IPTC 17409

Channel Fracturing Enhanced by Unconventional Proppant Increases

Effectiveness of Hydraulic Fracturing in Devonian Formations of Russias
Oilfields
Rifat Kayumov, Artem Klyubin, Andrey Konchenko, Alexey Yudin, Schlumberger; Alexander Khalzov, Vladislav
Firsov, Evgeniy Nikulshin, Zdenko Kaluder, Suleyman Sitdikov, Rosneft

Copyright 2014, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 2022 January 2014.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme 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 International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference 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, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435

Abstract
The Volga-Urals basin is one of the largest oil-producing regions in western Russia. The most prolific wells are producing
from Devonian formations characterized by light crude oil with high bubblepoint pressure. Today, most of the Devonian
reservoirs are depleted and produce at bottomhole flowing pressure below bubblepoint pressure, which yields multiphase and
non-Darcy flow in hydraulic fractures, drastically decreasing production. As a result, conventional hydraulic fracturing
treatments are less effective. To regain fracturing treatment efficiency, the restrictions to hydrocarbon flow inside the fracture
must be minimized. To account for this, a new method of fracture conductivity generation was introduced.
Channel fracturing creates open pathways inside the fracture, enabling infinite fracture conductivity. Channels are
created by discontinuous proppant feeding at surface into viscous fracturing fluid. Dissolvable fibers are added to the slurry
to separate proppant structures and prevent them from settling during treatment. Proppant structures act as bridges inside
fractures; voids between them are essentially stable channels connected along the entire length of the fracture.
While channel fracturing has already been implemented successfully in many places around the world, the fracturing
conditions of Volga-Urals Devonian formations were still new for this technology. The Volga-Urals region is well known for
high tectonic stresses and low fracturing-fluid efficiency. While channel fracturing treatments are being designed and
pumped in a regime without tip-screenout (TSO) in other locations, channel fracturing treatments in Devonian formations
often showed significant TSO. Production analyses showed consistent productivity increases, and in most cases, 2 folds
higher compared with offset wells where conventional fracturing technology was used.
After the success of the pilot campaign, proppant flowback was resolved by incorporating a rod-shaped proppant as a
tail-in stage of channel fracturing schedules. The nonspherical shape of the proppant increases internal friction between the
particles and mechanically holds them in place. In addition to improving proppant flowback control, the combination of
technologies maximized conductivity of the near-wellbore area which connects channels and the wellbore. The success of
more than 30 of such fracturing treatments expanded the pool of candidates for channel fracturing with rod-shaped proppant
to meet the challenges of similar complex geological conditions.
Introduction
The Volga-Urals basin is one of the oldest and largest oil-producing regions in Russia. The first oil on the western edge of
Ural Mountains was discovered in 1929. By 1977, decades of climbing production from the Volga-Urals basin were over,
and production started to decline fairly sharply. The sharp decline mainly occurred because most of the resources are
concentrated in a few extremely large fields and the rest are divided among a very large number of small fields. All giant
fields were discovered before 1960 and had become mature by late 1970, while newly explored oil fields were too small to
reverse the basins production decline. Today, the Volga-Urals basin is no longer Russias premier producer, but the basin is
still responsible for nearly a quarter of Russian oil supply (Grace 2005). It is presently a stable, if declining, region that is
favorably situated in the middle of the Russian refining and energy transportation infrastructure.
The Orenburg region, an important component of the Volga-Urals basin, is located near other oil and gas producing
provinces: Bashkortostan, Tatarstan, Samara region, and north Kazakhstan. There are more than 100 oil fields scattered in the
western part of the Orenburg region. Most of the oil fields in the region currently belong to the Rosneft oil company, and this
paper focuses on these fields. The geological structure of the Volga-Urals basin is very complex; the wells are producing

IPTC 17409

from tens of Permian, Carboniferous, and Devonian reservoirs. In the Orenburg region, the most prolific wells are producing
from Devonian sandstone formations (mainly the Dkt, D1, and D3). These formations are characterized by light crude oil
with high gas/oil ratio (GOR) and bubblepoint pressure (pb). The properties of some oil fields producing from Devonian
formations are presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1. OILFIELD PROPERTIES
Oil field

Formation

Average
TVD, m

GOR,
m3/m3

Pb,
bars

Oil viscosity,
cP

API
gravity

Garshinskoe

D3

4100

293

198

0.28

43

Lebyazhinskoe

D1

3900

421

230

0.38

48

Shirokodolskoe

D3

4190

476

242

0.22

48

Vostochno-Kapitonovskoe

D3

3700

225

185

0.46

41

Zagorskoe

D1

3980

393

198

0.18

42

The first oil from the Devonian formations in the Orenburg region was produced in 1952, and the majority of the
Devonian reservoirs are depleted now. Fig. 1 shows current reservoir pressure depletion status for the same five reservoirs
described in Table 1. Vostochno-Kapitonovskoe field is a green field that was put into production recently and still has
relatively high reservoir pressure, 76% of initial pressure. The other four oil fields are significantly depleted and have current
reservoir pressure less than 50% of the initial pressure. This depletion process, in conjunction with high pb, leads to the fact
that more than a half of the Devonian wells from the five studied oil fields are working now with reservoir pressure (pres) less
than pb (Fig.2), and 94% of wells are working with bottomhole flowing pressure (pwf) less than pb. This promotes free-gas
separation from the liquid phase causing multiphase flow in the fracture.
100%

Current Pres, % from initial

90%
76%

80%

6%

70%
60%
50%

47%
40%

47%

25%

42%

40%
30%
20%

69%

10%
Pres > Pwf > Pb

0%
Garshinskoe Lebyazhinskoe Shirokodolskoe V.Kapitonovskoe
D3
D1
D3
D3

Zagorskoe
D1

Fig. 1Reservoir pressure depletion for the five studied oil fields.

Pres > Pb > Pwf

Pb > Pres > Pwf
Fig. 2Comparison of pressures in the five studied oil
fields.

