SPE 93168
A Fracture Treatment Design Optimization Process To Increase Production and Control
Proppant Flowback for Low-Temperature, Low-Pressure Reservoirs
B.D. Krismartopo and L. Notman, Caltex Pacific Indonesia, and T. Kritzler, T. Kristanto, and P. Nguyen, Halliburton
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 5 7 April 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
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
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
As the pumping pressure is released at the end of a fracturing
treatment, the proppant remains in the fractures, holding them
open and forming conduits for fluid to flow into the wellbore.
If the proppant flows back into the wellbore, the width of the
fracture channels will decrease. The loss of proppant from the
fractures limits the flow-channel conductivity, choking the
production potential of the well and impairing the
effectiveness of the fracture treatment.
Resin-coated sands, oriented perforating, tip screen-out
designs, and screens are just some of the technologies that
have been applied in the past to overcome the aforementioned
problem. For low-temperature, low-pressured reservoirs, the
challenges increase because even small pressure drops or
conductivity reductions can have a large influence on the final
production results, and resin-coated sand will not cure
effectively at temperatures below 130F.
This paper highlights how a proppant production problem
was successfully overcome through the application of several
technologies. Statistical analysis was used to help evaluate
these technologies during the trial period, indicating that
orientated perforating had a limited influence on the proppant
flow-back, but a negative impact on production. However,
with the help of a tip screen-out design and a newly developed
proppant flow-back control additive, the proppant flow-back
problem was overcome and production was improved.
Sand Control Issues
Proppant or sand flow-back poses a serious challenge to the
oil industry and has therefore been a focus for several decades.
The challenges occur because sand production damages
surface facilities and downhole tubulars. Production has to be
stopped to work over wells, and costs are increased to dispose
and clean the produced sand. Furthermore, due to the flow-
back of proppant, the conductivity of the fracture is reduced,
and consequently so is the production of the well.
Three major categories are used for sand and proppant
production:
Natural sand production (unconsolidated formations)
Proppant flow-back during clean-up of proppant
fracturing treatments
Proppant flow-back during the production life
This paper concentrates on the latter issues and provides
solutions for reducing proppant flow-back during the
production life of a well.
Several techniques are available to avoid or minimize the
flow-back of proppant during the life of the well. The
technology that should be applied depends on economic and
petroleum engineering issues, such as rate of proppant
produced, production rates and medium, sand size,
permeability,1 etc. Available technologies include:
Screens
Screenless completion technologies
Resin-coated proppant
Orientated perforating
Limited entry perforating2
Tip screen-out designs
Proppant flow-back control additives
Injecting a resin solution after the treatment
Deformable isometric material3
Screens are the preferred technology in unconsolidated
formations and are normally considered a last resort due to
cost implications. Plugging of the screen (and the resulting
reduction in productivity) further decreases the attractiveness
of this technology. Thus, an industry-wide trend has been to
move to screenless completions, which apply one of the
aforementioned technologies. Propped-fracture operations that
use sand-control screens have been successful in fracpack
jobs. However, screens employed in conventional sand-control
applications increase well-completion costs and are known to
fail with time.
In 1975, a phenolic-based resin system was patented for
use in preparing curable, resin-precoated proppant.4 Resin-
coated sands were one of the earliest technologies designed to
prevent proppant flow-back and were introduced in the early
1980s. These proppants show several other benefits along with
2 B.D. KRISMARTOPO, L. NOTMAN, T. KRITZLER, T. KRISTANTO, P. NGUYEN
reducing proppant flow back, such as increased crush
resistance, reduced fines production, and reduction of
proppant embedment.5 However, their costs are relatively high
and they have a tendency to reduce the permeability of the
proppant pack. Furthermore, they need an elevated
temperature and closure stresses to set.
Oriented perforating for fracturing purposes has been
described by several authors.6 The main purpose of this
technology is to align the perforations with the maximum
stress so they are in the plane of the fracture. Thus,
perforations that will not accept proppant and near-wellbore
tortuosity are minimized. To apply this technology
successfully, the stress orientation of the field has to be known
and the guns have to be oriented accordingly.
Tip screen-outs are now widely accepted in the industry as
a method to improve production by providing an increased
channel of conductivity to avoid fracturing into unwanted
zones, and also to prevent proppant flow-back.7 A tip screen-
out is achieved when proppant at the leading edge of the
fracture stops moving and therefore prevents further fracture
extension. The width of the fracture is further increased by
continued injection of the fracture fluid, providing an
increased proppant packing inside the fracture. The increased
stress inside the fracture on the proppant pack might
