SPE 93168

A Fracture Treatment Design Optimization Process To Increase Production and Control
Proppant Flowback for Low-Temperature, Low-Pressure Reservoirs
B.D. Krismartopo and L. Notman, Caltex Pacific Indonesia, and T. Kritzler, T. Kristanto, and P. Nguyen, Halliburton

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
back of proppant, the conductivity of the fracture is reduced,
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and and consequently so is the production of the well.
Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 5 – 7 April 2005.
Three major categories are used for sand and proppant
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
• Natural sand production (unconsolidated formations)
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at • Proppant flow-back during clean-up of proppant
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 fracturing treatments
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
• Proppant flow-back during the production life
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. This paper concentrates on the latter issues and provides
solutions for reducing proppant flow-back during the
Abstract production life of a well.
As the pumping pressure is released at the end of a fracturing Several techniques are available to avoid or minimize the
treatment, the proppant remains in the fractures, holding them flow-back of proppant during the life of the well. The
open and forming conduits for fluid to flow into the wellbore. technology that should be applied depends on economic and
If the proppant flows back into the wellbore, the width of the petroleum engineering issues, such as rate of proppant
fracture channels will decrease. The loss of proppant from the produced, production rates and medium, sand size,
fractures limits the flow-channel conductivity, choking the permeability,1 etc. Available technologies include:
production potential of the well and impairing the • Screens
effectiveness of the fracture treatment. • Screenless completion technologies
Resin-coated sands, oriented perforating, tip screen-out • Resin-coated proppant
designs, and screens are just some of the technologies that • Orientated perforating
have been applied in the past to overcome the aforementioned • Limited entry perforating2
problem. For low-temperature, low-pressured reservoirs, the • Tip screen-out designs
challenges increase because even small pressure drops or • Proppant flow-back control additives
conductivity reductions can have a large influence on the final • Injecting a resin solution after the treatment
production results, and resin-coated sand will not cure • Deformable isometric material3
effectively at temperatures below 130°F.
This paper highlights how a proppant production problem Screens are the preferred technology in unconsolidated
was successfully overcome through the application of several formations and are normally considered a last resort due to
technologies. Statistical analysis was used to help evaluate cost implications. Plugging of the screen (and the resulting
these technologies during the trial period, indicating that reduction in productivity) further decreases the attractiveness
orientated perforating had a limited influence on the proppant of this technology. Thus, an industry-wide trend has been to
flow-back, but a negative impact on production. However, move to screenless completions, which apply one of the
with the help of a tip screen-out design and a newly developed aforementioned technologies. Propped-fracture operations that
proppant flow-back control additive, the proppant flow-back use sand-control screens have been successful in fracpack
problem was overcome and production was improved. jobs. However, screens employed in conventional sand-control
applications increase well-completion costs and are known to
Sand Control Issues fail with time.
Proppant or sand flow-back poses a serious challenge to the In 1975, a phenolic-based resin system was patented for
oil industry and has therefore been a focus for several decades. use in preparing curable, resin-precoated proppant.4 Resin-
The challenges occur because sand production damages coated sands were one of the earliest technologies designed to
surface facilities and downhole tubulars. Production has to be prevent proppant flow-back and were introduced in the early
stopped to work over wells, and costs are increased to dispose 1980s. These proppants show several other benefits along with
and clean the produced sand. Furthermore, due to the flow-

