IPA16-6-E

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Fortieth Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2016

SUCCESSFUL SAND CONTROL CAMPAIGN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A HIGHLY

HETEROGENEOUS AND MULTILAYERED SANDSTONE RESERVOIR IN INDONESIA: A
CASE STORY OFFSHORE NATUNA SEA

Barbara Tsangueu*
Cal Wallace*
Job Roy Ginting**
Dian Sutejo**

ABSTRACT the constraint to optimize completion time. As a

The Natuna Sea in Indonesia contains highly
laminated and partly consolidated sandstone, with a
combination of high- and low-permeability zones,
requiring different types of sand control completions
(frac packs or high-rate water packs). Previous
operators developing the same area have used
multizone single-trip (MST) completion tools to be
able to optimize completion time while tailoring the
pumping treatment to each interval specific
properties. In order to do so, operators have used rigs
with ample deck space or vessels temporarily
outfitted with pumping equipment to keep the
flexibility of completion types for each zone. In this
specific case story, the operator had different
constraints but was able to successfully complete the
campaign and to overcome the challenges operating
from on board a relatively small jackup rig. The
challenges were addressed using an optimized skid-
based pumping spread and exclusive carrier fluid
technology. In addition, pumping design
optimization was done through minifrac analysis to
evaluate formation mechanical properties and fluid
efficiency to ensure the final treatment pumped
would be placed successfully. From the completion
point of view, the wells for this campaign were
highly deviated, increasing the risk of early screenout
due to proppant settling and high tortuosity.
Rigorous onsite fluid QA/QC during operations
eliminated risks of premature sand settling due to
fluid quality, and prefracturing diagnostic tests and
use of a low-concentration slurry stage enabled
recognition of high near-wellbore friction pressures
and then overcoming them when necessary. A total
of 24 pumping stages comprised of 16 frac packs and
8 high-rate water packs were successfully placed in
eight wells. The treatments utilized a carrier fluid
whose properties were easily adjustable on the fly
allowing appropriate treatments for each zone within
the limitations posed by the available equipment and
main result, production targets have been exceeded
by 57% versus initial expectations.
INTRODUCTION
This completion campaign covered 3 fields in the
Natuna Sea: Pelikan, Naga and Gajah Baru.
The Gajah Baru field had already been previously
appraised and developed using Expandable Sand
Screens (ESS) for sand control, and although the
wells produced relatively solids free did not yield as
much production as hoped. The decision was made
by the client completion team to change the
completion method to multizone single trip
completions, as per example diagram below.
Using the MST, each zone is treated separately,
however challenges arise because the trip time for
one zone to the next is quite short (less than 12 hours,
leaving little time to prepare each treatment).
Other operators completing similar targets (Upper,
Lower and Middle Arang formations) in the Natuna
Sea using a similar setup have used a vessel based
equipment spread to be able to handle the volumes
required for frac fluid and proppant for all zones at
once. This operator decided against this option,
which made the optimization of the frac treatments
and the pumping process even more critical than
usual. This also resulted in sometimes adding
segments, (breaking down a target sand in 2) to allow
smaller pumping treatments.
DESIGN PROCESS
Initial frac designs
Initial designs were prepared based on available
predicted zone properties before drilling, and later on
optimized after receiving log data from drilling.

