BASIC WAY TO

UNDERSTANDING THE Sri Rahayu, M.T

HYDRAULIC Petroleum Engineer

FRACTURING
OUTLINE:
Theory

Background & Challenges

Case study

Hydraulic Fracturing Operation

Theory
 STIMULATION METHOD
1. Wellbore Clean-up : “ Injection below Frac pressure, Fluids not injected into
formation”
Areas Reduction Flow Capacity:
Scale Damage, Sand Fill, Perforation plugging, Paraffin plugging, Asphalt deposit
Solution: Chemical Treatment or Mechanical Treatment
2. Matrix Treatment : “ Injection below Frac pressure, fluid injected to formation”
Areas Reduction Flow Capacity:
Drilling mud damage, cement damage, Completion fluid, native clays
Solution: Chemical Treatment (Matrix Acidizing )
3. Fracturing: “ Injection above frac pressure”
Areas Reduction Flow Capacity:
High Permeability: Drilling mud damage, cement damage,
Completion fluid, native clays
Low Permability: Naturally low permeability
Solution: Acid Frac or Propped Frac
BASIC HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING Hydraulic fracturing
Injection of viscous fluid at rate and pressure above the
fracture pressure limit to create fracture in the formation
target. The fracture is then filled with proppant to manage
fracture weight and create greater conductivity

Objectives :
• Increase the effective wellbore area by creating a fracture
of given geometry, whose conductivity is greater than the
formation
• Bypass near-wellbore damage
• Increase well productivity
• Interconnects formation permeability
• Improve EUR (Estimated Ultimate Recovery)

Low Permeability / Tight Formation

• Increase well productivity by creating a highly conductive
path compared to the reservoir permeability.
High Permeability
• Increase well productivity by creating new conductive
path to by passed skin in formation
 ROCK MECHANIC : INSITU
STRESS Three unequal principal in-situ compressive stresses, mutually perpendicular :
sOB 1. Overburden Stress
Stress due to the weight of the reservoir rock overlaying above the formation
Overburden stress gradient (1.0 - 1.1) psi/ft.

2. Horizontal Stresses
Primarily result of overburden stress, reservoir pressure and tectonic
forces
Minimum horizontal stress (smin) gradient (0.3 - 0.9) psi/ft
Maximum horizontal stress (smax) gradient (1.0 - 1.5) psi/ft

sH,min

s H,max Vertical Fracture

Horizontal Fracture

Insitu stress controlled ---> Fracture Orientation

Hydraulic fracture aligned perpendicular to the minimum in-situ stress direction
ROCK MECHANIC : YOUNG’S
MODULUS
High Young’s Modulus

Axial strain

Low Young’s Modulus

 Young’s Modulus & Poisson’s ratio  Primarily controlled the fracture width
ROCK MECHANIC : POSSION
RATIO
 Stress increases with increasing pore pressure and Poisson’s ratio

VARIATION OF YOUNG’S
MODULUS AND POISSON’S
Lateral strain RATIO WITH ROCK TYPE

Axial strain
Rock Mechanic : Bulk Compressibility

Bulk compressibility  Influence leak-off

coefficient
Vinitial

Stress

Vfinal
ROCK MECHANIC : FRACTURE
TOUGHNESS
Fracture toughness
is a measure of the
resistance of the rock to
crack propagation
Hydraulic Fracturing Pressure Responses

Tip Screen Out

If early screen out,
your Hydraulic
Fracturing had been
done
Theory : Pressure Diagnostic

tortuosity
Hydraulic Fracturing Workflow
2. Fracturing Design
1. Well Data Analysis - Optimum half length (NPV)
- Well Location - Design pump Schedule 3. Treatment Execution
- Existing Well Diagram - Mini Fall off test
- Treatment Pressure
- Log / Petrophysics (Sw, Por, marker) - Step Rate Test
- Flow capacity
- MDT( K, Pr) -Calibration injection Test / DATA Frac
- Frac Geometry
- Mechanical Earth Modelling (Stress Distribution)

