SPE 58766

Fluid Leakoff and Net Pressure Behavior of Frac&Pack in High-Permeability Viscous Oil
Reservoirs of the Duri Field, Indonesia
Y. Fan, SPE, Texaco Inc., D. E. White, SPE, Chevron Inc., A. Aimar and M. T. Satyagraha, PT Caltex Pacific Indonesia

Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Symposium on Formation
Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, 23-24 February 2000.
Introduction
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as The Duri Field, located in central of Sumatra, Indonesia, was
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
discovered in 1938 and placed on production in 1958. The
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at reservoir trap is a large anticline, about 18 km long and 8 km
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committee of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper wide. The main steamed intervals in Duri Field are the
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 Rindu, Pertama and Kedua sands. The Pertama and Kedua
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledg-
ment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box
sand are the two principal producing intervals in the Duri
833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. Field accounting for two thirds of all oil in place. Combined
pay thickness average 150 ft and range in depth from 450 to
700 ft. Initial oil saturation was about 55%, porosity average
Abstract is 34%. Liquid permeability in the pay range from 200 to
Frac&pack has become a preferred completion method for the 5000 md. Current pore pressure range from 85 to 136 psi.
Duri field in Indonesia, where the reservoir is shallow, highly These sands are unconsolidated, have high porosity and
permeable and unconsolidated containing heavy viscous permeability, and contain heavy viscous oil (22 API at 400
crude. This paper presents simulation of fluid leakoff and net cp), at initial conditions. The sands are likely to be damaged
pressure behavior for the frac&pack treatments in the Duri during drilling and completion operations and also have a
field. Several issues concerning selection of fracturing fluids history of producing large amounts of sand. Frac&pack has
and proppant, fracture dimensions and treatment designs are been found to be the best completion technique to by-pass this
also discussed in the paper. damage, yield good production rates, and offer improved sand
A pressure-dependent leakoff model that is based on a control.
transient flow of a polymer solution displacing a reservoir Frac&pack was introduced to Duri Field in 1996 and has
fluid is presented and coupled with a fracture mechanics become the preferred completion technique. Frac&pack
model to investigate the interactions among the leakoff, net treatment was first used in the Rindu Vertical Expansion
pressure and created fracture dimensions during different Project. Now Frac&pack is used in almost all new and re-
stages of frac&pack treatments. The results indicate that the completion wells in Duri Field. In the year 2000, an addi-
leakoff is controlled by reservoir fluid viscosity and is de- tional 500 wells will be treated using Frac&pack completions.
pendent upon the rock-mechanics properties and the mobility Frac&pack techniques have been widely implemented as a
ratio between the invaded solution and the reservoir fluid. In simultaneous solution of sand control and production prob-
the absence of filtercake, the traditional leakoff notion using lems for highly permeable and unconsolidated formations.2-6
the concept of a constant leakoff coefficient fails to capture The treatment requires intentionally terminating fracture
the transient behavior of polymer invasion and reservoir fluid growth at the desirable fracture length because fracture con-
compression. Because of high sensitivity to leakoff and the ductivity is much more important than the fracture length.
rock-mechanics properties, the net pressure behavior is also Accurate prediction of fluid leakoff and understanding inter-
quite different from the one anticipated. For the typical for- actions between fracturing fluids and formations is critical for
mation with an elastic modulus of 50,000 to 100,000 psi in treatment designs to achieve tip screenout fracture.7,8 Field
the Duri field, the net pressure is in a range of 20-40 psi experience and studies, however, indicate that fluid leakoff is
during fracture propagation. The simulation also indicates more difficult to predict in high-permeability formations than
that the net pressure over 200 psi would result in desirable in low-permeability rocks because of viscous invasion and
fracture widths for Duri field applications.
2 Y. FAN, D.E.WHITE, A. AIMAR and M.T. SATYAGRAHA SPE 58766

subsequent variations of reservoir fluid and formation prop-   

2
erties.9   η 
π φη   4α p   η 
Recent experimental studies also showed that spurt loss is pf − pi = µapp α p e
  erf  
a dominant leakoff phenomenon for high-permeability frac- j 2 k   4α 
 p 
turing.10,11 The traditional model that uses a constant leakoff 
coefficient with ignorance of spurt loss is inadequate for 
frac&pack applications in high-permeability formations.12-14  η 
2 
 
