Fracturing Treatment Post Job Report

Minas 2A-54N Telisa Sand

February 20th, 2009

* Mark of Schlumberger

Mr. Khairil Ryan Rahman

Petroleum Engineer
KOPET Team
February 20th, 2009

Dear Mr. Ryan,

Please find attached the post job report for the fracturing treatment on Telisa Sand of Minas 2A-54N vertical
producer well. This report consists of the analysis results of Injectivity test, Step rate test, calibration test, as
well as main fracture treatment. Relevant analysis plots are also provided for convenience.
The fracturing treatment for Telisa Sand was excecuted using 30-lb gel system of Borate crosslinked refined
guar polymer (YF130) and 12/20 Frac Sand. The treatment design utilized 8,000 gal of PAD fluid, 90,100 lbs of
proppant, and 554 bbls of clean fluid. The proppant concentration was ramped up from 2 PPA to 10 PPA, in a
period of approximately 32 minutes, at a pumping rate of 20 bpm. The treatment was flushed with 20 bbl of
linear gel after 100,959 lbs of proppant be pumped. Approximately 99,849 lbs of 12/20 Frac Sand were placed in
formation.
Surface pressure was used to calculate BHP. Pressure matching was done on the mainfrac treatment
and give a frac half length of 137.9 ft, average frac width of 0.253 inch, fracture conductivity of 19,375
mD-ft, Fcd of 65.8 and net pressure of 901 psi.
Schlumberger would like to thank you for the opportunity to design and execute the fracturing treatment on
Telisa Sand of Minas 2A-54N well. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any inquiry regarding the
content of this report or if you need to discuss any future job design.

Sincerely,

Indra Gunawan Stimulation

Engineer Schlumberger
igunawan@duri.oilfield.slb.com

* Mark of Schlumberger

Table of Content

I. Treatment Summary
II. Injectivity Test Treatment
III. Step Rate Test Treatment
IV. Calibration Test Treatment
V. Main Fracture Treatment
VI. FracCADE* Main Fracture Treatment 3-D Simulation Report
VII. Appendice

* Mark of Schlumberger

I. Treatment Summary

* Mark of Schlumberger

Table 1. Fracture Treatment Summary

Minas 2A-54N
Telisa Sand Post Job
100,959
99,849
1,530
20.0
N/A
9,800
2
10
No
711
1,437
0.602
1.9E-03
46.9
2378 2398
4
136
0.197
204
549
0.7
9,691

Amount of Proppant Pumped (lb)

Amount of Proppant in Formation (lb)
Final Surface Treating Pressure (psi)
Average Pumping Rate (bpm)
Design PAD Stage Volume (gal)
Actual PAD Stage Volume (gal)
Minimum Proppant Concentration (PPA)
Maximum Proppant Concentration (PPA)
Screenout?
Slurry Volume Pumped without flush (bbl)
BH Closure Pressure Injectivity analysis (psi) (I)
Fracture Gradient Injectivity analysis (psi/ft) (I)
0.5
Leakoff Coefficient Treatment Pressure Matching (ft/min )
Fluid Efficiency Treatment Pressure Matching (%)
Perforation Interval in MD (ft)
Perforation Density (SPF)
Fracture half length (ft)
Fracture width (inch)
Fracture height (ft) - TVD
Net pressure (psi)
Fcd
Fracture conductivity (md.ft)

Minas 2A-54N (Telisa Sand) Main Fracture Treatment Plot

3000
Treating_Pressure

24

BHP_Calculated
Slurry_Rate
22

Proppant_Conc
2500

20

Pressure (psi)

16

14

1500
12

10

1000

500

0
37

42

47

52

57

62

67

72

77

Treatment Time (min)

Fig. 1 Main Fracture Treatment Plot

* Mark of Schlumberger

82

87

92

97

Slurry Rate (bpm), Prop Conc (ppa)

18
2000

II. Injectivity Test Treatment

The Injectivity Test performed using 61.4 bbl of 2% KCL fluid at an injection rate of 20 bpm. The final surface treating
pressure during the pumping was 2,564 psi. The pumping and decline data was recorded and analyzed for closure
pressure.
The Injectivity Test Pressure vs. Sqrt Shut in Fallof Plot was used to evaluate closure pressure. From the Injectivity Test,
closure pressure is 1,437 psi (FG = 0.602 psi/ft).
The complete results of Injectivity Test analysis are provided in the following Table 2. In addition, Injectivity Plots section
below includes all relevant plots utilized in the analysis.

