SPE 132932

The Fracturing of Deep Non-Conventional Volcanic Reservoir - A Case History

Raageshwari Gas Field, Onshore India
Sanjeev Vermani, SPE, Cairn India ; Anish Gupta, SPE, Cairn India; Winston Spitzer, StrataGen Engineering; Sergey
Stolyarov SPE, BJ Services; Gaurav Arora SPE, BJ Services; Greg Dean SPE, BJ Services
Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 1922 September 2010.
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
Raageshwari gas field is a relatively deep (3000m) non-conventional volcanic reservoir with a gas column in excess of 800 meters.
Gas from Raageshwari field is used to generate energy for production of waxy high pour point crude of the nearby Mangala,
Bhagyam and Aishwariya Fields (which were discovered in January 2004) in Barmer Basin, Western Rajasthan India (Figure 1,
2). Extensive laboratory studies have been conducted prior the hydraulic fracturing treatments to evaluate rock mechanical
properties, rock frac fluid interaction and mineralogy. MiniFrac analysis was performed prior to the main frac treatment in order
to have a better understanding of the reservoir properties prior to pumping of the main hydraulic fracturing treatment.
Microseismic fracture mapping was used to determine fracture geometry and azimuth. Fracture modeling was also used to
determine effective fracture geometry which was later calibrated to the Microseismic data. Different techniques have been
successfully utilized to overcome extreme fracture complexity and resultant screen-outs including proppant slugs, 100 mesh and
high viscosity slugs.
Bhagyam
Mangala
Mangala
Processing
Terminal

Barmer

Aishwariya
Heated saline
water for
MPT and
secondary
recovery.

Barmer
Gas pipeline
Oil pipeline

Gas pipeline

Raageshwari
gas field

Oil pipeline

Figure 1: Rajasthan map.

Background (1, 2, 3)

Figure 2: Rajasthan block plan.

SPE 132932

Raageshwari Deep Gas reservoir was discovered in 2003. The field lies within the Barmer Basin -a major new hydrocarbon
province, in the State of Rajasthan, India. The Raageshwari Deep Gas field contained in an arrowhead shaped horst block formed
at the confluence of three fault trends (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Raageshwari Horst.

The field contains 4 reservoir bodies: Clastics- Fatehgarh and Volcanics - Basalt, Felsic and Sub-Felsic. Clastic interval subdivided
into three sub-layers Upper Fatehgarh, Middle Fatehgarh and Lower Fatehgarh. Volcanic intervals have been divided into Basalt,
Felsic and Sub-Felsics intervals.
The Fatehgarh interval is interpreted from seismic as on-lapping unconformably onto an underlying weathered and eroded volcanic
basement (Figure 4). It is believed that the sediments are largely locally derived and that their characteristic high gamma ray and
density log profiles are a result of the incorporation of an unusual volcanically-derived mineralogy as seen from the cores.
Volcanic Units
The individual of layers Basalts and Ignimbrites are 2 to 56 m thick and the entire section of volcanics is divided into three units
based on lithological association:
The basalt unit is made up of unbrecciated and brecciated basaltic lava (Figure 5). The best pay intervals appear to lie consistently
towards the top part of the basalt showing improved gas flows in the upper part of the basalt section. It may also be due to epidiagenetic leaching associated with sub-aerial exposure of the upper portion of the basalt pile. It can also be the result of burial
compaction and resulting porosity reduction as the Basalt section is over 600 m thick in some areas.
The Felsic unit consists mainly of Ignimbrite along with unbrecciated and brecciated basaltic lava (Figure 6). The top of Felsic is
a mapped seismic event having a large density contrast relative to the overlying basalt section.
The Sub-Felsic unit consists mainly of unbrecciated and brecciated basaltic lava along with minor Ignimbrite. The top of SubFelsic is a mapped seismic event having a density contrast relative to the overlying Felsic section.

SPE 132932

Figure 4: Lower Fatehgarh.

Figure 5: Basalt?? Core.

Figure 6: Felsic Core.

Red Arrows showing the natural fractures on the felsic and basalt cores which are well
supported by the fact that 100-mesh in pad stage during fracturing proved useful.

