Optimizing Hydraulic Fracturing Result through Geomechanic

Approach and Design Calibration

Geraldus Yudhanto1, Noke Fajar Prakoso2, Kamal Hamzah3
PT Medco E&P Indonesia
Abstract
Hydraulic fracturing is the main stimulation method that has been implemented in KS Telisa
Formation Field since 2003. The challenges in hydraulic fracturing in KS Telisa is to
maintain the fracture geometry still contain in the interest zone and does not breach to lower
or upper formation.
The geomechanical study has been conducted to calculate the rock mechanical properties at
Telisa Formation and also define the in situ stress at interest zone, upper zone and lower
zone. The result of geomechanical calculation then has been inputed to the fracturing
simulation software to create the fracturing design. The fracturing design then be optimized
to create the optimum fracturing geometry that still contain and covered the interest zone at
TLS formation. The previous fracturing data also used to calibrate the geomechanical
calculation. The previous fracturing treatment is re-run using fracturing simulation software
and the output model then be compared with the actual fracturing result and also calibrated
with actual production data trend to know if fracturing geometry contain or not in the Telisa
formation.
There are several fracture diagnostic method that can be used to know the actual fracture
geometry such as net pressure analysis, temperature logging, microseismic mapping, etc.
Some methods have been implemented in KS Telisa Field to know the fracture geometry
such as fracturing simulation (net pressure analysis) and pre-fract temperature log, but the
real geometry, orientation and location of fracture still can not be ensured. To improve the
geomechanical calculation and fracturing design model, microseismic mapping will try to be
implemented at KS telisa fracturing job.

Keyword : Hydraulic Fracturing, Geomechanical

fracturing is the most suitable stimulation

1. Introduction
KS Field is an oil field that was discovered
in 1996 in Rimau block, South Sumatera
area. The main producer zone at this field is
Baturaja formation. The other formations
that also have contribution to the production
are Talang Akar Sandstone and Telisa tight
sandstone formation. Along the time, the
production from the Baturaja formation has
been depleting and the block needs to arrest
this production decline.
Telisa tight-sandstone formation at KS Field
then has been considered as the new
potential resourceful formation. Hydraulic
IATMI 18-140
method to produce oil from the Telisa tight
permeability formation. This formation,
stratigraphically positioned just above the
Baturaja limestone, was found as very fine
dominated quartz grain with calcareous
cement and quite high clay content. The sand
has quite low porosity and permeability,
which was proved by the very low oil
producing without any stimulation.
Generally, Telisa sandstone at KS Field has a
permeability around 1-30 md, porosity
approximately 10 to 20 percent,
approximately 20 to 40 percent of clay
volume, and water saturation is 40 to 65
1
percent. Gas chromatography detector data
during drilling shows that the Telisa
sandstone member had total gas around 10 to
250 units with C1 approximately 100 to 5000
ppm, and cutting data shows “oil show”,
indicating the presence of hydrocarbon in the
Telisa sandstone. (Azhari et al. 2013). The
resistivity logs of Telisa sandstone are only
around 1 to 5 ohm. The low value of Telisa
sandstone resistivity log is caused by the
presence of glauconite, clay, and ferroan
calcite.
To make oil flows easier from matrix to the
wellbore, hydraulic fracturing has been
choice as the stimulation at KS Telisa
sandstone. Hydraulic fracturing at KS Telisa
sandstone had been started since 2002.
Currently, hydraulic fracturing in KS Telisa
Sandstone field has been implemented at
more than 200 wells. Year by year, it gets
more challenging due to limited good
properties well candidates and decreasing
trend in production result. Thus, hydraulic
fracturing optimization must be conducted
to increase success ratio and to contribute
more oil production. One of the efforts is
delivering fit-to-purpose design through
geomechanical aprroach.
2. Chalengges
One key parameter to produce hydrocarbon
from KS Telisa sandstone by performing
hydraulic fracturing with proper design agree
with a well characteristic. Along the time,
with limited good candidate of fracturing
wells, the fracturing design highly impact to
the final production result.
Currently, the challenges in performing
fracturing at remaining well candidates is
more challenging such as:
 In low permability, fracturing design is
aimed to create more half length. It
means more volume fluid and proppant
must be injected to obtain significant
impact in production.
IATMI 18-140
 In Medium to high permeability, high
fracture conductivity created is the key
parameter to produce the liquid.
 Geomechanic approach must be
considered to predict the fracturing
geometry during the design. The risk of
uncontrolled fracturing height growth
due to breaching to the top shale and
bottom shale of Telisa sandstone must be
predicted in the preliminary design.
 Breaching to the top shale will impair the
half length targeted and also reduce
fracture conductivity at targeted zone.
 Breaching to the bottom shale will
increase the risk to breach Baturaja
limestone which is separated by shale
barrier (10-30 ft) below the Telisa
sandstone and has high permeability and
watered out.
3. Methodology
3.1. Single Well Geomechanical Model
The geomechanical model includes a
description of insitu stresses and rock
mechanical properties. The key components
include three principal stresses (vertical
stresses (Sv), maximum horizontal stress
(SHmax) and minimum horizontal stress
(Shmin), pore pressure (Pp) and rock
mechanical properties, such as elastic
properties.
The basic approach to geomechanic analysis
is to use all the relevant available data for
interpretation of rock strength, stress and
pressure.
In this paper, the well log data is used to
build the geomechanical model that will be
inputed to fracturing stimulation software.
Compressional, shear slowness and density
log are the main input for estimating elastic
properties that are required for the
computation of rock strength and insitu
stresses. Since no shear slowness available
2
for each wells, it is synthetically derived
using correlation between shear and
compressional sonic, derived from other
wells in KS Telisa formation which have
shear data. In this study, the correlation is :
For shale
DTS  47.66e 0.0162DTC ……………………(1)
For Telisa Sand
VS = The shear compressional velocity
However, the static stress-strain modulus of
interest to pressure behavior for fracturing is
always less than the dynamic value derived
from wave velocity. Lacy (1997) proposed
different equations for sandstones and shale
for estimating Young’s modulus to enable
the successful design of fracturing jobs. The
following equation was suggested to be
suitable for all formation :

