SPE 63105
Frac-Packing High-Permeability Sands in the Mahogany Field, Offshore Trinidad
Britt, L.K., NSI Technologies, Inc., Smith, M.B., NSI Technologies, Inc., Cunningham, L.E., NSI Technologies, Inc.,
Waters, F., BP-Amoco, Dannish, G.A., BP-Amoco, Lachance, D., BP-Amoco, Mackow, H.M., BP-Amoco
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 1–4 October 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Historically, hydraulic fracturing has been principally
applied to low permeability formations as a means of
stimulating a well’s production performance. In recent years,
hydraulic fracturing for formation control as well as enhanced
productivity in high permeability unconsolidated formations
(i.e., frac-packing) has gained broader acceptance. This paper
reviews frac-pack results in the Mahogany Field, a large gas-
condensate field producing from unconsolidated high
permeability sands. Even though frac-packing was very
successful in these applications, numerous other completion
techniques such as high rate water packs and conventional
gravel packing are available and still being utilized throughout
the world. For a field development engineer, few guidelines
are available which aid in optimizing completion decisions.
Field examples from Mahogany Field in offshore Trinidad
are used to demonstrate a successful completion design
selection procedure. The benefits and risks of gravel packs,
high rate water packs, and frac-packing in the completion of
high deliverability wells in these unconsolidated formations
will be reviewed. Results of rock mechanics, fines migration,
and embedment testing will be presented and coupled with a
production optimization study to develop completion
guidelines applied in Mahogany Field. Finally, this paper will
show a direct comparison of a gravel pack completion (80
mmcfpd) and a frac-pack completion (160 mmcfpd) in offset
wells from the same productive horizon. Current production
performance and long term recovery predictions will be
reviewed.
This paper will make the following technical contributions:
Present the results of an extensive laboratory study of rock
mechanics, fines migration, and embedment testing, and show
the value of such testing in making completion decisions.
Develop and present guidelines for determining the
optimal completion practices in high permeability
unconsolidated formations.
Show a direct comparison between a conventional cased-
hole gravel pack completion and a frac-pack completion.
Present details of a successful frac-pack completion in a
formation with severe fines production problems.
Introduction
Historically, gravel packing was the principal means of
formation control in unconsolidated formations. Efficient
gravel pack formation control must take into account a number
of formation and reservoir characteristics, gravel size, and
well performance objectives. Numerous authors1-3 have
suggested gravel sizing criteria ranging from 4 to 10 times the
10 percent coarse point on a cumulative sieve analysis for
formation control. The use of these criteria resulted in
numerous gravel pack failures especially in U.S. gulf coast
sands. As a result of the failures, additional investigations
were conducted and new criteria were developed, with the
most widely accepted criteria for gravel sizing proposed by
Saucier4. This criteria recommends a gravel size six times the
mean particle size in unconsolidated reservoirs. This sizing
criteria has been utilized for many years to control formations,
however, some production impairment due to fines migration
and pack plugging has been noted.
In recent years, studies have shown the importance of
sorting5 on formation control and that larger gravels6-8 can
effectively control some formations without production
impairment. These studies, however, were limited to specific
formations and did not consider the effects of stress on fines
generation, migration, and gravel pack plugging. They also did
not consider the implications of frac-packing on gravel size
criteria and formation control.
The application of frac-pack completion technology to
wells in unconsolidated formations in the Gulf of Mexico and
around the world has dramatically improved reserve recovery
and well life. In frac-pack applications it has been shown that
the use of the Saucier criteria for proppant and gravel sizing is
extremely conservative and that its use can greatly impair well
productivity. A 1998 investigation9 utilized laboratory
2 L.K. BRITT, M.B. SMITH, L.E. CUNNINGHAM, F. WATERS, G.A. DANNISH, D. LACHANCE, H.M. MACHOW
experiments on core from several locations to create new
sorting criteria for both proppant and gravel. The new sizing
criteria stressed the importance of roundness and sphericity on
retained permeability and mitigation of fines migration in frac-
pack completions. As a result of this work and for quality
assurance many man made proppants and gravels are now
being used in the gulf coast environment.
Hydraulic fracturing in high permeability reservoirs can
and should differ greatly from conventional fracturing, in that,
the design objective is to generate fracture conductivity and
not length. In conventional fracturing, studies to determine the
optimum fracture length are conducted to maximize the
profitability of the fracture stimulation. In high permeability
applications the creation of fracture conductivity maximizes
profitability.
Several techniques for increasing fracture conductivity
include increasing proppant size (low stress applications),
increasing proppant concentration (all applications), utilizing
clean fluids (all applications), and utilization of Tip Screenout
Design techniques (all applications). Each of these techniques
has had positive results on increasing fracture conductivity
and the success of high permeability fracturing. However, the
application of Tip Screenout (TSO) fracturing, developed and
advanced by Amoco in the North Sea, has revolutionized the
completion and stimulation of wells in high permeability
reservoirs throughout the world.
Pennzoil, for example, has utilized TSO techniques on
hundreds of wells in the last seven years. In fact, Pennzoil
utilizes Frac-Pack technology (couples TSO fracturing
techniques with gravel packing) as its major formation control
technique.10 In these applications Pennzoil has found that their
gravel pack skins have been reduced from +21 to nearly 0.
A joint research project by the Completion Engineering
Association (CEA) run by TerraTek has found that much of
the initial skin in marginally consolidated core is the result of
perforation damage.11 Localized problems created by high
drawdown at these near wellbore choke points caused matrix
failures that led to cycles of unstable cavity formation
followed by collapse. Improving the drawdown by spreading it
out into the wellbore has definite flow pattern advantages.
Shell has reported 4.4 fold improvements in their high
permeability skin removal fracture treatments as opposed to
gravel packs, while Chevron reports a doubling of production.