Some safety concerns occur during normal production operations. applying previous resin system are incorporated to ensure the Tip screen-outs are now widely accepted in the industry as success of the treatment. When all result. the well is flowed back as Today. The main functions of the fibrous strands are to induce These resin systems are formulated with a proprietary bridging at the perforations and allow solid-free fluid to flow additive to help replace the gel film adhering to the proppant through. and (2) minimize the logistical problems on zones. epoxy system fracture stops moving and therefore prevents further fracture designed for a temperature range of 70 to 225°F extension. the resin required to effectively handle the repeated stress cycles that mixture must be disposed of properly.8 the individual components (i.2 B. As long as six proppant grains are unstable. resin intended to coat the proppant stays with the proppant. the low-temperature LRS was selected for evaluation of its flowback control capability. one-component. KRISTANTO.6 The main purpose of this itself. NOTMAN. P. this phenomenon has not been fully explained because All of the resin components are preblended. which Oriented perforating for fracturing purposes has been may cause some incompatibility or interference with the fluid described by several authors. Fibrous materials. As a multiple components into a single batch at well site. The new LR systems include: out is achieved when proppant at the leading edge of the • A low-temperature. epoxy system continued injection of the fracture fluid. not all stress so they are in the plane of the fracture. The removal of crosslinked that the permeability of a proppant pack is reduced when a gel coating on the proppant enhances the contact between fiber material is used (Table 1). This technology is described in environment existing in most of the fields in the present study. so only the laboratory results show that proppant packs that are wider than preblended solutions are brought to the well site. Consolidation coupled with flexibility is generally premature screenout occurs during the frac treatment. even under low or no closure-stress conditions. the next the next section. This stress exist to apply on the proppant-deformable particulate so process may raise some concerns if a premature screen-out the particles will adhere to one another via inter-embedment. where it coats onto the proppant. Thus. The new LR systems are designed to a method to improve production by providing an increased (1) minimize the interaction between the resin and the carrier channel of conductivity to avoid fracturing into unwanted fluid system. however. These solid materials are mixed The proppant is directly coated with the resin before being with the proppant and become an intimate part of the proppant blended in the fracturing fluid. especially with . In this case. NGUYEN SPE 93168 reducing proppant flow back. As a result. The proppant embedment. inside the wellbore. due to heat of reaction. third-party laboratory results have shown with a film of the LRS material. However. providing an designed for a temperature range of 200 to 350°F increased proppant packing inside the fracture. reduced fines production. In addition. between the resin and the fracturing fluid. T. regardless of these new additives that are soon as possible to prevent the need for coiled tubing to clean commercially available. The width of the fracture is further increased by • A high-temperature.7 A tip screen. their costs are relatively high resin mixture is injected directly to the frac gel slurry in the and they have a tendency to reduce the permeability of the blender tub. they need an elevated compete with the frac gel to coat onto the surface of proppant temperature and closure stresses to set. The increased • A high-temperature. occurs during the frac treatment and the proppant slurry settles Without the closure stress. T.9 and deformable mixer to form a homogeneous mixture before being coated particulate10 have been used by operators in recent years to directly onto the proppant in the sand screws. If the frac treatment is delayed or a developed. perforations that will not accept proppant and near-wellbore Recently. To apply this technology for handling proppant flow-back problems after hydraulic successfully. grains. pump.e. The resin must proppant pack. This direct coating maximizes pack. a new family of LRS products was introduced tortuosity are minimized. a stable pack cannot be established. and reduction of resin system was mainly applied as a wet coat application. this resin mixture has a consolidation strength of the coated proppant pack can still be limited shelf-life. Furthermore. furan system stress inside the fracture on the proppant pack might designed for a temperature range of 300 to 550°F contribute to the prevention of proppant flow-back. fibrous bundles. The two technology applied to prevent or minimize flow-back of components are metered together on-the-fly through a static proppants. resin-coated proppant materials are out the wellbore.5 However. Proppant flow-back control additives are the newest they should remain stable for many months. still the option of choice for reducing proppant flow-back Because of the low-temperature and low-closure-stress during production of a well. control proppant flowback. such as increased crush large volume. are related to the storage of this mixed resin.. A network is created between the proppant and the solid the coating effectiveness of resin designed to be coated onto strands to minimize the proppant movement within the pack the dry proppant and minimizes the chemical interaction during production. high the components are mixed together. L. The resin freely interacts with the frac gel fluid. KRISMARTOPO. two-component. location. thus increasing the consolidation of the The use of deformable particulate requires that closure proppant pack even without applied closure stress. proppant grains. two-component. The low BHT in this reservoir Liquid Resin System (LRS) yields a slow cure rate and allows the LRS to remain in liquid An early system of resin mixture was prepared by blending state for a few hours after being coated on the proppant. This early on-the-fly resistance. and tubing. and also to prevent proppant flow-back. KRITZLER. epoxy system) are separated.11 Lessons learned from designing and and the guns have to be oriented accordingly. technology is to align the perforations with the maximum such as blender tub.D. the stress orientation of the field has to be known fracturing treatments. the resin may also coat onto the equipment.

