SPE 102475
Successful Acid-Fracturing in Adverse Conditions: Lessons Learnt and Integrated
Evaluation in the Kharyaga Field
H. Poitrenaud, P. Ferrand, and P. Pouget, SPE, Total E&P, and J. Manire, SPE, Schlumberger
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Moscow, Russia, 36 October 2006.
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
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 an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract 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
The Kharyaga field is located in Timan-Petchora region of
Northern Russia, 60 km North of the Arctic Polar Circle. The
field is producing principally from a Devonian age carbonate
reservoir, this limestone formation having an average porosity
of 8 to 12% and permeabilities ranging from 1 to 200 mD.
The wells are completed as cased-hole, with a 7inch liner
through the reservoir section. The perforated intervals range
from 30 to 80 m in length and the wells were traditionally
matrix-acid stimulated following perforation. The wells
produced initially unassisted then later on, a work-over
campaign was launched in order to equip the well with
electrical submersible pumps (ESP).
Work-over operations were taken as an opportunity to re-
stimulate lower-performing wells of the field. Several options
were considered for this purpose from mechanically-diverted
acid squeeze to propped hydraulic-fracturing or acid-fracturing
this later option being ultimately selected. However, the rather
adverse conditions existing both downhole and at surface
rendered such an operation quite challenging. In the first
place, the tectonically active nature of this region (West of
Ural) led to anticipate significantly high fracturing gradients
and difficulties to initiate a fracturing regime. Secondly, the
weather conditions, with surface temperatures ranging from
+20C in summer to -50C in winter and logistical issues
necessitated adjustments to the fracturing fluids and job
design. Finally other factors such as a high tendency of the
Khariaga crude to precipitate wax, the presence of H2S or the
flow-back through the ESP called for additional precautions.
In this paper we will show that despite these rather adverse
conditions successful acid-fracturing treatments can be
implemented in this region; we will discuss some of the key
parameters that helped base the choice of treatment type and
we will describe the lessons learnt during such treatments.
In addition, as the data-set available for this acid-fracturing
treatment is unusually comprehensive with image logs,
production profiles, pre and post-frac thermal logs, bottom-
hole gauges and extended post-frac decline, an integrated
evaluation of the treatment will be proposed.
Introduction
The Kharyaga field lies 60 km north of the polar circle (fig
1.1), in the Nenets Autonomous Territory. It was discovered
by Ukhtaneftegaz-Geologia in 1970 and has been delineated
until 1982 by 58 wells. The field area covers 50 km by 15 km,
along a NW-SE axis. Six groups of reservoirs (Objects) can be
found between 1250 m and 3700 m .The sweet oil bearing
sandstones reservoirs constituting Objects 1, 4, 5, 6 have been
produced by Komitek since 1989.
The Kharyaga field Objects 2 and 3 development is
covered by a Production Sharing Agreement (KPSA) which
was signed in December 1995 between the Ministry of Fuel
and Energy of the Russian Federation and the Nenets
Autonomous Territory administration, representing the
Russian State, and the company Total Exploration Production
Russie (TEPR) as Investor and Operator. The KPSA became
effective in January 1999 and the production started in
October 1999. Effective January 1999, Norsk Hydro Sverige
A.B (40% of participating interests) and Nenets Oil Company
(10%) joined the project, becoming together with TEPR (50%)
the Kharyaga PSA Investors.
Objects 2 and 3 are Devonian and Permian complex
carbonate reservoir accumulations, occasionally fractured
and/or karstified, which contain paraffinic oil with H2S.
Background
A review of the productivity of the wells in the Kharyaga field
had led to identify two under-performing wells. Although
having been acidized after perforation, those two wells were
clearly displaying lower than average Productivity Indices (PI)
and/or unstable production. A plot showing a comparison of
the performance of the wells in the field is given in fig 1. On
this plot, Production Indices have been normalized over the
average PI of a selection of wells in the vicinity (with varying
k.h however). Also on fig 2, a plot gives the estimated skin
value, distinctly identifying Well A and Well C as potential
candidates for treatments.
Three options were considered in order to improve the
productivity of Well A and C: Propped Hydraulic fracturing,
Acid-fracturing or Matrix Squeeze treatment. Several
2 SPE 102475
parameters deriving from local field conditions had to be
accounted for in the choice of treatment.
Challenges
To be successful, the treatments would have to overcome the
combination of challenges given below:
Harsh surface weather conditions (well below zero
temperatures)
High fracturing gradient expected (the area is under
tectonic influence of the nearby Ural mountains)
Paraffinic crude with high WAT (35C)
Deviation: Well A is deviated at 30, Well C is
deviated at 57 (at pay zone)
Flow-back through ESP.
Re-stimulation (the well described had all been
previously acidized)
Long intervals: the wells have perforated length of
40m to 80 m.
Presence of H2S
Lack of intervention equipment in area (no CT, no
straddling tools, no ball diverter launchers, no regular
flow-back equipment)
Delays before treatment flow-back.
Initial design choices
A productivity study was conducted indicating that
fracturing would potentially give the highest increase in
productivity. Treatments in matrix mode could have also lead