* Schlumberger
** Premier Oil Indonesia
These preliminary designs were prepared assuming
some fluid properties from previous completions in
the area with another operator, and taking into
account limitations from the available space on the
deck. For instance, the pump rate was limited to 20
BPM, the proppant amount per zone to 65,000 lbs
and the fluid volume per zone to 1000 bbls.
Fracturing fluid design
There are several factors to be considered for the
fracturing fluid design
 Compatibility with the reservoir: mainly affects
which brine is used for the carrier fluid. This was
handled by performing shale stability tests at
various concentrations of potassium chloride
(KCl) acting as shale stabilizer. The summary of
these tests can be seen in Table 1 and it was
concluded the minimum recommended
concentration was 6 % KCL.
 Potential damage caused to the reservoir and
proppant
 Expected fluid efficiency given reservoir
conditions
 Ease of operations: the carrier fluid must be easy
to mix and handle offshore
 Adequate viscosity: to provide the adequate
viscosity for initiating and propagating the frac
and carrying the proppant into the frac and
around the screen/casing annular
 Economics
Initially, there were 2 options considered for carrier
fluid for the completions:
1. A crosslinked guar based fluid: the guar based
fluid is a polymer based fluid, typically mixed
with a KCl based brine, and that requires several
additives:
 The gelling agent: can be added on the fly or
premixed prior to the pumping operations,
depending on the available equipment. The
gelling agent is usually added under the form
of a fine powder slurried in diesel, and this
solids content is responsible both for the
higher efficiency and higher formation
damage than solids-free option
 Crosslinker solution: the crosslinker solution
can include a delay agent as well as the
crosslinker and is always added on the fly
 Breaker solution: breakers are required to
reduce the viscosity of the carrier fluid after
placement of the frac to facilitate frac fluid
clean-up and reduce formation and proppant
pack damage.
2. A viscoelastic surfactant (VES) based fluid: the
VES based fluid is a solids free gelled fluid that
does not rely on polymer to build viscosity.
Rather, the viscosity is built from a network of
micelles connecting with each other once mixing
energy is high enough. It has superior proppant
carrier capabilities at much lower viscosities
than crosslinked gel. Because it is solids-free, the
fluid loss control only relies on viscosity, which
makes it less efficient than a polymer based gel
as there is no wall building effect when pumping
in a permeable formation. However, it also a lot
less damaging, with retained permeability in the
range of 80% to 90%. Finally, it has the
significant advantage of requiring only 2 liquid
additives that can both be added on the fly to the
brine, reducing equipment requirements and
potential for fluid waste after the job. Because
there is no premixing involved, it is also
operationally easier to handle and less time
consuming to prepare. The VES does not require
any external breaker when used in oil wells as it
will break upon contact with hydrocarbons or
any mutual solvents. For dry gas wells, it is
recommended to add an external encapsulated
breaker.
Both fluid options can provide satisfactory rheology
profiles and sand settling properties. However, from
an operation point of view in an operation with
limited tank volume available, the VES based fluid
was the best option to optimize fluid volumes and
preparation time in between stages. From a formation
damage standpoint, the 2 fluids were tested for
retained permeability through the proppant pack
using the proppant size planned for these
completions.
Results in Table 2 show that a better retained
permeability was achieved using the VES.
Consequently, the client made the decision to use the
VES based fluid.
Pumping sequence
For all the zones, the following stages were included
in the pumping sequence:
1. A pickle stage: the pickle comprised of a pipe
dope solvent stage followed by a low strength
 acid pickle stage to remove rust from the
workstring prior to gravel packing operations.
The pickle stages were circulated down to the
gravel pack port then reversed out with the rig
pumps (done one time per well before the first
zone).
2. Circulation and injection tests with completion
brine
3. A breakdown test followed by a Step Rate Test
with low concentration VES based fluid
4. A minifrac stage for the zones to be completed
with fracpack: to evaluate the fluid efficiency
and make the final decision on pumping design.
At this point if the fluid efficiency is too low, the
decision would be made to complete the zone as
a High Rate Water Pack (HRWP) instead of a
frackpack to ensure a good proppant pack can be
achieved in the screen-casing annulas.
5. Main treatment: HRWP or fracpack
6. A post flush of mutual solvent: the post flush of
mutual solvent was spotted after the treatment.
This stage is recommended when using the fluid
in dry gas wells, as the concentration of
hydrocarbon is much less than liquid
hydrocarbon producers.
EXECUTION
Frac spread rig-up and execution plan
The initial spread requirements were established
based on desired pump volumes but later refined
following a rig visit by the service contractor
representative on the Harukyu 11.
Some preparation work was then agreed with the rig
contractor, namely the building of the support skid
frame for the sand silo to be able to spread the load
and not jeopardize maximum deck loading.
Another requirement was to build a small skid for
holding the tote tanks used to carry the chemicals.
These tote tanks are required to be held inside a
secondary containment area to avoid any
contamination by chemical spills that might happen
when taking out hoses from tanks for example.
Finally, another point to figure out was the handling
of proppant big bags while being shipped offshore
and while being cut inside the sand silo in between
stages. To handle the big bags individually, they have
to be lifted using only the handles on the bags. There
were concerns about whether the handles would be
strong enough to be lifted high in the air and not fail,
potentially harming personnel on the way and
causing material loss. After thorough risk assessment
it was decided the bags would be transported inside
offshore baskets to be sent to the rigs, and lifted
individually only when filling the proppant silo.
Once finalized, the frac spread were mobilized from
Kalijapat jetty to Matak operations base. From the
Matak operations base, the pumping skids were
mobilized to the rig site once the wells were ready
for completion, and were returned to the Matak
operation base in between fields to make room on the
deck for upper completion and drilling equipment.
This caused a high amount of lifts and had to be
addressed by risk assessments to ensure all the HSE
risks linked to the lifts were mitigated properly.
Several unusual spaces had to be used on the rig to
accommodate the spread, such as the cantilever deck.
This made for long rig-up lines and several tripping
hazards all around the rig that had to be assessed and
managed properly. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the rig
up on the rig once completed.
Naga field completions
Naga field was completed first during the campaign,
with a total of 3 wells targeting 5 intervals. The
reservoir data and planned completion types are
summarized in the table 2 below:
a. Job execution and results
Table 5 summarizes treatment results for all the
zones in each well. While some of the treatment were
changed following minifrac analysis, all wells were
completed with full annular pack.
All frackpack treatments were executed with VES
