IP Library Granted Patent US 12,332,399
Granted Patent B2
US 12,332,399 · App. 18/462,866 · Granted Jun 17, 2025

Systems and methods for hybrid model hydraulic fracture pressure forecasting

Inventors: Leen Weijers (Denver, CO); Andrew Bonnell (Calgary, CA); Ely Lolon (Denver, CO); Zhijun Liu (Littleton, CO); Karn Agarwal (Denver, CO); Robert Henderson (Denver, CO); Michael Mayerhofer (Denver, CO)
Assignee: Liberty Energy Services LLC
G01V20/00E21B43/26E21B47/06E21B2200/20
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,332,399
App. No.
18/462,866
Granted
Jun 17, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

A system for determining pressure in a hydraulic fracturing system for a well includes a processing module executing code and configured to receive a plurality of input parameters. The processing module can predict either a bottomhole pressure, based on statistical predictions and physics-based predictions, or a surface pressure based on the predicted bottomhole pressure.

Claims (29)

1. A system for forecasting pressures in a hydraulic fracturing system for a well, the system comprising:

a processing module executing code and configured to:

receive specifications for performing a hydraulic fracturing operation on a well, the specifications forecasting an array of flow rate information for frac fluid over time;

submit the array of flow rate information to a model incorporating a statistically based multivariate relationship operating on the flowrate information to forecast pressure results including at least one of a bottomhole pressure time-based array and a surface pressure time based array,

each of the pressure results being separable into pressure loss subcomponents,

determine a system of multipliers for statistical normalization of the pressure loss subcomponents,

calculate normalized pressure loss subcomponents obtained by multiplying the pressure loss subcomponents by selected multipliers obtained from the system of multipliers, and

provide normalized pressure forecast data on a basis of the normalized pressure loss subcomponents;

monitor observed pressure from the well as the hydraulic fracturing operation is underway by comparing the normalized pressure forecast data over time to the observed pressure from the well; and

wherein the processing module is further configured to take responsive action when monitoring of the observed pressure indicates an impending screen-out, wherein such responsive action is selected from (1) adding a friction reducer to the frac fluid to increase flowrates while maintaining an operational pressure that does not exceed downhole pressure safety limits, (2) increasing flow rate by increasing pumping pressure while maintaining an operational pressure that does not exceed downhole pressure safety limits; or (3) reducing a bottomhole proppant concentration by mixing less proppant into the frac fluid.

2. The system of claim 1 wherein the array of flow rate information is associated with a second set of pressure forecast results obtained from a lumped 3D hydraulic fracturing model.

3. The system of claim 1 wherein the training data set incorporates historical data from at least one analogous hydraulic fracturing operation, the historical data including time-based arrays of at least two variables selected from the group consisting of historical flow rate (Q), historical surface pressure data (P surface ), historic bottomhole pressure data (P bottomhole ), entry pressure (P entry ), bottomhole proppant concentration (C BH ), net pressure (P net ), friction reducer concentration (FR), and fracture closure pressure (σ closure ).

4. The system of claim 3 wherein the time-based arrays include at least three of the variables.

5. The system of claim 3 wherein the time-based arrays include at least four of the variables.

6. The system of claim 3 wherein the time-based arrays include at least five of the variables.

7. The system of claim 3 wherein the time-based arrays include at least six of the variables.

8. The system of claim 3 wherein the training data contains historical information from diagnostic fracture injection tests, and the statistical model relates the historical information from diagnostic fracture injection tests to new data obtained from a diagnostic fracture injection test performed on the well.

9. The system of claim 3 wherein the training data contains historical information from a stepdown test performed on the well, and the statistical model relates historical information from diagnostic fracture injection tests to new data obtained from the stepdown test.

10. The system of claim 3 wherein the training data set includes historical data from a prior stage of hydraulic fracturing performed on the well.

11. The system of claim 3 wherein the training data set includes historical data from the same stage of the hydraulic fracturing operation as the hydraulic fracturing operation of the same stage remains underway.

12. The system of claim 1 wherein the system of multipliers includes at least one relationship for determining net pressure multipliers (M net ) for mitigating error from statistical modeling of net pressure (P net ) based upon data obtained from stepdown tests performed on the plurality of wells.

13. The system of claim 1 wherein the system of multipliers includes at least one relationship for mitigating error in pressure loss from wellbore friction (P wellfriction,Q,C ) as a function of flowrate (Q).

14. The system of claim 1 wherein the system of multipliers includes at least one relationship for mitigating error in pressure loss from wellbore friction (P wellfriction,Q,C ) as a function of bottomhole proppant concentration (C BH ).

15. The system of claim 1 wherein the responsive action is to initiate an alarm to alert a frac operator when a risk of screen-out is elevated.

16. The system of claim 1 wherein the code is further configured to interact with a user through use of a graphical user interface to facilitate the responsive action.

17. The system of claim 1 wherein the responsive action is determined as a result of threshold analysis.

18. The system of claim 17 wherein the threshold analysis utilizes a probabilistic threshold on a plot of actual pressure (P actual ) versus forecast pressure (P forecast ).

19. The system of claim 18 wherein the probabilistic threshold is based upon a Gaussian distribution utilizing as a mode of the Gaussian distribution a least squares fit of a dataset comprised of the (P actual , P forecast ) values.