Recently, Fan and Economides15 introduced a model that de-  4α   η 
+ µr α r e r  erfc 

scribes the transient flow of polymer solution displacing a
 4α
reservoir fluid with a moving interface as a means to predict  r 

the fluid leakoff. The exact solution of pressure profile from 
the fracture face to the reservoir was developed, which in turn
determines the fluid leakoff rate. The leakoff is pressure- .........................................................................................(1)
dependent.
At given conditions, Eq. (1) can be solved iteratively for the
This paper reformulates the frac&pack design model by in- variable η . Once the value of η is found for a specific total
corporating the pressure-dependent leakoff into an appropri- pressure drop, the solution of the pressure profile for the inva-
ate fracture model to investigate the interactions among the sion zone is obtained by Eq. (2),
fluid leakoff, fracture net pressure, and fracture dimensions
created in frac&pack stimulation of highly permeable, soft 2
and heavy viscous oil reservoirs. The effects of fluid viscosity,  η 
 
mobility ratio, and elastic modulus on the fluid efficiency and π φµ appη α p  4α p 
net pressure are studied. Field data of minifrac test are ana- p = pfj − e  erf (ζ ) ................(2)
2k
lyzed with the presented model and the results are compared
against the traditional interpretation. Some issues concerning and the leakoff rate is calculated by using Darcy’s law:
selection of fracturing fluids and proppants and treatment
design are also discussed in this paper. 2
 η 
 
 4α 
Frac&Pack Completion in the Duri Field φη
e 
p
The Duri frac&pack general procedures consist of the fol- uL = ....................................................(3)
2 t
lowing steps:
1. R/U Rig, Perforate interval with 6 SPF, 1.08" hole,
Based on Carter’s leakoff model, the pressure-dependent
180 deg. Phasing.
leakoff coefficient is obtained by Eq. (4)
2. Wash perforations with KCl Water.
3. RIH 6-5/8" (0.007") wire wrap screen liner.
2
4. Set modified Frac X-over with stinger (see Fig. 1).  η 
 
5. Perform mini frac on selected wells.  4α 
φη
e 
p
6. Pump the Frac pack treatment per design. CL = .....................................................(4)
2
7. POH frac assembly.
8. Set lead seal and place on production.
where

1− n
Frac&Pack Model with Pressure-Dependent Leakoff  1 
µ app = nµ eff   ..................................................(5)
For frac&pack treatments in high-permeability formations,  uL 
fluid leakoff is pressure-dependent because no filtercake is
formed. The leakoff physics can be described by a transient
is the apparent viscosity of fracturing fluid in the porous me-
flow of polymer solution displacing the reservoir fluid with a
dium, which is a function of fluid leakoff rate and fluid effec-
moving interface driven by the pressure gradient between the
tive viscosity.
fracture and formation.15 Eq. (1) describes the pressure drop
combining the polymer-invaded zone with reservoir compres-
K'  3
n 1− n
 9 +  (150kφ ) 2 ......................................(6)
sion. µ eff =
12  n
SPE 58766 FLUID LEAKOFF AND NET PRESSURE OF FRAC PACKS IN HIGH-PERM VISCOUS OIL RESERVOIRS 3

α p and α r are the hydraulic diffusivity of invaded-polymer πGw j

∆p j = ..................................................(13)
and reservoir components defined by Eqs. (7) and (8), re- j
spectively. 3(1 −ν ) ∑ R j
j =1

k
αp = ............................................................(7) The fracture pressure at segment j is
φµ app c tp
p f j = ∆p j + p c .........................................................(14)

k
αr = .................................................................(8) Eqs. (1) through (14) form the basis to compute fracture
φµ r c tr propagation geometry, pressure-dependent leakoff and the net
pressure using the radial fracture model. The iterative proce-
The intermediate variable ζ in Eq. (2) is defined as dure to perform the calculations is as follows:
1. Assume a fracture pressure for a given time interval.
x 2. Calculate η using Eq. (1).
ζ = ................................................................(9)
2 α pt 3. Calculate the leakoff rate and leakoff coefficient using
Eqs. (3) and (4).
4. Calculate the fracture geometry once the leakoff rate is
Since the fracture size is relatively small for frac&pack treat- known.
ments, the radial fracture model coupled with pressure- 5. Determine the fracture net pressure by Eq. (13).
dependent leakoff notion described above is used to predict 6. Calculate the fracture pressure when the fracture net
the fracture radius, width and net pressure in this study. Sup- pressure is known.
pose that a fracture propagates in consecutive segments. For 7. Compare the fracture pressure determined by Eq. (14) in
an arbitrary segment j with a corresponding injection time step 6 with the value assumed at step 1. If the tolerance is
interval t j , it has an incremental fracture radius R j and ef- satisfied, go to next step. Otherwise, replace the assumed
fective average width w j at an injection rate qi . The solu- pressure by the calculated one and repeat steps 2 to 6.