to significant productivity improvement however, for such a
re-stimulation to be efficient, selective placement and proper
wormholing are required. Unfortunately, the use of
mechanical diversion tools had to be excluded due to
equipment sourcing difficulties; the wells being depleted
would have called for back-pressure valves to ensure
controlled placement (no U-tubing between settings and
tripping of the tool). Fracturing treatments were therefore
considered.
The propped fracturing option was turned down based on a
concern of damaging the ESP should proppant flow-back
occur. Secondly no CT units were available for clean-up in
case of early screen-out, some natural fractures (opened or
not) had been seen on imaging log. Finally, due to relatively
large and segmented perforations interval it was estimated
very difficult to succeed in placing a good propped fracture.
Thus, the acid-fracturing treatment was selected.
Treatment Well A.
Well A is an oil producer, producing from the Object-2
carbonate formation. The well was drilled in June 2003 and
completed with a 7 inch cemented liner and 4 tubing. Well
A is perforated over 45 m (MD) at 30 degrees deviation in the
layers Gamma inf. and Gamma-sup (Devonian, TVD=
2700m), the two layers are just separated by a thin tight
carbonate streak. The BHST is 62C. Formation is nearly 98%
Calcite and no fissures appear on imaging logs across the main
interval. The oil is sour (1% H2S), quite highly paraffinic
(26% by weight) and with a problematic high Wax
Appearance Temperature (WAT) of 35C (especially
considering that the permafrost extends down to 200m below
the surface). The well had been initially acid stimulated in
bullhead using HCl. In-situ Crosslinking Acid (ICA) and
soluble ball-sealers had been used in combination for
diversion purposes; pumping rates reaching 8 bpm.
Put on production, the well showed to be very unstable,
dying almost every day hence requiring frequent swabbing to
restart it. This behavior was thought derive from the low
productivity. Well A was then worked-over in March 2003 in
order to equip the well with an ESP completion. However this
well was still one of the lowest performers in the Kharyaga
field, with a PI estimated to 1 bopd/psi and a skin of +4.2.
Hence this well was considered for re-stimulation.
As discussed earlier, an acid fracturing treatment was
planned; Dipole Sonic logs coupled with core tests were used
to provide estimates of stress profiles and rock properties.
Some test values are given in table 1. A Leak-Off Test (LOT)
from a nearby well led to expect rather high fracturing
gradients, estimated to ~0.93 psi/ft.
The design of the acid-fracturing treatment was based on
alternations of cross-linked gel stages and 28% HCl stages.
Due to nature of the crude, drastic emulsion and sludge
prevention had to be implemented for the HCl (see fig 3). A
pre-flush of aromatic solvent was to be pumped to help reduce
the paraffin risk1. In order to improve robustness of the
fracturing gel to acid, a low pH gel was selected. Such a
system uses a Titanate crosslinker which render the
crosslinked gel non-rehealing (once sheared it degrades and
doesnt re-crosslink), hence a delay agent is added in an
attempt to initiate the crosslinking downhole, ideally just
entering the fracture. Such a system proved quite complex to
use in the Kharyaga weather conditions as the quality of the
gel (hydration and crosslinking) showed to be very sensitive to
temperature. The quality control test (Qa/Qc) showed that a
critical minimum fluid temperature of +25C was required to
ensure good gel properties! All gelled fluids (~250m3) were
therefore heated up over 40C prior to the job to allow for
some cooling. The mix water of the acid was also heated up to
minimize paraffin deposition.
The treatment was pumped through a temporary 4 tubing
string equipped with downhole gauges. A step rate test with
slick-water was performed, followed by a break-down test
(minifrac with cross-linked gel) and then the main acid
fracturing. Recordings of the surface rates and downhole
pressure are shown in fig 4 for the step rate test, in fig 5 for the
minifrac and in fig. 6 for the acid-fracturing treatment. The
step rate test didnt manage to reach a fracturation although
the BHP rose to 8300 psi. The minifrac was pumped with
20m3 of crosslinked gel at 20 bpm; it managed in-extremis to
break to formation, the surface pressure being just 500 psi
below the maximum allowed limit.
The main acid-fracturing treatment was pumped according to
the schedule given in table 2 pumping rates were increased
from an initial 20 bpm to 31 bpm. Here again, the surface
pressure rose to values close to the maximum allowed by the
tubulars. Following the treatment the pressure decline was
recorded over an extended period of time (92 hrs). In addition
post-fracturing thermal logging was performed. The flow-back
could only be started 19 days after the treatment and turned
SPE 102475
out to be quite delicate as gel residues were upsetting the
surface process and the flow-back of high density effluents
(spent 28% HCl has a density of 1.33) was very demanding for
the ESP.
Post-frac analysis
BHP, Pressure decline, BHT
Analysis of the BHP recordings during the minifrac
indicated a closure pressure of 8335 psi i.e. an equivalent
fracturing gradient of 0.93 psi/ft. The fracture extension
pressure during the minifrac was around 8700 psi. During the
main acid-fracturing treatment, the BHP rose to 8650 psi then
sharply decreased as the acid reached the formation. The
alternation of gel and acid stages can be seen on the plot of the
BHP given in fig 6. The final BHP value was 5070 psi. The
closure pressure (fig 7) during the acid fracturing was
estimated to 7874 psi (the difference with the minifrac comes
from poroelasticity effects), this corresponds to 0.88 psi/ft,
which is quite high for a depleted reservoir. The fracture