Multiphase flow and the accompanying non-Darcy behavior fatally affect fracture conductivity and overall well
performance. The multiphase flow effect causes additional pressure drop inside the formation and fracture due to saturation
changes, relative permeability effects, and complex flow regime. For an oil well producing below the bubblepoint, the
presence of free gas will also drastically increase fluid velocities in the fracture, which means non-Darcy behavior will occur.
Thus, multiphase flow and non-Darcy effects are closely interconnected. It is very complicated to measure the effects of
multiphase flow and non-Darcy behavior. Several researchers have attempted to quantify the effect of multiphase flow in
fractures with laboratory work or by analyzing production data. While these authors report differing results regarding the
absolute value of the conductivity loss, all conclude that the effects are substantial and should not be ignored (Vincent et al.
1999).
Kayumov, Konchenko et al. (2012) provided an example of the detrimental effect on production from fractured wells
with bottomhole flowing pressure below bubblepoint pressure in Garshinskoe oil field. Fig. 3 presents a post-fracturing
productivity index (PI) value for the wells working from the D3 formation in Garshinskoe oil field. All wells are placed in
order of descending [pwf pb] value. In this example, only six wells on the far left side of the chart show pwf higher than pb;
all other wells are working below pb, and the level of difference between pwf and pb is shown by blue dots. It is clearly seen

IPTC 17409

that PI is drastically decreasing from left to right with more negative [pwf pb] value. This productivity decrease is directly
related to non-Darcy and multiphase flow effects inside the fractures. Some high PI values in the middle of the chart probably
relate to the fact that reservoir pressure and pwf in the mature fields in the area are rarely measured, and even a small
difference in these values can sometimes result in a large variance in PI calculation. But even with these uncertainties, the
overall trend is clear. A few other examples of production drop for wells produced below bubblepoint pressure were
published by Dedurin et al. (2006).
14.00

150

12.00

100

8.00
0
6.00
-50
4.00
2.00

-100

0.00

-150

G00
G59
G27
G82
G07
G62
G749
G51
G09
G20
G64
G72
G03
G64
G88
G68
G66
G60
G05
G65
G820
G33
G53
G55
G007
G12
G15
G75
G088
G76
G08
G91
G49
G775
G088
G77
G14
G866
G98
G67
G49
G87
G56
G37
G99
G005
G33
G92

PI, m3/day/bar

50

Pwf - Pb, bars

10.00

Well number
PI after frac, m3/day/bar

Pwf - Pb, bars

Linear (PI after frac, m3/day/bar)

Fig. 3Decreasing PI for wells working below Pb (Kayumov, Konchenko et al. 2012).

Fracturing is a standard completion method for all wells producing from Devonian formations in the Orenburg region.
Experience has shown that these fracturing treatments usually have some specific differences from fracturing in other parts of
Russia. Low fracturing-fluid efficiency forces the use of large pad volumes (Fig. 4) and the use of special fluid loss additives
in the fracturing fluid. These actions decrease the risk of premature screenout but lead to significant reduction of fracture
conductivity, effective fracture half-length, and, subsequently, decrease in post-fracturing production. Even with large pad
fluid volume, almost all fracturing treatments in Devonian sandstone formations were finished in tip-screenout (TSO) regime
when proppant starts to pack in the fracture during the treatment. This proppant packing process can be observed by
significant net pressure increase during main fracturing treatment. Fig. 5 shows that average net pressure increase between a
minifrac operation and the subsequent conventional main fracturing is 80 to 100 bars for all fields excluding VostochnoKapitonovskoe where reservoir pressure depletion is less serious. Thus, the majority of fracturing operations in Devonian
formations are finished in TSO regime in spite of the use of large pad volumes.
60

300

50

250

40

200

30

150

20

100

10

50

0
Garshinskoe Lebyazhinskoe Shirokodolskoe V.Kapitonovskoe Zagorskoe
D3
D1
D3
D3
D1

Fluid efficiency, %

Pad volume, %

Fig. 4Average fluid efficiency and pad volume for

fracturing treatments in Devonian formations.

Garshinskoe Lebyazhinskoe Shirokodolskoe V.Kapitonovskoe Zagorskoe

D3
D1
D3
D3
D1

Net pressure ater mini frac, bars

Net pressure ater main frac, bars

Fig. 5Average net pressure for fracturing treatments in

Devonian formations.

IPTC 17409

Just 5 years ago, proppant flowback was not frequently observed in Devonian formations. But recently, the operating
company noticed that the proppant flowback problem became more and more pronounced with time. The reason for this
occurrence is reservoir pressure depletion and severely increased multiphase flow inside the fracture. As mentioned
previously, multiphase flow increases the fluid velocity in the fracture, thus increasing the drag forces pushing proppant out
of the fracture during production. The proppant flowback problem cannot be ignored, and special technologies to minimize
proppant flowback should be implemented in each fracturing treatment.
To overcome the increasing negative effect of multiphase and non-Darcy flow on fracture conductivity, channel
fracturing technology was implemented in Devonian formations in the Orenburg region. Although channel fracturing has
already proved its outstanding performance in different places around the world, conditions of Volga-Urals Devonian
formations were still new for this technology (i.e., significant proppant packing is not typical for channel fracturing), and it
was important to evaluate productivity of the pilot wells stimulated with new technique. For many treatments in the
fracturing campaign described in this paper, channel fracturing was enhanced by rod-shaped proppant to eliminate potential
proppant flowback problems and maximize conductivity of the near-wellbore area.
Rod-Shaped Proppant
The recently developed rod-shaped proppant had already been implemented in several countries around the globe with
consistent success in increasing stimulation efficiency. Fig. 6 shows the grains of rod-shaped proppant, which is, in principle,
a new product compared to the proppant made up of spherical grains that is commonly used in stimulation industry. The size
of the particles is essentially large; the diameter of the cylinder base is similar to 12/16 mesh size, which corresponds to the
largest proppants currently used in Russia. Random distribution of such cylindrical particles increases final pack porosity,
which results in improved pack permeability and better fracture cleanup from polymers. Details of rod-shaped proppant
development were provided by McDaniel et al. (2010); they also describe the first field implementation that proved the
theory and laboratory modeling by significant well productivity increase when the new type of propping agent was used for
fracturing. Proppant flowback control is another important benefit of the rod-shaped proppant. Rod-shaped particles interlock
in a consolidated structure that appears to be highly resistant to drag forces (see Fig. 7). As opposed to resin-coated
proppants, rod-shaped particles hold each other by mechanical means, not chemical bonds. Thus, pack stability is
independent of temperature or time of activation which can be limitations for chemical-based techniques. Field
implementation of the new product as a proppant flowback prevention mechanism was reported by Edelman et al. (2013)
who described fracturing treatments in the Arta heavy oil field, where conventional proppant pack led to severe flowback
within days after being put in production. Eighteen treatments utilizing rod-shaped proppant were successfully optimized to
eliminate flowback issues by pumping rod-shaped particles as a tail-in stage in the amount of 25% and higher from the whole
proppant mass.

