SPE 84916
Massive Hydraulic Fracturing – A Case History in Western Siberia, Russia
N. Nor-Azlan, SPE, and A.I. Sanchez, Schlumberger, I.R. Diyashev, SPE, Sibneft, Russia
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery
Conference in Asia Pacific held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20–21 October 2003.
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
Hydraulic fracturing has been the choice for well stimulation
in Russia to enhance production for quite some time now. It
was not until recently the treatment design has increased in
size and magnitude in order to heed the country’s aggressive
production enhancement strategy to meet the local and
international demand. The focus of this paper is to discuss the
technical and operational applicability of Massive Hydraulic
Fracturing (MHF) strategy to enhance production in the
Russian oil fields. A case history of the first well that was
treated with MHF is provided. The well reflects the large
majority of Russian oil wells, especially in the Western
Siberian region, which have tremendous potential to enhance
production via this strategy. The well falls in the low to
intermediate permeability category (less than 1 to 50 md),
which can often be converted to be excellent high producing
wells by effective hydraulic fracturing technology coupled
with proper artificial lifting system. A comprehensive
technical analysis of the well before and after the treatment is
provided. This includes production analysis using decline
and/or type curve analysis before and after treatment,
formation evaluation, well performance analysis to estimate
the incremental gain, and forecasting. The design and
operational aspects of the hydraulic fracturing treatment is also
discussed. The results were encouraging. The production
increased by more than double after the hydraulic fracturing
treatment with relatively low water cut to date. The well was
able to flow naturally after the treatment for a few months
before artificial lift is installed.
Introduction
Hydraulic fracturing has been an established choice for well
stimulation in Russia to enhance production. Recently, the size
and magnitude of fracturing treatments have increased in order
to keep pace with the country’s aggressive production
enhancement strategy. In Sibneft, the fracturing treatment size
has increased from an average of 22 tons up to more than 80
tons of proppant. The treatment size is increasing steadily
from small to medium scale for the last three years, and
recently, to the point of massive.
The definition of Massive Hydraulic Fracturing (MHF) is
rather arbitrary as reported in several published literatures
pertaining to the subject.1-8 In general, MHF simply refers to
very large treatments, typically an order of magnitude larger
than the conventional fracturing procedures. In Russia, MHF
is referred to as having a treatment of more than 150 tons of
proppant. The main goal of MHF is to expose larger surface
area of the low-permeability formation, compared to the
conventional procedures, to flow into the wellbore, thereby
significantly increase well productivity.
This paper discusses the technical applicability, including
the operational feasibility of deploying massive fracturing
strategy, to aggressively enhance production in the Russian oil
fields. The main focus is to demonstrate via case history that
MHF can strategically be adopted as one of the techniques to
stimulate wells and rapidly enhance production in Russia;
especially for the oil fields in the Western Siberian region. A
documented case history of one of the first wells treated with
MHF in Russia is provided in order to show the applicability
of the strategy.
Well 1102 from Pad 153 of Vyngayakhinskoe field, BP12
formation, has been selected in this analysis. The well is one
good example to reflect the characteristics of large majority of
Russian oil wells, which falls in the low to intermediate
permeability category of less than one up to 50 md. A
comprehensive and systematic well performance analysis
using production type curve and analytical transient solution
models, before and after the treatment is discussed. This
includes discussions of fracture design and issues associated
with the workover and optimization operations.
Field and Formation Descriptions
Vyngayakhinskoe field is located in the Western Siberian
region. It is an upper cretaceous undersaturated reservoir,
which comprised of three major productive formations, BP11,
BP12, and BP16. The main focus of this paper is on the BP12
formation, where production development and enhancement
activities have been quite active recently.
The map and the regional location of the wells producing
from BP12 formation are shown in Figure 1. There is only one
injector in the region, which is located 400 m to the north of
Well 1102. All other wells in the vicinity are oil producers.
2 SPE 84916
1101
1952 1953
Exploration Well
Oil Producer 1102 2131 1106
TA'd Injector
TA'd Producer
Water Injector
2113 1103
Figure 1 – Location of the Wells Penetrated in the BP12 formation
The BP12 formation consists of two sub-formations, BP121
and BP122. Figure 2 shows the typical log of BP12 formation
taken from Well 1102. The depth of BP121 formation for Well
1102 is 2646 to 2673 m MD, and BP122 is from 2675 to 2700
m MD. Based on the petrophysical analysis, both zones are oil
saturated, and lithologically, they are not communicating. The
basic characteristics of the formation can be categorized as
fairly thick sandstone with some shale streaks in between,
where the lower BP122 formation has cleaner sandstone than
the upper BP121 formation.
Figure 2 – SP/CILD Logs (taken from Well 1102, BP12 formation)
The average permeability of BP12 formation is in the range of
one md up to 16 md, and porosity is between 16 to 21%
depending on the location and region in the field.
Petrophysical analysis determined that the permeability ratio
of BP121 to BP122 is 1:1.39. For Well 1102, the average
permeability of BP121 formation is from one to 1.8 md, while
BP122 is in the range of 3.8 to 4.5 md. The average oil
saturated net thickness is about 50 m (combining both BP121
and BP122 formations). The initial reservoir pressure is
230 atm.
Production History Analysis of Well 1102
The purpose of this production history analysis is to gain an
in-depth understanding of the production performance of Well
1102, so that proper solutions can be recommended to improve
the well’s productivity. The main goals of the analysis are to
analyze the well’s production performance in general and
specifically, to estimate the fundamental reservoir parameters
based on the matching of the production history, using
advanced decline curve analysis. The detailed analyses
performed on the well are described in the Appendix.
Figure 3 shows the production profile of Well 1102 for the
last 2 years. The production history can be divided into three
distinct time periods. This section only discusses the
production performance of the first two periods. The
performance analysis after MHF will be discussed in the Post-
MHF Production Analysis Section.
250 100%
Liquid Rate (ton/d) Pwf (atm) Water Cut (%)
200 MHF treatment in 80%
BP121 with 216 tons
Liquid Rate & Flowing BHP
proppant; natural flow
150 60%
Water Cut
Small scale fracturing
treatment from BP122;
pump installed
100 40%
Natural flow
period from
BP122 only
50 20%
0 0%
0 200 400 600 800
Time (Days)
Figure 3 – Production and Flowing Bottomhole Pressure History
of Well 1102
Initial Production Period (Natural Flow)
The well began production in July 2000 from the BP122
formation (refer to the perforated intervals on the log in Figure
2). Initially, the well was flowing naturally at the rate of about
30 tons/day (36 m3/day). After about a year of production, the
rate declined steadily to less than 10 tons/day (12 m3/day). The
water cut remained low during the production period except
some sporadic encroachment into the wellbore.
Observation on the production history shows that the
decline was mainly due to the high and gradual increase of the
flowing bottomhole pressure, which was possibly due to
relatively high wellhead pressure (fluctuating between 25 to
40 atm according to the well reports) for the natural flow well,
and the sporadic encroachment of water in the wellbore which
caused the increase in tubing pressure. The decline in rate was
SPE 84916 3