4. Treatment Evaluation
- Mini Fall off test Analysis
- Step Rate Test Analysis
(Step up & Step Down)
- Calibration injection Test / DATA Frac
(Data Frac Analysis & Pressure Match analysis)
7.Main Frac 5. Treatment Redesign
Evaluation &
Result
- Pressure Match 6. Main Frac execution
- Frac Simulation
Background & Challenges
Field Overview : Background & Challenges

Block Malacca • Challenges

Central Sumatera Basin
Reservoir Target :
•Lower
Low Permeability
Pematang = 0.35 Sandstone
formation, - 1.7 mD
• Oil hard
Problem : to flow, low rate
•LowSolution Drive
influx due mechanism
to low permeability (natural
Producton
production Decline
is below rapidly potential)
economic
• High Temperature = 310 - 350 DegF
Special Tools & treatment
• Deep Well, est. Closure stress = 5283 - 6900 psi
High Cost during operation
• Abrasive formation (H2S)
High Cost during operation

SMART STRATEGY IS
NEEDED !
HIGH COST !
HIGH TECHNOLOGY !
HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
Production Comparison
Conventional Slotted Liner Hydraulic Fracturing

1st Phase 3rd Phase

DC-09 501 Bopd DC-12
After fract
Production Increase Significant) 1st Phase 415 Bopd
DC-08 218 Bopd
3rd phase
Production Increase Significant)
DC-14
After fract
DC-05 158 Bopd 302 Bopd
DC-06 120 Bopd 2nd Phase
DC-07 70 Bopd DC-10 117 Bopd
DC-11 300 Bopd
DC-15 126 Bopd

DC-12/14
DC-04 42 Bopd
Before frac
20 bopd
Case Study : Hyd. Fractuing Design
 DESIGN : DATA PREPARATION
MSDC - 10 WELL COMPLETION
CASING :9-5/8" - 43.5 PPF - L80 WELL NAME : MSDC - 10 Comp. Eng : Salm an S
CASING :7" 29 PPF - P110 DATE RUN : January 15 2009 Crew Leader : H. Kunaidi
TUBING :2 7/8" - 6.5 PPFEUE WOR NO. : Comple tion Rig' s Name : SPA#7

Well Data : No. DESCRIPTION (long string)

1 Original R.T. to Tubing Hanger
2 Tubing Hanger 3.5" ACME LHT
I.D. O.D. LENGTH TOP BOTTOM
IN IN FT M.D . BRT
31,00
3,50 11,00 0,94 31,00 31,94
31,00

• Well Location
3 Pup Joint 3.5" EUE (P) x3.5 EUE (P) 2,99 3,50 1,66 31,94 33,60
20"
Casing 4 X-Over 3.5" EUE (B) X 2-7/8" EUE (P) 2,44 3,50 0,74 33,60 34,34
5 40 jt Tubing 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,88 1.234,40 34,34 1.268,74
6 Pup joi nt 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,88 3,73 1.268,74 1.272,47

• Existing Well Diagram 13 3/8" Csg

54.5 ppf -K55
7 X-Over 2-7/8" EUE (B) X 3.5" EUE (P)
8 X-Over 3.5" EUE (B) X 3.5" New Vam (P)
9 9-5/8" Hydro 2 AP packer #1(top to center rubber)
2,44 3,50 0,78 1.272,47 1.273,25
2,88 3,50 1,53 1.273,25 1.274,78
2,88 9,63 1,80 1.274,78 1.276,58

• Rock Mechanic Modelling (Stress Center rubber to bottom

10 X-Over Sub X 3.5" EUE (P)
11 Pup joi nt 3-1/2" EUE Slim Collar
2,88 9,63 3,05 1.276,58 1.279,63
2,88 3,50 1,87 1.279,63 1.281,50
2,88 3,50 2,00 1.281,50 1.283,50

Distribution)
12 X-Over 3.5" EUE (B) X 2-7/8" EUE (P) 2,44 3,50 0,49 1.283,50 1.283,99
13 Pup joi nt 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,88 2,70 1.283,99 1.286,69
Casing leak zo ne
1481-1606 MD 13 3 jt Tubing 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,88 83,40 1.286,69 1.370,09

