Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 18
CASE STUDY : RISK MITIGATION IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FOR HIGH TEMPERATURE CONDITION MSK10 By :

CASE STUDY : RISK MITIGATION IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FOR HIGH TEMPERATURE

CONDITION MSK10

By :

Edy Subiantoro - Sri Rahayu Gama Hafizh Production Engineer EMP Malacca Strait S.A Bakrie Tower 23 Floor Rasuna Said street, Rasuna Epicentrum Jakarta Selatan 12960 Ph. (+62 21) 2994 1500/2557 7000 ext 3165 Fax. (+62 21) 2994 1110

Abstract

The MSK10 well was unable to flow naturally; even though the reservoir pressure was still high. So in 2009, the team determined to hydraulically fracture-stimulate (frac) the reservoir to improve the connection between the 0.5 3 mD formation and the wellbore, as successfully done with other wells in the same field.

Operationally, these fracs are problematic due to hot bottom-hole temperatures of up to 310 degF at 7000 ft. depth.

In MSK10, when pumping cold frac fluid, the frac-packer released and jumped up, because the frac string shrinkage was larger than the 10 ft. expansion joint. The surge in pressure burst the 9-5/8 casing at 1700 ft. Squeeze-cementing was required to restore casing integrity.

The frac was re-done. This time, a second Expansion Joint was added to increase the shrinkage allowance from 10 ft. to 20 ft and the frac was successfully pumped.

After fraccing, MSK10 initially produced 150 bfpd with 20% water cut and 2.2 mmscfd. It flowed naturally for 3 years, at which time production had dropped to 0.7 mmscfd of gas and no liquids. Cumulative oil production was 52 mstb. Slick line surveys found that crushed proppant had flowed back and settled in the wellbore, blocking the perforations.

In 2013, the team decided to perform a second frac. The previously fracced interval in the LP-CD (6000 7000 ft) was isolated with the frac-packer, and a new frac was placed in the deeper LP-E (7070-7090 ft). The team made improvements in the second frac: replacing Prime frac fluid with Thermafrac, replacing Carbolite proppant with stronger Carbo HSP proppant, adding Proppant net, and adding fibre material.

In the second frac, during the mini fall-off test, massive fluid losses occurred. The CBL and Caliper logs suggested poor

cement, so two squeeze cementing jobs were performed. They were not successful to stop fluid

cement, so two squeeze cementing jobs were performed. They were not successful to stop fluid losses. Finally, the frac-packer and frac zone was re-located to a shallower depth with better cement bonding.

This was successful. The Mini fall off test, step-rate test, mini frac and main frac all progressed smoothly. Currently, this well is cleaning up at 380 bfpd using gas lift.

Introduction

MSK10 Background

MSK10 is a development well located in the onshore DC oil and gas field within the Malacca Strait PSC, Riau province, Sumatra as shown in Figure 1. Drilled in August 2008, it is a directional well (S- type) to reach the target Pematang Formation. In January 2009, the first hydraulic fracturing job was conducted in the Lower Pematang C (6900-7000 ft MD). As seen in Figure 2, the initial oil rate under gas-lift was 90 Bopd. In February 2009, to increase production, additional perforations were added in the Lower Pematang D (7000-7030 ft MD) and E (7070-7090 ft MD). The oil rate increased slightly to 110 Bopd, but the rate decreased rapidly. We suspected proppant

crushing, which both reduced frac conductivity and filled up the wellbore.

In September 2012, a Pressure Build Up survey showed the reservoir pressure had depleted to 920 psia and the temperature was 306 degF. In August 2013, a second survey showed the reservoir pressure had further depleted to 830 psia at 302 degF. In February 2014, the well was shut-in (last rate 10 bopd), as the gas-lift was better used elsewhere.

In order to increase oil production, the team proposed to increase well influx by fraccing the existing Lower Pematang E perforation which has not been fracced in offset wells before, as seen in Figure 3.

Hydraulic

fracturing

Operational

Concept

Hydraulic fracturing involves injection of viscous fluid through frac-string at a rate and pressure above the fracture pressure to create a fracture in the formation. The fracture is then filled with proppant to keep the fracture open to maintain greater conductivity.

Beside the design of the fracturing geometry, the most important things to pay attention to are well integrity, the frac- string and how to deliver the fluid into the

formation without any operational issues such as material and equipment failure.
formation without any operational issues
such as material and equipment failure.

