legal event code: PL |
|
PG25 | Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo] |
Ref country code: EE Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20170802 Ref country code: IT Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20170802 Ref country code: SK Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20170802 Ref country code: MC Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20170802 |
|
PLBE | No opposition filed within time limit |
Free format text: ORIGINAL CODE: 0009261 |
|
STAA | Information on the status of an ep patent application or granted ep patent |
Free format text: STATUS: NO OPPOSITION FILED WITHIN TIME LIMIT |
|
REG | Reference to a national code |
Ref country code: IE Ref legal event code: MM4A |
|
REG | Reference to a national code |
Ref country code: BE Ref legal event code: MM Effective date: 20170930 |
|
PG25 | Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo] |
Ref country code: LU Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUE FEES Effective date: 20170903 |
|
REG | Reference to a national code |
Ref country code: FR Ref legal event code: ST Effective date: 20180531 |
|
26N | No opposition filed |
Effective date: 20180503 |
|
PG25 | Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo] |
Ref country code: LI Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUE FEES Effective date: 20170930 Ref country code: CH Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUE FEES Effective date: 20170930 Ref country code: IE Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUE FEES Effective date: 20170903 Ref country code: DE Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUE FEES Effective date: 20180404 |
|
PG25 | Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo] |
Ref country code: BE Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUE FEES Effective date: 20170930 Ref country code: SI Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20170802 Ref country code: FR Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUE FEES Effective date: 20171002 |
|
PG25 | Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo] |
Ref country code: MT Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUE FEES Effective date: 20170903 |
|
PG25 | Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo] |
Ref country code: HU Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT; INVALID AB INITIO Effective date: 20080903 |
|
PG25 | Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo] |
Ref country code: CY Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUE FEES Effective date: 20170802 |
|
PG25 | Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo] |
Ref country code: TR Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20170802 |
|
PG25 | Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo] |
Ref country code: PT Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT Effective date: 20170802 |
|
PGFP | Annual fee paid to national office [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo] |
Ref country code: NO Payment date: 20230911 Year of fee payment: 16 Ref country code: GB Payment date: 20230713 Year of fee payment: 16 |
|
P01 | Opt-out of the competence of the unified patent court (upc) registered |
Effective date: 20231216 |