Both, however, have identified poor fracture cleanup of Frac-
Pack stimulations.
Marathon has Frac-Packed over 40 wells and has averaged
doubling of production. Both Marathon and Pennzoil report
difficulty achieving a tip screenout and ensure that bottom
hole pressure gauges, above and below the crossover tool, are
utilized.
Smith etal.12, 13 determined that tip screenout fracturing is a
viable stimulation technique for soft formations where fracture
conductivity is needed. Smith also indicated that minifrac
treatments were necessary on every well because knowledge
of fluid leakoff is critical to the development of a tip
screenout.
SPE 63105
Martins etal.14 modified the Amoco TSO design procedure
in the Ravenspurn South Gas Field by establishing a long low
concentration proppant stage which dehydrates at the fracture
tip while keeping the remaining slurry mobile. These
stimulations doubled long term well productivity. Martins also
showed that TSO fracturing techniques increased fracture
conductivity by more than an order of magnitude.
Roodhart etal.15 presented a well selection criteria for Frac-
Pack stimulations. These criteria included extent of damage,
depletion, reservoir permeability, and formation height.
Meese etal.16 presented a candidate selection guide for
Gulf Coast applications of Frac-Packs which included
damaged wells in reservoirs which responded poorly to matrix
stimulation techniques, poorly consolidated reservoirs with
fines migration problems, low resistivity shaley sands where
limited through perforation communication is occurring.
Mullen etal.17 compared Frac-Pack completions to
previous gravel packs in the Vermilion Field (laminated pay
with fines migration problems). Results of this evaluation
showed an 88% normalized productivity index (PI) for oil
wells and a 159% improvement in gas well performance
(measured by normalizing productivity index with
permeability thickness product). Vandersypen18 saw similar
improvements in the West Hackberry Field.
Baree19 evaluated the tip screenout phenomenon with a
fracture model and showed behavior consistent with that
predicted by Nolte and Smith (unit slope on net treating
pressure plot) for contained fracture height. He further showed
with his model that the initiation of a tip screenout raised net
pressure in the fracture which could result in additional
fracture height growth.
Donovan etal.20 evaluated the effect of fracture fluids
flowing through crossover tools and determined that the
crossover port is the most significant component of the Frac-
Pack tool system. This work further showed that the erosion of
the crossover port was lessened for high viscosity fracturing
slurries. No detrimental effect on proppant fines generation
was noted, however, the pump rates tested were low (i.e., 1.6
to 4 BPM).
Monus etal.21 reported a 2-3 fold productivity increase by
Frac-Packing in the Eugene Island Block of offshore
Louisiana. This work further advocated the use of bottom hole
pressure and minifrac tests.
Fragachan etal.22 showed pressure data from a Frac-Packed
well which had been perforated with 0o phasing. Their work
indicated detrimental effects on net pressure caused by this
perforation policy and recommended phased perforating
(<120o).
Fletcher etal.23 presented a study of Frac-Packing as a
means of controlling formation failure. In their work, they
studied 70 wells that had been completed with various
completion techniques. Internal gravel packs resulted in skins
from 15 to 40 and proposed techniques by which a fracture
stimulation (no gravel pack) could be performed that would
result in formation control. In this case formation free
production occurred for over a year at which time the fracture
SPE 63105 FRAC-PACKING HIGH-PERMEABILITY SANDS IN THE MAHOGANY FIELD, OFFSHORE TRINIDAD
proppant pack gave way and proppant flowback began. They
recommended the use of resin coated sand (again without
gravel pack) to control the fracture in the future as Bale etal.24
had recommended previously.
Hainey etal.25 showed that larger mesh proppant (16/20
and 16/30 mesh) can control formation sand. They also
showed that conducting prefracture testing (minifrac test) is
critical and that the interpretability of the test can be improved
by using more viscous fracturing fluid.
Hannah etal.26 showed that Frac-Packs could dramatically
improve completion efficiency compared to gravel packs
alone. Further, this work highlighted the importance of
collecting minifrac data and developing an understanding of
the fluid loss behavior.
Hannah conducted laboratory studies for sizing Frac-Pack
proppants and found discrete formation proppant pack
interfaces and complete sand control (i.e., invasion less than 3
grain diameters) for 20/40 sands or smaller and some invasion
for 16/30 proppants.
Hannah also conducted breaker and carrier fluid
optimization studies. The goal of the study was to maintain
rheological capabilities of 200cp for 45minutes of breaker
exposure and then provide a minimum broken viscosity as
measured at 48hours. Tests at temperatures from 110-130oF
were conducted. The carrier fluid and breaker system utilized
following this study consisted of 77 lb/1000gal HEC loading
and a 0.1 lb/1000gal enzyme loading in the pad and 0.5 ppg
stage and 0.2 lb/1000gal enzyme loading in the slurry stages.
Hannah described the first five Amber Jack wells with
conventional gravel packs and had a resultant skin damage
ranging from 8 to 28. The next five wells were Frac-Packed
utilizing 61 lb/1000gal HEC, 1 lb/1000gal ammonium
persulfate breaker, and 40/70 frac sand. The resultant skins
ranged from 3 to 11.
The optimization studies of proppants, fluids, and breakers
resulted in continued improvement in Frac-Pack design. Skin
damage resulting from these optimized treatments is nil. Thus,
Amber Jack is a testimonial to the benefits of employing
TSO/Frac-Pack technology to high permeability reservoirs.
The dramatic improvements in Amber Jack well performance
is directly attributable to the adoption of Frac-Packing as the
primary method of completion. Again, the average skin
damage associated with AmberJack gravel packs was 21, the
average skin for 14 Frac-Packs was 5.3, and the last 4
optimized treatments showed an average skin of only 0.4.
Hannah also reported a time dependent skin effect. Pressure
transient data collected and interpreted show skins improving
from 8 to 2 over a 7 month period in one well and 3.5 to 1.8
over a 10 month period in another.
Finally, Papinczak etal.27 showed how Tip Screenout
Fracturing was used to more than double production from the
Mereenie Field in Australia.
The Mahogany field is located 61 miles offshore from the
southeastern point of Trinidad in 300 ft of water. The field
was discovered in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s however it
was never developed due to lack of a gas market. Additional
3
exploratory drilling in 1994 and 1996 discovered additional
gas and condensate reserves. Mahogany field’s gas reserves
were dedicated to the Atlantic Liquified Natural Gas (LNG)
