SPE-182930-MS

Complex Hydraulic Acid Fracturing Field Application in Appraisal and

Development of Tight, Sour, Over-Pressured, and Tectonically Active, HPHT
Carbonates in North Kuwait

Z. M. Ahmed, Kuwait Oil Company; M. Mofti, Halliburton; E. Fidan, I. Al-Zaidani, M. Al-Arouj, A. Al-Dhafiri, and A.
Al-Failakawi, Kuwait Oil Company

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 7-10 November 2016.

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
Producing hydrocarbons at appraisal and development targets from deep, overpressured, high pressure/high
temperature (HPHT) Jurassic carbonates in Northern Kuwait has been a challenge as a result of the complex
reservoir heterogeneity. Because of the tight carbonate formation properties, matrix acidizing does not
always deliver hydrocarbons at economical rates; in this scenario, hydraulic fracturing is required. Hydraulic
fracturing, however, presents placement and activation challenges as a result of the wellbore construction
limitations and a complex tectonic setting/high stress environment.
The zone of interest in this dolomitic reservoir was identified as an acid fracture candidate because of
the immobility of fluids identified during multiple pressure sampling tool attempts, despite a reasonable
valuation of the log-computed porosity and permeability in the range of approximately 10% and 1.1
md, respectively. In addition, solid hydrocarbons (bitumen) were reported in the cuttings samples, which
indicates the possibility of in-situ conductivity damage. The well trajectory was designed as a high angle
deviated well to maximize the reservoir exposure, with a maximum inclination of 49 to 50° through the
zone of interest. The reservoir was drilled at a slight overbalance with 13.0 ppg of oil-based mud, using
mud weight management techniques to minimize the formation damage. The highly deviated wellbore and
the highly anisotropic stress regime complicated the effective design and placement of the acid fracturing
treatment. As an added challenge, the operation had to be completed within a very short period because of
the high cost of the deep drilling rig on site to facilitate the operation.
The hydro-fracture field case was built on the analyses of the open hole logs, 1D geomechanical earth
model, and a customized data-fracture suite to meet the data acquisition needs, followed by the design
and calibration of an acid hydro-fracture treatment using a pseudo3D grid-based fracture modeling and
calibration software. A solids-free dynamic diversion schedule was built and field-laboratory level fluid
design tests were conducted to reach the most optimal design possible.
A robust and operationally pragmatic fracture program was developed and implemented successfully
in a very short notice period. The mobility of the formation fluids was established, leading to a critical
understanding of this sour unconventional carbonate flow unit.
2 SPE-182930-MS

Data fracture analyses and a customized acid fracturing technique described in this paper are the first of
its kind in the deepest parts of the Northern Kuwait sour gas basin. A collection of completions data has
proven critical in terms of reservoir deliverability aspects and in the calibration of the mechanical formation
properties, leading to a better understanding of the hydro-fracture geometry and how to effectively connect
to the higher mobility segments of the reservoir. This paper also outlines the future optimization plans based
on the lessons learned from the fracture tests conducted in the well.

Introduction
The deep dolomites located in Northern Kuwait is a highly challenging formation because of its over-
pressured and high temperature (HPHT), complex and interbedded nature of different carbonate bodies,
complex rock tectonics, and stress variation that resulted from strike-slip and reverse fault regimes. As a
result, poorly shaped natural fractures with poor conductivity distribution occurred; the creation of hydraulic
fractures is also negatively affected by the high stress environment and the geological complexities.
According to Kanneganti et al. (2015), "High stress tends to increase surface pressure and hence limits
maximum pumping rate due to surface limitation, where the fracture gradient in excess of 1.0 psi/ft, which
is common in this area, tubular design needs to be robust to withstand the high bottomhole treating pressures
(17,000 to 18,000 psi) during fracturing." For that reason, the fracture half-length, fracture width, and
conductivity can be limited by low pumping rates.
Another challenging parameter in the North Kuwait fields is the fluid type that varies within one field; for
example, gas condensate and volatile oil can and does co-exist in the same basin. In addition, the hydrogen
sulfide (H2S) presence, wellbore bitumen accumulation, and reservoir heterogeneity commonly lead to
additional concerns impairing well inflow and lift performance (i.e. scaling). In some cases, the reservoir
heterogeneity and formation tightness play a role in the stimulation design in which the matrix acidizing
option can be replaced with hydraulic fracturing to increase the well productivity. In addition, bitumen
accumulation in some areas must be efficiently removed around the wellbore and stimulation treatment must
be extended deep in the reservoir, where hydraulic fracturing is the best solution. As a result, the design
and execution team often apply efficient and aggressive stimulation designs to overcome the listed well
challenges and increase fluid mobility.
This paper describes a successful hydraulic fracture application to demonstrate the effectiveness and
importance of the custom-designed technique on the well production increment with respect to the reservoir
concerns. Information about optimizing future production plans that affect production potential is also
provided.