Coreplugs Study
Coreplugs from well Raageshwary 4z were tested for rock/pore property characterizations. Samples were also tested for values of
Youngs Modulus and Poissons Ratio, and in the Special Core Analysis Laboratory they were evaluated for permeability and
porosity. Brief lithological description, rock mechanics and permeability data are presented in Table 1.

Formation

Middle
Fatehgarh
Lower
Fatehgarh
Basalt

Felsic

Sample
Depth,
meters

Permeabi
lity
to Air,
md

Porosit
y,
percent

2771.32

0.261

14.8

Young's
Modulus
(1x106 psi)

Poisson's
Ratio

2805.27

N/S

4.9

2824.56

0.0039

1.1

1.453

0.253

3041.86

0.0266

9.9

2.944

0.167

3128.40

0.662

16.2

3139.24

0.184

11.6

4.733

0.217

Description

Sandstone, light-gray, fine-grained, moderatelysorted, well-indurated, feldspathic, clay-rich

Consolidated sediments of silica-rich volcanic
origin, probably including basalt and rhyolitic tuffs
or breccias, dark-brown
Consolidated sediments of silica-rich volcanic
origin, probably including basalt and rhyolitic tuffs
or breccias mottled light-gray and brownish-red,
white rounded inclusions, well-indurated,
Consolidated sediments of silica-rich volcanic
origin, including basalt and rhyolitic tuffs or
breccias, light and dark gray and black, extremely
poorly-sorted, well-indurated

Table 1: Core Study Data.

Mineralogical Analysis
Sub-samples were selected for mineralogical definition by x-ray diffraction techniques (XRD). Due to the unusual lithologies in
this sample set, X-ray fluorescence analysis was conducted to provide elemental data to constrain the XRD calculations. These
samples exhibit several unusual lithologies, related to their volcanic origins. This was confirmed in the mineralogical analysis
where large amounts of hematite, augite, lamonitite, and chlorite/vermiculite mineral phases were identified. Mineralogical data
are presented in Table 2.

SPE 132932

Mineral Phases

Quartz (Si02)
Plagioclase Feldspar
Potassium Feldspar
Calcite (CaCO3)
Hematite (Fe2O3)
Augite [(Ca,Na)(Mg,Fe,Al)(AlSi)206]
Laumontite [Ca(Al2Si4O12]x4H2O
Chlorite
Mixed-Layer Ilite/Smectite
Chlorite/Vermiculite
Totals

Upper
Fatehgrh

Middle
Fatehgrh

Lower
Fatehgrh

Top
Basalt

Top Felsic

2699.6
17
17
7
43
15(>90)
100%

2771.8
18
19
6
-

2805.2
trace
11
12
74
12
100%

3041.8
24
-

3139.2
26
55
15
7
100%

13
30
13(>75)
100%

50
23
100%

Table 2: Mineralogical Analysis (XRD and XRF analysis data in weight %).
Reservoir and Well test background
Raageshwari Deep Gas is a tight lean gas condensate reservoir. During the appraisal phase, completion tests were conducetd
individually across the various sand bodies. Wells have tested (unstimulated) at gas production rates in the range 2-4mmscfd, and
producing condensate gas ratios (CGRs) in 40-50 bbl/mmscf range. The condensate gravity averages approximately 56 API. The
drawdowns during test production have been high, at more than 4000 psi, indicating that stimulation by hydraulic fracturing might
be beneficial, a conclusion confirmed after internal/external studies. The gas is sweet and has good calorific value, with a GHV of
approximately 1300 Btu/scf; NHV ~ 1150 Btu/scf. Overall, stable flowing gas rates of up to 2 MMSCFD were recorded in the
initial testing of Raageshwari deep wells (pre-frac rates). These rates were not considered high enough for the large scale economic
development of Raageshwari deep gas field. A hydraulic fracturing campaign2 was then conducted in 2005-06. Increase in stable
gas production by almost 2-3 times was observed after fracturing from almost all zones thus confirming the significance of
hydraulic fracturing treatments in developing the field.
Log Interpretation
The pay intervals in Fatehgarh sections were selected in conventional way on the basis of basic Gamma Ray, resistivity, neutrondensity and Sonic logs. For the deeper volcanic sections, it is believed that the sediments are largely locally derived and that their
characteristic high gamma ray and density log profiles are a result of the incorporation of an unusual volcanically-derived
mineralogy as seen from the cores. The unconventional deeper volcanic section (Basalt and Felsic formations) pays were decided
on the basis of NMR logs and saturation height function using core calibrated data. Attached is the log of various sections for
reference in Figure 7.