plant at Point Fortin. In early 1996 delineation wells were
drilled which encountered additional gas reserves in the
middle of the field including an oil leg. Figure 1 shows a map
highlighting the location of the Mahogany Field and the
Atlantic LNG plant.
This paper describes the completion work done prior to
field development and shows a direct comparison of a gravel
pack and frac-pack completions in the 20 Sand. As will be
shown, the frac-pack completion resulted in a dramatically
improved well performance as compared to the gravel pack.
Geology/Reservoir Characterisation
Mahogany Field is a faulted anticlinal structure with
Pleistocene age stacked sand and shale sequences. There are
15 reservoirs in this field, with over 2 TCF in gas reserves.
The Mahogany sands are primarily shoreface sand
deposited during a major northeasterly progradation of the
Orinoco Delta in Pleistocene time. They consist of stacked
coarsening upward sands interpreted to be mid-upper
shoreface deposits interbedded with shales and silts reflecting
lower energy deposition in lagoonal to pro-delta
environments.
A 3-Dimensional seismic survey, acquired in 1993
specifically for field development, was used for structural
mapping. The 20 and 21 Sand reservoirs, the largest gas
bearing reservoirs in the field, exhibit an anomalous, high
amplitude signature. However individual stratigraphic units
within the reservoirs are not resolvable.
The Mahogany reservoirs consist of world class reservoir
rocks. In the 20 Sand core porosities and permeabilities
average 30% and 500 mD respectively. The high core
permeabilities are confirmed by well test data.
Laboratory Core Evaluation
Completion Fluid Compatability
Tests were conducted to determine the compatability of the
completion fluids with the formation and determine if the
formation was sensitive to KCl concentration and/or pH. This
laboratory evaluation was designed for two purposes. First, the
salt concentration was investigated to aid in the selection of
completion brine and secondly the pH was evaluated to
determine if the formation would be sensitive to a higher pH
crosslinked borate fluid system or whether a more neutral pH
system was required.
The tests were conducted by taking a 1” x 2” core plug and
placing it into a Hassler type sleeve core holder. The core was
placed under confining pressure (approximating field
conditions) at reservoir temperature. A permeability through
the core was established at a low rate with a non-damaging
brine. Figure 2 shows the results of this fluid sensitivity
testing.
4 L.K. BRITT, M.B. SMITH, L.E. CUNNINGHAM, F. WATERS, G.A. DANNISH, D. LACHANCE, H.M. MACHOW
This figure plots retained permeability versus injection for
a 2% and 5% KCl concentration and 2% KCl with a pH of 8.5
and 10, respectively. As shown, The base retained
permeability with the 5% KCl was 555 md. When 2% KCl
was injected the retained permeability dropped only six
percent to 521 md. Next, the 2% KCl neutral pH (i.e. pH=8.5)
was injected and the retained permeability dropped to 512 md
a loss of less than eight percent from the original 5% KCl.
Next, two injection and measurement cycles were performed
with a 2% KCl fluid with a high pH (i.e. pH =10). As shown,
the retained permeability from these injections was 500 md
representing a loss of retained permeability of less than ten
percent over the base 5% KCl injection. Finally, a 5% KCl
injection was performed and the retained permeability
returned to 531 md. Thus, through all of these injections with
multiple fluids a loss of only four percent of the retained
permeability was noted. These tests clearly showed that the
formation was insensitive to both KCl concentration and pH.
As a result of these tests, a standard 2% KCl was chosen as
the base completion fluid and both the high and neutral pH
crosslinked borate fluid systems were brought into the country
for subsequent use in the frac-pack completion program.
Sand Size Distribution
Tests were conducted to determine the formation sand size
distribution, mobility of the fines, and to evaluate the
effectiveness of various sand control techniques. These core
tests and operating experience were used to develop
completion guidelines. These guidelines attempt to establish
the completion technique necessary in the presence of
formation fines.
A series of representative sand size distributions was
developed for the available core using sieve analysis. Results
of this analysis indicated the prescence of large amounts of
fines, defined as sub 44 micron (325 mesh). Figure 3 displays
a plot of volume percent versus particle diameter. As shown, a
large amount of the formation is sub 44 micron in size.
Additional mineralogical investigation showed that most of
the sub 325 mesh fines are actually fractured quartz grains.
These grains due to the lack of cementation and/or compaction
were permitted to rotate laterally resulting in grain breakage.
These broken quartz grains have the potential to migrate into
the larger pore throats, thereby, restricting hydrocarbon flow.
Prior work9 established a formation size distribution
analysis and characteristic sorting values (i.e. D10/D95,
D40/D90, and Sub 44 µ). This work further showed that in the
presence of greater than 10% sub 325 mesh fines (44 µ) that
the wellbore should be enhanced through frac-packing to
minimize the detrimental impact of the fines on productivity
and/or formation control. Figure 4 shows results of the sieve
analysis in terms of the sorting value. As shown, the core
samples had a large amount of sub 44 micron formation fines.
In fact, on average nearly 17% of the samples tested were
smaller than 44 micron in size. A similar evaluation of
samples from another field in Trinidad with similar age
SPE 63105
sediments indicated at least 34% of the formation was made
up of sub 44 micron fractured quartz fines. The effects of
these fines on formation control and well productivity can be
dramatic. In another field in Trinidad, for example, the post
gravel pack skin averages nearly +18. More importantly,
periodic acid displacements are required to mobilize the fines
away from the wellbore and limit the resulting production
impairment.
Rock Mechanics Testing
A series of stress-strain tests were conducted under
confining conditions to determine the Young’s Modulus.
Numerous triaxial compression tests were performed on core
from the Mahogany Field. Although no core was available
from the specific formation (Case History 20 sand), samples
from “like sands” from similar geologic age and confinement
were analysed. Table I summarizes the results of the triaxial
compression tests of Mahogany sands. Results of these tests
Formation E, MMpsi
A 0.239
B N/A
C 0.522
D N/A
E 1.125
F 0.683
G 0.504
Table I: Results of Stress-Strain Testing
showed that the Young’s Modulus varied between 0.239
Mmpsi and 1.125 Mmpsi for the Mahogany sands. Note that a
5:1 ratio exists between modulus values for the various
formations with no significant petrophysical differences in
terms of porosity or other log derivable parameters. This made