DTS  155.89e 0.0044DTC ………………...…(2)
For isotropic elastic materials, the stress-
strain behavior can be describe by two
parameters, typically Young’s modulus and
poisson’s ratio. First the log data was used to
construct the Young’s modulus and
poisson’s ratio trends. The properties
estimated from the logs are called dynamic
properties. The elastic properties (dynamic
Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ration) need
to be converted to static Young’s modulus
and Poisson’s ratio, which are indicative of
rock response to larger strains and stresses
encountered in operations such as fracturing.
3.2. Young’s Modulus
Estatic  psi  = 0.5054 E Dyn 1.029 ……………..(5)
3.3. Pore pressure/Reservoir pressure
Pore pressure/ reservoir pressure is an
important component in geomechanical
model and critical to the calculation of
horizontal stresses. Reservoir pressure for
interest well, both in Telisa formation and
Baturaja formation, is predicted based on
static bottom hole pressure survey from the
offset wells that has been produced. The
normal gradient, 0.433 psi/ft is used to
predict the Pore pressure of shale layer above
and below Telisa formation.
3.4. In Situ Stress

The two major geomechanical properties for Overburden stress is computed by integrating
fracturing are Young’s modulus (stiffness of formation density. Typically formation
the rock) and the insitu stress profile. A density is obtained from wireline logs. In this
dynamic Young’s modulus is derived from study, all overburden stresses were computed
sonic log data using the relation : by integrating bulk density logs. From
(lbm / ft 3 )VP2 ( ft / sec)(1  v)(1  2v) …...…(3) previous study, overburdent gradient for KS
E ( psi)  b field is 0.93 psi/ft. Overburden stress at
(1   )4678
formation depth interval is simply obtain by
Where Poisson’s ration, v, is given by multiply the overburden gradient and
  V 2  formation depth (in ft TVD)
  P   2 
1 V  ……………………………(4) Minimum horizontal stress from sonic log is
v   S  
2  VP  derived from Poisson Ratio as mentioned
   1 
  VS   above using Eaton’s equation.
 

