Hydraulic Fracturing

CT-105 STAGE 1

JOB REPORT & SCREEN OUT ANALYSIS

for

Vietsovpetro JV

1
CONTENT
1. Operation Summary
1.1 Wellbore Configuration
1.2 Job design - Execution & Incident

2. Investigation

2.1 Equipment
2.2 Chemicals & fluid recipe
2.3 Proppant size
2.4 Root cause analysis of screen out

3. Conclusion

2
1. Operation Summary

1.1 Wellbore Configuration

During well preparation prior to running the Frac string for the Frac job No.1, there were several attempts to
squeeze cement into upper perforated zones without success to seal off the upper zones completely. So,
for the job design and excecution, no annluslus pressure applied above the Frac packer between frac string
and casing / liner. The 7” packer was successfully set as per procedure however, only a 4,000psi bullhead
test was performed to check packer integrity. Refer to the screenshot for the actual configuration of packer
depth.

1.2 Job design - Execution & Incident

The Break down test was performed on the morning of Jun 7th as per schedule

3
 Stage No Fluid Clean Dirty Dirty Clean Stage Stage Total Proppant Proppant Stage Total
Type Volume Rate Volume Rate Clean Vol Dirty Vol Dirty Conc Total Time Time
m3 m3 m3 mpm m3 m3 Vol, m3 ppa kg hh:mm:ss hh:mm:ss

1 Slick water 21.2 2.86 21.2 2.86 21.2 21.2 21.2 0 0 0:07:25 0:07:25
2 Shut down for 2-3 hours
Total Fluid Volume 21.2 m3
133.3 bbls
5600.6 gal

The Mini frac was performed thereafter as per schedule

Proppant Type 12/18 ISP Rosprop Abs Vol 0.00033898 m3/kg SG= 2.950 Total 12/18 ISP Rosprop 944 kg 2080 lb

20/40 HSP Wanli Abs Vol 0.00031348 m3/kg SG= 3.19 Total 20/40 HSP Wanli 944 kg 2080 lb
Stage No Fluid Clean Clean Dirty Dirty Clean Stage Stage Total Proppant Proppant Proppant Proppant Stage Total
Type Volume Total Rate Volume Rate Clean Vol Dirty Vol Dirty Type Conc Stage Total Time Time
m3 bbl mpm m3 mpm m3 m3 Vol, m3 ppa kg kg hh:mm:ss hh:mm:ss

1 LF-2500 6.86 43.1 2.86 6.86 2.86 6.9 6.9 6.9 none 0 0 0 0:02:24 0:02:24
2 LF-2500 7.16 45.0 2.86 7.48 2.74 7.2 7.5 14.3 12/18 ISP Rosprop 1 944 944 0:02:37 0:05:01
3 LF-2500 6.11 38.4 2.86 6.11 2.86 6.1 6.1 20.5 none 0 0 944 0:02:08 0:07:09
Flush Linear 25# 18.51 116.4 2.86 18.51 2.86 18.5 18.5 39.0 none 0 0 944 0:06:28 0:13:37
Shut down

After Break down test & mini frac done, the main frac was re-designed. Refer to actual pumping schedule
and additives:

Stage No Fluid Clean Clean Dirty Dirty Clean Stage Stage Total Proppant Proppant Proppant Proppant Stage Total
Type Volume Total Rate Volume Rate Clean Vol Dirty Vol Dirty Type Conc Stage Total Time Time
gals bbls bpm gals bpm bbls bbls Vol, bbls ppa lbs lbs hh:mm:ss hh:mm:ss

