SPE 68748

Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation of the BRF Clastic Formation, Ramba Field, South
Sumatra Indonesia a Case Study
Prijandaru Effendi, SPE, George MacNeill, SPE, Gulf Indonesia Resources and Mohammed Badri, SPE, P.T. Halliburton
indonesia.
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia 17-19 April 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by author (s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officer, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words: illustrations may not be copied.
The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

_____________________________________
Abstract
The Baturaja (BRF) Clastic Formation in the Ramba Field of
South Sumatra, Indonesia must be hydraulically fracturestimulated to produce the reservoir at an acceptable economic
level. Early efforts at producing from this formation were
disappointing. A combination of a detailed reservoir
engineering study and developments in fracture stimulation
technology has made this zone an economic success.
The detailed engineering study allowed for a better
understanding of the permeability variations within the
formation across the field which in turn helped in the selection
of optimum placement of the wells and individually tailoring
the fracture stimulation treatment designs to suit particular well
and reservoir conditions.
Early fracture-stimulation treatment designs used oil-based
and water-based titanate/zirconate-crosslinked fracture fluids
systems with mixed results. The most recent fracture
stimulation treatments have employed a combination of a low
polymer loading water-based borate-crosslinked fluid, and a
Surface Modification Agent (SMA) to the proppant. The SMA
increases the fracture conductivity, creates a flexible, stable
proppant pack, reduces fines migration and fines invasion of

References at the end of the paper

fracture pack, assists in proppant flow back control; and

reduces fracture cleanup time.
Sixteen wells were completed in the Clastic formation in
late 1999 and early 2000. This paper discuss the design details
and explains the changes made to the hydraulic fracture
stimulation treatments to make this formation an economic
success.
Introduction
The Ramba Field operated by Gulf Indonesia Resources is
located in South Sumatra, Indonesia (Fig. 1). The field is 6
kms wide and 16 kms long. Production started in July 1982
targeting mainly the Baturaja (BRF) Carbonate and Talang
Akar (TAF) sands. At the end of 2000, 133 wells have been
drilled. The Ramba field is geologically sub-divided into four
principal producing zones (TAF, Pendopo sands, BRF
Carbonate and BRF Clastic). Hydrocarbons are contained in
stratigraphic and fault controlled traps for the TAF reservoir
of late Oligocene to early Miocene age. The TAF and
Pendopo sands were deposited in continental to near marine
environment. The Baturaja Carbonate and Baturaja Clastic
were deposited in a marine type environment. Most of the
current production is from BRF Clastic and TAF formation.
The porosity of the BRF Clastic formation ranges from 18 to
23% with a permeability of 1 to 400md. The fracture gradient
varied from 1.25 to 0.63 psi/ft, whereas the static bottom
bottom hole temperature averaged 180F with a reservoir
pressure ranging from 500 to 1200 psi. The produced crude
has an average gravity of 30API. Kolinite content ranges
from 20 to 24%. It creates fines migration problems in
addition to dispersing in fresh water and causes plugging.
Though the quantity of Illite/mica is only 2%, it can also
creates fines migration problems, in addition to containing
potassium which can cause fluosilicate precipitation when

PRIJANDARU EFFENDI, GEORGE MacNEILL, MOHAMMED BADRI

contacted by spent HF acid. However mixed layer clays swell

in contact with fresh water. The presence of the various
minerals as reported in Table 1 and their impact on
stimulation was considered when selecting the different
fracture treatment fluids.
Basic well and reservoir
information are reported in Table 2. The results following
the use of the several fracture fluid types (Table 3 ) by
different service companies to enhance the production of the
BRF clastic in Ramba field were mixed. It is believed that the
causes of the low initial production or the accelerated decline
following the early fracture treatments is caused by clays
swelling , fines migration, the low reservoir pressure,
damaged proppant and sand flowback. Following an
extensive review of the early work, the design team opted for
the introduction of new technology with the aim of
improving the project economics through an enhancement of
field production and minimization of the completion cost.
This objective was met through the introduction and
successful use of the Optimized Low Gel Borate (OLGB)
systems discussed by Terracina et al1 and the Surface
Modifying Agent (SMA) as reported by Nguyen et al2,3,4
which extended the life of the wells by improving the
production performance and reducing the decline rate. The
fracture treatment approach consisted of performing a prefracture diagnostic Injection/breakdown or fluid efficiency
test (FET) followed by a Step Down Rate Test 5(SDRT)
scheduling a sand slug during the injection phase followed by
a shut-in to monitor the pressure falloff. After a review and
analysis of the test results, the main hydraulic fracture
treatment job is then implemented.
The G-function derivative analysis technique6 was used to
identify the leakoff type, estimate the fracture closure pressure
and fluid efficiency of the treated interval. A 3D fracture
simulator7 with input of the diagnostic test results and fracture
fluid properties was used to either identify remedial procedures
for fracture entry problems, or make the required changes to
pump the job to completion that will result in an effective
treatment of the sand interval of interest. Radioactive tracer
surveys were carried out in few wells to evaluate the fracture
height extension and calibration of future jobs.
Geological Model
The Baturaja Clastic sandstone developments in Ramba field
are mainly present in the southeastern part and continues in a
southern direction to Tabuan field (Fig. 1). Toward the NW
part of Ramba, the sandstone unit gets thinner and eventually it
pinches out. Stratigraphic correlations of the wells in SE
Ramba indicate the presence of two sand units separated by a
distinctive and consistent shale unit (Fig. 2). This shale unit
may act as a barrier in treating the upper and lower Baturaja
Clastic as one fluid system. A conventional core taken from
Ramba well J in the upper sandstone unit is described as a