E = Dynamic Young’s modulus h  ( V  PRe s )  PRe s .................................(6)
1 
b = bulk density  h = minimum horizontal stress, psi
VP = The acoustic compressional velocity
 V = vertical stress, psi

IATMI 18-140
3
PRe s = Reservoir Pressure, psi
Note that only the minimum horizontal stress
profile is required in hydraulic fracture
modelling.
3.5. Calibration
Calibrations is the important step in creating
geomechanical model. Calibration factors
can be in form of rock’s mechanics test data,
pressure measurement data, leak-off test,
caliper logs and closure pressure from
fracturing result. For the fracturing design,
minimum horizontal stress that calculated in
geomechanical model can be calibrated with
the mini fracturing data that obtain from
previous fracturing job or by mini fracturing
data from nearby well.
The other popular method for calibrating the
geomechanical model for fracturing
simulation is by running temperature log
after the mini fracturing treatment.
Temperature log surveys should be run as
soon as possible after the fracture treatments.
The temperature profile along the wellbore
should show a cool anomaly adjacent to the
location where the fracturing fluid has been
injected and the fracture height can be
estimated from this cool section anomaly.
The fracture height from temperature log
than be compared with the fracture height
from the fracturing simulation software.
4. Case Study
4.1. Cased Study at Telisa Formation K
Field
Well XX-0322 is a deviated oil well located
at K Field. Potential hydrocarbon layer is
identified at Telisa sandstone, which has
depth around 2906-2967 ft MD. The
reservoir properties of Telisa Sandstone at
well XX-0322 are describe below :
• Permeability : around 20 mD
• Porosity : 23 %
IATMI 18-140
• Resistivity : 3.2 ohm.m
• TG/BG : 250/24
The challenge on performing fracturing on
XX-0322 is to predict the fracture height
growth not to breach shale barrier below
target formation. The shale barrier below the
target formation has a thickness of 37 ft. The
single well geomechanical model was
calculated as the input parameter of
fracturing software. The calculated result
that derived from well logging is summaries
below :
• Static Young’s Modulus :
for Shale above Telisa 0.34 MPsi
for Shale below Telisa0.37 MPsi
for Telisa sandstone 0.64 MPsi
• Minimum Horizontal Stress
for shale above Telisa 2,187 psi
for shale below Telisa 2,340 psi
for Telisa sandstone 1,893 psi
The single well geomechanical calculation
for XX-322 then has been inputed to
fracturing stimulation software to predicted
the design fracturing geometry. The total
proppant that used in the predesign model is
60,000 lbs proppant. The predicted fracturing
geometry based on predesign was not breach
to Baturaja formation.
During the execution, closure pressure data
from minifract and temperature log after
minifract have been used to validate the
geomechanical model. Based on minifract
data, the closure pressure is predicted around
1,571 psi. This data then be used to calibrate
the minimum horizontal stress that has been
calculated before using well logging data.
The minifracturing net pressure history
matching also be run to calibrate the
geomechanical model. In order to validate
the fracture height after minifract,
temperature log using memory gauge and
slick line was run. By comparing the
4
temperature log data before and after
minifract, it was showed that the cooling
down area is tend to upper shale above telisa
sandstone and the fracturing height didn’t
breach to Baturaja formation.
Based on the calibrated model, fracturing
treatment then redesign at well XX-0322.
Around 737 lbs of 100 mesh size, 38,001 lbs
of 20/40 mesh size and 35,013 lbs of 12/18
mesh size intermediate strength proppant
was placed in the formation.
The treatment evaluation phase consists of
following steps : estimating fracture
geometry by performing pressure matching
with the fracture stimulation software and
analyzing the production response. From
pressure history matching, fracture is
contained in the net pay and did not break
into Baturaja limestone as seen on figure 10.
The fracture geometry is also validated with
static bottom hole pressure measurement.
The static pressure that has been run after the
fracturing job resulted 522 psig (while the
Baturaja formation pressure is around 800
psig) and it is conclude that the fract
geometry contain in Telisa sandstone. The
post fracturing production showed that the
well producing average BLPD with 97 %
WC and BOPD. The high water cut at this
well is suspected come from the near water
injection well.
4.2. Cased Study at Telisa Formation S
Field
Well XX-0288 is a deviated oil well located
at S Field. Potential hydrocarbon layer is
identified at Telisa sandstone, which has
depth around 2995-3113 ft MD. The
reservoir properties of Telisa Sandstone at
well XX-0288 are describe below :
• Permeability : around 4 mD
• Porosity : 28 %
IATMI 18-140
• Resistivity : 4.7 ohm.m
• TG/BG : 240/5
Due to low permeability of Telisa sandstone