further exacerbated by the depletion of the reservoir pressure, increased slightly from less than 200 atm to about 215-220
and to a certain extent, formation damage. atm as a result of the injection activity.
The production analysis for the period is described in the
Appendix. The permeability and skin factor for the well were First Fracturing Job Period
estimated to be 4.4 md and 1.3, respectively. The permeability In May 2001, a small scale fracturing treatment (less than 12
value estimated is within the range expected for BP122 tons of proppant) was performed on the well. The job was
formation. The average reservoir pressure declined from the performed on the existing perforated intervals in BP122
initial value of 230 atm to about 200 atm, which is consistent formation. An artificial lift system was also installed to further
and in the range of the available measured data observed in the optimize the well performance. The production increased up
surrounding wells (Wells 1103, 1106, 1952, and 2131), to an average of 75 tons/day (90 m3/day) as shown in Figure 3.
between 180 to 205 atm. The analysis also shows that the well The production remained stable for more than a year with
was slightly damaged, which also might contribute to the relatively low water cut. No data is available to perform any
declining production. in-depth analysis on the fracturing performance and its
All the parameters estimated from the production analysis geometry. To investigate the performance of the fracture, the
were utilized in generating the inflow and outflow curves for production analysis described in the Appendix was applied.
the well for this period. Figure 4 shows the inflow and outflow The results show that the well only managed to reduce the
performance curves for the well. The performance plots skin factor from 1.3 to -0.05 after the small scale fracturing
satisfactorily matched the actual data, which reflect the treatment. The results reflect that the formation was indeed
parameters estimated using the production history matching stimulated, albeit not significantly. The permeability estimated
analysis are reasonable. For the vertical outflow curve, the was about 4.2 md, which is closely matched with the value of
combination of Murkherjee-Brill (1983) and Hagedorn-Brown the previous period, 4.4 md.
(1963) correlations fit the actual production data the best. The It is important to note that even though the results obtained
Hagedorn-Brown (1963) correlation was utilized in the seem reasonable, there are several issues that need to be
calculation at tubing depth below 1400 m MD. clarified when using the techniques to analyze the intermediate
production period, especially for Well 1102. This is due to the
250 limitations of the decline curve model itself to represent the
changing reservoir system and production conditions. Despite
Matching of the early time
200
production data using the inherent limitations, with careful engineering manipulation
Darcy’s Transient Model
A and analytical judgment, some useful conclusions could be
made on the performance of the well using the techniques.
150
Pressure, atm

100
As described in the Appendix, to match the production
data, the average reservoir pressure has to decline from the
Matching of the late
50 production period using average current reservoir pressure of 220 atm to less than 160
Darcy-Vogel’s Model

2 1
atm. This is certainly not true in reality because as shown in
0
0 20 40 60
Liquid Rate, m³/d
80 100 120 Figure 5, the performance curves only matched with the actual
Not Used
Inflow (1) Outflow (A) Inflow
production data at an average reservoir pressure of 215 atm
(using k = 4.4 md, and S = -0.05 estimated from the type curve
Case 2 ( 2) Case 2 (B)
Multiple Sensitivities
Not Used Not Used
Not Used Not Used
Not Used
Not Used
Not Used
Not Used
Reg: Authorized User - Schlumberger Inc.
analysis). In fact, the region was pressure-maintained via the
injector 1953. Therefore, it is unlikely that the reservoir
Not Used

Figure 4 – Production Performance Matching using the Actual

pressure would decline so drastically.
Data from the Initial Period
250

From the performance plots, it can be observed that the

well has several opportunities for further enhancement: 200 Production matching at
stabilized rate; Pr
declined only slightly from
220 to 215 atm
150