1 LF-2500 2,302 55 18 2,302 18.00 54.8 54.8 54.8 none 0 0 0 0:03:03 0:03:03

2 LF-2500 840 75 18 878 17.23 20.0 20.9 75.7 12/18 ISP Rosprop 1 924 924 0:01:10 0:04:12

3 LF-2500 563 88 18 615 16.46 13.4 14.7 90.4 12/18 ISP Rosprop 2 1,294 2,218 0:00:49 0:05:01

4 LF-2500 664 104 18 773 15.46 15.8 18.4 108.8 12/18 ISP Rosprop 4 2,688 4,906 0:01:01 0:06:03

5 LF-2500 819 124 18 1,019 14.47 19.5 24.3 133.1 12/18 ISP Rosprop 6 4,922 9,828 0:01:21 0:07:24

6 LF-2500 1,071 149 18 1,419 13.58 25.5 33.8 166.9 12/18 ISP Rosprop 8 8,568 18,396 0:01:53 0:09:16

7 LF-2500 1,621 188 18 2,280 12.80 38.6 54.3 221.2 12/18 ISP Rosprop 10 16,212 34,608 0:03:01 0:12:17

8 LF-2500 1,974 235 18 2,937 12.10 47.0 69.9 291.1 12/18 ISP Rosprop 12 23,688 58,296 0:03:53 0:16:10

9 Flush Linear 25# 328 242 18 328 18.00 7.8 7.8 298.9 none 0 0 58,296 0:00:26 0:16:36

4
 HYDRATION UNIT
Stage Fluid Clean Clean XLFC-5C Claytreat 3C ClayMaster 10 NE-118 S-250
No Type Volume Total Rate Rate Stage Cum Rate Rate Stage Cum Rate Rate Stage Cum Rate Rate Stage Cum Rate Rate Stage Cum
m3 m3 gptg gpm gals gals gptg gpm gals gals gptg gpm gals gals gpt gpm gals gals gptg gpm gals gals

1 LF-2500 8.7 8.7 6.25 4.72 14.4 14.4 1.0 0.76 2.3 2.3 1.0 0.76 2.3 2.3 2.0 1.51 4.6 4.6 2.0 1.51 4.6 4.6
2 LF-2500 3.2 11.9 6.25 4.54 5.2 19.6 1.0 0.73 0.8 3.1 1.0 0.73 0.8 3.1 2.0 1.45 1.7 6.3 2.0 1.45 1.7 6.3
3 LF-2500 2.1 14.0 6.25 4.37 3.5 23.1 1.0 0.70 0.6 3.7 1.0 0.70 0.6 3.7 2.0 1.40 1.1 7.4 2.0 1.40 1.1 7.4
4 LF-2500 2.5 16.5 6.25 4.06 4.1 27.3 1.0 0.65 0.7 4.4 1.0 0.65 0.7 4.4 2.0 1.30 1.3 8.7 2.0 1.30 1.3 8.7
5 LF-2500 3.1 19.6 6.25 3.80 5.1 32.4 1.0 0.61 0.8 5.2 1.0 0.61 0.8 5.2 2.0 1.21 1.6 10.4 2.0 1.21 1.6 10.4
6 LF-2500 4.0 23.7 6.25 3.56 6.7 39.0 1.0 0.57 1.1 6.2 1.0 0.57 1.1 6.2 2.0 1.14 2.1 12.5 2.0 1.14 2.1 12.5
7 LF-2500 6.1 29.8 6.25 3.36 10.1 49.2 1.0 0.54 1.6 7.9 1.0 0.54 1.6 7.9 2.0 1.07 3.2 15.7 2.0 1.07 3.2 15.7
8 LF-2500 7.5 37.2 6.25 3.17 12.3 61.5 1.0 0.51 2.0 9.8 1.0 0.51 2.0 9.8 2.0 1.02 3.9 19.7 2.0 1.02 3.9 19.7
9 Flush Linear 30# 1.2 38.5 3.00 2.27 1.0 62.5 1.0 0.76 0.3 10.2 1.0 0.76 0.3 10.2 2.0 1.51 0.7 20.3 2.0 1.51 0.7 20.3

BLENDER
Stage Fluid Clean Clean GBW-5 XLW-30SR High Perm CRB GBW-12CD (1:99) BF-7L
No Type Volume Total Rate Rate Stage Cum Rate Rate Stage Cum Rate Rate Stage Cum Rate Rate Stage Cum Rate Rate Stage Cum
m3 m3 pptg ppm lbs lbs gpt gpm gals gals pptg ppm lbs lbs gpt ppm gal gal gpt ppm gal gal

