STIMULATION BY FRACTURING SN SM Rev0

OMV Petrom Romania WORKOVER BEST PRACTICES MANUAL
Production Operation Workover Engineering March 2012

CHAPTER 11. STIMULATION BY FRACTURING
REVISION
11. STIMULATION BY FRACTURING
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 11-3
11. STIMULATION BY FRACTURING .............................................................................................. 11-5
11.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 11-5
11.2 Fracturing Stimulation Technology Overview .................................................................... 11-5
11.2.1 HDF and Acid Frac application in OMV Petrom SA ................................................... 11-7
11.2.2 Selection of Candidate for HDF and Acid Frac in OMV Petrom SA............................ 11-8
11.2.3 Data Preparation required for hydraulic and acid fracturing design ....................... 11-12
11.2.4 Hydraulic Fracturing (HDF) Key Technology Parameters ......................................... 11-16
11.2.5 Fracturing Fluids and Additives Selection ................................................................ 11-20
11.2.6 Propping Agent Selection ......................................................................................... 11-22
11.2.7 HDF Pre-Job Evaluation Practice in OMV Petrom .................................................... 11-25
11.2.8 Rate Changes During the Job and MiniFrac data interpretations ............................ 11-34
11.3 Fracturing Methods Technology Workflow...................................................................... 11-37
11.3.1 Propped Fracture Operation Workflow ................................................................... 11-37
11.3.2 HDF Design Process .................................................................................................. 11-39
11.3.3 Model Selection of fracture propagation ................................................................. 11-39
11.3.4 Net Pressure History Matching and Design Correction ............................................ 11-45
11.3.5 Methodology of Acid Fracturing............................................................................... 11-50
11.3.6 Workflow Design Procedure for Acid Frac ............................................................... 11-54
11.3.7 Planning, Execution and Real Time Control of Well Fracturing (HDF and Acid Frac) .. 11-
62
11.4 Downhole Completion Well Schematic for Fracturing ..................................................... 11-71
11.5 Surface Equipment for Fracturing .................................................................................... 11-77
11.6 Fluids and Materials Used for Fracturing ......................................................................... 11-80
11.6.1 Fracturing Fluids used in OMV Petrom ................................................................... 11-81
11.6.2 Fracturing Fluid Additives ......................................................................................... 11-84
11.6.3 Foams/Energized fluids ............................................................................................ 11-86
11.6.4 Proppants ................................................................................................................. 11-87
WORKOVER BEST PRACTICES MANUAL Mar 2012
Revision
A.12354
11.7 Quality and Safety Requirements for Fracturing.............................................................. 11-89

11.7.1 Quality Assurance and Control of Fracturing Operations ........................................ 11-89
11.7.2 Safety Considerations ............................................................................................... 11-93
11.7.3 Personnel .................................................................................................................. 11-94
Appendix 11-A Surface Equipment for Fracturing (Various service companies). ........................ 11-95
Appendix 11-B Commercial fracturing fluid systems ................................................................... 11-96
Appendix 11-C Proppant Specifications and characteristics ........................................................ 11-97
Appendix 11-D Fracture Stimulation Checklist............................................................................. 11-98
Appendix 11-E Examples of HDF Treatment Design and Execution OMV Petrom .................... 11-102
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. 11-102
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... 11-104
References .................................................................................................................................. 11-106
Chapter 11 Page 2 of 107

Revision
A.12354
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 11. STIMULATION BY FRACTURING
No. Strongly Recommended
Linear gel is recommended to be in the wellbore and near-wellbore region for the Rate Step
1.
Down Test (RSDT)
2. Always use properly selected biocide if water based fracturing fluid will be used for operation.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Revision
A.12354
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 11. STIMULATION BY FRACTURING
No. Not Recommended at All
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Revision
A.12354
11.1 Introduction
Fracturing is the process of injecting a fluid into a well to create tensile stresses in a formation
exposed to the fluid pressure, causing local stresses in the formation to exceed the tensile strength
of the rock. This creates a crack, or fracture, propagating into the formation from the wellbore as
fluid continues to be injected at a high rate.
In some formations, acids may be used as the fracture fluid to etch the face of the crack, whereas in
others, a proppant such as sand may be injected with the fluid so that upon cessation of pumping
and crack propagation, the crack remains a conductivity pathway for fluids to flow from the reservoir
into the wellbore. These two processes are referred to as acid fracturing and proppant fracturing.
Acid fracturing is applicable in both damaged and undamaged carbonate formations. The initiation
and propagation of the fracture should be done by properly selected fracturing fluid and then walls
of the fractures are etched with acid to create a conductive flow channel of formation closure. Acid
fracturing is a treatment in which the fracturing and etching fluids are acid.
When the tensile forces created by the hydraulic pressure of fluid against the rock of the wellbore
become great enough, they literally part the rock and start ruptures the fracture. This fracture is then
extended from the wellbore by continued pumping of the fracturing fluid. Usually, inert proppant
(sand, resin coated sand, intermediate strength proppant, high strength proppant) are proportioned
into the fracturing fluid and forced down the tubing or casing into the opened fracture. When the
treating pressure is released and the pressure of the surrounding rocks (called "fracture closing
pressure") starts to seal the fracture, the proppant holds it open. This permits reservoir fluid to flow
along the high conductivity fracture to the wellbore. The fracture conductivity in particular provides
the important permeability contrast into that of the reservoir. The larger the ratio of the fracture
conductivity (fracture permeability-width product) to that of the virgin reservoir (taking into account
the geometry of the generated fracture), the higher the productivity increase
11.2 Fracturing Stimulation Technology Overview
Fracturing is successfully applied in low to moderate permeability reservoirs, whereby the

productivity is improved from effectively increasing the wellbore radius. It can be applied in almost
any formation, although commonly in carbonate reservoirs acid fracturing is applied.

Revision
A.12354
The principal reasons for fracturing a well:
• Bypass near-wellbore damage (skin),

• Extend a high conductivity flow path into the reservoir,
• Alter the fluid flow pattern in the reservoir,
• Increase the rate or productivity and/or to improve the ultimate recovery,
• Aid in secondary recovery operations and to assist in the injection or disposal of waste water.
If a well has a large skin effect, then a relatively small fracture may increase productivity as much as a
few hundred percent. Fracturing is also attractive in very tight sands where the production rates may
be normally too low to permit economic drainage of the formation hydrocarbon. In these cases long,
conductive fractures may help to increase the ultimate recovery of hydrocarbon by extending the
time before the economic limit of a well is reached.
A neat fluid (“pad”) is pumped to initiate a two-wing fracture and establish fracture propagation.
This is followed by a viscous fluid mixed with propping agent (“slurry”), further extending the
fracture. The fluid breaks down to a low viscosity, and flows back out of the well. Propping agent
prevents the fracture from closing after the treatment. A highly conductive flow path is thus created.
A propped fracture can be from tens to several hundred meters long, and it usually has a width of
some 5-35 mm. Depending on the formation permeability and the presence of damage, the
productivity improvement may be tenfold or more.
Hydraulic Fracturing alters the flow pattern around the well by creating a pathway (fracture), which
has higher permeability than the formation. Early in the well life, linear or bilinear flow could occur as
gas flows from the formation to the fracture (Figure 11-1). Later in the well’s life, pseudo-radial flow
occurs.
Figure 11-1 Fracturing Alter Flow Patterns

Revision
A.12354
Finite Conductivity in the fracture or the reservoir is limited to the extent that pressure drop in the
fracture occurs. Infinite Conductivity means that the conductivity is very large, so, extremely small
pressure drop occurs in the fracture.
An effective wellbore radius, rw’, can be estimated from skin factor or fracture half-length such that
stimulated well production behavior can be approximated with radial flow by using rw in place of rw’.
With acid fracturing, no uniform acid etching or differential etching, of the fracture face creates
lasting conductivity. Unfortunately, despite rapid technology development, still there is no reliable
and accurate prediction of an acid fracturing outcome. Acid fracturing lacks the higher degree of
predictability associated with HDF with nonreactive fluids. There are several factors suggest the use
of acid fracturing:
• A predominantly naturally fractured carbonate formation, potentially leading to propped-

fracture complications,
• A heterogeneous formation, with porosity and permeable streaks that are conductive to a
higher degree of differential acid etching of the fracture walls,
• Good formation permeability, but with existing formation damage,
• A well that will not mechanically accept proppant,
Acid fracturing is the more conservative treatment design because proppant is not pumped. The risk
of failing to complete the treatment is also much lower. There is no risk of premature screen-out,
which can leave the fracturing tubing string full of proppant. Also, there is no risk of proppant
flowback, with all its troubles consequences. Acid fracturing is usually less expensive than propped
fracturing especially in deeper wells which are often dismissed from consideration because of
anticipation that closure pressure will overcome acid-etched fracture conductivity. If effective etched
fracture can be created, flow turbulence in the fracture is expected to be less in an open acid fracture
than in a fracture that contains proppant. A disadvantage of acid fracturing is that controlling the
leak –off rate of reactive acid in a fracture is very difficult. Without benefit of field experience in a
particular formation, prediction of etched conductivity and fracture length with a high degree of
confidence is not possible. This is due to unknown leak-off characteristics. Acid fracturing must be
used only where good differential etching is probable. The rock strength and closure pressure must
indicate that good conductivity will remain after fracture closure. Formation mechanical properties
and their response to contact different acid types and systems must always be evaluated as best as
possible in advance of a treatment program.
11.2.1 HDF and Acid Frac application in OMV Petrom SA

Revision
A.12354
11.2.2 Selection of Candidate for HDF and Acid Frac in OMV Petrom SA
Well candidate selection for fracturing is a process of identifying wells with low productivity
compared to what they are capable of producing, and then examining these wells for mechanical
problems.
As integral part of the well selection process, the minimum analysis requirement should include
evaluation of the designed performance improvement as it is shown on Figure 11-2.
Figure 11-2 Performance gap evaluation
Post frac production is the best indicator of performance improvement. Post frac analysis provides
data about the fracture size and configuration (length, width and height, and vertical position) which
can be used to match the fracture size to the actual performance improvement.
If the actual performance gap after fracturing job is equal to predicted, then used model and applied
technique of job execution were according to the bottomhole conditions. If the actual performance
gap is less than predicted, then either the data used for the design were wrong or the treatment was
not placed optimally (TSO mode and in the zone of interest). If the actual Performance gap is more
than predicted, the data used for the design were wrong but the treatment was placed optimally.
Results of matching procedure for any case should be used for as lessons learned for the better
designing and execution of the next fracturing job.
The critical step in a process of candidate selection is data preparation and data quality check before
and or planning and execution.

Revision
A.12354
The need for a fracturing treatment must be determined prior to getting too involved. The factors
involved in the decision must include, but should not be limited to, the cost of the treatment vs.
incremental productivity and feasibility.
The most important information and data should be collected during the process of the best
candidate selection are:
• Wellbore Inclination survey

• Wellbore configuration
• Casing Integrity
• Completion configuration
• Perforation configuration
• Surface equipment
• Well Logs
• Cement bond evaluation
• Production data analysis
• Near-wellbore damage: Skin
• Pressure Build-up (PBU) Well Tests
• Previous fracturing treatment data
• Other operations: Water and/or Gas injection
The implications of fracturing well candidate selection are critical and if a data are not properly
gathered, analysed and checked, a risk is high and chances to have unsuccessful operations are
increasing.
1. OMV Petrom Best Practice Candidate Selection
• Many candidates are usually selected by Asset and they are send for evaluation.
• Stimulation & Fracturing team is making candidate evaluation in six steps as follows:
Step 1 - Make PVT matching
Step 2 - Identify an approximate saturation status and remaining reserve
Step 3 - Identify an approximate damage from history data (skin from steady state
flow equation - using Resestim 7 in house made software or Prosper)
Step 4 Predict IP increase after stimulation job based on IP increase after fracturing
Step 5 - Make production forecast based on material balance
Step 6 - Estimate operation cost and calculate Cash Flow based on production
forecast
• If candidate is feasible economically than it is selected.
The general workflow for candidate selection is shown in Figure 11-3. The final step of the process of
manual candate slection involves gathering and organizing well data in order to estimate potential
of each individual zone and plan operation according to results of this analysis, as shown in
Figure 11-4.

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-3 Candidate selection workflow

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-4 Individual Zone/Well Evaluation for fracturing

Revision
A.12354
11.2.3 Data Preparation required for hydraulic and acid fracturing design
Wellbore Configuration
A large number of variables, which are of extreme importance to job design and execution can
generally be supplied or obtained from the well file. Included in this list are:
Tubular configuration - Is the job pumped through tubing or casing?, tubular size, weight and grade,
packer depth.
Perforations - In existing completions, the perforations are already in place, and an analysis should
indicate whether these can be used for the planned fracture treatment, or whether remedial actions
are needed (re-perforation, recompletion, cement squeezes, etc.). For newly completed wells,
perforation planning for fracture stimulation treatments, should be taken into consideration already
in the completion design. If more information is known about how the well was perforated, various
analytical model or software like SPAN can be run to determine the actual geometry of the
perforations (See Chapter 6).
Hole Survey - This is used only for proper frictional and hydrostatics calculations in 3D models
(FracCADE).
Cement Bond Log (CBL) - A cased hole bond log can be used to verify zonal isolation. A weak bond
could allow unrestrained height growth behind casing.
Formation Properties
Reservoir and rock parameters are required to arrive at a properly calculated design.
Permeability (K) - Formation K is a measure of the ease with which a formation permits a fluid to flow
through it. While the global term, K, is entered into fracturing design models; it should be noted that
effective permeability to oil and water are always lower.
Permeability can be estimated using various methods (empirically, derived from porosity and
irreducible water saturation- Swi read from logs, using well tests including pressure build-
up/drawdowns, short flow tests and drill stem tests, Repeat Formation Test –RFT etc. , core testing
and analytical procedure/software, like PROSPER, can be used to obtain a well test match from a
pressure build-up or drawdown)
Porosity (φ) – Formation (φ) is a measure of the ratio of void space in a rock, compared to bulk
volume of the rock. The most frequent tools used for porosity estimation are:
• Sonic log, density log, or a neutron log can be used provided the formation lithology is known. The
depth of investigation for these logs is very shallow, on the order of inches.
• Core testing can again be used depending on the sampling method.
• Resistivity logs are another tool to be used.
Formation Stress (σ) A hydraulic fracture will orient itself in a plane normal to the direction of least
compressional stress. This stress is the closure stress (σcl) used in fracturing design. Dynamic

Revision
A.12354
measurements can be obtained from shear velocities on a sonic log. This data in conjunction with a
bulk density can be used to calculate in-situ stress. The most frequently used test to estimate closure
stress in OMV Petrom is so called Mini Frac (sometimes called data-or calibration frac, or fracture
efficiency). If formation core sample are available, then static laboratory measurements on core can
be used to get closure stress.
Fracture Gradient (FG) - Obtained by dividing the closure stress by the well true vertical depth (TVD.
Also, FG can also be estimated with the in-situ correlation in different software ( like ProCad,
FracCADE).
Reservoir Pressure (Pr) - The current pressure of the zone of interest is important in estimating the
well performance, production rate and payout of the well.
Reservoir Temperature (BHST) - Fluid selection and design primarily needs BHST as a design
parameter.
Skin (S) - Skin is the pressure drop across the near wellbore matrix. It will have a positive value for
damaged zones (up to 20), and negative values for stimulated zones (down to -7). Skin estimated
after fracturing job is direct measure how much the executed operation was successful or not.
Oil, Water and Gas Saturation (So, Sw and Sg ) - Determining oil, water and gas saturation is one of
the basic objectives for proper design fracture job.
Gas/Oil Ratio (GOR) - Measured / test production data and history of oil and gas production are the
most reliable sources for GOR.
Lithology – Various logs could be used to define the material makeup of the rock, to indicate
boundaries, correlate zones and give an indication of lithology, particularly, to define shale beds.
Zonal production contribution should be evaluated using PLT measurement.
Fluid Properties
The selection of the actual composition of fracturing fluid, in principle, depends on a number of
aspects, such as reservoir mineralogy, well completion, operational considerations, compatibility
with reservoir fluids and environmental concerns.
Rheology (n’, k’). It is important to consider fluid rheology as a function of time and temperature.
Double check rheology tables and make sure that included information extends to temperatures
greater than the BHST of the well. If the fluid temperature exceeds the last defined point, it can
default to the rheology of the last defined point, which is generally water. The actual n’ and k’
numbers can be obtained from published information (Fracturing Fluids Manual) or from the lab
testing of the individual fluid.
Because there is little information on the rheology of foamed or energized fluids, these should be
calculated from the developed foam rheology spreadsheet as shown in Appendix 11…..
Wall Building Leakoff Coefficient (Cw) - Cw is a function of polymer and Fluid Loss Additive (FLA)
concentration, as well as formation permeability. For non-wall building fluids, Cw should be set to a
large number.