extension pressure was estimated to 8148 psi (0.91 psi/ft). The
lowermost BHT was 39C, implying that the heating of the
fluids had managed to prevent dropping below the wax
appearance temperature.
A second order derivative analysis described in the pressure
decline interpretation2 provides consistent frac etched length
for three different time periods corresponding to potentially 3
different flow behaviors. It is also consistent with etched
length and width estimate obtained from mass balance and
ISIP drop due to the volume of rock dissolved. The inferred
etched half-length is in the order of 60 ft. Such a fracture
would lead a skin of -3 (an equivalent radius of 7.4 ft) at an
Fcd of 0.8.
The decline analysis also showed no indication of fissure-
effects (i.e., CL / CR > 1) from the post-closure analyses of
either the minifrac or acidfrac. The absence of a natural
fracture (or fissure) effect should be expected for the
reservoirs relatively-large in situ effective stress (~ 5400 psi)
as related in C.Fredd et al. experimental data3.
Finally on the fall-off, since the well is depleted, the effect of
falling liquid level (when the surface pressure went to zero)
enabled to estimate an injectivity index after the fracture was
closed. This injectivity index, established when the BHP was
equal to the hydrostatic head (3845 psi), was essentially the
same as the one estimated from the ISIP of the acid-frac (i.e. at
5072 psi). These similar values appear to demonstrate that the
etched conductivity is retained for a BHP as low as 3845 psi.
This value is approximately 13 times that of the minifrac when
the surface pressure is lost.
Thermal log
A post-treatment thermal log was acquired with three
passes. The log is shown in fig 8, The first pass (in pink) was
acquired only 6 hours after pumping (rig-down of frac head),
the second (in yellow) 3 hours later and the third (in cyan)
after 3 more hours. A pseudo-baseline (blue) had been
acquired prior to running the temporary treatment string. The
term pseudo comes from the fact that, since this was a rig
operation, well control had to be ensured by compensating
losses, hence regularly pumping water (1.5 m3/hr at 43C for a
3
total of 155m3). In addition, the deviation of the well is 30,
the interpretation is therefore less straightforward.
The main thermal deflection on the early pass is located
towards the top of the interval (3417 m) and can be interpreted
as the point where the fracture intercepted the well. The re-
heating at this depth is fast as the treatment fluid was driven
away from the wellbore (the deviated well is not in the
fracture plane, it just intercepts it locally, see paragraph of
stress orientation on Well C). A second zone, located from
3437m to 3446m also displays a thermal inflection, the
deflection is smaller (less cooling) but the reheating is slower
than for the first zone; this can possibly be interpreted as an
area where more radial invasion occurred, leaving cold fluid
in the vicinity of the wellbore. The last fluid entry is seen at
3453m.
Pressure Build-Up Skin, IP
The post-treatment productivity of Well A can be
estimated on several parameters. Firstly, the production rate
has increase by approximately 700 bopd (50% increase). The
well became more stable with an average time on line without
interruption of 80 to 100 hrs (versus less than 24 hr prior to
intervention).
Secondly, PI estimations (derived from the ESP intake
pressure measurements) lead a post-frac value of 2 bopd/psi,
this corresponds to a doubling of the productivity index.
Finally, pre and post treatment pressure build-up were
recorded which allowed for direct comparison of skin values.
The superimposed pressure and derivatives are shown in fig-9.
The derivatives reach an equal stabilization (same k.h) and a
remarkable improvement of the skin value is observed. The
pre-treatment skin value was estimated to +4.8 when the post-
treatment skin is equal to -3. The absence of downhole closure
for the build-up unfortunately doesnt allow deriving the
fracture half-length value as the early time is dominated by
wellbore storage.
It is interesting to point out that the PI and skin evaluations
were made roughly one year after the treatment which
indicates that the fracture, despite being submitted to high
stress and draw-down over that period has retained a fair
conductivity.
Post treatment Production Logs
A production log was acquired after the treatment on Well-
A thanks to the presence of a Y-tool in the ESP set-up.
Although its interpretation was rendered difficult from the fact
that there is probably water recirculation (due to deviation), a
production profile was derived. It shows that the production
split is roughly 73% in the assumed fractured area (centred
over 3420m) and 27 % in area where the second cooling was
seen. The production profile can be seen on fig 10.
Conclusion from Well A
The lessons learnt during the treatment of well A can be
summarized as follow:
Despite rather adverse factors in the field (high
stresses, crude, weather) acid-fracturing could
successfully be implemented in Kharyaga.
4 SPE 102475
In terms of productivity, acid-fracturing treatment
proved to be an efficient way to re-stimulate a low
performer.
Although a successful operation, a lot could be
improved in terms of fluid reliability, workability and
flow-back.
Treatment Well B.
Historically, well B has been treated between the two acid-
fracturing treatments on Well A and Well C. Although this
well has not been acid-fractured (scope of this article) but
matrix-acidized the experience derived from its treatment is
worth discussing here as it served as a base for some of the
decisions that were made for the next acid-fracturing treatment
on Well C, in particular regarding treatment fluids and surface
equipment.
Background
Well B is an oil producer from Object 3, equipped with an
