Abstract
Deployable smart acoustic resonance particles have dense cores, compliant matrixes surrounding the cores and stiff outer shells surrounding the matrixes. The particles have mechanical stress sensitivities that provide unique band gap shifts when compressed. Groups of similar particles with similar stress sensitivities and similar band gap shifts are added at different times to hydraulic fluids, as circulated through wells with the fluid and pushed into fractures. A plural, sonic monopole well logging tool is lowered into the well to determine locations and depth of fractures and local pressures by distinct resonance of individual groups.
Claims
1. Materials comprising: deployable acoustic proppants for use in acoustic well logging and remote monitoring, wherein each of the acoustic proppants comprises: a high density core, a compliant matrix surrounding the core, and a stiff outer shell surrounding the compliant matrix, wherein groups of the acoustic proppants are produced from selected acoustic metamaterials having different resonances and different transmission losses at different applied frequencies.
2. A method comprising: providing plural different groups of distinct band gap shifting acoustic resonance proppants having dense cores, compliant matrixes surrounding the dense cores and stiff outer shells surrounding the compliant matrixes, sequentially introducing the different groups of the acoustic resonance proppants having similar structures and similar resonances to the well fracturing hydraulic fluids, circulating through the well the hydraulic fluids with the sequentially introduced different groups of the acoustic resonance proppants, migrating and depositing the different groups of the acoustic resonance proppants in fractures extending from the well, sensing return from the well by sensing the resonance of the acoustic proppants and distinguishing the different groups by distinct resonance of the acoustic proppants.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising: providing a plural sonic monopole tool having plural sonic sources and plural sonic receivers, lowering on a wire in the well the plural sonic monopole logging tool, and locating position of concentrations of the different groups by distinct resonances of the sonic sources with the plural sonic monopole logging tool.
4. The method of claim 2, further comprising: sensing load stress on the different groups by sensing acoustic band shifts in different resonances in the different groups.
Description
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
(1) FIG. 1 is a diagram of acoustic metamaterial band gap behavior. Transmission loss greatly increases at specific frequency ranges depending on the material.
(2) FIGS. 2 and 3 are schematic representations of acoustic proppant detection in a vertical, hydraulically fractured well using a triple sonic monopole logging tool on a wireline. FIGS. 2 and 3 are log examples shown in the frequency domain with extracted proppant concentration and closure stress logs along a close-up depth of the wellbore.
(3) FIGS. 4 and 5 show expected log examples in the frequency domain and with extracted proponent concentration and closure stress logo along a close-up depth of the wellbore.
(4) FIGS. 6-8 show additional acoustic interrogation techniques for determining smart proppant location with varying depth of investigation and imaging resolution.
(5) FIG. 9 shows a layered structure of acoustic proppant particles.
(6) FIGS. 9-12 show part of the small scale pan coating fabrication system for acoustic particle production.
(7) FIG. 13 shows a fluidized bed coating system used for acoustic proppant particle production.
(8) FIG. 14 shows an example batch of 12/20 mesh acoustic proppant particles.
(9) FIGS. 15-17 show an acoustic proppant batch in FIG. 15, macroscopic photographs of a particle exterior in FIG. 16 and a particle cross-section in FIG. 17.
(10) FIGS. 18 and 19 show ultrasonic transmission testing of 12/20 mesh acoustic proppant with 3D printed proppant boxes in different arrangements demonstrating acoustic band gap behavior.
(11) FIGS. 20 and 21 show transmission difference results.
(12) FIGS. 22-23 show ultrasonic transmission testing results with different proppant mixtures in different arrangements demonstrating concentration dependent response in overall transmission in FIG. 22 and specifically in the band gap region in FIG. 23.
(13) FIGS. 24-27 show ultrasonic transmission testing results of Northern White Sand 20/40 and the new acoustic proppant 12/20 under different clamped loads in a 3D printed proppant box shown in FIG. 27, demonstrating shift in the acoustic band gap to higher frequencies at increased load.
(14) FIG. 28 shows ultrasonic transmission difference between Northern White Sand 20/40 and acoustic proppant 12/20 under different clamped loads, demonstrating shift in the acoustic band gap to higher frequencies at increased load.
(15) FIGS. 29 and 30 show transmission in FIG. 29 and transmission difference in FIG. 30 for Northern White Sand 20/40 in FIG. 29 and the new smart proppant 12/20.
(16) FIGS. 31-34 show results of ultrasonic testing with mechanical loading for a 10 wt % mixture of acoustic proppant 12/18 in Northern White Sand 20/40 in FIG. 31, comparison to pure Northern White Sand 20/40 in FIG. 33, demonstrating dependence of acoustic signature on mechanical load in FIG. 34.
(17) FIGS. 35-38 show results of ultrasonic testing of 10 wt % acoustic proppant 12/18 mixture with quasi-static unloading, demonstrating load dependent shift in acoustic band gap frequency.
(18) FIGS. 39 and 40 show comparison of ultrasonic transmission of Northern White Sand 20/40 with acoustic proppant 12/20 and acoustic proppant 20/40 showing a shift in band gap frequency to higher frequency with smaller particles in FIG. 39 and comparison of band gap frequencies with the tool energy of a monopole logging tool in FIG. 40.