Revision
A.12354
Total Leakoff Coefficient (Ct) - This is basically the minimum of Cw and Cvc (filtrate and reservoir
compressibility controlled leakoff). Cvc is automatically calculated by the program. The only control
over this parameter on the fluid screen is the leakoff viscosity and it is a function of temperature. For
fluids with essentially water leaking off (wall building fluids) the viscosity starts at 1 cp, and decreases
with increasing temperature. If the leakoff viscosity is greater than 5 to10 cp, it will begin to become
a leakoff control factor. The other important factors are reservoir fluid factors and reservoir
properties (permeability, porosity, compressibility, and viscosity). For known formations, an excellent
source of Ct is from previous evaluations. When performing a pressure match analysis, leakoff is
generally adjusted with only Ct and spurt. If this information is cataloged in the user database, a
value of Ct from the database can be very accurate. Total leakoff coefficient is very important for TSO
design in high permeable formation requesting sand control.
Spurt - For wall building fluids, the spurt is the leakoff that occurs before the deposition of the filter
cake. Obviously, this occurs at a faster rate than after the filter cake is in place. It can be visualized as
shown in Figure 11-5.
Figure 11-5 Spurt valuation
Fluid Friction -This is also easily obtained from published information. The most reliable results,
however, can be obtained from short field tests (ISIPs in pad). When doing post-job analysis, this
information can be very important. If these ISIPs are done on several jobs, at different rates, they can
be compiled to generate personal friction curves for the exact fluids which are regularly pumped.
When using this method, care must be taken to eliminate “extra pressures” (perforation,
tortuosity…) from the database. If these pressures are quantified during the evaluation process, the
fluid data is still valid.
N2/CO2 Quality - The foam quality (% by volume of gas, excluding proppant) from the fluid design. A
decision needs to be made prior to the job, whether constant downhole or surface rate is going to be
used.
Retained Factor - This is the fraction of the proppant pack permeability that remains after the fluid
damage has occurred. The only place to obtain this is from published breaker curves. This number is

Revision
A.12354
of great importance when calculating the fracture conductivity. If no breaker is used in a polymer
based wall building fluid, which leaves a great deal of residual mass in the fracture, this number can
easily approach 0.15, making the default value of 1.00 very inaccurate. Typical values range from (0.5
to 0.75).
Additives - These will generally be determined from the frac fluid selection. A previous experience in
a field can be an important indicator of needed additives. Clay control, iron control, surfactants, non-
emulsifiers, etc. are indicated by formation type and previous experience in a particular formation.
Other additives such as temperature stabilizers and breakers are determined from the requirements
for fluid rheology against time. Additives should be kept to an absolute minimum (apart from some
essential additives, like buffers, breakers), and their inclusion should be clearly
demonstrated/justified.
Proppant
A propping agent should be selected that can provide sufficient fracture conductivity under the
expected fracture closure stress.
The optimum fracture conductivity and thus the appropriate proppant can be estimated using the
dimensionless fracture conductivity:
CfD = Kfwf/Kxf , where:
• Kf- propped fracture permeability (mD)

• wf – fracture width (mm, inch)
• K – reservoir permeability (mD), and
• xf – fracture half length (m, feet)
The optimum CfD can range from less than 1.6 to 30 depending on the design limitations and
reservoir characteristics. It has been proposed that, when the proppant volume is fixed, the
optimum CfD is 1.6 and for gas condensate reservoirs the optimum CfD could be less than 1.6.
Values for permeability and retained factor are excluding any fluid effects. The database proppants
should generally maintain the retained factor of 1.00, as the permeability is already adjusted based
on the closure stress

Revision
A.12354
11.2.4 Hydraulic Fracturing (HDF) Key Technology Parameters
Fracture design considerations included fracture length, fracture conductivity, and interval coverage
(staging). An extensive reservoir simulation study are required to determine the optimum fracture
half-length and conductivity and predict the future well behavior and production rate.
Fracturing pressures
In many applications of hydraulic fracturing it is essential to ascertain, if at all possible, the

orientation of the fracture. The first question to be answered regards whether or not the fracture is
vertical or horizontal. Generally, horizontal fractures are preferred, but in deeper formations they
are, as will be evident, most often vertical. One of the important measurements that can help
distinguish between horizontal and vertical fractures is the bottomhole pressure measured during
fracture treatment. The overburden stress is normally 22.3-24.6 kPa/m (0.99-1.08 psi/ft). If the
fracture gradient is less than this, it will be easier to part the earth (formation) than to lift it. In
hydraulic fracturing, enough pressure must be applied to initially break down or fracture the
formation and enough pressure must continue to be imposed to allow the fracture to continue to
grow or propagate. Normally, more pressure is required to initially breakdown a formation than is
required to propagate a fracture. Once a fracture is formed, the fluid in the fracture acts as a wedge,
forcing the fracture to grow. A fracture is more easily created using a low viscosity, penetrating fluid
than with a high viscosity nonpenetrating fluid. A penetrating fluid pressurizes a larger area, and the
total force on the formation is greater than if a nonpenetrating fluid, which acts only on the area
near the wellbore, is used. Pressure behavior during a fracturing treatment is illustrated by
Figure 11-6.
The fluid injection rate is constant, except that at some time injection is stopped to obtain the
instantaneous shut in pressure. The bottomhole pressure is shown versus time from the initial
injection of fluid until the treatment has been completed. The surface pressure is, of course, different
from the bottomhole pressure because of the weight of the fluid and the friction losses in the
wellbore. The critical portions of the pressure history during fracturing shown in Figure 11-6 are:
• Breakdown Pressure
The pressure required to break down the formation and initiate fracture. This pressure is
abnormally high due to the concentration of stresses around the wellbore at the time of
drilling. Sometimes this pressure is used incorrectly to calculate formation fracture gradient.
• Fracture Extension (Propagation) Pressure
The pressure required to continually enlarge the fracture;
• Instantaneous Shut in Pressure(ISIP)
The pressure response at the moment pumping stops, when the extension pressure has an
instantaneous drop, which is a measure of the total friction pressure;
• Fracture Closure Pressure

Revision
A.12354
The pressure recorded at time the fracture closes. The fracture closure pressure is equal to
the minimum effective stress and is the pressure that should be used to calculate the true
formation fracture gradient.
• Net Fracture Pressure
The pressure which is differential between instantaneous pressure and fracture closure
pressure.
The instantaneous shut in pressure measured by stopping the flow will depend on the width of the
fracture at this point and the pore pressure surrounding the fracture. If large quantities of fluid have
been injected and the fracture width at the wellbore is large, then a larger shut in pressure will be
observed. If it is desired to measure the intrinsic tectonic stress, the shut in pressure should be
measured after only a small amount of low viscosity fluid has been injected to create a fracture. At
this stage the fracture width will be narrow and will have little effect. Even if larger quantities of fluid
are injected, the effect of fracture width is normally less than 30 bars. After shut in, stresses in the
earth squeeze the fluid in the fracture until the fracture walls close on the proppant or on the etched
walls of an acid fracture. When the walls close, and support the earth's stresses, the pressure will
decrease rapidly as more fluid leaks off into the formation.
The described pressure behavior is highly idealistic. Seldom will all the pressures described be
observed during a fracture treatment. For example, if the reservoir had been previously fractured,
there may not be any difference between breakdown pressure and fracture propagation pressure. If
the reservoir pressure is very low, the well will go on vacuum when the fracture closes, and a static
reservoir pressure will not be measured at the surface. If Pisip is the instantaneous shut in pressure
measured at the surface, then the bottomhole shut in pressure (Pbisip) is given by:
∙ ∙
Where:
Hmp is the formation depth (to the middle of the perforated interval). This equation is precise
because when flow is stopped, the friction pressure vanishes.
Fracture gradient (FG) can be calculated using Pbisip as follows:

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-6 Idealized bottomhole pressure during fracturing job
Fracture Geometry
Available computer programs for fracture modeling allows the user perform sensitivity studies with
a design limit on either length or volume. Varying the fluid pumped, height growth, leakoff, modulus,
pump rate, spurt loss, and formation toughness yields comparisons and sensitivities of the input
values. If good data is available for some of those parameters, it is not required to sensitize on them.
Sensitizing should only be used for data that is questionable, or is a limiting factor in the design; such
as pump rate. This module can also be used in the post-job evaluation for a quick check of the
fracture geometry. If delta Pnet is known, the geometry can quickly be analyzed.
To use 3-D fracture models, vertical reservoir and rock mechanical properties must be developed.
Assigning properties to layers is the critical step in the process of developing 3-D fracture model data
sets. If these properties are properly measured and estimated, the data set will be both useful and
accurate. The profiles in Figure 11-7 and Figure 11-8 are examples of this process.
Zone information and changes in lithology should be taken from available well log data (Gamma Ray
log). Rock types can be picked from software that roughly describe formation characteristics. This will
assign default values for Poissons ratio, Youngs modulas, and Fracture Toughness. Assign pore
pressures to each zone based on reservoir pressure gradient for pay zone. If the well has been
producing the current pore pressure should be used in the pay zone and original pressure to create
the gradient. Use Minimum Insitu-Stress Correlations to calculate stresses

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-7 Well lithology, permeability/thickness product and cumulative hydrocarbon in place
Figure 11-8 Well lithology and mechanical properties distribution

Revision
A.12354
11.2.5 Fracturing Fluids and Additives Selection
The purpose of fracturing fluids is basically:
• to transmit the pressure from the surface to the bottom of a well, to initiate a fracture,
• to hydraulically extend (or propagate) the fracture into the formation,
• to transport and distribute the proppant along the fracture,
• in acid fracturing, to create unevenly etched flow channels
The fluids selected for a fracturing treatment can have a significant influence on the resulting
propped fracture length and fracture conductivity. Fluids that leak off rapidly into the formation will
not extend the fracture to the desired length, and may result in a premature screen-out. Moreover, if
a significant amount of residue of the gelled fracturing fluid remains either in the proppant pack,
and/or as a filter cake at the fracture face, the fracture conductivity and production performance of
the fracture may be considerably less than the design value.
When choosing a fluid, it is important to take into consideration the well bottom hole static
temperature and formation properties. Some conditions to consider are: water sensitivity, low
reservoir pressure, extra viscosity required, high proppant pack conductivity, short length (< 90 m
/300 feet), and low conductivity. These should not be the only factors used in making a decision. The
fluid selection chart in Figure 11-9 is a good gauge of where to start. Choose a fluid which will give
large conductivity and the lowest polymer damage. Optimize according to the leakoff coefficient (Cw,
Ct), retained factor, whether or not flowback is in the design, good clean-up, bottom hole static
pressure (BHST), bottom hole pressure (BHP), formation sensitivity, friction data, and formation
permeability (K).

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-9 Fracturing Fluid Selection Workflow

Revision
A.12354
Extensive laboratory rheology (Fann-50) and retained conductivity tests should performed on a
variety of fluid systems, including both borate and zirconium crosslinked fluids, to identify the
optimum fluid for the treatments. Reservoir brine, freshwater and seawater base fluid systems also
can be considered. Seawater has the advantage of minimizing logistical issues and is less expensive
particularly in offshore hydraulic fracturing operations and it is usual case in OMV Petrom.
Sometimes, depending of the seawater composition the lower viscosity can be obtained in
combination with polymer and, in that case higher polymer concentration is required, particularly
for the wells with higher temperature (> 150 0C). In addition, at such conditions (high temperature)
there is possibility of scales precipitations.
Actual fracturing fluids will always leave some residue in the proppant pack in the form of polymer
residue, unbroken gel particles, fluid-loss material, filter cake etc., thus reducing the conductivity of
the propped fracture. The problem is most pronounced when the volume of residue from the
polymer is high, when polymer concentration is high, when the concentration of proppant in the
closed fracture is low and when the stress on the fracture is high, causing lower porosity. In
laboratory testing of several fluids, the reduction in fracture flow capacity was found to be greatest
for crosslinked HPG fluids and least for emulsion fluids, as shown below in Table 11-1. The damage
percentages are dependent on temperature, and the numbers in Table 11-1 were determined at
around 60°C. Since higher proppant concentrations increase proppant volume, while simultaneously
reducing the fluid volume, fluid residue plugging is mitigated by higher proppant concentrations.
Table 11-1 Proppant pack damage from fracturing fluids
11.2.6 Propping Agent Selection
Propping Agents are required to “Prop Open” a created fracture and to Increase flow capacity.
Choosing a proppant depends on closure pressure (Pc), mesh size, mean diameter (Dpmin),
preferences, cost, availability, compatibility, pack porosity and permeability. Optimizing
Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity (Fcd) is a must.
The increase of oil/gas production after hydraulic fracturing can be achieved only if the fracture is
adequately filled with proppant and has a designed conductivity which is strongly influenced by the
following proppant properties:
• High Strength
• Size, sphericity and roundness
• Corrosion Resistant

Revision
A.12354
• Low Specific Gravity
The most frequent proppant types used for fracturing operation are:
• Quartz Sand
• Sintered Bauxite
• Ceramic Material
• Resin Coated Sand, Bauxite or Ceramics
Fracture permeability is a function of proppant type, proppant concentration, reservoir temperature,

fracture closure stress and the amount of fines, gel residue, etc. that are in the proppant pack. The
key criteria for selecting the proper proppant size is to get high conductive fracture. The best results
in OMV Petrom has been obtained with proppant size 16/30 or 16/20 mesh. The recommended
proppant selection workflow is shown in Figure 11-10.

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-10 Proppant selection workflow

Revision
A.12354
11.2.7 HDF Pre-Job Evaluation Practice in OMV Petrom
Design for proper fracturing operation evaluation
The key to successful evaluation requires proper treatment planning and execution. The ability to
complete an accurate evaluation depends on the quality and quantity of data. In addition, requiring
rigorous treatment practices on every treatment ensures that the proper data is gathered regardless
of whether or not an evaluation is performed on location. There are the different tools available on
location to aid in the analysis process. These pumping practices, used in conjunction fracturing
software modeling , provide valuable pieces of information regarding the formation. These tools are
Step Rate Test (SRT), Rate Step Down Test (RSDT) and MiniFrac test. Not only can a successful and
correct pressure match be obtained using these tools, but the success of the treatment can also be
maximized with effective “on location” evaluation. In some cases, if it is needed, after perforating
and before fracturing, acid breakdown can be performed to ensure that injection is established and
that the perforations are open. Particularly, acid breakdown of perforation can be effective in
carbonate formation and sometimes is used as proved best practice in OMV Petrom. Standard
practices usually involve establishing an injection rate before any acid are pumped. Also, this could
be a good opportunity to perform a quick Instantaneous Shut-In Pressure (ISIP). After the initial
break, increase the rate to 5+ BPM, and after the pressure has stabilized, shut down and calculate
the formation fracture gradient and a rough estimate of closure. If at all possible, an ASCII data file
with time, rate and pressure should be generated. Regardless of which company pumped the
breakdown, the operator should always have this information. The breakdown is also an ideal time to
perform a flow back test. After the balls have been wiped or surged, start the step-rate/flow-back
test. This technique will be discussed in the next section.
Step Rate Test
Exact rates are not important when performing a step rate test, constant rates are. This test is usually
done with workover fluid such as 2% KCl , brine or slickwater, however gelled fluid can also be used.
It is desirable to have a uniform weight fluid in the hole, so that hydrostatic pressure is known. In
high permeability areas crosslinked systems may be used to limit leakoff. This test is recommended
as the first for determining Fracture Extension Pressure (FPE). The step rate ensures that anomalous
pressures are not encountered during the closure test. Performing a valid step rate test ensures that
the zone has been fractured, provides an upper bound of closure and defines the required rate for
fracture extension. For purposes of defining closure, the duration of the individual steps should be
equal. The time span does not have to be long. One or half minute is sufficient to change rates and
level of pressure. Depending on the formation permeability the rate at which the fracture propagates
is usually greater than 500 lit/min (3 bpm), but in tight rock the rate is generally much smaller. The
recommended rates are 80, 120, 160, 320, 480, 640, 960, 1280, 1600 lit/min (0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8,
10 bpm). The rate should be adjusted depend on injectivity characteristics of formation. Such a wide
range of rates typically ensures that at least three rates fall above and below the fracture extension

Revision
A.12354
pressure as shown in Figure 11-11. The best the time at each step should be the same length. The
last rate should be held for 5 to 10 min to ensure enough fluid to perform an adequate flow back.
Figure 11-11 Step Rate Test
The break point of the step-rate test in the curve or change in slope is the Fracture Extension
Pressure (FEP), which is larger than the closure pressure because of fluid friction in the fracture and a
finite resistance to extension. Intersection between straight line, drawn by regression between
points of curve before slope change, and Y axis gives as an approximate value of reservoir pressure
(Pr). Intersection between straight line, drawn by regression between points of curve after slope
change, and Y axis gives as an approximate value of Fracture Closure Pressure (FCP).
Once an adequate amount of data has been collected, the data can then be interpreted by standard
pressure transient analysis for the permeability and skin factor.
Rate Step Down Test
The rate step down test is highly valuable in determining near wellbore pressure effects such as
tortuosity or perforation friction. Load the hole with a known fluid (i.e., 2% KCl, slikwater, preferable
linear gel with low gelling agent concentration). Linear gel is recommended to be in the wellbore and
near-wellbore region for the RSDT, because, the viscosity is not affected as much by the shearing
rate. There are cases where a fracture cannot be initiated; because of the low efficiency of linear
fluids (linear gels), and only short superficial fractures can be created. In such cases, the fracture
entry geometry is very different, so, crosslinked gel provides the necessary efficiency, thus, using
crosslinked gel is recommended instead of linear gel.
In cases where DH pressure data is not available, it is recommended to overdisplace with linear gel
prior to starting the RST. Only after linear gel has passed the perforation near-wellbore area the RST
can be started.
Friction numbers are extremely important in the analysis, so it is imperative that it is known what is
in the hole and nearwellbore in order to correctly use models for calculating all friction components
(wellbore, perforation and nearwellbore zone). Also, both, density and viscosity of the fluid used for
RSDT must be uniform, so the hydrostatic pressure and the wellbore friction will be constant and can
be used for proper matching of calculated and measured Total System Friction (TSF).

