SPE-191388-18IHFT-MS

Hydraulic Fracturing Design to Unlock Light Tight Oil Resources in South

Oman

Abdullah Al Hadhrami, Abdullah Al Riyami, Ralf Schulz, Alexey Moiseenkov, Fanis Khayrutdinov, Dmitrii Smirnov,
and Nawal Al Kindi, Petroleum Development Oman

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Muscat, Oman, 16 - 18 October
2018.

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
Field "A" produces from a mixed-wet formation comprising of fine grained silicilite. The field is a sour light
tight oil reservoir with permeability range from 0.001 – 0.1 mD, the only way to flow the existing vertical
wells is through hydraulic fracs. Historically the wells have been fracced using water based frac fluids,
which have caused severe negative consequences related to well integrity and reduced productivity. With
a recovery factor of <1% after 15 years of production, the main challenge and objective lies in enhancing
productivity and unlocking the huge volumes of this reservoir through optimizing the field development
concept, completion, frac design and execution.
A study was conducted with a recommendation to develop the field by drilling slanted wells with ~10 -
15 frac stages. The frac design in itself is unconventional or hybrid where the targeted frac half length is 5x
more than the existing conventional ones. The use of oil based frac fluid instead of water is an opportunity
actively pursued to enhance productivity and eliminate issues related to scale and corrosion that in the past
have resulted in a loss of production.
Findings of the study have clearly indicated that developing the field with several slanted multi frac wells
is economically attractive; with an increase in Net Present Value (NPV) by ~60% and decrease in Unit
Technical Cost(UTC) by ~30% compared to developing the field conventionally with vertical wells.

Introduction
Field A is located in the South East of Sultanate of Oman. Discovered in 1995, it has seven vertical wells
drilled in the area to date. The field produces from the Athel reservoir ~4000 m deep and is encapsulated
in salt. The Athel ~380 m in thickness is classified as a mixed-wet system comprising of very fine grained
silicilite. It is over-pressured with initial reservoir pressure of 760 bar. The oil produced is relatively light
with an API of ~48 degrees. It is also sour with traces of CO2/H2S (1.5/1.1 mol%). Although relatively
good in porosity (~20%) it is extremely laminated and therefore very tight, with permeability values ranging
from 0.001 – 0.1 mD. Most of these wells are hydraulically fracked with 3 -5 frac stages using water based
2 SPE-191388-18IHFT-MS

fluid in order to get them to flow. An analogue to field A is the more mature field B ~9 kms away, which
is drilled and completed in the same manner (Figure 1).

Figure 1—Location of field A and analogue field B.

The main challenge with field A lies in the tight nature of the reservoir, where although a significantly
large STOIIP exists [m1]recovery factor is deemed quite low with <1% recovery over a 15 year production
period. Furthermore the wells suffer from integrity issues related to scaling and corrosion as a result of
using water based frac fluids- thereby reducing production even more and increasing work-over costs. The
cost of drilling and fraccing of the wells is relatively high, and[m2]with the low production rates and low
UR the current well concept is not deemed commercially viable. Hence the objective lies in enhancing
productivity through optimizing the field development concept, frac design and execution in a manner that
would commercialize the project.
In order to obtain good incremental Ultimate Recovery (UR) with low incremental cost the way forward
is to drill 75 degree slanted wells across the entire reservoir and with multiple frac stages to increase drainage
volume. A new frac design is to be implemented where the targeted half length is 5 times more than what
currently exists. Furthermore, in order to eliminate overall integrity issues brought about from using water
based frac fluid, an opportunity to use oil based frac fluid instead is currently pursued. Oil based frac fluids
have also been proven in literature to increase well productivity by ~2 folds (Reference 1).