SPE 132932

Sandstone Section (Fatehgarh)

Volcanic Section (Basalt &

Felsic) characterized by high
GR readings across the pay
zones

Figure 7: Raageshwari well log

Well Completion1 and Perforation Srategy

Figure 8 shows the typical completion that has been used. It consists of 3.5inch production tubing (inside 7 production casing)
stabbed into 3.5 liner (inside a 6 hole section) section with TRSSSV (Tubing retrievable sub-surface safety valve) at a depth of
about 100-120m MD. This completion strategy facilitated tremendous time savings in performing the multi-zone frac. Fracture
treatments were performed via 3.5 completion system to avoid the running in of a separate frac string. The 3.5 slim-hole strategy
also managed to eliminate the use of rig leading to overall cost saving for the fracturing campaign. The monobore completion
significantly improved the field development economics by reducing the capital and operating costs.
With respect to the perforation guns being used, due to the slim-hole completion strategy and minimum restriction of ~2.8
(TRSSSV), there were very limited options for selecting the gun type. The main objective for selection was to achieve a bigger
entry hole diameter (EHD) and a penetration deep enough to cross the cement sheath thereby connecting the well bore to the
formation. Perforation analysis was conducted with input stresses of up to 8000psi and 2.5 PJ 2506 HMX were selected as the
best option available. Perforation analysis conducted by perforation service provider indicated an EHD of approx. 0.32 (more
than 8-10 times the average particle diamieter of the 16/30 proppant being used in the treatment) and penetration of 4.2 inside
formation. Moreover, the guns used were debris-free for efficient post frac clean up of the wells.

SPE 132932

Figure 8: Typical completion Diagram

Fracturing
The first set of development wells were drilled and hydraulically fractured in 2009. Total 14 Fracturing treatments in 3 wells have
been performed, 10 out 14 treatments were done in volcanic formation. Maximum allowed surface treating pressure was 10000
psi. All fracture treatments typically consisted of 100 bbls of 4% KCL Injection test followed by 200 bbls crosslinked MiniFrac.
Polymer Gel loading at 35 40 lb/1000 gal of water (i.e., 30 to 40 ppt) was used for initial zones but subsequently shifted to 40ppt
system after the first unsuccessful frac treatment attempts. It was believed that insufficient width generation in the NWB area was
the result of the fracture treatment failure and to mitigate the lack of width higher gel loading was used. The conclusion later
proved wrong and near and far wellbore tortuosity and multiple fractures was the primary reason for the hydraulic fracture
treatment failure.
New Reduced polymer loading frac fluid system consisting of more refined high yield guar system was tried for one of the
zones. The job was pumped without any issues, proving that fracture width and fluid viscosity was never an issue. The polymer
loading was 30 ppt although rheology test data showed that 25 ppt loading would also provide necessary viscosity. Intermediate
Strength Proppant was selected for this application based on average closure stress of 7500 psi. Mesh size of 20/40 was chosen to
be tail ended with 16/30 for enhanced near well bore conductivity. 100 Mesh sand was used additionally in pad stage to combat
tortuosity and reduce chances of multiple fractures.
Based upon both the large amount and high expandability of the clays in the volcanic zones, it is anticipated that those zones
would be particularly sensitive to contact with low salinity brines. Regain gas permeability testing was performed to determine the
effect 4% potassium chloride and the alternate product liquid clay stabilizer (quaternary ammonium chloride). Regained gas
permeability after flushing with either 4% KCL or fresh water containing 2 gpt liquid clay stabilizer was 80% and 78%,
respectively. Regained gas permeability after exposure to broken and filtered 35 ppt frac fluid based in 4% KCl was 92% and
somewhat less (62% and 85%) for the samples tested with a 2 gpt liquid clay stabilizer based fluid. Taking in account disposal and
other enviromental problems related to KCL especially in the desert, as well as the minimal theoretical effect of fracture face
damage in low permeability reservoirs5 it was decided to use liquid clay stabilizer (added on the fly). A summary of regain gas
permeability results is in Table 3.