tion of fracture radius at segment j can be found by: Sensitivity Studies and Discussion
In this discussion, first the parameters that have significant
j −1
effects on the fluid leakoff and net pressure of frac&pack
qi − ∑ u j A j
j =1 t j  λ2 2λ  stimulation are investigated, including viscosity of fracturing
Rj2 = e erfc(λ ) + − 1 ..........(10)
πw j 2  and reservoir fluids, reservoir mobility and formation elastic
λ  π  properties. Then the field data of minifrac test are analyzed
using the presented model and traditional method. Some is-
where sues regarding treatment design such as selection of fractur-
ing fluids, proppant size and amount are also discussed. Ta-
2 ble 1 presents basic reservoir properties and treatment pa-
 η 
 
φη πt   rameters for the Duri field. In this study, the treatment is in-
j  4α p 
λ= e .............................................(11) jected at a rate of 10 bpm for 15 minutes. The designed frac-
wj ture half length (radius) at the tip screenout is 35 ft for a res-
ervoir with permeability of 1500 md. Two types of fracturing
and the effective average fracture width is determined from fluids (60# HEC solution and 30# borate crosslinked guar gel)
Eq. (12): are used for the “cold” and “hot” reservoirs, respectively. The
cold reservoir is a newly developing area with a formation
1 temperature of about 90 oF containing crude with a viscosity
 j 4 of 400 cp, whereas the hot reservoir refers to heated forma-
 µ f (1 −ν )qi ∑ R j  tion areas that have been flooded with steam and has a crude
 j =1 
w j = 1.29  .................................(12) viscosity of about 20 cp. The more detailed information about
G
  reservoir and treatment can be gained by viewing Table 1.
 
Effects of fracturing fluids on leakoff and net pressure.
HEC solution and borate crosslinked gel are commonly used
The net pressure that is dependent upon the fracture geometry
fracturing fluids of frac&pack stimulation. The apparent vis-
and rock elastic properties is
4 Y. FAN, D.E.WHITE, A. AIMAR and M.T. SATYAGRAHA SPE 58766

cosity of 60# HEC and 30# borate crosslinked-guar gel are about a quarter inch. Fig. 8 is a plot of the fracture radius
about 120 cp and 450 cp at 100 sec-1, respectively. Figs. 2 and (length) vs. time with borate crosslinked gel at the injection
Fig. 3 presents fluid efficiency and leakoff coefficient of HEC rate of 10 bpm. It is shown that fracture reaches TSO length
solution for both cold and hot reservoirs. The solid lines rep- (35ft) after pumping 3.3 and 5.3 minutes for the cold and hot
resents results of treatments with tip screenout (TSO) at de- formations, respectively. If no TSO occurs, then pumping for
signed fracture length (35ft), whereas the dotted lines are 15 minutes can create a fracture with a radius of about 65 ft.
cases without TSO achieved during the treatment. It is shown Tables 2 summaries the results of viscosity effects on treat-
in Fig. 2 that fluid efficiency decreases with fracture propa- ments in this study.
gation because fracture surface area increases. For the cold
reservoir, fluid efficiency is about 45% before the TSO and Effects of reservoir mobility on the fluid leakoff. Fluid
increase to 85% at the end of pumping. Because of high leakoff in high-permeability formation involves invasion of a
leakoff in the hot reservoir, fluid efficiency is about 30% polymer solution into the porous media and subsequently dis-
during fracture propagation and finally reaches 60%. It placing reservoir fluids into the deep formation. As such, the
should be noted in Fig. 2 that the time to achieve TSO frac- fluid leakoff is very dependent upon the reservoir mobility
ture in the cold reservoir is different from that in the hot res- (ratio of permeability over reservoir fluid viscosity) and the
ervoir because of the difference in leakoff rate. In this study, mobility ratio between the invaded polymer and reservoir
the time required for achieving TSO of a 35-ft fracture is 2.4 fluid. For the typical cold and hot reservoirs in the Duri field,
minutes in the cold reservoir and 4.2 minutes in the hot for- the reservoir mobility is about 2 and 100, respectively. Figs. 9
mation. Fig. 3 shows the leakoff coefficient of HEC solution and Fig. 10 present effects of reservoir mobility on the fluid
for both cold and hot formations. Contrasting to Carter’s con- efficiency and leakoff coefficient for the borate crosslinked
stant of the bulk properties, the leakoff coefficient shown in gel. It is shown that fluid efficiency decreases and leakoff
Fig. 3 is a function of time because the leakoff is pressure coefficient increases significantly as the reservoir mobility
dependent. Generally, the leakoff coefficient decreases with increases. For the case of mobility equal to 2, the heavy vis-
time before the TSO because the fracture net pressure de- cous oil reservoir with high permeability has the leakoff char-
creases. After the TSO, the leakoff coefficient increases acteristics similar to that of typical low-permeability reser-
sharply as the net pressure increases. voirs of hydraulic fracturing candidates.