Table 2. Results of Injectivity Test Analysis

Parameter
Volume of Injected Fluid (bbl)
Average Pumping Rate (bpm)
Final BHP (psi)
Final Surface Pressure (psi)
Bottomhole ISIP (psi)
Surface ISIP (psi)
Bottomhole Closure Pressure (psi) FracCADE
Closure Time (min^0.5)
Estimated Fracture Gradient (psi/ft) - FracCADE
Fluid Efficiency 2D Analysis (%)
Fluid Efficiency Pressure Match (%)
Pnwb (psi)

2% KCl
61.4
20
2,359
2,564
1,827
761
1,437
2.18
0.602
41.0
5.3
532

Minas 2A-54N (Telisa Sand) Injectivity Test Plot

Treating_Pressure [psi]
BHP_Calculated [psi]

Pressure (psi)

Slurry_Rate [bbl/min]
4000

24

3500

21

3000

18

2500

15

2000

12

1500

1000

500

0
130

0
135

140

145

150

155

160

165

170

175

Treatment Time (min)

Fig. 2 Injectivity Test Plot

* Mark of Schlumberger

180

185

190

195

200

Fig. 3 Square Root Shutin Falloff Plot: Closure Pressure Determination

III. Step Rate Test Treatment

Step Rate Test treatment performed using 99.3 bbls of 2% KCl water. The pumping rates were 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 18, 20, 16,
12, 7.5, 6 bpm. Each rate was hold by approximately 1 minute.
The Pressure vs. Rate plot was used to determine extension pressure and rate. It was observed that the fracture extension
rate was 5.7 BPM at a pressure of 3,065 psi. We were also able to determine the maximum near wellbore pressure (764
psi), tortuosity (39 psi), and perforation pressure (725 psi).

Table 3. Results of Step Rate Test Analysis

Parameter
Volume of Injected Fluid (bbl)
Pumping Rates (bpm)
Extension Rate (BPM)
Extension Pressure (psi)
Closure Pressure (psi)
Near Wellbore Pressure (psi)
Total Holes Open

* Mark of Schlumberger

2% KCl
126.9

2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 18, 20, 16, 12, 8, 6

4.9
2,173
2,089
489.6
14

Minas 2A-54N (Telisa sand) Step Up & Step Down Test Plot

Treating_Pressure [psi]
BHP_Calculated [psi]

Pressure (psi)

Slurry_Rate [bbl/min]

4000

24

3500

21

3000

18

2500

15

2000

12

1500

1000

500

0
2

10

12

14

16

Treatment Time (min)

Fig. 4 Step Rate Test Treatment Plot

Fig. 5 Step Up Analysis Plot

* Mark of Schlumberger

18

20

22

24

IV. Calibration Test Treatment

The Calibration Test using 89.8 bbl of YF140HTD at an injection rate of 20.0 bpm. The final surface pressure was 1,616 psi.
The pumping and decline data was recorded and analyzed for closure pressure.
The Calibration* Test Pressure Vs. G-Function Plot was used to evaluate closure pressure. From the Calibration Test,
closure pressure of 1,477 psi (FG = 0.619 psi/ft) was obtained.
The complete results of Injectivity Test analysis are provided in the following Table 4. In addition, Calibration* Test Plots
section below includes all relevant plots utilized in the analysis.