• Log / Petrophysics (Sw, Por,

14 Pup joi nt 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,88 3,74 1.370,09 1.373,83
15 8 jt Tubing 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,88 222,40 1.373,83 1.596,23
16 Pup joi nt 2-7/8" EUE
16 2 jt Tubing 2-7/8" EUE
2,44 2,88 2,73 1.596,23 1.598,96
2,44 2,88 55,60 1.598,96 1.654,56 Gaslift
marker) 9 5/8" Csg
17 Pup joi nt 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,88 5,73 1.654,56 1.660,29
18 X-Over 2-7/8" EUE (B) X 3.5" EUE (P) (Pip Tag - Center Packer 3.3 ft) 2,44 3,50 0,48 1.660,29 1.660,77
19 X-Over 3.5" EUE (B) X 3.5" New Vam (P) 2,88 3,50 1,47 1.660,77 1.662,24

• Reservoir data = MDT ( K, Pr, ᴓ)

43.5 ppf -L80
19 9-5/8" Hydro 2 AP packer (top to center rubber) (Setting Pin -1 ea) 2,88 9,63 1,82 1.662,24 1.664,06
Center rubber to bottom 2,88 9,63 3,00 1.664,06 1.667,06
17 X-Over Sub X 3.5" EUE (P) 2,88 3,50 1,00 1.667,06 1.668,06
18 X-Over 3.5" EUE (B) X 2-7/8" EUE (P) 2,44 3,50 0,47 1.668,06 1.668,53
19 1 jt Tubing 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,88 31,28 1.668,53 1.699,81
20 SPM 2-7/8" # 1 2,44 5,31 6,83 1.699,81 1.706,64
TOL
4688 MD 21 45 jt Tubing 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,88 1.405,76 1.706,64 3.112,40
22 SPM 2-7/8" # 2 2,44 5,31 6,83 3.112,40 3.119,23
23 37 jt Tubing 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,88 1.153,75 3.119,23 4.272,98
24 SPM 2-7/8" # 3 2,44 5,31 6,83 4.272,98 4.279,81
25 32 jt Tubing 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,88 1.003,08 4.279,81 5.282,89
26 SPM 2-7/8" # 4 2,44 5,31 6,83 5.282,89 5.289,72
27 23 jt Tubing 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,88 717,68 5.289,72 6.007,40
7" csg
29 ppf -P110 28 SPM 2-7/8" # 5 2,44 5,31 6,83 6.007,40 6.014,23
29 19 jt Tubing 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,88 595,06 6.014,23 6.609,29
30 SPM 2-7/8" # 6 2,44 5,31 6,83 6.609,29 6.616,12
31 3 jt Tubing 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,88 93,16 6.616,12 6.709,28
32 SPM 2-7/8" # 7 2,44 5,31 6,83 6.709,28 6.716,11
33 2 jt Tubing 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,88 61,03 6.716,11 6.777,14
35 SSD#1 2.31" XO-profile 2,31 2,88 3,10 6.777,14 6.780,24
36 1 jt Pup Joint 2-7/8" 7.83 ft 2,44 2,88 7,83 6.780,24 6.788,07
37 X-Over 2-7/8" EUE (B) X 3.5" EUE (P) 2,44 3,50 0,46 6.788,07 6.788,53
38 7" Hydro 1 packer (bottom seal) (U nseat Pin -1 ea / 30,000 lbs) 3,50 7,00 3,67 6.788,53 6.792,20
Center rubber to bottom 4,63 6.792,20 6.796,83
39 X-Over 3.5" EUE (B) X 2-7/8" EUE (P) 2,44 3,50 0,62 6.796,83 6.797,45
41 1 jt Tubing 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,88 31,19 6.797,45 6.828,64
42 SSD#2 2.31" XO-profile 2,31 2,88 3,10 6.828,64 6.831,74
R
43 1 jt Tubing 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,88 31,12 6.831,74 6.862,86
44 2.25" R-nipple 2,25 2,88 1,20 6.862,86 6.864,06
45 Wi reline entryguide 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,88 4,44 6.864,06 6.868,50