very hydraulically fractured. 2) secondary recovery liquid resin until it becomes fully cured. the material. Each cycle begins with poor/no reservoir Detailed Improvement Process quality and poorly sorted glauconitic sandstones that are At the beginning. resulting in possible success rate did not. field. even when heated. the Finally. the following from the proppant surface during pumping because completion strategy was identified to maximize production the resin system has been specially formulated to while minimizing the chance of proppant production: preferentially coat proppants in gelled fluids. Due to the low bottomhole and two sands in Telisa Formation. which results in low permeability and design was adjusted to 180° phasing. 4 SPF was Permeability average is 143 md. the same retained conductivity test as mentioned project team needed to find the optimum previously (Table 1) regarding fibrous material was performed perforation scheme. LOW-PRESSURED RESERVOIRS The LRS-treated proppant provides the following poor reservoir properties and high heterogeneity. The Balam South field is located in the middle of Sumatra • Since proppant flow-back was still observed with Island. A good TSO was expected to significantly Field Summary reduce proppant flow-back production. The perforation carbonate mud content. the low productivity. or extensive baffles (Fig. depositional discussed. more production can be expected. resulting in greater concentration of resin at contact points. This factor c. it is possible that only two sides of fine to fine-grained sandstone parasequences. Furthermore. all producers and injectors contrast. Foraminiferal packstones cap each very fine sandfill decreased significantly (Fig. correlated against oil production and sand fill. However. Capillary technique has been selected to increase the oil recovery in this action causes limited flow of the liquid resin.SPE 93168 A FRACTURE TREATMENT DESIGN OPTIMIZATION PROCESS TO INCREASE PRODUCTION 3 AND CONTROL PROPPANT FLOW-BACK FOR LOW-TEMPERATURE. with 180° phasing. With this design. Production is primarily of a proppant flow-back control material was from nine sands that have been identified in Duri Formations considered. . Hydraulic fracturing design with tip screenout the fracturing fluids. reasons previously mentioned in this section and the fact that the hydraulic fracturing design was varied to fines movement was reduced through application of the LRS. In the upper part of each cycle. LRS-treated conditions. The following considerations were taken into sometimes impede grain-to-grain contact and account: consolidation. the selection production began in February 1972. with the help of hydraulic fracturing the concentrating it between proppant grains and production rates and recovery rates can be increased. and oil production. LRS remains as a An inverted 9-spot Waterflood (Fig. • When coated onto the proppant. The well spacing was found to give the best production results. Perforation density and to identify whether the resin was damaging the formation. Considering this history and the reservoir promotes grain-to-grain contact. Therefore. The field was discovered in 1970 and optimum perforation design and TSO. because hydraulic fracturing would be applied. Thus. are less • Limited entry perforation tacky. Four major cycles of deposition are represented. (SPF) were applied (Fig. When the shot density was adjusted and The reservoir porosity typically ranged from 17 to 32%. the RCPs. 1). a LRS was selected. Indonesia. Because the wells were reservoir sandstones are predominantly finely laminated. Perforation scheme these RCPs has been shown to be leached off into b. even when closure stress is not present or is Completion Strategy very low in the fracture. An experimental design approach was chosen to ensure • LRS is formulated with additives that promote the that the optimum recovery rate could be achieved over the life displacement of gelled fracturing fluid film that can of the project. The resin from some of a. whereas 6 SPF did not increase oil at an average depth of 700 ft with an initial bottomhole production significantly (Fig 3). The Telisa formation is a temperatures and the advantages previously unique reservoir in terms of reservoir properties. replaced by a film of the LRS • Under normal conditions. casing. and have poor grain-to-grain contact without • Experimental design applied closure stress. Past history of proppant fracs have shown severe cases of • LRS-treated proppant is tacky. 90° phasing perforations at 4 shots per foot frequently tightly cemented. system. the more perforation. formation damage due to drilling fluids and the proppant has a slower cure rate and is not removed production history of earlier Telisa wells. the job team decided to stay field-wide seals. In • Cemented 7-in. Two SPF did not approximately 31 to 62 Acres. Telisa is a significant reservoir but has with 180° perforation scheme is currently applied. achieve TSO fracturing and a low proppant flow- back. with variable perforations were connected with the fracture. Proppant flowback control if required allows LRS to efficiently contribute to the final consolidation strength of the treated proppant pack. This result can be explained partially by • After the optimum perforation scheme was found. which results performance: in very low oil recovery factor (4%). and this tackiness proppant flow back. 4) while the treatment to fine-grained sandstone parasequence. resin (Table 2). a combination of 4 SPF pressure of 340 psi. The Telisa Reservoir is found decrease the sand fill. The phasing degree are the first parameters that were conductivity was shown to increase after the application of the varied to try to achieve sand-free production. 3). (TSO) • All of the resin in LRS is curable.

