You are on page 1of 8

IPTC 11166

Improved Frac and Pack Job Design and Execution in Baram FieldA Case History
Mezlul Arfie, Maharon Jadid, and Norsamsuriya Samsudin, SPE, PETRONAS Carigali Sdn Bhd (Malaysia), and
Alfred Azer and Razien Ali, SPE, Halliburton

Copyright 2007, International Petroleum Technology Conference


This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Dubai, U.A.E., 46 December 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review
of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not
necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor
Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum
Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an
abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Baram Delta Field is a mature hydrocarbon-producing field in
east Malaysia. The reservoirs are predominantly friable and
unconsolidated. Downhole sand-exclusion systems are
required to help ensure prolonged well productivity.
Historically, most wells were completed with internal
gravel packs (IGP) and high-rate water packs (HRWP) with
good success rates. However, there were concerns of
inconsistent final completion skins that could result in wells
not producing to full potential.
In an effort to improve and optimize sand-control
techniques, the frac-pack technique was introduced to achieve
not only sand exclusion but also provide additional reservoir
stimulation.
This paper describes the transition of an idea from sand
control only to optimizing production through reservoir
stimulation. A reservoir selection process for applicable fracpack treatments is also reviewed.
Because this technique was relatively new to this field,
fracture design analysis was thoroughly reviewed before the
actual application in an effort to ensure maximum benefit from
the treatment.
This paper is intended to systematically translate and
interpret the field data acquired, with the aim of improving the
quality of the job, the fluid design, and pumping diagnostic
stage to achieve TSO (tip screenout) fracs.
It is expected that variability in skin after frac-pack
treatments can be minimized and the best productivity can be
achieved by having an optimized fluid design along with
standardized pumping diagnostic and TSO design technique.
The well performance from these frac-pack wells was also
evaluated to quantify the benefit of these improved techniques.

first oil was produced in August 1971. Water depth varies


from 60 to 200 ft.
The producing reservoirs comprise many stacked clastic
layers of Miocene age. Baram reservoir sands were deposited
in the three major environmental settings, predominantly
deltaic-coastal fluviomarine inner-neritic deposits and
transitional from deltaic to non-deltaic coastal facies grading
down to fluviomarine inner-neritic facies. The non-deltaic
holomarine inner-neritic deposits at the base grade up to more
coastal facies.
Baram main reservoirs consist of alternating oil, water, and
gas sands, unconsolidated, with a formation-sand uniformity
coefficient (UC) varying from 3 to more than 20.
The previous sand-control technique was primarily slurry
or circulation IGP. Some innovative techniques such as stand
alone screen (SAS) and expandable sand screen (ESS) in open
and cased holes were applied, so far with limited success.
Severe sand production was observed from wells completed
with SAS or ESS, especially in open hole. A more detailed
study indicated that the openhole intervals do have formation
sand UC well in excess of 20 with fines (<100 mesh) above
20% by weight. The critical drawdown pressure (CDP) for an
onset of sand production in the intervals of interest in Baram is
150 psi, indicating that there is very little drawdown left to
induce flow to the desired rates.
It was therefore decided to implement the more reliable
conventional sand-control measure by IGP with provision for
stimulation by fracturing to improve well productivity.
Completion Strategy
The Baram H and A development campaigns consist of
completions with multiple stacked packs applying a
combination of frac-pack and HRWP/F treatments. Because of
the requirement to isolate the stacked reservoirs, the number
of intervals required to be completed per well averages four
zones, while four stacked packs were the maximum completed
per well.
Production wellbores vary between 7-in. liners and 9 5/8in. casing. The casings are cemented and perforated with 12spf big-hole guns and completions are either dual or single.
Gas lifting provides artificial lift in all wells.
Most of the wells are highly deviated, extended-reach with
well trajectories averaging 70 through the producing
reservoirs.

