PRODUCTION ENHANCEMENT USING WELL STIMULATION

CHANNEL FRACTURING METHOD ON CONGLOMERATE

FORMATION
Fauzan Agung Kartiyasa

Abstrak
Sumur KAF - 22 terletak di Lapangan XYZ, provinsi Jambi. Sumur ini memproduksikan minyak dari Formasi
Lower Talang Akar Formation – Conglomeratic. Tujuan hydraulic fracturing pada ini untuk meningkatkan
produktivitas sumur yang berdasarkan hasil DST (Drill Stem Test) mampu meproduksikan minyak sekitar 230
BOPD. Namun pada kenyataannya, setelah dilakukan put on production pada tahun 2011, sumur ini hanya
mampu memproduksikan minyak secara intermittent sebesar 9-20 BOPD. Diperkirakan terjadi formation
damage pada near wellbore perforation area. Berdasarkan perkiraan tersebut, maka diputuskan utnuk melakukan
stimulasi hydraulic fracturing. Metode hydraulic fracturing yang akan digunakan pada sumur ini adalah metode
channel fracturing. channel fracturing sendiri merupakan salah satu metode yang tergolong. Pada metode
channel fracturing, proppant yang diinjeksikan pada metode ini menggunakan teknik proppant pulse, yaitu
penginjeksian proppant yang deselingi oleh injeksi pad fluid dengan tujuan menciptakan channel yang menjadi
media alir fluida di dalam rekahan, sehingga jumlah proppant yang digunakan juga lebih sedikit dibandingkan
pada conventional fracturing. Proppant disini tidak berfungsi sebagai media alir untuk hydrocarbon, tetapi hanya
sebagai pillar atau penyangga agar rekahan tidak tertutup. Metode ini juga harus didukung dengan penggunaan
peralatan pemompaan yang terintegrasi dengan peralatan elektronik khusus, penggunaan additive fiber untuk
mencegah proppant dispersion akibat teknik pulsing, serta analisis parameter-parameter pre-fracturing test yang
tepat agar metode ini dapat diaplikasikan dengan baik. Channel yang terbentuk menyebabkan rekahan memiliki
nilai konduktivitas lebih besar dibandingkan pada metode conventional fracturing. Pada studi ini akan dibahas
penerapan pelaksanaan channel fracturing, dimulai dari pre-fracturing test, hingga evaluasi hasil fracturing yang
meliputi perbandingan harga permeabilitas rekahan metode ini dengan metode conventional, perbandingan laju
alir setelah perekahan, dan kelipatan kenaikan productivity index yang terjadi.

Kata-kata kunci: channel fracturing, pre-fracturing test, productivity index, treatment design, fold of increase

Abstract
KAF - 22 well is located at XYZ Field, Jambi province. This well produces oil from the Lower Talang Akar
Formation - Conglomeratic Formation. The purpose of hydraulic fracturing on this is to increase the
productivity of the well which is based on the results of the DST (Drill Stem Test) capable of producing about
230 BOPD of oil. But in reality, after putting on production in 2011, this well was only able to produce
intermittent oil of 9-20 BOPD. Formation damage in the near wellbore perforation area is estimated. Based on
these estimates, it was decided to perform hydraulic fracturing stimulation. The hydraulic fracturing method that
will be used in this well is the channel fracturing method. channel fracturing itself is one method that is
classified. In channel fracturing method, proppant injected in this method uses proppant pulse technique, which
is proppant injection which is interspersed with pad fluid injection with the aim of creating a channel which is
the fluid flow medium in the fracture, so the amount of proppant used is also less than in conventional fracturing
. The proppant here does not function as a flow medium for hydrocarbons, but only as a pillar or buffer so that
the fracture is not closed, with the size and type of proppant used also varies in one operation (heterogeneous
proppant placement) which is intended to make the tail-in stage. also must be supported by the use of pumping
equipment integrated with special electronic equipment, the use of fiber additives to prevent proppant dispersion
due to pulsing techniques, as well as the analysis of the appropriate pre-fracturing test parameters so that this
method can be applied properly. Channels formed cause fractures to have greater conductivity values than
conventional fracturing methods. In this study will be discussed the application of fracturing channel
implementation, starting from pre-fracturing test, to evaluation of fracturing results which includes the ratio of
the fracture permeability price of this method with the conventional method, the ratio of flow rate after fracture,
and the multiple increase in index productivity that occurs.
Keywords: channel fracturing, pre-fracturing test, productivity index, treatment design, fold of increase