contribute to the prevention of proppant flow-back; however,
this phenomenon has not been fully explained because
laboratory results show that proppant packs that are wider than
six proppant grains are unstable.8
Proppant flow-back control additives are the newest
technology applied to prevent or minimize flow-back of
proppants. Fibrous materials, fibrous bundles,9 and deformable
particulate10 have been used by operators in recent years to
control proppant flowback. These solid materials are mixed
with the proppant and become an intimate part of the proppant
pack. A network is created between the proppant and the solid
strands to minimize the proppant movement within the pack
during production.
The main functions of the fibrous strands are to induce
bridging at the perforations and allow solid-free fluid to flow
through. However, third-party laboratory results have shown
that the permeability of a proppant pack is reduced when a
fiber material is used (Table 1).
The use of deformable particulate requires that closure
stress exist to apply on the proppant-deformable particulate so
the particles will adhere to one another via inter-embedment.
Without the closure stress, a stable pack cannot be established.
Today, regardless of these new additives that are
commercially available, resin-coated proppant materials are
still the option of choice for reducing proppant flow-back
during production of a well. This technology is described in
the next the next section.
Liquid Resin System (LRS)
An early system of resin mixture was prepared by blending
multiple components into a single batch at well site. When all
the components are mixed together, this resin mixture has a
limited shelf-life. If the frac treatment is delayed or a
premature screenout occurs during the frac treatment, the resin
mixture must be disposed of properly. Some safety concerns
are related to the storage of this mixed resin, especially with
SPE 93168
large volume, due to heat of reaction. This early on-the-fly
resin system was mainly applied as a wet coat application. The
resin mixture is injected directly to the frac gel slurry in the
blender tub, where it coats onto the proppant. The resin must
compete with the frac gel to coat onto the surface of proppant
grains. The resin freely interacts with the frac gel fluid, which
may cause some incompatibility or interference with the fluid
itself. In addition, the resin may also coat onto the equipment,
such as blender tub, pump, and tubing. As a result, not all
resin intended to coat the proppant stays with the proppant.
Recently, a new family of LRS products was introduced
for handling proppant flow-back problems after hydraulic
fracturing treatments.11 Lessons learned from designing and
applying previous resin system are incorporated to ensure the
success of the treatment. The new LR systems are designed to
(1) minimize the interaction between the resin and the carrier
fluid system, and (2) minimize the logistical problems on
location. The new LR systems include:
A low-temperature, two-component, epoxy system
designed for a temperature range of 70 to 225F
A high-temperature, two-component, epoxy system
designed for a temperature range of 200 to 350F
A high-temperature, one-component, furan system
designed for a temperature range of 300 to 550F
All of the resin components are preblended, so only the
preblended solutions are brought to the well site. As long as
the individual components (i.e., epoxy system) are separated,
they should remain stable for many months. The two
components are metered together on-the-fly through a static
mixer to form a homogeneous mixture before being coated
directly onto the proppant in the sand screws.
The proppant is directly coated with the resin before being
blended in the fracturing fluid. This direct coating maximizes
the coating effectiveness of resin designed to be coated onto
the dry proppant and minimizes the chemical interaction
between the resin and the fracturing fluid.
These resin systems are formulated with a proprietary
additive to help replace the gel film adhering to the proppant
with a film of the LRS material. The removal of crosslinked
gel coating on the proppant enhances the contact between
proppant grains, thus increasing the consolidation of the
proppant pack even without applied closure stress. This
process may raise some concerns if a premature screen-out
occurs during the frac treatment and the proppant slurry settles
inside the wellbore. In this case, the well is flowed back as
soon as possible to prevent the need for coiled tubing to clean
out the wellbore.
Because of the low-temperature and low-closure-stress
environment existing in most of the fields in the present study,
the low-temperature LRS was selected for evaluation of its
flowback control capability. The low BHT in this reservoir
yields a slow cure rate and allows the LRS to remain in liquid
state for a few hours after being coated on the proppant. As a
result, even under low or no closure-stress conditions, high
consolidation strength of the coated proppant pack can still be
developed. Consolidation coupled with flexibility is generally
required to effectively handle the repeated stress cycles that
occur during normal production operations.
SPE 93168 A FRACTURE TREATMENT DESIGN OPTIMIZATION PROCESS TO INCREASE PRODUCTION
AND CONTROL PROPPANT FLOW-BACK FOR LOW-TEMPERATURE, LOW-PRESSURED RESERVOIRS
The LRS-treated proppant provides the following
performance:
When coated onto the proppant, LRS remains as a
liquid resin until it becomes fully cured. Capillary
action causes limited flow of the liquid resin,
concentrating it between proppant grains and
resulting in greater concentration of resin at contact