1. Stimulation of the well via fracturing to increase the well

Pressure, atm

productivity (i.e. bypass the damaged zone in the critical 100

Initial production matching
matrix) Before the small
after fracturing using
Darcy’s Transient Model
scale fracturing job
2. Installation of artificial uplift system to increase the well 50
A

drawdown 3 5 24 1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Liquid Rate, m³/d

Both initiatives could be pursued to enhance the well Not Used

Inflow (1)
1102_ESP_FRAC.txt
Outflow (A) Inflow

productivity, however, to sustain the production in the long

Case 2 ( 2) Case 2 (B)
Multiple Sensitivities
Case 3 ( 3) Case 3 (C)
Case 4 ( 4) Case 4 (D)

run; the regional reservoir pressure must effectively be Case 5 ( 5)

Not Used
Case 5 (E)
Not Used
Reg: Authorized User - Schlumberger Inc.

maintained. In order to accomplish this, Well 1953, which is

Not Used

located 400 m to the north of Well 1102 was converted into an Figure 5 – Production Performance Matching using the Actual
injector (see location map on Figure 1). The average injection Data from the First Fracturing Period
rate for the well was 100 m3/day. Some limited measured data
available shows that the reservoir pressure in the region
4 SPE 84916

Another important parameter is the drainage area. The 250

drainage area obtained from the analysis was 470,200 m2, Predicted performance curves

which is about 2.5 times more than the estimated value from 200 combining both BP121 and
BP122 formations; varying skin

the previous analysis. Even though the difference is rather factor from -2 to -5
A
Pwf = 150 atm
large, this parameter does not affect significantly in the
150

Pressure, atm
production prediction. However, it could be crucial when 100 Pwf = 100 atm
B

considering the cumulative production and recovery of the

well, which is not the main focus of this analysis. Matching
50
of last data
before re-fracturing Pwf = 50 atm
C

In spite of the model inherent limitations, there are several 1 2 3 4 5

useful conclusions that can still be extracted from the analysis 0

0 50 100 150
Liquid Rate, m³/d
200 250 300

provided that all the available information (well performance

Outflow
Not Used
Inflow (1) Outflow (A) (A) 150.000
Inflow
(B) 100.000

and log analyses, understanding of the previous

Case 2 ( 2) Case 2 (B)
Multiple Sensitivities
Case 3 ( 3) Case 3 (C) (C) 50.000
Case 4 ( 4) Case 4 (D) Outflow

injection/production activities in the region, etc.) are linked Case 5 ( 5)

Not Used
Not Used
Case 5 (E)
Not Used
Wellhead Pressure, atm

Reg: Authorized User - Schlumberger Inc.

and put together into perspective. From the analysis, it is

obvious that the well was not fully stimulated after the initial
fracturing job. The results of the production analysis and the
matching of the inflow and outflow performance curves with
the actual data support this conclusion. Further observation on
the performance curves also reflects that the bulk of the
production increase during this period was mainly due to the
installation of the artificial lift system, which increased the
well drawdown, rather than the stimulation job itself.
Figure 6 – Inflow Performance Curves after MHF by Varying the
1 2
Skin Factor (both BP12 and BP12 formations)
MHF Treatment Design
This section discusses the MHF treatment design for Well
1102. All issues related to completion technique, data
calibration and treatment design before the executions
are provided.

Production Enhancement Potential Completion Technique

Based on the discussions provided thus far, it can be
concluded that there are still opportunities to enhance the
production of Well 1102. Production history analyses provided
in the previous sections clearly show that the formation was
not fully stimulated to capitalize the whole potential of the
well. Only the lower BP122 formation was stimulated, and
even that the stimulation was not very successful. It was
believed that the small scale-fracturing job performed on the
well did not fully stimulate the thick sandstone formation of
more than 50 m covering the BP121 and BP122 formations. In
order to capitalize the whole potential of the well, a massive
scale hydraulic fracturing treatment was recommended. With
proper completion procedure and treatment design, it is
possible to stimulate both formations by one massive
fracturing treatment.
A simple sensitivity analysis was performed, by varying
the skin factor and flowing bottomhole pressure, to evaluate
the potential of the well if this massive re-stimulation is
pursued. Figure 6 shows the inflow and outflow performance
curves of the well by combining both BP121 and BP122
formations. Rather than treating the formations separately in
the analysis, the combined average properties of both
formations were utilized. In quantifying the production
potential, the average permeability of both formations was
utilized, between 2.5 to 4 md.
The performance curves show that the well has tremendous
potential to enhance production by re-stimulation. The shaded
area in Figure 6 shows the potential enhancement region.
From the figure, for a short-term gain, it can be observed that
the well could increase production up to a minimum stabilized
rate of 120 m3/day. This increase of production is at least
double than the last stabilized rate. Manipulating the flowing
bottomhole pressure can enhance more production, by either
adjusting the wellhead pressure for natural flow well, or
installing proper artificial lift system right after re-fracturing.
A selective completion procedure was recommended prior to
re-fracturing Well 1102 with MHF. This selective procedure is
crucial due to the nature of the formation, which requires
careful optimization of the fracture geometry to cover the
whole net pay zone, and also to prevent the possibility of
solids flowback problem after fracturing.
Well 1102 was previously perforated and stimulated in the
BP122 formation from the interval of 2679 to 2699 m MD (see
Figure 2). The existing perforations were covered with sand
to a depth of 2668 m MD. In order for the treatment to cover
the entire productive intervals (BP121 formation, including the
existing fractured interval in BP122), a new set of perforations
was carefully designed and placed at depth of 2652 to 2666 m
MD (in the BP121 formation).
Fracture Treatment Formation Parameters
Before designing the main fracturing treatment, it is
imperative to determine the correct formation parameters for
the design. This is very crucial in order to optimize the
treatment design for the well. Using DataFRAC coupled with
mini fall-off, and sand slug analysis, the fluid leak-off, Youngs
modulus, fluid efficiency, in-situ stress and fracture gradient
were calibrated. Table 1 shows the designed and calibrated
parameters obtained.
Table 1 - Designed and Calibrated Formation
Parameters
Parameter Design DataFRAC
Leak Off Coefficient (m/s 0.5) 1.2 E -4 1.3 E -4
Average Insitu Stress (Kpa) 39000 32500
Young’s Modulus (Kpa) 1.379 E +7 2.132 E +7
Fracture Gradient (Kpa/m) 14.5 11.5
SPE 84916 5