The proppant pack required a campaign. Except for two wells that screened out early during minimum of 20 hours curing time for grain-to-grain contact the fracturing treatment. operations. As expected. 6 shows that after the LRS homogeneous activated resin blend (Fig. Of the 11 wells in which an LRS was not executed.5 %. reducing field Due to the low bottomhole temperature present in this operational costs. Four SPF maximizes production. T. The intended proppant Young’s Modulus formation because other means of sand amount was 90. sand observed. The individual product was implemented a significant reduction in sand fill components were transferred into the LRS blender (Figs. the PAD size of the job was SPF to 6 SPF. Thus. and then was decreased to 4 % at the The following conclusions where drawn from different eleventh job to achieve tip screen-out. (Fig. the sand production was significantly LRS-coated proppant into the blender tub that mixed the reduced with the application of the LRS material. the low Young’s Modulus. Sand fill could not be eliminated with 180° stress. the workover rig 2. system for low bottomhole temperatures and low closure 4. due to consolidation. sequence: and then leaving the well for the stimulation job. The fluid system used was 30-lb/Mgal crosslinked control was used successfully to prevent proppant from being HPG. The perforation design had only limited influence flow-back.000 lb per well. with a steady decrease in jobs. as this technology seemed to be the best suited on the success rate of the fracturing treatments. KRITZLER. an increase in the Nolte-Smith (N-S) reduce cost. This result proppant with fracturing fluid before the mixture was pumped was followed by a reduction in work-overs to 25% when downhole. 4.5 % to with different perforation phasing. However. Application of the LRS Because the perforation design seemed to be independent The first fracturing treatment using LRS was the only job with of the sand fill observed. The mixed LRS productivity index. the fracturing job included LRS additive to overcome sand 3.500 gal. based upon the post-job analysis. Step-rate test returned to the well to drill out the remaining proppant inside 3. and the production still occurred. i. where the auger action helped spread and coat the without destabilizing the proppant pack. with the PAD volume reduced to to 180° phasing or when the shot density was increased from 2 achieve a TSO. low-temperature wells (Table 3) with a very low ramp-up starting from 1 to 15 lb/gal. the proppant was coated only in the tail-in portion to volume of the PAD fluid. compared to the level previously observed. The back-produced. TSO . such as conventional resin-coated proppant. 3 indicates that an increase in The liquid resin and the hardener were delivered to the the N-S did not consistently reduce sand fill. This result was 4% over time.D. L. the wells were successfully fractured and for the liquid resin to cure properly after the treatment was as per design. approximately 14. the next step was implemented: an 100% of the proppant coated. shallow depth of the formation. resin onto the dry proppant. setting open-ended tubing. with an average pumping rate of 14 bbl/min. phasing. the production expectations were met and 9) and metered in proportion with the desired fluid and on a well-by-well basis. accurately in real-time mode. 8 wells experienced proppant flow-back and required Because of the relatively long curing time. no significant The trend of the fracturing design as previously described tortuosity indications were observed with the change from 90° was increasingly aggressive. NOTMAN. some of the work-overs. control. Approximately 32 % of total proppant pumped Slope could be observed. After 1. Mini fracturing treatment the wellbore..5-in. NGUYEN SPE 93168 During the fracturing treatment execution. starting from the twelfth job. After the drilling and cementing The fracturing treatment was performed through 3. A low-temperature LRS was used in low- proppant used was 12/20 natural sand with concentration pressure. the resin did not influence the proppant rate pumped during the treatment. KRISMARTOPO. The data shown in Fig. In 9 out of 10 of the following aggressive TSO design. Each fracturing treatment involved the following by perforating the target interval. the workover rig moved in and prepared the well tubing. Main fracturing treatment Summary and Conclusions The average pad size for wells without LRS treatment was This paper shows that a new method of proppant flow-back 1. 6. 7). which provides sufficient mixing to create a by implementing the LRS. T. jobs were performed rigless. 8 was observed. liquid was then injected to the bottom of the sand screw (Figs. Because a live annulus perforation designs: was available. Fig. 5). an aggressive breaker schedule was applied to ensure that early gel breaking would allow the proppant grains to Fracturing Procedure obtain grain-to-grain contact before the resin cured completely A total of 23 wells have been fractured in this fracturing at reservoir temperature. No change in near-wellbore friction was observed could be expected when the PAD was reduced from 14. In the beginning. KRISTANTO. explained by the low bottomhole pressures However. the net pressure increase could be observed 1. field.4 B.e. It showed a steady increase. the draw-down could be increased to the maximum allowable 10 and 11). The concentration of LRS noted and correlated to the N-S Slope during the treatment used to coat the proppant was 3% (volume by volume). The sand screws delivered the As shown in Fig. On the other hand. well location in separate containers and were pumped through The next step during the improvement process was taken a static mixer. Break-down test fracturing treatment and curing time. P. The sand fill after the treatments was was coated with LRS (Table 3). applied. as 2.