Figs. 4 and 5 show the fluid efficiency and leakoff coefficient Effects of Young’s modulus on the net pressure. The frac-
of the borate crosslinked gel. Interestingly, the borate ture net pressure is proportional to the Young’s modulus ac-
crosslinked gel has the fluid efficiency similar to the HEC cording to the theory of linear elastic deformation. Since the
solution because the viscosity effect is partially offset by the formation in the Duri field is very soft with low Young’s
net pressure effect. The crosslinked gel is more viscous, re- modulus value (50,000 – 100,000 psi),1 the observed net pres-
sulting in the larger resistance to leakoff than the HEC solu- sure during the frac&pack stimulation is also very small, as
tion. On the other side, the more viscous gel also creates discussed before. Fig. 11 shows effects of Young’s modulus
higher fracture net pressure, driving the fluid leakoff to be on the net pressure for the frac&pack treatment. In Fig. 11,
faster than the less viscous fluid. That is why the two different the designed TSO fracture radius is 40 ft and the crosslinked
types of fracturing fluids show the similar fluid leakoff be- gel is pumped at a rate of 10 bpm. It is shown in Fig. 11 that
havior in this study. Nevertheless, the velocity of fracture the net pressure varies from a few psi to several hundreds psi
propagation with injection of the borate crosslinked gel is as the Young’s modulus varies from 0.01 to 0.5 million psi.
much smaller than that using HEC solution since the more The net pressure also increases significantly after the TSO
viscous fluid creates a fracture that is wider than that created because the fracture width increases.
by the less viscous fluid.
Relations of sand amount vs. propped fracture width and
Figs. 6 and Fig. 7 present comparison of fracture net pressure conductivity. As discussed before, the average hydraulic
and average width between the crosslinked gel and HEC so- fracture width can be more than 2 in if the TSO is achieved at
lution for the cold formation. As discussed before, the borate the designed fracture length. The hydraulic fracture will close
crosslinked gel generates higher net pressure and larger unless sufficient proppant (sand) is placed into the fracture to
fracture width than the HEC solution. As shown in Fig. 6, the keep the fracture from closure. The propped fracture width is
net pressure in the soft formation with Young’s modulus of smaller than the hydraulic fracture width because the fluid in
7.5 × 10 4 is in a range of 20 – 80 psi before the TSO. How- the slurry will leak into the formation. Table 3 presents rela-
ever, the net pressure will increase sharply with continuous tions of sand amount injected, also expressed as weight per
injection after the TSO is reached. Figs. 6 and 7 also indicate perforated foot (WPPF) and areal proppant concentration
that 200 psi net pressure can result in a 2-in wide fracture. (APC) with propped fracture dimensions (fracture radius and
For the treatment without TSO, the average fracture width is average width) and fracture conductivity. As shown in Table
SPE 58766 FLUID LEAKOFF AND NET PRESSURE OF FRAC PACKS IN HIGH-PERM VISCOUS OIL RESERVOIRS 5