based fluid, without any operational issues. A few
facts from execution summary:
 All UA-10 zones showed very high fluid
efficiency and therefore very low leak-off
coefficient values, which was expected as it had
the lowest average permeability (2 mD).
Therefore on these zones it was decided to pump
very small PAD volumes and bullhead the tubing
volume ahead of the PAD as a pre-PAD.
Proppant volumes were essentially limited by
silo size as much bigger treatments could have
been pumped to target a longer frac length.
 All MA treatments showed high near wellbore
friction.
b. Lessons learnt
Below is a summary of the lessons learnt from the
Naga completions:
 To address the potential low fluid efficiency like
the ones observed on UA-10 zones and optimize
the pad volume, it is recommended to bullhead
the tubing volume in the formation as a prepad
but take returns if the leak-off coefficient
measured during minifrac analysis <0.01 unless
there is evidence of high NWB friction.
 From the high near wellbore friction is Observed
after the minifrac stage, two main
recommendations were drawn:
 It is recommended to include a 0.5 ppa stage in
the final pumping schedule. This stage acts as a
“scrubber” pill because the low PPA stage erodes
and helps reducing the perforation entry friction.
 It is also recommended to adjust the final stage
proppant concentration on the fly based on the
pressure response while pumping the main frac
 If there is no significant decrease of the near
wellbore friction after the first proppant
stages, it might be difficult for the
perforations to accept a high proppant
concentration and the risks of bridging and
screening out are higher. Therefore it is
recommended to keep the highest proppant
concentration at 5 PPA.
 If there is a significant decrease of the near
wellbore friction after the first proppant
stages, the proppant concentration can then
be safely ramped up all the way to 10 PPA
 Typically, when a screen out occurs before the
planned end of the job (highest proppant
concentration of proppant reaching the
perforations), an attempt will be made to re-
engage the pumps and “pump in” again to ensure
full annular pack. From observations on Naga
completions, it was not recommended to attempt
to pump back in once a concentration of 4 PPA
or more had reached formation and a screen-out
occurred. Instead, it is recommended to open the
backside and allow natural pressure bleed-off
and flow to force the annular packing.
 Similarly, if the annulus surface pressure is
increasing during the proppant stage (indication
that the fracture has stopped growing in length
and is now packing), do not drop the pump rate
until the max proppant concentration has reached
the formation as long as the treating pressure
allows to allow the fracture to grow in width as
much as possible and get the optimum fracture
conductivity.
 For high rate water pack treatments, the 1 PPA
concentration was sometimes too low to allow a
good annular packing as it would not lead to
enough bridging inside the frac and slurry
dehydration. Therefore it is recommended to add
2 ppa stage at surface after a proppant amount
equivalent to 100 lbs/ft in perforations has been
pumped at 1 PPA concentration to help Annular
Pack. Once the 2 PPA stage reaches the
formation, the “clean fluid” available would not
be enough to help the small frac created to
continue grow in length and packing would start
occurring back towards the annular.
Pelikan field
Pelikan field was completed next during the
campaign, and initially only had a target of 2 wells,
PKA-2 and PKA-3. Well PKA-1 had already been
drilled during a previous campaign and was to be
completed with remaining ESS stock, but was later
on changed to MST completion as well following the
good results obtained with the frackpacks on Naga.
The reservoir data and planned completion types are
summarized in the table 6 below:
a. Job execution and results
Table 7 summarizes treatment results for all the
zones in each well. All wells were completed with
full annular pack. All fracpack treatments were
executed with VES based fluid. A few facts from
execution summary:
 Two early screen out occurred during the
frackapacks on MA-Ca5b zone in well PKA-2
and PKA-3. This was later analyzed to be due to
potential roping in the workstring while spotting
the PAD and slurry stages and bullheading the
tubing volume ahead of the main treatment at
low rate.
 All the treatments for MA-Ca5b screened out at
full rate.
 There was evidence of moderate to high near
wellbore friction pressure on the MA-Ca 5
fracpacks stages.
In general, the zones in the Pelikan wells were much
more difficult to pack because of weak barriers
between Segment 5a and 5b. There were several
instances of uncontrolled height growth leading to
premature job termination and reduced proppant
placement.
b. Lessons learnt from Pelikan completions
 It is recommended to avoid spotting the PAD and
early slurry stages at low rate because of the big
size workstring being used for these
completions. Roping might occur, causing the
proppant to reach the perforations before the
PAD and therefore causing an early screenout.
Roping occurs when a heavier viscous fluid
(slurry) is displacing a lighter viscous fluid at
low rate. The “front” of the heavier fluid will
finger through the lighter fluid, and the fluid
displacement cannot be assumed to be happening
in a piston-like displacement (see Figure 5).
 Add step down test if there is no water hammer
effect observed on breakdown to verify location
of near wellbore friction (perforation friction or
tortuosity)
 It is not recommended to break zones apart if
they are only separated by small barriers, instead
rig up to pump at higher rates and pump the
largest job able to treat the zone.
Gajah Baru field
Gajah Baru field had been developed extensively
throughout the previous campaigns. GBA-6 and
GBA-7 were added in this campaign. GBA-6 and
GBA-7 were to target MA-Ca3, MA –Ca4 and MA-
Ca5 sands.
a. Job execution and results
Table 8 summarizes treatment results for all the
zones in each well. All wells were completed with
full annular pack. A few facts from execution
summary are presented below:
 A top-off job was pumped on MA-Ca3 HRWP
on well GBA-6. During the first treatment, an
attempt to induce screen-out was unsuccessful
and it is suspected a fracture was created despite
the low rate and grew out of zone. During the top
off, the screen-out occurred before the proppant
was expected to reach the perforations. In this
case, because of the low rate at which the top off
was pumped it is suspected again there was an
instance of roping.
 The step down tests pumped helped to identify
the source of near wellbore friction as tortuosity,
which was counteracted by pumping at higher
rate than previous zones (above 20 bpm).
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
As summarized above, all the wells were completed
with full annular pack and have been producing sand
free since they were put online. Initial results showed
a global increase on 57% compared to expected
production rates from all the wells completed. This
proved the success of applying the fracpack
completion using VES fluid as a method to the high
rate gas wells in Natuna Sea and also the durability
and longevity of these completions.
In addition, this campaign provided a wide range of
lessons learnt that were progressively implemented
during the completion phase and have been captured
in preparation for further field development. It
demonstrated that the treatments for these wells can
be optimized to be completed with a reduced
pumping equipment spread while still delivering
excellent production results.
AKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Premier Oil
Indonesia and MIGAS Indonesia for permission to
publish this work.
 TABLE 1