Fauzan Agung Kartiyasa:

E-mail: fauzankartiyasa@hotmail.com
Tel: +62-812-94682816
Terr
I. INTRODUCTION
KAF-22 Well located in XYZ Field, Jambi Province, is
one of the development wells that began production in
2011. Based on the results of the initial drill stem test,
this well is estimated to be able to produce 230 barrels
of oil per day (BOPD). In fact, the production of the
wells only reaches 9-18 BOPD. Based on that, there is
suspicion of wellbore damage near the perforation area.
Based on the calculation of the fracturing success ratio
and rock mechanics data, this wells is an ideal
candidate for hydraulic fracturing because the
formation is composed of compact conglomeratic
sandstone which has a relatively small permeability
with relatively high reservoir pressure.
II. GENERAL OVERVIEW
2.1 Open Channel Fracturing
Open channel fracturing (Medvedeev et al, 2013) is one
of the novel technologies in hydraulic fracturing where
the amount of proppant used is far less than in
conventional fracturing. There are differences in
technology located in pumping equipment, and the use
of fiber as additives to prevent dispersion of proppants
due to pulsing techniques, and the use of heterogeneous
proppant sizes for the tail-in stage is a difference factor
in this method.
Figure 1. Channel Fracturing (Medvedeev et al, 2013)
2.2 Candidate Selective Factor
But not all wells can be stimulated by this method.
Following are some formation criteria called candidate
selectivity factor (CSF) so that the formation of the
well can be said to be feasible to stimulated using open
channel fracturing method. All criteria is taken based
on the SPE paper (Luca Dal Vorno et al, SPE/IADC
Paper-189405-MS, 2018):
 Formation rocks have modulus young > 2.5
MMpsi
 Minimum value of in-situ stress or closure pressure
below 13000 psi
 Ratio between young modulus value with closure
pressure must be greater than 275
 The plane strain modulus per stress value must be
greater than 500, and range from 500-1800 to be
the right candidate
Based on these criteria, it can be seen the calssification
of regions recommended for the implementation of
Open Channel Fracturing method, with the following
explanation:
 Best Candidate = plane strain modulus per stress
value greater than 1800, it is a perfect candidate for
this method
 Viable Candidate = plane strain modulus per stress
values ranging from 500-1800, are sufficient
candidates but some optimization must be done
 Risk Candidate = plane strain modulus per stress
value of less than 500,it is a risky candidate
because the formation rocks are too fragile, too
soft, not stiff enough or the stress value is too
large, so there is a possibility the channel will be
closed
2.3 After Fracturing Evaluation
The success of the implementation of a hydraulic
fracturing operation can determined by several
parameters that need to be evaluated. Some parameters
used as evaluations in hydraulic fracturing operations in
terms of production are the increase in average
permeability distribution value after fracturing (K avg),
production rate after fracturing, increase in Productivity
Index value, and loss of formation damage based on
skin value after fracturing, as well as IPR curve
comparison before and after hydraulic fracturing.
2.4 Formation Permeability Affecty by Fracture
Estimating the increase in production of a well after the
hydraulic fracturing operation is carried out by looking
at the value of the permeability distribution that occur.
In this case, an assumption is used which assumes that
hydraulic fracturing stimulation carried out causes the
permeability around the well to be different from the
permeability value in the area far from the wellbore due
to discontinuous radial permeability. The value of
permeability after fracture (K f) and the average
permeability distribution price (K avg) are obtained based
on the Howard & Fast equation (1970) as follows:
(1)
2.5 Production Rate After Fracturing
An evaluation carried out on the aspect of the
production rate will comparing the flow rate of
production before hydraulic fracturing stimulation with
the production rate after performing hydraulic
fracturing stimulation. The increase in production rate
of well production after the hydraulic fracture
stimulation indicates that the fracture design that was
previously planned is carried out according to the
design. Increased in production rate due to the large
permeability and conductivity value generated from the
channel within the developed fracture.
2.6 Productivity Index
The performance of fluid flow from productive
formations to the wellbore can be expressed in an index
called the productivity index (PI), which is defined as
 3