ESP and perforated over 40 m. The deviation at pay is around
40 degrees. The main reservoir of interest is composed of
nearly 95% of Carbonate (Calcite), some Illite clay (rarely
above 3%) with porosity ranging from 8 to 20%.
Permeabilities are in the 20 to 150 mD range. The remaining
portion of the perforated zone is a much siltier and less
permeable carbonate (0.1 to 10 mD)
The most relevant aspect to the discussion in terms of
treatment design is the oil characteristics. The oil produced is
quite significantly paraffinic with 17% by weight of N-
paraffins, moreover, the WAT is quite high at 29C for a
BHST of 42C, meaning that paraffin can potentially be an
issue with regards to both treatment-fluid/oil compatibility
(emulsion tendencies) and to wax-precipitation (by cooling
during squeezes or production. This aspect has led to
providing thermal insulation of the annular space by means
placement of gelled hydrocarbon as packer fluid. Density of
the oil is 0.82 kg/m3 (40API), H2S content is 0.5% mol;
viscosity is 1.7cp at bottom-hole temperature.
Well B was a decent producer with an initial PI value
estimated in 2004 to 2.8 bopd/psi and a skin value of -4. In
early 2005 a work-over operation had to be scheduled for ESP
upgrade purposes. In the process of the operation, during
which the upper completion was pulled, it is believed that the
formation was possibly exposed to packer fluid leading to
severe formation damage (extremely stable gelled-oil/water
emulsion). Indeed, the post-work-over PI had dropped to a
value as low as 1.1 bpd/psi, skin value was up to -0.7 as shown
on fig 11 and fig12.
A treatment was then planned, aiming at restoring the
productivity of the well.
Treatment design
A matrix-squeeze type of treatment was recommended
aiming at by-passing the damage by acid wormholing of the
carbonate formation and, due to the organic nature of the
damage plus the potential for paraffin precipitation, an
aromatic solvent was to be included in the treatment.
In order to provide zonal coverage, diversion was
recommended and several options were evaluated. Ball-sealer
diversion was excluded based on the fact that number of
perforation holes was too high (over 650) to ensure efficiency
of this type of diversion. In addition, the flow-back through
the ESP would call for soluble balls sealers which in our
experience are less dependable than regular non-soluble ones.
The use of a mechanical diversion tools, though probably the
best option in terms of diversion, again had to be excluded due
to equipment sourcing difficulties. Hence chemical diversion
was selected with a choice to make between a polymer-based
In-situ Crosslinking Acid (ICA) or a viscoelastic-surfactant-
based self-diverting-acids (SDVA).
Several reasons favoured the selection of an SDVA
system. First, a drive to minimize any potential polymer
damage to the formation led to select the non-polymeric
system, the issue of residual damage left by ICA systems has
been discussed extensively in the literature4,5,6,7,8,9 ,
furthermore, coreflood tests performed on low permeabilities
carbonates (<10mD) tend to show face-plugging by polymer,
refraining acid penetration and wormholing10. The concern
about residual polymer damage was enhanced by the fact that
the treatment was expected to reside in the formation for an
extended period of time (over 10 days) before being flowed-
back11. This resulted from the fact that the temporary
treatment string would have to be retrieved and the ESP
completion ran back in hole.
In addition, a drawback of ICA systems, inherent from the
fact they are Iron-Crosslinked, is the difficulty to control Iron
compound precipitation in particular in presence of H2S12,13
which is the case in Kharyaga object 2 and 3 crudes.
Now, the risk in using an SDVA system for the treatment
was the paraffinic nature of the crude. Such crudes are known
to be problematic with ViscoElastic Surfactant (VES) systems
as there is an increased tendency to form emulsions. Also,
VES diverter systems, the viscosity of which is expected to
break upon contact with hydrocarbons during the flow-back,
are much harder to break with paraffinic crude simply because
longer hydrocarbons have a lower solubility in micelles which
is a requirement for breaking. Laboratory tests showed that the
emulsion tendency could be controlled with the right set of
additives but breaking was not achieved with Well B crude.
To provide the necessary breaking, aromatic solvent stages
were included in the treatment sequence; this also served our
goal of tackling organic and potential paraffins damage.
However, in order not to break immediately the SDVA during
placement (aromatic solvents are powerful breakers of VES
systems), the aromatic solvent was pumped under an acid-
solvent direct-emulsion form (HCl as the outside/continuous
phase, solvent as the dispersed phase). HCl concentration in
both fluids was 15%.
The treatment was pumped in bull-head and squeeze rates
achieved were close to 7 bpm, no adverse reactions were
noticed during from the pressure response. Well B was then
flowed-back upon installation of the ESP i.e. 12 days later, no
emulsion were noted.
The post-treatment PI was later evaluated using the intake
pressure gauges of the ESP and its value was back from 1.1
bpd/psi to a value of 2.0 bpd/psi. The treatment fluids had
hence achieved a significant restoration of the potential of
Well B. Note that the pre-workover PI estimation of 2.8
bopd/psi was performed prior to water breakthrough which is
SPE 102475
observed in the field to induce PI decline, so prior to the work-
over the PI was probably less than 2.8 blpd/psi.
Moreover, the treatment had been performed in the winter,
with a surface temperature of -25C and despite serious
hardship for the team, the fluids proved to be much easier to
mix and to meet the Qa/Qc specifications than what we had