Revision
A.12354
Once fluid has been pumped through the perforations, bring the rate up to the designed rate.
Typically 3-4 drops in rate are sufficient (2.4, 1.8, 1.2, 0.6, 0m3/min or in API units 15, 11.5, 7.5, 3.5
bbl/min). It is not required that all flow rate reductions be equal, however, they have to be abrupt. It
is easiest and most convenient to pump with four pumps at about equal rate each, and take out one
pump at a time. Drop the rate until the pressure settles, repeat until the rate is zero (this is
mandatory and record the ISIP which is used in calculating TSF. Also, to record hydraulic transient
harmonic response (water hammer), the last rate must be zero. The procedure is shown in
Figure 11-12.
If downhole pressure gauges are not used, then Bottom Hole Pressure (BHP) should be calculated.
For calculation of BHP an accurate determination of friction losses in tubing is necessary. In many
experiments developed worldwide, if a BHP gauge was used, revealed that real friction losses in
tubing are in the range of 30-60% (most frequently around 50%). To be sure that friction losses in
tubing is not overestimated, bottom hole pressure can be compared with BHP corresponding to ISIP
which is not depending by friction. Minimum BHP during pumping (at minimum rate) should be
bigger that BHP at ISIP. Calculated or measured bottom hole pressure minus ISIP for all rates gives
the near wellbore friction and perforations frictions versus injection rate.
Figure 11-12 Rate Step Down Test procedure
Each step of the flow rate reductions should be about 10-20 seconds long what should be enough for
stabilization of the flow rate and pressure. Fracture geometry should change very little during the
RSDT. It should be avoided to pump a small volume ahead followed by long steps, or, pump first
small volume and then a following rates in short steps. Therefore, the volume pumped prior to
initiation of the abrupt flow rate reductions must be fairly large followed by abrupt flow rate
changes. The improper and proper way RSTD design is shown in Figure 11-13.
Figure 11-13 Improper and proper design of RSDT

Revision
A.12354
The RSDT is used to accurately make the difference in friction pressure behavior between the
perforations and near wellbore friction and to exactly define Fracture Entry Friction (FEF). Near-
wellbore friction is a result of near-wellbore fracture tortuosity, existence of multiple fractures in
near-wellbore zone and perforation connectivity with fracture.
The magnitude of the FEF components has served as guidance to design and/or modify the
placement procedure and treatment schedule, in order to reduce unplanned terminations
(screenout) of propped hydraulic fracture treatments.
The perforation friction changes with the square of the flow rate, whereas the near-wellbore friction
changes with the square-root of the flow rate. As shown in this figure, this difference can be
determined when several abrupt flow rate changes are applied to accurately measure near-wellbore
friction. It cannot be predicted, but only can only be quantified field observations.
The general empirical equation to quantify near-wellbore friction is:
∆ ≅
Where are :
• K – constant and,
• β –exponent between 0.4 and 2 (OMV Petrom best practice: 0.5-0.6)
As it is shown in Figure 11-12, perforation friction is dominant over near-wellbore friction. In the case
that near wellbore friction is larger the entire plot will be above the perforation friction plot. In the
perforation friction dominated regime, it can be seen that the bottomhole pressure changes most for
the higher flow rates. All of these cases are shown in Figure 11-14.
Figure 11-14 Perforation friction dominates (left side) and near-wellbore friction dominates (right side)Ref 1
• If the rate exponent equals or greater than 2.0 then near wellbore friction is purely a
function of perforation damage and well need to be reperforated.

Revision
A.12354
• If the rate exponent equals or less 0.5 then near wellbore friction is purely a function of
tortuosity (near wellbore fracture restrictions). In this case a proppant slug should be
pumped during minifrac in order to check the formation response to proppant injection.
• If the rate exponent is in between 0.5 and 2 then, both, near wellbore friction and
perforation damage exist.
As it can be seen, the value of the near-wellbore friction coefficient exponent, β, is not always 0.5. •
For shallow depth (less than 1200 m) it is slightly larger than 0.5 , For hard rock and high stress
conditions (E= , σ= ) it is less than 0.5. For tough rock at great depth, the value of β =0.5 is used as
good approximation. If the inertial effect is high, what is usually case with complex fracture geometry
and high injection rate then rate β is higher than 1 and it is very difficult to distinguish perforation
friction and near-wellbore loses. In such cases the plots of near-wellbore friction is concave upwards
and the most of pressure loss will be attributed to perforation friction what cause that pressure loss
due to near-wellbore friction will be underestimated and potentially erroneous operation decision
can be made. Results of proper FEF interpretation are used for decision making timely and properly
in order to prevent or reduce unplanned fracture termination (screenout) and therefore to reduce
risk that operation be technically and economically unsuccessful. Additionally, one FEF can be used
for diagnostics of proppant slug response and hydraulic transient response (water hammer).
Generally each field and formation has its own special characteristics; so, it is advisable to establish
guidelines by field, but as well as by geologic formation. The proposed general guidance based on
analysis of over 400 RSDTRef1 from all around the world is shown in Table 11-2.
Table 11-2 General guideline based on ranges of FEE component values
Common practice is that step rate test is followed rate step down test, as can be see for one selected
case in OMV Petrom in Figure 11-15.
Figure 11-15 Step Rate and Step Down test sequences

Revision
A.12354
MiniFrac test
The most important test on the location before the main treatment is known as a Minifrac
(sometimes called Data- or Calibration frac, or Fracture Efficiency) is a series of pump-in tests at or
near main treatment rate followed by a shut-in period or flow-back period, as shown in Figure 11-16.
Figure 11-16 Typical Micro test Data*
*1)Formation Breakdown; 2) Propagation; 3) Instantaneous Shut-In; 4) Closure Pressure from Fall-Off; 5)

Reopening; 6) Closure Pressure from Flowback; 7) Asymptotic Reservoir Pressure; 8) Closure Pressure from
Rebound
The best practice in OMV Petrom is to use Pump-In/Shut in test, as is shown on Figure 11-17.
Various rates and fluids can be used depending on downhole conditions and some technical
constraints at the surface. The tests are performed on a formation to determine hydraulic fracture
treatment design parameters.
The design goal for the minifrac is to be as representative as possible of the main treatment. To
achieve this objective, sufficient geometry should be created to reflect the fracture geometry of the
main treatment and to obtain an observable closure pressure from the pressure decline curve. The
most representative minifrac would have injection rate to the main treatment and fluid volume
injected as pad volume which is in the most cases equal to the maximum 50 m3. In practice, several
conflicting design criteria must be balanced (created fracture geometry, designed proppant mass,
damage to the formation, a reasonable closure time, and cost of materials and personnel) in order to
optimize fluid volume required for executing minifrac.
The purpose of Minifrac analysis are to get data for estimation the following parameters:
• Fracture Closure Pressure and time (Pump-in/Shut-in test)

• Fracture Net Pressure (Pump-in/Shut-in test)
• Stress profile and fracture geometry using net pressure matching (Pump-in/Shut-in test)
• Fluid loss characteristics (total leakoff coefficient Ct and fluid efficiency) with respect to the
formation, fracture geometry and fracture parameters (Pump-in/Shut-in test)
• Minimum in situ-stress or ISIP (Pump-in/Flow-back test)

Revision
A.12354
Also, by interpretation of the MiniFrac data can be obtained some additional information about
reservoir like permeability and reservoir pressure.
These field calibrated parameters are derived prior to the main fracture treatment, to allow
optimization of its design. Therefore, a minifrac test is always carried out prior to a hydraulic fracture
treatment. Although downhole data is preferred during a minifrac test, accurate surface pressure
recording is adequate. This will reduce costs and avoid the risk of cable parting due to viscous drag
forces by the frac fluid pumped down. The surface pressure data can be entered into evaluation
software packages. A minifrac should be performed by pumping the same fluid to be used for the
main fracture treatment at the designed rate. The injection rate during minifrac test should be
maintained at constant level and for the most performed jobs for off-shore wells injection rate was
not higher that 3000 lit/min, primary because of technical limitation of the pumps injection capacity.
Once the fracture has been initiated, it will propagate with a lower fracturing fluid pressure, since the
stress distortion will rapidly vanish away from the borehole. The downhole propagation pressure
must be higher than the sum of the effective horizontal stress and the reservoir pore pressure. After
pumping is stopped, the wellhead pressure drops rapidly to the ISIP. Pressure losses due to friction
are then eliminated.
Figure 11-17 Typical Micro test Data
The pressure decline is monitored to determine the closure pressure of the perforated interval.
Leakoff coefficient can also be determined by analyzing the pressure falloff data
A MiniFrac can be done to get an approximation of the stresses downhole. If the reservoir is
multizone and if several intervals are perforated then the pressure response will yield the closure
pressures and associated fracture gradients for the all of the zones. Once all of the stresses are
known, the stresses within the zones in the job design are much more reliable, and it is important
that they are not vastly modified at any time during the design or evaluation process.

Revision
A.12354
Flow Back Test
This test, in conjunction with a step-rate test, is the preferred method of determining the closure
pressure. Flow back should start immediately after the step rate test. A typical rig up will employ a
high pressure flow meter to ensure a constant rate. This rate is typically 1/4 to 1/6 the final pumping
rate, and must remain constant. A variable choke and a visual display of the flow allows the
individual flowing the well back to continuously monitor the flow rate to make any changes
necessary. The combination of injection and flow back should be repeated in order to validate the
first test, although the step rate does not have to be done if a clear fracture extension pressure and
closure were determined in the first test. In addition to a choke and a flow meter, another
configuration may be to utilize a fixed choke, pressure gauge and a variable choke. The gauge is
placed between the two chokes and the pressure is kept constant.
Workflow shown in Figure 11-18 gives detailed sequences of HDF data preparation and required test
for planning, designing and execution of HDF operation.

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-18 HDF data preparation workflow

Revision
A.12354
11.2.8 Rate Changes During the Job and MiniFrac data interpretations
Whenever there are designed rate changes during a frac job (i.e., step-rate-test, step-down-test or
step down at the end of the job, or rate changes during the pumping of the job), they should be
made as quickly as possible. These rate changes should be discussed during the pre-job meeting to
ensure validity of the data, and so the pump operators will understand the necessity and importance
of quick rate changes. Exact rates are not the goal, constant rates are. If a particular rate is desired,
get as close to it as quickly as possible and leave it alone until it is time for the next rate adjustment.
The same holds true during the pumping of the frac job and the step-down at the end of the job. The
rate changes need to be as quick and clean as possible.
MiniFrac data interpretations
Various methods developed for transient well test analysis are used for interpretation of recorded
data during execution of MiniFrac test. The most frequent used are:
• Square Root of Total Time/Time Since Shut-in

• G-Function Plot
• Horner Plot
• Log-Log Diagnostics
Square Root of Total Time/Time Since Shut-in
Figure 11-19 illustrates pressure decline during decline versus the square root of pumping time plus
shut-in time. This plot proves to be a more accurate analysis for closure when non-wall building fluids
are used. With field data, closure can be approximated by the intersection of the two straight lines.
Square root of total time is used to magnify slope changes.
Figure 11-19 SQRT MiniFrac data analysis

Revision
A.12354
G-Function Plot
This plot (Figure 11-20) is used to analyze the pressure decline after shut-in and to assist in
determining closure pressure and closure time. Fracture closure is indicated by a deviation from the
straight line. This plot graphs the range of points defined as decline on the job data plot.
Figure 11-20 G-Function Plot for MiniFrac data analysis
Theoretically, the fracture closure period for a pressure independent wall building fluid will appear as
a straight line on the G-function plot. The slope of this line is directly related to the fluid loss
coefficient, closure time is related to fluid efficiency and the net pressure at shut in is related to
Young's Modulus and gross fracture height. Three options are available on this plot to determine the
slope of the straight line portion. Graphic line fit allows the user to place the tangent at any point on
the curve. Forced range allows the user to fit the line between adjustable max and min points on the
curve. The 3/4 Rule places a tangent at a point 3/4 of the way between ISIP and the user input
estimate for closure. This is the preferred method as it takes into account non-ideal behavior.
P* is the Nolte Match Pressure, and is proportional to the leakoff coefficient and is determined from
the decline analysis.
Nolte equation
Fluid efficiency can also be generated from the G-Function plot, as it is a function of closure time
derived from P* and the net shut-in pressure
Net
Horner Plot
The pressure during decline versus the log of the Horner time, which is defined as [the pumping time
(tp) plus the time since shut-in (Dt shut-in)] divided by the time since shut-in (Dt shut-in), is shown in
Figure 11-21 illustrates Horner plot. This plot is used to identify radial flow which occurs after
fracture closure, and to provide a lower bound of closure. This point is located at the point at which
Revision
A.12354
the curve deviates from a straight line. If radial flow is observed, the data will not deviate from a
straight line, and this line can be extrapolated to obtain an estimate of the reservoir pore pressure.
Figure 11-21 Horner plot for MiniFrac data analysis
Log-Log Diagnostics
This plot considers the difference from the shut-in pressure and the pressure derivative, plotted
against the time since shut-in (Δtshut-in). This plot can be used to identify closure pressure by
investigating linear flow through the fracture after shut-in.
When using field data, closure can be obtained from the intersection of two straight lines, with a
straight line on both the shut-in pressure and the pressure derivative, as shown in Figure 11-22.
Figure 11-22 MiniFrac Log-Log Diagnostic plot

Revision
A.12354
11.3 Fracturing Methods Technology Workflow
After the selection of suitable candidates for a fracturing treatment and preparation of the data
required for designing HDF, a number of steps have to be considered by the designer, when planning
the "ideal“fracturing treatment. Generally speaking, the design of fracture treatments has three
basic requirements. One is to determine what oil or gas rates and recoveries might be expected from
various fracture lengths and fracture conductivities for a given reservoir. The second is to determine
the fracture treatment design requirements to achieve the desired fracture geometrical parameters
(lengths, width and height) and conductivities. The third is to maximize economic returns.
11.3.1 Propped Fracture Operation Workflow
1. Propped fracturing design elaboration

• Proppant and fluid is selected based on reservoir stress and rock proprieties
• Lab testing
Proppant crush test
Resin coated proppant hardening test
Mechanical rock proprieties testing on core
Fluid test
Crosslink test at average temperature in tubulars (for crosslinked fluid)
Rheology test
Breaking test
Caring capacity test
Rehealing after sharing test
Compatibility test with reservoir fluid
Retained permeability test on core
• Propped fracture design tool
Based on computer simulation the best pumping schedule is chosen.
2. Economic evaluation
Based on more accurate cost estimation and production forecast cash flow is calculated.
3. Program elaboration
Program has the following main chapters:
• Well and reservoir data

• Well preparation recommendation (workover plan, tubing movement and stress analysis /
see Chapter 5)
• Pumping schedule, job hydraulic parameters, simulated fracture parameters
• Surface facility placement and technical setup (P&ID)
• Production forecast and recommendation for production regime
• Cash flow

Revision
A.12354
4. Job execution and QA/QC

• Tank and chemicals inspection
• Fluid retesting on well location
• Execution of SRT/RSDT - Near Wellbore Friction interpretation in order to define an optimum
operating parameters in order to avoid screenout during execution SDT.
• Main frac execution
Real time net pressure matching
Fluid sample inspection and breaking test
Material balance checking for on fly pumped chemicals (difference must be less than
10%)
5. Report elaboration
6. Production monitoring and history matching for different fracture geometry (it needs 6
months of production)
7. Cash flow monitoring function of production data
The general workflow developed using OMV Petrom best practices examples is shown in
Figure 11-23.
Figure 11-23 General Workflow for Well Fracturing Design Process

Revision
A.12354
11.3.2 HDF Design Process
The general workflow of HDF design process (Figure 11-28) shows that data preparation, design
model selection, production increase estimation and economic evaluation are four steps should be
applied to achieve the final objective of design process. These steps are:
Data preparation (Step Rate Test-SRT, Step Down Test-SDT and Mini Frac)
Model Selection (fracture propagation model, proppant selection and transport model, heat transfer
simulation, wellbore hydraulic and perforation model, fracturing fluid and additives selection, post
fracture well performance evaluation),
Fracture Parameter Optimization, Sensitivity analysis and Economic and Risk Evaluation
As the fracturing is one of the most costly workover/stimulation operations one of the key objectives
is to design a fracturing treatment with optimized values producing the most cost effective job. By
inputting the design constants half-length and geometry model, and varying formation permeability,
maximum proppant concentration, fluid type, proppant type, fracture height, fracture length, leakoff
coefficient, retained proppant permeability and maximum pump rate, optimize the design vs. cost. If
any variables are constrained, especially the costly variables they will strongly impact NPV and cash
flow analysis should be done to choose the most effective fracture parameters.
11.3.3 Model Selection of fracture propagation
A model must be chosen that fits the formation properties and at the same time, the formation
stresses has to be known to choose a model. The fracture propagates perpendicular to the axis of
least stress. An experienced designer can estimate the geometry model from logs and field history.
The model that gives the smallest width is the proper choice. This will be the model generating the
least amount of net pressure.
Horizontal - the overburden stress is less than in-situ stresses causing horizontal growth, confined to
a single zone. The fracture initiation is from the wellbore diameter. This is the primary model when
the depth is approximately less than 600m (2000 feet).
In order to determine the most likely fracture geometry, ideally, detailed information (in-situ stress
and mechanical properties measurements at top and bottom for relevant zones) is required. This can
be obtained from, minifrac tests or from logs. Also, (extended) casing leak-off tests may provide
information on in-situ stress levels. The calculation of a detailed treatment design can be done with
choosing appropriate fracture model and software.
Two dimensional models are closed form analytical approximations assuming constant and known
fracture height. For petroleum engineering applications, two mutually exclusive models have been
used. For a fracture half length much larger than the fracture height (xf > > hf), the Perkins and Kern
Revision
A.12354
(1961) and Nordgren (1972) or PKN model is an appropriate approximation. The net pressure varies
along the height resulting in elliptical width development. It is a fixed height 2-D model where the
properties of all zones are averaged together. The fracture half-length is much greater than the
fracture height. This model is typical for thin zones
For xf < < hf the appropriate model has been presented by Khristianovic (h) and Zheltov (1955) and
Geertsma and de Klerk (1969). This is well known as the KGD model. The fracture height remains
constant, net pressure decreases and the properties of all zones considered are averaged together.
The fracture half-length is much less than the height. This model is used for very thick zones.
A limiting case, where hf = 2xf, is the radial or "penny shape" model. The fracture height, hf, used
here is the dynamic value, that is, the fracture height at the time that the fracture length is equal to
xf.
Two general groups of models are available: two dimensional (2 D) and three dimensional (3D)
models.
The most frequently used 3D models are:
• Full 3D models (all aspects of fracture initiation and propagation are included)
• Planar 3D models (Fracture grows perpendicular to horizontal stress)
• Pseudo 3D models
Lumped models
Cell-based models
Full 3-D model
The fracture is discretized, and within each block calculations are done based on the fundamental
laws and criteria for propagation. The fracture is allowed to propagate laterally and vertically, and
change plane of original direction, depending on the local stress distribution and rock properties.
Such fully 3 D models require significant amounts of data to justify their use and they are extremely
calculation intensive. Full 3 D modeling is the best option for modeling fracture propagation in
horizontally and highly deviated wells because the fracture initiation, usually aligned with the well
trajectory, is likely to be different from the direction of fracture propagation, which must be normal
to the minimum, "far field" stress.
The key features of the Full 3 D fracturing are:
• 3D elastic equations solved using finite element methods (Figure 11-24),

• 2D fluid flow coupled with linear elastic equations and solved with finite difference models,
• Fracture shape evolves with both time and space,
• Need detailed description of layers to take full advantage of these models,
• Need powerful computer to solve real problems efficiently.