at this well, the fracturing design need to
create more half length. The challenge on
performing fracturing on XX-0288 is to
predict the fracture height growth not to
breach shale barrier below target formation.
The shale barrier below the target formation
has a thickness of 25 ft. The single well
geomechanical model was calculated as the
input parameter of fracturing software. The
calculated result that derived from well
logging is summaries below :
• Static Young’s Modulus :
for Shale above Telisa 0.23 MPsi
for Shale below Telisa0.16 MPsi
for Telisa sandstone 0.5 MPsi
• Minimum Horizontal Stress
for shale above Telisa 1,927 psi
for shale below Telisa 1,627 psi
for Telisa sandstone 2,142 psi
The single well geomechanical calculation
for XX-0288 then has been inputed to
fracturing stimulation software to predicted
the design fracturing geometry. The total
proppant that used in the predesign model is
85,000 lbs proppant. The predicted fracturing
geometry based on predesign was not breach
to Baturaja formation.
During the execution, closure pressure data
from minifract and temperature log after
minifract have been used to validate the
geomechanical model. Based on minifract
data, the closure pressure is predicted around
1,729 psi. This data then be used to calibrate
the minimum horizontal stress that has been
calculated before using well logging data.
The minifracturing net pressure history
matching also be run to calibrate the
geomechanical model. In order to validate
the fracture height after minifract,
5
temperature log using memory gauge and
slick line was run. By comparing the
temperature log data before and after
minifract, it was showed that the cooling
down area is tend to upper shale above telisa
sandstone and the fracturing height didn’t
breach to Baturaja formation.
Based on the calibrated model, fracturing
treatment then redesign at well XX-0288. To
create more fracture half length and also to
combat the low Young’s modulus that
causing the proppant embedded to formation,
the total cummulative proppant injected is
double up. Around 154,300 lbs of 20/40
mesh size intermediate strength proppant
was placed in the formation.
The treatment evaluation phase consists of
following steps : estimating fracture
geometry by performing pressure matching
with the fracture stimulation software and
analyzing the production response. From
pressure history matching, fracture is
contained in the net pay and did not break
into Baturaja limestone as seen on figure 10.
The post fracturing production showed that
the well producing average 104 BLPD with
19 % WC and 84 BOPD.
5. Result and Discussion
As a data input in the fracturing stimulation
software, the single well geomechanic model
will accommodate the current condition of
rock mechanical properties and the insitu
stresses from fracturing targetted zone.
Through geomechanic approach,the fracture
geometry can be predicted more accurate.
The fracturing design also can be optimized
to achieve the maximum production result
based on each condition of targeted well. By
applying the single well geomechanic model
at KS Telisa Field, the production result can
be increased and based on post fracturing
surveillance data, the fracture height is
confirm not to breach the water zone
formation (Baturaja Formation).
IATMI 18-140
The post production of current fracturing
wells showed increasing in average liquid
production 31% compare the average
previous fracturing wells in K Telisa Field
and maintain the relative same average liquid
production at S Telisa Field..
6. Conclusion
Based on successful of applying single well
geomechanic model as a data input in
fracturing stimulation software, some
statement that can be inferred are:
• In low permability targeted zone, the
fracturing design with high cumulative
proppant volume is successfully executed
and has increasing the production result.
• In Medium to high permeability, the
fraturing design with high fracture
conductivity is successfully executed.
• The fracturing geometry at the well
candidates are contained in the targetted
zone
7. Recommendation
To improve the geomechanical calculation
and fracturing design model, microseismic
mapping need to be implemented during KS
telisa fracturing job.
8. Acknowledgement
The Authors would like to thank PT Medco
E&P Indonesia Management for the
permission to publish this paper. We are also
thankful for all team at PT Medco E&P
Indonesia as a good team work for their best
effort in fracturing job in KS Telisa Field.
9. References
Roche, V, and M. van der Baan (2015), The
role of lithological layering and pore
pressure on fluid-induced microseismicity, J.
Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 120, 923-943.
6
Anzar syed Islam, Cicik Sukma Setya
Wahyu, Elvina Agustina, Pedro Artola,
Irwan Zuhri, Novantri Duo Ambonito, Nur
Indah Fitriani, Slamet Raharjo, (2013).
Mechanical Earth Modeling and Acoustic
Anisotropy Improve The Hydraulic
Fracturing Design in The Tanjung Field,
Proceeding Indonesia Petroleum
th
Association, 37 Annual Covention &
Exibition.