Introduction
Baram Field is located in the Baram Delta area, 28 km
offshore Miri (Fig. 1). It was first discovered in 1963 and the

www.petroman.ir

IPTC 11166

Why Frac Pack?


The frac-pack technique was chosen for its capability to
provide stimulation in addition to its capability to reliably
mitigate sand production, as shown by conventional IGPs.
Some SAS and ESS installations in Baram experienced
severe screen plugging and sand production, especially in
openhole completions. In one ESS completion, mechanical
failure was experienced during initial installation.
Several advantages and benefits associated with frac packs
are as follows:
1. Enlarged wellbore area. The wellbore area is
connected to the reservoir with a highly conductive
fracture, increasing the effective inflow and drainage
area.
2. Connects multiple sand layers. Typical formation
sands in the Baram Delta area are laminated, with
thin shale streaks. Good connectivity can be achieved
by creating a propped fracture adjacent to
stratigraphic pay.
3. Reduced drawdown. Can flow at similar rates but at
lower drawdown pressure because of good
conductivity within the wellbore. Reduces production
flow velocities and minimizes the risk of fines
migration.
4. Bypass near-wellbore damage. Connects to the virgin
reservoir beyond the damaged region through a
proppant-packed fracture. This could be over 50-ft
fracture length.
Results of these new completions showed varying degrees
of production performance because of our inability to conduct
immediate well cleanup following the frac-pack jobs, as
discussed later in this paper.
Frac-Pack Candidate Selection
The candidate selection process involves detailed analysis of
rock-strength properties from sonic and density logs to assess
elastic Youngs Modulus and Poissons Ratio. A good
knowledge of stress orientation and reservoir and geologic
properties would also be of importance in designing
perforation length and intervals for optimum fracture design.
One of the primary criteria in selecting a good candidate
for frac-pack treatment is the availability of competent shale
barriers above and below the perforated intervals for fracture
containment. For zones that are near water or gas without
competent shale barriers, frac packs will not be applied.
Instead HRWF or HRWP are the fall-back options.
Frac packs are performed in the pay zones with mobility
(k.h/) higher than 4000 md ft/centipoise. For those zones
with mobility lower than 4000 md ft/centipoise, HRWFs were
applied. However, if oil or water is present within the same
intervals i.e., close to the intended perforated intervals, HRWP
is applied.1
Baram, being a mature field, has available comprehensive
geological information with good maps and extensive
databases. These sources resulted in fairly accurate
determination of possible water or gas contacts around the
proximity of the pay zone.
Partial perforating techniques were exercised in cases
where high risk of propagating a fracture into unwanted zones

was expected even though no oil-water contact or gas-oil


contact was seen in the well.
The following information and computation generally was
obtained from log analysis:
Stress profile.
Permeability contrast.
Nearby water and gas contact.
Fracture containment likelihood.
Fluid mobility.
In 3D fracture simulators, variables such as formation rock
properties from log analysis and calculation and fluid-leakoff
characteristics are populated to model as closely as possible
the actual downhole condition across the pay interval.
Additionally, formation layering is essential in generating
a more representative outlook of the pay zones. This is
especially true for laminated sand intervals with permeability
variations.
Because of time constraints, new technology for direct
measurement of frac height to calibrate the 3D fracture
simulation model, such as using tracer scan, fibre optic, and
downhole gauge was not carried out in these wells. Therefore
we have taken a very conservative approach on frac-pack
design to limit the actual fracture height and extension to be
created.
Job Results
Initially, the frac-pack treatment was designed to help ensure
complete placement of the entire job and to account for a
number of simplistic assumptions used in the frac model.
On the first job performed on well BH-3, fracturetreatment design was limited to approximately 500 lb of
proppant per foot of perforated interval. The maximum
proppant concentration was also ramped up to 8 lb/gal.
Toward the end of the frac-pack treatment, pumping rate
was lowered to induce a screenout. No net pressure buildup
was evident on the first job. The skin result from this job was
rather high (>20).
Improvements
Improvements were carried out in subsequent frac-pack jobs,
based on pressure response observed and data collected from
previous treatments. Several changes made to the pumping
design were:
1. Reducing the volume of crosslinked fluid pumped
into the formation.
2. Lowering the gel loading of the borate crosslinked
carrier fluid system. The gel loading was reduced
from 30 to 25 lb/Mgal. Initially, fluid efficiency
numbers were extremely high; in the region of 50%.
After the adjustment to the frac fluid, the efficiency
was reduced to approximately 15% to 30%. Not only
did the change improve the chances of achieving a
TSO, reducing the gel loading also meant less
polymer was pumped into the formation, thus
lowering the risk of possible formation damage.
3. Increasing the total amount of proppant pumped.
Initially designed at an average of 500 lb of proppant
per foot of perforation; later treatments were