points, even when closure stress is not present or is
very low in the fracture.
LRS-treated proppant is tacky, and this tackiness
promotes grain-to-grain contact. LRS-treated
proppant has a slower cure rate and is not removed
from the proppant surface during pumping because
the resin system has been specially formulated to
preferentially coat proppants in gelled fluids. In
contrast, the RCPs, even when heated, are less
tacky, and have poor grain-to-grain contact without
applied closure stress. The resin from some of
these RCPs has been shown to be leached off into
the fracturing fluids.
All of the resin in LRS is curable. This factor
allows LRS to efficiently contribute to the final
consolidation strength of the treated proppant pack.
LRS is formulated with additives that promote the
displacement of gelled fracturing fluid film that can
sometimes impede grain-to-grain contact and
consolidation, replaced by a film of the LRS
material.
Finally, the same retained conductivity test as mentioned
previously (Table 1) regarding fibrous material was performed
to identify whether the resin was damaging the formation. The
conductivity was shown to increase after the application of the
resin (Table 2). This result can be explained partially by
reasons previously mentioned in this section and the fact that
fines movement was reduced through application of the LRS.
Field Summary
The Balam South field is located in the middle of Sumatra
Island, Indonesia. The field was discovered in 1970 and
production began in February 1972. Production is primarily
from nine sands that have been identified in Duri Formations
and two sands in Telisa Formation. The Telisa formation is a
unique reservoir in terms of reservoir properties, depositional
system, and oil production. Four major cycles of deposition
are represented. Each cycle begins with poor/no reservoir
quality and poorly sorted glauconitic sandstones that are
frequently tightly cemented. In the upper part of each cycle,
reservoir sandstones are predominantly finely laminated, very
fine to fine-grained sandstone parasequences, with variable
carbonate mud content, which results in low permeability and
low productivity. Foraminiferal packstones cap each very fine
to fine-grained sandstone parasequence, resulting in possible
field-wide seals, or extensive baffles (Fig. 1).
The reservoir porosity typically ranged from 17 to 32%.
Permeability average is 143 md. The well spacing was
approximately 31 to 62 Acres. The Telisa Reservoir is found
at an average depth of 700 ft with an initial bottomhole
pressure of 340 psi. Telisa is a significant reservoir but has
3
poor reservoir properties and high heterogeneity, which results
in very low oil recovery factor (4%).
An inverted 9-spot Waterflood (Fig. 2) secondary recovery
technique has been selected to increase the oil recovery in this
field. Furthermore, with the help of hydraulic fracturing the
production rates and recovery rates can be increased.
Completion Strategy
Past history of proppant fracs have shown severe cases of
proppant flow back. Considering this history and the reservoir
conditions, formation damage due to drilling fluids and the
production history of earlier Telisa wells, the following
completion strategy was identified to maximize production
while minimizing the chance of proppant production:
Cemented 7-in. casing, all producers and injectors
Limited entry perforation
Experimental design
a. Perforation scheme
b. Hydraulic fracturing design with tip screenout
(TSO)
c. Proppant flowback control if required
An experimental design approach was chosen to ensure
that the optimum recovery rate could be achieved over the life
of the project. The following considerations were taken into
account:
Under normal conditions, the more perforation, the
more production can be expected. However,
because hydraulic fracturing would be applied, the
project team needed to find the optimum
perforation scheme. Perforation density and
phasing degree are the first parameters that were
varied to try to achieve sand-free production.
After the optimum perforation scheme was found,
the hydraulic fracturing design was varied to
achieve TSO fracturing and a low proppant flow-
back. A good TSO was expected to significantly
reduce proppant flow-back production.
Since proppant flow-back was still observed with
optimum perforation design and TSO, the selection
of a proppant flow-back control material was
considered. Due to the low bottomhole
temperatures and the advantages previously
discussed, a LRS was selected.
Detailed Improvement Process
At the beginning, 90 phasing perforations at 4 shots per foot
(SPF) were applied (Fig. 3). Because the wells were
hydraulically fractured, it is possible that only two sides of
perforations were connected with the fracture. The perforation
design was adjusted to 180 phasing. With this design, the
sandfill decreased significantly (Fig. 4) while the treatment
success rate did not. Therefore, the job team decided to stay
with 180 phasing. When the shot density was adjusted and
correlated against oil production and sand fill, 4 SPF was
found to give the best production results. Two SPF did not
decrease the sand fill, whereas 6 SPF did not increase oil
production significantly (Fig 3). Thus, a combination of 4 SPF
with 180 perforation scheme is currently applied.
4 B.D. KRISMARTOPO, L. NOTMAN, T. KRITZLER, T. KRISTANTO, P. NGUYEN
During the fracturing treatment execution, no significant
tortuosity indications were observed with the change from 90
to 180 phasing or when the shot density was increased from 2
SPF to 6 SPF.
The following conclusions where drawn from different
perforation designs:
1. Four SPF maximizes production.
