SPE-172509-MS

Multistage Acid Fracture Effectiveness in Gas Production in the Carbonate

Reservoir, Saudi Arabia - Study and Analysis of Field Examples
Ashraf Islam, Zillur Rahim, and Hamoud A. Al-Anazi, Saudi Aramco

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference held in Manama, Bahrain, 8 –11 March 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
For last few years, multistage acid fracture treatments have become a common practice to develop the
carbonate gas reservoirs in Saudi Arabia. Different multistage completions systems have been used in
more than 50 wells that were acid fractured anywhere from 2 to 6 stages per lateral. These systems include
multistage fracturing (MSF) with openhole frac sleeves in combination with open hole hydraulic or
swellable packers to provide zonal isolation between fracture stages. This paper provides an analysis of
the effectiveness of these fracturing treatments comparing the pre- and post-frac gas production rates of
the wells as functions of fracture half-length, conductivity, and some of the main reservoir properties such
as porosity and flow capacity.
One major concern from the open hole MSF treatments is the zonal isolation provided by the open hole
packer assemblies. This is very important to ensure fracture containment for the zone the induced fracture
is intended for. Failure in isolation can lead to communications between intervals allowing the pumped
frac stage to propagate to the previously opened frac stage. This could result in fracturing less number of
stages than designed. Consequently, the expected production rate may not be achieved. This study also
analyzes the post-frac pressure build up response for selected carbonate reservoir wells to compute
number of effective fractures created during the treatment. The reason of isolation failures and how to
avoid that in the future MSF treatments are discussed in this paper. Several field data including post-frac
production data have been analyzed for MSF acid fracturing in the carbonate gas reservoirs to establish
the treatment effectiveness. This analysis will be useful to optimize the future well stimulation programs
and improve gas production.
Introduction
Carbonate reservoir is one of the main sources of non-associated gas production in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia. The Triassic era carbonate reservoir first exploited in the 1980s holds a significant quantity of
gas-in-place in the heterogeneous formations of both conventional and relatively tight permeable layers.
Vertical well configurations were the main completion types first used to develop the field that were
stimulated using both matrix acidizing and acid fracture treatments to enhance productivity. With the
development of advanced MSF completion tools and technology in the industry, such as MSF frac port,
open hole isolation packer, and drillable frac plugs, new methods to complete and stimulate the carbonate
2 SPE-172509-MS

gas wells started. The technologies helped in attaining maximum reservoir contact with the reservoir, a
key element to enhace well performance, Fig 1 and 2 (Rahim, 2013). Horizontal wells drilled in both
maximum (␴max) and minimum (␴max) horizontal stress directions started in 2009 and the wells were
completed using open hole frac port separated by mechanical isolation packers between the stages. Since
then, the number of MSF wells has grown significantly and the technique proved to be very successful.
There are other MSF techniques used recently, mainly the plug and perf method, where drillable frac plugs
are used inside the casing string in cemented wellbore configuration. The well is then perforated and
stimulated in multiple zones using matrix or acid fracturing with cement behind the liner serving as
isolation between stages.

Figure 1—Increase of reservoir contact with number of frac stages

Figure 2—PI increase with number of frac stages

Challenges in Carbonate Reservoir

The carbonate gas reservoir is located under the massive oilfields in the eastern region in the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia. The oilfield is spread across a vast areal extent and delivers non-associated gas from both
clastic sandstone and carbonate reservoirs. The carbonate deposits mainly consist of dolomites, limestone,
and anhydrites divided into two main producing layers – the upper layer designated as carbonate B and
the lower layer as carbonate C.
The degree of reservoir heterogeneity is significantly higher in the upper layer, carbonate B, comparing
to the lower layer, thereby increasing the complexity to maximize production rates from the wells drilled
in carbonate B. Depending of the location of the field, the carbonate reservoirs can vary significantly in
SPE-172509-MS 3

permeability and net thickness. The formation is highly acid soluble and exhibits a wide ranges of porosity
development, sometimes in segmented and discontinuous fashion. A typical carbonate B openhole log
section, Fig. 3, illustrates the reservoir heterogeneity. Carbonate C, on the other hand, has relatively
continuous porosity development compared with carbonate B. It is interbedded with limestone and
dolomite layers and underlain by thicker anhydrite units.