20. The system of claim 17 wherein the threshold analysis is based upon a contemporaneous comparison of the observed pressure and the normalized pressure forecast data.

Assignments (2)
CHANGE OF NAME Recorded Jan 13, 2025
From: LIBERTY OILFIELD SERVICES LLC
To: LIBERTY ENERGY SERVICES LLC
Reel/Frame 069881/0664 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Sep 7, 2023
From: WEIJERS, LEEN; BONNELL, ANDREW; LOLON, ELY; LIU, ZHIJUN; AGARWAL, KARN; HENDERSON, ROBERT; MAYERHOFER, MICHAEL
To: LIBERTY OILFIELD SERVICES LLC
Reel/Frame 064831/0808 →
Continuity (4)
Continuation 17812658 · Jul 14, 2022
Continuation PCTUS2022072263 · May 11, 2022
Provisional Application 63187212 · May 11, 2021
Related Publication 20230417950A1 · Dec 28, 2023
References Cited (25)
US 10989835B2 · Bailey et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11162352B2 · Shen et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20150378052A1 · Al-Ajmi et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20170364795A1 · Anderson et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20200291774A1 · Balan et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200370423A1 · Li et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
CN 111125905A · 2020 [cited by applicant]
Clifton and Abou-Sayed, “A Variational Approach to the Prediction of the Three-Dimensional Geometry of Hydraulic Fractures,” SPE/DOE-9879, dated May 27-28, 1981, 9 pages. [cited by applicant]
Clifton and Wang, “Multiple Fluids, Proppant Transport, and Thermal Effects in Three-Dimensional Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing,” SPE-18198, dated Oct. 2-5, 1988, 14 pages. [cited by applicant]
Cleary, “Comprehensive Design Formulae for Hydraulic Fracturing,” SPE-9259, dated Sep. 21-24, 1980, 20 pages. [cited by applicant]
Cleary et al., “Development of a Fully Three-Dimensional Simulator for Analysis and Design of Hydraulic Fracturing,” SPE/DOE-11631, dated Mar. 14-16, 1983, 12 pages. [cited by applicant]
Crockett et al., “A Complete Integrated Model for Design and Real-Time Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing Operations,” SPE-15069, dated Apr. 2-4, 1986, 13 pages. [cited by applicant]
Settari and Cleary, “Development and Testing of a Pseudo-Three-Dimensional Model of Hydraulic Fracture Geometry,” SPE-10505, dated Nov. 1986, 30 pages. [cited by applicant]
Palmer and Luiskutty, “A Model of the Hydraulic Fracturing Process for Elongated Vertical Fractures and Comparisons of Results with Other Models,” SPE/DOE-13864, dated May 19-22, 1985, 17 pages. [cited by applicant]
Thiercelin et al., “Simulation of Three-Dimensional Propagation of a Vertical Hydraulic Fracture,” SPE/DOE-13861, dated May 19-22, 1985, 12 pages. [cited by applicant]
Smith et al., “Layered Modulus Effects on Fracture Propagation, Proppant Placement, and Fracture Modeling,” SPE-71654, dated Sep. 39-Oct. 3, 2001, 14 pages. [cited by applicant]
Barree, “A Practical Numerical Simulator for Three-Dimensional Fracture Propagation in Heterogeneous Media,” SPE-12273, dated Nov. 15-18, 1983, 12 pages. [cited by applicant]
Meyer, “Design Formulae for 2-D and 3-D Vertical Hydraulic Fractures: Model Comparison and Parametric Studies,” SPE-15240, dated May 18-21, 1986, 18 pages. [cited by applicant]
Meyer, “Three-Dimensional Hydraulic Fracturing Simulation on Personal Computers: Theory and Comparison Studies,” SPE-19329, dated Oct. 24-27, 1989, 18 pages. [cited by applicant]
Weijers et al., “The Rate Step-Down Test: A Simple Real-Time Procedure to Diagnose Potential Hydraulic Fracture Treatment Problems,” SPE-62549, dated 2000, 11 pages. [cited by applicant]
Barree et al., “Holistic Fracture Diagnostics: Consistent Interpretation of Prefrac Injection Tests Using Multiple Analysis Methods,” SPE-107877-PA, dated Apr. 4, 2008, 11 pages. [cited by applicant]
Mayerhofer and Economides, “Fracture Injection Test Interpretation: Leakoff Coefficient vs. Permeability Estimation,” SPE-28562, dated Sep. 25-28, 1994, 10 pages. [cited by applicant]
Craig et al., “Fracture Closure Stress: Reexamining Field and Laboratory Experiments of Fracture Closure Using Modern Interpretation Methodologies,” SPE-187038-MS, dated Oct. 9-11, 2017, 27 pages. [cited by applicant]
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Aug. 30, 2022 issued in co-pending PCT App. No. PCT/US22/72263 (6 pages). [cited by applicant]
Hu J., Khan F., Zhang L., Tian S., Data-driven early warning model for screenout scenarios in shale gas fracturing operation. Computers & Chemical Engineering. Dec. 5, 2020; 143:107116. (Year: 2020) (19 pages). [cited by applicant]