These parameters were utilized in the MHF treatment design be located within the minimum safe distance from the
discussed in the next section. wellhead as per local safety regulations.
Another important issue concerning safety is the size of the
Main Treatment Design treating line for sand delivery. Two treating lines were utilized
The fracture treatment mainly consisted of 31% pad volume, a to accommodate the 5 m3/min design rate for the sand
total of 208 m3 of slurry stages starting at 120 kg/m3 ramping delivery because the maximum allowed rate through each
up to 1200 kg/m3, with a total volume of 16/30 Borivichi treating line is 3.2 m3/min.
proppant of 216 tons. The typical fracturing rate for this field It was also very crucial to ensure that the proppant would
ranges from two to 3.2 m3/min. However, the design rate for not accumulate moisture while loading in preparation for the
this particular treatment was increased to 5 m3/min in order to treatment. There have been a few incidents where moisture
ensure proper placement of the proppant. has impeded the delivery of the proppant to the hopper,
Figure 7 and Table 2 show the predicted results of the causing job termination prior to total proppant delivery.
designed fracture profile and conductivity at closure: On the issue related to the fracturing fluid, the standard
QA/QC based on the “On Site Fracture Procedures for RUN
FracCADE*
Sibnef t-NNG
1102
The best
Operations – November 2001” which outlined the complete
2480
ACL Fracture Profile and Conductivity 07-10-2002
set of QA/QC procedures for all fracturing treatments were
strictly followed. In fact, all issue related to operational safety
were taken into consideration to ensure success for the
2520
fracturing treatment of this scale.

Post-MHF Execution and Evaluation

Well Depth - m

2560

< 0.0 md.m

The well was successfully fractured in July 27, 2002 as per the
0.0 - 386.4 md.m
386.4 - 772.8 md.m
772.8 - 1159.1 md.m
design, and operational and logistic requirements described in
2600
1159.1 - 1545.5 md.m
1545.5 - 1931.9 md.m
the previous sections. This section discusses the evaluations of
1931.9 - 2318.3 md.m
2318.3 - 2704.6 md.m
2704.6 - 3091.0 md.m
the treatment design, and the production performance after the
2640
320 400 -10 -5 0 5 10 0 50 100
> 3091.0 md.m
150
job execution.
Stress - atm ACL Width at Wellbore - mm Fracture Half -Length - m

Fracture Execution and Evaluation

*Mark of Schlumberger
During the execution, the pressure response from the treatment
Figure 7 – Fracture Profile and Conductivity at Closure (Design)
shows that the fracture initially grew in height with limited
length until the barriers were reached at 2638 m MD above
and 2680 m MD below. Once these barriers were reached, the
Table 2 – Prediction of Fluid Placement and fracture began to propagate in length until the pressure
Fracture Geometry increased to a point where another barrier below was broken
Propped Fracture Half-Length 119.3 m into. Then, the fracture grew in height downwards to 2692 m
Propped Width at Well 8.1 mm MD. At this point, the fracture then started to be packed off
Average Propped Width 4.8 mm uniformly until the end of the job (EOJ). Figure 8 shows the
EOJ Hydraulic Height at Well 72.0 m pressure response profile during the treatment.
EOJ Net Pressure 36 atm
Efficiency 0.211 Tr. Press. (JobData) - atm Sibneft-NNG

Effective Conductivity 936 md.m FracCADE* Tr. Press. (PropFRAC) - atm

Slurry Rate - m3/min
1102
Evaluation
Treating Pressure Match 07-10-2002
Prop Conc - kgPA
600 8 2500

Operational and Logistical Issues 7

Due to the massive scale of the treatment, there were some 500 2000

6
operational and logistical issues that need to be addressed 400 1500
accordingly. These are important because they relate to the 5
Slurry Rate - m3/min

