Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE International Symposium and
Exhibition on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, LA, 1517 February 2006.

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
This paper provides a case history of the first hydraulic
fracture on a subsea horizontal well in the Quissam
formation, a low permeability limestone reservoir, in Campos
Basin, Brazil.
The well was drilled in the direction of the expected fracture
growth, thus evolving longitudinal fractures along the
horizontal section. It is part of a research project to evaluate
selective stimulation methods for subsea horizontal wells.
Every single aspect since the drilling, completion, and
evaluation of the well, was done with the end in mind of
hydraulically fracturing it in several stages.
Hydraulically fracturing a horizontal well has become a more
accepted practice in our industry. The procedures used on
fracturing of vertical wells must be taken into consideration
when fracturing a horizontal well, to avoid re-fracturing
work. Near-wellbore (NWB) problems are usually the main
cause why fracturing work are not completed. This paper
describes hydraulic fracture treatments with detailed
discussion on analysis of calibration tests, fluid efficiency
tests, and lessons learned.
Results of the pumping work will be presented showing theory
and common practices played a key role for a successful
application of techniques used. Laboratory tests are presented
performed with cores taken from the well itself such, as rock
mechanics, proppant embedment, compactation
measurements, and basic mineralogy.
Production results will be presented and compared to
conventional methods used on other subsea horizontal
completed wells in Campos Basin.

Introduction
The main reservoir of Enchova and Bonito fields is the
Quissam Member of Maca Formation. The Quissam is a
Lower Cretaceous, Albian age carbonate reservoir. The
Enchova field is elongated southwest to northeast (Fig. 1), is
in water depth from 106 m to 130 m and was discovered in
1976 drilling the well 1-RJS-22. The Quissam carbonate is
characterized by low to medium porosity (15-25%) and low
permeability (1-10 mD), exhibiting a typical thickness of 40-
70 m. The drive mechanism is gas expansion combined with
some water influx of a weak aquifer. The undersaturated oil
had an initial pressure and temperature of approximately 3550
psia and 190F, respectively, with Rs value of 2750 scf/STB
and a viscosity of 11 cP. The Enchovas Quissam reservoir
can be divided in three main groups: the south area, naturally
fractured; the central area with lower permeabilities and
porosities; and the thinner north area that had preserved the
original porosities. The field came on production in 1983 and
it is on primary production until today.

Figure 1 Structural map of the Quissam formation
Throughout the producing life of Quissam formation,
completion and stimulation methodology has proved to be a
challenge. In many aspects, it followed its counterparts in
North Sea, that is, Dan, Valhall and Eldfisk fields
1,2,3
, among

SPE 98277
Case Study of Multiple Hydraulic Fracture Completion in a Subsea Horizontal Well,
Campos Basin
L.F. Neumann, SPE, P.D. Fernandes, SPE, M.A. Rosolen, SPE, V.F. Rodrigues, SPE, J .O. Silva Neto, SPE,
C.A. Pedroso, SPE, Petrobras S.A.; A. Mendez, SPE, BJ Services Co.; and D.S. Torres, SPE, Halliburton Energy
Services Group
2 SPE 98277