Hydraulic fracturing jobs are carried out at well sites using heavy equipment including pumps, blenders, fluid tanks, proppant tanks and frac string completion (Figure.

4)

The coefficient of linear expansion is defined as follows.

Linear Thermal Expansion Concept

Expansion of a material depends of three factors:

i. The change in temperature

ii. Type of solid material

iii. Initial length of the material

Bimetallic Strip model

A bi-metallic strip is used to convert a

temperature change into mechanical displacement. It consists of two strips of different metals which expand at different rates as they are heated, usually steel and copper. The strips are joined together throughout their length.

The different expansions force the flat strip

to bend one way if heated, and in the

opposite direction if cooled. The metal with the higher expansion is on the outer side of the curve when the strip is heated and on the inner side when cooled.

when the strip is heated and on the inner side when cooled. The coefficient of linear

The coefficient of linear expansion is a constant for a given material.

The equation for thermal expansion is:

for a given material. The equation for thermal expansion is: Where: lo :the original length of

Where:

lo :the original length of the material l 1 :the final length of the material T = T 1 T 0 :the differential temperature : coefficient of linear expansion

Method

MSK10 was the final well in the third fracturing campaign in the DC field. Similar with the other wells, operational challenges include high temperature, high stress contrast and low permeability formation. In MSK10, we also had a

problem with well integrity. Our risk mitigation was as follows: 1. Additional expansion joint to

problem with well integrity. Our risk mitigation was as follows:

1. Additional expansion joint to allow for string shrinkage when pumping the frac.

2. Maintain casing pressure when pumping the frac to reduce the differential pressure across the frac packer to reduce the chance of unsetting.

3. Well integrity evaluation to prevent packer failure.

4. Squeeze remedial cementing to improve poor cement bond.

5. Move the mechanical packer setting depth to find proper cement bond position and perform equipment running test prior job execution; and.

6. Hydraulic fracturing execution.

Additional expansion joint

Elongation and shrinkage of the frac-string is shown in Figure. 5. MSK10 has a bottom-hole temperature of 306 degF at 7000 ft.

During Run in Hole, the string heats up and elongated an estimated 8.72 ft. In this condition, the packer was set and cold frac-fluid was pumped which shrank the frac string. In a previous frac, pumping

cold frac fluid at 20 BPM and 60 degF was estimated to shrink the string by 7.6 ft. But we suspect the actual shrinkage was beyond the 10 ft. expansion joint, and the resultant shear stress released the frac- packer causing job failure.

So for this second frac, we decided to add a second expansion joint to allow for 20 ft. of shrinkage as seen in Figure 6.

Casing Pressure maintenance

As mentioned above, whilst pumping the first frac, the frac packer released and jumped up. The sudden increase in casing pressure burst the 9 5/8 casing at 1700 ft.

During the second frac, the casing pressure was kept at 500 psi to reduce the differential pressure between the annulus and frac string, and to help hold the mechanical frac packer in position. Pressure was maintained by pumping KCL brine into the annulus during the frac execution as seen in Figure. 7

Well

integrity

evaluation;

CBL-

VDL-USIT-Caliper Log

The first CBL of MSK10 is shown in Figure 8. The interval 7070 7090 ft.MD indicated poor cement bond quality (25 mV) but the Packer setting depth had good cement bond quality (less than 10 mV).

The frac started with a mini fall-off test with 2% KCL Brine. Whilst pumping, massive

The frac started with a mini fall-off test with 2% KCL Brine. Whilst pumping, massive fluid losses occurred and the frac string pressure suddenly dropped to the annulus pressure, indicating packer or string failure. We opened the annulus valve and pumped 15 bbls of 8.4 ppg KCL brine into the string at 1 - 2 BPM with pump pressure 400 1000 psi. In 13 minutes, we got surface returns of 4.4 bbls in the trip tank and 10.6 bbls lost to the formation. We then closed the annulus valve, and the pressure again equalized between the frac string and annulus. Based on above finding, it was decided to check well integrity by running CBL, USIT and Caliper Logs.

The USIT and Caliper Logs in Figure 9 show channeling behind casing at the target depth of 7070 -7090 ft. MD. This may explain the fluid losses during the Mini fall off test. The caliper showed

6.41 (nominal

casing enlargement until

ID of 7 , 29 ppf casing is 6.18 ) at 7035 7050 ft. MD which is close to the packer position.