SPE 68748

sandstone with interlaminations of shale (Table 1). The

sandstones are firm to moderately hard, fine to occasionally
medium sized grains, in a locally wavy bedding plane. The
mineralogy consists of 60 to 70% quartz, while the clay, 20%
of the volume, is mostly kaolinite and mixed layer clays.
Glauconite is also present, suggesting a shallow marine
environment for the depositional setting of this Baturaja
Clastic. Core work from Ramba well A and J was used to
obtain permeabilities, water saturations and capillary
pressures, while logs were used to obtain porosity and
thicknesses.
The present lowest known oil is estimated at 941 m SS, but
through modeling, the original O/W contact appears to be at
951m SS or below.
Example Wells Fracture Stimulation Methodology,
Analysis, and execution
The targeted wells were treated in batches of three for a better
utilization of resources, and cost saving. A stop gap between
stimulation campaigns was scheduled to evaluate results of
the treatments before completing subsequently scheduled
wells to improve on what was practiced in the previous ones,
and introduce any changes to the programs or utilize new
technologies that would help achieve better deliverabilities.
Two typical Ramba wells (Ramba G, and T) were selected
to demonstrate the application of the Optimized Low Gel
Borate fracture treatments in combination with the Surface
Modification Agent (SMA) to successfully enhance the oil
production of the BRF Clastic sand intervals. The recorded
treatment pressures along with reservoir, fracture fluid
properties and treatment data were used for the analysis of the
pre-fracture diagnostic tests to estimate the stress level, leakoff characteristic, and the friction contribution from the
perforations and near well-bore tortuosity/multiple fractures.
The results from the pre-fracture diagnostic tests along with
the OLGB fracture fluid properties were used as input in a 3-D
7
fracture simulator to infer the fracture half length and
conductivity.
Well G, and T were drilled in 1999/2000 as development
wells, to assess the productivity of the BRF Clastic sand
intervals in the southeastern part of Ramba field (Fig. 1) and to
schedule additional wells for proper field drainage and
increase of the oil production. The stimulation program was
designed to hydraulically fracture the BRF Clastic sand
intervals to evaluate their productive capacity in each of the
subject Ramba wells. The Gamma Ray, Neutron porosity and
Electric logs for Ramba well G as reported in Fig. 3 and 4
are similar to Ramba well T. The BR F Clastic Lower sand
interval is perforated using 4-1/2 guns at 5 shots per foot and
o
60 phasing and then swabbed to evaluate the type of produced
fluid. If the interval is found to be wet, then it is isolated using
a bridge or sand plug. On the other hand if it produces oil, the
BRF Clastic Upper interval is perforated and tested following