Figure 3—Examples of sporadic porosity development in carbonate B formation.

Early approaches for producing from the carbonates consisted of drilling vertical and deviated wells
through different layers. The communication between the wellbore and the gas bearing formation was
achieved by overbalanced perforation in a 30 to 40 ft interval and subsequently the wells were flowed back
to evaluate the potential. The initial well flow back results prior to acid fracturing or matrix treatments
were not conclusive as the entire producing interval was not perforated. The reservoir was then stimulated
using acid fracture or matrix acidizing treatments to enhance gas rates.
The relatively more homogenous carbonate C formation produces at higher rates compared to
carbonate B. To attain good producing rates, the carbonate B wells had to be routinely fractured in
multiple stages to increase stimulated reservoir contact. Successful multistage fracturing was attained with
horizontal wells drilled toward ␴min. The number of horizontal wells completed with MSF completion in
the carbonates has grown significantly over the past 5 years to deliver the high gas rates, especially from
the carbonate B formation. Although the open hole, graduated ball drop sliding sleeve MSF completion
system is the most used, there are other completions systems such as the plug and perf (P&P) methods
have also been initiated.

Effective Wellbore in Horizontal Fracture

Although the reservoir considerations and technical aspects for stimulating horizontal wells are similar to
the vertical wells, the fracture orientation in a horizontal well is one of the critical parameters to be
considered to obtain maximum reservoir contact. In moderate to tighter formation where unstimulated
wells do not meet the production target, hydraulic fracture extends the effective wellbore area to
efficiently drain the hydrocarbon at much higher rates. The primary goal of hydraulic fracture is to extend
the effective wellbore area and maximizing the reservoir contact. Unlike vertical wells, the fracture
connectivity with the wellbore in a horizontal well depends on well azimuth. Since the fracture always
extends parallel to ␴max, it is preferable to drill the well toward ␴min to create transvers fractures that
provide the maximum reservoir contact. Figure 4 illustrates the fracture orientation in a horizontal well
drilled toward ␴min.
4 SPE-172509-MS

Figure 4 —Fracture orientation in a horizontal well drilled in the minimum stress direction.

Multistage Well Completion Overview

The MSF well completion assemblies provide advantage of creating customized individual compartments
inside the wellbore and allow placement of exit points from the wellbore to the reservoir as selected. A
wellbore can therefore be segmented across the reservoir section and can be treated as per design by using
the MSF completions system. There are two main categories of the MSF completions that are now
extensively used in the industry: the open hole sliding sleeve system, and P&P method.
Sliding Sleeve System
These types of completion system offer sliding sleeve frac ports deployment as part of the production
casing string. This system is most commonly used in an open annulus that is an uncemented annulus
between wellbore and production string. The frac ports sleeves can be selectively opened using hydrau-
lically actuated graduated ball activation seats located in the center of the frac ports. The ball seats can
also be opened using mechanical devices on jointed pipe or coiled tubing as a contingency incase the
primary mechanism of port opening fails. The opened port can be used as an exit point from the

Figure 5—Typical openhole MSF system with openhole packers (black) and frac ports in between illustrated with lithology and porosity
development in the well

production string to initiate acid or proppant fracture in the reservoir. Figure 5 illustrates a typical open
hole sliding sleeve configuration along with the reservoir development shown on the logs.

Annular Isolation between Fracture Stages

Horizontal openhole MSF completion allows relatively better access to the formation for the stimulation
treatment comparing to cemented annulus. Mechanical or swellable openhole isolation packers are used
in the industry to create isolation between the fracture stages. These packers are delivered at the well site
as part of the production casing, compatible to be connected with same pipe thread. Both the mechanical
SPE-172509-MS 5