others. All of those fields started development by middle of
1980's, using variations of heavily stimulated vertical and
deviated wells, allowing greater initial productivity. And all of
them faced the same disappointing post stimulation results due
to the lack of sustained medium and long-term high
productivity.
The stimulation strategy for Quissam reservoir field
comprises three main periods. The first one period starts in the
1980's and it was characterized by massive acid fracturing
using up to 1000 gal/ft of 28% HCl and evolving alternated
stages of X-linked pad or matrix treatments using up to 300
gal/ft of 28% HCl. The second one period begins in 1990s
and it was characterized by matrix treatments with much less
volumes, that is, treatments up to 75 gal/ft of 15% HCl. The
results, in terms of initial productivity, or in lack of the
sustained productivity, were almost the same. The third main
period started in 1995 with the drilling and completion of the
first horizontal wells in the Quissam formation of Enchova
and Bonito fields. The usual completion for these horizontal
wells has been preperforated liners. A standard stimulation
treatment includes alternating stages of non-viscous acid;
viscous acid up to 30 gal/ft of 15% HCl and self-diverting acid
pumped below fracture rates and spotted by the use of
dedicated stimulating string or coiled tubing inside the
horizontal liner.
After realizing that these matrix treatments in such horizontal
wells have not presented sufficient results, the operating
company launched a research project, included as part of
Advanced Oil Recovery Program (PRAVAP), and constituted
a project team. Following the North Sea operators experience,
the project team realized that the creation of a limited number
of discrete fractures, with proper length and conductivity,
widely separated and well distributed, could stimulate and
provide sustained productivity in horizontal wells. In its search
for alternative methods for new and old horizontal wells, the
project involved the stimulation of an existing horizontal well,
described elsewere
4,5
resulting in the drilling, completion, and
multiple stimulation of the first cemented subsea horizontal
well offshore Brazil, called HRMF , an acronym to Portuguese
words for horizontal, cased and multiple fractured well.
The well was drilled in the direction of the maximum far field
horizontal stress thus evolving longitudinal fractures
throughout the horizontal section. Every single aspect was
considered for the drilling, cementation, perforation, well
orientation, creation of multiples hydraulic propped fractures,
and their isolation, completion, and evaluation.
Planning the Well: The Main Challenges
The well had to be horizontal and multiple fractured. This was
the only aspect of the new well that was defined. The project
team studied the following aspects:
- in situ stresses and the choice of the creation of
transversal or longitudinal fractures;
- well design (short radius vs. long radius);
- election of the fracturing treatment, that is, propped
fracture, acid fracture or a combination of both;
- cementation of the horizontal section of this subsea
horizontal well;
- method to isolate each fracture;
- perforation of the well and related issues regarding
the orientation of the well;
- best spacing of the fractures and fracture length,
height and width and characteristics of the tip screen
out (TSO);
- best use of calibration tests to optimize the pad and
propped laden fluid volumes.
- ways to control proppant flowback;
- methods to evaluate each fracture without testing
each one individually.
Direction of the minimum horizontal stress - It is widely
agreed that prior knowledge of induced fracture direction in a
field to be completed with propped or even acid fractured
stimulated horizontal wells - is extremely important. The
project team realized that the far field fracture direction in the
Enchova field could not be well defined solely upon data from
offset wells. Therefore, it was decided to drill a dedicated well
to collect these data. This dedicated well was drilled in June of
2004 and fracture orientation data was gathered by two micro-
hydraulic fracturing treatments (micro-frac test), followed by
recovering three oriented cores, and by the run of an electrical
image log (Fig. 2). In the cores, complementary tests:
Anelastic Strain Recovery (ASR) and VelAn (Velocity
Anisotropy) measurements were done. The data showed good
agreement among them and indicated a general West/East
fracture direction for the Enchova field. In addition, it was
estimated the magnitude of the principal stresses and it
indicated that both previous planned stimulation equipment
(on stimulation vessels), and planned completion/production
equipment could withstand fracturing pressures and
movements effects, associated with the stimulation processes.
The selection of transverse fracture (wellbore is drilled in the
minimum horizontal stress direction and the hydraulically
induced fracture will be perpendicular to the wellbore axis) or
longitudinal fracture (the wellbore is drilled in the maximum
horizontal stress direction and the hydraulically induced
fracture will be parallel to the wellbore axis) completions were
carefully compared. Points considered were the position of
this new HRMF well in Enchova field, considering the
permeability of the reservoir; desired well deliverability;
economics; proppant placement and the long-term production,
especially taking in account that Quissam formation of
Enchova field is depleted and the average pressure is below
bubble point. The first and the last points above mentioned
were decisive to complete the HRMF well with longitudinal
fractures.
Another consideration was the number of fractures to be
placed on the HRMF well. Published data reports numbers
from four to eighteen fractures in a single horizontal
section
1,2,3
. The literature also shows that for the most
reservoirs, a horizontal well with multiple fractures
outperforms a horizontal open hole when there are more than
SPE 98277 3

three fractures
6
. It is also showed that when steady-state flow
is established, the flow into the outermost fractures can be
much larger than the interior fractures. However, if the well
produces both oil and gas, the near-wellbore pressure drop
increases dramatically due to the reduced effective fracture
permeability and this results in more uniform inflow
distribution.