Case Study Well: Well Data History.

The case study well has a highly deviated wellbore with a maximum inclination angle of 49 to 50° across
the zone of interest to maximize reservoir exposure. It is located in the deep dolomitic/Jurassic formations
in the western platform part of main deep sour gas field. The well does not cross any faults in the Jurassic
section, as was envisaged in geophysical prognosis. Marginal development of reservoir quality dolomitic
facies in the main section and limited fractures along the wellbore were predicted; however, the bottomhole
image (BHI) logs were not acquired to confirm the presence/absence of the natural fractures.
The zone of interest (60 ft) is a dolomitic interval with well-developed intercrystalline porosity
and permeability; the log-computed porosity/permeability are in range 9.9 to 10.3% and 1.05 to 1.10
md, respectively, with the possibility of late digenetic calcite cement and sporadic bitumen. Bitumen
impregnation was inferred in the bottom part of the reservoir, based on integrated core and log evaluation,
which leads to pore throat impairment. In addition, the logs show that a low percentage of water saturation
is computed in this interval, however, no fluid mobility was established from the multiple pressure sampling
tool. The sampling tool pressure data indicates reservoir pressure ranging from 9,020 to 9,237 psi across
SPE-182930-MS 3

the dolomite section. The reservoir was drilled at a slight overbalance with 13.0 ppg oil-based mud; mud
weight management techniques were used to minimize the formation damage. Although the study well is
surrounded by wells with very good test results because of fracture presence (Fig. 1), this well did not reflect
high fracture density across the zone of interest (Fig. 2). Fig. 3 shows the wellbore diagram of the well.

Figure 1—Well location map of case well.

Figure 2—Case Well drilled in an area with relatively less fracture density.
4 SPE-182930-MS

Figure 3—Case study wellbore diagram.

SPE-182930-MS 5

Figure 4—Case study well bitumen accumulation reported in the mud/chip samples at depth (16,186 to 16,236 ft).

Figure 5—BHI log of offset wells to the case study well show the presence of fracture clusters at
the tested intervals or intervals selected for testing. The presence of the fractures significantly
affect well production. BHI data was not acquired for the case study well in all sections.

The post-drill 1D mechanical earth model (1D MEM) was based on current well data and pressure
sampling tool data, which shows a stress variation toward the north as a result of fault influence. The stress
regime across the payzone section, however, is the same, with no lateral variation among nearby wells.
The case study well is located in area with less rigidity than the offset wells, however the Young's modulus
6 SPE-182930-MS

value is considered to be high. There is no clear correlation between rigidity and open fractures, but it
was expected to follow regional trend. Moreover, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) log showed key sets
development almost along all sections as a result of mechanical drilling because the well is highly deviated;
this is not a result of stress domination.
A sensitivity analysis was performed for the maximum horizontal stress (Shmax) at various inclination
angles (40°,45°, and 60°) to detect the fracture gradient across the perforation interval. The results of the
analyses show that the upper and the lower part of the perforation interval at 40° have the lowest fracture
gradient (FG) range (1.09 to 1.25 psi/ft and 1.12 to 1.24 psi/ft, respectively), as compared to the 45° and
60°inclination angles, as shown in Fig. 8. The minimum horizontal stress (Shmin) gradient will govern
the fracture initiation and propagation if natural fractures are present in the perforation interval. If the
fractures are not present, however, the FG will govern fracture initiation, and Shmin will govern the fracture
propagation. To obtain a favorable FG, in general, the well should be closely aligned with the Shmin.

Figure 6—In situ stress of the case study well and nearby wells.

Figure 7—Well shape geometry.

SPE-182930-MS 7

Figure 8—Gradient for Shmax of 40°,45°, and 60° of azimuth.