2. No change in near-wellbore friction was observed
with different perforation phasing. This result was
explained by the low bottomhole pressures
observed, the low Youngs Modulus, and the
shallow depth of the formation.
3. The perforation design had only limited influence
on the success rate of the fracturing treatments.
4. Sand fill could not be eliminated with 180
phasing.
Because the perforation design seemed to be independent
of the sand fill observed, the next step was implemented: an
aggressive TSO design. As expected, with a steady decrease in
volume of the PAD fluid, an increase in the Nolte-Smith (N-S)
Slope could be observed. The sand fill after the treatments was
noted and correlated to the N-S Slope during the treatment
(Fig. 5). The data shown in Fig. 3 indicates that an increase in
the N-S did not consistently reduce sand fill.
The next step during the improvement process was taken
by implementing the LRS. Fig. 6 shows that after the LRS
product was implemented a significant reduction in sand fill
was observed. However, the production expectations were met
on a well-by-well basis; i.e., the resin did not influence the
productivity index. On the other hand, due to consolidation,
the draw-down could be increased to the maximum allowable
without destabilizing the proppant pack.
As shown in Fig. 6, the sand production was significantly
reduced with the application of the LRS material. This result
was followed by a reduction in work-overs to 25% when
compared to the level previously observed, reducing field
operational costs.
Fracturing Procedure
A total of 23 wells have been fractured in this fracturing
campaign. Except for two wells that screened out early during
the fracturing treatment, the wells were successfully fractured
as per design. Of the 11 wells in which an LRS was not
applied, 8 wells experienced proppant flow-back and required
work-overs.
The fracturing treatment was performed through 3.5-in.
tubing. Each fracturing treatment involved the following
sequence:
1. Break-down test
2. Step-rate test
3. Mini fracturing treatment
4. Main fracturing treatment
The average pad size for wells without LRS treatment was
1,500 gal. The fluid system used was 30-lb/Mgal crosslinked
HPG, with an average pumping rate of 14 bbl/min. The
proppant used was 12/20 natural sand with concentration
ramp-up starting from 1 to 15 lb/gal. The intended proppant
amount was 90,000 lb per well.
SPE 93168
The trend of the fracturing design as previously described
was increasingly aggressive, with the PAD volume reduced to
achieve a TSO. In the beginning, the PAD size of the job was
approximately 14.5 %, and then was decreased to 4 % at the
eleventh job to achieve tip screen-out. Because a live annulus
was available, the net pressure increase could be observed
accurately in real-time mode. It showed a steady increase, as
could be expected when the PAD was reduced from 14.5 % to
4% over time.
However, based upon the post-job analysis, sand
production still occurred. Thus, starting from the twelfth job,
the fracturing job included LRS additive to overcome sand
flow-back, as this technology seemed to be the best suited
system for low bottomhole temperatures and low closure
stress.
Application of the LRS
The first fracturing treatment using LRS was the only job with
100% of the proppant coated. In 9 out of 10 of the following
jobs, the proppant was coated only in the tail-in portion to
reduce cost. Approximately 32 % of total proppant pumped
was coated with LRS (Table 3). The concentration of LRS
used to coat the proppant was 3% (volume by volume).
The liquid resin and the hardener were delivered to the
well location in separate containers and were pumped through
a static mixer, which provides sufficient mixing to create a
homogeneous activated resin blend (Fig. 7). The individual
components were transferred into the LRS blender (Figs. 8
and 9) and metered in proportion with the desired fluid and
proppant rate pumped during the treatment. The mixed LRS
liquid was then injected to the bottom of the sand screw (Figs.
10 and 11), where the auger action helped spread and coat the
resin onto the dry proppant. The sand screws delivered the
LRS-coated proppant into the blender tub that mixed the
proppant with fracturing fluid before the mixture was pumped
downhole.
Due to the low bottomhole temperature present in this
field, an aggressive breaker schedule was applied to ensure
that early gel breaking would allow the proppant grains to
obtain grain-to-grain contact before the resin cured completely
at reservoir temperature. The proppant pack required a
minimum of 20 hours curing time for grain-to-grain contact
and for the liquid resin to cure properly after the treatment was
executed.
Because of the relatively long curing time; some of the
jobs were performed rigless. After the drilling and cementing
operations, the workover rig moved in and prepared the well
by perforating the target interval, setting open-ended tubing,
and then leaving the well for the stimulation job. After
fracturing treatment and curing time, the workover rig
returned to the well to drill out the remaining proppant inside
the wellbore.
Summary and Conclusions
This paper shows that a new method of proppant flow-back
control was used successfully to prevent proppant from being
back-produced. A low-temperature LRS was used in low-
pressure, low-temperature wells (Table 3) with a very low
Youngs Modulus formation because other means of sand
control, such as conventional resin-coated proppant, TSO
SPE 93168 A FRACTURE TREATMENT DESIGN OPTIMIZATION PROCESS TO INCREASE PRODUCTION 5
AND CONTROL PROPPANT FLOW-BACK FOR LOW-TEMPERATURE, LOW-PRESSURED RESERVOIRS