3, for a treatment scheduled with 30,000 lb sand, the propped sented leakoff model. The leakoff is pressure dependent and
fracture width is 1.13 in with conductivity of 22,600 md-ft if thus a function of time. More information can be gained by
the TSO fracture radius is 30 ft. If there is no TSO for the viewing Table 4.
same sand job, the propped fracture width is about a quarter
inch with fracture conductivity of about 2500 md-ft. Table 3 Conclusions
also indicates that for the treatment with TSO, the propped 1. Fluid leakoff of frac&pack treatment in the Duri field is
fracture width will be tremendously increased as more sand is controlled by the viscosity and mobility of the reservoir
pumped, resulting in high fracture conductivity. For the fluid. Leakoff is pressure-dependent because of penetra-
treatment without achieving TSO, the sand concentration tion of viscous fracturing fluid into the reservoir. The
(amount) has marginal effect on the fracture width and con- fracturing fluid efficiency in the early stage of treatment
ductivity. is about 50% and 35% for the cold and hot formations,
respectively.
Fracture closure of a minifrac test. For the Duri field, a 2. 30# borate-crosslinked gel has the fluid efficiency and
minifrac test with 30-50 bbl of fracturing fluid is conducted leakoff behavior similar to 60# HEC solution in the typi-
prior to the main treatment in order to understand the fracture cal reservoir studied because the borate gel can generate
geometry and determine the fluid leakoff parameters. Figs. 12 higher fracture net pressure than the linear solution,
and 13 present simulation of fracture net pressure and leakoff which has partially offset the viscosity effect on the
coefficient for a 3-minute minifrac test using HEC solution. It leakoff rate. The crosslinked gel is preferred in order to
is shown in Fig. 12 that the net pressure is about 20-40 psi effectively transport high concentration proppant into the
during pumping and then decreases with time after pumping. fracture and provide better vertical coverage.
The net pressure reaches 0 when all the fracturing fluid in the 3. For the soft formation with Young’s modulus of 50,000-
fracture leaks off into the formation and the fracture closes. 100,000 psi, the fracture net pressure is about 20-50 psi
Fig. 12 indicates that the fracture closure time varies widely, before TSO. The 200 psi net pressure gained after TSO
depending on formation temperature and reservoir properties. can result in a 2-inch wide fracture.
For the hot formation, the fracture could close in several min- 4. For the given amount of proppant, the propped fracture
utes because of rapid leakoff of the fracturing fluid. For the width (or conductivity) decreases tremendously with in-
cold formation, it will take more than one hour for the frac- crease in fracture radius. The success of the treatment is
ture closure. If borate gel is used, the fracture closure time is critically dependent on the timely achieving of TSO and
even longer. As shown in Fig. 13, the fluid leakoff behavior is then placing sufficient proppant into the fracture. For a
also much different between the cold and hot formations. In 30 ft-fracture job in the Duri field, the TSO time is ex-
addition, because the leakoff is pressure dependent, the pected to be 3-4 minutes.
leakoff coefficient becomes time-dependent. The leakoff pa- 5. For a minifrac test with a 30-bbl fluid, the fracture clo-
rameter that is determined from the pressure declines is dif- sure time can vary from several minutes to 2 hours, de-
ferent from that during the pumping stage. Therefore, the pending on formation temperature and reservoir proper-
traditional method of the minifrac analysis may misinterpret ties. Due to the nature of soft formation and relatively
the pressure data collected in the high permeability forma- small volume of fluid used, analysis of minifrac data for
tions. the high-permeability soft formation is much more diffi-
Field case study for minifrac pressure interpretation. The cult than that for low-permeability hard rock formation.
minifrac test was conducted for well 6n-75b, where the target 6. Field case study shows that minifrac test data can be con-
formation at a depth of about 300 ft has a temperature of 175 vincingly interpreted with the presented leakoff model,
o
F because of the steam flooded. Fig. 14 shows injection rate thus allowing determination of pressure-dependent
(on the right vertical axis) and the pressure responses in- leakoff parameters and pad volume for frac&pack stimu-
cluding bottom-hole, annulus and surface treating pressures. lation.
The test includes pumping 30 barrels of 60# HEC solution at
the rate of 10 bbl/min. Fig. 15 shows the BHP and net pres- Nomenclature
sure matches between the field measurement and simulation. A = permeable fracture area for two wings, m2
The analysis indicates that the formation has a fracture clo- APC = average areal proppant concentration, kg/m2
sure pressure of about 194 psi with a fracture gradient of 0.65 BG = 30# borate-crosslinked guar gel
psi/ft. The fracture net pressure is 42 psi at the end of pump- CL = pressure-dependent leakoff coefficient
ing and the closure time is 4.8 minutes. Fig. 16 shows the (m/sec 0.5)
leakoff coefficient from the minifrac pressure analysis. The FC = fracture conductivity, m2-m
dotted line is the result obtained from the traditional method FE = fluid efficiency
of minifrac analysis. The leakoff coefficient is not a function G = shear modulus, Pa
of time. The solid line is the result obtained with the pre- HEC = 60# hydroxyethylcellulose solution
6 Y. FAN, D.E.WHITE, A. AIMAR and M.T. SATYAGRAHA SPE 58766

k = formation permeability, m2 presented at 1992 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium

held in Lafayette, LA, Feb. 26-27.
K’ = fluid consistency index, Pa ⋅ sec n
4. Bale, Arthur, Owren, Kjell and Smith, M.B.: “Propped Frac-
n = flow behavior index of a power-law fluid turing as a Tool for Sand Control and Reservoir Management,”
p = pressure, Pa paper SPE 24992 presented at 1992 European Petroleum Con-
pc = fracture closure pressure, Pa ference held in Cannes, France, Nov. 16-18.
∆p = fracture net pressure, Pa 5. Grubert, D.M.: “Evolution of a Hybrid Frac-Gravel Pack Com-
q = initial injection rate, m3/sec pletion: Monopod Platform, Trading Bay Field, Cook Inlet,
Rf = fracture half length, m Alaska,” paper SPE 19401 presented at 1990 SPE Formation
Damage Control Symposium held in Lafayette, LA, Feb. 22-23.
t = time, sec 6. Jones, J. and Soler, D.: “Fracture Stimulation of Shallow,
TSO = tip screenout fracture Unconsolidated Kern River Sands,” paper SPE 54102 pre-
u = superficial flow rate, m/sec sented at the 1999 SPE International Thermal Operations and
w = average fracture width, m Heavy Oil Symposium held in Bakersfield, CA, 17-19 March.
7. Settari, A.: “General Model of Fluid Flow (Leakoff) From
W = proppant weight, kg Fracture Induced in Injection Operations,” paper SPE 18197
WPPF = proppant per perforated foot presented at 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi-
x = coordinate variable perpendicular to bition held in Houston, TX, 2-5 October.
fracture face, m 8. Cleary, M.P.: “Critical Issues in Hydraulic Fracturing of High
Greek Permeability Reservoirs,” paper SPE 27618 presented at 1994
αp = hydraulic diffusivity of a polymer-invaded European Production Operations Conference & Exhibition held
in Aberdeen, Scotland, March 15-17.
zone, m2/sec
9. Upchurch, E.R.: “Flexible, Real-Time Tip-Screenout Fracturing
αr = hydraulic diffusivity of reservoir, m2/sec Techniques as Applied in California and Alaska,” paper SPE
φ = porosity 54629 presented at 1999 SPE Western Regional Meeting held
in Anchorage, Alaska, 26-28 May.
η = constant, m / sec 10. Navarrete, R.C., Cawiezel, K.E. and Constien, V.G.: “Dynamic
ν = Poisson’s ratio Fluid Loss in Hydraulic Fracturing Under Realistic Shear Con-
µ app = apparent fracturing fluid viscosity, Pa ⋅ sec ditions in High-Permeability Rocks,” SPEPF (Aug. 1996), 138.
11. Park, M., Nelson, E.B., Walton, I.C. and Park, E.: “An Ex-
µf = fracturing fluid viscosity in fracture, Pa ⋅ sec perimental Study on Fluid-Loss Behavior of Fracturing Fluids
effective viscosity, Pa ⋅ sec n ⋅ m1− n
and Formation Damage in High-Permeability Porous Media,”
µ eff =
paper SPE 30458 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical
µ r = reservoir fluid viscosity, Pa ⋅ sec Conference & Exhibition held in Dallas, 22-25 October.
ρ = sand density, kg/m3 12. Yi, T. and Peden, J.M.: “A Comprehensive Model of Fluid
Loss in Hydraulic Fracturing,” SPEPF, (Nov. 1994) 267-272.
Subscripts 13. Dusterhoft, R., Vitthal, S., McMechan, D. and Walters, H.:
f = fracture “Improved Minifrac Analysis Technique in High-Permeability
i = initial condition Formations,” paper SPE 30103 presented at 1995 SPE Euro-
j = at step j pean Formation Damage Symposium held in The Hague, Neth-
L = fluid leakoff erlands, May 15-16
Prop = proppant 14. Valko, P. and Economides, M.J.: “Fluid-Leakoff Delineation in
TSO = tip screenout High-Permeability Fracturing,” SPEPF (May 1999), 117-130.
15. Fan, Y. and Economides, M.J.: “Fracturing Fluid Leakoff and
Net Pressure Behavior in Frac&pack Stimulation,” paper SPE
References
29988 presented at 1995 International Meeting on Petroleum
1. Satyagraha, M.T. and Aimar, A.: “Frac and Pack Com- Engineering held in Beijing, China, Nov. 14-17.
pletion Strategy in Duri Steam Flood (DSF) Field ,” pa-
per SPE 54267 presented at the 1999 SPE Asia Pacific Acknowledgement
Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, The authors wish to thank management of Texaco, Chevron
Indonesia, 20-22 April. and CPI for support and permission to publish this work. The
2. Wong, G.K., Fors, R.R., Casassa, J.S., Hite, R.H. and Shlyapo- thanks are also due Carlos Pardo of Texaco and John Bagiz of
bersky, J.: “Design, Execution and Evaluation of Frac and Pack
Chevron for their discussion during this work.
(F&P) Treatments in Unconsolidated Sand Formations in the
Gulf of Mexico,” paper SPE 26563 presented at 1993 SPE An-
nual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston,
TX, Oct. 3-6.
3. Hainey, B.W. and Troncoso, J.C.: “Frac-Pack: An Innovative
Stimulation and Sand Control Technique,” paper SPE 23777
SPE 58766 FLUID LEAKOFF AND NET PRESSURE OF FRAC PACKS IN HIGH-PERM VISCOUS OIL RESERVOIRS 7

3 1/2" DP

1 0 3/4 " S u r f a c e C s g .