the lab modulus data very important to the final treatment
designs.
Fines Migration and Embedment Testing
The test equipment consisted of a Hassler type sleeve
capable of holding up to a 3” x 12” core sample under
confining pressures up to 10,000 psi and 300oF. Pressures are
applied both radially and axially. Detailed test procedures
were documented previously9. Figure 5 displays the head of
the test cell. This figure shows the piston head for applying
SPE 63105 FRAC-PACKING HIGH-PERMEABILITY SANDS IN THE MAHOGANY FIELD, OFFSHORE TRINIDAD
confining pressure and inlet electronic and flow ports. In the
fines migration and embedment tests, the piston is actuated to
apply confining pressure and emulate flow and shut-in
conditions. While confined at pressure and temperature, flow
is established through the inlet ports and the permeability of
the core measured. Outlet flow ports exist both in the core
direction and perpendicular to the core as shown in Figure 6.
This allows the retained permeability of the core and proppant
in the case of a frac-pack to be measured.
Tests were conducted to determine the effect of fracture
width on fines migration and embedment as represented by
retained conductivity. This series of tests was used to identify
and recommend completion methods such as gravel pack, high
rate water pack, and frac-pack. Results of these tests are
presented as retained permeability as a function of time and
drawdown. Figure 7 shows a plot of retained permeability (i.e.
through pack and core) as a function of time.
As shown, the retained permeability of the sample core
was reduced to 10% of the original permeability while the
proppant pack permeability was reduced to approximately
35% of its original permeability. Thus, not only did the mobile
fines plug the cores pore throats, the fines also invaded the
proppant pack.
The effect of the fines migration and embedment on
fracture width is shown in figure 8. This figure highlights the
reduction in fracture width that occurred due to embedment.
As shown, the pack only lost seven percent of its width due to
this process. It is fairly obvious that a small loss such as this
had little to do with the dramatic loss in pack permeability.
The loss in retained permeability of the proppant pack
occurred as a result of the fines migrating and and plugging
the pack as a function of time and drawdown.
Once the fines migration and embedment testing was
completed, the test cell was broken down and both thin
sections and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) pictures
were taken of the core/proppant interface. Figure 9A shows
the SEM photograph of the core and proppant interface
showing the fines invading the proppant pack. Figure 9B
shows a blowup of the proppant pack highlighting the mobile
fines that have plugged the proppant pack permeability.
Completion Guidelines
Completion guidelines were developed based on this
laboratory work and field experience. These guidelines
indicate that in the presence of significant sub 44 micron fines
an enlarged wellbore area should be created through frac-
packing to minimize the ability of the fines to plug up the near
wellbore gravel pack area. Through frac-packing, the
gravel/formation sand interface can be moved away from the
wellbore.
In addition to improved formation control, frac-packing
can dramatically improve well productivity at a given
drawdown. Figure 10 shows a plot of pseudo steady state folds
of increase as a function of pre-frac-pack skin. As shown, a
dramatic productivity increase can be realized via frac-
5
packing. Evaluation of other fields in Trinidad being gravel
packed indicate an average post gravel pack skin of +18. Thus,
if a post frac-pack skin of 0 could be achieved a nearly three
fold increase in productivity could be anticipated.
Selection of completion techniques is often not
straightforward. Studies by Shell15 have recommended a series
of guidelines for chosing a sand control and/or completion
technique. These guidelines include consideration of the type
and extent of damage, mechanical rock properties, reservoir
permeability, pay thickness, depletion, and drive mechanism
(gas or water). Though the latter three considerations often
limit the application of frac-pack technology (i.e. a thin
depleted water drive reservoir does not make the best
candidate) the presence of drilling damage likewise drives the
operator away from gravel packing towards wellbore
enhancing completion technologies such as high rate water
packing and frac-packing. Since nearly all wells are damaged
(post gravel pack studies indicate significant skins), all wells
should be considered for wellbore enhancing technologies.
This completion selection criteria is even more significant if
formation fines exist.
In the presence of fines, as the laboratory data supports,
frac-pack technology should be utilized to expand the
wellbore and attempt to control the fines at the formation-
fracture interface so that the fines do not plug the gravel pack.
In this scenerio, fines passing screens should be considered to
ensure that any fines that make it through the fracture to the
wellbore do not plug the pack but rather are passed to the
surface where they can be dealt with. Because all of the gas
producing formations in the Mahogany Field have a large
amount of mobile fines, frac-pack completion technology was
selected as the optimum sand control technique. In addition,
by employing frac-pack technology, the demanding
deliverability contract (i.e. 760 mmcfpd) could be achieved
with a fewer number of wells dramatically improving the
projects full cycle economics. Of the 10 well completions
performed in the Mahogany Field, two were conventional
gravel packs due to the presence of a gas water contact within
the completion interval. One of these gravel packs was
conducted in the 20 sand and had an offset well that was frac-
packed. Subsequent paragraphs detail and document a
comparison of these two wells’ completions and performance.
Case History: Frac-Pack vs. Gravel Pack
Completion
The 20 sand in Mahogany B2 is in excess of 200’ in
length. Figure 11 shows the logs from the Mahogany B2. As
shown, the upper portion of the 20 sand in this well (9880-
9980’ TVD) has a net to gross pay ratio of nearly 1 and a
calculated permeability in excess of 800 md (calculated
permeability based on petrophysical study and well tests). In
contrast, the lower portion of the 20 sand in this well from
9980-10095’ TVD had a net to gross pay ratio of
approximately 0.5 and calculated permeabilities ranging from
50 to 750 md. As a result of the lengthy productive interval
6 L.K. BRITT, M.B. SMITH, L.E. CUNNINGHAM, F. WATERS, G.A. DANNISH, D. LACHANCE, H.M. MACHOW
and the laminated nature of the lower portion of the sand it
was decided to conduct two separate frac-packs in the
Mahogany B2 20 sand.
The perforation intervals were selected to provide
maximum effectiveness and reliability of the frac-pack
completion. Perforation of the entire sand interval risks
initiating at the top of the sand and losing the treatment in the