Prop Conc - kgPA

Tr. Press. - atm

operational aspects of the treatment execution, and safety 300 4 1000

considerations. 3

During the rig up for sand delivery, it was important to 200

2
500

ensure continuous delivery of proppant to the hopper. At the 100 0

proppant delivery rate of 5 m3/min, which is very critical for 1

the MHF treatment, ample space for storage of proppant 0

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
120
-500

during the job execution was required. In order to Treatment Time - min

accommodate this requirement, several storage vessels and

mobile sand dumps, which could handle 70 tons and 40 tons of *Mark of Schlumberger

proppant each, respectively, were mobilized on location. This Figure 8 – Matching of the Treating Pressure during Treatment
implies that enough space on location is needed to maneuver Execution
the vehicles and ensure enough proppant delivery during the
treatment execution. At the same time, the equipment should The pressure data was utilized to estimate the fracture
geometry by performing the pressure-matching analysis using
6 SPE 84916

the available fracturing simulator. The results of the pressure compared to a non-effective one, which can negate any
matching are shown in Table 3 and Figure 9. enhancement achieved.
For Well 1102, a post-cleanup procedure was designed
using the Coiled-Tubing with Nitrogen (carefully taking into
Table 3 – Actual Results of Fluid Placement account the drawdown wanted to be induced). According to
and Fracture Geometry experience in the Western Siberian oil fields, the Coiled
Propped Fracture Half-Length 112.5 m Tubing clean out was designed with Nitrogen, since the
Propped Width at Well 13.2 mm reservoir pressure is high enough to respond. This procedure
Average Propped Width 11.6 mm
was adopted in order to ensure proper cleanup of the wellbore
EOJ Hydraulic Height at Well 59.0 m
EOJ Net Pressure 99 atm and flowback after fracturing.
Efficiency 0.425 After the Coiled-Tubing cleanup stage, the well was
Effective Conductivity 4393 md.m kicked-off with Nitrogen to initiate flow. Again, experience
with Nitrogen kick-offs tells us that the rate needs to be
optimized to induce the maximum drawdown that the well will
FracCADE*
Sibneft-NNG
1102
Evaluation
endure during its production life. Using the available software
2480
ACL Fracture Profile and Conductivity 07-10-2002
for Coiled-Tubing design, the depth and the Nitrogen rate
were optimized in order to achieve the optimum drawdown.
Experience has also shown that the possibilities of solids
2520
production or proppant flowback problem could be minimized
by following the correct procedure for post-fracturing clean
outs, followed by a pre-determined period of Coiled
Well Depth - m

2560

< 0.0 md.m

Tubing lifting.
0.0 - 657.4 md.m
657.4 - 1314.8 md.m
1314.8 - 1972.1 md.m
2600 1972.1 - 2629.5 md.m
2629.5 - 3286.9 md.m
Post-MHF Production Analysis
Figure 3 shows the production profile of Well 1102 after the
3286.9 - 3944.3 md.m
3944.3 - 4601.7 md.m
4601.7 - 5259.1 md.m

2640
250 350 -20 -10 0 10 20 0 50
> 5259.1 md.m

Stress - atm ACL Width at Wellbore - mm
*Mark of Schlumberger
Figure 9 – Fracture Profile and Conductivity at Closure (Actual)
From the design and operational point of view, in general, the
job was deemed successful. In many respects, the actual
results (Figure 9, Table 3) are better than the design (Figure 7,
Table 2). The propped fracture half-length (Xf) was evaluated
to be within the designed range. The actual fracture height (Hf)
was evaluated to be less than the design by about 13 m, but
this was compensated by the increase of the average width
(Wf) by about 7 mm, and a 5 mm increase in propped width at
the wellbore. This explained why there was an increase in the
net pressure when comparing the actual end of job (EOJ) value
to the design, by more than 60 atm.
The increase of the width caused the increase of the
effective fracture conductivity. This is beneficial for the
fracture. In fact, maximizing the effective conductivity of the
100 150
MHF treatment. The well production increased drastically
Fracture Half -Length - m
after fracturing from the last stabilized rate of 60 tons/day (72
m3/day) to more than 150 tons/day (180 m3/day) initially (see
Figure 3). Within two months of production, the rate declined
rather rapidly to about 100 tons/day (120 m3/day). During this
period, the water cut increased slightly to an average of 12%,
which is still relatively low.
Production analysis described in the Appendix shows that
the well was successfully stimulated. Based on the analysis,
the average permeability and skin factor were estimated to be
1.9 md and -4.75, respectively. The lower permeability value
obtained from the analysis was not surprising because the
fracturing treatment was mainly targeted on the upper BP121
formation, which is known to have lower permeability value
than the BP122 formation. The reservoir pressure was
estimated to decline from 215 atm before the MHF treatment
to 185-190 atm after about 3 months of production. The
drainage area was estimated to be about 123,672 m2.
250

fracture could counteract the non-Darcy flow effect, which 200

Matching of the early time

was expected from this potentially high producing well. production data using
Darcy’s Transient Model
A

Also, the pressure response (Figures 8) and the fracture 150

Pressure, atm

profile (Figure 9) clearly show that adequate wellbore packing

occurred at the final stages of the treatment. This effective 100

packed off ensured connectivity between the wellbore and Matching of the late time
formation, which is very essential for the success of the
50
Matching of the production data using Darcy-
data before MHF Vogel’s Model; Pr declined
stimulation job. 0
1 4 35 from 215 to 195 atm 2
0 100 200 300 400 500
Liquid Rate, m³/d
Not Used

Post-MHF Well Cleanup and Startup Procedures Inflow (1)