Table 4. Results of DataFRAC* Calibration Test Analysis

Parameter

Value

Volume of Injected Fluid (bbl)

Average Pumping Rate (bpm)
BHP Final (psi)
Bottomhole ISIP (psi)
Bottomhole Closure Pressure (psi)
Closure Time (min^0.5)
Estimated Fracture Gradient (psi/ft)
Fluid Efficiency 2D Analysis (%) (BHP Calculated)
0.5
Leakoff Coefficient Pressure Matching (ft/min )
Spurt loss (gal/100ft2)
Fluid Efficiency Pressure Matching (%)

89.8
20.0
2,334
1,901
1,477
3.48
0.619
57
3.4E-03
1.0
40.6

* Mark of Schlumberger

Treating_Pressure

Minas 2A-54N (Telisa Sand) Caliberation/Injection Test Treatment Plot

BHP_Calculated
[psi]
Slurry_Rate

Pressure (psi)

4000

25

3600

22.5

3200

20

2800

17.5

2400

15

2000

12.5

1600

10

1200

7.5

800

400

2.5

0
3

13

18

23

28

33

38

43

48

53

58

63

68

Treatment Time (min)

Fig. 7. DataFRAC Calibration Test Plot

Fig. 8. Square Root Shut In Falloff Plot

* Mark of Schlumberger

73

78

83

88

93

98

V. Fracture Treatment Summary

Based on DataFRAC* Calibration test analysis results, the following changes were made to the preliminary pumping
schedule:
PAD volume was increased to 9,800 gals to accommodate PAD percent of 35%
Design proppant was extended to 100,000 lbs
On February 19, 2009 the main fracture treatment was executed with a proppant ramping schedule of 2 PPA to 10 PPA at a
pumping rate of 20.0 bpm. The treatment commenced with an actual PAD volume of 9,800 gals, and followed by 2 PPA
proppant stage as per schedule. Total 99,849 lbs of proppant were placed in to formation out of 100,959 lbs had been
pumped.
The following FracCADE* Simulation Report section provides the FracCADE* simulation report of the actual job pumped
whereas the Pressure Matching Plot section includes the actual job Pressure Matching Plot, the Fracture Conductivity
Plot and the After Closure Fracture Profile Plot. For further information on the fracture treatment, please review the
Fracture Treatment Plot in the Treatment Overview section.

* Mark of Schlumberger

VI. FracCADE Main Fracture Treatment 3-D Simulation Report

Section 1: Wellbore Configuration
Bottom Hole Temperature
Treat Down

186 degF
TUBING

Well Type
Well Location

Vertical
OnShore

748

Tubing Data
OD
(in)
3.500

Weight
(lb/ft)
9.3

ID
(in)
2.990

Depth
(ft)
2348.0

1496

Casing Data
OD
(in)
7.000

Weight
(lb/ft)
23.0

ID
(in)
6.366

Depth
(ft)
2991.0
2243

Perforation Data
Diameter

80

(in)
0.34

2991

* Mark of Schlumberger

4.38

2398.0

Number

3.5

2398.0

Shot
Density
(shot/ft)
4.00

1.75

Bottom
TVD (ft)

-1.75

Bottom
MD (ft)

-3.5

Top
TVD
(ft)
2378.0

-4.38

Top
MD
(ft)
2378.0

Section 2: Zone Data

Formation Mechanical Properties

Zone Name

Top TVD
(ft)

Dirty Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Shale
Clean Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Shale
Dirty Sandstone
Shale
Dirty Sandstone

2250.0
2260.0
2275.0
2285.0
2295.0
2300.0
2315.0
2330.0
2340.0
2345.0
2350.0
2365.0
2380.0
2405.0
2415.0
2425.0
2430.0
2432.0
2438.0
2445.0
2460.0
2480.0
2482.0
2490.0
2500.0
2540.0
2550.0
2660.0

Zone
Height

Frac
Grad.

Insitu
Stress

Youngs
Modulus

(ft)

(psi/ft)

(psi)

(psi)

10.0
15.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
15.0
25.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
2.0
6.0
7.0
15.0
20.0
2.0
8.0
10.0
40.0
10.0
110.0
100.0

0.570
0.540
0.530
0.550
0.500
0.570
0.530
0.550
0.540
0.550
0.530
0.550
0.510
0.530
0.510
0.550
0.510
0.550
0.530
0.580
0.530
0.540
0.510
0.530
0.590
0.570
0.600
0.570

1285
1224
1208
1260
1149
1315
1231
1284
1265
1291
1249
1305
1220
1277
1234
1335
1240
1339
1294
1422
1309
1340
1268
1322
1487
1451
1563
1545