and swellable packers have elastomer sealing elements, usually located in the middle of the packer
configuration that expands by either hydraulic forces or chemical reactions, respectively, to seal the
annulus between casing and formation. The mechanical packers available in the industry usually offer
smaller size elastomer element sealing area than that of the swellable packer. The mechanical packers are
activated by hydraulic forces created by applied pump pressure from surface immediately after running
the completion. When activated, the elastomer elements on the mechanical packer expand in the wellbore
annulus reaching the wall of the openhole and provide zonal isolation for that stage. The swellable
packers, on the other hand, contain reactive elastomer elements that swell by reacting with the wellbore
fluid such as oil or water based drill fluid. The advantage of swellable packers is that they are much longer
in size and can assume the shape of the hole within their expansion capacity.
The MSF wells in the carbonate B reservoir were completed mainly with the mechanical openhole
packers with 60-70% success rate in providing zonal isolation. The remaining 30-40% of the intervals thar
are not fractured leaves the well below the expected rate. To make the packer system robust, two or three
mechanical packers were placed side by side in series to provide zonal isolation. This configuration was
still not effective. Some possible reasons for mechanical failure include 1) the induced fractures created
around the packer elements in the wellbore due to high stress when the mechanical packers are activated
to set (Roundtree et al., 2009), and 2) the uniform extrusion of the mechanical packer element failed to
provide isolation in the case of uneven wellbore cross section. The use of swellable packers improved the
success rate to 95%. The swellable packers induces less stresses on the wellbore and also close any smaller
gap due to its uneven expansion of the element through chemical reaction with the wellbore fluid. The
estimated induced fracture initiation pressures are presented in Table-1. The elemental expansion between
a mechanical openhole packer and the swellable packer are compared and illustrated in Fig. 6.

Table 1—Fracture initiation effect on wellbore (after Roundtree)

Packer Type Mechanical Swellable

Sealing Element Length 6 to 8 inches 1 to 3 ft

Wellbore Stress 6,000-8,000 psi 60 psi

Figure 6 —Element expansion of mechanical packer (left), swellable packer (right) in the uneven openhole

MSF placement
Reservoir engineers analyze the reservoir potential from the openhole electric logs and apply engineering
approachs (Han et al., 2011) to segment the wellbore lateral across the reservoir section and then select
the most suitable depths for the sliding sleeve frac ports and packer location in the production casing
string. The sliding sleeve frac ports are delivered at the well site in small sizes of casing with pin and
thread connections compatible with the production string casing diameter, type, and thread. The sliding
sleeve ports are added to the casing tally in the field with the pre-selected depths and run in hole
accordingly along with the production casing. Graduated metallic balls from the wellhead are dropped in
the well relevant to the frac port to be opened and the zone to be stimulated.
6 SPE-172509-MS

Plug and Perf Method

In this configuration, frac plugs designed to provide isolation inside the production string between frac
stages are placed. Perforations are made above the plug inside the casing using electric perforating guns
to get connectivity with the formation. Subsequently, fractures are created through these perforations. The
production casing annulus is cemented to provide zonal isolation unlike the openhole packer method in
the sliding sleeve system. Although unlimited number of fractures can be conducted in a single wellbore,
the P&P method is considered inefficient because of a discontinuity in operation to frac between zones.
After completing pumping fracture treatment in one zone, a new plug has to be run in the casing with the
perforation gun before commencing the next fracture operation. The openhole sliding sleeve is more
efficient considering less time consuming where fracturing operations can continue by simply dropping
ball and opening the next frac port without much lag time between stages. On the other hand, a cemented
annulus provides better hydraulic isolation to place fractures without incurring communication between
zones. There are pros and cons in each method and the most optimal completion needs to be selected based
on reservoir properties and tailored to the reservoir stress profile and conditions. Only a limited number
of P&P operations have been conducted to date, the results therefore reamin inconclusive but more data
are being collected and analyses are on progress.
Case Study
Well A was completed in the heterogeneous carbonate B reservoir with four stages openhole MSF
completion in the horizontal section drilled toward ␴min and comprises of mechanical packers in between
the frac ports. The frac ports were placed in the reservoir section where porosity varies between 5% and
12%. The first stage frac port was opened by dropping a ball from the surface and injectivity was
established. The designed acid fracture treatment was pumped at 50 bbls/min with a surface treatment
pressure of 11,800 psi. The 2nd ball was subsequently dropped to close the first stage and open the second
frac port. Soon after the fluid injectivity was established and the pressure was being elevated to fracture
the formation, the surface pressure could not build up to the expected fracture pressure gradient, indicating
a lack of isolation between first and second zones with the possibility of fluid by-passing the packer
sealing elements. This is a common phenomenon in the carbonate reservoirs as the acid bypasses the
packers that should otherwise isolate the subsequent interval. Since the fracture pressure could not be
achieved for the second stage, a high rare matrix acidizing treatment was performed instead according to
the previously set contingency plan. Similar packer failure occurred while attempting fracturing the third
stage. The pumping pressure was unable to reach the fracture gradient, confirming simultaneous zonal
communication among first, second, and third zones. At the end, just like the second stage, a matrix
acidizing treatment was performed in this third interval. The fourth and final stage was stimulated as
designed by achieving expected surface treatment pressure of 11,600 psi and pumping at 50 bbls/min.
Overall, only two fractures were placed in the lateral giving only a 50% success in the treatment, Table
2.