1 0 3/4 " D F D S e t

1 0 3/4 " D F D S e t

Top TBA Rindu

Top SL Rindu

T o p R i n d u In t e r v a l

B o t t o m R i n d u In t e r v a l

PMMS
Top of Lead Seal

TOP TBA
Tubing Perf.
3 1/2" cup Packer
6 5/8" SFU w/ Shear Pin

B o t t o m S F U plug

Top SL P/K

Fig. 1 Frac&pack Bottom Hole Assembly

8 Y. FAN, D.E.WHITE, A. AIMAR and M.T. SATYAGRAHA SPE 58766

Table 1 – Reservoir properties and treatment parameters for the Duri field

Injection rate for two wing fracture (bbl/min) 10

Pumping time (min) 15
Fracturing fluid flow behavior index (HEC) 0.50
Fracturing fluid flow consistency (HEC) (lbf ⋅ sec /ft )
n 2
0.027
Fracturing fluid flow behavior index (Borate-Guar) 0.42
Fluid flow consistency (Borate-Guar) (lbf ⋅ sec /ft )
n 2
0.132
Designed fracture length at tip screenout (ft) 35
Formation porosity 0.32
Formation permeability (md) 1500
-1
Invaded zone total compressibility (psi ) 1.0E-4
-1
Reservoir part total compressibility (psi ) 1.0E-4
Reservoir fluid viscosity (hot area) (cp) 20
Reservoir fluid viscosity (cold area) (cp) 400
Poisson’s ratio 0.36
Young’s modulus (psi) 7.5E4
Reservoir pressure (psi) 190
Minimum horizontal stress (psi) 245
Proppant density (lb/gal) 22.1
Proppant pack porosity 0.32

Table 2 – Effects of viscosity on fluid leakoff and fracture dimensions.

TSO No TSO achieved

60# HEC solution
Cold formation Hot formation Cold formation Hot formation
0.5
Pressure-dependent leakoff coefficient (ft/min ) 0.00090 – 0.0023 0.0041 – 0.0075 0.00090 – 0.00055 0.0041 – 0.0024
Fluid efficiency (%) 49.3 – 84.7 37.1 – 59.7 49.3 – 39.3 37.1 – 19
TSO time (min) 2.4 4.2 – –
Fracture net pressure 55 - 238 57 – 165 55 – 12 57 - 14
Average hydraulic frac width at end of pumping (in) 2.2 1.55 0.24 0.20
Fracture radius (half length) at end of pumping (ft) 35 35 73.3 54.8
30# borate crosslinked guar gel TSO No TSO achieved
Cold formation Hot formation Cold formation Hot formation
0.5
Pressure-dependent leakoff coefficient (ft/min ) 0.0011 – 0.0022 0.0049 – 0.0064 0.0011 – 0.00060 0.0049 – 0.0024
Fluid efficiency (%) 49.7 – 81.7 38.2 – 58.7 49.7 – 41.2 38.2 – 22.6
TSO time (min) 3.4 5.4 – –
Fracture net pressure 82 - 222 85 – 165 82 – 18 85 - 20
Average hydraulic frac width at end of pumping (in) 2.1 1.54 0.32 0.28
Fracture radius (half length) at end of pumping (ft) 35 35 64.7 51.2
SPE 58766 FLUID LEAKOFF AND NET PRESSURE OF FRAC PACKS IN HIGH-PERM VISCOUS OIL RESERVOIRS 9

Table 3 – Relations of sand amount vs. fracture

dimensions and conductivity
0.008

Leakoff coefficient (ft/min )

0.5
Rf Wsand WPPF APC wprop FC
2
(ft) (lb) (lb/ft) (lb/ft ) (in) (md-ft)
0.006 H-TSO
30 5000 83 1.77 0.19 3800
10000 167 3.54 0.38 7600
20000 333 7.07 0.75 15000 0.004
30000 500 10.61 1.13 22600
40000 667 14.14 1.51 30200
50000 833 17.68 1.89 37800 0.002 C-TSO
40 5000 63 0.99 0.11 2200
10000 125 1.99 0.21 4200
20000 250 3.98 0.42 8400 0.000
30000 313 5.97 0.64 12800 0 3 6 9 12 15
40000 417 7.96 0.85 17000
50000 625 9.95 1.06 21240 Injection time (min)
50 5000 50 0.64 0.07 1400
10000 100 1.27 0.14 2800 Fig. 3 – Pressure-Dependent Leakoff Coefficient vs.
20000 200 2.55 0.27 5400
Time for HEC Solution
30000 300 3.82 0.41 8200
40000 400 5.09 0.54 10800
50000 500 6.37 0.68 13540
100%
60 5000 42 0.44 0.05 1000
10000 83 0.88 0.09 1800 C-TSO
20000 167 1.77 0.19 3800 Fluid efficiency 80%
30000 250 2.65 0.28 5600
40000 333 3.54 0.38 7600 60% H-TSO
50000 417 4.42 0.47 9400
40%
Table 4 – Results of the minifrac test analysis for
well 6n-75b Rindu formation 20%