2.180E+6
2.690E+6
2.630E+6
2.750E+6
2.500E+6
2.810E+6
2.630E+6
2.750E+6
2.690E+6
2.750E+6
2.630E+6
2.750E+6
2.560E+6
2.630E+6
2.560E+6
2.750E+6
2.560E+6
2.750E+6
2.630E+6
2.880E+6
2.630E+6
2.690E+6
2.560E+6
2.630E+6
2.940E+6
2.810E+6
3.000E+6
2.250E+6

Poissons
Ratio

Toughness

0.29
0.26
0.24
0.28
0.20
0.29
0.24
0.28
0.26
0.28
0.24
0.28
0.22
0.24
0.22
0.28
0.22
0.28
0.24
0.31
0.24
0.26
0.22
0.24
0.33
0.29
0.35
0.25

700
700
1200
700
1200
700
1200
700
700
700
1200
700
1200
1200
1200
700
1200
700
1200
100
1200
700
1200
1200
100
700
700
700

(psi.in0.5)

Formation Transmissibility Properties

Zone Name

Top TVD
(ft)

Net
Height

2250.0
2260.0
2275.0
2285.0
2295.0

3.5
9.8
7.5
5.0
5.0

Perm

Porosity

(md)

(%)

13.000
13.000
13.000
13.000
13.000

35.5
35.5
24.8
27.9
38.2

(ft)

Dirty Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
* Mark of Schlumberger

Res.
Pressure

Gas
Sat.

(psi)

(%)

675
678
683
686
689

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Oil Sat.
(%)

Water
Sat.

10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0

90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0

(%)

Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Shale
Clean Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Shale
Dirty Sandstone
Shale
Dirty Sandstone

2300.0
2315.0
2330.0
2340.0
2345.0
2350.0
2365.0
2380.0
2405.0
2415.0
2425.0
2430.0
2432.0
2438.0
2445.0
2460.0
2480.0
2482.0
2490.0
2500.0
2540.0
2550.0
2660.0

5.3
11.3
5.0
3.3
2.5
11.3
7.5
22.5
7.5
9.0
2.5
1.8
3.0
5.3
3.8
15.0
1.3
7.2
7.5
4.0
3.5
0.0
30.0

13.000
13.000
13.000
13.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
13.000
13.000
13.000
13.000
13.000
13.000
13.000
13.000
13.000
13.000
13.000

35.0
38.2
35.5
34.4
35.5
33.1
37.2
35.7
31.2
30.2
34.4
31.4
34.4
32.7
34.4
32.7
28.4
34.4
34.4
30.7
24.2
29.8
34.4

690
695
699
702
704
705
710
714
722
725
728
729
730
731
734
738
744
745
747
750
762
765
798

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0

90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0

Section 3: Hole Survey

MD/TVD Calculation Relationship

Minimum curvature

Hole Survey
MD
(ft)

TVD
(ft)

0.0
2930.0

0.0
2930.0

* Mark of Schlumberger

Deviation
Angle
(deg)
0.0
0.0

Deviation
Build Rate
(deg/100ft)
0.0
0.0

Azimuth
Angle
(deg)
0.0
0.0

Azimuth
Build Rate
(deg/100ft)
0.0
0.0

Dogleg
Severity
(deg/100ft)
0.0
0.0

Section 4: Reservoir Fluid

Well Type
Reservoir Temperature
Oil Gravity
Initial Gas/Oil Ratio (GOR)
Bubble Point Pressure

OIL
186 degF
35.0 degAPI
396 scf/bbl
2000 psi

Section 5: Propped Fracture Schedule

The following is the Pumping Schedule to achieve a propped fracture half-length (X f ) of 136.0 ft with an average
conductivity (K f w ) of 6419 md.ft.