www.petroman.ir

IPTC 11166

4.
5.

designed to achieve a proppant loading of 700 to


1,000 lb/ft.
Increasing final proppant concentration from 8 lb/gal
to 12 lb/gal. The ramp stage was also designed to be
shorter and more aggressive.
Optimizing the main frac treatment by modifying the
pad percentage calculation. Typical pad percentage
formulas that are widely accepted are the Nolte,
KANE, and Shell methods. A modified equation was
developed to estimate the pad percentage required to
achieve a TSO event.

The Pad Equation for TSO Frac Pack


Pad volume plays an important role in achieving a TSO frac.
This section discusses the methodology used to achieve TSO
frac pack in more detail.
In 1986, Nolte developed several equations to estimate
proper pad volume required to keep the fracture open to
schedule the sand or proppant before the fracture bridges off
completely or screen out at certain maximum tubing pressure.
This is required to create adequate fracture conductivity to
compensate for the effects of gel residues, non-Darcy flow,
and proppant lost to embedment. 2-5
The occurrence of TSO frac in a frac-pack job is
accompanied by an increase in net pressure as an indication of
proppant packing inside the fractures as soon as it is being
inflated with the proppant inside.
The TSO technique was applied to enhance well
productivity in soft formations6 and high-permeability wells.2-5
The technique was also applied to avoid fracturing into
unwanted gas or water zones because of poor fracture
containment due to lack of stress contrast.7,8
Nolte developed an analytical equation that is independent
of the fracture model and depends only on the fluid efficiency
to estimate the volume of an ideal pad as shown in Eq. 1
below.

Pad Volume Fraction (%) = t pad / t i = (1 ) 100


2

.1

Where tpad is the pad pump time, ti is the total injection


time, and is the fluid efficiency.
Based on the assumption of the pad being defined in terms
of fracture area, which leads to an unrealistic high fluid entry
velocity, Nolte9 introduced a correction factor that depends on
fluid efficiency and varies from 0 to a maximum value of
0.042. Nolte, however, used a conservative correction factor
of 0.05, which shows close comparison to proppant schedules
generated using computer models (Eq. 2).

2
Pad Volume Fraction (%) = t pad / t i = (1 ) + 0.05 100 2

The calculations for the pad size requirements expressed in


Eq. 2 are for ideal designs that aim to achieve maximum
proppant coverage without screening out. For TSO designs,
other design requirements and considerations are necessary.
Nolte also pointed out that these analyses are not exact and
that the required pad volume may have some dependence on
the actual geometry and fracturing parameters.

Today, frac technology indicates inconsistency between


frac models and actual conditions. Frac models will always
need direct frac measurements for calibration purposes.
Realizing those facts and the absence of the means to
directly calibrate the model, the team decided to start the first
job using a conservative approach. A careful analysis using
the Nolte plot9 had then been carried out (Figs. 2 and 3).
As clearly described in Fig. 2, the amount of pad volume
being pumped was too high for a given sand concentration and
total sand amount. The analysis had indicated that the
proppant should have reached the perforation at the point
where sufficient frac geometry had already being created
although the actual job indicated otherwise (TSO not
achieved).
The amount of an ideal pad volume for TSO frac pack was
then entered into a spreadsheet (table 1) to calculate for the
correction factor, given (fluid efficiency) from minifrac
analysis and SLF (sand-laden fluid).
The pad volume equation would then be satisfying the
following:

PadVolumeFraction(%) = t pad / ti = (1 ) A 100.......(3)


2

[SLF ((1 ) A)]............................(4)


[(1 ) A]
BARAM PADEq. = [(1 ) 0.55]100
2

PADVolume( gal) =

Field Result with Modified Pad Equation


Following our in-house evaluation, we decided to model our
job design based on the new pad equation. The first two jobs
using the modified approach were the deeper zone in Well
BH8 (Fig. 4a) followed by the upper zone in Well BH8, where
a TSO frac pack was achieved (Fig. 4b). Coincidentally this
zone also exhibited lower skin (-1 to 5).
The next two zones in BA17 (Figs. 4c and 4d) also
achieved TSO frac pack, as shown in Fig. 5. This Nolte plot
clearly displays typical characteristic of TSO fracs.
Six frac-pack jobs were carried out. Currently, no entire
frac-pack zone could be analyzed because of commingled
production (multiple zones) and delay in conducting formation
build up (FBU) surveys. Well performances were evaluated
with a well model using the nodal analysis (inflow and
outflow performance curve) particularly for a single zone
produced from a single string. The skin factors varied from -1
to 20.
It is currently observed that the non-TSO frac completion
zones generally exhibit skin factors higher than 20. We also
noted that those zones with TSO frac pack that had a delayed
cleanup because of flowline hookup issues had shown very
high skin factors (<15).
The best producers with TSO frac packs were the ones that
were immediately brought to production after well completion
where the gel residues were immediately removed from the
pack. Pack factor was 337 lb/ft, with a net pressure increase of
594 psi. It exhibited skin of less than 5. It produced 1,816
BOPD at 600-psi FTHP, 24/64-in. choke size, with 40% water
cut and 447-Scf/D GOR. Higher production is expected with
larger choke installed. It is also clearly seen from this well that

www.petroman.ir

IPTC 11166

as the net pressure increases, better well performances are


achieved (Table 2).
The second-best producer was exhibited by a frac-pack
well that used water as carrier fluid (HRWF). Because of the
lower mobility (<4,000 md-ft/cps), fracturing with water was
deemed possible, and damage from gel residue was
eliminated.
Those zones packed with HRWP job techniques show skin
factors ranging from 15 to 30.
In the frac-pack zones that did not achieve TSO but were
quickly produced back to remove the gel residue, the skin
factors ranged from 15 to 20.
Table 2 presents zones, wells, and production data.
Conclusions
1. Frac-pack treatments with a modified pad equation
combined with a reduced gel loading, increased
proppant concentration, and an improved pumping
diagnostic technique achieved TSO frac treatment
(3001,000 psi net pressure increase).
2. Better productivity was associated with higher NPI.
3. Delays in well cleanup following frac-pack jobs
(TSO or non-TSO) resulted in very high skins
because of possible damage from the residual gel.
4. As expected, non-TSO frac-pack zones exhibited
relatively higher skins (20) than the TSO frac-pack
zones (-1 to 5).
5. In some cases, the HRWF zones could give good
productivity (i.e. low skins), signifying the
unfavorable effect of residual gel on the performance
of frac-pack jobs.
Recommendations
1. Use a less-damaging fracturing fluid system that
exhibits similar or better spurt-loss and wall-building
characteristics. Alternatively, use lower gel loading
which should be possible because the cooling effect
of the forward injectant around the wellbore could
improve the carrying capacity of the pad.
2. To maximize the benefit from frac-pack applications,
it is imperative that the wells or zones be produced
immediately after the well completion so that the
damaging effect of the gel is eliminated.