the ratio between the production rate produced by
productive formations in drawdown which is the
difference in bottom well pressure during static
conditions (Ps) and when there is a flow (P wf). PI can be
of constant value or not, depending on the flow
conditions that occur. Quantitatively expressed in a
graph that connects the flow rate with the bottom well
flow pressure. There are several methods for
calculating the productivity index, including the Darcy
method, the Prats method, the McGuire-Sikora method,
and the
down test, and minifrac (calibration test).
4.1 Breakdown Test
Breakdown Test is the first pre-fracturing test that
will be conducted. Breakdown Test at KAF-22 well
was carried out using brine base fluid with addition
of 2% KCl without the use of additives and
proppant. Fluid injection rates ranging from 5 BPM
to 18 BPM.

III. METHODOLOGY
In this paper, the first thing to do is to evaluate fracture
initial design for the KAF - 22 well. This evaluation
includes evaluating the fracture fluid pumping schedule
and analyzing pump power requirements. Then an
evaluation will be carried out at each pre-fracturing test
stage where the results of that stage are used to plan
redesign. Evaluation carried out by comparing
parameters before and after fracturing includes
comparison of actual fracture operational results with
designs using dimensionless fracture conductivity and Figure 2 Breakdown Test Pressure
fracture conductivity parameters, comparison of
average permeability, comparison of flow rates before Breakdown Test Summary :
and after stimulation, comparison of IPR curves before • Maximum Tubing Pressure = 5465 Psi
and after stimulation, a comparison of the productivity • Closure pressure = 2914 Psi
index / increase in multiples of production. Last is the • Fracture Gradient = 0,806 Psi/ft
final report data on the work of open channel fracturing • Bottom hole ISIP = 3787 Psi
end of well report carried out by a service company. After Closure Analysis :
 Reservoir Pressure = 2017 Psi
IV. RESULTS  Estimated permeability = 1.784 Psi
The KAF - 22 well produces oil from the Lower Talang  Transmissivity = 66.024
Akar Conglomeratic layer, which is a candidate for  Transmissibility = 135.86
open channel fracturing stimulation. It is hoped that by
doing this method stimulation on the layer, will 4.2 Step Rate Test
resulting in increase of the well productivity. The The Step Rate Test was carried out using 8.55 PPG
evaluation of stimulation job is carried out to evaluate brine 2% KCl with Step Up injection rate starting
the increase in production. from 1 bpm to 18 bpm. In the step down stage the
injection rate drops gradually from 18 bpm, 15
Well Parametes bpm, 13 bpm, 10 bpm, and 7 bpm.
Well Profile = Directional
Bottom Hole Temperature = 235 oF Step Rate Test is divided into two analysis, namely
Treatment Path = Tubing Step Up and Step Down analysis. The results of
Well Radius (rw) = 0.354 ft Step Rate Test are then analyzed using computer
Middle of Perforation = 5121’ MD utilization. From the Step Up Test, the result that
obtained are the extension pressure value 3971 psi
Reservoir Parameters and the extension rate 2.049 bpm.
Porosity = 18 % Step Up Test Summary :
Permeability = 1.78 mD • Fracture extension pressure = 3971 psi
o
API = 39 • Fracture extension gradient = 0,845 Psi/ft
Lithology = Conglomeratic • Fracture extension rate = 2.049 BPM
Formation Thickness = 37.1
Net Pay = 23.4 Step Down Test Summary :
Reservoir Pressure (Pr) = 2017 • Perforation Friction = 342 psi
• Near-Wellbore Friction = 311 Psi/ft
Pre-Fracturing Test • Effective Perforation Open = 10.63
Pre-fracturing test is a test carried out before the • Pumped Fluid = 3116 Psi
main fracture operation (mainfrac) to obtain and • Dominant wellbore friction = Tortuosity
validate local fracture data. Pre-fracturing test
includes Breakdown test, step-rate step-up-step 4.3 Minifrac
 4