Real Data Job Execution Schedule

Fluid Name

YF130
YF130
WF130

Fluid
Volume
(gal)
9913
15544
840

Prop. Type and Mesh

12/20 Brady
12/20 Brady

Prop.
Mass
(lb)
0
100408
461

Time
(min)

Notes

13.7
23.8
29.1

Pad Fluid
Slurry Fluid

For Actual pumped Schedule see Job Data in FracCADE Datafile

Fluid Totals
25456 gal
840 gal

of
of

YF130
WF130

Proppant Totals
100870 lb

of

12/20 Brady

Job Data Channels Used

Treatment Time
Slurry Rate
Proppant Conc
Total Proppant
Treating Pressure

* Mark of Schlumberger

Section 6: Propped Fracture Simulation Results

(1) ACL Fracture Profile and Proppant Concentration Plot (Design)

(2) ACL Fracture Profile and Proppant Concentration Plot (Execution)

FracCADE*

Chevron Paci fi c Indonesi a

Mi nas 2A-54N
Executi on PM
02-16-2009

ACL Fracture Profile and Proppant Concentration

W ell Depth (TVD) - ft

2200

< 0.0 l b/ft2

0.0 - 0.4 l b/ft2
0.4 - 0.7 l b/ft2
0.7 - 1.1 l b/ft2
1.1 - 1.5 l b/ft2
1.5 - 1.8 l b/ft2
1.8 - 2.2 l b/ft2
2.2 - 2.6 l b/ft2
2.6 - 2.9 l b/ft2
> 2.9 l b/ft2

2300

2400

Fracture# 1 Ini tiati on M D = 2392.50 ft

2500
1100

1300
Stress - psi

*Ma rk of Schlumbe rge r

* Mark of Schlumberger

1500

-0.45

-0.30

-0.15

0.15

ACL Wi dth at Wel l bore - i n

0.30

0.45

100

200
Fracture Hal f-Length - ft

300

(3) Pressure Match

Section 7: Propped Fracture Simulation

The following are the results of the computer simulation of this Fracturing Proposal using a Pseudo 3-D Vertical model.
Effective Conductivity and Effective Fcd are calculated based on perforated intervals with positive net heights.

Initial Fracture Top TVD

Initial Fracture Bottom TVD

2380.0 ft
2405.0 ft

Propped Fracture Half-Length

Hyd Height at Well
Average Propped Width
Average Gel Concentration
Average Gel Fluid Retained Factor
Net Pressure
Efficiency
Effective Conductivity
Effective Fcd
Max Surface Pressure

136.0 ft EOJ
204.2 ft
0.197 in
1477.9 lb/mgal
0.37
549 psi
0.469
9691 md.ft
0.7
1398 psi

* Mark of Schlumberger

Simulation Results by Fracture Segment

From
(ft)

To
(ft)

0.0
34.0
68.0
102.0

34.0
68.0
102.0
136.0

Prop. Conc.
at End of
Pumping
(PPA)
5.8
8.1
7.7
5.2

Propped
Width
(in)

Propped
Height
(ft)

0.313
0.304
0.233
0.010

130.7
182.2
187.0
156.6

Frac.
Prop.
Conc.
(lb/ft2)
2.80
2.72
2.09
0.09

Frac.
Gel Conc.
(lb/mgal)

Fracture
Conductivity
(md.ft)

309.2
324.1
565.5
4713.0

10175
9457
7696
738

Fracture Geometry Data Per Zone for Production Prediction

Zone Name

Top
MD
(ft)

(ft)

(ft)

Dirty Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Shale
Clean Sandstone
Dirty Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Clean Sandstone
Shale
Dirty Sandstone
Shale
Dirty Sandstone

2250.0
2260.0
2275.0
2285.0
2295.0
2300.0
2315.0
2330.0
2340.0
2345.0
2350.0
2365.0
2380.0
2405.0
2415.0
2425.0
2430.0
2432.0
2438.0
2445.0
2460.0
2480.0
2482.0
2490.0
2500.0
2540.0
2550.0
2660.0

2250.0
2260.0
2275.0
2285.0
2295.0
2300.0
2315.0
2330.0
2340.0
2345.0
2350.0
2365.0
2380.0
2405.0
2415.0
2425.0
2430.0
2432.0
2438.0
2445.0
2460.0
2480.0
2482.0
2490.0
2500.0
2540.0
2550.0
2660.0

10.0
15.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
15.0
25.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
2.0
6.0
7.0
15.0
20.0
2.0
8.0
10.0
40.0
10.0
110.0
100.0