Fig. 6Rod-shaped proppant particles.

Fig. 7Restricted mobility of rod-shaped particles inside

the pack results in increased porosity and high stability.

The depleted formations of Orenburg area in which multiphase flow caused production decline and severe proppant
flowback problems were considered as first candidates for rod-shaped proppant implementation in Russia. The trial campaign
of the new proppant in the Orenburg area was described in detail by Kayumov, Konchenko et al. (2012) The campaign
proved the advantage of rod-shaped particles over conventional spherical ones in both proppant flowback prevention and
significant productivity gain. No proppant flowback was reported after 10 trial treatments. Consistent results in the wells
productivity increase (from 26% up to 67%, depending on the field) when compared to offset wells stimulated with
conventional proppants were reported for Vakhitovskoe, Vostochno-Kapitonovskoe, and Lebyazhinskoe oil fields. This paper
concentrates on the channel fracturing campaign initiated in 2011 in several fields around Orenburg to further improve
fracture conductivity and well production.
Channel Fracturing Technology
A fundamentally new concept of fracture conductivity generation forms the basis for channel fracturing technology
development. Proppant is still used with new stimulation technique to keep fracture walls separated after treatment, but now
it is placed heterogeneously, as shown in Fig. 8 (right). Proppant structures are created with surface equipment by pulsating

IPTC 17409

proppant concentration (Fig. 9). Further flow of proppant structures along the tubular and fracture is supported with
degradable fibrous material which keeps the proppant structures consolidated and prevents settlement. After fracture closure
on proppant structures, the voids between remain open for flow, and thus channels are formed along the fracture to deliver
hydrocarbons during the production life of the well. Open channels increase fracture conductivity by orders of magnitude,
which significantly improves fracture cleanup from treatment fluids and polymer residues resulting in higher effective
fracture half-length. Effective half-length and improved conductivity of the fracture lead to significant production benefits in
wide range of formations.

Fig. 8Concept of channel fracturing when proppant is distributed heterogeneously inside fracture (right) as
opposed to a tight proppant pack of standard fracturing technique (left).

Fig. 9Schematic of proppant concentration pulses during channel fracturing treatment.

Channel fracturing concepts and details were described by Gillard et al. (2010); within 3 years the technique was
implemented in many parts of the world with consistent success of placement reliability (avoiding screenouts) and production
increase over conventional fracturing technologies. The statistical overview of performed treatments and more details on
mechanisms of channel fracturing were discussed by Medvedev et al. (2013). Clean pulses around the proppant ensure
reliable placement of channel fracturing treatments. The screenout ratio is less than 0.1% according to the worldwide
statistics of more than 10,000 operations, which represents a significant advantage of the new technique for Russian fields,
where large-size proppants are pumped for conductivity optimization which leads to high screenout ratios (from 5% up to
10% depending on the fields). To date, more than 100 channel fracturing treatments have been successfully placed in Russia
without a single screenout.
One project completed in Western Siberia deserves particular attention. As reported by Sadykov et al. (2012), channel
fracturing treatments were performed in a Jurassic formation of remote Taylakovskoe field with oil and formation
characteristics similar to those of the Orenburg area (medium-permeability sandstones). The authors reported a channel
fracturing advantage of 44% in oil rate increase when compared to standard stimulation technologies. When the PI was
calculated (liquid rate over drawdown) per well, an average advantage of 94% over the PI values of standard fracturing
techniques was the result of implementation of the new technique in a pilot campaign of 10 wells. Screenout reduction from
an average of 10% in Taylakovskoe down to zero had a significant impact on workover operations and overall field
development considering the remoteness of the location and associated costs of cleanout operations.