Figure 2 - electrical image log of dedicated well
Considering that, it is implicit that the number of fractures
would be greater than three to show significant oil
productivity impact and, on the other hand, the number of
fractures should be minimized to face logistics and cost-
intensive rig time in the offshore environments.
An in-house semi-analytical model has been used for
calculating productivity index and production rate vs. time, for
a horizontal well with multiple transverse or longitudinal
fractures and it was used to define the optimum number of
factures. Finally, the number of fractures was established as
seven.
It should be mentioned this optimum number (7) of fractures
on the first HRMF well in Campos Basin has other
considerations. Seven (7) fractures would not produce as much
as 18 fractures and, despite so, would provide enough oil
deliverability to demonstrate that this HRMF well should
outperform the openhole horizontal wells in Enchova and
Bonito fields, and it would be done in shorter period of time.
Well design - The objective set for that first HRMF well was
to drill a 1500 m (4900 ft) horizontal section, 30 m (65 ft)
bellow of the top of the Quissam formation ( 2380 m or
7810 ft TVD) and 70-90 m (230-295 ft) above O/W contact.
The main difference between the HRMF well and previous
horizontals wells drilled and completed in the Quissam
formation is related to the liner cementation. Even so, it was
decided to keep the same design used on horizontal openholes,
that is, plan the well with long radius, using experience
previously gained, and being able to use more conventional
drilling equipment from the spud to TD. As usual, in all
Campos Basin horizontal wells, the HRMF well was drilled
with a semi-submersible rig equipped with top drive.
The casing program included a 30 conductor jetted to 215 m;
a 20 casing from well head to 500 m; a 13 3/8casing from
well head to 1600 m; a 9 5/8casing from well head to top of
Quissam, and a 7 liner through the horizontal section.
Election of Fracturing Treatment in order to select the
best fracturing method, and to obtain the simulation of the
effectiveness of each fracturing method on the Enchova
HRMF well, cores samples from Quissam formation were
sent to three different laboratories. From the tested cores
plugs, several conditions were reviewed, including porosity,
permeability and mineralogy measurements; geomechanical
evaluations (Young's Modulus, Poisson's ratio, Brinell
number, proppant embedment); acid fracture related
measurements (acid fracture conductivity versus acid system,
reaction rate coefficients, acid diffusivity, acid solubility, and
acid effluents analysis).
Porosity and oil permeability displayed values of 16-22% and
0.2-0.7 mD, respectively. The permeability values were
bellow expectation.
The Young's Modulus measurement shows variations between
2.3410
6
psi to 3.3410
6
psi, not as high as in hard
formations, and not as soft as the North Sea chalk. The
Young's Moduli values suggested that the rock would not be
easily deformed fracture width as first anticipated.
Moreover, if high Youngs Moduli are associated with lower
porosity, it could mean that a fracture/fissure natural network
can be activated under hydraulic fracturing conditions
7
.
The hardness of a Quissam formation was related in terms of
the Brinell hardness number (BHN), the ratio of the load in
kilograms to the spherical area of 1 mm
2
of indentation. Using
the same reported general criteria of the North Sea
3
, better
results with acid fracturing are expected in formations with
BHN > 10 kg/mm
2
(hard chalk), and for soft chalks with
BHN < 10 kg/mm
2
, a propped fracturing treatment is
recommended.
The BHN measurements of Quissam formations showed
numbers between 9 and 39 but the Fig. 3 depicts one of the
results gathered from a oedometer cell with the Quissam
plug, filled with 2 lb/ft
2
of 20/40 synthetic ceramic after axial
load of 5,000 psi net closure stress, far beyond expected
maximum drawdown. Although the hardness of the cores was
relatively soft, the essays from oedometer cell suggest that a
maximum proppant embedment of 1-3% would be expected. It
was also concluded that the primary cause of fracture width
reduction would be from proppant compaction, and ranging
from 5-15%, depending on BHFP.
Acid etch testing triggered low conductivity values, indicating
that the fracture formation face etches almost uniformly and
does not give much of a differential etching to create adequate
acid etched conductivity. The test program also includes the
measurement of acid reaction rates, reaction order coefficients,
and acid diffusivity; in obtain proper data for acid computer
simulations.
4 SPE 98277