CRITICAL BRINE CONCENTRATION TEST RESULTS WITH FORMATION CORE SAMPLES

SHOW THAT A MINIMUM OF 4% KCL IS REQUIRED IN THE TREATMENT FLUIDS TO
ABOVE A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION OF PERMEABILITY OF THE CORE
 

 
 
TABLE 2

REGAINED CONDUCTIVITY, PERMEABILITY AND BETA FACTOR TO 2% KCL AT 230

DEGF SHOW THAT THE VES FLUID (CLEARFRAC XT) IS PERFORMING CONSISTENTLY
BETTER THAN THE CROSSLINKED GUAR BASED FLUID (YF130HTD). TESTS COMPARE A
60 GAL/1000 CONCENTRATION OF VES TO TO 30 LBS/1000 GAL CONCENTRATION OF
GUAR GELLING AGENT
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 TABLE 3

NAGA FIELD ZONES INFORMATION

 
Reservoir NGA-1 NGA-2 NGA-3

UA-12
Gross thickness (ft) 29 28 28
Expected perm (mD) 380 HRWP 380 HRWP 380 HRWP
Distance to water (ft) 83 67 63
UA-11
Gross thickness (ft) 36 44 54
Expected perm (mD) 95 Frackpack 95 Frackpack 95 Frackpack
Distance to water (ft) 57 32 21
UA-10
Gross thickness (ft) 51 51 49
Expected perm (mD) 2 Frackpack 2 Frackpack 2 Frackpack
Distance to water (ft) 49 26 17
MA-Ca 5A and 5B
Gross thickness (ft) 51 70
Expected perm (mD) 42 Frackpack 42 HRWP
Distance to water (ft) 80 23
MA-Ca 4
Gross thickness (ft) 48
Expected perm (mD) 130
Distance to water (ft) 51 HRWP
Expected perm (mD) 1
Distance to water (ft) 25