shale. Poor control of fracture initiation also risks limited
fracture coverage of the sand interval and as a result
productivity. Selection of the length and location of the
perforated intervals was made through the integration of
fracture simulation and nodal analysis. Through this
integration process the optimum perforation length and
location were identified to maximize the fracture coverage
while minimizing the effects of convergent flow and risks of
losing the treatment into the shales. Recall, that if the
treatment grows dramatically into the shale, the ability to
develop a tip screenout and build net pressure and fracture
width is put in jeopardy. The final perforation interval for the
Mahogany B2 was selected at 10030-10066’ and 9900-9940
TVD as shown on the figure.
Material Selection
The material selection process, both fluid and proppant,
was designed to meet two primary guidelines. First, the
materials selected must be consistent with the sand control
guidelines developed through the petrophysical and laboratory
study of each formation. Secondly, the selected materials must
help maximize well deliverability.
Fluid selection for the two frac-packs was based on an
evaluation of the well logs and fracture simulation. Because of
the variation in pay quality and estimated permeability
between the upper and lower portions of the 20 sand a
different fracturing fluid was utilized for each interval. With
the lower zone being more laminated with only short intervals
of clean sand, a 30ppt low guar (30ppt DeltaFrac 200) was
chosen as the fracturing fluid. On the other hand, with the
upper portion of the pay section being cleaner and fluid loss
control being a greater concern, a 40ppt Borate Gel (40 ppt
Hybor) was utilized.
The depths of the producting formations (8,400’-12,600’)
and the stress on the proppant (5,000 to 10,000 psi) indicated
that a 20/40 mesh Carbolite proppant was preferred for the
frac-pack completions. In addition, the laboratory core studies
showed that utilization of spherical proppant, such as
Carbolite, was beneficial for the control of mobile formation
fines9. As a result of the depth, stress, fines, and because of the
logistical difficulties of getting proppant into the country
20/40 mesh Carbolite proppant was selected and used in all
frac-packs in the Mahogany Field.
Frac-Pack Design and Implementation
Shale Stress Tests
SPE 63105
Because of the concerns regarding the shale stresses and
the potential detrimental impact of height growth into the
shales on sand control and well deliverability a series of stress
tests were conducted in a thick shale and/or siltstone in a
nearby reservoir. Figure 12 shows a plot of bottomhole
pressure and pump rate versus time for this testing. As shown,
a series of small KCl injections at pump rates of 0.25 bpm
(cement pump) were conducted. Bottomhole pressure
increased during each 1-2 bbl injection to 6100 psi. At
shutdown, bottomhole pressure was monitored and the
minimum principal stress determined. Figure 13 shows a plot
of bottomhole pressure versus the square root of time for one
of the injections. As shown, a fracture closure pressure of
6003 psi (0.7 psi/ft) was determined. Also note, that the
pressure decline was significant indicating that the siltstones
tested had some permeability.
This shale stress of 0.7 psi/ft was similar to (actually 0.01
psi/ft less than) the in-situ stress of the productive sands and
indicated that the concerns about fractures growing into the
bounding siltstones is justified. Though the concerns may be
mitigated due to the permeability of the siltstones, it was
deemed unlikely that the leakoff in the siltstones would be
large enough to dehydrate the slurry and minimize fracture
height growth.
Calibration Tests
Frac-Pack design procedures required a series of
calibration tests be performed prior to the treatment. These
tests are conducted to evaluate closure stress, fluid efficiency,
and fracture geometry for final design formulation. A
minifrac with the volume of fluid estimated for the pad of the
frac was pumped to calibrate the fracture model. The minifrac
was followed with a step rate test to determine extension
pressure and rate. To minimize the amount of polymer
pumped into the formation, 2% KCl was used for the step rate
test. Figure 14 shows a plot of the surface, bottomhole
pressure and pump rate versus time for the pre frac-pack
calibration testing conducted on the lower zone of Mahogany
B2.
Analysis of the calibration testing started with determining
extension pressure and extension rate to aid in the pick of
closure pressure from the minifrac. The fracture extension
pressure is an upper bound on the fracture closure pressure.
Figure 15 shows a plot of bottomhole pressure versus pump
rate from the step rate test. As shown, the step rate test
analysis yielded an extension pressure of 6,765 psi and
extension rate of 3.8 bpm.
The post minifrac pressure decline was evaluated on a
Horner Plot to estimate the beginning of pseudo radial flow.
Extrapolation of the latter decline data provides a good
estimation of reservoir pressure, 4738 psi. This analysis
showed that pseudo radial flow started at a pressure of
approximately 6,000 psi. Since fracture closure occurs
between fracture extension pressure and the onset of pseudo
SPE 63105 FRAC-PACKING HIGH-PERMEABILITY SANDS IN THE MAHOGANY FIELD, OFFSHORE TRINIDAD
radial flow, fracture closure was expected between 6765 and
6,000 psi, respectively.
Next, the minifrac pressure decline was evaluated using a
plot of bottomhole pressure versus square root of time and
bottomhole pressure versus G function. The square root plot
shown as figure 16 and G-funtion plot shown as figure 17 both
confirmed closure pressure was 6,545 psi (i.e. fracture
gradient of of 0.65 psi/ft) with an efficiency of 28% and a final
net treating pressure of 150 psi.
A review of the net treating pressure data shows that the
bottomhole pressure declined throughout the minifrac except
for a brief period between one and two minutes of pumping.
Fracture Redesign
Following the collection of the calibration data a pressure
history match of the lower frac-pack was conducted. This
history matching procedure utilized both the rock mechanics
testing and calibration data to develop the pressure history
match. Figure 18 shows a Cartesian plot of net treating
pressure versus pump time comparing the actual mini-frac
data to the model simulation. As shown, a good match of both
the pumping and shut-in periods was achieved. This match
utilized the laboratory stress-strain tests which indicated a
modulus of 0.4 x 10^6 psi in the sands and slightly higher in
the finer grained silty sands. In addition, leakoff for the clean
sands was 0.02 ft/ sq rt minute and 0.01 ft/sq rt minute for the
silty sands.
A final design was generated with this calibrated model.
The design called for a 430 psi net pressure gain which
equated to fracture half-length of 52 feet and proppant
coverage of 6 lb per sq feet. Figure 19 shows a plot of the of