Table 1Pad Volume Calculation


50.00%
Sand Laden Fluid
FE
Nolte Pad
0.3000
Pad Vol
4195.3
Kilgore Pad
0.2500
Pad Vol
3263.0
Shell Pad
0.3333
Pad Vol
4894.5
GOM
0.3000
Pad Vol
4195.3
BARAM L-6.2
0.1125
Pad Vol
1240.9

3.
4.

To validate the 3D model, use screens that include


real-time pressure and temperature monitoring to
measure the fracture height directly.
Consider using relative permeability modifiers with
frac-pack fluid for zones close water or gas.

Acknowledgment
The authors thank PETRONAS Carigali Sdn Bhd for
permission to publish this paper and to Halliburton for
excellent cooperation in making this work a success.
References
1.

2.

3.
4.

5.

6.
7.
8.
9.

Delattre, E., Mus, E., Van Domelen, M., Azer, A., Payer, N.:
Performance of Cased-Hole Sand-Control Completions in
High-Rate WellsA Case Study from the Girassol Field,
Angola, paper SPE 78322 presented at the 2002 SPE European
Petroleum Conference, Aberdeen, United Kingdom, 2931
October.
Martins, J.P. et al.: Small Highly Conductive Fractures Near
Fluid Contacts: Application to Prudhoe Bay, paper SPE 24956,
presented at the 1992 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the SPE Production Engineering Journal,
Washington D.C., 47 October.
Martins, J.P. et al.: Tip Screen Out Fracturing Applied to the
Ravenspurn South Gas Field Development, SPE PE (August
1992) 252.
Martins, J.P. et al.: The effect of Non-Darcy Flow in Propped
Fractures, paper SPE 20709 presented at the 1990 Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana,
2326 September.
Vincent, M.C., Pearson, M. and Kullman, J.: Non Darcy and
Multiphase Flow in Propped Fractures: Case Studies Illustrate
the Dramatic Effect on Well Productivity, paper SPE 54630
presented at the 1999 SPE Regional Meeting, Anchorage,
Alaska, 2628 May.
Smith, M.B., Miller II, W.K., and Haga, J.: Tip Screenout
Fracturing: A Technique for Soft, Unstable Formations, SPEPE
(May 1987) 95.
Petroleum Well Construction, Economides, M.J., Watters, L.T.,
Dunn-Norman, S. (eds.), John Wiley & Sons, London, (1998)
505-506.
The optimization of Propped Fracture Treatments. Economides
and Nolte Reservoir Stimulation, H.G. Meng Second Edition.
Prentice Hall, New Jersey (1989) 8-1112.
Nolte, K.G.: Determination of Proppant and Fluid Schedules
from Pressure Decline, SPEPE (July 1986).