encountered during our experience on Well A. The flow-back
was also found easier than on Well A probably because
effluent were lighter (lower concentration of HCl), better
broken (solvent) and possibly less problematic to leave in the
formation during the static period prior to flow-back than a
polymer fluid.
Conclusions from Well B.
The matrix treatment on Well B served to demonstrate
three main points:
The Solvent-HCl and SDVA systems were performing
fluids despite the challenging nature of the crude.
These systems were much easier to implement in the
adverse conditions of Kharyaga.
The flow-back was improved in comparison to Well
A.
Treatment Well C.
Well C was the second candidate for re-stimulation identified
during the productivity study.
Well C is a side track from an abandoned horizontal drain.
This well is perforated in a 4 liner over the same formations
as Well-A (Gamma Inf. and gamma Sup.). Since the deviation
at pay-zone is 57 degrees, the perforated interval is now close
to 80m long.
Well-C had been originally matrix-stimulated after
perforation. The lower interval (40 m on gamma Inf.) had been
isolated with a treating-packer and stimulated selectively with
15% HCl, diversion was done using In Situ Crosslinking Acid
and soluble ball-sealers. Then the packer was moved up and a
second stimulation was performed during which the upper
interval (untreated yet) was treated together with the lower
interval (already stimulated). The same type of fluids were
used, squeeze rates reached only 5 bpm.
The well was then completed with an ESP and a 4
tubing anchored in the 9 5/8 inch casing.
It was observed that this first stimulation had not been very
efficient, the PI was one the lowest in the field, with value
between 0.5 and 0.9 bopd/psi and a positive skin of +1 was
estimated.
Generally speaking, Well-C production was very unstable,
the well quitting after 12hr of production and swabbing
required to restart it. Finally, a production log was acquired
that demonstrated that only the upper interval was contributing
to flow, the lower interval didnt produce.
The good results of Well-A and the fact that, despite two
matrix treatments, Well-C was sill not performing prompted to
consider acid-fracturing this well too to improve its
productivity.
Capitalizing on the experience of Well B, with the easier
handling at surface in cold weather conditions and easier flow-
back, and for the same reasons driving us to favour a polymer-
free fluid, we were encouraged to attempt the SDVA and
5
solvent-HCl systems on Well C (although its an object-3 well,
with higher (26%) paraffin content).
On a flow-back stand-point, being all reactive fluids (no
inert gel stages), another benefit was to have less fluid
altogether for a same dissolution.
A challenge was also to try to target the lower interval.
Simulations had shown that, should the fracture initiate in the
upper interval (which was a likely scenario), it would not grow
enough (with reasonable volumes) towards the lower interval
(Gamma Inf.). Hence a discussion on how to try to initiate the
fracture in the Gamma Inf. took place. Due to the liner
configuration (a 4 hanged in the 7 inch casing), running a
positive isolation tool in between the two interval was deemed
very risky. With the upper interval located above the treating-
packer, the risk of being stuck after the treatment was high and
the annulus could get exposed to pressure. Therefore the
packer had to be set above both perforated intervals. Hence, in
this attempt to preferentially target the lower interval, it was
decided to run a 2 7/8 tail pipe in the liner across perforations
down to the bottom of perforations, thereby forcing the fluid
to go first across the lower interval before reaching the upper
one. With an outside diameter of 2.88 inch and 3.51 inch at
couplings in the 3.96 internal diameter of the liner, the
annulus in the liner was small enough (~0.23 to 1 inch) to
generate a pressure drop that would hopefully favour
placement in the lower interval.
Proximity of the drain Stress orientation.
Yet another difficulty was the presence of the nearby
horizontal drain that had been abandoned. This drain was
considered a risk for the fracturing operation should the
fracture intercept the drain (definitely so if a propped frac had
been planned) as well as for production since the drain had
never been cleaned and was still full of mud. The location of
the drain is given in fig 13 (each small square represents 10
m). To evaluate this risk, an assessment of the fracture
orientation was required: would the fracture go towards or
away from the drain? Fortunately on this field, extensive
imaging log acquisition had been perfomed on several wells
after drilling. The images from 9 wells were analyzed for
presence of break-outs14,15,16 . Thanks to the stress anisotropy,
many clear break-outs could be picked and since the wells
paths covered a wide range of azimuths and deviations, a
fairly accurate inversion of the break-outs could be done. The
output from the analysis is shown on fig 14, and inferred an
orientation of the maximum horizontal stress at North-130.
Since Well-C has an azimuth of 330, this meant that we had a
small but acceptable margin in terms of half-length before the
fracture would intercept the drain.
Another interesting point derived from the analysis was
that the vertical stress was the intermediate one (v = 2)
The ratio v over hmin was estimated to 1.2 which is in
agreement with the closure pressure estimated on Well A of
0.88 psi/ft and an overburden estimated between 0.99 and 1.04
psi/ft (the vertical stress value is close but with a reasonable
margin to minimum horizontal stress).
Finally, note that in the case of Well-A, with an azimuth of
37, the (vertical) fracture plane would be nearly
6 SPE 102475
perpendicular to the vertical plane containing the well path
(which seems in agreement with the thermal log and PLT).