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-24 Full 3D model grid
Planar three dimensional (PL3D)
Commonly used PL3D models available on market are: GOHFER (Grid Oriented Hydraulic Fracture
Extension Replicator), a planar 3D finite difference model of Marathon Oil, marketed by STIM-LAB,
Inc..), TerrFrac (Arco) and HYFRAC3D.
Pseudo 3D model
The p-3 D models allow vertical fracture migration along the fracture path, and this migration
depends on the stress contrast between the target and adjoining intervals, as it is shown in
Figure 11-25.
Figure 11-25 Lumped p-3D model
Basically, there are two common used pseudo 3D models, lumped and cell based.

Revision
A.12354
Lumped p-3D frac model
The model was proposed and developed by Keck et al. Model used 3D integral equations for crack
opening and fluid flow. The fracture horizontal length and wellbore vertical tip extensions are
calculated at each time step. Vertical profile assumed to be two half-ellipses joined and all variables
are lumped into coefficients that are spatially averaged along ellipses which are shaped to match
these points. 2D models are used to for fluid flow modeling and proppant transport (convection and
settling). Lumped p-3D model has capabilities to allow incorporation of more complex fracturing
mechanisms (dilatancy, multiple fractures, permeability barriers etc.) as it is illustrated in
Figure 11-26 to match observed net pressures in the field and fracture geometry parameterization.
Figure 11-26 Fracture propagation simulated p-3D lumped model
Various commercial hydraulic fracture design programs are available, some of which are:
• FRACPRO, a p-3D fracture model, now marketed by Pinnacle Technologies under name
FracproPT.
• MFrac, a p-3D hydraulic fracturing simulator, of Meyer and Associates.
• FIELDPRO (RES)
Lumped 3D model has been using intensively in OMV Petrom for designing fracturing jobs.
Cell-Based p-3D models
Are based on 2D-models, but fracture height adjustment along fracture is based on local fracture
pressure. Fluid flow and proppant transport including settling and convection are modeled by 2D
mathematical models. As in the case of lumped models net pressure matching allowed corrections of
design model during job execution.
Commonly industrial used computer programs are:
• STIMPLAN, of NSI Inc, a state of the art 3D hydraulic fracture simulator, now being used in
Shell to design fracturing job under name ENERFRAC.
• Schlumberger uses a proprietary program, called FracCADE (case shown in Figure 11-27)

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-27 Fracture modeling by FracCADE Cell Based p-3D model

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-28 The general workflow of HDF design model selection

Revision
A.12354
11.3.4 Net Pressure History Matching and Design Correction
In order to use any fracture model for history matching the net pressure to estimate fracture
geometry, an accurate pay zone closure pressure is needed.
The difference between the ISIP and the closure pressure is net pressure. Net pressure over 70 bars
(1000 psi) for a minifrac are rare. If the net pressure is considerably higher than 70 bars, the closure
pressure selected may actually be the reservoir pressure. Another possibility is that the ISIP is high
due to near wellbore problems. When near wellbore problems are encountered the ISIP may
increase representing the near wellbore problem and not the true BHTP inside the main body of the
fracture. From that reason is important to take account the effect of near wellbore friction and to
quantify fracture entry friction (FEF) If quantification of FEF components can be done and if it is
considered in conjunction with fracture tip effects (Dilatancy), history matching of net- pressure is
possible. Based on the results of fracturing jobs performed in OMV Petrom, the common value of
the net pressure is around 50 bars.
Once Observed Net Pressure is know, conditionally it could be called as “true” ONP and if FEF is
determined by recording pressure v.s. time or calculating by using analytical models (Figure 11-29).
Figure 11-29 Shut-in Pressure Decline and Observed Net Pressure (ONP)
Net pressure can be expressed in the following form:
! "# "$ "%# & '
Where:
• Pbh = Bottom hole pressure

• FEF = Fracture Entry Friction
• Pst = Surface Treating Pressure
• Ph = Hydrostatic Pressure
• Fmw = Measured Wellbore Friction (includes local loses)
• Fmp = Measured Perforation Friction
• Fmnw = Near-wellbore Friction

Revision
A.12354
• Pcl=Closure Pressure
Recorded pressure data during minifrac test and RSDT are used to calculate ONP. In order to obtain a
Net pressure history match, a 3D fracture propagation simulator is required. Real-time monitoring,
recording, and analysis features are a distinct advantage, as the “true” ONP can be calculated while
the fracturing treatment is in progress. It enables the engineer on-site to monitor and determine if
the treatment is being placed as per design (safely and effectively), and, to be able to re-design the
treatment in real-time if required and adjust the operating parameters. Older 2D fracture
propagation simulators have some limitations:
• underestimate the ONP, thus, a Net-pressure history match is not possible,

• lack real-time monitoring and analysis capabilities, thus, real-time decision making is not
possible.
Net pressure during job execution should not have abrupt changes and if it is happened it might be
indication that wellbore and nearwellbore frictions are not properly determined and has to be
corrected, as shows Figure 11-30. If the ONP is calculated with surface pressure data, it is very likely
that most of the error is introduced at the wellbore friction component. If actual BH Pressure is used
to calculate the ONP, then most all the friction “seen” by the gauge is near wellbore friction.
Figure 11-30 Net-pressure plots showing how to correct for friction in real-time
There are two typical situations:
1. If the ONP goes up, not enough friction is being subtracted.

2. If the ONP goes down, excess friction is subtracted.
To achieve good matching of observed and measured pressure net-pressures, the friction
components should be calculated accurately and adjust using recorded data during job execution.
Workflow, shown in Figure 11-31shows the OMV Petrom best practice methodology for net pressure
history matching.
Input model parameters should be changed to obtain a match between observed and modeled net
pressure. Once this is obtained and a good estimate of fracture geometry is obtained, the treatment
may be redesigned for frac treatment optimization and selection optimum geometry of fracture and
its uniform propagation. Example in Figure 11-32 shows results of the first multi-stage fracturing job
Revision
A.12354
completed in OMV Petrom. It has obtained good matching of designed (modeled) data and recorded
data
Figure 11-31 Methodology for matching observed and model net pressure
Figure 11-32 Matching of observing and modeled fracture net pressure (OMV Petrom well)
Nolte-Smith has published the procedure on how to interpret net pressure during injection. Net
pressure can be used to estimate fracture geometry during design, on site analysis and for post-frac
Revision
A.12354
diagnosis. A graph of log (pn) vs log (∆t) will produce shapes that can be interpreted. The slopes are
characteristic of various types of fracture geometries and modes of propagation. Therefore, the log-
log plot, its associated slopes and the pressure derivative provide a diagnostic tool for interpreting
the fracturing process. The analyses presume that the pressure measurement represents the actual
fracturing behavior, corrected for near-wellbore effects.
In Figure 11-33 schematically is shown Nolte-Smith diagnostic plot with characteristic shapes of the
curves representing fracture propagation type.
Figure 11-33 Nolte-Smith net pressure interpretation
After the fracture is confined by barriers, the pressure increases as predicted by the PKN model, with
the range from about l⁄8 for low eﬃciency to about 1⁄4 for high eﬃciency (Model I). As the fracture
pressure increases, it can reach the pressure capacity of the formation. This leads to a regulator
effect, resulting in nearly constant pressure with zero slope (Model II) because of accelerated fluid
loss primarily near the wellbore. A nearly constant pressure measurement that is equal to the
overburden stress indicates a T-shaped fracture. Controlled fracture height growth into a barrier is
characterized by a gradually decreasing log-log net pressure slope and a constant pressure derivative.
Net pressures steadily decrease if uncontrolled fracture height growth beyond a pinch point occurs.
Fissure-dominated fluid-loss behavior regulates the pressure to a constant value when the fissures
are mechanically opened. If the fissure permeability increases before the mechanical opening occurs,
this response will be preceded by a gradually decreasing log-log slope which is being negative (Model
IV). A significant pressure increase (Model III- two active wings and slope 1 and Model III-a –one
active wing and slope 2) indicates restricted extension with or a screenout near the fracture tip,
whereas a significantly higher slope (1 to 2) should be expected for a restriction nearer the wellbore
than the fracture tip. The log-log plot with its characteristic slopes provides a diagnostic tool
analogous to the log-log plot for identifying flow regimes within a reservoir.
Uniform fracture propagation and geometry simulated by using 3D fracturing model is shown in
Figure 11-34 and Figure 11-35 (simulated fracture geometry and conductivity is correlated with stress
distribution based on well log interpretation).
Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-34 Simulated Fracture propagation
Figure 11-35 Fracture geometry correlated with log.
Optimization include an NPV and rate return evaluation for various and the most sensitive fracture
geometry parameters (length and width), as shown in Figure 11-36.

Revision
A.12354
PROCESS TECHNO-ECONOMICAL OPTIMISATION OF HIDRAULIC

FRACTURING DESIGN
Nodal Analysis
Forecast Production
Cumulative oil&gas
decrease in function of
production Present value of
time
income
Reservoir
Characteristics
Net income from
cumulative oil and gas
Net present value
production decreased
for interest rate
Calculated Fracture
Fluid Selection
geometry
Xf
Wf
Total fracturing fluid
volume
Fracture geometry (3D Optimization Cost of standard
or 2D model PKD or of process performing hydraulic fracture
KGD) operation operation
Propant Weight
Limitations
Propant selection
NPV
Cost of service
provider
Xf
Figure 11-36 Fracture optimization workflow
11.3.5 Methodology of Acid Fracturing
Acid fracturing, to be applied in inhomogeneous carbonates (over 60% , involves the use of a non-
reactive- "conventional"- low or high viscosity preflush to initiate and propagate a fracture, followed
by the injection of low-viscous acid, usually HCl. As the acid flows along the fracture, portions of the
fracture face are dissolved. Since flowing acid tends to etch the fracture walls in a nonuniform
manner, conductive channels are created which usually remain open when the fracture closes. The
basic principles and objectives of acid fracturing are the same as for propped hydraulic fracturing
treatments in sandstones. In both cases the goal is to produce a conductive fracture with sufficient
length, to allow more effective drainage of the reservoir. The major difference is how fracture
conductivity is achieved. In propped fracturing treatments, sand or other propping agent is placed in
the fracture to prevent closure when pressure is released. Acid fracturing in carbonates relies on
nonuniform etching of fracture faces to provide the required conductivities (Figure 11-37).

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-37 Mechanism of Acid Fracturing
For homogeneous carbonates, a highly viscous gel preflush is required. This will cause the low viscous
acid to displace the high viscous preflush in a finger-type pattern, as it shown in Figure 11-38, thus
creating high-conductivity flow channels. To prevent these fingers from merging, special perforation
schemes should be applied, e.g. 0.6 m (2 ft) of high-density perforations (4 spf or more) every 1.5 m
(5 ft), and a viscosity ratio between the preflush and acid of around 300 should be maintained. This
process was patented by Shell in the late seventies as the WISPER process (WIdely Spaced Etched
Ridges)
Figure 11-38 Schematic of Wide Spread Etched Ridges (WISPER) technology of acid fracturing
Propped acid fracturing
In very soft carbonates, the walls of the etched channel may be too weak to withstand the closing
pressure of the fracture under producing conditions. The channel may lose its conductivity, which
will render the stimulation totally ineffective. To prevent this, proppant may be used to keep the
channels open. Such a treatment then comprises an acid fracturing treatment, followed by a
proppant stage. The advantage of this approach over conventional propped fracturing, is that a
relatively high fracture conductivity can be obtained with relatively low proppant concentrations.
However, practical results (offshore Denmark and Norway) show a rapid decline of production after
the initial increase in production. With the introduction of more sophisticated fluids and equipment
for conventional fracturing, allowing more aggressive designs with higher sand concentrations, the
Revision
A.12354
application of propped acid fracturing has virtually been abandoned, being replaced by
"conventional" propped hydraulic fracturing in such soft carbonates.
Closed fracture acidizing (CFA)
The injection of a low viscosity acid at a pressure just below the fracture closure pressure of a
previously, or naturally fractured (soft) carbonate formation, is a possible solution for the above
described problem of fracture closure. Although the fracture is closed, it still forms a preferential
flow path for the acid. This causes a wormhole type penetration of the acid along the original
fracture plane, when acid is injected in the closed fracture. Since only a small portion of the overall
fracture face will be dissolved into relatively deep channels or grooves, the remaining unetched
fracture face can hold these channels open under very severe formation closure conditions, without
completely collapsing the etched channels. This is especially beneficial in chalk formations.
Selection candidate for acid fracturing
There are no set guidelines for choosing between acid fracturing and propped fracturing. Historically,
the choice often has been based on individual or collective logic. This results from experience with
previous treatment response in the same field or under conditions that might be considered similar.
Production response is the best criterion for deciding between the two stimulation methods. Relative
cost-effectiveness (value) is also a factor, as it should be. Unfortunately, despite great strides, our
industry is not yet able to accurately model or predict the outcome of an acid fracturing treatment.
Acid fracturing lacks the higher degree of predictability associated with hydraulic fracturing with
nonreactive fluids. However, knowledge of formation conditions can provide guidance for choosing
the type and size of the stimulation treatment.
Several factors suggest the use of propped fracturing:
Low HCl solubility (<65%-75%)

A homogeneous carbonate formation (e.g., pure limestones)
Low acid reactivity (e.g., low-temperature [<150°F] dolomites)
Very low formation permeability, thus requiring a long fracture
Significant softening or creeping of rock under closure after contact with acid, resulting in
poor retention of acid-etched fractures
The following factors suggest the use of acid fracturing:
A predominantly naturally fractured carbonate formation, potentially leading to propped-

fracture complications
A heterogeneous formation, with porosity and permeability streaks that are conducive to a
higher degree of differential acid etching of the fracture walls
Good formation permeability, but with existing formation damage
A well that will not mechanically accept proppant

Revision
A.12354
In general, acid fracturing is the more conservative treatment design because proppant is not
pumped. The risk of failing to complete the treatment is also much lower. There is no risk of
premature screen-out, which can leave the fracturing tubing string full of proppant. Moreover, there
is no risk of proppant flowback, with its troubling consequences.
Another advantage of acid fracturing is that an acid frac can create conductivity to—but not within—
an undesirable sandstone or shale interval. Furthermore, if effective etched conductivity can be
imparted, flow turbulence in the fracture is expected to be less in an open acid fracture than in a
fracture that contains proppant.
Acid fracturing has to be used only where good differential etching is probable. The rock strength and
closure pressure must indicate that good conductivity will remain after fracture closure. Formation
mechanical properties and their response to contact by different acid types and systems must
always be evaluated as best as possible in advance of a treatment program.
A disadvantage of acid fracturing is that controlling the leak-off rate of reactive acid in a fracture is
very difficult. Without the benefit of field experience in a particular formation, prediction of etched
conductivity and fracture length with a high degree of confidence is not possible. This is due to
unknown leak-off characteristics.
Decision which fracturing method should be applied considering advantages and disadvantages of
the conventional fracturing with creating propped fracture and acid fracturing, as well as results of
application in OMV Petrom, the best practice workflow shown in Figure 11-39 is developed.