Figure 3 - 20/40 ceramic embedment in Quissam formation
Horizontal section cementation - Lack of bond between the
pipe (7 in cemented liner) and formation is thought to be one
of the most important factors which can lead to stimulation
treatment failures. Higher stress levels at perforations, and
multiple high pressures cycles during multiple fractures
impose tremendous stresses on cement sheaths. So, unless the
cement sheath between each pair of fractures presents full seal
of pipe-formation annulus, with very low permeability cement,
the fracturing fluid, under high pressures, may travel through
lower stress sites, instead of propagating the fracture. The
fracturing fluid during early stages may cleanup cement
channels, allowing proppant placement along these channels.
Literature shows that in one case, there were evidences that
proppant traveled around 100 feet behind the casing, re-
entering the casing, and damaging the work string
8
. Low
quality cement may add tortuosity, enhance premature screen-
out risk; compromise zonal isolation, and, in more adverse
situations, damage fracturing string.
In this HRMF well, despite careful planning, the cement
operation presented a few problems, as the liner could not be
rotated immediately before pumping the cement slurry.
Cement evaluation through sonic, and ultrasonic logs were not
straightforward due to tools eccentricity. The logs were
interpreted and a mud channel in the lower part of the well
was diagnosed along most of the horizontal section. The low
quality cement sheath had a strong impact on fractures
placement along the horizontal section, and operational
procedures.
Isolation method of each fracture Three common methods
to isolate fractures during multiples fractures operations are (i)
the use of recoverable or milleable bridge plugs; (ii) plugs and
guns method
3
; (iii) and the method which allows perforation,
stimulation, and isolation in one trip
9
. The project team did
evaluate the pros and cons of each method and decided to use
the third one mentioned above.
This completion method allows each zone to be mechanically
isolated from another during both stimulation and production.
This is an important feature, even in a subsea well, because it
allows better reservoir management, once it was expected
and later confirmed great differences in reservoir pressure
along the horizontal section of the well.
Another excellent feature of this completion method is that the
annulus between the work string and the liner is kept open
during stimulation, providing direct access to bottomhole
pressure, using the static annulus pressure or live annulus.
Perforation of the well The HRMF well was planned to be
drilled along the direction of the expected fracture growth,
thus evolving longitudinal fractures throughout the horizontal
section. However, even in this favorable situation, one is to
assume the risks associated with misalignment of fracture and
wellbore, and ways to overcome them.
When perforations are misaligned in respect to the preferred
fracture plane, hydraulic fracturing often results in increased
near-wellbore complexity, e.g. tortuosities and high friction
pressures. In addition, this generates multiple competing
fractures that may lead to near-wellbore proppant bridging,
rapid or premature screen out, incomplete fracture placement,
and fractures lacking enough conductivity.
From horizontal wellbores, it was recognized that specific
considerations must be taken into account when planning the
perforating operations for fracture treatments. Due to the
redistribution of stresses immediately adjacent to the drilled
wellbore, the preferred initiation point of the fracture is near
the top and bottom surfaces of the wellbore. Then, for
horizontal wells with longitudinal fractures, the recommended
procedure is to align perforations to the top and lower sides of
the borehole, that is, 180-degree phasing
10
. With this phasing,
perforations penetrate the tensile areas of the wellbore and
create the desired fracture initiation along the axis of the well.
For this particular well configuration, the length of each
perforated zone reaching approximately 6-10 ft along the
wellbore, 180-degree phasing and 4-6 sh/ft. Tab 1 shows the
distributions of perforated and stimulated intervals.
Table 1 Distribution of perforated and stimulated intervals
Stage Perforations MD/TVD (m) Type of stimulation
1 4186-4188 / 2404.7 Hidraulic fracturing
2 4019-4021 / 2405.0 Hidraulic fracturing
3 3829-3831 / 2404.6 Hidraulic fracturing
4 3674-3676 / 2405.1 Hidraulic fracturing
5 3464-3466 / 2405.2 Hidraulic fracturing
6 3249-3251 / 2404.7 Hidraulic fracturing
7 3029-3031 / 2405.6 Acid frac
Fracture length, height, width and agressivity of net
pressure gain The known relationship C
fD
=k
f
w/kx

denotes
that, to increase the dimensionless fracture conductivity C
fD,
it
is required to increase the k
f
w product
11
. In fact, it is the only
way to make multiple fractures work in such scenario of soft
to medium soft formations, with reduced wellbore contact.
Thus, the fracture design must be planned to accomplish TSO
by arresting the length growth, inflating the fracture, and
finally feeding it with crescent proppant concentrations.
As the bottomhole flowing pressure (BHFP) was projected to
be 1,800 psi, and assuming a minimum horizontal stress
gradient for Enchova field between 0.58-0.60 psi/ft at 7,810 ft,
the calculated closure stress on proppant was 2,730 psi.
Therefore, high strength proppants were not needed to support
the effective closure pressures during production. However,
SPE 98277 5