the actual treatment that was pumped based on this mini-frac
redesign. Figure 20 shows a plot of the cumulative proppant
volume versus the cumulative fluid volume pumped
comparing the design to the actual treatment. As shown, the
treatment was pumped close to the final design as nearly
75,000 pounds of 20/40 Carbolite was pumped through the
perforations in 15,000 gallons of 30 ppt of neutral PH Borate
Crosslinked frac fluid.
Frac-Pack Post Appraisal
Analysis of the frac-pack on the lower portion of the 20
sand in Mahogany B2, seen in Figure 21, showed that a tip
event occurred as and when expected and net pressure was
gained. The net pressure gain was not as great as anticipated,
however, because of an apparent height growth into the
surrounding shales. Analysis of this figure shows that the tip
event was initiated at approximately 8 minutes and net
pressure built slowly and eratically as evidenced by the jagged
net pressure curve. This character was seen in all wells where
the fracture grew into the bounding shale. These effects were
minimized by moving the perforated interval so that there was
unperforated formation below the shale.
7
Note that the shale stress test in an offset well below the
main pay zone indicated that the stress in the shale was equal
or slightly less than the stress in the pay zone. This lower
stress and lack of leakoff would allow fracture height growth
as the net pressure built.
The fracture dimensions resulting from the net treating
pressure history match indicated a fracture length of 61 ft with
height of 134 ft and a proppant coverage of 6 lb per sq ft or an
average fracture conductivity of 12,600 md-ft
The upper portion of the pay zone utilized the same
methodology only utilizing a 40 ppt crosslinked Borate gel.
The modeled fracture length was 45 ft with height of 101 ft
and a proppant coverage of 7 lb per sq ft or an average fracture
conductivity of 15,200 md-ft. These dimensions were
achieved by placing 51,000 pounds of 20/40 Carbo-Lite in
13,600 gallons of 40 ppt High PH Borate crosslinked frac
fluid.
Gravel Pack/HRWP of Mahogany A-4
As mentioned previously, a gravel pack completion was
planned and executed in the Mahogany A-4 because of the
presence of a gas water contact within the completion interval.
Figure 22 shows a set of logs from this well that highlight the
gas water contact. Also shown is the perforated interval. Note,
that the upper 80’ of the gas bearing zone was perforated
while the lower 80’ was not.
Successful formation control utilizes good gravel packing
practices. These practices include gravel sized to stop the
formation sand, densely packed over the entire perforated
interval and held in place with a screen. In addition, formation
and gravel damage must be minimized during the completion
and gravel packing process. The gravel pack in the Mahogany
A-4 utilized good gravel pack practices.
The completion fluid used in the Mahogany A-4 gravel
pack/ High Rate Water Pack completion was a standard CaCl
brine. The formation control consisted of a 40/60 mesh Ottawa
gravel and a 4” Baker Excluder screen (110 micron). The
system was designed to allow the mobile fines to be passed
through the system to be dealt with at the surface.
Prior to gravel packing both the wellbore (9 5/8” casing)
and workstring were cleaned and pickled. Completion brine
was circulated to bottom with returns taken at 19 NTU and 18
TSS. Next, the well was perforated with big hole charges
(64C, UP RDX). These charges should have created a 1.07”
hole and a penetration of 9.3”. They were phased 135o and
45o. The well was perforated with a 600 psi underbalance.
After perforating, 7 to 10 barrels per hour of completion brine
were lost to the formation.
The gravel pack assembly was picked up and the drill pipe
was pickled with 7.5% acid and returns taken at 3.8%. The
gravel pack fluid was filtered to 20 NTU and 28 TSS.
Circulation rates were established through the screen and then
an injection test into the formation was performed.
The gravel pack was placed by pumping an acid lead with
a 194 barrels of 2 ppa slurry tail. The gravel pack was pumped
at 8 barrels per minute while returns were taken at 1 barrel per
8 L.K. BRITT, M.B. SMITH, L.E. CUNNINGHAM, F. WATERS, G.A. DANNISH, D. LACHANCE, H.M. MACHOW
minute. Forty four sacks of gravel were placed in the
perforations (i.e. 27 lbs/ft of perforations). The blank was
covered with the remainder of the gravel reversed out. The
pack was stressed and a positive test was achieved.
Next, the gravel pack assembly was pulled out of the hole.
The flapper held and the production assembly was run into the
hole. The total fluid loss to the formation was 1387 barrels of
brine.
Comparison of Results:
Both the Mahogany A4 and B2 are capable of producing at
extremely high rates. The A4, for example, has been produced
at rates as high as 80 mmcfpd while the Mahogany B2 has
been produced at rates as high as 165 mmcfpd. To truly
compare the producing capabilities of these wells and their
completion and formation control methods an evaluation of
their bottom hole pressure must be included as well. Note,
however, that one of the potential benefits of a frac-pack is
that it allows the operator to produce at larger drawdowns
without fear of failing the formation23.
Analysis of early production and bottom hole pressure data
indicates that the productivity index (q/∆p) of the frac-pack
completion, MB2 was nearly 1.8 times greater than the high
rate water pack completion. More importantly, when
normalized for net pay thickness the productivity index was
nearly 3.4 times better in the frac-pack well than in the high
rate water pack completion. Finally, when normalized by the
number of perforations the productivity index of MB2 was
nearly 3.8 times greater than MA4. Thus, the performance of
the frac-pack was much better than the high rate water pack.
The economic significance of the frac-pack completions in
the Mahogany Field were not just the result of the increased
productivity. It was what the increased productivity meant
regarding field development as fewer wells were required to
meet deliverability requirements.
Also note that beyond improved productivity, one reason
the frac-packs were conducted was to improve the formation
control in the presence of mobile formation fines. Though
effects of fines plugging the gravel pack have yet to be seen it
is anticipated that the frac-pack completion in Mahogany B2
will have a longer more productive well life than the
Mahogany A4 gravel packed well.
Conclusions
1. The Mahogany Field Cores showed no fluid
sensitivity to KCl concentration.
2. The Mahogany Field Cores showed no fluid
sensitivity to pH.
3. The Mahogany Field Cores had large amounts of
sub 44 micron mobile fines that detrimentally
impacted retained core permeability.
4. Shale stresses in Trinidad have measured stress
equal to or less than the stresses measured in the
productive formations.
SPE 63105
5. Tip Screenouts were achieved in each of the Frac-
packed wells with lower rates of pressure builds
being seen when fracture growth into the