IPTC 17409

Considering the pilot campaign of channel fracturing in the Orenburg area, both screenout reduction and production
increase were set as primary targets. The Volga-Urals Devonian formations are well suited to the application of the new
technology as they have high enough temperature to ensure timely degradation of fibrous material. Infinite conductivity of
channels inside fractures should provide significant production benefits over conventional proppant pack in depleted
reservoirs with strong multiphase and non-Darcy flow.
Of particular importance is the channel fracturing schedule which calls for proppant pulsation to continue during the
entire treatment, except at the last tail-in stage (Fig. 9), at which time several tons of proppant (normally 3 to 4 depending on
formation thickness) are pumped continuously at constant concentration. The tail-in stage serves as a reliable near-wellbore
pack to hold fracture walls open. This area has increased stresses, and the risk of pinching is increased. Normally for channel
fracturing, tail-in is pumped with the strongest and most permeable proppant to maximize fracture conductivity. Proppant
flowback can still be the problem for the tail-in stage since the flow velocities reach maximum values in the near-wellbore
area. The stability of the proppant pack in the tail-in must be designed accordingly. Since both trial campaigns with channel
fracturing technology and rod-shaped proppant showed positive results, it was decided to combine the two technologies by
using rod-shaped particles in tail-in stage.
Tailing Channels with Rod-Shaped Proppant
The first combined treatments in the Orenburg area were reported on by Kayumov, Konchenko et al. (2012), who showed the
clear advantage of channel fracturing technology with rod-shaped particles in the tail-in stage in terms of productivity when
compared to standard fracturing techniques. Later implementations of channel fracturing were extended to new fields and
wells with increased risks (such as deviated wells and sidetrack applications), with consistent success; these are discussed
below. At the same time, field implementation of combined channel fracturing and rod-shaped proppant was executed in
Egyptian locations. Abdelhamid et al. (2013) reported increased well productivity after implementation of the combined
technology compared to standard stimulation techniques in Silah field. A significant advantage of channel fracturing tailored
with rod-shaped proppant was in the elimination of screenout; screenout occurred in more than 45% of the standard
fracturing treatments according to the statistics over 2 years. Proppant flowback was another common problem of hydraulic
fracturing in Silah field; this was solved by rod-shaped proppant at the tail-in stage. Gawad et al. (2013) described their trial
campaign of combined channel fracturing and rod-shaped proppant at tail-in. Seven wells in Qarun fields in the Western
Desert of Egypt were compared against 12 offset wells stimulated with conventional techniques to conclude an 89% average
productivity advantage of the new combined stimulation technology after 45 days; this production difference increased over
time. Zero screenouts and zero flowback issues were also reported. Samir et al. (2013) described the challenges of Abu Roash
formation development in Abrar field (also located in the Western Desert of Egypt). The formation is represented by
laminated siltstones. Although the initial production increase was significant after conventional stimulation, a decline
followed shortly, leading to only a small cumulative production gain. As a result of a six-well channel fracturing campaign,
Abrar field has become an economic field to produce from, with an over 50% increase in production and 50-fold increase in
its proven reserves. Rod-shaped proppant was used in all treatments to avoid proppant flowback.
This paper presents further examples of the advantages of combining channel fracturing and rod-shaped proppant by
providing details on treatment execution and productivity analysis from more than 30 stimulated wells in five oil fields of the
Orenburg area.
Case Study: Zagorskoe Oil Field
More than 30 channel fracturing treatments were performed in the Orenburg area. Most of them (68%) were tailed-in with
use of unconventional rod-shaped proppant. Kayumov, Klyubin et al. (2012) described the basic candidate selection
requirements for channel fracturing that were used in Russia:
- Cased-hole wells with no perforation in target zone to allow cluster perforation
- Certain degree of rock stiffness, a ratio of Youngs modulus over closure stress above 275
- Net height over 6 m.
- No additional risks of breaking into water-bearing formations in case of fracture height growth or this risk is
acceptable by the nature of those formations
- Well deviation of less than 15 in the target interval to minimize risk of fracture plane misalignment with wellbore
- Lowest possible formation lamination of the pay interval
Some of the candidate selection and design considerations remained unchanged from the list above, but with growing
experience and field trials, several of them no longer limit application of the technology. At present, well deviation is not
limited to 15. Successful channel treatments (in both operational and productivity terms) were performed in wells with
deviation angels in the pay zone over 30. The clustered perforation requirement is still present as dictated by the technology
concept, but a few operations with continuous perforation in the pay zone were performed with positive results.
Zagorskoe is the first field where channel fracturing was used in the Volga-Urals region. The field characteristics are
presented in Table 1. This field was chosen for detailed analysis because all possible combinations of treatments were
performed in the area (conventional fracturing, channel fracturing, and channel fracturing enhanced by rod-shaped proppant).
In addition, the availability of long-term production data allows making a conclusive analysis. In general, the field is fairly
uniform across the area. All treatments under consideration (see Fig. 10) are located in close proximity.

IPTC 17409

3612
Channel+Rod
Shape
20/40: 38t
Hnet = 18.4 m

Zagorskoe Field
.3695
Channel Frac
16/20: 41t
Hnet = 20.8 m

3614
Conventional
16/20: 36 t
Hnet = 25.8 m

217
Channel Frac
Injector

3618
Conventional
16/20: 34t
Hnet = 18.8m
3606
Conventional
16/20: 12 t
Hnet = 15 m

45
Conventional
20/40;16/20: 22t
Hnet = 16 m
3601
Channel
16/20: 28 t
Hnet = 15.6 m

3621
Channel+Rod
16/20: 50 t
Hnet = 16 m
Cont. perfs

3623
Conventional
16/20: 16 t
Hnet = 12 m

Fig. 10Zagorskoe field structural map.

Channel Treatments

Conventional Treatments

Fig. 11Zagorskoe oilfield D1 formation cross section.

The target D1 formation consists of thick clean sandstone block with minor lamination. Formation net height ranges
from 12 to 26 m (see Fig. 11). Generally, all jobs (both channel and conventional fracturing) were performed using similar
volume of the intermediate-strength proppant (ISP), with a few cases in which smaller treatments were done in close
proximity to the reservoir boundary (wells 3606 and 3623).
Typically, fracturing in deep Devonian formations is associated with high risk of screenout due to high anticipated
stresses and extremely low fracturing-fluid efficiency. In this case, having all mitigation measures in place is very critical.
Usually, these measures include lowering maximum proppant concentration to 800 to 1000 kgPA and pumping highviscosity fluids. On the other hand, all of these jeopardize well productivity performance after the fracturing job.
Minifrac treatments are common practice in the area and serve as a source of valuable formation data (minimum in-situ
stress, fluid efficiency, net pressure) that decrease the uncertainty of well conditions and aid in fine-tuning the fracturing job
design to minimize screenout risk. The typical minifrac consists of injection and calibration tests (with proppant and
crosslinked fluid) as shown in Fig. 12. As seen from the figure, the formation exhibits very high fluid leakoff. Treating

IPTC 17409

pressure drops from 182 bar to 0 in less than 3 minutes after the injection test. Although fluid leakoff decreases after the
calibration test, fluid efficiency is still extremely low (11%). Formation parameters like this call for a large volume of pad
stage and use of fluid loss agents that significantly impact post-fracturing production.

Proppant conc, BH
Proppant
surface
Slurry Rate(m3/min)&100kgpa
Slurry rate, m3/min
Zagorskoeconc,
3695,D1(4038-4051m)
Calibration

BHP,Treating
Pressure, Pressure(bars)
bars (BH and surface)
injection

ISIP:593.02(604.82)3

600

Pressure
Press deriv >>
bars
derivative
700
ISIP= 604.82 (0.67 psi/ft)
Pcl = 505.56 (0.5603 psi/ft)
PNet= 99.3
600
Eff = 0.11
P*=400
m3/4=267
mGc=492;fc=1.73
500
mGc.fc=851

slope
GGslope>>

<<Pressure
bars Pressure

620
600
580

500

560
540

400

400

520
500

300

300

480
ISIP:182.66(583.56)

200

200

460
440

100

100
420
0
22:15

22:20

22:25

22:30

22:35

22:40

400
0.0

22:45

Start onTIME
26-Sep-11

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0
1.0

G-function

Fig. 12Typical mini-frac treatment and analysis (G-function plot).