9789
Gal
Gal
Gal
Gal
Gal

www.petroman.ir

IPTC 11166

Well and Completion Data


Mobility,
Thick,
Visc,
md ft/
ft
cps
cps

Zone
Name

Perm,
md

I3.1

800

30

0.4

60000

1000

54

0.4

135000

700

30

0.4

52500

1000

60

0.4

150000

I5.1/6.0

500

40

0.4

50000

I6.0

500

50

0.4

62500

I6.5

900

55

0.4

123750

I6.0/6.5

750

77

0.4

144375

L4.2

1000

42

0.5

84000

L5.1

200

56

0.5

22400

L6.2

700

50

0.5

70000

1000

231

0.5

462000

1000

120

0.5

240000

1000

56

0.5

112000

1000

75

0.5

150000

800

333

0.5

532800

200

122

0.6

40667

30

40

0.6

2000

200

34

0.6

11333

150

95

0.6

23750

300

75

0.6

37500

O2.0

200

12

0.7

3429

O3.0/3.5

100

20

0.7

2857

O5.0/6.0/
6.5/7.0

55

61

0.8

4194

P1.0

100

62

0.8

7750

P4.1

100

28

0.8

3500

P5.1/5.6/
5.9

50

13

0.8

813

Q3.2

100

67

0.8

8375

I4.0

L7.0

N3.0

N3.5

Table 2Zones, Well, and Job Production


Production Data from Single Zone Producing from Single String
Gas
WC,
Gross,
Net,
MIG
FTHP
B/S
Skin
Remarks
BH
Output,
%
B/D
B/D
SCFD
HRWF
1371
142
382
GLI
90
300
24/147
BH6
(258PPF)
HRWP
BH2
(110PPF)
HRWF
BH6
(199PPF)
HRWP
BH9
(79PPF)
HRWP
BH7
810
798
323
FTT
1.5
450
24/147
(75PPF)
HRWP
BH2
(68PPF)
HRWP
BH6
(118PPF)
HRWP
BH7
(180PPF)
HRWF
BH4
(218PPF)
HRWP
BH4
(90PPF)
FP
(607PPF;
709
675
110
FTT
4.8
150
24/147
>20
BH3
100 PSI
NPI)
FP
(304PPF;
BH4
200 PSI
NPI)
FP
Well
(323PPF;
1603
1580
550
GLI
1.4
380
24/147
0-7
unloaded
BH8
483 PSI
quickly
NPI)
HRWP
BH7
(91PPF)
HRWP
BH2
(39PPF)
CH SAS
BH9
(12-IN.
GAUGE)
FP
Well
(337PPF;
1816
1089
447
FTT
40
600
24/147
0-5
unloaded
BH8
594 PSI
quickly
NPI)
HRWF
BH2
(305PPF)
CH SAS
(8-IN.
BH3
GAUGE)
FP (627
PPF;
BH4
180 PSI
NPI)
FP (1011
BH7
PSI;
100 NPI)
-4 to
HRWF
3810
3429
10569
FTT
10
1050
64/128
BH14
0
(360PPF)
HRWF
BH3
(264PPF)
HRWF
(45PPF;
-4 to
4143
3729
3496
FTT
10
500
64/128
12BPM
BH15
0
Pumping
Treatment)
HRWP
BH3
(140PPF)
Gas FR
exceeds
HRWP
MPFM
BH5
63
39
2400
FTT
37.9
700
24/147
(54PPF)
design
limit
HRWP
BH15
(83PPF)
Well
FP
unloaded
(786PPF;
1149
632
1460
FTT
45
1040
24/128
>15
BH17
after 4
930 PSI
months
NPI)

www.petroman.ir

IPTC 11166

Well and Completion Data


Mobility,
Thick,
Visc,
md ft/
ft
cps
cps

Zone
Name

Perm,
md

Q5.0

50

30

0.8

1875

Q6.7

50

42

0.8

2625

R2.0

60

34

0.8

2550

50

13

0.8

813

90

45

0.8

5063

R3.0

Table 2Zones, Well, and Job Production (continued)


Production Data from Single Zone Producing from Single String
Gas
WC,
Gross,
Net,
MIG
FTHP
B/S
Skin
Remarks
BH
Output,
%
B/D
B/D
SCFD
HRWP
BH17
(59PPF)
HRWP
BH17
(56PPF)
FP
(625PPF;
BH17
1120 PSI
NPI)
HRWF
BH15
(156PPF)
Gas FR
exceeds
HRWP
BH5
477
469
4000
FTT
1.6
1250
24/147
MPFM
(63PPF)
design
limit

Fig. 1Location map.

Fig. 2Learning point from NOLTE plot the first job for pad equation modification.

www.petroman.ir

IPTC 11166

Fig. 3Learning point from the first job for pad equation modification.

Fig. 4aTSO frac after the implementation of improved parameters.

Fig. 4bTSO frac after the implementation of improved parameters.

www.petroman.ir

IPTC 11166

Fig. 4cTSO frac after the implementation of improved parameters.

Fig. 4dTSO frac after the implementation of improved parameters.

Fig. 5Typical Nolte plot of TSO frac-pack jobs.

www.petroman.ir

You might also like