Table 2—Post Frac parameters and sustained production duration for Well A and Well B
Well A Well B

Number of fracture stages designed 4 5

Number of successful fractures created 2 3
Average Volume of acid pumped per stages 1,070 bbls 1020 bbls
Fracture half length 168 ft 269 ft
Pre-Frac production Non-Commercial Non-Commercial
Folds of increase in production 5.5 6.6
Stabilized production since MSF treatments 1 year 1.5 years
SPE-172509-MS 7

Well B was also drilled parallel to ␴min and completed with 5 stages openhole MSF completion system
with mechanical packers between the stages. The average porosity across the five zones varied between
4% and 12%. The first stage frac port was opened successfully by using the designated ball dropped from
the surface. Due to encountering high stress and low injectivity into the formation, the intended acid
fracture treatment was aborted and the formation was simply soaked with spearhead acid. The same
formation behavior was observed for the second stage confirming the unpredictable nature and hetero-
geneity in the carbonate B reservoir. The fracture gradient was relatively higher than normal in this area.
Subsequently, the intended acid fracturing treatment was also cancelled for the second stage, though the
porosity was high on the order of 7%. The third stage port was opened and injectivity was established.
Although the average zonal porosity was around 4%, normal pumping and acid fracturing operations
could be successfully conducted at 50 bbls/min pumping rate and 11,800 psi surface treatment pressure.
The fourth stage was the most prolific reservoir interval among all the stages with average 12% porosity
across 200 feet lateral length and a relatively lower fracture gradient.
This zone was successfully treated and designed acid fracturing was conducted at 42 bbls/min pumping
rate and 11,700 psi surface treatment pressure. The last and final zone was also successfully acid fractured
with 55 bbls/min pumping rate and 12,000 psi surface treatment pressure. As far as the fracturing
operations, the success ratio was 66%, Table 2.

Results
Both well A and B used in the case studies did not flow initially before the fracture treatments when the
multistage frac ports were opened and flow back was attempted. The completion fluid was displaced with
lighter fluids using coiled tubing, but the results did not change. After performing the fracture treatments,
the wells were flowed back and the wells started producing at commercial rates. Even though all the
designed stages could not be fractured in these wells, the production performances were better than any
vertical well with single stage acid fracture treatments. The effectiveness of the MSF treatments on the
basis of post-frac pressure build up analysis is clearly visible, Figure 7, for both Well A and Well B.
Figure 8 is a demonstration of the increase in reservoir contacts and Figure 9 shows the improvements in
productivity, from vertical and deviated wells to the MSF wells as illustrated by the productivity increase.

Figure 7—Post-frac pressure build up test results for Well A and Well B.
8 SPE-172509-MS

Figure 8 —Increase in Reservoir Contact on MSF wells.

Figure 9 —Post fracture treatment productivity improvement

Conclusions
The following conclusions and future recommendations are made for developing carbonate B reservoir:
1. MSF acid fracturing technique has been proven to be more effective than any other completion
method previously used to develop the heterogeneous carbonate B reservoir.
2. Higher strength and grade tubular will be necessary to overcome completion pressure limitations
and create effective fractures. In situ stresses become higher as reservoir pressure depletes with
time.
3. Well placement parallel to ␴min creates effective transverse fractures and achievess maximum
reservoir contact.
4. Swellable packer appeared to be more effective to provide zonal isolation in the annulus compared
to mechanical packers in the heterogeneous carbonate B reservoir.
5. No “rule of thumb” number of stages per lateral can be established due to reservoir heterogeneity.
Each well in the carbonate B reservoir needs to be treated as an individual case. A detailed
engineering approach is required to select the number of stages to be fractured based on reservoir
quality, heterogeneity, and well configuration.
6. Well placement using geosteering techniques could be used to penetrate more porous sections in
a single lateral to make the MSF treatments more effective.
SPE-172509-MS 9

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the management of Saudi Aramco and the Gas Reservoir Management
Department for the permission to publish this paper.