GR, TVD
1

3,974

SP, TVD
9

11

0.0035
3,974

0.0235

67

72

77

3,974

82

Stress Profile, bar

Fracture Half-length, m

Temperature LOG, C
0.0435

87

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

3,974

80

400

600

800

1000

3,974

25% Job
50% Job
75% Job
100% Job

3,984

TVD, m

3,994

3,994

4,024

3,984

3,984

3,994

3,994

3,994

4,004

4,004

4,004

4,014

4,014

4,014

4,024

4,024

4,024

Most cool-down area

4,004

4,014

3,984

4,014

Stress Profile
Perfs

Fig. 13Temperature log and built stress profile.

In several cases, the minifrac was supplemented with a temperature log. Temperature measurements immediately after
the minifrac show areas of greatest cool down of the formation, help to identify potential crossflows behind the casing, and
serve as reference points to fracture height determination for building the formation stress model. Fig. 13 shows modeled
fracture behavior during the calibration stage and the corresponding formation cool-down effect measured 2, 4, and 6 hours
after the job. As seen, deflection of temperature from the base static bottomhole temperature is in line with modeled fracture
height propagation. Thus, the stress profile is validated, not only by pressure matching of calibration stage in the fracturing
simulator, but also by independent direct measurement.
Our worldwide experience with channel fracturing treatments showed that risk of premature screenout is very low

IPTC 17409

because of the lower proppant bridging tendency. This let us design treatments with significantly higher proppant
concentrations: from 800 to1000 kgPA normally pumped on conventional jobs to 11200 to 1400 kgPA.
A typical channel fracturing treatment with rod-shaped
rod
proppant in the tail-in
in stage is shown on
o Fig. 14. As seen, the
tail-in
in stage is small in comparison with the rest of the treatment, so little influence on production was expected. But,
But in terms
of fracture reliability and proppant flowback control, this stage has critical importance.. Zero cases of proppant flowback were
reported after the treatments performed with the use of unconventional rod-shaped proppant.
BHP M easured,TRPres(bars)

Slurry Rate(m3/min)&100kgpa
Tail-in Rod-Shape
Cycle1
ISIP:756.68(1145.68)
Channel mode
14

Zagorskoe 3695,D1(4038-4051m)

800

PAD

700

13
12

600

11
10

500

9
8

400
7

BH pressure, bars
Surface pressure, bars
Surface proppant conc, KgPA
BH Proppant conc, KgPA

300

6
5

Slurry rate, m3/min

200

4
3
2

100
Pcl

1
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0
110

TIME

Fig. 14Typical channel fracturing treatment enhanced by unconventional rod-shape

rod
proppant.

0.8

Z3606_Conv
Z45_Conv
Z3623_Conv
Z3695_Channel
Z3621_Channel_RodShape
AVG Channel

PI / hnet, m3/atm/day/m

0.7
0.6

Z3618_Conv
Z3614_Conv
Z3601_Channel
Z3612_Channel_RodShape
AVG CONVENTIONAL

0.5

+102%

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

20

40

60

80
Time, days

100

120

140

Fig. 15PI comparison on Zagorskoe oil field.

field

As stated above, all fracturing jobs shared a similar amount of proppant pumped during the main
m
stage, and wells are
located close to each other, so changes in productivity in this case could be attributed to the influence of the technology used.
The PI normalized by net height (hnet) was used to evaluate the impact of channel fracturing on produ
production results in
Zagorskoe oil field. Fig. 15 depicts PI normalized over net height plotted against the time scale. Green lines represent
conventional fracturing jobs, and blue and brown lines represent channel treatments and treatments enhanced by rod-shaped
rod
proppant (brown lines). As seen from Fig. 15, almost all the wells treated with channel fracturing have higher PI/h
PI/ net values

10

IPTC 17409

proving that channels inside the fracture play a significant role in productivity. The average normalized PI over 150 days
showed a 102 % increase over conventional treatments. One of the first wells stimulated with channel fracturing (well 3601)
still produces 130 m3/day of fluid and 101 t/day of oil after 2.5 years of production. This proves that channels do exist and are
stable over the extended period of time.

3500

16.0

1200

3000

14.0

1000

2500

800

2000

600

1500

400

1000

200

500

0
0

20

40
60
Relative pumping time %

80

100

Concentration Channel fracturing

Concentration Conventional fracturing

Conc / Time channel fracturing

conc / time Conventional fracturing

Fig. 16Comparison of average proppant concentration for

conventional and channel fracturing in the Orenburg regions

Average propped fracture width, mm

1400

conc / time

Proppant concentration, KgPA

Benefits
As previously mentioned, apart from production, major screenout reduction is a second main benefit of the channel
fracturing technique. Since 2007, 174 conventional fracturing treatments have been pumped in the Devonian formations of
the above-mentioned oil fields. A total of 14 screenouts (8%) has been recorded versus a zero screenout ratio for the total of
32 channel fracturing treatments performed between 2011 and 2013. Because of the elimination of screenout, a general
consideration for channel fracturing treatment design is increasing the aggressiveness of the pumping schedule (e.g., more
rapid proppant concentration ramp, increased maximum concentration of proppant, and increased job volume) to enhance
fracture geometry without having a screenout risk. Fig. 16 shows the average difference between proppant ramp and
concentration for conventional and channel fracturing treatments in Devonian formations. The x-axis represents relative
pumping time, where 0% represents the time when proppant starts to be pumped and 100% is the end of treatment. The figure
shows that proppant concentration for channel fracturing is increasing much faster at the beginning of treatment and reaches a
higher value at the end of treatment than for conventional fracturing: the average maximum proppant concentration is 1000
kgPA for conventional fracturing and 1200 kgPA for channel fracturing treatments. In general, for conventional fracturing,
increasing conductivity and fracture width are major design criteria for multiphase flow conditions. Increasing propped
fracture width is also an essential design criterion for channel fracturing as increasing the width helps to have better stability
of the channels. Fig. 17 shows the distribution of propped fracture width for channel fracturing and conventional treatments.
Each dot represents a separate fracturing treatment: blue dots represent channel fracturing and black dots represent
conventional fracturing. It is apparent that overall width for channel fracturing is measurably higher compared to that for
conventional fracturing because of the ability to pump bigger job volumes with higher proppant concentration.