Parameters Results 0%
Net pressure at end of pumping (psi) 42 0 3 6 9 12 15
Fracture closure time (min) 4.8
Leakoff coefficient during the pumping (ft/min )
0.5
0.0083 – 0.0045 Injection time (min)
0.5
Leakoff coefficient after the pumping (ft/min )
Fluid efficiency during the pumping (%) 0.0045 – 0.0025 Fig. 4 – Fluid Efficiency vs. Time for Borate-Guar
Created fracture radius at the end of pumping (ft) 31 - 23 Gel.
25.5

100% 0.008
Leakoff coefficient (ft/min )
0.5

C-TS0
80% 0.006 H-TSO
Fluid efficiency

H-TS0
60%
0.004
40%
0.002 C-TSO
20%

0% 0.000
0 3 6 9 12 15 0 3 6 9 12 15

Injection time (min) Injection time (min)

Fig. 2 – Fluid Efficiency vs. Time for HEC Solution. Fig. 5 – Leakoff Coefficient vs. Time for Borate-Guar
Gel
10 Y. FAN, D.E.WHITE, A. AIMAR and M.T. SATYAGRAHA SPE 58766

250
60%
200
Net pressure (psi)

50% M=400

Fluid efficiency
150
X-link 40% M=200
HEC
100 30%
M=100
50 20% M=20

10% M=2
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10
Injection time (min)
Injection time (min)
Fig. 6 – Net Pressure vs. time for Cold Formation.
Fig. 9 – Effects of Reservoir Mobility on Fluid
Efficiency of Borate-Guar Gel.

2.5
0.012

Leakoff coefficient (ft/min )

0.5
2.0
Fracture width (in)

0.010

1.5 0.008
X-link M=400
0.006
1.0
HEC M=200
0.004 M=100
0.5
0.002 M=20
M=2
0.0
0.000
0 3 6 9 12 15
0 2 4 6 8 10
Injection time (min) Injection time (min)

Fig. 7 – Fracture Width vs. Time for Cold Formation.

Fig. 10 – Effects of Reservoir Mobility on Leakoff
Coefficient of Borate-Guar Gel.

70 500
60
Fracture radius (ft)

Net pressure (psi)

400
50 E=0.5 E=25
40 300
C-TSO
30 200 E=0.1
20 H-TSO
100
E=0.05
10
0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 0 3 6 9 12 15

Injection time (min) Injection time (min)

Fig. 8 – Fracture Radius vs. Time for Borate-Guar Fig. 11 – Effects of Young’s Modulus on The
Gel Fracture Net Pressure.
SPE 58766 FLUID LEAKOFF AND NET PRESSURE OF FRAC PACKS IN HIGH-PERM VISCOUS OIL RESERVOIRS 11

250

BHP and net pressure (psi)

50
200
Net pressure (psi)

40
150
30
100
20
50
10 Cold Area
Hot Area 0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 25 50 75 100
Time after pumping (min)
Time from injection to closure (min)
Fig. 15 – Pressure Matches with Minifrac Test Data
Fig. 12 – Fracture Net Pressure.Responses of of 6N-75B.
Minifrac Test for HEC Solution.

Leakoff coefficient (ft/min0.5)

0.010
0.004
Leakoff coefficient (ft/min0.5)

0.008
0.003
0.006

0.002 Hot Area 0.004

0.002
0.001
Cold Area
0.000
0.000 0 2 4 6 8 10
0 25 50 75 100
Time from injection to closure (min)
Time from injection to closure (min)
Fig. 16 – Leakoff Coefficient from The Minifrac
Fig. 13 – Pressure-Dependent Leakoff Coefficient of Pressure Analysis
of Minifrac Simulation.

400 12

10
300
Pressure (psi)

200 6

4
100
2

0 0
15:50:24 16:04:48 16:19:12 16:33:36 16:48:00

Field time

Fig. 14 – Minifrac Test Response of 6N-75B.