1 LF-2500 8.7 8.7 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.27 6.9 6.9 3.0 2.27 6.9 6.9 3.0 2.27 6.9 6.9 3.0 2.27 6.9 6.9
2 LF-2500 3.2 11.9 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.18 2.5 9.4 3.0 2.18 2.5 9.4 3.0 2.18 2.5 9.4 3.0 2.18 2.5 9.4
3 LF-2500 2.1 14.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.10 1.7 11.1 3.0 2.10 1.7 11.1 3.0 2.10 1.7 11.1 3.0 2.10 1.7 11.1
4 LF-2500 2.5 16.5 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.95 2.0 13.1 3.0 1.95 2.0 13.1 3.0 1.95 2.0 13.1 3.0 1.95 2.0 13.1
5 LF-2500 3.1 19.6 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.82 2.5 15.5 3.0 1.82 2.5 15.5 3.0 1.82 2.5 15.5 3.0 1.82 2.5 15.5
6 LF-2500 4.0 23.7 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.71 3.2 18.7 3.0 1.71 3.2 18.7 3.0 1.71 3.2 18.7 3.0 1.71 3.2 18.7
7 LF-2500 6.1 29.8 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.61 4.9 23.6 3.0 1.61 4.9 23.6 3.0 1.61 4.9 23.6 3.0 1.61 4.9 23.6
8 LF-2500 7.5 37.2 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.52 5.9 29.5 3.0 1.52 5.9 29.5 3.0 1.52 5.9 29.5 3.0 1.52 5.9 29.5
9 Flush Linear 30# 1.2 38.5 10.0 7.56 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.00 0.0 29.5 0.0 0.00 0.0 29.5 0.0 0.00 0.0 29.5 0.0 0.00 0.0 29.5

The main treatment was conducted on the afternoon of Jun 7, 2021, totally of 26.4 tons of 12/18 ISP
Rosprop RCP Proppant was pumped but only 11.35 tons went to formation due to early screen out from
downhole. Data records showed the 10ppa Proppant stage was in formation while the 12 ppa Proppant
stage was still in the frac string. Only 1.2m3 of flush stage was pumped. Refer to estimated calculation
below for more details:

Proppant went to the formation: 25024 lb. (11.35 tons)

Total amount of proppant pumped: 58294 lb. (26.4 tons)
Proppant from blender to frac head: 4982 lb. (2.25 tons), flushed out to the sea
Proppant from Frac head to perforation or in frac string: 28288 lb (12.8 tons)
Estimated Proppant in 3.5” tubing when settling down: 1830m MD

Refer to pumping chart for more details:

5
Coiled Tubing was sent out thereafter, Proppant clean out process was performed successuffly by using
concentrated gel XLFC-5C and with Nitrogen. Frac packer was unset but could not be POOH after many
attempts. Decision was made to pack off the Frac string above the packer. Well was cleaned up and frac
packer was recovered with fishing tools.

2. Investigation
2.1 Equipment

From the pumping chart above, from the start until complete pumping all proppant stages, all 5 frac pumps
were operating normally at a stable pumping pressure below 4,000 psi as per designed. Suddenly, the
pressure increased sharply to 9,900 psi during the flush stage. It showed that there were no issues with the
frac pumps or other equipment such as the blender and the hydration unit during main job operation. All 5
frac pumps have just been shut down when surface pressure reached to 9,900 psi, as per agreed design,
all PRV(s) have been setting at 9,900 psi for all 10k psi frac string and/or for Miocene wells.

2.2 Chemicals & fluid recipe

Fluid recipe of Lightning 25#: 0.1 gpt X-Cide 575 + 6.25 gpt XLFC-5C + 1 gpt Claytreat 3C + 1 gpt
Claymaster-10 + 2 gpt NE-118 + 2 gpt S-250 + 3 gpt XLW-30SR + 3 ppt HighPerm CRB + 3 gpt GBW-
12CD (1:99) + 3 gpt BF-7L (gpt: gallon per thousand gallons of fluid, ppt: pound per thousand gallons of
fluid). Refer to “Lab test report for CT-105 with VSP witness 2021” that has been sent to VSP previously
before campaign for more details.
As screenshot below, the Lightning 25# frac fluid is stable at 60 deg.C (assume 80% of BHST) within +/- 45
minutes as tested in Lab.