fracpack experience in Campos Basin
12
suggests that a more
roundness and conductive proppant is useful to further
improve fracture conductivity.
The above-mentioned in-house semi-analytical model
predicted the need to obtain conductivities between 3,000 and
4,000 mD-ft. Assuming a fracture half-length (x) of 165 ft (50
m) and 1 mD formation permeability (k), the estimated
average C
fD
number was 18, and can be considered infinite.
Calculations from a commercial fracture hydraulic simulator
shows that it can be accomplished using 1-2 lb/ft
2
of high
quality proppant, that is, 20/40 or 16/20 mesh ceramic or
bauxite.
These simple estimations showed that the TSO was a need, but
not as aggressive as practiced in similar work at North Sea.
Moreover, assuming that the average proppant concentration
in the fracture is a function of the net pressure gain and its
increase after TSO larger increases result in higher proppant
concentrations in the fracture a net pressure gain of 300-500
psi was estimated to be enough to provide the desired
conductivity. These numbers also provide a quick way to
decide if a fracture treatment should be repeated or not, in case
of problems during pumping operations. In conclusion, TSO
design and higher quality proppant were elected to allow
better fracture - well connection, and overcome embedment
effects on the fracture plane.
In an ideal condition, the longitudinal fractures needed to be
near tip-to-tip to maximize productivity, but it is not feasible
in Enchova field today. From a hydraulic fracture point of
view, the Quissam formation is very homogeneous, with no
barriers to control fracture height, and fracture growth is
expected to be radial. In this situation, one must elect another
parameter to fix the maximum fracture height. Moreover, in
this HRMF well, it was defined to allow fracture growth until
the 50% water saturation (S
w
) level is reached, to delay water
breakthrough, once the HRMF well is on production.
Definition and best use of calibration tests Calibration
tests play a major role in horizontal fracturing treatments.
Calibration tests can help to determine presence or absence of
tortuosity, fracture complexity, and fluid loss behavior, they
help to determine the value of minimum horizontal stress, help
to use or not of proppant slugs, define pad volume, and
proppant-laden fluid volume, to achieve TSO, maximizing
final fracture conductivity.
In this HRMF well, calibration tests consisted of three
individual steps:
(i) Injectivity test (TI), or fluid efficiency test (FET)
with completion fluid;
(ii) Step down test (SDT) with completion fluid;
(iii) Minifrac with seawater crosslinked guar gel.
Logistics and economics lead the initial frac design to be done
based on a fracture efficiency of 40%, calculated from
estimated leakoff coefficients of 0.002-0.003ft/min for 30-35
lbm/1000gal borate crosslinked guar gel.
Both TI, and minifrac volumes and rates were defined based
on above assumptions. The project team emphasized the use of
G-function analysis, and its derivatives, as it does uniquely
identify fluid loss behavior. The project team also emphasized
the use of square root of time, in conjunction of G-function, in
order to better define fracture closure pressures.
And, due to the completion method elected, all of above
analysis were planned to be conducted using bottomhole
treating pressure read from live annulus.
Control the proppant flowback Proppant flowback is a
concern when deploying this type of completion, as screens
are uncommon, and the oil flow path is through a limited
number of perfs. The use of resin-coated proppants (RCP) is
very common in North Sea, but Brazilian experience is
limited. Logistics and fear of premature screen outs associated
with the amount of RCP used in the main treatment 100%,
50% or only tail in lead to the decision to use of other
proppant flowback agents, supplied by services companies
involved in this project. Thus, a liquid resin coated system
13
,
and deformable proppants
14
were used and added in all
proppant stages.
Evaluation of each fracture A semi submersible rig drilled
and completed this HRMF well. In an ideal world, the best
way to know the productivity of each created fracture is
testing each one separately. However, this is a cost prohibitive
approach, since one can estimate 10 days to clean, flow and
perform a PBU test (pressure build up), which would mean a
testing period of 70 days!
A solution given was to tag all individual stages of each of the
seven fractures with oil and water-soluble tracers. Both types
of tracers are relatively inert, stable at reservoir conditions,
and can be analyzed to very low parts per billion levels.
Once the well is on production, collected water and oil
samples can be analyzed for presence of both tracers. The
shape of the tracer concentration versus time-curve provides
an estimate of flow velocity from each of the fractures. A
sharp pulse of tracer in the backflow following by rapid
decline of tracer concentration is an indicator of good
production of that zone. A relatively slow flow will be
observed from an individual zone if the tracer profile is much
shallower, associated to a tail concentration.
Well Construction: highlights
General Operational Procedures All seven fractures stages
on this HRMF well were executed deploying a work string,
using the isolation system elected, which is using free
circulation of stimulation fluids without any tool or string
manipulation, and the use of direct bottomhole pressure
measurements, read from annulus pressure. Typical fracture
treatments included the following stages:
1. Close BOP rams and perform completion fluid
injection (TI).
2. Analyze TI data to determine fracture closure
pressure, fracture complexity and fluid loss behavior.
3. Perform SDT with completion fluid.
6 SPE 98277