surrounding shales occurred.
6. The detrimental effects of height growth into the
shale was softened by moving the perforated
interval so that the fracture initiation would not
occur at the sand shale interface.
7. The performance of the frac-pack completions
were dramatically improved over the gravel pack
completion as nearly a 3.4-3.8 fold increase in
productivity index normalized for net pay and
perforations, respectively, was achieved.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the management of BP-
Amoco for supporting publication of this work. In addition,
the authors would like to thank G.W. Schoeffler or NSI
Technologies, Inc. for his valued laboratory contributions as
well as D.L. Tiffin, G.E. King, and J.R. Jones of BP-Amoco
for the many technical sand control and well testing
discussions, respectively.
Nomenclature
ct = Total Compressibiilty,1/psi
φ= Porosity (fraction)
h= Pay Thickness, ft
k = Permeability, mD
kfw = Fracture Conductivity, mDft
µ = Gas Viscosity, cP
P = Pressure as a function of time, psi
Pc = Closure Pressure (psi)
Pext = Extension Pressure (psi)
Pi= Initial Reservoir Pressure, psi
Sp = Spurt Loss, gal/100 ft2
tc=Closure Time (including pump-time), minutes
tdxf= Dimensionless Time
tp = Pump Time, minutes
Vi = Volume Injected, Bbl
xf = Fracture Half Length, ft
References
1. Coberly, C. J. and Wagner, E. M.: ”Some Considerations
in the Selection and Installation of Gravel Packs for Oil
Wells,” Pet. Tech. (August 1938) ppg 1-20.
2. Hill, K. E.: ”Factors Affecting the Use of Gravel in Oil
Wells,” Oil Weekly (May 1941) ppg 13-20.
3. Schwartz, D. H.: ”Successful Sand Control Design for
High Rate Oil and Water Wells,” J. Pet. Tech. (Sept.
1968) ppg 1193-1198.
4. Saucier, R. J.: “Considerations in Gravel Pack Design,”
JPT (February 1974), ppg 205-212.
5. Oyeneyin, M. B., Peden, J. M., Hosseini, A., Ren, G., and
Bigno, Y. : “Optimum Gravel Sizing for Effective Sand
SPE 63105 FRAC-PACKING HIGH-PERMEABILITY SANDS IN THE MAHOGANY FIELD, OFFSHORE TRINIDAD
Control,” SPE 24801, presented at the 67th Annual SPE
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, D. C.,
Oct. 4-7, 1992.
6. Leone, J. A., Mana, M. L., and Parmley, J. B. : “Gravel
Sizing Criteria for Sand Control and Productivity
Optimization,” paper SPE 20029, presented at the 60th
Annual California Regional Meeting of SPE, Ventura,
CA, April 4-6, 1990.
7. Chan, A. F. and Parmley, J. P.: “Gravel Sizing Criteria for
Sand Control and Productivity Optimization: Part II -–
Evaluation of the Long-Term Stability,” paper SPE
23767, presented at the 1992 SPE International Formation
Damage Control Symposium held in Lafayette, LA,
February 26-27, 1992.
8. Jennings, A. R. Jr.: “Laboratory Studies of Fines
Movement in Gravel Packs,” paper SPE 36420, presented
at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Denver, CO, Oct. 6-9, 1996.
9. Tiffin, D. L., King, G. E., Larese, R. E., and Britt, L. K. :
“New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand
Control,” paper SPE 39437, presented at the 1998 SPE
International Formation Damage Control Symposium
held in Lafayette, LA, February 18-19, 1998.
10. Mullen, M.E., Stewart, B.R., and Norman,
W.D.:”Evaluation of Bottom Hole Pressures in 40 Soft
Rock Frac-Pack Completions in the Gulf of Mexico,”
paper SPE 28532, presented at the 1994 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New
Orleans, LA, September 25-28, 1994.
11. CEA-11, Phase 3 Project Results, “Causes of Sand
Production in Low Strength Sandstones,” 1995.
12. Smith, M. B.: “Stimulation Design for Short, Precise
Hydraulic Fractures,” SPEJ (june 1985) 371-79.
13. Smith, M. B., Miller, W. K. II, and Haga, J.: “Tip
Screenout Fracturing: A Technique for Soft, Unstable
Formations,” SPEPE (May 1987) 95-103, Trans., AIME,
283.
14. Martins, J. P. et al.:”Tip Screenout Fracturing Applied to
Ravenspurn South Gas Field Development,” paper SPE
19766 presented at the 1989 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, October 8-11.
15. Roodhart, L. P., Fokker, P. A., Davies, D. R.,
Shlyapobersky, J., and Wong, G. K.: “Frac and Pack
Stimulation: Application, Design, and Field Experience
from the Gulf of Mexico to Borneo,” paper SPE 26564
presented at the 68th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in
Houston, Texas, October 3-6, 1993.
16. Meese, C. A., Mullen, M. E., and Baree, R. D.: “Offshore
Hydraulic Fracturing Technique,” March 1994, JPT, 226-
228.
17. Mullen, M. E., Norman, W. D., and Granger, J. C.:
“Productivity Comparison of Sand Control Techniques
Used for Completions in Vermilion 331 Field,” SPE
paper 27361 presented at the 1994 SPE International
9
Symposium on Formage Damage Control, Lafayette, LA,
Feb. 7-10.
18. Personal communications between R.S. Vandersypen and
L.K. Britt.
19. Baree, R. D.: “A New Look at Fracture-Tip Screenout
Behavior,” JPT (February 1991) 138-43, Trans., AIME,
291.
20. Donovan, J. F., Johnson, M. H., and Salerni, J. V.: “Study
of Effects Upon Gravel-Pack Systems During Frac-Pack
Operations,” paper SPE 22857, presented at the 66th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Dallas, Texas,
October 6-9, 1991.
21. Monus, F. L., Broussard, F. W., Ayoub, J. A., and
Norman, W. D.: “Fracturing Unconsolidated Sand
Formation Offshore Gulf of Mexico,” SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington D.C.,
October 4-7, 1992.
22. Fragachan, F. E., Mack, M. G., Nolte, K. G., and Teggin,
D. E.: “Fracture Characterization from Measured and
Simulated Bottomhole Pressure,” paper SPE 25848,
presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium held in Denver,
Colorado, U.S.A., April 12-14, 1993.
23. Fletcher, P. A., Montgomery, C. T., Ramos, G. G., Miller,
M. E., and Rich, D. A.: “Using Fracturing as a Technique
for Controlling Formation Failure,” paper SPE 27899,
presented at the Western Regional Meeting held in Long
Beach, California, U.S.A., March 23-25, 1994.
24. Bale, A., Owren, K., and Smith, M. B.: “Propped
Fracturing as a Tool for Sand Control and Reservoir
Management,” SPE paper 24992, presented at
EUROPEC, October 1992.
25. Hainey, B. W. and Troncoso, J. C.: “Frac-Pack: An
Innovative Stimulation and Sand Control Technique,”
paper SPE 23777, presented at the Formation Damage
Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 26-
27, 1992.
26. Hannah, R. R., Park, E. I., Walsh, R. E., Porter, D. A.,
Black, J. W., and Waters, Frank: “A Field Study of a
Combination Fracturing/Gravel Packing Completion
Technique on the Amber Jack, Mississippi Canyon 109
Field,” paper SPE 26562 presented at the 68th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers held in Houston, Texas, October 3-
6, 1993.
27. Papinczak, A. and Miller, W. K., II: “Fracture Treatment
Design to Overcome Severe Near-Wellbore Damage in a
Moderate Permeability REservoir, Mereenie Field,
Australia,” paper SPE 25379, presented at the SPE Asia
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in
Singapore, February 8-10, 1993.
10 L.K. BRITT, M.B. SMITH, L.E. CUNNINGHAM, F. WATERS, G.A. DANNISH, D. LACHANCE, H.M. MACHOW SPE 63105