HYDRAULIC FRACTURE STIMULATION OF THE BRF

SPE 68748
CLASTIC FORMATION, RAMBA FIELD, SOUTH SUMATRA
3
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

the same approach. The two zones are fracture stimulated in a

single treatment pumping down the 3 fracture string.
Various sand types and mesh sizes were used. These ranged
from 20/40 and 12/20 mesh sand and resin coated proppant to
20/40 and 12/18 mesh intermediate strength proppants (Table
3).
The stimulation treatment of the BRF Clastic intervals
involved the following stages in the order of execution: 1)
Performing a injection/breakdown or Formation Evaluation
Test (FET) followed by a Step Down Rate Test (SDRT) 2)
Pumping of sand slugs if required and last 3) Analysis of the
pre-fracture diagnostic test and pressure history matching and
re-design of the treatment if required and finally 4)Field
implementing the main OLGB fracture treatment scheduling
50,000 to 65000 lbs of proppant at a concentration of 1-10
ppg.
Fracturing Fluid Selection History
To minimize the effects of water based fracturing fluids on the
presence of clays (Table 1) and the damage resulting from
polymer residue, oil based crosslinked fracturing fluids were
employed in the first Ramba wells. This approach was used to
evaluate the production enhancement potential of the BRF
formation resulting from the application of the hydraulic
fracturing techniques. Though the crosslinked oil based
fracturing fluid provided good proppant transport and leakoff
control in combination with high levels of regained
permeability and fracture conductivity, results of the
production improvement were mixed. Moreover due to the
proximity of population centers close to the Ramba wells and
to avoid the potential of fire hazard that requires the
availability of good fire fighting equipment, the use of this
fluid was discontinued.
The services for subsequent Ramba wells were provided by
different service companies that swithed to the use of Titanate
and zirconate-crosslinked water based fracturing fluids
replacing the oil based systems. The post fracture production
results were encouraging and demonstrated that the oil
production from the BRF Clastic formation can be
substantially improved (Table 3). Due to the moderate
temperature of the BRF Clastic formation (Table 2), and based
on successful applications elsewhere, a boratecrosslinked fracturing fluid was used instead of the zirconatecrosslinked water based fluids.
As reported by Harris8, the pH of a boratecrosslinked
fracturing fluid is critical to its successful use. Moreover
based on the authors experience with this type of fluids, some
of the problems experienced in the field were 1) unpredictable
pH adjustments through the use of buffers for proper
crosslinking 2) difficulty in achieving a consistent break in a
low temperature environment and at times the returned fluids
during flowback were crosslinked necessitating extra shut-in

time to allow for the gel to break not only delaying the start of
the workover but also bringing back some of the proppant
thus reducing the fracture conductivity and more importantly
3) the higher gel loading reduces the conductivity of the
proppant pack.
The development of an Optimized Low Gel Borate (OLGB)
systems as discussed by Terracina et al1 in addition to its
successful application in other fields with similar reservoir
conditions to Ramba BRF Clastic formation, provided an
impetus to use this fracturing fluid in subsequent wells. The
advantage of the OLGB over the conventional boratecrosslinked fracturing fluid is the ease of field utilization since
it combines a buffer with a crosslinker into a single component
to adjust the pH for proper crosslinking. Moreover the low gel
loading of the OLGB in combination with the breaker system
results in a better fracture conductivity, a more predictable gel
break upon completion of the fracture treatment and hence an
improved post-treatment production rate.
The effects on the proppant pack due to infiltration of
formation fines on the fracture conductivity, its consequences
on well productivity and proposed solutions to alleviate this
problem were discussed by Blauch et al 9. Following best
practices and the successful implementation of new technology
in addition to minimizing the invasion of the proppant pack by
the fines and the authigenic minerals present in the pore
network, SMA was pumped on the fly during the sand ladden
stages. SMA provides an enhanced fracture conductivity of
the proppant pack, diminishes the effects of fines migration
and proppant flowback and enhances fracture fluid cleanup2-4.
Proppant flowback control approach
Proppant flowback following a hydraulic fracture treatment
can significantly affect well economics due to loss of fracture
conductivity, damage to the equipment such as abrasion of
pumps, casing, and wellhead in addition to production
downtime and incremental well servicing expenses required
to clean up the wellbore.
Factors that affect the proppant flowback mechanism and
remedies to alleviate this problem were discussed by
several authors10-12. Some of the factors that affect the
proppant flowback may include the following :
drawdown pressure, rate , fluid type i.e. single or
multiphase and rheology
net closure stress
proppant size and distribution
fracture width, height and tortuous path
Perforation size, density and orientation
Various technical options were evaluated to either remedy or
minimize this problem. Conventional downhole sand control
techniques were not considered to avoid the increase in the