4. Analyze SDT data to determine near wellbore
tortuosity, and determine the use of proppant slug in
the minifrac.
5. Open BOP rams and circulate minifracs crosslinked
gel to near the end of the work string.
6. Close BOP rams and perform minifrac flushing it
with completion fluid.
7. Analyze minifrac data to determine fracture closure
pressure, fracture complexity and fluid loss behavior.
8. Analyze, compare TI, SDT and minifrac together,
and determine the use of proppant slug in the main
treatment. Calibrate the simulation model and adjust
pad size and proppant-laden fluid schedule, based on
minifrac analysis.
9. Open BOP rams and pump main treatment pad (with
or without 1-2 ppa 100-mesh sand slugs, and 1-2 ppa
of 20/40 or 16/20 ceramic slugs), circulating
completion fluid at low rate.
10. Close BOP rams as soon the main treatment pad
reaches the vicinity of perfs, and increase rate to
fracturing rate.
11. Pump proppant-laden fluid, adding designed proppant
flowback agent in all stages.
12. Flush treatment with completion fluid at fracturing
rates.
13. Shutdown and start forced closure procedures.
The above procedures were developed based on published
North Sea Chalk fracture stimulation practices
1,2,7
- specially
Ref. 7 - and specific experience of fracturing and packing on
Campos Basin, as well as Quissam data .
Calibration Tests: ideal decline and low near wellbore
tortuosity - Fig. 4 shows interval 1, 4,186-4,188 m, TI
pressure decline using G-function, and its superposition
derivative, G dP/dG. Fig. 5 shows the same TI pressure
decline but using square root of time and its derivative dP/dt.
Inspection of both pictures shows a very good agreement
between them, in regards to the definition of fracture closure
pressure.

Figure 4 - G-function analysis, injectivity test, interval 1

Figure 5 Square root of time analysis, injectivity test, interval 1
In the sequence of calibrations tests, a SDT was performed
and Fig. 6 depicts its interpretation. The pressure drop is
approximately 300 psi, accepted as a normal and no slug was
deployed in order to remove such restriction.

Figure 6 - SDT analysis, interval 1
Fig. 7 and Fig 8 show the minifrac pressure decline, G-
function and square root of time, respectively. They define the
same fracture closure pressure that is in very good agreement
with that closure pressure from TI pressure decline analysis.

Figure 7 - G-function analysis, minifrac test, interval 1
The G-function of Fig. 7 also shows a normal decline with a
minimum signal of height recession.
SPE 98277 7


Figure 8 square root of time analysis, minifrac test, interval 1
Calibration Tests: non-ideal decline and high near
wellbore tortuosity - Fig. 9 shows the pressure decline using
G-function and its superposition derivative, G dP/dG. Fig. 10
shows the same pressure decline but using square root of time
an its derivative dP/dt from TI performed in the interval 4,
3,674-3,676 m. Inspection of both curves shows a very good
agreement between them, defining the same fracture closure
pressure.

Figure 9 - G-function analysis, injectivity test, interval 4

Figure 10 - square root of time analysis, injectivity test, interval 4
In the sequence of calibrations tests, a SDT was performed
and Fig. 11 depicts its interpretation. The pressure drop is
around 800 psi and it was considered as abnormal. Thus, this
result defined the use of proppant slug in the main treatment in
order to remove such restriction.

Figure 11 - SDT analysis, interval 4
Fig. 12 and Fig 13 show the minifrac pressure decline, G-
function and square root of time, respectively. They define
almost the same fracture closure pressure that is in very good
agreement with closure pressure from TI pressure decline
analysis.
However, the G-function now shows a very distinct behavior.
Instead of the ideal behavior, one now can see pressure
dependent leakoff, not strong, that lasts until G-function of 0.3
followed by a height recession that lasts until G-function of
1.3.

Figure 12 - G-function analysis, minifrac test, interval 4

Figure 13 - square root of time analysis, minifrac test, interval 4
The SDT and the minifrac results also defined the use of two
slugs. The first slug included 100-mesh sand in order to
overcome or minimize the pressure dependent leakoff effects.
8 SPE 98277

The second slug included 1-2 ppa of 20/40 mesh ceramic in
order to remove or reduce the near wellbore tortuosities.
Fig. 14 shows a zoom of the main treatment of the fourth
interval at the moment when both slugs hit the perforations.

Figure 14 Reaction to sand and proppant slugs in the interval 4
Fig. 15 depicts the Nolte-Smith plot of the main treatment of
the interval 4. It is very clear the radial trend of that fracture
treatment and the generation of 300-400 psi of net pressure
gain after the TSO event.