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-39 Acid Frac vs. HDF
11.3.6 Workflow Design Procedure for Acid Frac
There are two general methods of acid fracturing:
• Viscous fingering (pad acid)

• Viscous acid fracturing (used in OMV Petrom)

Revision
A.12354
Viscous fingering
Viscous fingering is a method in which the formation is first hydraulically fractured with nonreactive,
high-viscosity gel, normally cross-linked gelled water. This is used to create the desired fracture
geometry (i.e., length, height, and width) and to cool the formation to slow subsequent reaction of
the acid injected. Next, lower-viscosity acid (HCl or an HCl-organic acid blend) is pumped into the
created fracture.
The acid presumably ringers through the higher viscosity pad because of the viscosity contrast and
consequent mobility difference. This phenomenon is called viscous fingering. It has been posited that
if the viscosity difference is at least about 50 cp, sufficient viscous fingering occurs.
Acid may be viscous or non-viscous. Most often, it is a good idea to thicken the acid to some extent,
especially if HCl is used. Common viscous acid systems are acid-oil emulsion, foamed acid, and gelled
acid (polymer gelled and surfactant gelled). However, viscosity contrast between the acid and the
pad must be significant.
The basic treatment design sequences and typical injection rate using viscous fingering is given in
Table 11-3.
Table 11-3 Basic treatment design using viscous fingering
The acid most commonly used is 15 -20% HCl. Higher concentrations, above 20% or 28% HCl, can also
be used. Higher HCl concentrations have the advantage of being more viscous than 15% HCl, both
initially and after spending. This can help reduce leak-off. HCl-organic acid blends and totally organic
acid blends can be used in place of HCl Organic acids are useful in higher-temperature applications.
Viscous acid fracturing
Viscous acid fracturing uses viscous acid systems such as gelled, emulsified, and foamed acid or
chemically retarded acids and this is the most applicable acid fracture method in OMV Petrom. These
systems are used both to create the fractures and to differentially etch the fracture faces.
Treatments with viscous acid are applicable in heterogeneous carbonates, such as dolomites and
impure limestones.
The basic viscous acid fracturing treatment design includes the following:

Revision
A.12354
• Preflush
• Viscous acid stage
• Overflush
Preflush
The preflush is used to initiate a fracture and lower the temperature around the fracture. The
preflush is typically slightly gelled (slick) water.
Viscous acid stage
The purpose of the acid stage is to simultaneously propagate the fracture and differentially etch its
walls. The acid stage is typically gelled, emulsified, or foamed acid. Combinations of the three are
possible.
As in all carbonate acid treatments, 15% HCl is most common. Higher-strength HCl, organic acids, and
HCl-organic acid blends are also used. Most acid fracturing treatments are conducted with gelled
acid. Xanthan gum is an excellent gelling agent for up to 15% HCl. The only problem with xanthan
gum is that, at those concentrations, it does not degrade appreciably at temperatures below 200°F.
However, it degrades very rapidly—too rapidly—when HCl concentration is greater than 15%.
Most gelled acids use a polyacrylamide gelling agent. Polyacrylamides can be used at low and high
temperatures. They can also be cross-linked to attain higher viscosity and gel stability. The polymer
cross-link can be established initially for maximum-viscosity acid injection, or the cross-link can be
delayed (temperature induced) to enable low-viscosity, high-rate injection, with viscosity generation
at the formation face or in the formation. There are also polymer gelling agent systems that trigger
viscosity in the formation as acid thins or as acid spends (increasing pH). These systems then thin
again as acid spends further, to higher pH, enhancing flowback following treatment. Depending on
the commercial system, viscosity development is triggered at a pH in the range of 2-4.5. These
systems are better suited to viscous fingering, as is surfactant-gelled acid, which is primarily
applicable in matrix acid applications. Viscosity (or sustained viscosity) of these systems may not be
sufficient for most applications using viscous acid fracturing.
Overflush
The purpose of the overflush is to displace acid from the wellbore and push the acid volume forward,
thereby increasing the penetration distance. When viscous acid is used, a large overflush can
effectively increase the etched fracture length. The overflush is a critical step in the treatment
design. A high rate is beneficial.
It is possible to pump plain acid in such a treatment. When plain acid is used, acid reaction is very
fast. The acid will dissolve large amounts of rock near the wellbore but will create a short penetration
distance. If a treatment is designed simply to bypass fairly shallow formation damage, plain acid may
be sufficient. If plain acid is used, a large overflush is not needed, because it cannot increase
penetration distance. If the intent of the treatment is to stimulate the formation, viscous acid must
be used.
More complex methods of viscous acid fracturing include alternating stages and alternating acids.
With the alternating-stage technique, acid and gelled water are alternately pumped.

Revision
A.12354
The alternating gelled-water stages serve three purposes:
• Gelled-water stages create greater fracture width, because of higher viscosity.

• Gelled-water stages cool the fracture, thereby increasing depth of acid penetration. (Acid
reaction is exothermic; therefore, localized temperatures in the fracture can become high.)
• Alternating pumping increases penetration distance if the acid is retarded, because the
gelled water reduces acid leak-off from the fracture to the matrix.
With the Alternating-Acid Technique (AAT), two acids with opposite characteristics can be pumped
alternately. One acid mixture typically contains reaction-retarding additives. The other acid mixture is
nonretarded and will react faster, especially near the wellbore. The key purpose is to enhance
differential etching and to increase dissolution of rock near the wellbore.
The basic method of viscous acid fracturing is sufficient for most applications. Alternating-stage and
alternating-acid techniques could be potentially solution in some cases if basic acid fracturing were
unsuccessful and when there are enough information about the previous jobs.
For the stimulation of a new well or a well in a field with no previous acidizing history, though, it is
best to keep the treatment design as simple as possible.
Acid fracturing best practice design workflow in OMV Petrom is based on the following the three
requests:
Proper reactivity control
Use various synthetic polymer gels, surfactant gels and foams, emulsified acid and self diverting
agent to retard chemical reaction and control mass transfer). If straight acid is used then due to
high reaction rate the acid could be spent in relatively short distance from the wellbore (not
more than 10 m) and as results irregular caverns will be created without bypassing damage and
creating high conductivity fracture.
Fluid loss control
To increase fracturing fluid efficiency the acid (HCl) should be viscosified by using linear or
crosslinked gels. Usually the viscosity of acid with linear gel is around 20 cP and this could be
increased to 300 cP with using crosslinked gel. To plug created wormholes (see the Chapter 9 –
Acidizing ) dispersed solids can be used . Using various diverting agents (SDA or VDA) can increase
fluid efficiency and losses.
Controlling acid fluid loss and rapid reaction rate, with attention to the other governing parameters
provides the best opportunity to create a long, conductive fracture.
Reason for acid leakoff:
• Natural fissures and fractures

• Wormholes growth (Viscosifying the acid decreases the leakoff rate and this, in turn,
decreases wormhole length)
• Fluid leakoff into porosity

Revision
A.12354
100 mesh resin, 100 mesh sand or fine salt are used to first bridge the inlet of the fissures and can
serve as a base for a wall building fluid loss additive to building upon. Fluid loss additives should be
added to gelled fluid stages.
The gelled fluid leakoff into the porosity will form a layer of viscous fluid, functions as a viscosity
controlled fluid. Beneficial only where viscosity controlled leakoff coefficient < compressibility
controlled coefficient.
Fracture Conductivity
The conductivity of the fracture is determined by the volume of rock dissolved, the roughness of the
etched rock surface, rock strength and closure stress. If the reaction rate is too high, then the acid
will tend to spend excessively at or near the wellbore, resulting in poor conductivity closer to the tip
of the fracture. High reaction rates can also result in too much rock volume being dissolved, which
may not necessarily lead to higher conductivities once the fracture closes, especially in soft
carbonates. On the other hand, if the reaction rate is too slow, then the amount of rock dissolved
may be insufficient to prevent fracture closure.
Various techniques and materials have been developed, aimed at maximizing fracture conductivity.
The technique most commonly used involves the injection of a viscous pad ahead of the acid. The
presence of this higher viscosity fluid in the fracture promotes viscous fingering of the thinner acid
which follows. This selective acid flow also increases penetration distance and tends to create deep
channels with good conductivity. Propping agents have also been used in acid fracturing treatments
to obtain higher conductivities.
Using acid etched fracture flow tests results can be more realistically estimate required injection rate
and total volume and acid concentration. The results of such test suggest to use for the minor acid
frac around 3 m3 of acid/m of perforated interval at injection rate of 100 l/min. The total volume of
acid can be double (6 m3/m) or even tripple (9 m3/m) if serious (major) treatment are required.
Generally, acid frac design consists of the flowing main steps:
1. Fluid selection (based on reservoir proprieties)

2. Data preparation (SRT, RSDT, MiniFrac)
3. Laboratory testing is done for carbonate rock - and acid - rock interaction
Solubility
Capacity to release fines after reaction
Young modulus
Retardation
Acid etching
Compatibility test between acid fluids and reservoir fluid (compatibility test with crude
and formation brine)
4. Computer modeling and simulation is used for selecting the optimum pumping schedule
(injection rate and total volume).
5. Job Execution
6. Monitoring and on site design justification
7. Post job Analysis
8. Production Forecast and matching measured production data and predicted

Revision
A.12354
9. Reporting
The general workflow of acid fracturing job is shown in Figure 11-40.
Detailed workflow for estimating volume of fluid to be injected per each meter of perforated
interval for various rock type and downhole temperature is shown in Figure 11-41.

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-40 Acid Fracturing Best Practice Workflow

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-41 Acid fracturing workflow for estimating required injecting volume of the fluid

Revision
A.12354
11.3.7 Planning, Execution and Real Time Control of Well Fracturing (HDF and Acid Frac)
Planning Fracturing Job
Planning, execution and evaluation of a fracturing treatment, as in the case of matrix acidizing
treatment requires proper planning of the each stages shown in Table 11-4. The assumptions used in
Chapter 9 are used for fracturing planning, also.
As can be seen from the table, planning should not only look at the execution, but also include
proper timing for design and evaluation.
Table 11-4 Well Fracturing Planning Schedule
Site layout preparations
Fracturing operations require a large plot space to allow all the equipment to be placed on-site at
suitable distances from the wellhead. Site preparation should take place well before mobilisation of
the contractor to ensure that equipment requirements can be catered for. For example, if large silos
are used to store several hundred tons of proppant, the ground below the silos may need to be
compacted. A pre-job site inspection should be arranged, so that the service company personnel can
view the layout and equipment placement can be decided upon. Any piece of equipment that may be
a source of fire, should be positioned well away from the wellhead. An open path to the wellhead
and off location should be kept. It is also recommended to keep an open path to the storage tanks, in
case any fluids need to be hauled to or from the location after rigging up. Moreover, a path should be
kept clear behind the pump trucks to allow a tank truck to supply the pump units with gasoline
during the job, if necessary. For a large treatment, it is recommended to measure the dimensions of
the wellsite and to make a scale drawing of the location with the pumps, blenders, tanks, etc.
indicated. Such a scale drawings, will facilitate planning, organization and are shown in Figure 11-42
to Figure 11-47 (HDF of-shore well- Figure 11-42, Acid Fracturing of shore –Figure 11-43 and
Figure 11-44, HDF in onshore well – Figure 11-45 and Figure 11-46, Acid Frac in on-shore well –
Figure 11-47). The actual distances between the various pieces of equipment, including lines and
wellhead, should take account of local HSE requirements and legislation. The contractor should
supply drawings of the equipment layout with respect to the site dimensions. High pressure area
should be marked.

Revision
A.12354
Equipment and documents needed on job site:
• Oil company workover procedure with data sheet containing the reservoir properties, such
as bottomhole pressure, porosity, permeability, temperature
• Service company stimulation recommendation
• Logs with perforations and collars premarked
• Tank strap
• Sand sieves
• Service company reference tables
• Containers for samples
• Quality Control Forms
• Hardhead and steel-toed boots
• Farm 35 or equivalent viscometer or availability of same from service company
• Water test equipment (or obtain from the service company)
pH meter or paper
Thermometer
Iron test kit
Phosphate test kit
Total dissolved solids tester
Reducing agent tester
Chloride test kit
Figure 11-42 Surface facility and site layout for HDF (off-shore well)

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-43 Surface facility and site layout for acid frac( off-shore well )
Figure 11-44 Real technical setup on boat and site layout for acid frac(off-shore well )

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-45 Surface facility and site layout for HDF ( on-shore well )
Figure 11-46 Real technical setup for HDF (on-shore well)

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-47 Surface equipment and site layout for Acid Fracturing (on-shore well)
The frac tanks are usually the first to arrive on location. Ideally, tanks should be lined (epoxy coated)
and steam cleaned, to prevent iron from contaminating water and interfering with proper gelatin
and crosslinking of fracturing fluids. If this is not feasible, the tanks that are available, should at least
be steam cleaned. Tanks that arrive at location should have the hatches open, and be inspected
visually to ensure their cleanliness and to certify the integrity of linings (if applicable). To further
ensure stimulation fluid cleanliness, all transport tanks should be cleaned in the same manner. If
fluids are to be heated (e.g. using a “hot oiler”), make sure that the heating coil is clean and not
rusty. Clean this coil, if necessary, with 5% HCl to remove all rust.
To assure that in case of failure job operation can continue without excess non-productive time (NPT)
the following excess equipment for backup, is recommended for fracture treatments:
• 10% excess tank and storage capacity.

• 50% backup on power.
• 20-50% backup on pumps, depending on the number of pumps. If only one pump will be
used for job execution, then one additional pump should be prepared as backup.
• sufficient backup on blenders and instrumentation (up to 100%).
As job size and complexity increases, more backup equipment, specifically pumps, is required. Some
pump trucks have two pumps, but only one power source for both. Check to make sure that the
stimulation contractor understands that backup means both in pumps and in power.

Revision
A.12354
Execution Fracturing Job
• Check the proper functioning of the pumps, blenders, monitoring equipment, etc.
• Alert all personnel.
• Continuously check the quality of the fracturing fluid and the proppant.
• Take samples of the fracturing fluid and proppants at all stages of the treatment for later
reference.
• Continuously observe the pressures, rate, density proppant concentration.
• Check continuously proper functioning of pumps and blenders.
• If the observed pressures deviate significantly from the predicted pressures, adjust the
program, preferably based on basic contingency plans worked out before the treatment.
• In case of a premature termination of the job, immediately inform the rig/installation
supervisor to take appropriate action (e.g. circulate out any proppant laden fluid). Make sure
all (local) HSE requirements are met at all times.
Real Time Control
When executing fracturing treatments the most important is to be open to respond to occurrences
that go on during the treatment. Very often, it is required to vary pump rate and/or sand
concentrations and not strictly followed the recommendations and results generated through the
comprehensive and complex computer simulation of fracturing process. Ideal fracture world in the
most of occasions different than real world ( as it is illustrated in Figure 11-48.

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-48 Fracture geometry and propagation changes
Knowing that the majority of input data information in fracturing treatments are estimated, it
strongly recommended to react on recorded real time data and to change the scheduled pump rate,
proppant concentrations or even stop the operation if it is not safe to continue. With this in mind,
when pressures start turning upward in opposition to what is has normally seen, it is preferable to
increase the pump rate rapidly, but within pressure limitations. By doing this, in the majority of
cases it will be able to change the slope of the pressure and get the treatment away. Also, in the
case of multiple-stage concerning to the sand concentrations, it is mandatory to be open to change
sand concentrations built around pressure responses seen down-hole. If a highly conductive propped
fracture in near wellbore is trying to be created, many times sand concentrations at a more rapid
mode than what is shown in design will be increased, even design has been done by ourselves. For
obtaining long, highly conductive fractures in very tight reservoirs, it must be taken into account the
effects of increasing sand concentrations on negating propped fracture length.
Experienced and knowledge supervisor of a fracturing treatment should always respond to pressures
that he sees during the treatment, rather than depend on design information that is many times
estimated, based around offset well information.
It is preferred to utilize surface treating pressures and monitor increases and decreases of that
pressure in relationship to what is going on in the tubulars or casing. Most of the information that
gives us calculated bottom-hole treating pressures is erroneous, and the variations and changes in
pressure that occur in relationship to net pressure can be misinterpreted. In fact, these changes are
misinterpreted regularly by personnel who simply don't understand what is going on downhole or
who are not aware of changes that may be going on with the fracturing fluid in real time. Because of
that application of Nolte-Smith plots using calculated bottom-hole pressure data for on-site real time
HDF diagnosis could potentially cause mistaken diagnosis .
One of the biggest mistakes made in fracturing is trying to follow designs without utilizing
information from the formation during the actual treatment. The best is if during the fracturing

Revision
A.12354
treatment bottom-hole pressure data can be recorded and used for making intelligent decision. .
One of the biggest mistakes is to try to make intelligent decisions based upon calculated bottom-hole
pressure data.
Examples in Figure 11-49 and Figure 11-50 shows monitored and design parameters for the selected
OMV Petrom well’s which has been hydraulically fractured. Job parameters were monitored in real
time by using control and command center (Figure 11-51). According to the best practice and lesson
learned collected during long history of fracturing application, the designed pumping schedule can
be changed only if supervisor of Service Company and OMV Petrom expert advisor have been
agreed.
Figure 11-49 Job execution data – Design versus recorded data

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-50 Job execution data – Main frac design versus recorded data
Figure 11-51 Command and control system during HDF job execution

Revision
A.12354
11.4 Downhole Completion Well Schematic for Fracturing
The type of downhole completion depend on the number of intervals which are fractured and well
geometry (vertical, slant and horizontal ). In the case of new wells in which are planned for
fracturing, completion method should be considered before drilling to allow single trip without thru-
tubing intervention. Usual case of offshore fractured wells in OMV Petrom is that a relatively long
open hole section has been multistage fractured. Multi stage fractured wells have been equipped
with production liners, hydraulic or swellable external casing packers and frac or frac and production
ports between them. The maximum number of stages fractured on OMV Petrom SA offshore wells
was eight, but there is a plan to do up to twelve frac stages.
In Chapter 5 are described in details all downhole completion tools and here are selected the
cases/wells illustrates the best practice of fractured offshore and onshore wells.
Packers Plus System
Allows multistage frac job and selective selection of production intervals after frac job by closing
some of frac ports if results of fracture job are not as expected.