PRIJANDARU EFFENDI, GEORGE MacNEILL, MOHAMMED BADRI

completion cost.
Screenless completion techniques were investigated for a
cost effective containment of the sand flowback. Based on the
results achieved elsewhere through the introduction of the new
Surface Modification Agents (SMA)2-4, the design team
decided to employ and evaluate this approach in few Ramba
wells (Table 3). SMA consits of a thermally stable, polymeric
material. The SMA is pumped on the fly during the sand
ladden stages of the treatment to coat the proppant which
becomes tacky and hence resists grain movement, packing
and settling as well as stress cycling caused by variable
production conditions.
SMA provides an enhanced fracture conductivity of the
proppant pack, diminishes the effects of fines migration and
proppant flowback and enhances fracture fluid clean-up.
Moreover SMA is safer, environmentally friendly, eliminates
incompatibility issues with fracturing fluids and requires no
cure time. The wells treated with the SMA indicate an
improved production increase with minimal to no sand
flowback problems compared to the ones that were fracture
stimulated without.
Pre-Fracture Diagnostic Tests
Pre-fracture diagnostic tests involve the performance of
Injection/Breakdown, Step-Down Rate Test (SDRT)5 and
minifrac tests as well as the pumping of sand or feeler slugs
for the purpose of acquiring data to use in a 3D simulator7 to
evaluate the fracture propagation model, and to
estimate the fracture half-length and conductivity.
The pre-fracture test designs were based on past experience
in stimulating wells in the area. No mini-frac tests were
planned for the proposed wells unless pre-fracture diagnostic
tests dictates a modified approach to the one applied in offset
wells. To ensure that the proposed treatments would behave as
predicted, or close to the ones from offset wells, diagnostic
tests such as Injection/Breakdown, Step-Down Rate Tests and
the pumping of sand slugs were carried out on the first wells to
estimate the stress level, the leak-off mechanism and
parameters and to identify if any near wellbore restrictions
existed such as friction due to perforation and tortuosity and to
quantify these effects.
The G-function derivative approach following a diagnostic
6
injection test as proposed by Barree and Mukherjee was as
used to identify the leak-off type and estimate the closure
pressure for the treated intervals. Height recession type leakoff behavior was common to most of the BRF Clastic intervals
13
as shown in Fig. 6, and 9. This leak-off mechanism is
indicated by the superposition derivative (Gdp/dG) data falling
below a straight line extrapolated through the normal leak-off
data. This leakoff mechanism is also indicated by a concave
down pressure curve and an increasing pressure derivative.
The G-function plot for Ramba well G and T BRF Clastic sand

SPE 68748

interval (Fig. 6 and 9) indicated a fracture height recession.

This leak-off mechanism occurs when the fracture grows into
high stress relatively impermeable layer(s) adjacent to the
permeable zone. During the shut-in, the fracture begins to
close in the impermeable shale sections first followed by the
permeable sand interval.
The analysis of the injection tests shows that the ISIP for
the BRF Clastic vary from 3050 psi for Well Ramba A to
5050 psi for well Ramba K or a fracture gradient of 0.63
psi/ft to 1.25 psi/ft and fracture closure pressure (Pc) ranging
from 1436 psi to 511 psi or a stress gradient of 1.07 psi/ft to
0.66 psi/ft respectively.
Analysis of the Step-Down Rate tests carried out in Well
Ramba T BRF Clastic (Fig. 10) indicate that the friction
pressure contribution due to perforation is dominant and that
the tortuosity effects are small. The total friction is estimated
to be 375 psi out of which 250 psi is due to the perforations
contribution. This conclusion was confirmed by the radioactive
tracer through the low counts of the Sb-124 isotope that
traced the 2-5 ppg proppant suggesting minimal near-wellbore
tortuosity or multiple fractures. Though the sand intervals
were perforated using 4.5 guns at 5 shots per foot and 60
phasing, it is believed that some of the perforations were
plugged due to fines invasion during the pre-fracture
production flow test.
The sand slugs though not a cure for all was pumped at a
concentration of 1 ppg in some of the treated intervals to erode
the perforations and hence minimize the friction pressures. The
results of the pre-fracture diagnostic tests using in house
interpretation software programs along with feedback from
actual treatments provided a basis for the use of a 3D fracture
7
Simulator to infer fracture growth behavior and estimate
fracture dimensions.
Net Pressure Analysis
7
A 3D fracture simulator was used to infer the fracture
propagation behavior and estimate the created fracture halflength and conductivity. The fracture parameters are used as
one of the input parameters in a reservoir simulator for
production forecast and well spacing purposes.
Following the analysis of the pre-fracture diagnostic tests
(Figs. 6, 8, 9, 10), the stress results are used in a 3D fracture
simulator to history match the net pressures of these tests
(Figs. 7 and 11). The total friction exponent, the perforation
and near-wellbore friction multipliers are estimated using the
5
Step Down Rate Test (Fig. 10). Modeling of the net
pressures is done by incorporating the results of the step-down
rate test and varying the values of the stresses of the bounding
layers, and the leak-off coefficient(s) till the actual net
pressures (Observed Net) are close to the modeled ones
(Model Net). The pressure history matching focuses on the
fall-off period since the difference between the net pressures
(observed versus modeled) for the injection phase is due to