12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
- Channel Fracturing

- Conventional Fracturing

Fig. 17Comparison of propped fracture width for

conventional and channel fracturing in the Orenburg region.

To compare the channel fracturing design approach with conventional fracturing in different fields, proppant mass per
treatment was normalized on average proppant mass pumped for conventional treatment in a particular field. Normalizing
numbers is essential as each of five oil fields in this study had slightly different treatment and fracturing design parameters.
For comparison purposes, channel fracturing treatment proppant mass was divided by 0.55 because proppant mass used for
channel fracturing treatment is equal to 55% of proppant used for conventional treatment (channel fracturing process implies
50% of clean pulses and 50% of proppant pulses + ~5% proppant mass for the tail-in stage). Fig. 18 compares normalized
proppant mass for both treatment types. It is clear that channel fracturing allows placing almost twice the equivalent proppant
mass compared to conventional fracturing. On the other hand, Fig. 19 shows the increase in normalized instantaneous shut-in
pressure (ISIP) from calibration to the main fracturing treatment (similar to proppant mass, each value was normalized on
average ISIP increase for each of five oil fields). ISIP increase is an indication of net pressure gain due to either proppant
packing or bridging in the fracture. In spite of the doubled job volume (Fig. 18), the ISIP increase for channel fracturing
demonstrates the same average number as for conventional jobs. This indicates less proppant packing or bridging during the
channel fracturing treatment. Medvedev et al. (2013) described this feature of channel fracturing experimentally. The
elimination of screenout makes channel fracturing the preferred treatment in cases of high screenout risk (e.g., formations in a
compressional environment with high tectonic stress, hydraulic width limited treatments, excess or uncontrolled leakoff
environment). Sadykov et al. (2012) have demonstrated that channel fracturing can be a valuable option for production
enhancement with refracturing treatments with reduced risk of screenout.

11

3.5

3.5

3
Normalized ISIP

Normalized proppant mass per treatment

IPTC 17409

2.5
2
1.5

2.5
2
1.5

0.5

0.5
0

0
- Conventional Fracturing

- Channel Fracturing

- Channel Fracturing

Fig. 18Comparison of normalized proppant mass for

conventional and channel fracturing in Orenburg region

- Conventional Fracturing

Fig. 19Comparison of relative ISIP increase

conventional and channel fracturing in Orenburg region

for

It was previously demonstrated that the effect of adding a fiber material to crosslinked fluid is the reduction of total
friction pressure by an average of 17 to 29% depending on proppant concentration (Yudin et al. 2013). The fiber-laden fluid
described in this paper used similar fibrous material under the same concentrations as channel fracturing. In the Orenburg
region we have experience with pumping conventional fracturing, fracturing with fiber-laden fluid, and channel fracturing.
With available data it was possible to investigate friction for each type of treatments. The comparison was carried out using
measured bottomhole pressure data and surface pressure data for a total friction calculation. Proppant friction data has been
calculated as the friction difference between proppant slurry stages and the pad stage without proppant. That means it may
include some uncertainties as loss of friction pressure on proppant near wellbore and variations of fluid friction during the job
that may occur due to fluid temperature changes or a slight change in additive schedule impacting fluid friction behavior. All
of the fracturing in the Orenburg region are currently carried out through 74 -mm inside diameter (ID) tubing, so friction
calculations have been performed in terms of pressure gradient per meter of fracturing string. Based on the data acquired in
this study, it has been confirmed that adding fibers to crosslinked fluid may significantly decrease friction pressure on a
proppant stages, up to 18% with higher proppant concentrations (Fig. 20). It also shows that proppant friction for channel
fracturing treatments is up to 41% less compared to that in conventional fracturing. The effect of friction reduction on
channel fracturing treatments is also a consequence of both having less proppant in a tubing due to the pulse pumping and
adding fiber material to the fluid. Unfortunately, this effect does not lead to a decrease in treatment pressure and lower
hydraulic horsepower (HHP) requirements as surface pressure is being compensated for by lower hydrostatic pressure for
pulse proppant pumping versus continuous pumping. On the other hand, understanding surface pressure behavior is an
essential part of the fracturing design process and designing equipment requirements.

0.1

Conventional Fracturing

Friction gradient atm/m

0.09
0.08

Channel Fracturing

0.07

Conventional fracturing with

fiber material

0.06

18%
41%

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Proppant Concentration, kgPA

Fig. 20Proppant friction gradient comparison.

Production Results
A production study was performed for the first 20 wells stimulated with channel fracturing in five oil fields: Garshinskoe,
Lebyazhinskoe, Shirokodolskoe, Vostochno-Kapitonovskoe and Zagorskoe. These wells had enough production data at the
time when analysis was performed. The majority of these 20 wells were treated with rod-shaped proppant at the tail-in stage.