” SPE Production & Facilities (Nov.: “Screenless Tip- acknowledged are Balam AMT members and Joe Schmidt and Screenout Fracturing: A Detailed Examination of Recent Carlos Pardo from ChevronTexaco EPTC for their valuable Experience." 2004 (Private Internal Company Report). The frequency of work-overs due to sand fill was also reduced 6. P. Proppant Flowback and Improves Fracture Conductivity. and laboratory tests have shown that Proppants. and Weaver. P.. Table 2—Proppant Conductivity Comparison a between Proppant and Proppant + LRS Closure Stress Conductivity Sample (psi) (Darcy) Proppant 1 350 57. C. Norman. 9. et al.7 Fiber a Data supplied by Lemigas. et al. Washington. Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Terracina.S. et al.” paper SPE 77677 presented at the Flowback by Adding Deformable Particles to Proppant 2002 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Louisiana. and Asgian. J. M. Stephenson. M. Soliman. LOW-PRESSURED RESERVOIRS fracturing. McCabe.: “An Evaluation Method for Screen.. Venezuela. Stephenson. New Orleans.: “A Novel Technology to Control Proppant 2.: “Use of Orientated Perforations and New Gun System Optimizes Fracturing of High by 75%. Fan.” paper SPE 53793 presented at the 1999 Latin America and Caribbean Acknowledgements Petroleum Engineering Conference. .. Looney. and success. Rahim. The Hague. Unconsolidated Formations.” U.1 Proppant 1 and 350 94.D.191 (Dec.A. 13-14 May. paper SPE 82215 presented at the 2003 SPE European Indonesia. D. Patent No. Saudi Arabia. presented at the 1999 Annual Technical Conference and 3. P.W.” paper SPE 56593 Antonio.3 LRS a Data supplied by Lemigas. support and permission to publish this paper. 30 September-3 October. and Jones. D. L. Card. Houston.” paper SPE 24821 presented at the 2002 International Symposium and presented at the 1992 Annual Conference and Exhibition. et al.Y. 1995) Fracturing Case Histories in the Carbonate and Sandstone 271-6.D. J. References 8.” paper SPE 71653 presented at the at the 2001 contributions.929.A.” paper SPE 20640.: “Method for Treating Subterranean Formation.D. High-Production Wells. Table 1—Proppant Conductivity Comparison a between Proppant and Proppant + Fiber Closure Stress Conductivity Sample (psi) (Darcy) Proppant 1 350 57.: “Application of Curable Resin-coated could not be observed. R. San Packs Tested in the Laboratory. J. Exhibition on Formation Damage Control.C. SPE Production the conductivity often was increased when this LRS was used. Permeability. Hodge. M.M. 3-6 October.M.D. and Al-Qahtani. 17-19 April. Formation Damage Conference. 30. Lafayette. R. “Increased Resistance to Proppant Field.: “Factor 1.1 Proppant 1 and 350 21. The authors thank CPI and Halliburton management for their 21-23 April.: "Controlling Proppant paper SPE 68656 presented at the 2001 Asia Pacific Oil Flowback in High-Temperature. 4. Graham. obtained in "Proppant Conductivity Testing Project. Caracas. Nguyen. Affecting the Stability of Proppant in Propped Fractures: only and Gravel-Pack Completions. 4-7 October . M. The Netherlands.J. Z.” 11.D. G. Texas.J. M. et al. 29 September-2 October." 2004 (Private Internal Company Report).. and Rae. and 180° phased perforating showed only limited 5.: “New Technology Prevents Exhibition. Louisiana. Ghawar 10. J.R.” paper SPE 73772 Results on a Laboratory Study. C. Engineering (November 1992) p.. obtained in "Proppant Conductivity Testing Project. A production decrease due to the use of this resin Nguyen. 20-21 February.: “Hydraulic Backproduction. Milton-Tayler.. 3. Y. 1975). Reservoirs of Khuff and Pre-Khuff Formations. Lullo. Bartko K. 343-349." and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta. Texas.SPE 93168 A FRACTURE TREATMENT DESIGN OPTIMIZATION PROCESS TO INCREASE PRODUCTION 5 AND CONTROL PROPPANT FLOW-BACK FOR LOW-TEMPERATURE. Also 7.