fracturing, and 180 phased perforating showed only limited
success. A production decrease due to the use of this resin
could not be observed, and laboratory tests have shown that
the conductivity often was increased when this LRS was used.
The frequency of work-overs due to sand fill was also reduced
by 75%.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank CPI and Halliburton management for their
support and permission to publish this paper. Also
acknowledged are Balam AMT members and Joe Schmidt and
Carlos Pardo from ChevronTexaco EPTC for their valuable
contributions.
References
1. Hodge, R.M. et al.: An Evaluation Method for Screen-
only and Gravel-Pack Completions, paper SPE 73772
presented at the 2002 International Symposium and
Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
Louisiana, 20-21 February.
2. Rahim, Z., Bartko K. and Al-Qahtani, M.Y.: Hydraulic
Fracturing Case Histories in the Carbonate and Sandstone
Reservoirs of Khuff and Pre-Khuff Formations, Ghawar
Field, Saudi Arabia, paper SPE 77677 presented at the
2002 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, 29 September-2 October.
3. Lullo, G.D. and Rae, P.: New Technology Prevents
Proppant Flowback and Improves Fracture Conductivity,
paper SPE 68656 presented at the 2001 Asia Pacific Oil
and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta,
Indonesia, 17-19 April.
4. Graham, J.W. et al.: Method for Treating Subterranean
Formation, U.S. Patent No. 3,929,191 (Dec. 30, 1975).
5. Norman, L.R., Terracina, J.M., McCabe, M.A. and
Nguyen, P.D.: Application of Curable Resin-coated
Proppants, paper SPE 20640, SPE Production
Engineering (November 1992) p. 343-349.
6. Soliman, M. et al.: Use of Orientated Perforations and
New Gun System Optimizes Fracturing of High
Permeability, Unconsolidated Formations, paper SPE
53793 presented at the 1999 Latin America and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference, Caracas, Venezuela,
21-23 April.
7. Fan, Y., Looney, M.D. and Jones, J.A.: Screenless Tip-
Screenout Fracturing: A Detailed Examination of Recent
Experience, paper SPE 71653 presented at the at the 2001
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September-3 October.
8. Milton-Tayler, D., Stephenson, C. and Asgian, M.: Factor
Affecting the Stability of Proppant in Propped Fractures:
Results on a Laboratory Study, paper SPE 24821
presented at the 1992 Annual Conference and Exhibition,
Washington, D.C., 4-7 October .
9. Card, R.J. et al.: A Novel Technology to Control Proppant
Backproduction, SPE Production & Facilities (Nov. 1995)
271-6.
10. Stephenson, C.J. et al. Increased Resistance to Proppant
Flowback by Adding Deformable Particles to Proppant
Packs Tested in the Laboratory, paper SPE 56593
presented at the 1999 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 3-6 October.
11. Nguyen, P.D. and Weaver, J.D.: "Controlling Proppant
Flowback in High-Temperature, High-Production Wells,"
paper SPE 82215 presented at the 2003 SPE European
Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The
Netherlands, 13-14 May.