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-52 Multi-zone multi stage fractured well completion (Open hole with liner)
The location of the frac/production ports should be defined using well logs, as shown in Figure 11-53.

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-53 Well log correlated with packer and port placement
In some case it is needed to fracture a cased vertical well with several open intervals with high water
cut. The applied final recompletion method with isolation of the lower interval/s with high water cut
and fractured upper interval is shown in Figure 11-54 and Figure 11-55.The conventional completion
types with single tubing string and packer (mechanical or hydraulic) set above fractured interval.
Figure 11-54 Recompleted (plugged and fractured) vertical well with one open interval

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-55 Recompleted (plugged and fractured) vertical well with two or more open intervals
In the case that horizontal well is completed with a liner and open-hole packers (inflatable ECP or
swellable packer) for multistage fracturing, then the completion system shown in Figure 11-56 should
enable a single trip, multistage fracturing with operation sequences as shown in Figure 11-57. The
same system is applicable to vertical and high-angle deviated well, also. The main completion
components of this system are:
• Liner hanger or liner packer in cased hole

• Open hole External Casing Packer ( OH ECP)
• Zonal Isolation Sliding Sleeve (ZISS)
• Zonal Isolation Toe Sleeve (ZITS)
• Balls

Revision
A.12354
Operation sequences are:
1. Run-in string, set the liner hanger or packer and the open-hole packers
2. Start pumping the frac, hydraulically open ZITS
3. Continue pumping the fracturing fluid, drop the smallest ball to seat in the lowest ZISS and
hydraulically open the sleeve.
4. Drop the next-largest ball to seat in the next ZISS isolating the wellbore and hydraulically
open the sleeve
5. Drop the last ball and complete fracturing job
6. Produce the well to clean up proppant and balls
7. Mill-out balls that remain and all ball seats
8. Run the well in production
Figure 11-56 Final well completion after multistage fracturing

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-57 Operation Sequences of multistage fractuirng using open-hole packer

Revision
A.12354
11.5 Surface Equipment for Fracturing
The most frequent surface equipment for fracturing job and summarized technical information are
shown in Table 11-5. Detailed technical specification of equipment of various service companies is
shown in Appendix 11-A Surface Equipment for Fracturing (Various service companies)..
Table 11-5 Specifications of surface equipment
Equipment Characteristics
Blender Fully automated. All
TACROM proppant and chemical
additions are strictly
controlled and recorded.
Blending Capacity
3
10 m /minute
2 sand augers ( each 50 to
3500 kg/minute)
2 liquid chemical pumps.
(both 0.5 to 28 l/minute)
2 dry chemical screws. (0ne
0.1 to 4 kg/min, 0ne 0.5 to 8
kg/min)
2 turbine and 2
electromagnetic flow
meters for exceptionally
accurate volume
measurement.
Blender Slurry Tub - 4 Bbl operating
Haliburton volume
Automatic Remote Control
(ARC) System
Proppant System: 2-12”
screws - Range 56-20,000
lb/min
Engines: Centrifugal Skid -
490 HP, Mixing Skid - 490 Hp

Revision
A.12354
Blender Pumps at rate to 25-70

SLB bbl/min or 18,000 psi with
optimal plunger size
Blends at rates to 35-70
bbl/min
Precisely controls the
solid/liquid ratio at design
values
Offers fully automated mode
for use in conjunction with
the FracCAT fracturing
computeraided
treatment system with set
points received from a host
system
Communicates with FracCAT
system
Loads and pumps two liquid
additives into the suction or
discharge of the mix
Meters dry additives into
mixer
Pump unit Triplex or
Stewart Quintuplex
Stevenson Trailer or Skid
Mounted. There is
bodyload type.
Engine rating: 500—
3000 BHP
Control system:
Stewart and
Stevenson AccuFrac
Transmisson:Allison
Maximum ambient
Pump unit operating
Stewart temperature: 60oC
Stevenson

Revision
A.12354
Pump unit Two Engines Type

Haliburton Caterpillar with Allison
Transmission
Break Horsepower –
1250 HHP each engine
Hydraulic Horsepower:
1000 HHP each
Pump plunger size:
4” (2.6-15.3 bpm, max.
pressure: 14000psi) and
4.5” (3.3-19.4 bpm,
Max.pressure 11200 psi )
Electrical 800HP
Powered
Proppant Silo
25 t and 34 t

Revision
A.12354
Proppant
Delivery Truck
Schlumberger
Fluid tanks
Mobile
filtering and
heating unit
Manifold
11.6 Fluids and Materials Used for Fracturing
Fracture fluids are designed to accomplish the following requirements:
1. Compatible with the formation rock and fluids at in-situ temperature and pressure, to
prevent reduction in overall performance.
2. Must generate adequate fracture width to accept the proppant
3. The friction losses in the tubulars should be small, to keep the horsepower requirements as
low as possible.
4. The fluid loss to the formation should be as low as possible, i.e. it should be an efficient fluid
(the fluid efficiency is the fraction of fluid leaked off to the formation, compared to the total
amount of fluid pumped)
5. Capable of suspending proppants and transporting them deep into the fracture

Revision
A.12354
6. Ability to adjust viscosity on location and maintain viscosity during the treatment and break
afterwards. After breaking, they should (ideally) be residue-free, to prevent damage of the
propped fracture.
7. Ease of blending on location
8. They should not create a hazard to personnel and/or the environment.
9. Cost effective
The fulfill some of above requirement, sometimes the low viscosity fracturing fluid will be required,
but very often a high viscosity fracturing fluid will be needed. Therefore, the fluid system for a
treatment should be carefully selected and usually a significant amount of laboratory testing is
needed to quantify the fracturing fluid behavior under in-situ conditions.
11.6.1 Fracturing Fluids used in OMV Petrom
The first frac fluid utilized in the industry was fresh water mixed with a polymer or acrylamide based
friction reduce, known as slick water. Slick water is the most economical and from operation point of
view simple for application. It is recommended to use in very low permeability formation such as
unconventional shale.
Water based fluids (linear and crosslinked gels) are the most common fracturing fluids because of
cost and ease in preparation.
Foams are used in underpressured applications to aid in cleanup and also in cases where water
damage is a concern.
Linear Gells
Linear Gels are a mixture of of polymer in water at concentrations of up to 20 to 60, typically

between 20-30, pounds per thousand gallons, (pptg). They can be used, in both, high and low
peremabilitz formation to aid in placement of higher proppant concentrations. Through the use of
gelling agents and other additives, water-based fluids can be made to satisfy most requirements for a
suitable fracturing fluid. They are versatile, usually cheaper than other types of fracturing fluid, give
few handling problems and are virtually hazardless to personnel and/or environment. Water-based
fluids are readily available, give low friction losses and can be used over a wide temperature range.
However, they are not always compatible with the reservoir fluids and rock.
Viscosity is one of the most important qualities associated with a fracturing fluid. There are two basic
viscosity-producing, or gelling, agents for a water-based fracturing fluid to produce a linear gel. The ,
are:
Guar gum: Natural, branched chain, polysaccharide polymer. It provides a very good reduction in
friction pressure, degrades fairly rapidly above 80°C, but it contains 5 - 10% insoluble residue upon
breaking.
• Guar

Revision
A.12354
Guar derivatives - Their properties and viscosity developments are similar to that of guar, but they
hydrate faster at lower temperatures, give less residue (about 1%) and have a higher temperature
stability. Water containing high concentrations of methanol, will be viscosified, also.
• Hydroxypropylguar (HPG)
• Carboxymethylhydroxypropylguar (CMHPG)
Ceullulose derivatives -They provide a good reduction in friction pressure and they do not degrade at
temperatures up to 200°C. The cellulose fluids are very clean (low residue), and are used when
fracture conductivity is important.
• Hydroxyethylcellulose (HEC)
• Carboxymethylhydroxyethylcellulose (CMHEC)
• Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC)
Water-based fracturing fluids, which are polymer-free, can be prepared using viscoelastic surfactants
(VES). Entanglement of the micelles results in a network that makes the fluid viscous, and gives the
fluid proppant carrying characteristics. The micellar structure of VES fluids is permanently disrupted
by contact with liquid hydrocarbons or formation water. The principal advantage of VES fluids is that
no residue is left in the proppant pack. Their main disadvantages are their current limited
temperature application, of up to 95°C and they cannot be used in dry gas wells and with resin
coated proppant. The costs are increasing as more processing is required. Guar is the most cheapest
and CMSHEC the most expensive polymers.
The Table 11-6 presents the most common used fracturing fluid type , composition and for what
they should be used.

Revision
A.12354
Table 11-6 Fracturing fluids summary
Crosslinked fracturing fluids
Crosslinkers were first introduced in the 1960’s to increase the fluid viscosity and improve proppant
transport above what could be obtained from linear gels. Delayed crosslinkers were introduced in
the 1970’s to reduce friction pressure.
Crosslinked fluids achieve high viscosity at relatively low polymer loadings. This minimizes the
amount of gel residue in the formation. The trade-off of using a high viscosity crosslinked fluid is the
concern of “breaking” the fluid after the treatment.
Linear gels can be crosslinked with a multitude of metal ions in order to increase viscosity of linear
gel. Crosslinking results in an increase in viscosity from 5 to 100-fold in the range of shear rates
important for fracturing and they are added at low concentrations (0.5-5 gallons/1000gal. The most
popular ones currently used in the industry is boron (B), followed by zirconium (Zr), and to smaller
extent, titanium (Ti), antimony (Sb) and alumimium (Al). To prepare these fluids, guar gum or guar
derivatives are commonly used to viscosify the low viscous fluids. Maintaining the right pH is

Revision
A.12354
essential for optimal crosslinking. The friction pressures lie between those of gelled and ungelled
water, the fluid loss control is better than with low-viscosity fluids, and proppant transport is
excellent. In Table 11-7 are summarized commonly used crosslinked water-based fracturing fluids
Table 11-7 Crosslinked water-based fracturing fluids
11.6.2 Fracturing Fluid Additives
Fluid additives are materials used to produce a specific effect, independent of fluid type. When using
additives, however, their relative compatibility needs to be carefully verified. And in general, the
question should be asked whether the additive, mostly advocated by the service companies, is really
required. The basic principle of using additives in fracturing fluids should be to keep it as simple as
possible.
There are many additives that are required for a fracture fluid, as shown in Table 11-8.
Table 11-8 Summary of the common used additives
Biocide -Prevents viscosity loss to bacterial degradation; protects formation from anaerobic bacteria
growth.Aerobic bacteria grows in the presence of oxygen. It will reduce the base fluid viscosity
significantly, possibly jeopardizing the fracture treatment. It can also affect the chemical reactions
between gel and crosslinker in tanks.

Revision
A.12354
Anaerobic bacteria grows in the reservoir where there is no free oxygen and can affect reservoir fluid
properties as well as generate hydrogen sulfide gas creating serious problem with corrosion of
downhole equipment. Biocides are required to control growth of both aerobic and anaerobic
bacteria. The best practice is to always use properly selected biocide if water based fracturing fluid
will be used for operation. Usually, bacteria attack the organic polymers destroy the bonds and
reduce the viscosity.
Breaker - Enables viscous fracturing fluids to be degraded controllably to a thin fluid that can be
produced back out of fracture and enhances proppant distribution. Breaker systems in use include
enzymes, persulfates and high temperature oxidizers. In encapsulated form, they can be used in
higher concentrations for delayed, but more complete breaking. Their use depends on the prevailing
pH and temperature (Table 11-9) and polymer loading.
Table 11-9 Conditions for breakers application
Laboratory tests and pilot on breakers should be carried out before incorporating them in a
fracturing treatment. Also, on site laboratory analysis of the frac fluid sample with breakers is
mandatory. One not broken fluid sample is shown in Figure 11-58.
Unbroken Fluid Sample Broken Fluid Sample
Figure 11-58 Unbroken and broken fluid sample
Buffer- Controls the pH for specific crosslinkers and crosslink time; speeds up or slows down the
hydration of certain polymers. Typical products are sodium bicarbonate, fumaric acid (a weak organic

Revision
A.12354
acid), combinations of mono and disodiumphosphate, soda ash, sodium acetate and combinations
thereof.
Clay stabilizer - Prevents fines migration; prevents clay swelling; prevents clay/sand matrix from
desegregating and provide temporary compatibility of fracturing fluid with water-swelling clays. The
most commonly used clay stabilizing agent is KCl. Almost all treatments in sandstone reservoirs are
designed to contain KCl. Other clay-stabilizing agents are ammonium chloride and calcium chloride,
which act like KCl. Other chemicals that also prevent migration of fines are certain modified
polyamines, polymeric clay stabilizers and polymeric solutions of hydroxyaluminium.
Diverting agent - Diverts flow of the fracturing fluid to a different perforated interval by plugging off
either the perforations of some part of the formation.
Fluid loss additive- Improves the fracturing fluid efficiency. The most common water-based fluid-loss
additive is finely ground silica flour, with particles ranging from 0.1 to 50 microns. Starches, diesel,
gums, resins and soaps are also being used and they tend to plug the face of the fracture with very
little penetration into the formation matrix.
Friction reducer - Reduces the friction resistance due to fluid flowing in pipe.
Iron controller- Keeps under-earth iron ion products in solution; prevents formation damage from
iron ion products.
Surfactant- Assists in fluid cleanup by lowering surface tension; minimizes emulsion problems;
enhances maintenance of relative permeability. They are usually included in most fracturing
treatments.
Gel stabilizer- Protects the fracturing fluid from degradation at high bottomhole temperatures by
removing free oxygen from the system.
Using different types of additives and selecting the proper mixture and concentration of additives
always should be in balance in order to maintain required viscosity of the fracturing fluid. In
Table 11-10 are listed the additives which directly affects or not the fracture fluid viscosity as the key
fluid properties that has to provide proper carrying properties.
Table 11-10 Additives vs. Viscosity
Affect Viscosity Doesn’t Affect Viscosity

Polymers Biocides
Crosslinkers Surfactant
Breakers Clay Stabilizers
Buffers Friction Reducers
Foamers Diverting Agents
Temperature Stabilizers Fluid Loss Additives
11.6.3 Foams/Energized fluids
Foamed fluids generally contain 60-80% vol. nitrogen and 40-20% vol. water with surfactants (to
stabilize the emulsion) and sometimes with a gelling agent and a fluid loss control agent. Their

Revision
A.12354
application is attractive in shallow, low-permeability gas wells and zones containing water-sensitive
clays. They give high fracturing surface pressures but rapid well clean-up due to low hydrostatic
head, and the inherent energizing capability of the fluid, caused by the entrained gas. Foam also has
the advantage in that it places the minimum amount of fluid on the formation. However, proper
foam stability during the entire treatment is operationally difficult to achieve, and blending of
proppant concentrations of over 4 lbs/gal is not advisable.
11.6.4 Proppants
The propping agents currently in use by the Industry, are sand, intermediate strength proppant
(ceramic material) and high strength proppant (e.g. sintered bauxite). All of these proppants can be
coated with a resin. Sand can be used up to a maximum closure stress of 276 bars (4000 psi).
Intermediate strength proppant can be used up to a closing stress of 8000 psi. High strength
proppant can be used up to 15000 psi or higher.
The specification of fracturing sand size of the most frequently used in OMV Petrom according to API
RP 58 is shown in Table 11-11.
Table 11-11 Fracturing sand characteristics
Proppant particle size has a significant effect on packed fracture permeability, and, in principle, the
larger the size, the higher the permeability of the proppant pack. However, as stress levels increase,
larger sand grains will crush earlier than smaller sand grains, which will result in a poorer sorting and
thus in a lower conductivity.
Resin-Coated Proppants (RCP)
The objectives of using resin-coated proppant are to provide increased strength to the proppant pack
and to prevent the back production of proppant. It is recommended o use final stage of packing