Case 2 ( 2)
Outflow (A)
Case 2 (B)
Inflow

Multiple Sensitivities

It is important to note that the post-fracturing cleanup is a

Case 3 ( 3) Case 3 (C)
Case 4 ( 4) Case 4 (D)
Case 5 ( 5) Case 5 (E)

critical part of the fracturing process. An effective cleanup Not Used

Not Used
Not Used
Reg: Authorized User - Schlumberger Inc.

could enhance the well response post-fracture treatment as

Figure 10 – Production Performance Matching using the Actual
Data from the MHF Fracturing Period
SPE 84916
Figure 10 shows the inflow and outflow performance
curves generated using the parameters estimated from the
production analysis. The performance curves matched
satisfactorily with the actual production data. The only
problem is the matching of the vertical outflow curve which
seemed not to fit very well with the actual data using the
combination of Murkherjee-Brill (1983) and Hagedorn-Brown
(1963) correlations. Nonetheless, on overall, the results are
still within the reasonable range.
From the production point of view, it can be concluded
that the massive hydraulic fracturing (MHF) treatment
performed on Well 1102 significantly increased the well’s
productivity. The well was able to flow naturally at a
relatively high rate for a period of time which only installation
of artificial lift could make it possible to produce at such rate
if the well were not re-stimulated.
During the first two months after MHF treatment, the well
production rate has been observed to decline rather rapidly (as
shown in Figure 3). This rapid decline was mainly due to the
transient nature of the production during the period. The
performance curves shown in Figure 10 reflect this rapid
production decline behavior. The well production rate
stabilized at approximately 100 tons/day (120 m3/day) before
it began to decline gradually again as the reservoir pressure
depleted. Figure 10 shows the decline of the reservoir pressure
from 215 atm to about 190 atm. The reservoir pressure closely
matched with the value estimated from the production analysis
described in the Appendix.
Extensive efforts are currently being put to sustain the well
production. The efforts include both short-term and long-term
goals to install proper artificial lift system to further enhance
production, and also to increase water injection activity for
pressure maintenance in the region for the long-term
production sustainability. The long-term strategy includes
developing a sector model to investigate various pressure
maintenance schemes to optimize the reservoir, and also to
consider application of MHF on other wells in the field region.
Summary and Conclusions
1. The average size of hydraulic fracturing treatment in the
Western Siberian region (particularly, in Sibneft) has
increased dramatically from an average size of 22 tons to
more than 80 tons of proppant for the last several years. In
time, the average size may reach a level of massive,
following the current aggressive trend of the Russian oil
and gas industry to increase production rapidly.
2. Massive Hydraulic Fracturing (MHF) treatment in the
Western Siberian oil fields is referred to as any fracturing
treatment that involves pumping of 150 tons or more
proppant at any one time in one reservoir.
3. The case history described in this paper shows that the
application of MHF on Well 1102 was successful and,
technically and operationally feasible. The treatment
significantly increased the productivity of the well.
4. Application of MHF treatment should be contemplated on
all the wells in the Western Siberian oil fields with the
formations having more than 30 m of net thickness, as
smaller scale treatments might not be able to effectively
stimulate the entire productive intervals (as reflected by
7
the previous small scale stimulation job performed on
Well 1102)
5. MHF could be used strategically in order to enhance the
production of many Russian oil wells especially in the
Western Siberian region, however, careful selection of
candidates and pre-planning of the operation (well
preparation, treatment design and calibration, and well
cleanup and startup procedures) are crucial to ensure
overall success.
6. Selection of well candidates for MHF should begin with
comprehensive analysis of the well data. This includes
production history analysis, log evaluation to determine
the proper completion procedure, previous workover
activities, and also understanding of the field
regional activities.
7. The analysis approach described in this paper shows a
systematic way to select the candidates for production
enhancement and evaluate the well potentials. Putting all
the information of relevance into perspective would
provide better understanding on how the short-term
production enhancement gain from the well of interest
could impact on the surrounding wells to ensure
production sustainability in the long run.
Appendix – Production Type Curve and Analytical
Transient Solution History Matching Analysis
This Appendix discusses the results of production type curve
and analytical transient history matching analyses performed
on each production period shown in Figure 3. The goals of the
analysis are to analyze the production performance of the well
in general and specifically, to estimate the fundamental
reservoir parameters based on the matching of the production
history. The estimated parameters are utilized in generating
the well inflow and outflow performance curves (Figures 4, 5,
6 and 10). The detailed theories and fundamentals of the
analysis techniques have been discussed elsewhere, and can
readily be obtained from References 9-13.
Initial Production Period (Natural Flow)
Figures A-1 to A-7 show the production history matching
using the radial flow, single porosity, and finite circular radial
drainage area model for the initial production period. The
matching parameters are k = 4.4 md, S = 1.3 and A = 181,900
m2. During the production period, the average reservoir
pressure was estimated to decline from the initial value of 230
atm to about 200 atm.
8 SPE 84916

Rate-Time Type Curve

Radial flow, Single porosity, Finite circular drainage area: Varying RdD
Rate vs Time
1000 40

Permeability = 4.44 mD
Skin factor = 1.319
Area = 181900 sq m 35
100

Average oil production rate, m^3/D

30
Dimensionless rate

10
25

20
1

15

0.1
10

0.01 5
1E-006 1E-005 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Dimensionless time Time, day

VYNG_1102_PRE_FRACT_FLOW.pmd VYNG_1102_PRE_FRACT_FLOW.pmd

Figure A-1 – Rate-Time Type Curve for the Initial Period Figure A-4 – Rate-Time Production Matching for the Initial Period