Table 1Proppant Conductivity Comparison

a
between Proppant and Proppant + Fiber

Closure Stress Conductivity

Sample
(psi) (Darcy)
Proppant 1 350 57.1
Proppant 1 and
350 21.7
Fiber
a
Data supplied by Lemigas, obtained in "Proppant
Conductivity Testing Project," 2004 (Private Internal
Company Report).

Table 2Proppant Conductivity Comparison

a
between Proppant and Proppant + LRS

Closure Stress Conductivity

Sample
(psi) (Darcy)
Proppant 1 350 57.1
Proppant 1 and
350 94.3
LRS
a
Data supplied by Lemigas, obtained in "Proppant
Conductivity Testing Project," 2004 (Private Internal
Company Report).
6 B.D. KRISMARTOPO, L. NOTMAN, T. KRITZLER, T. KRISTANTO, P. NGUYEN SPE 93168

Table 3The average of Balam South Telisa Fracturing Parameters

Wells without Wells with
LRS-Treated Proppant LRS-Treated Proppant
Well Parameters
Number of jobs 11 10
Tubing depth (ft) 582 590
Top pay (ft) 614 610
Bottom pay (ft) 715 726
Length of Interval 1 (ft) 17.45 17.1
Length of Interval 2 (ft) 46
Perforation density, SPF 4 4
Perforation phasing () 90 180
Perforation size (in.) 0.46 0.46
Number of perforations 256 76
BHP (psi) 414 NA
BHT (F) 124 119
Reservoir Parameters
Porosity (%) 33 37
Permeability (mD) 83 108
Youngs modulus (psi) 4.73 E+5 5.13 E+5
Poisson's Ratio 0.2 0.2
Frac gradient (psi/ft) 0.791 0.633
Closure pressure (psi) 430 327
Fluid and Proppant
Sand type Natural Natural
Proppant size (mesh) 12/20 12/20
Fluid Efficiency (%) 77 73
PAD Precentage (%) 9 5.5
Pump rate (bbl/min) 14 14
Fracture net pressure
166 267
(psi)
Proppant in formation (lb) 80,300 83,179
Final proppant
12 12
concentration (ppa)
LRS-coated proppant (%) 0 32
SPE 93168 A FRACTURE TREATMENT DESIGN OPTIMIZATION PROCESS TO INCREASE PRODUCTION 7
AND CONTROL PROPPANT FLOW-BACK FOR LOW-TEMPERATURE, LOW-PRESSURED RESERVOIRS

Fig. 1 Typical Telisa Formation lithology.

8 B.D. KRISMARTOPO, L. NOTMAN, T. KRITZLER, T. KRISTANTO, P. NGUYEN SPE 93168

Fig. 2 Inverted spot pattern design.

SPE 93168 A FRACTURE TREATMENT DESIGN OPTIMIZATION PROCESS TO INCREASE PRODUCTION 9
AND CONTROL PROPPANT FLOW-BACK FOR LOW-TEMPERATURE, LOW-PRESSURED RESERVOIRS

Fig. 3Perforation density vs. production (BFPD, BOPD, sand fill).

Fig. 4Perforation phasing vs. sand production (Largest % PAD, Nolte Slope 0.3, FHI Pressure Region-Flowing after tract).

Fig. 5Nolte Slope vs. sand fill.

10 B.D. KRISMARTOPO, L. NOTMAN, T. KRITZLER, T. KRISTANTO, P. NGUYEN SPE 93168

Fig. 6Comparison between non-LRS and LRS fracturing plotted against production and sand fill.

Fig. 7Fracturing equipment layout for the treatment using LRS to dry-coat proppant on the fly.
SPE 93168 A FRACTURE TREATMENT DESIGN OPTIMIZATION PROCESS TO INCREASE PRODUCTION 11
AND CONTROL PROPPANT FLOW-BACK FOR LOW-TEMPERATURE, LOW-PRESSURED RESERVOIRS

Fig. 8Fracturing blender and LRS skid.

Fig. 9Fracturing blender hopper. Fig. 10Fracturing blender sand screw.

12 B.D. KRISMARTOPO, L. NOTMAN, T. KRITZLER, T. KRISTANTO, P. NGUYEN SPE 93168

Fig. 11LRS injected in the bottom of the sand screw.