Revision
A.12354
process. There are various types of RCPs (precured-tempered, curable and stress bonding or
partially cured).
Precured RCP - Improve strength and crush resistance of the proppant. It is especially used in
combination with sand as a cost-effective alternative for intermediate strength ceramic proppants.
Precured RCPs are not being used for the prevention of proppant back production.
Curable-RCP – It will form strong proppant packs, but the resin coating of these proppants has a poor
fluid compatibility, and the resin will interact with the fracturing fluid chemistry. The resin will cure
without confining stress and it will therefore consolidate in the wellbore after under displacement or
premature screen-out.
Stress Bonding RCP - This type of RCP is less reactive with fracturing fluids, but compatibility should
always be checked. The fact that also stress is required for consolidation, could be a potential
disadvantage, however. If the proppant is not homogeneously distributed over the fracture, a poorly
consolidated pack could exist in low stress regions. Stress bonding RCP is the most commonly applied
type resin-coated proppant at present.
As the proppant-carrying fracturing fluid is a complex mixture of several additives, many of additives
can react with the resin coating of RCP, resulting in a reduced strength and/or poor frac fluid
performance.
Crosslinker - Titanate and zirconate based crosslinkers can severely reduce the strength of the
proppant pack, since the crosslinker reacts with the active sites of the resin. Hence, less crosslinker is
then available for crosslinking of the fluid, which leads to a reduced viscosity. It is recommended to
use borate crosslinkers as this effect is significantly less.
If borate crosslinker is used with RCP, then a high pH is required to form crosslinks. As phenolic resing
tend to dissolve in high pH solutions, the strength of RCP can quickly decrease when the pH is
approaches 12. At the same time, dissolved resin lowers pH of the fluid, which causes the gel to
become less viscous, or even change it into a non-crosslinked linear gel that has no proppant carrying
capacity. The mutual interaction between RCPs and fracturing fluid becomes very important at
elevated temperatures (above 100°C) when a high pH is required to maintain proppant carrying
capacity of the frac fluid. Partially cured RCPs have been successfully used in combination with
borate fracturing fluids in reservoir temperatures as high as 150°C.
Phenolic coatings have a tendency to interact with the oxidizing breaker that is added to break the
crosslinked fluid after the treatment. The breaker can be consumed by the RCPs, thereby leaving less
breaker to break the gel, which results in a more viscous fluid remaining in the fracture, poor cleanup
and a lower fracture conductivity. It can therefore be required to increase the breaker concentration.
However, the strength of the RCP pack is generally not affected by the interaction with the breaker.
In general, RCPs cannot be used with viscoelastic surfactants (VES) fluids.
Proppant back production
Considerable amounts of proppant (up to 25-30%) can be produced back from a created fracture.
The most frequent of proppant back production is at high rate during well clean up. Also, at lower

Revision
A.12354
rate there is persistent proppant back production without affecting well productivity. Proppant back
production is the cause of major operational problems, especially in offshore environments. It can
lead to hazardous situations due to erosion of pipelines and surface equipment.
How to cure proppant back production?
If possible, width of created fracture should be less than 1cm, an optimum is 0.5mm, assuming that
sufficient fracture conductivity is achieved. If more fracture width is required, what is generally
common case, then other prevention method should be used, like RCP or installing screen/s. Limiting
production by choking the well is always possible, but it is strongly depend on target production. If
RCP is used to prevent proppant back production, it is it is strongly recommended to use 100%
coated proppant instead of tailing-in only the last 10- 25% of the treatment, as practiced by some
operators. It should be matched with costs and expected revenue of fracturing operation.
11.7 Quality and Safety Requirements for Fracturing
11.7.1 Quality Assurance and Control of Fracturing Operations
A fracturing treatment is always challenge because of existence many unknowns This is especially
true if the well is a little deeper or a little hotter than usual or if a new procedure is attempted,
pumping a new fluid, or trying out a new system. What was going on downhole during and after
fracturing remains without proper answer and explanation?
Hydraulic fracturing, even in shallow wells, is a risky and potentially dangerous process and every
efforts should be made in the following procedure to ensure the safest procedures to be followed, A
specific checklist has to be supplied which will be filled out on every treatment. It is strongly
recommend that this be supplied ensure the safest procedures to be followed. A specific checklist
will be supplied which will be filled out on every treatment. It is recommended that this be supplied
to the service company so that the treatments will be done in a mutually cooperative manner.
On site quality control
Good quality control by the oil company and the service company will assure that fracturing
treatment can be executed as designed.
The Material Safety Data Sheet for all the chemicals to be used during the fracturing has to be on
site. No chemical spillage is accepted or trashes on site are allowed (Figure 11-59). All the fluids
produced during the cleanup has be disposed.

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-59 Do not trash materials on site
In the case that there is deviation of the agreed design program, it will likely be necessary from time
to time, to make "on-the-job" decisions, mostly based on results of the minifrac test, or when
treatments do not proceed as planned. The best practice is that responsibility for such a program
change lies with the company appointed representative. The best practice in OMV Petrom is that
company appointed representative is the person who has prepared fracture design. The optimum
decision, however, requires familiarization with the design rationale and treatment objectives.
Consequently, in such a situation, the person best placed to make decision and change the scheduled
design in agreement with authorized contractor staff, is the person l who designed the job. The best
practice in OMV Petrom is that this individual is on -site. Where this is not possible, he still has the
responsibility to ensure that the company representative has the necessary background
information/knowledge to, make the appropriate decision, possibly in consultation with relevant
contractor staff, who have the necessary knowledge/expertise. This may be facilitated through a
properly documented contingency plan and/or a thorough pre-job briefing of the CAR/Operations/
Contractor personnel, who will be involved in the operation. To ensure the most successful result of
a fracture stimulation treatment, a stimulation specialist familiar with the treatment design and with
all the necessary background information, should be on-site during a fracturing operation, or at least
be reachable.
QC prior tretament
During fracturing, the well will be exposed to much higher pressures than during production.
Therefore, the well conditions needs to be checked before starting job.
Laboratory testing
Laboratory testing is to be carried out in the field prior to, and during the treatment. Although
perhaps more difficult because of poorer working conditions, it is most important to ensure that the
fluids prepared on location and pumped into the well, have similar properties to the fluids selected

Revision
A.12354
on the basis of the initial laboratory tests and to the parameters used in the design. Failure to carry
out those quality control checks will almost certainly result in the treatment not being pumped
exactly as designed. These tests should be performed on samples of the chemicals supplied to the
field. This will initially certify that each individual material meets the specifications laid down and will
pass the final quality control check. After each material has been tested individually, they should
then be tested as acollective fluid using location water. Field testing will identify any incompatibilities
due to contamination.
Prior to the treatment
• Source Water (Mineral content of mix water -iron, calcium, magnesium, boron, Presence of
bacteria in the mix water etc.)
• Gel System (s) Base gel viscosity variation over time (bacterial degradation!)
• Proppants
During the treatment
• Collect samples every 10 minutes during a large treatment, every 4 – 5 minutes during a
small treatment
• pH (for borate crosslinked systems)
• Base gel viscosity (for liquid gel concentrates)
Source water testing
Source water should be quality-tested and rated acceptable before it is used for a fracturing job.
Analysis and testing of source water allows the detection of components that may alter fracturing
fluid properties. The degree of alteration depends on several factors:
• Fluid system
• Concentration of the contaminant
• Expected temperature
• Contact time between the contaminant and the fluid system
• pH of the system and other factors
Minimum frac water quality standard is shown in Table 11-12.
Table 11-12 Water Quality Standard Requirements
Parameter Limit
Bacteria < 105 ml
pH 6-8
Temperature 4-38 oC (40-100 oF)
Bicarbonates <300 ppm
Calcium and Magnesium <2000ppm
Iron <10 ppm
Phosphates <5ppm
Reducing Agents 0 ppm
Sulfates 0 ppm

Revision
A.12354
Gel System
Purpose of gel system testing is to determine the crosslink time of a fluid system. Gel crosslink time
is defined as the time elapsed from addition of the crosslinker to the development of viscosity
characteristics of a crosslinked gel.
The crosslink time test should be performed with base gel and addition of crosslinker. The
established methods are the vortex closure test in a Waring blender, and the gel lipping test (the
standard procedures for such tests are available with the contractor). The values for the crosslink
time should be long enough to ensure that crosslinking does not occur until the fluid is at least
halfway down the tubing (for delayed crosslinked systems). Since shear conditions in the vortex
closure test, using a Waring-type blender, are significantly different from those in the lipping test,
lipping crosslink times are 1.5 – 2 times longer than those determined in the vortex closure test.
The required data for testing are:
• Initial fluid temperature.

• Perforation temperature estimated with computer program such as WTEMP.
• Pipe time (time for the fluid to flow from the surface to perforations).
• Bath temperature to obtain correct heating rate
Vortex closure time procedure is:
1. Place 200 ml of the base gel in a 500 ml blender jar.

2. Set the speed of the blender so the depth of the vortex is to the hub of the blender blade
assembly.
3. Add on-the fly additives (breaker and buffer) and then the crosslinker and start the timer.
4. When the vortex closes, the surface of the fluid becomes domed and/or no longer circulates
distinctly to the middle (vortex moves around and doesn’t stay centered), stop the timer.
5. The time determined from step 4 above is the crosslink time as determined by vortex
closure.
6. Record the time on QC form
Lipping time procedure (without hot water bath) is:
• Place 200 ml of the base gel in a 500 ml blender jar.

• Set the speed of the blender so the depth of the vortex is to the hub of the blender blade
assembly.
• Add on-the fly additives then the crosslinker and start the timer.
• Continuously stir the fluid at a moderate rate until you observe the fluid’s viscosity has
increased sufficiently to close the vortex. Check the fluid for lipping characteristics by tilting
the sample slowly until the fluid reaches the top edge of the container. Carefully tilt the
container farther, allowing the fluid to slowly fall out of the container. The fluid will start to
creep over the edge and pull back when tilted back. If the fluid has any crosslink
characteristics, it will tend to hang, or lip.

Revision
A.12354
• Continue to circulate the fluid until the desired lipping characteristics are achieved then stop
the timer.
• The time determined from Step 5 above is the crosslink time as determined by the Lip Test.
• Record time on QC form.
Gel emulsion tendency test
In order to test gel emulsion tendency it is required to mix 50 ml broken gel and 50 ml crude and
monitor separation in hot water bath . In one hour should separate 90%.
Proppant settling test
Proppant settling tests are useful to monitor fluid gel viscosity breakback and proppant settling
properties, which correlate closely with the breaking of the crosslinked viscosity. These data can be
used for comparison with service company viscosity break data, correlation of proppant settling with
fracture closure times and required shut-in times. Proppant settling tests are conveniently run in 50
ml graduate cylinders placed in a constant temperature water bath. Proppant settling is monitored
by observing the level of the top of the settling proppant. The settling time is taken as the time,
during static settling, when proppant settling is nearly complete and the top of the settling proppant
column appears to be nearly stationary. Percent of proppant is settled and monitored during time at
reservoir temperature. Minimum time for settling is equal to pumping time.
Recommended Practice s for Testing Sand Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Operations, API RP 56, First
Edition, March 1988
Recommend Practices for Testing High-Strength Proppants Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Operations,
API RP 60, First Edition, February 1989.
11.7.2 Safety Considerations
Hydraulic fracturing must be carried out with a great attention to safety. Special attention will be
given to pre-job safety meetings. Interaction with construction activities The construction work will
be suspended during perforating (2x1 hrs). It is very likely that concurrent operations will be avoided
as the well area can be fenced and fully separated from the construction yard.
Safety considerations should be discussed in details. Everyone should know where to go in the event
of a disaster. Everyone needs to know the maximum operating pressure. The supervisor should count
the people at the location, so he will know who might be missing in case a catastrophe occurs.
The major purpose of this meeting is that each individual needs to know his part, his responsibility,
what to do during the job.
The most important points for the safe treatment of fracturing operation are:
• Consider all safety rules according to Government and OMV Petrom documents and
standards
• Designate a gathering area in the event of a disaster.
• Establish a maximum treating pressure.
• Each person should be assigned a specific responsibility.
Revision
A.12354
• Assign leadership (one person in charge from the oil company and one from the service
company).
• The oil company representative should point out the persons responsible for each task.
• Make sure a good communication network is set up. Have alternate visual commands.
• Have a fire extinguisher placed on the ground for easy access.
• Have two individuals given the responsibility of transporting injured persons to the nearest
clinic/hospital.
• Have a designated vehicle set aside for transporting injured personnel.
• Do a complete head count of all personnel on location.
• Set up a gathering area in case an accident occurs.
11.7.3 Personnel
Properly trained personnel are the keys to success. The wellsite personnel must understand the
fundamentals of the stimulation technique that will be used and must know how to use the
equipment, software and techniques.
The fracturing contractor shall ensure the availability of the following:
1. Organigram of all contractor personnel on call-out.
2. Personnel CVs submitted and qualifications as per contract.
3. HSE documents submitted as per contract.
4. All personnel to be aware of the hazards of toxic chemicals, emergency procedures, designated
first aider on site.
5. Personnel to be aware of emergency procedures and contact numbers.
6. All personnel to comply with s training course requirements for contractors.
7. Suitable (dry chemical type) fire extinguishers to be available on site.
8. Journey management system in place.
9. Set up refreshment program for personnel who are in the sun all day (if applicable).
10. Check all personnel are fit and aware of any safety hazards (personal jewelery such as rings,
slippery surfaces on gel tanks, etc.)
11. Ensure tidiness of site at all times during rig-up and rig-down operations.

Revision
A.12354
Appendix 11-A Surface Equipment for Fracturing (Various service

companies).
Baker
Table 11-13 Baker Pumps (API Units)
Table 11-14 Baker Pumps (SI Units)
Table 11-15 Baker Blenders (API Unit)
Table 11-16 Baker Blenders (SI Unit)

Revision
A.12354
Appendix 11-B Commercial fracturing fluid systems

Table 11-17 Comercional Fracturing fluid system

Revision
A.12354
Appendix 11-C Proppant Specifications and characteristics
Table 11-18 Proppant specification and characteristics

Revision
A.12354
Appendix 11-D Fracture Stimulation Checklist
Fracture Stimulation Supervision Checklist

Well Name: Date:
I. Equipment Needed on Job Site
Oil company workover procedure with data sheet containing the reservoir properties, such as
1.
bottomhole pressure, porosity, permeability, temperature
2. Service company stimulation recommendation
3. Logs with perforations and collars premarked
4. Tank strap
5. Sand sieves
6. Service company reference tables
7. Containers for samples
8. Quality Control Forms
9. Hardhead and steel-toed boots
10. Farm 35 or equivalent viscometer or availability of same from service company
Water test equipment (or obtain from the service company)
a) pH meter or paper
b) Thermometer
c) Iron test kit
11.
d) Phosphate test kit
e) Total dissolved solids tester
f) Reducing agent tester
g) Chloride test kit
II. The Day Before the Job
Tanks
Are there enough tanks on the location to store all fluids? Figure that 50 bbl/tank will be
1.
unpumpable. Recommend at least 10% extra base gel on location.
2. Have the tanks been cleaned prior to the job?
Does the water have the proper amounts of potassium chloride, sodium chloride, and other
3.
compounds?
4. Are all of the tanks full? Get on the tanks yourself—do not take anyone's word!
Where did the water come from? Does it appear to be clean? Check each tank yourself. Do not
5.
pump dirty fluid down a well.
Check the valves on the tanks to ensure that they are not leaking. If a valve has a trickle leak,
6. replace it before the next job. If the tank has a large leak, consider having the tanks switched
out prior to any pumping.
7. Conduct pre-gel quality control on frac fluid.
8. Fill out Quality Control Tables
Sand Storage
Get on top of the sand storage unit yourself and see if they contain enough proppant to do the
1.
job.
2. Is the proppant in ouch compartment the correct size?
3. Check the proppant for fines. Sieve samples from each compartment.
Are you using the correct proppant?
4. a) Take samples and establish if the proppant is the proper quality (i.e., Ottawa, Brady,
Interprop, etc.).
Revision
A.12354
Fracture Stimulation Supervision Checklist (Continued)

Well Name: Date:
Find the Service Company Treater and/or Treatment Supervisor
1. Go over sand and fluid schedules with him.
2. Are the proper additives going to be on the location?
Is a standby blender going to be on location and in position to be usable? A standby is needed
3.
on treatments with pump time exceeding 1 hour.
4. Make sure a sand densimeter is going to be available on the job.
If the job is going to take more than 4 or 5 hours pumping time, request that a service company
5. mechanic be on the location to repair any equipment that malfunctions. Also request an
electronic technician to repair electrical problems on jobs with long pump times.
6. Go over rig-up checklist with service company representative.
Arrange for testing of all gelled fluids and test crosslink time if applicable. (Quality Control
7.
Table 1)
Establish rapport with frac treater and give the person guidelines on what you expect before,
8.
during and after the treatment.
Establish maximum treating pressure and calculate surface treating pressure with service
9.
company function charts.
III. Just Before the Job
1. Go over sand and fluid schedules. Receive and discuss Quality Control Tables
Specify whether he will be recording volumes in clean or dirty volumes. Clean volumes are fluid
volumes with no sand. Dirty volumes are the slurry volumes. Also check to see if the volumes
will be displayed in barrels or gallons.
Dirty volume, bbl. - Clean volume, bbl. + (lb. sand x 0.00109)
- bbl. * ( lb. x 0.00109)
2. - bbl.
or
Dirty volume, gal - Clean volume, gal + (lb. sand x 0.0456)
- gal + ( lb. x 0.0456)
- gal.
3. Finalize the pumping schedule.