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 TABLE 4

SUMMARY OF THE LEAK-OFF COEFFICIENT VALUES IN FT/MIN0.5, FOLLOWING

MINIFRAC ANALYSIS. ALL THE STAGES EXCEPT UA-12 ON NAGA 3 WERE PUMPED WITH
60 GPT VES FLUID
 

MA-Ca4 MA-Ca5 UA-10 UA-11 UA-12

Naga-3 0.002 0.027 0.0056

Naga-2 0.0015 0.017

Naga-1 0.0075 0.032 0.002 0.052*

Average 0.0075 0.032 0.0018 0.032 0.0056

TABLE 5

GRAVEL PACK RESULTS OF NAGA FIELD SHOW ALL WELLS ACHIEVED ANNULAR
PACK AND VERY GOOD PROPPANT COVERAGE INSIDE THE FRACTURE
 
Reservoir NGA-1 NGA-2 NGA-3

UA-12
VES concentration 35 35 35
Proppant per ft of perfs 645 HRWP 63.3 HRWP* 696 HRWP
Final PPA at perfs 1 1 1

UA-11
VES concentration 60 60 60
Proppant per ft of perfs 112 HRWP 1677 Frackpack 1011 Frackpack
Final PPA at perfs 1 9 10
UA-10
VES concentration 60 60 60
Proppant per ft of perfs 1726 Frackpack 1876 Frackpack 2318 Frackpack
Final PPA at perfs 10 10 10
MA-Ca 5A and 5B
VES concentration 60 35
Proppant per ft of perfs 584 Frackpack 14.5 HRWP
Final PPA at perfs 8 1
MA-Ca 4
VES concentration 60
Proppant per ft of perfs 848 Frackpack
Final PPA at perfs 5

 
 TABLE 6

PELIKAN FIELD COMPLETION TARGETS

 
Reservoir PKA-1 PKA-2 PKA-3

MA-Ca 5a
Gross thickness (ft) 88 83 88
Expected perm (mD) 4 Frackpack 4 Frackpack 4 Frackpack
Distance to water (ft) 120 130 59
MA-Ca 5b
Gross thickness (ft)
Expected perm (mD) Frackpack Frackpack Frackpack
Distance to water (ft)
MA-Ca 3
Gross thickness (ft) 22
Expected perm (mD) 40 HRWP
Distance to water (ft) 55

TABLE 7

COMPLETIONS RESULTS ON PELIKAN FIELD

 
Reservoir PKA-1 PKA-2 PKA-3

MA-Ca 5a
VES concentration 60 60 60
Proppant per ft of perfs 286.7 Frackpack 345.2 Frackpack 262 Frackpack
Final PPA at perfs 6.7 7 6
MA-Ca 5b
VES concentration 60 60 60
Proppant per ft of perfs 320 Frackpack 0 Frackpack 11 Frackpack
Final PPA at perfs 4.8 1 0.5
MA-Ca 3
VES concentration 35
Proppant per ft of perfs 4.1 HRWP
Final PPA at perfs 1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 TABLE 8

COMPLETION RESULTS FOR GAJAH BARU FIELD

 
Reservoir GBA-7 GBA-6

MA-Ca 5
VES concentration 60 60
Proppant per ft of perfs 1153 Frackpack 758 Frackpack
Final PPA at perfs 8 8
MA-Ca 3a
VES concentration 60
Proppant per ft of perfs 2836 Fracpack NA
Final PPA at perfs 10
MA-Ca 3b and 4
VES concentration 35
Proppant per ft of perfs NA 348 HRWP
Final PPA at perfs 1
MA-Ca 3c
VES concentration 35
Proppant per ft of perfs 23.3 HRWP
Final PPA at perfs 1

 
 Figure 1 - Example of well completion using the MST on well Naga 1
 

 
 Figure 2 - Overview of the pumping equipment spread on the main deck
 

Figure 3 - Control cabin rig up on cantilever deck

 
Figure 4 - The sharp pressure drop on the treating pressure at shut down point illustrate the high near wellbore
friction seen on all MA treatments
 

Figure 5 - Roping happens when a heavier fluid is displacing a lighter fluid at low rate. This causes proppant
ot migrate and reaches perforations earlier than expected