BA
GO 580
TO

Retained Permeability, md
W
N
E
Fluid
FluidSensitivity
SensitivityTests
Tests
S
560 5 % KCl
10 km 5 % KCl

540
Port of Spain

2 % KCl 55%
%KCl
KCl
2 % KCl
TRINIDAD
520
2 % KCl, PH = 8.5
2 % KCl, PH = 8.5
Point Fortin
gas Galeota Point Mahogany Field
Abysinnia 500 2 % KCl, PH = 10
2 % KCl, PH = 10
gas ui d
gas
liq

liqui
d
0 200 400 600

Injection, ml

Figure 1: Mahogany Field Location Map Figure 2: Fluid Sensitivity Testing

10

6
Volume, %

4 Sub 44 µ Fines

1 10 100 1000

Particle Diameter, µ

Figure 3: Formation Size Distribution

100
90
80 D10/D95 Ratio
70 D40/D90 Ratio
60 Sub 44 Micron
Sorting
50
Value
40
30
20
10
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
Samples

Figure 4: Sorting Values Highlighting Large Amount of Fines

SPE 63105 FRAC-PACKING HIGH-PERMEABILITY SANDS IN THE MAHOGANY FIELD, OFFSHORE TRINIDAD 11

EXIT

Core Core
INLET FLUID
Proppant
EXIT COLLECTION
THIN SECTION FILTER

Sand Core and Proppant

in Core Holder at Pressure

Figure 6: Schematic of Core Holder

Figure 5: Test Cell Piston Head

1 .0

D ra w d o w n
0 .8
R etain ed k, d w

0 .6
C or e P e rm e a b ility
F ra c Pe rm e ab ility
0 .4

0 .2

0 .0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
T im e, h o urs

Figure 7: Fines Migration Effect on Permeability

1.00

0.99 Drawdown
Retained Width, inches

0.98

0.97

0.96

0.95

0.94

0.93
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time, hours

Figure 8: Proppant Embedment Effect on Fracture Width

12 L.K. BRITT, M.B. SMITH, L.E. CUNNINGHAM, F. WATERS, G.A. DANNISH, D. LACHANCE, H.M. MACHOW SPE 63105

Figure 9B: SEM of Migrating Fines in the Proppant Pack

7
P ost F rac S kin = -2

6
Fo lds of Increas e, F OI

P ost F rac S kin = 0

5

P ost F rac S kin = 2

4
P ost F rac S kin = 5
3

0
-2 0 2 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
P re F rac ture S kin

Figure 10: Folds of Increase as a Function of Pre and Post Frac Skin

GR PERF RA RH O B P HIE CA LP ER M
0 1 50 0 44 0.2 2 00 1. 65 g / cc 2.65 0.5 D EC 0 1 10 0 00

V SH RP N PH I B VW
0 D EC 1 0P E R F
Y 0.2 2 00 0.6 PU 0 0.5 D EC 0 100 C A L PE RM

Figure 9A: SEM Photograph of the Core-Proppant Interface

Figure 11: Mahogany B2 Well Logs

 SPE 63105 FRAC-PACKING HIGH-PERMEABILITY SANDS IN THE MAHOGANY FIELD, OFFSHORE TRINIDAD 13

d P / d[s q rt(d t)]

P s ra d

75 00 0. 8 Is i p
B ottomhole Pressure 60 0 0
P e xt

0. 7
P -S u rf +H yd (ps i ) - b h p (p s i)

60 00

55 0 0
Ble s s e d

R at e (b p m)
P c 6 0 0 2 .8 7 5

b h p (p s i)
45 00 0. 5
T c 0 .5 7 7
E F F c 0.0 3 13 0 0
Injection Rate 50 0 0 Is ip 6 0 7 9 .0 8 2
dP s 7 6 .2 0 7
30 00 0. 3

15 00 0. 2 45 0 0

43 29 43 44 43 58 43 72 43 86 44 01 44 15
T im e ( m in ) 0 .3 0 .6 0 .9 1 .2 1 .5 1 .8 2 .1 2 .4 2 .7 3 .0
s q rt(d t)

Figure 12: Shale Stress Test Pumping/Decline History Figure 13: Shale Stress Test Square Root of Time Analysis

Injection Bottomhole
Rate Pressure

Injection
Pressure

Figure 14: Pre Frac-Pack Calibration Testing Figure 15: Step Rate Test Analysis

Figure 16: Square Root of Time Analysis of Mini-Frac Decline Figure 17: G-Function Analysis of Mini-Frac Decline
14 L.K. BRITT, M.B. SMITH, L.E. CUNNINGHAM, F. WATERS, G.A. DANNISH, D. LACHANCE, H.M. MACHOW SPE 63105

Figure 18: Mini-Frac History Match of Net Pressure Figure 19: Frac-Pack Stimulation

80,000

70,000
CUM. PROPPANT AMT. (lbs)

DESIGN
60,000

50,000

40,000
ACTUAL

30,000

20,000

10,000

0
0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000
CUM. GEL VOL. (gals)

Figure 20: Comparison of Actual Frac-Pack to Design Figure 21: History Match of Frac-Pack Net Pressure

GR P E RF RA BD CM P H IE C A L P ER M
0 API 15 0 0 4 0.2 O HM M 200 1 .6 5 G M /C C 2 .6 5 0 .5 D EC 0 1 10 0 0 0

V SH RP N P SM BV W
0 D EC 1 0P E R F 0.2 O HM M 200 60 PU 0 0 .5 D EC 0 10 0 C AL P E R M

G W C -9

Figure 22: Mahogany A4 ST1 Well Logs