Figure 15 - Interval 4, Nolte-Smith net pressure match
Figure 15 illustrates the analysis process and results for one
fracture treatment stage of this HRMF well. The minifrac
results were fed into the simulator model and it iterated to
define a solution by simulating the observed pump-in net
pressure, and matching the closure time, fluid efficiency,
Youngs Modulus etc. The resulting leakoff coefficient in each
case was in good agreement with the estimated value in the
first design, hence the pad volume was only increased to
generate the desired height and length, and to ensure correct
generation of tip screen out. The interval 4 main fracture
treatment consisted of a 350 bbl pad (with 70 bbl 1 ppa 100
mesh sand and 80 bbl of 1 ppa proppant slug) followed by a
1,430 bbl of proppant laden fluid with some 200,000 lb of
20/40 ceramic.
Based on the same model, it was estimated an average C
fD

number of 21 for that propped treatment. Basically, this is the
same C
fD
used in the design phase of the project.
Interval 3, effect of completion fluid injection and
proppant schedule The first frac attempt in interval 3,
3,289-3,831 m, ended soon due to a premature screen out
event. Fig. 16 shows the treatment data for the first hydraulic
fracture treatment where two points deserve prominence. The
first one is the absence of circulation of completion fluid,
which can be noticed by the immediate growth of the
bottomhole treating pressure as soon the treatment began. The
second point is the designed proppant ramp, which had no
relation to equipment malfunctioning of the stimulation boat.
The proppant schedule was one as depicted on Fig. 16.

Figure 16 First treatment in the interval 3
The decision taken by the project team was to perform one
more hydraulic fracturing of interval 3, making few changes in
the treatment design:
a) Higher fracturing rate, from 25 increased to 30 bpm ;
b) Use of more viscous gel, increasing its polymer load
from 35 lb/mgal to 45 lb/mgal;
c) Circulate completely the completion fluid out of the
well. Completion fluid, for not having viscosity, may
penetrate more easily in the eventual natural
fractures/fissures system and thus open the way to
more viscous fluid to follow it. On the other way, if
only viscous gel is used, one can assume that one and
wider fracture will be created, avoiding the
possibility of multiple tiny fractures;
d) Change the proppant ramp schedule, using a less
agressive ramp, that has demonstrated to work well
on similar applications;
e) Deployment of proppant slugs in the main pad.
The modifications worked well and the treatment was
performed as planned, shown in Fig. 17.

Figure 17 Second treatment in the interval 3
SPE 98277 9

Final Results
The HRMF well was completed and declared ready for
production with six propped fractures and one acid fracture.
All fractures were mechanically isolated with packers and
sliding sleeves (SLV) doors.
At the end of well drilling, reservoir pressure data collected
showed a large reservoir pressure distribution along horizontal
section with differences of up to 400 psi. By manipulating
SLVs, one can choose which interval will be placed in
production, preventing unwanted cross flows due to pressure
difference. It was decided not to produce from all zones at
once. Instead, it was decided isolate intervals 3, 4 and 5 in
order to avoid crossflow effects, related to pressure
differences.
The plan is to follow the evolution of the reservoir pressure of
Quissam reservoir, using real time pressure data from a
pressure downhole gauge (PDG). This feature will allow
deciding to move a rig back to the well as soon the PDG data
shows that the reservoir pressures are equaled with actual
pressures of intervals 3, 4 and 5. Fig. 20 shows the
distribution of the reservoir pressure and current status of the
SLVs on this well, with green color meaning SLV opened,
and red color meaning SLV closed.