Remedial

squeeze-cementing

to

repair cement bond problem

Recommended remedial squeeze cementing practices is as follows:

1. Define the job requirement and success parameters.

2. Consider pore pressure, fracture gradient; wellhead and pump pressure limitations; to determine whether or not the casing and string can withstand loads associated with the squeeze pressure.

3. Consider bottom-hole static temperature and temperature differentials

4. Perform an injectivity test to know the pump requirements.

5. Design the cementing job and test the chemical and mechanical properties of the cement system for the specific well.

Lab analysis of cement quality in Figure 9 showed the cement slurry was compatible with the wellbore condition.

The cement squeeze was preceded by adding perforations at 7160 -7170 ft. and 7100 7110 ft., and injecting surfactant and soaking for 12 hours. We then pumped 20 bbls of water, followed by 16 bbls of 15.8 ppg cement slurry, and displaced by water.

The remedial squeeze-cement job improved the cement quality as seen in the CBL in Figure 10.

Moved the mechanical packer to a better cement bond position

After the cement-squeeze, we moved the frac packer set depth to an area of good

After the cement-squeeze, we moved the frac packer set depth to an area of good cement at 7066 ft.

Hydraulic fracturing execution

The job sequence was as follows:

1. Pre Job preparation Prior to the treatment, the Frac string (Drill Pipe, Drill collar, and Expansion joints) was tested to 7500 psi at surface, and the 7 Mechanical Frac-Packer was set at 7066 ft. A bottom hole Gauge was run to record pressure and temperature data during the fracturing treatment.

2. Data Frac The Data Frac started with a mini fall- off by pumping 24 bbl of 2% KCL brine at 6 BPM to estimate zone transmissibility and reservoir pressure. Figure 11 shows the average treating pressure was 7750 psi at bottom hole, and the instantaneous shut in pressure (ISIP) was 7150 psi at bottom hole. The calculated transmissibility was 176 mD.ft/cP and the reservoir pressure was 1500 psi. The second step was a step rate test (step up and down) as shown in Figure

12. The extension rate was 2 BPM and the pressure was 6200 psi. The third step was a calibration test or Mini Frac, by pumping 400 bbls of ThermaFrac 45 at 20 BPM after the step down test. The average treating pressure during injection was 6250 psi at bottom hole. After the injection, the well was shut in and the pressure decline led to the analysis in Figure 13, which yielded closure pressure, the fluid leak-off coefficient, fluid efficiency, and fracture model to fine- tune the frac design. The ISIP was 3500 psi at surface, which corresponds to 6115 psi at bottom-hole.

3. Main Frac Treatment The Main fracturing treatment was successfully placed, based on the revised design. The pad volume of 619 bbl was pumped at 20 BPM at an average treating pressure of 5250 Psi at surface. The frac fluid consisted of ThermaFrac 45 and 16/30 carboHSP. The proppant concentration stepped up from 1 PPA to 7 PPA. Frac fiber was pumped from the beginning stages until 60.000 lbs. of proppant. This was followed by flow back material additive (PropNet) that was pumped on the fly until the end of the proppant stages. The

total volume of pumped slurry was 1378 bbl. The amount of proppant pumped and placed

total volume of pumped slurry was 1378 bbl. The amount of proppant pumped and placed in formation was 102,041 lbs. and 100,978 lbs. respectively. This exceeded the design of 96,000 lbs. The Main Frac pressure responses and analysis are shown in Figure 14.

4. Post Main job evaluation Hydraulic fracturing of MSK10 was successfully performed after the operational problems were solved. Based on pressure responses and decline analysis of the main frac, the estimated average conductivity was 4297 mD.ft. with a half-length of 421 ft. and FCD of 18.8 as seen in Figure

15

Results

1. The addition of a second 10 ft. expansion joint was a good decision to allow for higher-than expected thermal shrinkage.

2. Casing pressure was maintained at 500 psi to reduce the risk of packer jump-up during treatment.

3. Well integrity evaluation based on CBL-USIT-Caliper logs found that main problem of well integrity was cement quality (CBL > 30 mV), channeling behind casing, and

enlargement of casing ID until 6.41 inches.

4. The remedial cement squeeze improved the cement bond around the frac interval. The CBL decreased from above 25 mV to less than 10 mV.