Historical Performance
Integrity & Lift Issues
Integrity issues related to scaling and corrosion have been observed in the wells due to presence of water
from the frac fluid and iron and H2S in the reservoir. It was noticed that during clean-up only 15 – 20% of the
pumped frac fluid was recovered and the remaining fluid retained in the pore spaces. This is a result of strong
capillary pressures and a change in wetability, thereby causing significant formation damage and reduction
in oil relative permeability around the wellbore. The water in the wellbore will remain for the well life due
to inefficient lifting through the 4.5″ tubing. This fact is based on 15 years of operational experience, where
the water cut of the wells has been almost zero during the well life, but significant volume of remaining
frac water is still left in the well/ reservoir as confirmed by logging data. The presence of water results in
severe corrosion of the tubing as the hydrocarbon fluid exhibits significant H2S (1.1 mol%) and CO2 (1.5
mol%). In addition, the fluid together with high concentration of dissolved minerals result in the build-up of
wellbore scales in the tubing restricting access at depth typically deeper than 1500 – 2000 mah and severe
corrosion later below depth of 2000m. In order to gain access again for surveillance or re-stimulation the
SPE-191388-18IHFT-MS 3

wellbore scales have to be mechanically/chemically removed under great costs. Recompletion of a well
with scaled and corroded tubing with a rig amounts to a cost of 25% of a new well, which is significant.

Production
The current vertical wells are completed with 3-5 frac stages. Based on modeling work done the frac length
is ~40 m and height ~10 m. The reservoir is laminated with no vertical communication between layers, and
thus the only volume drained is that penetrated by the executed fracs.
Production rates from these wells are quite low and are not sustained for long. A few years after start-
up the wells fall into unstable flow and go into a huff-and-puff regime. This behavior is due to a decrease
in pressure around the wellbore as well as the presence of water as mentioned earlier. The build-up of the
water column in the well results in lower FTHP [m3]by 40 bar (than for a pure HC column) and thus a loss
in UR and more frequent Huff-n-Puff cycles. Considering the high cost of drilling these wells; the rates and
UR are quite low resulting in a sub-commercial development. Studies were carried out in order to increase
UR through optimizing the development concept of the field and making it commercially viable; of which
results are presented in the up-coming section.

Development concept
Overview
In order to make the project commercial there was a need to optimize the full field development concept
and frac design to obtain good incremental UR with low incremental cost. Studies carried out have shown
that the best approach to achieve the latter is to drill slanted wells with multiple hydraulic fracs to increase
the drainage volume and thus UR. The slanted section spans a length of ~1000 m within the reservoir
section (Figure 2). Considering the fact that the reservoir is extremely laminated with Kv ~0 it was crucial
to penetrate all reservoir layers for optimal drainage. The cost of drilling a slanted well is similar to that
of a vertical well, main additional costs are associated to the extra frac stages; but the gain in UR is quite
significant thus making it economically attractive.

Figure 2—Slanted well cross-section with 10-15 frac stages

4 SPE-191388-18IHFT-MS

The notional development plan of field A is to drill a total of 20 slanted wells with ~10-15 fracs per well
in three consecutive rows (Figure 3). Well spacing was determined to be ~400 m in the NE-SW direction
and ~450 m in the NW-SE direction based on drainage length of the designed fracs. Collaborative study
was carried out in order to determine direction of max/ min horizontal stress for drilling of the slanted wells
and frac direction, which was determined to propagate in the NW-SE direction.

Figure 3—Top structure map with notional field development plan (20 slanted wells)

A new hybrid and unconventional frac design is to be implemented targeting ~200m half length (Xf)
and maximizing on vertical coverage. This will be achieved through pumping lower viscosity fluids and
lower proppant concentrations. In order to ensure good communication between wellbore and fractures and
good vertical coverage, a small volume of high viscous fluid filled with high proppant concentration is to
be pumped at the end of the job. Details of the frac design will be covered in the upcoming sections.