Nodal analysis was performed to confirm the well production performance and the effect of stimulation
on production. Three scenarios were created, based on a range of skin values. In the first scenario, high
skin value (S=10) refers to severe formation damage that affects the well production. For the second
scenario, skin value (S=0) assumes that the well was cleaned and the damage removed, resulting in improved
production by approximately double. The third scenario assumes the well is hydraulically fractured (S=-4),
and the production is enhanced. The offset wells are producing without hydraulic fracturing in the same
range as the third scenario; consequently, the case study well should be fractured to reach the production
levels of the offset wells.

Figure 9—Nodal analysis results show that oil and gas production
improved after reducing skin value to negative (stimulate the well).
8 SPE-182930-MS

The analysis results indicate that the case study well was a candidate for acid fracturing, based on
the petrophysics, geomechanics, and production history of the nearby wells. The primary purposes of the
stimulation treatment, specifically acid fracturing, are to overcome the wellbore bitumen and to create fluid
mobility in the unconventional reservoir.
The job design and performance followed a specific process that consisted of several stages to target the
stimulation treatment objective.

Stage A.
Rock and fluid sample of the well are collected to understand the treatment fluid stability and its effect on
the reservoir rock during the job, and the following laboratory tests were performed:
1. For Frac fluids; viscosity play a major role in providing sufficient fracture width, generating a
desired net pressure to control height growth and providing fluid loss control, therefore; a stability/
break test was performed to measure the pad stability and break time in the reservoir. The pad fluid
viscosity should be stable during the fracture job to ensure that the fracture is kept open as much
as possible, and then easily break down its viscosity at the end of the job. The time of pad stability
and break depends on the time of the acid fracture design. As a general rule, less concentrated fluid
has a low viscosity and it requires less time to breakdown in the reservoir; conversely, the more
concentrated liquid has a higher viscosity and requires more time to break down in the reservoir.
As shown in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11, Low residue gel with 30 lb/1,000gal (Mgal)is not stable
and breaks down in less than 10 min. whereas The low residue gel 40 lb/Mgal is more stable
and its break time delayed as fluid concentration increases. As a result, the low residue gel with
concentration of 35 lb/Mgal was selected as the optimum pad fluid in the acid fracture operation
of the case study well.
2. The compatibility test is used to check the homogeneity level of the stimulation fluid with the oil
sample, and consists of an emulsion test and a sludge test. This test was performed with three fluids
that were designed for this job, 15% HCl, 15% polymer loaded acid diverter, and The low residue
gel 30lb at test temperature of 200°F. The results indicated that a complete separation between oil
sample and designed stimulation fluids occurred without any precipitation or emulsions (Fig. 12).
3. A solubility test was performed in which the stimulation treatment reaction with various formation
samples is examined to reach the optimum fluid design. Table 1 shows the solubility percentage at
various acid concentration; a high solubility percentage and reaction is reached at 15% HCl.

Figure 10—The low residue gel 30 lb/Mgal stability/break test results showed the fluid instability during fracturing operation.
SPE-182930-MS 9

Figure 11—The low residue gel 40 lb/Mgal stabilityfBreak test results proved the stability
of the fluid viscosity during fracturing job and how it's easily break at the end of the test.

Figure 12—Complete separation and no precipitation was found between

oil sample and designed stimulation treatment during compatibility test.

Table 1—15% HCl solubility percentage falls in the same range with solubility percentage of high acid concentration.

Sample %HCl Depth (ft) Temp (°F) Solubility % Acid Reaction

Number with Acid Behavior

1 15 15,665 200 88.8 Fast

2 20 15,665 200 90.6 Fast
3 28 15,665 200 90.6 Fast
4 15 15,720 200 89.1 Fast
5 20 15,720 200 89.7 Fast
6 28 15,720 200 90.7 Fast
10 SPE-182930-MS