References
1. Ra him, Zillur, Al-Anazi, Hamoud, Al-Kanaan, Adnan, et alet al., “Evolving Khuff Formation
Gas Well Completions in Saudi Arabia: Technology as a Function of Reservoir Characteristics
Improves Production” paper 163975 presented at the SPE Middle East Unconventinal Gas
Conference, Muscat, Oman, 28-30 January 2013.
2. Rahim, Zillur, Mark Petrick, SPE, Saudi Aramco, “Sustained Gas Production From Acid Fracture
Treatments in the Khuff Carbonates, Saudi Arabia: Will Proppant Fracturing Make Rates Better?”
paper 90902 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston,
Texas USA, 26-29 September 2004.
3. Al-Dawood, Mahdi, Aziz, Azly Abdul, Al-Omair, Ahmed, Rahim, Zillur, Saudi Aramco, “Per-
formance Evaluation and Challenges Using Open Hole Multistage Fracturing Completion to
Develop Tight Gas Reservoirs in Saudi Arabia” paper 172219-MS presented at the SPE Saudi
Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition, 21-24 April, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia.
4. Rahim, Z., Al-Anazi, H.A., Al-Kanaan, A.A., Abdul Aziz, A.: “Successful Exploitation of Khuff
B Low Permeability Gas Condensate Reservoir through Optimized Development Strategy,” paper
SPE 136953 presented at the SPE/DGS Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhi-
bition held in Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, April 4-7, 2010.
5. Gutierrez, G., Ramirez, L., PEMEX, Sierra, J.R., Medina, E., Gutierrez, L.J., Halliburton,
Salguero, J., CBM, “Improvements in Multistage Fracturing, Remolino Field, Mexico’ paper SPE
168576 presented at SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, 4-6 February, The
Woodlands, Texas, USA.
6. Al-anazi, Hamoud Ali, Abdulbaqi, Dana Mahmoud, Habbtar, Ali Hussain, Al-Kanaan, Adnan,
Saudi Aramco, “Successful Implementation of Horizontal Multi-Stage Fracturing Enhanced Gas
Production in Heterogeneous & Tight Gas-Condensate Reservoirs: Case Studies” paper SPE
161664 presented at Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, 11-14
November, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
7. Yen Han Shim, Keith Atwood, Jeffrey Chee Leong Kok, Jason Baihly, David L. Ingraham,
Schlumberger, “Defining Reservoir Quality for Successful Shale Gas Play Development and
Exploitation” paper SPE 147518 presented at Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference,
15-17 November, Alberta, Canada.
8. Hamoud Ali Al-Anazi, Ahmad Baqawi, Ahmad Azly Abdul Aziz, Adnan A. Kanaan, Saudi
Aramco, “Effective Strategies in Development Heterogeneous Gas Condensate Carbonate Res-
ervoirs” paper SPE 2010 presented at SPE Russian Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, 26-28
October, Moscow, Russia.
9. Ahmed, Mahbub, Rahim, Zillur, Al-Anazi, Hamoud, Al-Kanaan, Adnan, Saudi Aramco, Mohiu-
ddin, Mohammed, Schlumberger, “Development of Low Permeability Reservoir Utilizing Multi-
stage Fracture Completion in the Minimum Stress Direction” paper SPE 160848 presented at SPE
Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition, 8-11 April, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia.
10. Russell Roundtree, Michael John Eberhard, Robert David Barree, Barree & Assocs. LLC,
“Horizontal, Near-Wellbore Stress Effects on Fracture Initiation” paper SPE 123589 presented at
SPE Rocky Mountain Petroleum Technology Conference, 14-16 April, Denver, Colorado.
10 SPE-172509-MS

11. Yen Han Shim, Keith Atwood, Jeffrey Chee Leong Kok, Jason Baihly, David L. Ingraham,
Schlumberger paper SPE 147518 presented at Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference,
15-17 November, Alberta, Canada.