5. Packer setting depth was moved to an interval of good cement at 7066 ft. This stopped packer leakage during pumping.

6. MSK10 was successfully fracced with a frac conductivity of 4297 mD.ft, half- length of 421 ft. and FCD of 18.8.

Conclusions

1. Risk Mitigation prior to the hydraulic fracturing treatment has increased the operational success rates.

2. We need to pay attention to well integrity and to prepare the solution to any problems found whilst performing the job.

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our thanks to EMP Malacca Strait S.A. for encouraging us and for giving permission to publish

this paper and to Peter Adam for his advice and assistance during this study. References

this paper and to Peter Adam for his advice and assistance during this study.

References

1. Production Technology, Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University.

2. Economides, Michael and Nolte, Kenneth G, "Reservoir Stimulation 3rd

Edition",

S hlumb rg r

D w ll,

John

Wil and S ns, 2000.

3. : Well Malacca Strait S.A.

--------------

File ,

EMP

4. IATMI Paper, Case Study: Improved Hydraulic Fracture-Stimulation Design to Increase Oil Rates and Recoveries in High Temperature Reservoirs , EMP Malacca Strait S.A., Jakarta.

Oil Rates and Recoveries in High Temperature Reservoirs , EMP Malacca Strait S.A., Jakarta. Figure 1.

Figure 1. DC Field Location

Figure 2. MSK-10 Production Profile

Figure 2. MSK-10 Production Profile

Figure 3. MSK-10 Open Hole Log
Figure 3. MSK-10 Open Hole Log

Figure 3. MSK-10 Open Hole Log

Figure 4. Hydraulic Fracturing Equipment layout Figure 5. MSK-10 Expansion and shrinkage of frac-string

Figure 4. Hydraulic Fracturing Equipment layout

Figure 4. Hydraulic Fracturing Equipment layout Figure 5. MSK-10 Expansion and shrinkage of frac-string

Figure 5. MSK-10 Expansion and shrinkage of frac-string

Figure 6. MSK-10 Frac-String Completion
Figure 6. MSK-10 Frac-String Completion

Figure 6. MSK-10 Frac-String Completion

Figure 7. MSK-10 Casing Pressure Maintenance Figure 8. MSK-10 First Cement Bond Log (CBL)
Figure 7. MSK-10 Casing Pressure Maintenance Figure 8. MSK-10 First Cement Bond Log (CBL)

Figure 7. MSK-10 Casing Pressure Maintenance

Figure 7. MSK-10 Casing Pressure Maintenance Figure 8. MSK-10 First Cement Bond Log (CBL)

Figure 8. MSK-10 First Cement Bond Log (CBL)

Figure 9. MSK-10 Cement lab Test Data
Figure 9. MSK-10 Cement lab Test Data

Figure 9. MSK-10 Cement lab Test Data

Figure 10. MSK-10 CBL-USIT-Caliper log after Squeeze Cement
Figure 10. MSK-10 CBL-USIT-Caliper log after Squeeze Cement

Figure 10. MSK-10 CBL-USIT-Caliper log after Squeeze Cement

Figure 11. MSK-10 Mini Fall Of test Analysis Figure 12. MSK-10 Mini Fall Of test
Figure 11. MSK-10 Mini Fall Of test Analysis Figure 12. MSK-10 Mini Fall Of test

Figure 11. MSK-10 Mini Fall Of test Analysis

Figure 11. MSK-10 Mini Fall Of test Analysis Figure 12. MSK-10 Mini Fall Of test Analysis

Figure 12. MSK-10 Mini Fall Of test Analysis

Figure 13. MSK-10 Calibration Test/ Mini Frac Analysis Figure 14. MSK-10 Main Frac Treatment and
Figure 13. MSK-10 Calibration Test/ Mini Frac Analysis Figure 14. MSK-10 Main Frac Treatment and

Figure 13. MSK-10 Calibration Test/ Mini Frac Analysis

Figure 13. MSK-10 Calibration Test/ Mini Frac Analysis Figure 14. MSK-10 Main Frac Treatment and Pressure

Figure 14. MSK-10 Main Frac Treatment and Pressure matching

Figure 15. MSK-10 Final Frac Geometry
Figure 15. MSK-10 Final Frac Geometry

Figure 15. MSK-10 Final Frac Geometry