HYDRAULIC FRACTURE STIMULATION OF THE BRF

SPE 68748
CLASTIC FORMATION, RAMBA FIELD, SOUTH SUMATRA
5
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

friction from tubulars, perforations, tortuosity, multiple

fractures or a combination of all these effects.
The parameters derived from the simulation of the prefracture data such as , friction parameters, stresses and leak-off
coefficient are then used to history match the main fracture
treatment pressures by using the rheological properties of the
OLGB fracture fluid till the observed net is close to the
modeled one (Fig. 13).
Results from the 3D simulation of the main fracture treatment
in Ramba well T indicate the creation of of a highly
conductive fracture with a propped length of 198 ft and an
average sand concentration of 1.75 lbs/ft2. To minimize the
effects of non-Darcy and multiphase flow in the propped
fractures 14,15, all the treatment designs for the Ramba wells
aim at achieving high sand concentration in the fractures.
The fracture length in other Ramba wells using similar
treatment sizes and pumping schedule to Ramba well T ranges
from 200 to 250 ft.
Post-Treatment Results
A survey using radioactive tracers was carried out in two
Ramba representative wells that were completed in the BRF
Clastic and TAF formations. The purpose of this survey was to
evaluate fracture height extension and the propped width
following the hydraulic fracture treatments.
Three different isotopes were employed to identify the
height of the fracture, fracture coverage and the gravel pack.
Scandium (Sc-46) was used during the pad stage followed by
Antimony (Sb-124) while pumping the 2 to 5 ppg proppant and
Iridium (Ir-192) was added to the proppant in the 6-10 ppg
stage during the sand ladden stage. The radioactive surveys
indicated that the created fractures are well contained within
the targeted intervals (Fig.6). Post treatment well production is
monitored over time and used to evaluate the effectiveness of
the stimulation treatments in enhancing the production of the
Ramba wells and to formulate a strategy for the completion of
future wells in order to maximize production and or revise the
development approach of the targeted areas .
The monitored oil, water and gas flow, water rate and surface
pressures in combination with other well and reservoir data are
used in a simulator to estimate the reservoir properties and
generate production forecasts for reservoir management
purposes (Fig. 15).
Results of the post-fracture production rates are reported in
Table 3 indicating the relative effectiveness of the hydraulic
fracture treatments in enhancing the hydrocarbon production of
the BRF Clastic in the targeted wells using different fracturing
fluid and size treatments.
Conclusion
The use of OLGB fracturing fluid in combination with breaker
system and the SMA resulted in the successful creation of

efficient propped hydraulic fractures resulting in adequate oil

production with minimal or no sand flowback from the BRF
Clastic Sandstone of the Ramba field.
Experience in the Ramba field coupled with the proper
fracturing fluids selection, the use of real time fracture analysis
and process improvement led to a very successful stimulation
campaign in achieving good oil production rates and
minimizing the sand flowback problem. Analysis of the prefracture FET tests using the G-function derivative approach
indicated that the most common leakoff type is the height
recession or fracture containment within the targeted
BRF Clastic sands. The radioactive tracer surveys confirmed
the findings of the G-function derivative approach and the
step down rate test of achieving fracture containment with
minimal near-wellbore tortuosity or multiple fractures in the
targeted Ramba wells. The net pressure history match of the
treatment data is achieved utilizing the results of the prefracture tests and additional well and reservoir data in a 3D
fracture simulator indicated the creation of effective fractures
that will provide adequate production for the targeted wells.
The application of best practices in combination with the
introduction of new technology has led to the success of
enhancing the oil production in Ramba field.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the respective management of
Gulf Resources Indonesia and P.T. Halliburton Indonesia, for
the opportunity to present this work. Special thanks are due to
Gary Cormier for the recommended changes in fracture
stimulation approach, Kevin Keith and Kimble Meagher for
reviewing the paper. We would like to acknowledge the efforts
of all the Gulf and Halliburton personnel who participated in
this project and contributed to the success of the different
fracturing campaigns.
References
1. Terracina, J.M., Yaritz, J.G., Powell, R.J. McCabe, M.A.,
Slabaugh, B.F., and McKeon, MJ.:Low Gel Loading
Increases Well Production in Eastern U.S., paper SPE
51070, presented at the 1998 SPE Eastern Regional
Conference and Exhibition held in Pittsburg,
Pennsylvania, Nov. 9-11.
2. Nguyen, P. D., Weaver, J.D., Dewprashad, B.T, Parker,
M.A. and Terracina, J.M.:Enhancing Fracture
Conductivity Trough Surface Modification of Proppants
paper SPE 39428 presented at the 1998 Formation
Damage Control Conference, Lafayette, LA, Dec. 18-19.
3. Nguyen, P.D., Weaver, J.D., and Dewprashad,
B.T.:Surface Modification System for FractureConductivity Enhancement, paper SPE 48897 presented