Proposed Well and Completion Design

The target is to drill the slanted wells with 75 degrees’ deviation across the entire reservoir in order to be able
to pump multiple fracs similar to that of a horizontal section. As mentioned previously the aim of having
slanted wells is to cover the whole reservoir section and ability to drain them through fracs. Figure 4 is an
example of the proposed completion design.
SPE-191388-18IHFT-MS 5

Figure 4—Proposed well completion design

Well design:

• 13-3/8″ casing >> To prevent shallow aquifers from exposure to drilling fluids and hydrocarbons.

• 9-5/8″ casing >> To isolate shallow oil producing zones.

• 7″ liner >> To isolate wellbore from salt above reservoir and isolate any high pressure carbonate
floaters/stringers from reservoir.
• 4-1/2″ cemented production liner across target reservoir.

• Polish Bore Receptacles (PBR) tie-back integrated on top of 4-1/2″ liner >> To provide ability to
easily connect/ disconnect tubing if required in-case of recompletion.
4-1/2″ tubing is the same size, grade and material as the 4-1/2″ liner. Therefore, wells will have full
monobore completion, with no ID restrictions and ability to easily recomplete or abandonment in the future
as no packer milling is required.

Hydraulic Fracturing Execution Concept

The entire 1000 m wellbore section throughout the reservoir is to be fracced. Different frac implementation
options were considered. The base case selected option (Table 1) and two fallback options (Table 2, Table
3) are specified below.
Base Case: Conventional cased hole cemented completion with Slic-Frac™ technology for quick frac
operations.

Table 1—Pros and Cons of base case completion and frac design

Pros Cons

• Fast frac operations • Limited experience in Sultanate of Oman

• Robust and tested solution worldwide (including region – • No ability to close any intervals if required for water or gas
KSA) with 20,000 frac stages pumped shut-off

• Low cost -

• No CTU required -

• High frac injection rates -

6 SPE-191388-18IHFT-MS

Fallback Option #1: Conventional cased hole cemented completion with NCS Pinpoint frac™ or through
tubing solutions ZIPP frac™ with AJ perforations and frac with CTU inside the hole.

Table 2—Pros and Cons of back-up case#1 completion and frac design

Pros Cons

• Single trip, fast perf and frac operations for multiple zones. • Limited experience in Sultanate of Oman

• Frac in specifically selected zones, ability to change zones

• High cost
after well completed or based on operational decisions.

• Limited rate and limited maximum proppant concentration

• Robust and tested solution worldwide.
for frac.

• Ability to fast clean-up in case of screen-out or after • No ability to close any intervals if required for water or gas
completing all frac stages. shut-off.

Fallback Option #2: Conventional cased hole cemented completion with conventional frac execution-
frac and plug (current practice implemented in field A):

Table 3—Pros and Cons of back-up case#2 completion and frac design

Pros Cons

• Robust and tested solution in Sultanate of Oman. • Very slow and expensive execution

• High risk to get stuck with CTU while milling multiple

-
plugs and risk of losing the well

• No ability to close any intervals if required for water or gas

-
shut-off

Unconventional completion designs/ frac executions should allow faster frac operations with about 3
folds reduction in operational time and about 40% cost reduction. Table 4 below summarizes the difference
between having a conventional and unconventional completion/ frac execution approach.

Table 4—Conventional vs. Unconventional completion/ frac execution approach

Conventional Approach Unconventional Approach

• Short time execution (SlicFrac™ or Pinpoint™/ZIPP

• Long time execution (perf/frac/plug)
Frac™) continuous fracturing reducing frac cost up to 40%

• Long plug milling operations at the end • No plug milling required

• High viscosity guar based damaging fluids (up to 70% • Low viscosity less damaging guar based fluids. Future
damage from guar) improvement with non-damaging oil based frac fluids

• Short pump schedule with fast proppant concentration • Longer pump schedules leading to long fracture with more
rump-up lead to short but conductive fractures stimulated rock volume (SRV)