Michael B. Smith (2017), Hydraulic

Fracturing for Horizontal Wells Telisa
Formation-Semoga Field, PT Medco E&P
Indonesia.

Tri A Priyantoro, Noke F Prakoso, Rizky M

Kahfie (2012), Journey of Hydraulic
Fracturing Improvement to Increase Oil
Recovery from Sandstone Formation in
Rimau Block, paper SPE-156550-PP,
presented at the SPE International
Production and Operation Conference and
Exhibition held in Doha Qatar, 14-16 May.

Khalil Rahman, Cahyo Nugroho, Dicky

Hilmawan, Sugiri Umar Khiram, Wahyu
Syukur (2018), Geomechanics Helped to
Understand The Underperformance of
Fracture Treatments and Optimization for
Future Operations, IPA18-274-E, Forty-
Second Annual Convention & Exhibition,
May 2018.

StimPlan ™/InjecPlan ™ Version 7.2.1. NSI

Technologies, LLC, Tulsa, U.S.

IATMI 18-140
7
List of Figures

Figure 1. Completion Log XX-0322

IATMI 18-140
8
Figure 2. Log Data and Geomechanic Calculation for Software Data Input XX-0322

Figure 3. Fracture Geometry Predesign XX-0322

Figure 4. Comparisson Geomechanic Model Before and After Minifract Net Pressure
Matching XX-0322

IATMI 18-140
9
Figure 5. Minifract Net Pressure Matching and Minifract Fracture Geometry XX-0322

IATMI 18-140
10
Figure 6. Mainfract Net Pressure Matching and Mainfract Fracture Geometry XX-0322

IATMI 18-140
11
 Figure 7. Production Profile After Fracturing XX-0322

Figure 8. Completion Log XX-0288

IATMI 18-140
12
Figure 9. Log Data and Geomechanic Calculation for Software Data Input XX-0288

Figure 10. Fracture Geometry Predesign XX-0288

IATMI 18-140
13
Figure11. Comparisson Geomechanic Model Before and After Minifract Net Pressure
Matching XX-0288

IATMI 18-140
14
Figure 12. Minifract Net Pressure Matching and Minifract Fracture Geometry XX-0288

IATMI 18-140
15
Figure 13. Mainfract Net Pressure Matching and Mainfract Fracture Geometry XX-0288

IATMI 18-140
16
 Figure 14. Production Profile After Fracturing XX-0288

IATMI 18-140
17
 Figure 15. Average Liquid Production Comparison KS Telisa Field

IATMI 18-140
18