Based on the laboratory tests, the following fluids have been selected for the main fracture job
1. Pad stage (pre-flush): consists of a low pH cross-linked gel (low residue gel35 lb/Mgal). The pad
stage is used to create the fracture geometry before pumping the acid. It helps to create and control
the effective etched fracture length and reduces the increased fluid loss caused by the acid system.
2. Main fracture acid system: 15%HCl-based proprietary stimulation fluidis specifically designed
to maximize the effectiveness of fracture acidizing in carbonate formations.
3. Leak off control and acid diverting systems: (Polymer loaded acid diverter system consists of
15% HCl acid and additives. This system cross links as it contacts the carbonate formation. The
in-situ cross linking provides enhanced viscosity development, slows spending near the wellbore
to help control and develop and effective etched fracture length, and reduces the increased fluid
loss caused by the main acid system.
Fluid loss control stage is a solids-free, low viscosity system that is used to help controlling the
effective etched fracture length and reduces the increased fluid loss caused by the main acid system.
An application of 15% HCl fluid system acid, 15% polymer loaded acid diverter system,
low residue 35# cross-linked gel and fluid loss control staged were alternated. The alternated
stages different stages during the treatment helps improve viscous fingering and enhance fracture
conductivity. The acid is over displaced to push live acid further into the formation and therefore
allowing the most favorable outcome of the acid treatment.
4. Close fracture acidizing (CFA): The main treatment is continued by closed fracture acidizing
stage with 15% HCl based acid system. The "closed" fracture acidizing technique is designed to
allow acid to flow through existing "closed" fractures below fracturing pressure in a channeling
manner. Wide grooves or channels in the fracture face are then formed as acid is pumped at low
rates allowing dissolution of large flow channels. These grooves tend to remain open with good
flow capacities under severe closure conditions and also allow fines or emulsions to be more easily
produced. This is proven to further enhance the fracture acid etching and conductivity in the Near
Wellbore (NWB) region.
Stage B: A robust acid fracture case using pseudo-3D grid based fracture modeling and calibration
software that uses a 1D geomechanical earth model, open hole log, and reservoir characteristics is then
undertaken.
A regular grid structure is used to describe the entire reservoir, similar to a reservoir simulator. The
grid structure enables vertical and lateral variations, multiple perforated intervals, and single and bi-wing
asymmetric fractures to model the most complex reservoirs.
In the case study well, the fracture simulator was used before and after the fracture job to evaluate the
stress across the formation and fracture properties. The log shows how the Young's modulus and Poisson's
ratio across the perforation interval is low and that fractures can be created easily, based on the designed
pumping schedule. In addition, the outcome from the simulator shows the fracture geometry, including,
length, width and height. (Fig. 13) and in table format as Table 2 shows the reservoir properties used in
the simulator.
SPE-182930-MS 11

Figure 13—First estimation of fracture width and height from GHOFER simulator during the main fracture.

Table 2—Reservoir properties used in the simulator.

Reservoir Property Value

Reservoir porosity (fraction) 0.1

Reservoir pore pressure (psi) 9154.5
Water saturation (fraction) 0.4
Gas saturation (fraction) 0.6
Oil saturation (fraction) 0
Gas specific gravity 0.76
Reservoir temperature (°F) 280
Fraction CO2 (fraction) 0
Fraction N2 (fraction) 0
Fraction H2S (fraction) 0.04
OBG (psi/ft) 1.07
Oil compressibility (1/psi) 1.9295E-05
Water compressibility (1/psi) 3.129E-06
Gas compressibility (1/psi) 4.7461 E-05
Total compressibility (1/psi) 0.000039
Gas viscosity (cp) 0.037109
Oil viscosity (cp) 0.138717
Fluid viscosity (cp) 0.037108
12 SPE-182930-MS

Figure 14—Log interpretation and stress profile before the fracture job. The stress across the perforation
interval is lower than the surrounding area which enables the formation to be fractured easily.

Stage C: The fracture performance and evaluation was divided into two main jobs. The initial test was
the minifrac program; the second is the main fracture job.
SPE-182930-MS 13