6
Reference document of Rheology of Crosslinked fluids:

The purpose of the Rheology of Crosslinked fluids document is to describe how to determine the rheological
properties of crosslinked fluids, using a pressurized concentric-cylinder viscometer. The pressurization
allows the viscometer to test a sample at temperatures above its boiling point. Rheology is the study of the
deformation and flow of matter. It describes the relationship between flow rate, shear rate, and the pressure
(shear stress), needed to move a given fluid. Shear rate is defined as the difference between the velocities
of two fluid particles, divided by the distance between them, while shear stress is the frictional force created
by two particles rubbing against each other. In the oil field, viscosity and fluid rheologies are used to relate
the properties of a fluid so that the fluid’s behavior in tubulars and in the formation can be predicted. To
measure the properties or rheology of a fluid, the viscosity of that fluid is measured under different shear
conditions. The viscosity of a fluid impacts the calculation of fluid loss, fracture width, fracture area, and fluid
friction pressure. Determine the test parameters (e.g., fluid to test, temperature, interim shear rate, shear
ramp schedule, and test duration). Unless otherwise specified, all tests will follow the API RP 13M
recommended schedule.

There are 03 main components of chemicals that help frac fluid to be cross-linked properly: They are
concentrated gel called XLFC-5C, the cross-linker XLW-30SR and the buffer BF-7L.

Refer to the actual job charts, loading rate of chemicals were controlled and monitored closely. XLW-30SR
was stable at 3 gpt concentration. BF-7L was stable at 3 gpt concentration. XLFC-5C was from 6.25 – 7 gpt,
the more XLFC-5C loading the stronger cross-linked gel.

Additionally, the Lightning 25# frac fluid has been using for Miocene wells since 2018 without any issues in
term of gel stability within 1 minute cross-linked and working well at +/- 70 deg.C temperature range
according to Lab test results.

7
Having reviewed all actual job pressure and pumping rate data, there were no issues with chemicals or frac
fluid formulation.

2.3 Proppant size

Refer to table below for reference when comparision between 12/18 vs 16/30 mesh of Proppant. Take note
that the 16/30 Proppant has been pumping successfully in many Miocene wells up to 9-10 ppa loading.

Description 12/18 Mesh 16/30 Mesh Comment

Name Rosprop RCP Rosprop RCP Same

S.G 2.95 2.93 Same

12/18 is 50% larger than 16/30

Particle size range (µm) 1000 - 1700 600 - 1180
in diameter

In addition, some studies on the diameter of perforations to prevent from proppant bridging showed 6 times
of Proppant diameter may not be enough and more than 12 times might be needed. This mean that, or 0.8”
of diameter perforation should be considered.

2.4 Root cause analysis of screen out.

There were some possibilities that lead to early screen out:

8
1, Possibility of annulus channeling and lost frac energy: with the evidence as described below
• There were many attempts to squeeze cement into the upper zones without complete sealling off
the zone. Obviously, Cement bond across the annulus was is in question.
• During flush stage, at the time of screen out, there was indication of annulus pressure increase to
+/- 2,000 psi (Refer to pumping chart of section 2.3). It was clear possibility of annulus
communication.
• Frac packer was unset but could not POOH. Indication of proppant / cement junk / fine
communicated up the liner annulus the dropped down on top of the frac packer.
• After cutting Frac string, during clean up, observed lot of cement junks / fine as well as RCP
proppant returned to surface. This explained why Frac packer could not POOH with Frac string
after unset.

2, Possibility of big size of 12/18 mesh Proppant leading to possibility of bridging at near well bore.

3, Possibility of high loading of Proppant 10-12 ppa

3. Conclusion

Refer to item 2.1 & 2.2 above, it was obviously that there were no issues of Frac equipment nor frac fluid as
well as chemicals properties.

Also, refer to investigation and root causes descried above, both Company and Contractor could agree that
the main cause of problem was the conditions of the well (annulus issues) and/or big size of Proppant of the
first time usage. The 12/18 Proppant was provided by Company, which is not specified in the contract. The
technical specified in the contract are only for sizes 16/30 & 20/40, and not for 12/18 mesh size.

Refer to Article 24 “Hand over and acceptance procedure” of main contract. Both parties agree to sign the
report with the main cause in the conclusion above.

Enclose: Russian treatment report that was signed by Vietsovpetro’s representative at well site.

Wellsite Russian
report CT105- STAGE 1.pdf