• Immediate shut-down at the end doesn't help to establish • High viscous fluids + high proppant concentrations at the
good communications between fracture and wellbore, due to end, accompanied by slow rate reduction at the end of the job
proppant settling aiming good wellbore communication with fracture

• Only high strength proppant with future improvement of

• Intermediate and high strength proppant
using ultra high strength proppant

Hydraulic fracturing design

Hydraulic fracturing design is based on logs, reservoir quality and geomechanical data. Athel formation
can be split to four parts with different properties, Athel Lower-1, Athel Lower-2, Athel Upper-1 and Athel
Upper-2.
SPE-191388-18IHFT-MS 7

The lower Athels and Athel Upper-1 are tight and unconventional frac design is required. The frac design
includes longer pumping schedules, lower viscosity fluids and small 30/50 High Strength Proppant (HSP)
with concentrations up to 3 ppg (360 kg/m3) in order to reach targeted frac length. Small amount of higher
viscosity and higher concentration 20/40 HSP is to be pumped at the tail of the job.
An example of a typical unconventional frac schedule is depicted in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5—Unconventional frac design pump schedule example

The Athel Upper-2 has a higher permeability relative to the rest of the zones, and therefore a hybrid
frac design should be implemented. The frac design is to start with lower viscosity fluids, relatively small
proppant and in low concentrations. Towards the middle of the pumping schedule more viscous fluids is to
be pumped followed by larger proppant and in higher concentrations. An example of a typical hybrid frac
schedule is depicted in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6—Hybrid frac design pump schedule example

Proppant selection
Historically Intermediate Strength Proppant (ISP) was pumped along with High Strength Proppant (HSP)
due to cost reduction initiatives. ISP has lower iron content to prevent scaling and corrosion. Previous
studies had shown that a lot of iron content is present in the rock mineralogy, therefore the use of ISP did
8 SPE-191388-18IHFT-MS

not help prevent scaling and corrosion, but better production behavior was observed from wells with HSP.
It is therefore recommended to only use HSP or stronger proppant for any future development in field A.
Currently a test with Kriptosphere™ low density (LD) and high density (HD) proppant is in trial. Plan
to test both LD and HD Kriptosphere™ against regular HSP to understand original fracture conductivities
under high stress on proppant pack. The results will be used to compare conductivity of Kriptosphere™
with regular HSP proppant of the same size. In the event of positive laboratory test results, the use of
Kriptosphere™ will be implemented in some stages of the slanted appraisal wells. If deemed successful,
this will be implemented on the full field development.

Results & Observations

All forecasts were run in KAPPA software as it captures the early transient time of the well during flow.
An overall adjustment factor (of about 42%) was applied on all UR estimates, taking into account drainage
overlap between adjacent fracs and frac deterioration observed in wells from analogue field B.
The economics associated to drilling 20 slanted wells with multiple hydraulic fracs is commercially
attractive providing high NPV and Further economic evaluation was performed where the field was
developed with 26 vertical wells (7 fracs with Xf 200m). The economics are relatively less attractive than
the slanted wells with NPV less by ~40% and UTC greater by ~40% as well. Key reason is that incremental
UR is achieved with lower additional cost for a slanted well since they are only related to additional fracs.
However, the project is still robust with vertical well development. Vertical wells have been tested in the
past and proven not to be commercially attractive;
The economic evaluation was performed assuming the use of water based frac fluid. The use of oil based
frac fluid is an opportunity actively pursued and would further improve the economical results, as it would
enhance productivity even more.