Get on top of the tanks yourself and gauge all frac tanks using a tank strap. Have the treater
present. Having the treater gauge the tanks with you will prevent any disagreements about
4.
fluid volumes after the job is finished. This stop should be completed only after all tanks have
been rolled and viscosified. Finalize volumes table.
Set up a system with the treater for numbering the tanks in the order that they will be drained.
5.
This helps keep track of the fluid volumes during the job.
Fill in the Frac Tank Tracking Chart (Table 6). This will help you keep track of how much fluid is
6.
left at any point during the job.
Arrange with the treater to have someone knowledgeable and dependable on top of the frac
7. tanks and the sand storage units. He or she should be there all the time that the job is being
pumped to insure a smooth uninterrupted flow of the proposed pumping schedule (Table 2).
Fracture Stimulation Supervision Checklist (continued)
Well Name: Date:
Impress upon the treater the adverse consequences if the pumps lose prime during the job
8.
because the tanks were sucked too low. When the fluid level in the frac tank drops below the
Revision
A.12354
suction valve, air is sucked into the pumps, causing the blender pumps to lose prime. The sand
density goes extremely high and the rate has to be reduced. The sand density then tends to
drop very low while the pumps regain prime. This chaos normally takes 5-10 mins. to correct—
10 mins, is a lot of fluid at 50 bbl./min.
Get on top of the sand storage unit with the treater and gauge the volume of proppant in each
9. compartment. Remember to check any 100 mesh sand that is being pumped in the pad as a
fluid loss agent.
Set up a system with the treater on numbering the sand storage unit compartments in the
10.
order they will be pumped.
Complete the Proppant Tracking Chart. This will help you keep track of how much proppant is
11.
left at any point during the job.
Complete the Crosslinker Tracking Chart. This will help you keep track of how much crosslinker
12.
is left at any point during the job.
Complete the Breaker Tracking Chart. This will help you keep track of how much breaker is left
13.
at any point during the job.
Complete the Fluid Loss Additive Tracking Chart. This will help you keep track of how much
14.
fluid loss additive is left at any point during the job.
Find the Service Company Field Chemist or District Engineer
Have the chemist complete for each tank of gel. This is in addition to your own quality control
1. work. For legal and other reasons, always have the service company confirm your tests—you
might have erred!
Check with the chemist to find which additives (such as cross-linkers, fluid loss additives, and
2.
breakers) will be added on the fly during the job
3. Check with the chemist to see that all tanks have been premixed with the necessary additives.
If running a crosslinked gel, catch a sample of gel from each tank and add the appropriate
4.
amount of crosslinker to see if the gel crosslinks.
Equipment
1. Is all equipment fueled up, and is there enough fuel on the location to complete the job?
2. Were all pumps and lines flushed with clean water before the job started?
3. Are all injection lines staked down?
4. Is a standby blender rigged up or in an immediately usable position?
Is the blender located close enough to each tank so that sucking the fluid at a high rate will not
5.
be a problem?
To be assured of sufficient suction between the blender and the tanks, you should have 1
6. suction hose per 10 bpm for thin fluids and for thick fluids use 1 suction hose per 5 bpm. For
example, a 40 bpm rate would require 8 suction hoses for 60# viscous gel.
Safety Equipment Checklist
Locate pumping trucks and tanks cross wind and a reasonable feet from the well. Head all
1.
vehicles away from the well and keep access roads clear.
Each discharge line should have a full swing at the well and at the truck manifold and be staked
2.
at each end. Additional staking should be based on judgment.
3. Install check valves in each discharge linear as near wellhead as possible.
No one should stand on or near discharge lines under pressure and never pass lines under
4.
trucks or other equipment.
Fracture Stimulation Supervision Checklist (continued)
Well Name: Date:
Safety Equipment Checklist
Pressure test discharge lines from pump to well at 70 bar (1000±) psi greater than maximum
5. treating pressure.

Revision
A.12354
5b. Inspect wellhead for any low pressure connections that may have inadvertently been added
during well servicing.
6. Bleed off lines should be staked and in a safe direction (downwind, downhill, and/or to a pit).
7. Insure that adequate firefighting equipment is in good working condition strategically located.
8. Conduct pumping operation in daylight. Do not pump during electrical or severe dust storms.
9. All personnel and equipment not necessary to the operation should be moved to a point at
least 150 feet from well.
10. If flammable materials (crude oil. diesel, xylene, methanol, etc.) are pumped, all persons within
at least 150 feet from the well should remove matches, lighters, and cigarettes from their
pockets.
11. Prior to pumping, all company and contract supervisors and crew should meet to discuss job
procedures, work signals, hazards, and safety precautions. At this time, an emergency
assembly area should be designated in an upwind direction from well. Also, a head count and a
buddy system should be established so that all personnel can be accounted for.
12. If pumping flammable material, have the service company wrap all discharge hoses from the
blender to the pump trucks with canvas or other material. This will negate spraying of
flammable material should the hoses leak or burst.

Revision
A.12354
Appendix 11-E Examples of HDF Treatment Design and Execution OMV

Petrom
List of Figures
Figure 11-1 Fracturing Alter Flow Patterns,
Figure 11-2 Performance gap evaluation,
Figure 11-3 Candidate selection workflow,
Figure 11-4 Individual Zone/Well Evaluation for fracturing,
Figure 11-5 Spurt valuation,
Figure 11-6 Idealized bottomhole pressure during fracturing job,
Figure 11-7 Well lithology, permeability/thickness product and cumulative hydrocarbon in place,
Figure 11-8 Well lithology and mechanical properties distribution,
Figure 11-9 Fracturing Fluid Selection Workflow,
Figure 11-10 Proppant selection workflow,
Figure 11-11 Step Rate Test,
Figure 11-12 Rate Step Down Test procedure,
Figure 11-13 Improper and proper design of RSDT,
Figure 11-14 Perforation friction dominates (left side) and near-wellbore friction dominates (right
side)Ref 1,
Figure 11-15 Step Rate and Step Down test sequences,
Figure 11-16 Typical Micro test Data*,
Figure 11-17 Typical Micro test Data,
Figure 11-18 HDF data preparation workflow,
Figure 11-19 SQRT MiniFrac data analysis,

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-20 G-Function Plot for MiniFrac data analysis,
Figure 11-21 Horner plot for MiniFrac data analysis,
Figure 11-22 MiniFrac Log-Log Diagnostic plot,
Figure 11-23 General Workflow for Well Fracturing Design Process,
Figure 11-24 Full 3D model grid,
Figure 11-25 Lumped p-3D model,
Figure 11-26 Fracture propagation simulated p-3D lumped model,
Figure 11-27 Fracture modeling by FracCADE Cell Based p-3D model,
Figure 11-28 The general workflow of HDF design model selection,
Figure 11-29 Shut-in Pressure Decline and Observed Net Pressure (ONP),
Figure 11-30 Net-pressure plots showing how to correct for friction in real-time,
Figure 11-31 Methodology for matching observed and model net pressure,
Figure 11-32 Matching of observing and modeled fracture net pressure (OMV Petrom well),
Figure 11-33 Nolte-Smith net pressure interpretation,
Figure 11-34 Simulated Fracture propagation,
Figure 11-35 Fracture geometry correlated with log.,
Figure 11-36 Fracture optimization workflow,
Figure 11-37 Mechanism of Acid Fracturing,
Figure 11-38 Schematic of Wide Spread Etched Ridges (WISPER) technology of acid fracturing,
Figure 11-39 Acid Frac vs. HDF,
Figure 11-40 Acid Fracturing Best Practice Workflow,
Figure 11-41 Acid fracturing workflow for estimating required injecting volume of the fluid,
Figure 11-42 Surface facility and site layout for HDF (off-shore well),
Figure 11-43 Surface facility and site layout for acid frac( off-shore well ),
Figure 11-44 Real technical setup on boat and site layout for acid frac(off-shore well ),
Figure 11-45 Surface facility and site layout for HDF ( on-shore well ),
Figure 11-46 Real technical setup for HDF (on-shore well),
Figure 11-47 Surface equipment and site layout for Acid Fracturing (on-shore well),

Revision
A.12354
Figure 11-48 Fracture geometry and propagation changes,
Figure 11-49 Job execution data – Design versus recorded data,
Figure 11-50 Job execution data – Main frac design versus recorded data,
Figure 11-51 Command and control system during HDF job execution,
Figure 11-52 Multi-zone multi stage fractured well completion (Open hole with liner),
Figure 11-53 Well log correlated with packer and port placement,
Figure 11-54 Recompleted (plugged and fractured) vertical well with one open interval,
Figure 11-55 Recompleted (plugged and fractured) vertical well with two or more open intervals,
Figure 11-56 Final well completion after multistage fracturing,
Figure 11-57 Operation Sequences of multistage fractuirng using open-hole packer,
Figure 11-58 Unbroken and broken fluid sample,
Figure 11-59 Do not trash materials on site.
List of Tables
Table 11-1 Proppant pack damage from fracturing fluids,
Table 11-2 General guideline based on ranges of FEE component values,
Table 11-3 Basic treatment design using viscous fingering,
Table 11-4 Well Fracturing Planning Schedule,
Table 11-5 Specifications of surface equipment,
Table 11-6 Fracturing fluids summary,
Table 11-7 Crosslinked water-based fracturing fluids,
Table 11-8 Summary of the common used additives,
Table 11-9 Conditions for breakers application,
Table 11-10 Additives vs. Viscosity,
Table 11-11 Fracturing sand characteristics,
Table 11-12 Water Quality Standard Requirements,

Revision
A.12354
Table 11-13 Baker Pumps (API Units),
Table 11-14 Baker Pumps (SI Units),
Table 11-15 Baker Blenders (API Unit),
Table 11-16 Baker Blenders (SI Unit),
Table 11-17 Comercional Fracturing fluid system,
Table 11-18 Proppant specification and characteristics,
Error! Reference source not found..

Revision
A.12354
References
1. Enhanced Fracture Entry Friction Analysis of the Rate Step-down Test, SPE 106058, Enhanced
Fracture Entry Friction Analysis of the Rate Step-down Test
2. Alexandru Dragomir
• Presentation of HDF operation (Hydraulic FRacturing Treatments) ,
• Acid Frac overview presentation (Acid fracturing design)
• Best practices to avoid screenout in tough carbonate reservoirs (Best practices to
avoid screenout in propped fracturing by using SDT)
• HDF Fluid Systems Specifications in Petrom OMV/ Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments -
QA QC
• Proppant and Additives Specifications for HDF applied in OMV Petrom
• Selection Criteria Between Acid Frac and Propped Fracturing
• HDF Treatment Design and Execution Petrom OMV/Report LV03
• HDF Treatment Design and Execution Petrom OMV/Report Lv10 Lebada
• HDF Treatment Design and Execution Petrom OMV/Report 517 Burcioaia
• HDF Treatment Design and Execution Petrom OMV/Report 4289 Slavuta
• Acid Frac Treatment Design and Execution Petrom OMV / 60 Pescarus job execution
• Acid Frac Treatment Design and Execution Petrom OMV/Report 5025 Bibesti
• Acid Frac Treatment Design and Execution Petrom OMV/Report 3016 Bulbucenii
• Acid Frac Treatment Design and Execution Petrom OMV/Report 60 Pescarus
• Acid Frac Treatment Design and Execution Petrom OMV/Report 2360 Glogoveanu
• Quality Assurance and Checks for HDF used in OMV Petrom
3. Howard. G.C., and Fast, C.R., “Hydraulic fracturing”, Mono. Ser. 2, Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Richardson, Texas, 1970.
4. Perkins, T.K., and Kern, L.R., “Widths of hydraulic fracture”, JPT, pp. 937-949, September
1961.
5. Nordgren, R.P., “Propagation of vertical fracture”, SPEJ, pp. 306-314, August 1972.
6. Khristianovich, S.A., and Zheltov, Y.P., “Formation of vertical fractures by means of highly
viscous liquid”, Proc., Fourth World petroleum Congress, Sec.II, pp. 579-586, 1955.
7. Economides, J. Michael, Nolte, G. Kenneth et al., “Reservoir stimulation”, Schlumberger
educational services, 1987.
8. Mayerhofer, M.J., Economides, M. J., and Nolte, K.G., “An experimental and fundamental
interpretation of filtercake fracturing fluid loss”, SPE paper 22873, 1987.
9. Penny, G.S., “ An investigation of the effects of fracturing fluids upon the conductivity of
proppants”, Final report STIM-LAB, Duncan OK, 1988.
10. Penny, G.S., “An investigation of the effects of fracturing fluids upon the conductivity of
proppants”, Final report STIM-LAB, Duncan OK, 1986.
11. Dowell Schlumberger: “Proppant selection guide”.
12. Nolte, K.G., and Smith, M.B., “ Interpretation of fracturing pressures”, JPT, pp. 1767-1775,
September 198
13. Smith, J.E., “ Design of hydraulic fracture treatments”, SPE 1286.

Revision
A.12354
14. Prats, M., “Effect of vertical fractures on reservoir behavior-incompressible fluid case”, SPEJ,
pp. 105-118, June 1961.
15. Michael J. Economides Kenneth G. Nolte: Reservoir Stimulation (3rd Edition)
16. Abou-Sayed, I.S., Schueler, S., Ehrl, E. and Hendricks, W.: “Multiple Hydraulic Fracture
Stimulation in a Deep Horizontal Tight Gas Well,” paper SPE 30532, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA (October 22–25, 1995).
17. Chambers, M.R., Mueller, M.M. and Grossmann, A.: “Well Completion Design and Operations
for a Deep Horizontal Well with Multiple Fractures,” paper SPE 30417, presented at the
Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland (September 5–8, 1995).
18. Chen, Z. and Economides, M.J.: “The Effect of Near- Wellbore Fracture Geometry on Fracture
Execution and Post-Treatment Production of Deviated and Horizontal Wells,” paper SPE
39425, presented at the SPE International Formation Damage Control Conference, Lafayette,
Louisiana, USA (February 18–19, 1998)
19. Clifton, R.J. and Wang, J-J.: “Multiple Fluids, Proppant Transport, and Thermal Effects in
Three- Dimensional Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing,” paper SPE 18198, presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA (October 2–5, 1988).
20. Ely, J.W.: Stimulation Treatment Handbook, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, PennWell Publishing Co.
(1985).
21. Gidley, J.L., Holditch, S.A., Nierode, D.E. and Veatch, R.W. Jr.: Recent Advances in Hydraulic
22. Fracturing, Monograph Series, Richardson, Texas, USA, Society of Petroleum Engineers
(1989).
23.

Filename: 11. STIMULATION BY FRACTURING SN SM rev0.docx
Directory: W:\Stimulation& Fracturing\Hydraulic Fracturing\Best practices
Template: D:\RUMUNIJA\OMV Romania\Nulti01Pic.dotx
Title: 11. STIMULATION BY FRACTURING
Subject:
Author: Aleksandar
Keywords:
Comments:
Creation Date: 3/29/2012 3:01:00 PM
Change Number: 6
Last Saved On: 3/29/2012 7:24:00 PM
Last Saved By: Miso Solesa
Last Printed On: 11/19/2012 4:54:00 PM
As of Last Complete Printing
Number of Pages: 107
Number of Words: 25.253 (approx.)
Number of Characters: 143.944 (approx.)

STIMULATION BY FRACTURING SN SM Rev0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

STIMULATION BY FRACTURING SN SM Rev0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OMV Petrom Romania WORKOVER BEST PRACTICES MANUAL

Production Operation Workover Engineering March 2012

11. STIMULATION BY FRACTURING

11.7 Quality and Safety Requirements for Fracturing.............................................................. 11-89

Chapter 11 Page 2 of 107

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 11. STIMULATION BY FRACTURING

No. Strongly Recommended

Chapter 11 Page 3 of 107

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 11. STIMULATION BY FRACTURING

No. Not Recommended at All

Chapter 11 Page 4 of 107

11. STIMULATION BY FRACTURING

11.2 Fracturing Stimulation Technology Overview

Fracturing is successfully applied in low to moderate permeability reservoirs, whereby the

Chapter 11 Page 5 of 107

The principal reasons for fracturing a well:

• Bypass near-wellbore damage (skin),

Figure 11-1 Fracturing Alter Flow Patterns

Chapter 11 Page 6 of 107

• A predominantly naturally fractured carbonate formation, potentially leading to propped-

11.2.1 HDF and Acid Frac application in OMV Petrom SA

Chapter 11 Page 7 of 107

Figure 11-2 Performance gap evaluation

Chapter 11 Page 8 of 107

• Wellbore Inclination survey

1. OMV Petrom Best Practice Candidate Selection

Chapter 11 Page 9 of 107

Figure 11-3 Candidate selection workflow

Chapter 11 Page 10 of 107

Figure 11-4 Individual Zone/Well Evaluation for fracturing

Chapter 11 Page 11 of 107

Chapter 11 Page 12 of 107

Chapter 11 Page 13 of 107

Figure 11-5 Spurt valuation

Chapter 11 Page 14 of 107

CfD = Kfwf/Kxf , where:

• Kf- propped fracture permeability (mD)

Chapter 11 Page 15 of 107

11.2.4 Hydraulic Fracturing (HDF) Key Technology Parameters

In many applications of hydraulic fracturing it is essential to ascertain, if at all possible, the

Chapter 11 Page 16 of 107

Fracture gradient (FG) can be calculated using Pbisip as follows:

Chapter 11 Page 17 of 107

Figure 11-6 Idealized bottomhole pressure during fracturing job

Chapter 11 Page 18 of 107

Figure 11-8 Well lithology and mechanical properties distribution

Chapter 11 Page 19 of 107

11.2.5 Fracturing Fluids and Additives Selection

The purpose of fracturing fluids is basically:

Chapter 11 Page 20 of 107

Figure 11-9 Fracturing Fluid Selection Workflow

Chapter 11 Page 21 of 107

Table 11-1 Proppant pack damage from fracturing fluids

11.2.6 Propping Agent Selection

Chapter 11 Page 22 of 107

• Low Specific Gravity

Fracture permeability is a function of proppant type, proppant concentration, reservoir temperature,

Chapter 11 Page 23 of 107

Figure 11-10 Proppant selection workflow

Chapter 11 Page 24 of 107

11.2.7 HDF Pre-Job Evaluation Practice in OMV Petrom

Design for proper fracturing operation evaluation

Step Rate Test