The minifrac program consisted of three main tests. The initial test was the breakdown/injection test to
determine the breakdown pressure of the formation by pumping nondamaging fluid into the well at various
pumping rates. In the case study well, 56 bbl of liner gel was used at several pumping rates (5, 8, 9, and
13 bpm); breakdown was observed at the last the pumping rate of 13 pbm. The step rate test is the second
data fracture test in the data fracture; it is conceptually identical to the breakdown/injection test, but the
pumping period is fixed to calculate the fracture extension pressure. In this test, the extension pressure is
derived when the slope of the straight line begins to change in a plot of the bottomhole pressure (BHP) vs.
rate. In the case study, the liner gel was pumped at several pumping rates and at a constant pumping time
(2 min.). The fracture extension pressure was 17,455 psi at 5.7 bpm. The final test is mini fracture test or
calibration test. In this test, a small volume of the high viscosity pad fluid is injected into the formation to
calculate the fracture geometry, leakoff, and closure pressure. For this test, 206 bbl of low residue gel (35
lb/Mgal) followed by 140 bbl of liner gel displacement was injected at average pumping rate 15.47 bpm.
The simulator showed that the fracture width is 63.23 ft and the height is 30 ft. In addition, the simulator
showed a good match among stress logs both before and after the job, which indicates model accuracy.
At the end of a breakdown/injection test and a calibration test, the well is shut down to calculate the
closure pressure by several methods, including the square root plot, G-function plot, and log-log plot. All
of these plots were consistent in the calculation of the closure pressure (14,239 to 14,279 psi). The mini
fracture pump time was 48.12 minutes, with average wellhead pressure of 11,961 psi. The actual total liquid
load to pump and recover was 23,915 gal with zero gal of 15%HCl.
The main fracture test was applied after collecting key data from the data fracture tests, as shown in
Table 3. The main fracturing treatment was applied by pumping large total quantity of custom-designed
stimulation fluid train at a maximum pumping rate of 17.9 bpm; eight alternating stages were used to create
in-situ diversion and effective hydro-fracture conductivity. Each repeating stage included low residue gel to
create geometry, polymer loaded acid diverter to divert the treatment fluid, and 15%HCl-based proprietary
fluid system to etch the formation. The job was completed within five hours and 20 minutes, including the
close fracture acidizing stage (CFA) to ensure fracture acid etching and conductivity around the wellbore by
injecting HCl 15% at a low pumping rate (3 pbm). This was a key success criteria that the stimulation job size
and the time required on well site are optimally utilized so that the expensive rig resources and rig activities
were idle at minimal amount of time. A total volume of 2,894 bbl of fluids were pumped during the main
fracture, 1,530 bbl of this volume was acid-based (includes breakdown stage, polymer loaded acid diverter,
15%HCl-based proprietary blend and 495 bbl of closed fracture acidizing stages). The average treatment
rate was 13.3 bpm, and the average wellhead pressure was 12,456 psi. The grid-based simulator estimated
that the fracture width and height resulted in 117.8 ft and 50 ft, respectively. A good match between the
wellhead pressure and treating pressure was also achieved (Figure 26). Table 5 summarizes the pumping
schedule of the main fracture test, and Table 6 summarizes the main frac job parameters.
14 SPE-182930-MS

Table 3—provides a summary of the mini fracture job;

Attribute Value Unit

Start time 24-Feb-16

07:28:28
End time 24-Feb-16
15:30:55
Pump time 48.12 min
Start averaging time 24-Feb-16
10:34:34
End averaging time 24-Feb-16
15:30:51
Maximum treating pressure 13432 psi
Maximum slurry rate 18.6 bpm
Average treating pressure 11961 psi
Average clean rate 11.8 bpm
Average slurry rate 11.8 bpm
Average hydraulic 3457 hp
horsepower
Clean volume 23915 gal
Slurry volume 23915 gal
BHISIP 16768 psi
Fracture gradient 1.09 psi/ft
Closure pressure 14279 psi
Closure gradient 0.933 psi/ft
Fluid efficiency 69.40 %
Fracture extension pressure 17455 psi
Fracture extension rate 5.7 bpm

Table 4—provides details about the mini fracture designed pumping schedule.

Stage Clean Slurry Rate Stage Rate Stage Stage Time

Description Fluid System
Number Volume (gal) Volume (gal) Start (bpm) End (bpm) (min)

1 Breakdown Linear gel 10# 2,100 2,100 5.0 15.0 5.00

2 Shut-in 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00
3 Acid spearhead Straight 15% HCl 6,300 6,300 3.0 3.0 50.00
4 Load well Linear gel 10# 6,300 6,300 3.0 3.0 50.00
5 Shut-in 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00
6 Step rate test Linear gel 10# 8,400 8,400 2.0 20.0 18.18
7 Shut-in 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00
8 Fluid efficiency test Low residue gel35# 8,400 8,400 20.0 20.0 10.00
9 Flush Linear gel 10# 6,300 6,300 20.0 20.0 7.50
10 Shut-in 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00
SPE-182930-MS 15

Figure 15—Breakdown/injection test during the data fracture test; the formation breakdown
was observed at 13 bpm. ISIP = 9,880 psi, BHISIP = 16,712 psi, fracture gradient = 1.09 psi/ft.