Well-C operation
The treatment was based on 3 alternations of the HCl-
Solvent and SDVA, each roughly 15m3 in volume. It was
pumped through the treatment string described earlier on.
Unfortunately, no downhole recordings could be acquired.
The surface operation, fluid mixing and meeting of Qa/Qc
specifications proved to be indeed much simpler than for the
acid-fracturing treatment of Well-A, even at the scale of an
acid fracturing treatment the learnings from Well-B could be
applied.
The treatment was pumped without incidents and a maximum
rate of 22 bpm was achieved (against 5 bpm during the
previous stimulations). Note that at such rates with SDVA
fluids, it was found more efficient (less risk to loose prime) to
use high a capacity centrifugal pump to feed the High Pressure
pumps rather than classical a fracturing blender, the SDVA
being more viscous in its initial state than most linear gels
usually sucked by blenders.
Following the main fracturing treatment, a volume of
approximately 10m3 of acid was pumped at low rate (below
fracture reopening pressure) in an attempt to enhance the
wellbore-fracture connectivity as the well is very deviated.
In the case of such wells, the fracture plane will usually not
coincide with the well plane: the fracture and wellbore will
intersect at only one point. This means that the fluid flow
inside the fracture converges close to the wellbore. So near
wellbore, the conductivity needs to be high to prevent a
detrimental pressure-loss inside the fracture. If acid is pumped
into the frac below frac pressure (and after facture closure),
wormholes are generated along the frac face that create a lot of
conductivity. This conductivity will not be very stress-
dependent because it is created while the frac is already
closed17,18.
As no downhole gauges were available, the interpretation
of the pressure response is difficult; No pressure decline could
be interpreted since the well is depleted and surface pressure
rapidly went to zero. A step rate test, performed with water
prior to the main job, gives us a reference at 9.8 bpm with a
surface pressure of 2960 psi; the corresponding ISIP was 725
psi. Under the same rate, the post treatment surface pressure
was now down to 800 psi and the corresponding ISIP was 125
psi indicating significant improvement to the injectivity.
The treatment string was retrieved without difficulties and the
ESP completion installed. The well was then flowed-back (11
days after treatment) without indications of emulsions or
paraffins. The ESP was able to lift treatment effluents more
easily (i.e. without over-load) than what had been observed on
Well A with the 28% HCl and polymer-gel treatment.
In terms of productivity, the well is still under evaluation at
the time of writing however from the currently available
intake pressure measurements of the ESP, an IP of 1.9
bopd/psi and a rate of 3000 bopd was recorded after 22hrs of
production. This PI is really still only a transient one, thereby
an overestimation, however, it still offers a positive base for
comparison since this well was previously quitting after 12hr
only of production. Monitoring is on-going.
Lessons learnt
The learnings from these treatments are various and cover
both operational points and field knowledge aspects
Complex polymer-based fracturing fluids such as low-pH
Titanate-cross-linked gel proved difficult to handle in the
Kharyaga field (surface) conditions. Such system can be
used, however efficient heating equipment and drastic
Qa/Qc are critical to the success of the treatment.
Systems such as VES viscosified acids proved easier to
handle at surface to meet required Qa/Qc specifications in
Kahryaga field conditions.
Evaluations based on ESP intake pressure measurement,
show that one year after performing the acid-fracturing
treatment, the PI of well A is about 2 to 2.5 times higher
than the pre-treatment PI suggesting that the conductivity
of the etched fracture has remained to decent level over
this period of observation and despite significantly high
stresses. This comforts the choice of an acid fracturing
treatment rather than a propped one for our conditions.
VES treatment fluids have been satisfactorily used on two
wells (one in matrix mode the other in fracturing mode)
producing highly parafinic crudes.
The stress field evaluation derived from the break-outs
analysis and openhole imaging logs, though more of a
wellbore stability technique, was a useful decision tool for
fracturing Well B as it help evaluating the possibilities of
the fracture to intercept a nearby abandoned horizontal
drain. In addition it was complementary to pressure
decline analysis for our comprehension of the stresses in
Kharyaga.
Conclusions
As we saw, a few valuable points were derived from the
experience of the treatments in Kharyaga. In summary we can
conclude that:
Despite adverse conditions, acid fracturing proved to be
an efficient type of treatment to improve the PI of two oil
producers in the Kharyaga field.
This type of treatment, succeeded in re-stimulating wells
that had previously been treated (sometimes twice).
Acid-fracturing type of treatments, which are usually less
scrutinized than propped-fracturing, had here a rather
unusually comprehensive set of data. Results from
different sources (such as stress information from pressure
decline versus break-out analysis, thermal log versus
fracture orientation or PBU-derived skins versus inferred
frac length) seem to be in decent agreement.
Further monitoring and treatments in the Kharyaga field will
hopefully bring even more insight to the interesting chapter of
acid-fracturing above the polar circle!
Nomenclature
BHST = Bottom Hole Static Temperature
BHP = Bottom Hole Pressure
BHT = bottom Hole Temperature
bpd = Barrel per day
blpb = barrels of liquid per day
bpm = barrels per minute
bopd = barrels of oil per day
SPE 102475 7