12

IPTC 17409

Daily production data for these wells were gathered and compared with production from the 32 closest offset wells after
conventional fracturing. The analysis is based on the PI value normalized on the net pay thickness (hnet). Net pay thickness
was derived from log data. Robust permeability values were not known for most of the wells, so permeability could not be
used for further data normalization. The results of the performed analysis for each oil field can be seen in Table 2. Overall
results are very positive; productivity increased more than twice compared with conventional fracturing in three out of five
fields: Garshinskoe, Lebyazhinskoe (consists of two separated domes), and Zagorskoe.
TABLE 2POST-FRACTURING PRODUCTION COMPARISON
Average PI/hnet for channel
fracturing, m3/day/bar/atm

Average PI/hnet for conventional

fracturing, m3/day/bar/atm

PI/hnet incremental,
%

Garshinskoe D3

0.5417

0.2542

113

Lebyazhinskoe D1, Lebyazhinskiy dome

0.3697

0.1121

227

Lebyazhinskoe D1, Verkhnegoniy dome

0.4691

0.1996

133

Shirokodolskoe D3, North-East

0.2843

0.3402

-16

Oil field and formation

Shirokodolskoe D3, South-West

0.1439

0.1742

-17

Vostochno-Kapitonovskoe D3, natural flowing

0.6916

0.5451

27

Vostochno-Kapitonovskoe D3, ESP

0.1499

0.0786

91

Zagorskoe D1

0.2655

0.1321

102

Wells treated with channel fracturing in Shirokodolskoe oil field were located on opposite sides of the field and were
also analyzed separately. The northeast side of Shirokodolskoe field is very heterogeneous and many wells drilled in this part
of reservoir cannot produce, even after fracturing treatments. Channel fracturing was performed on the well located at the
edge of Shirokodolskoe field; the three closest offset wells could not produce after fracturing and were abandoned. But the
well stimulated with channel fracturing treatment enhanced by rod-shaped proppant started to produce at a commercial rate
with productivity comparable (lower by only 16%) to wells located in more prolific part of the northeast side of
Shirokodolskoe field. In spite of the negative number, this was considered as a success. On the southwest side of
Shirokodolskoe field, one well treated with channel fracturing and rod-shaped proppant in the tail-in stage was compared
with the three closest offset wells fractured conventionally. A direct comparison showed that the channel fractured well
produced slightly less (minus 17%) than offsets. But two out of three offset wells were fractured few years ago, when
reservoir pressure was higher than bubblepoint pressure. Now, reservoir pressure has fallen below pb, and overall field
production has dropped. A comparison of two wells that were treated during the same year showed that productivity of a well
fractured with channel fracturing is 16% higher than the direct offset wells production after a conventional fracturing
operation. Authors admit that there is no sufficient statistics in this part of reservoir to make a final conclusion.
As was mentioned in the introduction, Vostochno-Kapitonovskoe field is a green field that still has relatively high
reservoir pressure, and some of the wells have enough capacity to flow naturally; all wells in other fields produce only with
electric submersible pumps (ESP). Usually, Devonian wells that flow naturally can produce at much higher PI than wells that
produce with ESP. The suspected reason is that the naturally flowing wells are producing at much lower pressure drawdown,
and thus pwf can be maintained above pb, thus eliminating non-Darcy flow in the reservoir and fracture. For comparison
purposes, naturally flowing wells and wells producing with ESP on Vostochno-Kapitonovskoe field were analyzed
separately. The results in Table 2 show that channel fracturing provides production benefits for both well types, but in the
case of wells with ESPs, the productivity increase is higher and very consistent with productivity increase numbers from the
very successful Garshinskoe and Zagorskoe oil fields. Again, this proves that channel fracturing enhanced by rod-shaped
proppant significantly minimizes non-Darcy and multiphase flow effects associated with production below bubblepoint
pressure, which is particularly the case for the wells produced at high pressure drawdown with ESP.
To visualize the benefits of channel fracturing treatments over conventional fracturing for all analyzed wells (20 channel
fracturing and 32 conventional fracturing), PI/hnet values for each well were further normalized on the average PI/hnet value
for the best well for each respective oil field. This was done because all five fields have different reservoir properties (Table
1), and direct comparison of PI/hnet values for all wells is inconclusive since some fields may produce at higher productivity
due to better reservoir quality. All normalized PI/hnet values were plotted on the same chart (Fig. 21): light blue lines
represent each channel fractured wells productivity; light red lines represent each conventionally fractured wells
productivity; the wide blue line represents the average productivity value for channel fracturing; and the wide red line
represents the average productivity value for conventional fracturing. It is apparent from the Fig. 21 that the majority of blue
lines are located at the upper part of the chart, and most of the red lines are located at the bottom of chart (i.e., have low
productivity). On average, the productivity of wells after channel fracturing is 64% higher than productivity after
conventional fracturing. It is worth mentioning that most of the light red lines that are located on the upper part of Fig. 21 are

IPTC 17409

13

from Shirokodolskoe field, and the reasons for this were described previously in this section. Without wells from
Shirokodolskoe field, average productivity after channel fracturing is 99% higher than after conventional fracturing; in other
words, the combination of channel fracturing with rod-shaped proppant doubles a wells productivity.
2

Normalized PI/Hnet for single well after channel fracturing

Average normalized PI/Hnet for all wells after channelfracturing
Normalized PI/Hnet for single well after conventional fracturing
Average normalized PI/Hnet for all wells after conventional fracturing

1.8
1.6

Normalized PI/Hnet

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0

20

40

60

80
Time, days

100

120

140

160

Fig.21Normalized PI/Hnet values for all analyzed wells and average values for channel fracturing and conventional fracturing.

The productivity comparison of channel fractured wells with and without rod-shaped proppant did not provide clear
conclusions: average productivity is close. One of the reasons is that there were not many treatments pumped without rodshaped proppant (only 6 out of 20 analyzed) as proppant flowback was a serious concern and rod-shaped proppant
significantly outperforms any other proppant flowback control methods (McDaniel et al. 2010; Kayumov, Konchenko et al.
2012; Edelman et al. 2013; Abdelhamid et al. 2013; Gawad et al. 2013). Also, the tail-in stage is very short and designed just
to fill a fracture on a distance of few meters from wellbore. Such a short proppant pack should not considerably decrease
overall average fracture conductivity, and the production difference can be too small to be detected on the field level. But
what is really important is that no proppant flowback have been observed in any wells treated with channel fracturing
enhanced by rod-shaped proppant, and this combination provides a comprehensive solution for all Devonian reservoirs in
Volga-Urals region of Russia.
Conclusions
Implementation of channel fracturing enhanced by rod-shaped proppant brings substantial value for depleted Devonian
formations in the Orenburg region of Russia. Highly conductive channels inside the proppant pack significantly minimize
influence of multiphase and non-Darcy flow to overall production. Rod-shaped proppant in the tail-in stage provides the
highest possible conductivity in the critical near-wellbore region and eliminates the potential proppant flowback problem.
More than 30 channel fracturing treatments have been successfully pumped in the Volga-Urals Devonian formations
during the fracturing campaign described in this paper. Rod-shaped proppant was used as a tail-in stage on 68% of all
channel fracturing jobs. The following results of the campaign have been reported:
1. Average productivity after channel fracturing is 99% higher than after conventional fracturing in the closest
offset wells; in other words, the combination of channel fracturing with rod-shaped proppant doubles a wells
productivity.
2. The two-fold productivity increase and long-lasting treatment results provide confidence in the stability of the
channels in challenging areas with low fracturing-fluid efficiency and long tip-screenout regime during the main
fracturing treatment and, subsequently, very high net pressure.
3. No single screenout was observed in channel fracturing treatments; the screenout ratio for Devonian formations
with conventional fracturing treatments was 8%.
4. The absence of screenout with channel fracturing allows us to design more aggressive fracturing treatments
compared to conventional jobs pumped previously: a larger proppant mass, higher average and final proppant
concentration, aggressive proppant ramp, and larger propped width. In spite of the aggressiveness of treatment
designs, observed net pressure did not increase over conventional treatments because there is less tendency for
proppant packing in the fracture.