Figure 16—Step rate test plot (pressure, time, and rate) during the data fracture test.

Figure 17—Step rate test (BHP vs. Rate) to calculate the extension rate and pressure.
16 SPE-182930-MS

Figure 18—Mini fracture test or calibration test is the final test in

the data fracture. BHISIP = 16,768 psi, fracture gradient = 1.09 psi/ft.

Figure 19—Square root plot, G-function plot, and log-log plot of the breakdown stages
SPE-182930-MS 17

Figure 20—Square root plot, G-function plot, and log-log plot of the
calibration test during shut in period in which Pc = 14,279 psi (0.933 psi/ft).

Figure 21—Mini fracture width and height, indicating potential of hydrofrac geometry constrained within dolomite!
18 SPE-182930-MS

Figure 22—Post-mini fracture calibrated stress log. Injection test

during the shut-in period in which Pc = 14,239 psi (0.93 psi/ft).
SPE-182930-MS 19

Table 5—Pumping schedule of the main fracture test. Alternated two pumping packages in to eight stages. First package (low
residue gel +polymer loaded acid diverter), Second package (low residue gel + 15%HCl +Fluid loss control). Low residue gel /
polymer loaded acid diverter_15% HCl package was designed to improve viscosity fingering and enhance fracture conductivity.

Stage Description Fluid System Clean Slurry Rate Stage Rate Stage Stage Time
Number Volume (gal) Volume (gal) Start (bpm) End (bpm) (min)

1 Pad Low residue gel35# 8,400 8,400 17.0 17.0 11.76

2 Acid polymer loaded acid diverter15% 2,940 2,940 17.0 17.0 4.12
3 Pad Low residue gel35# 2,940 2,940 17.0 17.0 4.12
4 Acid HCL15% 7,350 7,350 17.0 17.0 10.29
5 Treatment Fluid loss control 2,100 2,100 17.0 17.0 2.94
6 Pad Low residue gel35# 2,940 2,940 17.0 17.0 4.12
7 Acid polymer loaded acid diverter15% 2,940 2,940 17.0 17.0 4.12
8 Pad Low residue gel35# 2,940 2,940 17.0 17.0 4.12
9 Acid HCL15% 7,350 7,350 17.0 17.0 10.29
10 Treatment Fluid loss control 2,100 2,100 17.0 17.0 2.94
11 Pad Low residue gel35# 2,940 2,940 17.0 17.0 4.12
12 Acid polymer loaded acid diverter15% 2,940 2,940 17.0 17.0 4.12
13 Pad Low residue gel35# 2,940 2,940 17.0 17.0 4.12
14 Acid HCL15% 7,350 7,350 17.0 17.0 10.29
15 Treatment Fluid loss control 2,100 2,100 17.0 17.0 2.94
16 Pad Low residue gel35# 2,940 2,940 17.0 17.0 4.12
17 Acid polymer loaded acid diverter15% 2,940 2,940 17.0 17.0 4.12
18 Pad Low residue gel35# 2,940 2,940 17.0 17.0 4.12
19 Acid HCL15% 7,350 7,350 17.0 17.0 10.29
20 Displacement Linear gel 10# 8,400 8,400 17.0 17.0 11.76
21 Shut-In 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00
22 Acid CFA 16,800 16,800 3.0 3.0 133.33
23 Displacement DIESEL 8,000 8,000 3.0 3.0 63.49
24 Shut-In 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00

Table 6—Main fracture job summary.