NOTMAN.300 83.46 0.73 E+5 5.2 0.5 Pump rate (bbl/min) 14 14 Fracture net pressure 166 267 (psi) Proppant in formation (lb) 80. L. T.2 Frac gradient (psi/ft) 0. NGUYEN SPE 93168 Table 3—The average of Balam South Telisa Fracturing Parameters Wells without Wells with LRS-Treated Proppant LRS-Treated Proppant Well Parameters Number of jobs 11 10 Tubing depth (ft) 582 590 Top pay (ft) 614 610 Bottom pay (ft) 715 726 Length of Interval 1 (ft) 17. KRISTANTO.13 E+5 Poisson's Ratio 0.) 0. SPF 4 4 Perforation phasing (°) 90 180 Perforation size (in.6 B.45 17.791 0. KRISMARTOPO.179 Final proppant 12 12 concentration (ppa) LRS-coated proppant (%) 0 32 .D.633 Closure pressure (psi) 430 327 Fluid and Proppant Sand type Natural Natural Proppant size (mesh) 12/20 12/20 Fluid Efficiency (%) 77 73 PAD Precentage (%) 9 5. T.46 Number of perforations 256 76 BHP (psi) 414 NA BHT (°F) 124 119 Reservoir Parameters Porosity (%) 33 37 Permeability (mD) 83 108 Young’s modulus (psi) 4.1 Length of Interval 2 (ft) 46 — Perforation density. KRITZLER. P.


D. L. NGUYEN SPE 93168 Fig.8 B. T. KRISTANTO. P. KRISMARTOPO. 2— Inverted spot pattern design. KRITZLER. . NOTMAN. T.

. sand fill. Fig.3. Fig. BOPD. LOW-PRESSURED RESERVOIRS Fig. sand production (Largest % PAD. production (BFPD. sand fill). FHI Pressure Region-Flowing after tract). Nolte Slope 0.SPE 93168 A FRACTURE TREATMENT DESIGN OPTIMIZATION PROCESS TO INCREASE PRODUCTION 9 AND CONTROL PROPPANT FLOW-BACK FOR LOW-TEMPERATURE. 4—Perforation phasing vs. 5—Nolte Slope vs. 3—Perforation density vs.

L. 6—Comparison between non-LRS and LRS fracturing plotted against production and sand fill.10 B. KRISTANTO. NGUYEN SPE 93168 Fig.D. 7—Fracturing equipment layout for the treatment using LRS to dry-coat proppant on the fly. KRITZLER. NOTMAN. KRISMARTOPO. T. Fig. . P. T.


T.12 B. NGUYEN SPE 93168 Fig. T. . P. KRITZLER. KRISTANTO. 11—LRS injected in the bottom of the sand screw. NOTMAN. KRISMARTOPO. L.D.