Risks
The key risk associated with the optimized development plan is mainly related to loss of UR due to sub-
optimum frac execution/performance, as well as water/oil availability for the large number of fracs- In which
all would result in less attractive economical results. The key risks and mitigations can be summarized in
the following points below:
1. Loss of UR due to coalescing fracs

◦
Risk: Stress state changes during fraccing due to localized effect, therefore fracs coalesce and
desired drainage volume not realized, thus low UR.
◦ Mitigation: Monitor fraccing in upcoming appraisal well by microseismic or any other suitable
methods
2. Water/oil availability for frac

◦
Risk: High demand of water/oil for fracturing ~10 -16 frac stages which might cause delay in
frac operations with extra cost associated.
◦ Mitigation: Revert to options like lined fluid pits, inflatable tanks, water supply well in the area
etc.
3. Low UR per frac/well due to frac height/length

◦ Risk: Low UR per frac/well due to frac height/length less than required.

◦
Mitigations: Based on actual stress profile of the well, detailed frac designs should be done
focusing on frac height and length. Proppant and fluid should be selected accordingly.
4. Low UR per frac/well due to productivity decline
SPE-191388-18IHFT-MS 9

◦ Risk: Low UR per frac/well due to productivity decline where high stress environment can cause
pumped proppant to be crushed and therefore fracs to be lost.
◦ Mitigation: Recommended to apply not more than 150 bar drawdown across proppant pack to
avoid crushing. An alternative would be to use stronger proppant.

Opportunities/ Technology
A number of new technologies for field A is under maturation and is an added opportunity to be implemented
for future development optimization of the field:-
1. Oil based frac fluid: Oil based frac fluids proven in literature to optimize productivity by two folds
compared to using water based frac fluid (Reference 1). The elimination of having water present in
the reservoir can also help eliminate scale/ corrosion issues that have been faced previously.
2. Slik frac™ technology: For faster execution of fracs.
3. Coil tubing Pinpoint™/ZIPP Frac™ stimulation: Frac with coil in the well, packer at the bottom
of CTU will separate frac stages.
4. High strength light weight proppant with Kriptosphere™: To withstand the high stress
environment and ensure fracs are not lost due to crushed proppant.

Conclusions
Developing the tight Athel reservoir with slanted wells and multiple extended hydraulic fracs enhances
productivity/ UR compared to the existing vertical well concept with limited fracs. The commercial benefits
are significant with higher NPV and relatively lower UTC compared to the latter. Key reason is because
of the good incremental gain in UR with minimal incremental costs added. It is recommended to complete
the wells with cased hole cemented completion with Slic-Frac™ technology for faster frac operations that
result in ~3 folds reduction in operational time and ~40% reduction in cost compared to conventional frac
execution. The frac design is customized based on the reservoir quality and geomechanical data of the zone
to be fracced – where an unconventional design is carried out for tighter zones and a hybrid design for less
tight zones in order to achieve the required extended lengths. Furthermore, the use of oil based frac fluid is
an opportunity that will increase productivity from these wells, eliminate scale / corrosion issues caused by
water, and reduce OPEX for wells recompletion. It is also recommended to use high strength proppant to
withstand the high stress environment and prevent fracture closure.

Acknowledgements
We thank our colleagues in Petroleum Development Oman (PDO) who contributed to this study by their
discussions and cooperation. We also thank the Ministry of Oil and Gas (MOG) of Sultanate of Oman for
permission to publish this paper.

Glossary (Terminology)
STOIIP : Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place
NPV : Net Present Value
UTC : Unit Technical Cost
OPEX : Operating Expenditure
UR : Ultimate Recovery
RF : Recovery Factor
MAH : Meters Along Hole
HC : Hydro Carbon
10 SPE-191388-18IHFT-MS

Kv : Vertical Permeability
Xf : Fracture Half Length
PBR : Polish Bore Receptacles
ID : Inner Diameter
AJ : Abrasive Jetting
CTU : Coil Tubing Unit
HSP : High Strength Proppant
ISP : Intermediate Strength Proppant
PDO : Petroleum Development Oman
MOG : Ministry of Oil and Gas

References
1 SPE 159952, Barry T Hlidek et al., "A Case for Oil-based Fracturing Fluids in Canadian
Montney Unconventional Gas Development").