Attribute Value Unit

Start time 26-Feb-16 O9:37:O9 ucts

End time 26-Feb-16 2O:O2:12 ucts
Pump time 347.25 min
Start averaging time 26-Feb-16 1O:12:36 ucts
End averaging time 26-Feb-16 2O:O2:12 ucts
Maximum treating pressure 13,521 psi
Maximum slurry rate 17.9 bpm
Average treating pressure 12,456 psi
Averageclean rate 13.3 bpm
Averageslurry rate 13.3 bpm
Averagehydraulic horsepower 4O39 hp
Clean volume 12,1552 gal
Slurry volume 12,1552 gal
20 SPE-182930-MS

The fracture was flowed back to clean. When the pH level of the flow back increased to five, the load
recovery was diverted through a separator. The well was then flowed for three days at different choke settings
to allow for clean up and load recovery (flowed through 16/64″, 24/64″, 32/64″, and 42/64″). The choke
setting was gradually and slowly increased to 42/64" choke size to make sure the conductivity generated
with the acid frac was maintained (no damage to hydrofrac) while the frac load was recovered. The load
recovery is summarized in figure 27. The flow back had to be cut short as the time allotted by the drilling
resources didn't allow further flow back and the test was suspended until the permanent facilities were
completed and "in-line" test can be performed as long as needed. However, a pressure build up test (PBU)
using surface memory gauges was possible. At the end of the clean-up period, the recovery percentage was
51%, and the goal to establish oil and gas to surface was achieved, and the producibility from this otherwise
very tight reservoir segment was proven.

Figure 23—Main fracture treatment was pumped for three hours at 17.9
bpm maximum pumping rate and 13,521 psi maximum treating pressure.

Figure 24—Main fracture job

SPE-182930-MS 21

Table 7—Well production performance.

Attribute Value Unit

Choke size 42/64 inch

Oil rate 187 bpd
Gas rate 0.904 MMscfpd
Water rate 580 bpd
Water cut 75 %
Salinity 180,000 ppm
CO2/H2S 5 / 1.8 %

Figure 25—Main fracture geometry estimation indicates the near wellbore area where the fluid
mobility was not established prior to frac treatment is successfully bypassed with the creating of
fracture half-length greater than 100 ft and hydro frac height contained within the main dolomite body.
22 SPE-182930-MS

Figure 26—Pressure estimation vs. actual wellhead treating pressure for the main fracture job.

Figure 27—Post-acid fracture cleanup period from the fracture treatment and testing of the case study well.

Stage D: The final stage of the program is the evaluation of the PBU and acid fracture job and to establish
backup plans for the case study well.
The PBU test was applied for 24 hours, then the rig was released, leaving the well suspended with
diesel. The surface gauges were used; consequently, the fracture pressure was converted to the bottomhole
condition by using an approximate average gradient (the analyses of flow back and PBU were performed by
the reservoir engineering department!). The log-log pressure derivative shows parallel lines attributable to
the intersection of infinite conductivity fracture. In addition, the decline curve and pressure transient analysis
SPE-182930-MS 23

estimated conductivity at approximately 4 md-ft with a negative skin value of −4 to −6.8; the negative
skin value indicates that the well was successfully fractured. The computed fracture half-length was 550
ft, which indicates that the bitumen layer content was bypassed (potentially) by fractures. In addition, the
rate drop was compatible with the transient effect not due to a depletion effect. Finally, no apparent radial
flow observed, and the analysis confirmed that the well was not completely cleaned at the end of flow back;
consequently, long term productivity needs to be evaluated in a flow test designed long enough and with a
robust data collection methodology (i.e. downhole gauges and monitoring).
At the end of the operation, produced water samples were collected for geochemical analysis to clarify
whether the water mixture is the formation water, spent acid, or other water-based fluids from the acid
fracture job. If the geochemical analysis confirmed that the formation water is causing the high water cut,
then the fractures created during the acid fracture job may have mobilized the in-situ water in this zone The
current average water saturation is approximately 30 % and is accepted mostly as immobile, based on the
production results from an offset well. If the analysis shows that the water mixture contains spent acid and
gelled brine, then the well will require more cleaning time to establish reservoir fluid recovery. Very large
amount of fluids were pumped during the job (3,319 bbl), and the well could not completely clean because
of the rig time limitations. If the water cut remains an issue, then the well will be flowed with a lower choke
size to reduce the water cut. In addition, additional zones of interests exist above the fracced interval, which
will help with the improved inflow performance as more hydrocarbons are established into the wellbore
and the cumulative production from the well increases.

Figure 28—Log-log pressure derivative.

Figure 29—Extrapolated initial pressure is 11,300 psi.

24 SPE-182930-MS

Figure 30—Type curve match results.

Figure 31—Flowback samples with a clear-cut separation between various

fluid phases. The well is not completely cleaned at the end of flow back.