CT = Coiled Tubing 9. Safwat, M., Nasr-El-Din, H., Dosary K.,McClelland K.,

ESP = Electrical Submersible Pump Samuel M. Enhancement of Stimulation Treatment of
Fcd = Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity Water Injection Wells Using a New Polymer-Free
ICA = In-situ Crosslinking Acid Diversion System Paper SPE 78588 presented at the 10th
Abu Dhabi Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, 13*-15
ISIP = Instantaneous Shut-In Pressure October 2002.
Qa/Qc = Quality assurance/Quality control 10. Internal document. Raport sur les essais de self-diverting
PBU = Pressure Build-Up acids. Total CSTJF. Pau- France.
PI = Productivity index 11. Internal document: Long term formation damage from
PLT = Production Logging Tool fracturing fluid leak-off on core simple. Total E&P-CSTJF-
Psi = pounds per square inch Pau France.
SDVA = Self-Diverting Viscoelastic Acid 12. H.A. Nasr-El-Din, S.H. Al-Mutairi, M. Al-Jari, A.S.
VES = Visco-Elastic Surfactant Metcalf, W. Walters. Stimulation of a Deep Sour Gas
WAT = Wax Appearance Temperature Reservoir Using Gelled Acid SPE 75501 presented at the
SPE Gas Technology Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta,
v = Vertical stress (overburden) Canada, 30 April2 May 2002.
hmin = minimum horizontal stress 13. Al-Humaidan A., Nasr-El-Din H. Optimization of
Hydrogen Slfide Scavangers Used during Well
Stimulation. Paper SPE 50765 presented at the SPE
Acknowledgments International symposium on oilfield Chemistry, Houston,
The authors would like to express their appreciation to co- Texas, 16-19 February 1999
workers who contributed to the preparation of this publication: 14. Internal Document.Kharyaga fractures study report-1.
Claude Pernin. Total E&P. CSTJF. Pau-France.
Elena Golistyna for reservoir monitoring, Jean-Baptiste
15. A.Etchecopar: Log and Image for Stress Analysis.
Chevalier for fracturing design engineering,, Ken Nolte for his Schlumberger presentation.
in depth analysis of the pressure decline, Arnaud Etchecopar 16. A.Etchecopar. Kharyaga Borestress analysis. Internal
for the analysis of the stress field from Break-Outs, Claude document. TEPR.
Pernin for the imaging log interpretation and finally, Pascal 17. S.E. Fredrickson, Stimulating Carbonate Formations
Guitienne & Denis Triscos for onsite assistance on the rig. Using a Closed Fracture Acidizing Technique. Paper SPE
14654 presented at the East Texas Regional Meeting of the
References society of Petroleum Engineers held in Tyler, Texas,
1. Sutton, G.D., Roberts, L.D. Paraffin Precipitation During April21-22, 1966.
Fracture Stimulation. Paper SPE 4411. Presented at the 18. MS, Anderson, and S.E, Fredrickson, Dynamic Etching
SPE-AIME Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper Tests Aid Fracture Acidizing Treatment Design. Paper
Wyo, May 15-16 1973. SPE/DOE 16452. SPE/DOE Low Permeability Reservoirs
2. Internal report. Analysis of Injection Testing and Acid Symposium held in Denver, Colorado, May 18-19, 1987.
Fracture for Kharyaga Well-A Total E&P Russia.
3. Fredd C. et al. Experimental Study of Hydraulic fracture
Conductivity SPE 60326.
4. Lynn J. and Nasr-El-Din, H.:A core based comparison of
the reaction characteristics of emulsified and in-situ gelled
acids in low permeabilitiy, high temperature, gas bearing
carbonates paper SPE 65386 presented at the 2001
International symposium on oilfield Chemistry, Houston,
Texas, 13-16 February 2001.
5. Lungwitz B., Fredd C., Brady M., Miler M., Ali S.:
Diversion and Cleanup studies of viscoelastic surfactant-
based self-diverting acid. Paper SPE 65386 presented at
the International symposium on oilfield Chemistry,
Houston, Texas, 13-16 February 2001.
6. Taylor K., Nasr-El-Din H., Laboratory Evaluation of In-
Situ Gelled Acids for Carbonate Reservoirs, paper SPE
71694, presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in New Orlean, Louisiana,
30 sept-3 Oct 2001..
7. Mohamed S., Nasr-El-Din, H., Al-Fraidan, Y Acid
Stimulation of Power Water Injectors and Saltwater
Disposal Wells in a Carbonate Reservoir in Saudi Arabia:
Laboratory Testing and Field Results. Paper SPE 56533
prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston,
Texas, 36 October 1999.
8. Al-Mutawa, M. et al. Zero Damaging Stimulation and
Diversion Fluid: Field Cases from the Carbonate
Formations in North Kuwait. Paper SPE 80225.
8 SPE 102475