PRIJANDARU EFFENDI, GEORGE MacNEILL, MOHAMMED BADRI

at the 1998 International Conference and exhibition,

Beijing, China, Nov. 2-6.
4. Nguyen, P.D., Dewprashad, B.T.,and Weaver, J.D.:New
Approach for Enhancing Fracture Conductivity, paper
SPE 50002 presented at the 1998 SPE Asia Pacific Oil
and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Perth, Australia, Oct.
12-14.
5. Wright, C. A.: On-Site, Stepdown Test Analysis
Diagnoses Problems and Improves Fracture Treatment
Success, Petroleum Engineer International, January
1997, p. 51-63.
6. Barree, R.D. and Mukherjee, H.: Determination of
Pressure Dependent Leakoff and Its Effect on Fracture
Geometry, paper SPE 36424 presented at the 1996 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
CO, Oct. 6-9.
7. FracproPT Version 9.0 Users Manual, Pinnacle
Technologies, Inc, 1998.
8. Harris, P. C.:Chemistry and Rheology of BorateCrosslinked Fluids at Temperatures up to 300F, JPT
(March 1993) 264.
9. Blauch, M., Weaver, J.D., Parker, M.A., Todd, B., and
Glover M.: New Insights into Proppant-Pack Damage
Due to Infiltration of Formation Fines, paper SPE 56833
presented at the 1999 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, Oct. 3-6.
10. Nguyen, P. D., Weaver, J.D., Parker, M.A. and King,
D.G.:Proppant Flowback Control Additives, paper SPE
36689 presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO. Oct. 8-10.
11. Nguyen, P. D.,Dusterhoft, R.G., Dewprashad, B.T,
Parker, M.A. and Weaver, J.D.:New Guidelines for
Applying Curable Resin-Coated Proppants paper SPE
39582 presented at the International Symposium on
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, U.S.A. 18-19
Feb. 1998.
12. Asgian, M.I.,Cundall, P.A.,and Brady, B.H.:Mechanical
Stability of Propped Hydraulic Fractures: A Numerical
Study, JPT(March 1985), 203-208.
13. Craig, D.P, Eberhard, M. J., and Barree, R. D.: Adapting
High Permeability Leakoff Analysis to Low Permeability
Sands for Estimating Reservoir Engineering, paper SPE
60291 presented at the 2000 Rocky Mountain Regional
Meeting/Low Permeability Reservoir Symposium,
Denver, CO. 12-15 March.
14. Vincent, M.C., Pearson, M. Kullman J.:Non-Darcy and
Multiple Phase Flow in Propped Fractures: Case Studies
Illustrate the Dramatic Effect on Well Productivity paper
SPE 54630, presented at the 1999 SPE Western Regional
Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, 26-28 May.
15. Stim-Lab Proppant Consortium 1994-1998 Reports.

SPE 68748

HYDRAULIC FRACTURE STIMULATION OF THE BRF

SPE 68748
CLASTIC FORMATION, RAMBA FIELD, SOUTH SUMATRA
7
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Description

Ramba Well # A
Sandstone
X48.7
24.73
41
1
0
9
20
2
7
18
Trace
1

Depth (m)
HCl Solubility (%)
Quartz (%)
Na-Feldspar (%)
Calcite (%)
Dolomite (%)
Kaolinite (%)
Illite/Mica (%)
Siderite (%)
Mixed Layer (%)
Gypsium (%)
Pyrite (%)

Ramba Well # J
Sandstone
Shale
X15.3
X20.3
15.72
8.14
62
48
3
1
1
0
2
2
19
24
Trace
2
7
3
6
18
0
0
Trace
2

Shale
X53.6
14.02
35
2
Trace
6
20
8
1
26
Trace
2

Table 1. RBF Clastic Formation Mineralogy Ramba Well A and J

Well

Formation

No.

Name

Depth

Average

BHP

BHST

md.ft

psi

ft

550

192

10

175

1050

30

Top

Bottom

kh

Gross sand
Height

clastic

X48

X51

clastic

TAF

X02

X18

750

192

clastic

X81

X94

1800

192

30

clastic

X51

X54

750

192

10

clastic

X26

X32

303

1253

192

20

clastic

X59

X73

123

500

180

46

clastic

X58

X64

30

1253

192

21

clastic

X13

X33

2,797

180

36

clastic

X12

X26

49

750

180

23

clastic

X38

X57

750

180

clastic

X46

X55

1000

180
180

clastic

X69

X84

2,198

800

clastic

X36

X52

178

1050

180

33

clastic

X38

X56

900

180

30

clastic

X44

X61

1,015

1000

180

31

2,607

700

clastic

X53

X70

clastic

X57

X74

clastic

X85

X03

2,620

900

180

40

180

43

180

40

Table 2 . Basic Well and Reservoir Information

PRIJANDARU EFFENDI, GEORGE MacNEILL, MOHAMMED BADRI

Well

Pad

Proppant

Prop.