As a part of the future plans, the well will be tied in and flowing in-line; it will be crucial to flow it back
such that the oil flows to the separator and the water flows to the pit for cleaning. After cleaning the well,
a multi-choke test must be performed at various choke sizes (16/64 in., 24/64 in., and 32/64 in.), and the
nodal analysis should be calibrated after the long term test. In addition, the fluid types and phase envelopes
should be confirmed because the well is located at the border between the two reservoir fluid types (gas
condensate and volatile oil). After the well comes on stream and production is stabilized, a bottomhole
sample is required for calibration with PVT analysis.

Conclusions and Recommendations

In general, the job described in this case was considered as one of the best acid fracturing treatments in
terms of preparation, execution excellence, frac performance and coordination between different teams
and organizations because of the high level of communication and professionalism between the operator
and the service company. The complex and simultaneous operation was completed with no HSE incidents,
the treatments as well as the flow back testing were executed as planned, and on time. An ideal acid
fracture workflow sequence was performed with full suite of time-consuming but critical diagnostic and
high pressure testing prior to the main acid fracturing. In the pre-job stage, core/fluid lab tests and nodal
analysis were applied to ensure fluid compatibility/stability and to evaluate well potential. During the job,
SPE-182930-MS 25

all of the data fracture tests were successfully performed and the results were used to re-design the main
fracture job. The flow back provided extremely critical understanding and insight into this challenging
reservoir section which will help develop the similar zones of interest with effectiveness in the future.

• The deep, over pressured reservoir and a complex tectonic setting/high stress environment in North
Kuwait creates a significant production challenge. In some cases, the tight carbonate formation and
complex reservoir heterogeneity requires hydraulic fracturing to create hydrocarbon mobilization.
• The case study well was identified as a candidate for the acid fracture technique to create
conductivity to enable reservoir fluid mobility, based on the 1D geomechanical earth model,
petrophysics analysis, and nearby production performance. A workflow was followed to provide
the optimum design, which includes rock/fluid lab tests, pseudo-3D grid based fracture modeling,
and calibration software, and a flowback testing program within the time and resource constraints.
• Fluid mobility was established by developing a robust and operationally pragmatic testing program.
The data fracture tests indicated a close data match, and the main fracture was successfully applied
to enable production from an unconventional carbonate flow unit. A better understanding of the
hydro-fracture geometry in low mobility segments in the reservoir was achieved during this acid
fracture job.
• The high expense of a deep drilling rig and short flowing time limited the well in terms of
a complete cleanup from the stimulation treatment. A high water cut was observed during the
flowtest, however, the source of water was not determined conclusively. Consequently, the well
will be flowed back in a long term flow test to eliminate spent acids and the frac load. In addition,
a geochemical water analysis will be undertaken to determine the nature and the source of water.
• The application of a rigless multi-choke test at various choke sizes and the calibration of the nodal
analysis will be carried out. A downhole sampling program, once the well is completely clean, will
enable the calibration of the PVT parameters and will clarify the nature of fluids in the reservoir,
whether gas condensate or volatile oil.
• This application has encouraged the field development team to look at similar zones in other parts
of the basin, and whether the hydrocarbon mobility can be established in a number of new and older
wells which will contribute to the overall production program from the deep Jurassic gas reservoirs.

References
Kanneganti, K., Mahesh, A.L., Barasia, A., Cabrera Salavarria, J.R. et al 2015. Prospective Study and Multidisciplinary
Optimization Workflow to Address Production Challenges in Ultralow Permeability, Tectonically Active, HPHT
Dolomite Formation in Northern Kuwait. Presented at Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference,
Abu Dhabi, UAE, 9-12 November. SPE-177854-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/177854-MS.
Shaoul, Josef R., Pinnacle Technologies Delft; de Pater, C.J. (Hans), Delft University of Technology; Roodhart, Leo
P., Meijers, Hans C., Shell International Exploration and Production-Research and Technical Services, SPE 39947,
What Causes Bumps in Minifrac Pressure Declines? SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low-Permeability Reservoirs
Symposium, 5-8 April 1998, Denver, Colorado
S.E. Fredrickson (Halliburton Services) DOI, SPE-14654, East Texas Regional Meeting, 21-22 April, Tyler, Texas