Cum-Time Type Curve

Radial flow, Single porosity, Finite circular drainage area: Varying RdD
Cum vs Time
1 6000

Permeability = 4.44 mD
Skin factor = 1.319
Area = 181900 sq m
0.1 5000
Cumulative oil production, cu m

0.01 4000
Dimensionless cum

0.001 3000

0.0001 2000

1E-005 1000

1E-006 0
1E-006 1E-005 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Dimensionless time Time, day

VYNG_1102_PRE_FRACT_FLOW.pmd VYNG_1102_PRE_FRACT_FLOW.pmd

Figure A-2 – Cum-Time Type Curve for the Initial Period Figure A-5 – Cum-Time Production Matching for the Initial Period

Rate-Cum Type Curve

Radial flow, Single porosity, Finite circular drainage area: Varying RdD
Rate vs Cum
1000 40

Permeability = 4.44 mD
Skin factor = 1.319
Area = 181900 sq m 35
100
Average oil production rate, m^3/D

30
Dimensionless rate

10
25

20
1

15

0.1
10

0.01 5
1E-006 1E-005 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Dimensionless cum Cumulative oil production, cu m

VYNG_1102_PRE_FRACT_FLOW.pmd VYNG_1102_PRE_FRACT_FLOW.pmd

Figure A-3 – Rate-Cum Type Curve for the Initial Period Figure A-6 – Rate-Cum Production Matching for the Initial Period
SPE 84916 9

Cum-Time Type Curve

Pavg vs Time Radial flow, Single porosity, Finite circular drainage area: Varying RdD
230 1

Permeability = 4.172 mD
Skin factor = -0.05146
225 Area = 470200 sq m
0.1
Average presssure, kgf/cm^2

220
0.01

Dimensionless cum
215

0.001

210

0.0001
205

1E-005
200

195 1E-006
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 1E-006 1E-005 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Time, day Dimensionless time

VYNG_1102_PRE_FRACT_FLOW.pmd VYNG_1102_PRE_FRACT_PUMP.pmd

Figure A-7 – Average Reservoir Pressure Profile estimated during Figure A-9 – Cum-Time Type Curve for the First Fracturing Period
the Initial Production Period
Rate-Cum Type Curve
Radial flow, Single porosity, Finite circular drainage area: Varying RdD
1000
First Fracturing Job Period Permeability = 4.172 mD
Figures A-8 to A-14 show the production matching using the Skin factor = -0.05146
Area = 470200 sq m
radial flow, single porosity, and finite circular radial drainage 100

area model for the first stimulation period. The matching

parameters are k = 4.172 md, S = -0.05 and A = 470,200 m2.
Dimensionless rate

The estimated permeability closely matched with the value 10

obtained from the initial production period. During the

production period, the average reservoir pressure was 1

estimated to decline from 215 atm just before the fracturing

down to about 160 atm
0.1

Rate-Time Type Curve

Radial flow, Single porosity, Finite circular drainage area: Varying RdD
1000 0.01
1E-006 1E-005 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Permeability = 4.172 mD
Skin factor = -0.05146
Dimensionless cum
Area = 470200 sq m VYNG_1102_PRE_FRACT_PUMP.pmd

100

Figure A-10 – Rate-Cum Type Curve for the First Fracturing Period
Dimensionless rate

10

Rate vs Time
120

100
Average oil production rate, m^3/D

0.1

80

0.01
1E-006 1E-005 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Dimensionless time
VYNG_1102_PRE_FRACT_PUMP.pmd 60

Figure A-8 – Rate-Time Type Curve for the First Fracturing Period
40

20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Time, day
VYNG_1102_PRE_FRACT_PUMP.pmd

Figure A-11 – Rate-Time Production Matching for the First

Fracturing Period
10 SPE 84916

Cum vs Time
MHF Production Period
30000
Figures A-15 to A-21 show the production matching using the
radial flow, single porosity, and finite circular radial drainage
area model for the MHF stimulation period. The matching
parameters are k = 1.9 md, S = -4.75, and A = 272,200 m2.
25000
Cumulative oil production, cu m

During the production period, the average reservoir pressure

20000
was estimated to decline from 220 atm before MHF to about
185-190 atm.
15000

10000

Rate-Time Type Curve

Radial flow, Single porosity, Finite circular drainage area: Varying RdD
5000
1000

Permeability = 1.939 mD
Skin factor = -4.753
0 Area = 272200 sq m
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
100
Time, day
VYNG_1102_PRE_FRACT_PUMP.pmd

Dimensionless rate
10
Figure A-12 – Cum-Time Production Matching for the First
Fracturing Period
1

Rate vs Cum
120
0.1

100
Average oil production rate, m^3/D

0.01
1E-006 1E-005 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Dimensionless time
VYNG_1102_FRACT_MHF.pmd
80

Figure A-15 – Rate-Time Type Curve for the MHF Fracturing

60 Period
Cum-Time Type Curve
Radial flow, Single porosity, Finite circular drainage area: Varying RdD
1
40
Permeability = 1.939 mD
Skin factor = -4.753
Area = 272200 sq m
0.1
20
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Cumulative oil production, cu m 0.01

VYNG_1102_PRE_FRACT_PUMP.pmd
Dimensionless cum

Figure A-13 – Rate-Cum Production Matching for the First 0.001

Fracturing Period
0.0001

Pavg vs Time
220 1E-005

210
1E-006
1E-006 1E-005 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Average presssure, kgf/cm^2