Pematang C
6900-7000 MD
No. DESCRIPTION (short string)
I.D. O.D. LENGTH TOP BOTTOM Target zone
IN IN FT M.D . BRT
Pematang D
7000-7030 MD
1
2
L. pematang E
3 9-5/8" Hydro 2 AP packer (top to center rubber) 1,80 1.274,78 1.276,58
TopSand 16 March Center rubber to bottom 3,05 1.276,58 1.279,63
2014 at 7056 ft
4 Packer connection 2-7/8" EUE (P) 2,44 2,88 1,66 1.279,63 1.281,29
Pematang E Pup Joint 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,88 5,73 1.281,29 1.287,02
7070-7090MD
Pup Joint 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,88 2,72 1.287,02 1.289,74
6 3 jt Tubing 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,8883,02 1.289,74 1.372,76
7 X-Over 2-7/8 EUE (B) X 3.5" EUE (P) 2,44 3,50 0,38 1.372,76 1.373,14
Junk of Bridge Plug at 8 Expansion Joint (non splined / swivel joint) (Length 5 ft, max 8 ft) 2,88 3,50 6,20 1.373,14 1.379,34
7120 ftBRT
7 Jan 2009 9 X-Over 3.5" EUE (B) X 2-7/8" EUE (P) 2,44 3,50 0,48 1.379,34 1.379,82
10 8 jt Tubing 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,88
221,40 1.379,82 1.601,22
11 X-Over 2-7/8 EUE (B) X 3.5" EUE (P) 2,44 3,50 0,79 1.601,22 1.602,01
7" casing shoe
@ 7220 MD 12 Shear out safety joint (Unseat Pin - 8 ea / 40,000 lbs) 2,88 3,50 1,18 1.602,01 1.603,19
13 X-Over 3.5" EUE (B) X 2-7/8" EUE (P) 2,44 3,50 0,49 1.603,19 1.603,68
2 jt Tubing 2-7/8" EUE 2,44 2,8855,35 1.603,68 1.659,03
14 Pup Joint 2-7/8" 2,44 2,88 2,73 1.659,03 1.661,76
15 X-Over 2-7/8 EUE (B) X 2-7/8" NUE (P) 2,44 2,88 0,48 1.661,76 1.662,24
16 9-5/8" Hydro 2 AP packer (top to center rubber) (Setting Pin -1 ea) 2,44 9,63 1,82 1.662,24 1.664,06
Center rubber to bottom 3,00 1.664,06 1.667,06
17 Packer connection 2-7/8" EUE (P) 2,44 2,88 1,80 1.667,06 1.668,86
Design : Fluid & Proppant Selection
Hyd.Fracturing Design
Initial Design Result :
- Optimum half length (NPV)
- Design pump Schedule
- Frac Geometry
- FCD
- Flow Capacity
Data Frac Treatment & Pressure Diagnostic
Data Frac Treatment & Pressure Diagnostic

P = C Qn
Tortuosity, n = 0.5 – 1
Perforation Friction, n =
2

Rate Ext = 2 Bpm

Press Ext = 6200 Tortuosity dominated
psi
Data Frac Treatment & Pressure Diagnostic
Redesign & Main Frac Execution
Pumping Schedule

Update
Rock
Mechanic
Fract Conductivity
Hydraulic Fracturing Operational
Operational & Equipment
Old Proppant New Proppant

3½“
DP

Pump Out
Of Plug
Expantion
Joint

3 ½ “ DP
Expantion
Land Rig Additive/Chemical Tank Joint

3 ½ “ DP
Pump Out
Gel Proppant
Of Plug
Fract
Gel mix with
proppant
Packer

Fract Control Unit Proppant silo BH Gauge

Water/Linear Gel Tank Pumping Unit
Mixing Unit
 Proppant Placement in Formation
PullClean
Pumping
Running out
out Completion
Completion
Treatment
Wellbore

p !!
Hi Tem degF
1 0
Up to 3
Hyd. Fract Improvement in Pematang Formation
THANK YOU GOOD JOB