(19) FIG. 41 shows results of ultrasonic testing of 15 wt % acoustic proppant 20/40 with mechanical loading and unloading demonstrating shift in acoustic transmission spectrum to higher frequencies around the band gap frequency.
(20) FIG. 42 shows logging results in the frequency domain with band gap indicating the new acoustic proppant 12/20 packet size and location (blue is low spectral energy and red is high).
(21) FIG. 43 shows difference plot highlighting band gap region in the frequency domain at the position of the acoustic proppant 12/20 packet (blue is negative and red is positive).
(22) FIG. 44 shows overlaid semblance logs with shift in arrival wave slowness indicating proppant position.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
(23) FIG. 1 is a diagram of acoustic metamaterial band gap behavior. Transmission loss greatly increases at specific frequency ranges depending on the material. Differing materials A, B and C have different resonances and produce greater transmission loss at higher frequencies.
(24) FIGS. 2 and 3 are schematic representations of acoustic proppant detection in a vertical, hydraulically fractured well using a triple sonic monopole logging tool on a wireline. FIGS. 2 and 3 are log examples shown in the frequency domain with extracted proppant concentration and closure stress logs along a close-up depth of the wellbore. FIG. 3 shows an enlarged probe 10 with a transmission source 12 and a number of receivers 14. The probe depth is recorded. Received frequencies shown in FIG. 4 in the band gap region 16 reveal high closure stress 18 and low proppant 20, which are logged as low proppant 22 concentration 24 and high closure stress 26 on log 28.
(25) FIG. 5 shows a log example of low proponent concentration 22 in a proponent concentration log 24 and closure stress 26 along a close-up of depth of the wellbore 28.
(26) FIGS. 6-8 show additional acoustic interrogation techniques for determining smart proppant location with varying depth of investigation and imaging resolution.
(27) FIG. 9 shows a layered structure of acoustic proppant particles.
(28) FIGS. 9-12 show part of the small scale pan coating fabrication system for acoustic particle production.
(29) FIG. 13 shows a fluidized bed coating system used for acoustic proppant particle production.
(30) FIG. 14 shows an example batch of 12/20 mesh acoustic proppant particles.
(31) FIGS. 15-17 show an acoustic proppant batch in FIG. 15, macroscopic photographs of a particle exterior in FIG. 16 and a particle cross-section in FIG. 17.
(32) FIGS. 18 and 19 show ultrasonic transmission testing of 12/20 mesh acoustic proppant with 3D printed proppant boxes in different arrangements demonstrating acoustic band gap behavior.
(33) FIGS. 20 and 21 show transmission difference results.
(34) FIGS. 22-23 show ultrasonic transmission testing results with different proppant mixtures in different arrangements demonstrating concentration dependent response in overall transmission in FIG. 22 and specifically in the band gap region in FIG. 23.
(35) FIGS. 24-27 show ultrasonic transmission testing results of Northern White Sand 20/40 and the new acoustic proppant 12/20 under different clamped loads in a 3D printed proppant box shown in FIG. 27, demonstrating shift in the acoustic band gap to higher frequencies at increased load.
(36) FIG. 28 shows ultrasonic transmission difference between Northern White Sand 20/40 and acoustic proppant 12/20 under different clamped loads, demonstrating shift in the acoustic band gap to higher frequencies at increased load.
(37) FIGS. 29 and 30 show transmission in FIG. 29 and transmission difference in FIG. 30 for Northern White Sand 20/40 in FIG. 29 and the new smart proppant 12/20.
(38) FIGS. 31-34 show results of ultrasonic testing with mechanical loading for a 10 wt % mixture of acoustic proppant 12/18 in Northern White Sand 20/40 in FIG. 31, comparison to pure Northern White Sand 20/40 in FIG. 33, demonstrating dependence of acoustic signature on mechanical load in FIG. 34.
(39) FIGS. 35-38 show results of ultrasonic testing of 10 wt % acoustic proppant 12/18 mixture with quasi-static unloading, demonstrating load dependent shift in acoustic band gap frequency.
(40) FIGS. 39 and 40 show comparison of ultrasonic transmission of Northern White Sand 20/40 with acoustic proppant 12/20 and acoustic proppant 20/40 showing a shift in band gap frequency to higher frequency with smaller particles in FIG. 39 and comparison of band gap frequencies with the tool energy of a monopole logging tool in FIG. 40.
(41) FIG. 41 shows results of ultrasonic testing of 15 wt % acoustic proppant 20/40 with mechanical loading and unloading demonstrating shift in acoustic transmission spectrum to higher frequencies around the band gap frequency.
(42) FIG. 42 shows logging results in the frequency domain with band gap indicating the new acoustic proppant 12/20 packet size and location (blue is low spectral energy and red is high).
(43) FIG. 43 shows difference plot highlighting band gap region in the frequency domain at the position of the acoustic proppant 12/20 packet (blue is negative and red is positive).
(44) FIG. 44 shows overlaid semblance logs with shift in arrival wave slowness indicating proppant position.
(45) While the invention has been described with reference to specific embodiments, modifications and variations of the invention may be constructed without departing from the scope of the invention, which is defined in the following claims.