Minifrac was perfromed by pumping the fracturing = 3389 psi

fluid (Pad) that will be used in the Mainfrac, that is CSF
Hybor H3.5410. The pumping rate is 18 BPM with
total injection volume is 3000 gallon and then CSF = (6)
displacing the Hybor H3.5410 from the wellbore
with slick WG-11. = 722
Minifrac Summary: Based on these calculation, it can be stated that
• Bottomhole ISIP = 3888 Psi conglomerate formation in KAF-22 well is a viable
• Closure Pressure = 3019 Psi candidate.
• Closure Gradient = 0.68 psi/ft
• Fracture gradient = 0,83 Psi/ft 4.6 Mainfrac
• Fluid efficiency = 0,6178 The main operation (Mainfrac will be carried out using
• Spurt loss = 0,00200 gal/ft2 the main design parameters after pre-fracturing test
already performed, with an average pumping rate of 18
bpm. Proppant is injected with proppant pulse
techniques (pulsing) to form the channel within the
developed fracture. The fracture geometry model on
mainfrac is a pseudo-three-dimensional (P3D) model
using modeling from software. The following are the
results of the mainfrac fracture geometry as shown in
Figure 5.

Figure 3 Minifrac

4.4 Pumping Power Requirement

Calculation of pumping power requirements will be
carried out using the parameters obtained from the
results of the pre-fracturing test, so that the results will
later be used for the implementation of the actual job.
BHTP = Bottom Hole Treating Pressure
Figure 4 Mainfrac Fracture Geometry
= 3898.178 psi
Ph = Hydrostatic Pressure For the summary of fracture geometry dimesion can be
= 2087.841 psi seen in table 1 below
Pf = Friction pressure loss
= (tubing friction + near wellbore + Table 1. Fracture geometry summary
perforation friction) (2)
= 2783.256 psi Parameter Unit Value
Ps = Surface Pressure
= ( BHTP - Ph) + Pf (3) Fracture Half Length (xf) ft 289.5
= 4593.593 psi Fracture Height (hf) ft 168.1
HHP = Hydraulic Horse Power
= 2026.585 HP Fracture Width (wf) in 0,24

Averag Fracture Width (wavg) in 0.152

4.5 Candidate Selectivity Factor
Based on the parameters obtained from pre-fracturing
test, the calculation of the feasibility factor of the Open 4.7 Fracture Permeability (K average)
Channel Fracturing in the KAF-22 well is called After hydraulic fracturing, the permeability value
candidate selectivity factor (CSF) based on the criteria increases around the formation and affects the increase
described in earlier. Following are CSF calculations: : in the rate of production and decrease in the skin value
in the formation.
Plane Strain Modulus (E’)
4.8 Channel Permeability (Kchannel)
E’ = (4) Kchannel = (7)
6
= 2.45 x 10 psi = 6.24E+08 md
Resulting Stress
Resulting Stress = ( σmin + Pnet - Pwf) (5) 4.9 Fracture Permeability (Kf)
 5

Determination
Kf (8)

= 150918.152 md

4.10 Fracture Conductivity (Cfd)

Cfd = (9)
= 1910
4.11 Fracture Conductivity Dimensionless (Fcd)

Fcd (10)

= 4.13

Furthermore, the results of the stimulation calculation Figure 6. Productivity index comparisson
of the open channel fracturing method will be
compared with the calculation of the hydraulic 4.13 Skin Value Comparisson
fracturing simulation results if the KAF-22 well is
stimulated by conventional fracturing

Channel Conventional
Parameter Unit
Fracturing Fracturing

Proppant mass Klbs 33.1 99.47

Average
md.ft 1910 1013
Conductivity

Dimensionless
4.13 2.18
Conductivity
The comparison calculation of the conventional
fracturing is performed with the assumption that the Figure 6 Cinco Ley and Samneigo Equivalent skin
developed fracture has the same geometry dimensions Factor
as the geometry dimensions of the open channel
fracturing method.