14

IPTC 17409

5.

6.

Channel fracturing decreases proppant friction pressure by 41% compared with conventional fracturing due to
addition of fibrous material during pumping and the pulsating nature of channel fracturing when proppant
pulses alternate by clean fluid pulses.
No proppant flowback issues were observed in channel fracturing treatments in which rod-shaped proppant was
used in the tail-in stage.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Rosneft and Schlumberger for their support and permission to publish this paper. Special
acknowledgments go to Elena Sadyrina and Kirill Tarasenko for their field contribution during the first channel fracturing
treatments in the Orenburg region. Also, authors would like to acknowledge Ivan Titov for his help in candidate selection and
data gathering.
References
Abdelhamid, M., Marouf, M., Kamal, Y., et al. 2013. Field Development Study: Channel Fracturing Technique Combined with RodShaped Proppant Improves Production, Eliminates Proppant Flowback Issues and Screen-outs in the Western Desert, Egypt. Paper
SPE 164753 presented at the North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition, Cairo, Egypt, 1517 April.
Dedurin A.V., Majar, V.A., Voronkov A.A., et al. 2006. Designing Hydraulic Fractures in Russian Oil and Gas Fields to Accommodate
Non-Darcy and Multiphase Flow. Paper SPE 101821 presented at the SPE Russian Oil & Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Moscow, Russia, 36 October.
Edelman, J., Maghrabia, K., Semary, M., et al. 2013. Rod-Shaped Proppant Provides Superior Proppant Flowback Control in the Egyptian
Eastern Desert. Paper SPE 164014 presented at the SPE Middle East Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, Muscat, Oman,
2830 January
Gawad, A. A., Long, J., El-Khalek, T., et al. 2013. Novel Combination of Channel Fracturing with Rod-Shaped Proppant Increases
Production in the Egyptian Western Desert. Paper SPE 165179 presented at the European Formation Damage Conference and
Exhibition, Noordwijl, The Netherlands, 57 June.
Gillard, M., Medvedev O., Pea, A., et al. 2010. A New Approach to Generating Fracture Conductivity. Paper SPE 135034 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 2022 September.
Grace, J.D. 2005. Russian Oil Supply. Performance and Prospects. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Kayumov, R., Konchenko, A., Nevvonen O., et al. 2012. The First Implementation of Elongated Proppant for Hydraulic Fracturing in
Russia. Paper SPE 160242 presented at the SPE Russian Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Moscow, Russia, 1618 October.
Kayumov, R., Klyubin, A., Yudin, A., et al. 2012. First Channel Fracturing Applied in Mature Wells Increases Production from Talinskoe
Oilfield in Western Siberia. Paper SPE 159347 presented at the SPE Russian Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, 1618 October.
McDaniel, G., Abbot, J., Mueller, F., et al. 2010. Changing the Shape of Fracturing: New Proppant Improves Fracture Conductivity. Paper
SPE 135360 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 1922 September.
Medvedev, A., Yudina, K., Panga, M., et al. 2013. On the Mechanisms of Channel Fracturing. Paper SPE 163836 presented at the SPE
Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 46 February.
Sadykov, A., Yudin, A., Oparin M., et al. 2012. Channel Fracturing in the Remote Taylakovskoe Oil Field: Reliable Stimulation
Treatments for Significant Production Increase. Paper SPE 160767 presented at the SPE Russian Oil & Gas Exploration & Production
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, 1618 October.
Samir, M., Kamal, M., Mathur, A., et al. 2013. Production Enhancement in the Egyptian Western Desert Using the Channel Fracturing
Techniquea Field Case Study. Paper SPE 164709 presented at the North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition, Cairo, Egypt,
1517 April.
Vincent, M.C., Pearson, C.M., Kullman, J. 1999. Non-Darcy and Multiphase Flow in Propped Fractures: Case Studies Illustrate the
Dramatic Effect on Well Productivity. Paper SPE 54630 presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, USA,
2628 May.
Yudin, A., Enkababian, Ph., Lyapunov, K., et al. 2013. First Steps of Channel Fracturing in Russia Set New Directions for Production
Increase of the Oil Fields. Paper IPTC 16742 presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Beijing, China, 2628
March.

Nomenclature
h
effective reservoir thickness, m
Jd
dimensionless productivity
k
permeability of porous media, m2 or mD

average reservoir pressure, atm

Pwf
bottomhole flowing pressure, atm (bar)
q
fluid production, m3/day

fluid viscosity, Pas

SI Metric Conversion Factors
atm
1.013 250* E+05
= Pa
bar
1.0* E+05
= Pa

IPTC 17409

bbl
1.589 873 E01
cp
1.0* E03
ft
3.048* E01
ft2
9.290 304* E02
ft3
2.831 685 E02
F
(F32)/1.8
gal
3.785 412 E03
lbm
4.535 924 E01
psi
6.894 757 E+00
*Conversion factor is exact.

15

= m3
= Pas
=m
= m2
= m3
= C
= m3
= kg
= kPa