* Mark of Schlumberger

Top
TVD

Gross
Height

Net
Height

Fracture
Width

Fracture
Length

Fracture
Conductivity

3.5
9.8
7.5
5.0
5.0
5.3
11.3
5.0
3.3
2.5
11.3
7.5
22.5
7.5
9.0
2.5
1.8
3.0
5.3
3.8
15.0
1.3
7.2
7.5
4.0
3.5
.0
30.0

(in)

(ft)

(md.ft)

0.022
0.060
0.106
0.148
0.168
0.187
0.212
0.224
0.231
0.237
0.241
0.253
0.262
0.224
0.206
0.202
0.197
0.175
0.126
0.068
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

60.4
117.9
135.5
136.0
136.0
136.0
136.0
136.0
136.0
136.0
136.0
136.0
136.0
136.0
136.0
136.0
136.0
136.0
136.0
90.2
19.9
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0

939
2467
4245
5703
6425
7105
8013
8441
8724
8969
9153
9543
9779
8423
7845
7686
7481
6514
4503
2385
334
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Section 8: Proppant Data

Proppant Permeability is calculated based on the following parameters:
BH Static Temperature:
186 degF
Stress on Proppant:
1206 psi
Propped Fracture Conc.:
1.00 lb/ft2
Average Youngs Modulus:
2.580E+06 psi

Proppant Data
Proppant Name

Specific
Gravity

12/20 Brady

2.65

Mean
Diameter
(in)
0.048

Pack
Porosity
(%)
35.0

Permeability
(md)
997305

Proppant Permeability Plot

Proppant Permeability
Stress on Proppant
1100000
1000000
900000

Permeability (md)

800000
700000
600000
12/20 Brady
Prop Stress

500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Closure Stress (psi)

* Mark of Schlumberger

5000

6000

7000

8000

Section 9: Fluid Descriptions

Brine {8.43ppg 2% KCl}
M117, Potassium Chloride

166.00 lb/mgal

YF130
D47, ANTIFOAM AGENT
F75N, EZEFLO(TM), SURFACTANT
J218, BREAKER
J475, EB-CLEAN(TM) BREAKER
J877, GUAR POLYMER SLURRY
L10, CROSSLINKER
M117, POTASSIUM CHLORIDE
M2, CAUSTIC SODA FLAKE
M275, MICROBIOCIDE
W54, NONEMULSIFYING AGENT

0.30 gal/mgal
1.00 gal/mgal
0.25 lb/mgal
1.00 lb/mgal
6.75 gal/mgal
1.60 lb/mgal
166.00 lb/mgal
5.00 lb/mgal
0.30 lb/mgal
3.00 gal/mgal

WF130
J877, GUAR POLYMER SLURRY
M117, POTASSIUM CHLORIDE

6.75 gal/mgal
166.00 lb/mgal

Section 10: Treatment Fluid Data

Fluid data is given at 100 md.
Fluid Name
Friction

Brine {8.43p

YF130

WF130

Rate Low (bbl/min)

Pressure Low (psi/1000ft)
Rate Pivot (bbl/min)
Pressure Pivot (psi/1000ft)
Rate High (bbl/min)
Pressure High (psi/1000ft)
Fluid Loss

2.4
10.0
15.0
300.0
28.0
1000.0

1.0
60.0
12.0
80.0
90.0
1000.0

2.8
10.0
8.0
40.0
90.0
1000.0

Cw (ft/min 0.5)
Spurt ( g a l / 1 0 0 f t 2 )
Ct (ft/min 0.5)
Rheology

1.0E+0
0.0
3.2E-3

1.0E-3
0.0
1.9E-3

7.0E-3
2.0
6.4E-3

186
0.0
1.00
6.99E-6
0.335
170

186
0.0
0.71
5.61E-3
26.046
100

186
0.0
1.00
2.09E-5
1.000
170

Temperature (degF)
Time (hr)
Behavior Index (N)
Consist. Index (K) (lbf.s^n/ft2)
Viscosity @ Shear Rate (cP)
Shear Rate (1/s)

* Mark of Schlumberger

VII. Appendices
Appendix 1. Mass Balance / Treatment Schedule

* Mark of Schlumberger