No.

Size

Volume

Conc.

lbs

ppg

0.51

1-10
-

Pre-frac.
Proppant type

20/40 Sand
-

F.G

rate

psi/ft
0.63
-

Post-Fracture Production Rate

1 month

month

6 month

bopd

bopd

bopd

bopd

75

120

70

0
450

SPE 68748

Remark

Conventional Borate Fluid System

shut in well due to high gas rate
Conventional Borate Fluid System

112

448

460

1.39

50,000

1-10

20/40 Sand

0.84

448

Clean Gel Zr. Crosslinked Fluid

2.00

50,000

1-10

12/20 Sand

0.95

24

Conventional Borate Fluid System

Bad Gels, shut in high gas
Conventional Borate Fluid System

0.99

65,000

1-9

229

104

134

0.78

50,000

1 1-9

12/18 I.S. Proppant

20/40 Sand
1.09

92

337

261

238

0.10

50,000

1-10

12/18 I.S. Proppant

0.77

179

107

50

70

Conventional Borate Fluid System

Treatment screen out
Conventional Borate Fluid System

0.40

50,000

1-10

12/18 I.S. Proppant

0.96

100

141

141

57

Conventional Borate Fluid System

0.80

70,000

1-9

12/18 Sand

1.04

148

320

486

347

50,000

1-8

12/18 I.S. Propppant

1.25

48

13

23

10

0.33

50,000

1-6

12/18 I.S. Prop.

0.89

69

266

206

214

50,000

20/40 I.S. Prop.

279

149

121

50,000

20/40 I.S. Prop.

0.81

293

677

383

229

Clean Zr-Crosslinked Gel

Good quality sand
Conventional Borate fluid
well didn't respond
1st Conventional Borate system
+SMA
2nd Conventional Borate system
+SMA
3rd Conventional Borate system +SMA

50,000

20/40 I.S. Prop.

53

266

206

0.31

33,000

1-6

20/40 I.S. Prop.

0.89

92

343

292

0.29

50,000

1-6

20/40 I.S. Prop.

0.81

205

373

4th Conventional Borate system

+SMA
5th Conventional Borate system
+SMA
1st OLGB System +SMA

0.31

50,000

1-6

20/40 I.S. Prop.

120

227

2nd OLGB System +SMA

0.31

50,000

1-6

20/40 I.S. Prop.

34

284

3rd OLGB System +SMA

0.29

50,000

1-6

0.71

177

760

4th OLGB System +SMA

20/40&12/18 I.S. Prop.

Table 3. Summary of the Fracture Treatments and Production

Figure 1. Ramba Field - Well Location Map

HYDRAULIC FRACTURE STIMULATION OF THE BRF

SPE 68748
CLASTIC FORMATION, RAMBA FIELD, SOUTH SUMATRA
9
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 2. Typical Ramba Well - Electric Logs & Lithology

Figure 3. GR/Neutron Porosity/Density Log - Well G

10

PRIJANDARU EFFENDI, GEORGE MacNEILL, MOHAMMED BADRI

Figure 4. Electric Logs - Well G

Figure 5. Radioactive Tracer Survey Results Well G

SPE 68748

HYDRAULIC FRACTURE STIMULATION OF THE BRF

SPE 68748
CLASTIC FORMATION, RAMBA FIELD, SOUTH SUMATRA
11
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

RAMBA - WELL G
Ramba, South Sumatra

Ramba Well G
FET - G Function Plot
A
1800

Tubing Pressure (psi)

Smoothed Pressure (psi)
First Derivative (psi)
G*dP/dG (psi)

A
A
D
D

Time
1

TP

SP

DP

FE

FD

SD

Closure 22:20:48 1054 1056 624.9 31.39 2216

-4020 1908

(1.043, 2313.38)

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

Observed Net (psi)

30.00
3000

D
2500
2250

1600

Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)

Net Pressure (psi)

4000
3000

3200
2400

24.00
2400

2400
1800

18.00
1800

1600
1200

12.00
1200

800
600

6.00
600

2000
1750

1400

1500
1200

1250
(m = 2205.535)

1000
1000

750
500

800

250
600

(0.028, 76.52)
(Y = 19.15)

0
0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0
0

G(Time)

0.00

3.00

6.00

9.00

12.00

15.00

0.00
0

Time (mins)

BRF Clastic

StimWin v4.3.0

FET Test

07-Jan-01 23:44
Figure 6. Ramba Well G: FET G-Function Plot indicating Height Recession during Shut-in