200 Dimensionless time

VYNG_1102_FRACT_MHF.pmd

190
Figure A-16 – Cum-Time Type Curve for the MHF
Fracturing Period
180

170

160

150
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Time, day
VYNG_1102_PRE_FRACT_PUMP.pmd

Figure A-14 – Average Reservoir Pressure Profile estimated

during the First Fracturing Period
SPE 84916 11

Rate-Cum Type Curve

Radial flow, Single porosity, Finite circular drainage area: Varying RdD
Rate vs Cum
1000 250

Permeability = 1.939 mD
Skin factor = -4.753
Area = 272200 sq m

100 200

Average oil production rate, m^3/D

Dimensionless rate

10 150

1 100

0.1 50

0.01 0
1E-006 1E-005 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

Dimensionless cum Cumulative oil production, cu m

VYNG_1102_FRACT_MHF.pmd VYNG_1102_FRACT_MHF.pmd

Figure A-17 – Rate-Cum Type Curve for the MHF Fracturing Period Figure A-20 – Rate-Cum Production Matching for the MHF
Fracturing Period
Rate vs Time
250 Pavg vs Time
220

200
215
Average oil production rate, m^3/D

Average presssure, kgf/cm^2

210
150

205

100
200

50 195

190

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
185
Time, day 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
VYNG_1102_FRACT_MHF.pmd

Time, day
VYNG_1102_FRACT_MHF.pmd

Figure A-18 – Rate-Time Production Matching for the MHF

Fracturing Period
Figure A-21 – Average Reservoir Pressure Profile estimated
Cum vs Time during the MHF Fracturing Period
16000

14000
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Sibneft and Schlumberger (Russia)
Cumulative oil production, cu m

12000
management for their permission to publish this paper. We
10000 also acknowledge the assistance of many colleagues from
different Schlumberger product lines for their willingness to
8000
share ideas in this interesting and often controversial area.
6000

References
4000 1. Antoci, J.C., and Anaya, L.A.,”First Massive Hydraulic
Fracturing Treatment in Argentina,”, SPE 69581, SPE Latin
2000
American and Carribean Petroleum Engineering Conference,
0
Buienos Aires, Argentina, 25-28 March 2001.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 2. Strubhar, M. K., Fitch, J. L., and Medlin, W. L., “Demonstration
VYNG_1102_FRACT_MHF.pmd
Time, day of Massive Hydraulic Fracturing, Piceane Basin, Colorado,”,
SPE 9336, the 55th Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the SPE of AIME, Dallas, Texas, 21-24
Figure A-19 – Cum-Time Production Matching for the MHF
September, 1980.
Fracturing Period
12 SPE 84916

3. Agarwal, R.G., Carter, R.D., and Pollock, C.B., ”Evaluation and

Performance Prediction of Low-Permeability Gas Wells
Stimulated by Massive Hydraulic Fracturing,”, SPE 6838,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, March 1979.
4. Jennings, A. Jr., et al., “Massive Hydraulic Fracturing in the
Eastern United States,”, SPE 6866, the 52nd Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the SPE of AIME, Denver,
Colorado, 9-12 October, 1977.
5. Fast, C.R., Holman, G.B., and Covlin, R.J., ”The Application of
Massive Hydraulic Fracturing to the Tight Muddy “J”
Formation, Wattenberg Field, Colorado,”, SPE 5624, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, January 1997.
6. Cui, M. et al., “Case Study of Fracturing Fluid Optimization for
MHF in Low-Permeability Gas field in China,”, SPE 64773,
SPE International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Beijing, China, 7-10 November, 2000.
7. Gidley, J.L., et al.,”Stimulation of Low-Permeability Gas
Formations by Massive Hydraulic Fracturing – A Study of Well
Performance,”, SPE 6867, Journal of Petroleum Technology,
April 1979.
8. Britt, L.K., ”Optimized Oilwell Fracturing of Moderate-
Permeability Reservoirs,”, SPE 14371, the 60th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE, Las Vegas,
Nevada, 22-25 September, 1985
9. Fetkovich, E.J.,”Advanced Decline Curve Analysis Identifies
Fracture Stimulation Potential,”, SPE 38903, SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 5-8
October, 1997.
10. Doublet, L.E., Pande, P.K., McCollum, T.J., and Blasingame,
T.A.,”Decline Curve Analysis Using Type-Curve – Analysis of
Oil Wells Production Data using Material Balance Time,
Application to Field Cases,”, SPE 28688, Petroleum Conference
and Exhibition of Mexico, Vera Cruz, Mexico, 10-13
October 1994.
11. Blasingame, T.A., McCray, T.L., and Lee, W.J.,”Decline Curve
Analysis for Variable Pressure Drop/Variable Flowrate
Systems,”, SPE 21513, SPE Gas Technology Symposium,
Houston , Texas, 23-24 January 1981
12. Fetkovich, et al.,”Decline-Curve Analysis Using Type Curves –
Case Histories,”, SPE 13169, SPE Formation Evaluation,
December 1987.
13. Blasingame, T.A, and Lee, W.J.,”Properties of Homogeneous
Reservoirs, Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, and Hydraulically
Fractured Reservoirs From Decline Curve Analysis,”, SPE
15018, Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference of
SPE, 13-14 March 1986.