4.12 Productivity Index Evaluation

Theoretically, the productivity index price will increase
after hydraulic fracturing is done. Next, a comparison
of the productivity index after hydraulic fracturing is
carried out using the Cinco-ley, Samaniego and
Dominiquez methods.
• WKf = 1910 mD-ft
• Ki = 1.78 mD
• Xf = 289.5. ft
Figure7. Skin value comaprisson
• re = 303.6 ft
• rw = 0,354 ft
4.14 Inflow Performance Relationship
The IPR curve before and after hydraulic fracturing has
increased formation productivity. Before fracturing, the
well produced at a pwf value of 1316 Psi and produced
a production rate of 15 BOPD. After channel
fracturing, the production rate increases by 130 BOPD,
whereas if conventional fracturing is carried out, it will
produce a production rate of 80 BOPD with the same
bottom well flow pressure. In general, from the results
of the production evaluation, based on the calculation
of the increase in productivity index and increase in oil
flow rate after fracturing and based on the inflow
Figure 5 Cinco ley, Samneigo, and Dominiquez PI
performance relationship graph before and after
 6

fracturing and comparing the results with conventional 6. Pamungkas, J. (2004). BUKU I Pengantar Teknik
fracturing methods, the stimulation of the fracturing Reservoar.
channel method in the conglomerate layer can be said 7. Pertamina. (2003). Perencanaan Stimulasi.
succeed and provide better results. As shown in Figure 8. Saud, F. M. (n.d.). Pengertian dan definisi tekanan
8 Hidrostatik.
9. Schechter, R. S. (1992). Oil Well Stimulation.
10. Technologies, N. (2001). Frac Tips, 3(1), 2–3.
11. Economides M.J. and Nolte K.G., “Reservoir
Stimulation (Second Edition)”,Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1985
12. Medvedev, A., Yudina, K., Pangan, M.K et al.,
Kraemer, C., Pena A. 2013. On the
Mechanism of Channel Fracturing. Presented at
Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference,
Woodlands, 4-6 February 2013. SPE-163836-MS
13. Priyantoro T.A. et al : SPE-156550: Journey of HF
Improvement to Increase Oil Recovery from
Sandstone Formation in Rimau Block, 2012.
14. British Petroleum. “Hydraulic Fracturing Theory
Manual”. 1993
15. Barasia, A. and, Pankaj, P. 2014. Tail-In Proppant
and its Importance in Channel Fracturing
Technique. Presented at the SPE Bergen One
DayOne-Day Seminar, Grieghallen, 2 April 2014.
SPE-169227-MS.
Figure 8. KAF-22 Well IPR 16. Salah, Mohamed., El-Sebaee, M., and Batmaz, T.
et al. 2017. Channel Fracturing Technology: A
Paradigma Shift in Stimulation of Tight Reservoir
V CONCLUSIONS
and Unlock Production Potential. Presented at 79th
From the previous discussion, conclusions can be taken
EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Paris, France,
as follows.
12-15 June 2017. SPE-185873-MS
1. Calculation of increase in productivity index (PI) by
the Cinco-ley, Samaniego and Dominiquez methods
shows an increase in PI 8.4
2. The Cinco-ley, Samaniego and Dominiquez methods
show the results of skin calculations after a frac of
-5.71
3. The use of the proppant mass in channel fracturing is
only 33,381% from use in conventional fracturing
4. Actual hydraulic fracturing work in the field results
in 289 ft fracture length, average fracture width of
0.152 inch and 168 ft fracture height. Design with
three-dimensional Pseudo fracture geometry model
(P3D)
5. The formed fracture has an average conductivity
value of formation of 1910 md.ft, with a dimensionless
conductivity of 4.13, which can be said to be above the
optimum value of 1.6

REFERENCES
1. Ahmed, T. (2010). Reservoir Engineering
Handbook Fourth Edition.
2. Aslam, M., Nur, Y., & Mahadzir, A. (2015).
Development of mathematical model for hydraulic
fracturing design, 269–276.
3. Crain, E. R. (1999). Crain’s Petrophysical
Handbook.
4. Eberhard, M. (2011). Fracture Design and
Stimulation – Monitori Well Construction &
Operations technical worksh. Halliburton, 24.
5. Economides, M. J., & Boney, C. (1987). Reservoir
Stimulation Handbook.