Figure 7. Ramba Well G: FET G-Fracture Simulation - Net Pressure Match

Ramba Well T
FET - Job Data
Ramba Well T

Minifrac Events
Time

A
4000
3500

Tubing Pressure (psi)

Slurry Rate (bpm)

A
B

TP

SR

Start

17:05:47

110.1 0.474

Shut In

17:12:10

676.6 0.055

Stop

17:19:01 -3.000

0.000

FET - G Function PLOT

B
30

A
A
D
D

Time
1

3000

TP

SP

DP

FE

FD

Closure 17:15:11 335.0 335.9 502.0 31.48 832.3

800

25

SD

719.1 719.8

20

D
900

(1.014, 849.32)

800

700

700

600

2500

600

500
500

2000
15
1500

400
(m = 839.308)

400

300

1000

10

(ISIP = 837.01)

500
5
0
-500
17:04

A
900

Tubing Pressure (psi)

Smoothed Pressure (psi)
First Derivative (psi)
G*dP/dG (psi)

300

200

200

100

100

17:06

17:08

17:10

17:12

17:14

17:16

17:18

0
17:20

Time
F igu re 8. R a m ba W ell T : F E T T est-L inear J ob D ata P lo t

-100

(0.002,
(Y = 0) 0)

0
0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

G(Time)
StimWin v4.3.0
08-Jan-01 00:01

StimWin v4.3.0
07-Jan-01 23:52

Figure 9. Ramba Well T: FET - G-Function Plot indicating Height

Recession during Shut-in

12

PRIJANDARU EFFENDI, GEORGE MacNEILL, MOHAMMED BADRI

RAMBA - WELL T
Ramba, South Sumatra

RAMBA - WELL T
Ramba, South Sumatra

Est. Perf Friction (psi)

Observed Fric B=3.86 (psi)

500.0
500.0

SPE 68748

Est. NWB Friction (psi)

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

Net Pressure (psi)

Observed Net (psi)

1.000

100.0
2000

400.0
400.0

0.800

80.0
1600

1600

300.0
300.0

0.600

60.0
1200

1200

200.0
200.0

0.400

40.0
800

800

100.0
100.0

20.0
400

400

0.200

0.0
0

0.0
0.0

0.00

5.40

10.80

16.20

21.60

0.00

0.000

27.00

2.40

4.80

7.20

9.60

12.00

Time (mins)

Pumping Rate (bpm)

BRF Clastic

BRF Clastic

2000

FET Test

STEP DOWN RATE TEST

F i g u r e 1 1 . R a m b a W e l l T : F E T T e s t F r a c t u r e S i m u la t io n
N e t P r essu re M a tc h

F ig u r e 1 0 . R a m b a W e ll T : S te p D o w n A n a ly sis in d ic a tin g N W B
a n d P e r f o r a t io n e x ce ss p r e ss u re c o n tr ib u tio n

RAMBA - WELL T
Ramba, South Sumatra
Proppant Conc (ppg)
Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)

20.00
2500

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

50.00

16.00
1994

40.00

12.00
1488

30.00

8.00
982

20.00

4.00
476

10.00

0.00
-30

0.00

4.00

8.00

12.00

16.00

20.00

0.00

Time (mins)

BRF Clastic

Main Frac Treatment

F igure 12. R am ba W ell T : M ain F racture - Treatm ent D ata

RAMBA - WELL T
Ramba, South Sumatra
Proppant Conc (ppg)
Net Pressure (psi)

20.00
1500

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

Observed Net (psi)

60.00
1500

16.00
1200

48.00
1200

12.00
900

36.00
900

8.00
600

24.00
600

4.00
300

12.00
300

0.00
0

0.00

4.00

8.00

12.00

16.00

Time (mins)

BRF Clastic

Main Frac Treatment

Figure 13. Ramba Well T: Main Job Fracture Simulation

Net Pressure Match

20.00

0.00
0

HYDRAULIC FRACTURE STIMULATION OF THE BRF

SPE 68748
CLASTIC FORMATION, RAMBA FIELD, SOUTH SUMATRA
13
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

RAMBA - WELL T BRF clastic

Stress Profile
2750

Fracture Conductivity (mDft)

2780

2810

Depth (ft)

2840

2870

2900

2930

2960

2990

Permeability

3020
Low

Fracture Conductivity (mDft)

High

0.00

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

3050
1400

2050

2700

Closure Stress (psi)

3350

4000

75

150
Length (ft)

Figure 14. Ramba Well T: Main Job Fracture Simulation

Fracture Profile

Figure 15. Reservoir simulation results - Ramba Well B

225

300