Table 1: Rock properties

TIME INJECTION RECORD PRESSURE (Bar)

TYPE OF FLUID RATE M3/MIN INCREMENT VOL. M3 CUMLATIVE VOL.M3 CASING TUBING
09/05/2005
18:33 Slick Water 1.9 5.0 109.0 35 3
18:36 Solvent 0.6 10.0 114.0 38 4
18:43 Slick Water 0.3 9.0 124.0 38 145
19:13 Gel 3.1 14.2 133.0 40 276
19:18 28X 3.1 14.5 147.2 44 404
19:23 Gel 3.5 13.4 161.7 37 369
19:26 28X 4.2 15.2 175.1 39 402
19:30 Gel 4.5 13.0 190.3 31 304
19:33 28X 4.5 14.2 203.3 34 318
19:36 Gel 4.8 13.3 217.5 29 272
19:39 28X 5.0 14.2 230.8 32 292
19:42 Gel 5.0 14.0 245.0 30 282
19:45 28X 5.0 13.3 259.0 32 274
19:47 Gel 4.9 13.2 272.3 30 287
19:50 28X 4.9 13.5 285.5 32 248
19:53 Gel 4.9 13.5 299.0 30 279
19:55 28X 4.8 10.0 312.5 30 277
19:57 Gel 4.8 12.0 322.5 31 233
19:59 28X 4.8 10.0 334.5 32 266
20:01 Slick Water 4.8 27.7 344.5 29 117
20:07 Slick Water 3.6 25.4 372.2 36 216
20:14 397.6
Table 2: Well-A Acid fracturing sequences
SPE 102475 9

Normalized Well PI (bopd/psi)

250%
222% Average

200%
Well A
148%
150% Well C
118%
100% Well D
96%
100% 79% Well E
Well F
50% 25% Well G
12%
Well H
0%
e

lG
lC

lD

lH
lF
lA

lE
ag

el
el

el

el

el

el

el
er

W
W

W
Av

Figure 1: Normalized Productivity Indices Figure 4: BHP during Step Rate Test

Skin Values

6
4.8
5
4
Well A
3
Well C
2 Well D
1
1 Well E
0 Well F

-1 Well A Well C Well D Well E Well F Well G Well H Well G

Well H
-2
-3 -2.5
-4 -3.2 -3.2
Figure 4: BHP & Rate during minifrac

Figure 1: Skin Values

28% Live HCl acid & Figure 6: BHP during Acid-fracturing of Well-A
3000ppm Fe3+

Figure 3: Acid & oil mixtures (without and with additives) Figure 7: Closure pressure Well-A acid-frac
10 SPE 102475

Zone3

Zone2

Zone1

Figure 8: Thermal log Well-A

Figure 10: Post Frac PLT Well-A

Figure 9: Pre- and post-frac PBU - Well-A

SPE 102475 11

- 1 000 - 950 - 900 - 850 - 800

2 400

- - - :Frac Plane N-130

2 350

Open hole
horizontal drain
900 mD.m
1200 mD.m 2 300

Bottom Perfos
1600 mD.m

Top Perfos
2 250

Figure 11: Pre-Work-Over PBU- Well-B initial 50m

2 200

Figure 13: Well-C and abandoned drain location

Figure 12: Post-Work-Over PBU- Well-B damaged

Figure 14: Stress Analysis from Break-Outs.