Figure 20 Formation pressure vs. lateral extension and SLVs
situation
Future Work and Improvements
Considering the short production time of the HRMF well, it is
rather difficult to affirm on maintenance of oil production
levels.
For future HRMF wells in Campos Basin, some factors will
need to be considered:
a) The real need of more aggressive treatments, that is,
larger net pressure gain after TSO.
b) How to get larger net pressure gain if Youngs
modulus is greater than 310
6
psi.
c) It is necessary to further evaluate if there is a
relationship between higher porosities and higher
Young modulus, and if it means activation or dilation
of natural fractures/fissures during hydraulic
fracturing conditions.
d) The need of better understanding the real problems
caused by poor cementation of horizontal section.
Conclusions
1. Adequate fracture height, length, and fracture
conductivity were obtained from most fracture
treatments on the HRMF well, Quissam formation.
2. The combination of G-function and SQRT pressure
decline analyses of both TI, and minifrac, resulted in
a much more reliable and consistent interpretation of
fracture closure pressure.
3. The application of G-function and G dP/dG
derivative analysis of minifrac data can aid in the
identification of pressure dependent leakoff, thus
providing an indication of potential fracture treatment
problems.
4. The application of SDT analysis is very useful in
identifying near wellbore tortuosities, and in defining
the deployment of proppant slugs.
5. The available data from Quissam formation suggest
that excessive fluid loss from activation or dilation of
natural fractures/fissures can be controlled with the
use of 100-mesh sand slugs.
6. The few data available suggest the injection of
completion fluid ahead of main pad may significantly
increase the aperture of natural fractures/fissures in
Quissam formation..
Nomenclature
ASR - Anelastic Strain Recovery
BHFP bottom hole flowing pressure
HRMF - horizontal, cased and multiple fractured well.
VelAn - Velocity Anisotropy
C
fD
dimensionless fracture conductivity
k - formation permeability
k
f
- fracture permeability
Rs - solution gas/oil ratio
x
f
- fracture half-length
w - fracture width
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their appreciation to the
management of PETROBRAS, BJ Services and Halliburton
for their permission to publish this paper.
References
1. Owens, K.A. et al.: Practical Considerations of Horizontal Well
Fracturing in the Danish Chalk, SPE 25058, SPE European
Petroleum Conference, Cannes, France, 1618 November, 1992.
10 SPE 98277

2. Norris, M.R., Bernsten, B.A., Skartveit, L., and Teesdale, C.,
Multiple Proppant Fracturing of Horizontal Wellbores in a Chalk
Formation: Evolving the Process in the Valhall Field, SPE 50608,
SPE European Petroleum Conference, The Hague, Oct. 1998.
3. Cook, C.C., Brekke, K. Productivity Preservation through
Hydraulic Propped Fractures in the Eldfisk North Sea Chalk Field,
SPE 88031, SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering (April 2004),
pp 105-114.
4. Rodrigues, V., Neumann, L.F. et al.:First Applications of a
Multiple Fracturing Method in Noncemented Horizontal Offshore
Wells, SPE 94583, 2005 SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20 23
June 2005.
5. Surjaatmadja, J., Rodrigues, V.F., Neumann, L.F. et al.:
Successful Pin-Point Placement of Multiple Fractures in Highly
Deviated Wells in Deep Water Offshore Brazil Fields, SPE 95443,
2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX,
U.S.A., Oct. 2005.
6. Lietard, L. and Hegeman, P., Optimum Development of a Thin
Box-Shaped Reservoir with Multiply Fractured Horizontal Wells,
SPE 50420, SPE International Conference on Horizontal Well
Technology, Calgary, Nov. 1998.
7. Cipolla, C.L., Hansen, K. K. and Ginty, W.R.,Fracture Treatment
Design and Execution in Low Porosity Chalk Reservoirs, SPE
86485, 2004 SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, L.A., USA, 18-20 February
2004.
8. Kogsboll, H.H., Pitts, M.J., and Owens, K.A., Effects of
Tortuosity inf Fracture Stimulation of Horizontal Wells A Case
Study of the Dan Field, SPE 26796, Offshore Europe, Aberdeen,
Scotland, 7-10 September, 1993.
9. Damgaard, A.P. et al.:A Unique Method for Perforating,
Fracturing, and Completing Horizontal Wells, SPE 19392, SPE
Production Engineering February 1992, pp 61-69.
10. Hazin H, Abass et al, Oriented Perforations A Rock
Mechanics View, SPE 28555, SPE Annual Technical Meeting, New
Orleans, Louisiana, USA, September 25-28, 1994.
11. Economides, M.J. and Nolte, K.G.: Reservoir Stimulation, Third
Edition, London, UK, John Wiley & Sons (2000).
12. Neumann, L. F. et al.:Lessons Learned from a Hundred Frac
Packs in the Campos Basin, SPE 73722, SPE International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
Louisiana, 2021 February 2002.
13. Nguyen, P.D. et al. A Novel Approach for Enhancing Proppant
Consolidation: Laboratory Testing and Field Applications, SPE
77748, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, TX, USA, 29 September2 October 2002.
14. Stephenson, C. Ward, B. et al, Exceptional Proppant Flowback
Control for the Most Extreme Well Environments: The Shape of
Things to Come, SPE 77681, SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, USA, 29 September2 October 2002.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
bar 1.0 E+05 = Pa*
bbl 1.589 873 E01 = m3
cp 1.0 E03 = Pa.s
ft 3.048 E01 = m*
ft
3
2.831 685 E02 = m3
F (F 32)/1.8 = C
lbm 4.535 924 E01 = kg
psi 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
*Conversion factor is exact.