SPE 132932

Sample
ID
1
2
3
4

Depth, m
Dry
0.788
0.632
0.332
0.389

2699.63
3128.40

Permeability, md
Sample to N2
Sw1
0.471
0.372
0.305
0.285

Regain
Percent

Fluid

80.6
78.0
92.1
85.6

4% KCl
2 gpt luquid Clay Stailizer
4% KCl Frac Fluid
2 gpt luquid Clay Stailizer Frac Fuid

Sw2
0.380
0.290
0.281
0.244

Table 3: Summary of Regain Gas Permeabilty.

Case Histories: Extreme Fracture complexity: Unable to Frac

Case #1
Well Raag-13 was the first well in this campign. The Volcanic zone (Top Felsic) was perforated in 2894m-2899m. For the first
injection first it was planned to pump 83 bbls of 30 ppt gel, monitor fall off and followed by second injection of 100 bbls for
recording a temperature survey.. The reason for doing a temperature survey was bad cement bond as shown in CBL/ VDL. For the
first injection an initial breakdown was seen at 8160 psi at 6.6 bpm but there after pressure started to rise as rate was increased. At
15.5 bpm injection rate the surface pressure reached 9000 psi which was near the 10000 psi limit of the surface equipment.

Raag 13 2894m - 2899m

Raag 13 zone 2894m-2899m

Meas'd Btmh Press (psi)
Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)

14000
14000

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

30.00

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

Meas'd Btmh Press (psi)

12000

30.00

Apperent ISIP
12276psi
Stabilized ISIP
9808psi

11200
11200

24.00

11240

24.00
Stabilized ISIP
10503psi

Apperent ISIP
10506 psi

18.00

8400
8400

10480

18.00
Stabilized ISIP 9808
psi

12.00

5600
5600

9720

12.00
Closure 8595 psi

6.000

2800
2800

0.0
0.0

8960

6.000

0.0

55.0

68.6

82.2

95.8

109.4

123.0

0.0

63.00

63.80

64.60

65.40

66.20

67.00

8200

Time (min)

Time (min)

Figure 9: Raag 13, First and Second Injection Test.

Figure 10: Mild Field Tortuorsity: High Apperent ISIP.

First Injection Test.

SPE 132932

Apparent ISIP pressure gradient was 1.12 psi/ft (10506 psi) and actual ISIP gradient was 1.05 psi/ft (9808psi) (Figure 9, 10). ISIP
gradients were higher overburden gradient which was due to extreme fracture copmpexity. The pressure decline in first few
minutes can be explained by mild-field tortuosity a pressure choke beyond the near-well bore pressure in the fracture (some
distance from the wellbore). This effect has also been seen during fracturing volcanic rock in Japan 5. Total NWB (near well bore)
friction was very high 1849 psi. Closure gradient was 0.9 psi/ft from G-Function plot (Figure 11). The signature of pressuredependent leak off can be seen in G Funtion plot. After monitoring the pressure fall off, a second injection was started (Figure 8).
The treatment started at the rate of 9.1 bpm and initially at around 9200 psi but the pressure kept on increasing. Therefore, in order
to keep the pressure below maximum allowed surface pressure (10000 psi) the pumping rate had to be reduced to 2.6 bpm by the
end of treatment. A total of 53 bbls of linear gel was pumped for the second injection. NWB friction, calculated form the diffirence
between bottomhole pressure just before shut in and stabilized ISIP, was extreamly high of about 2675 psi. Apperent ISIP gradient
was 1.3 psi/ft (12276psi) and stabilized ISIP was 1.13 psi/ft (10503 psi). Apparently the second injection test created a more
complex fracture network increasing NWB friction (1848 psi vs 2675 psi). In both injection tests there were no hammer effect
pressure behavior in surface pressure which indicated that there was a choke (severe pinch) between fluid in near wellbore and
fluid in far field fracture6. Closure gradient from G-Function plot was higher than for the first injection 0.98 psi/ft, probably due to
extreme NWB friction which did not allow seeing actual closure of main fracture (Figure 12).

Raag 13 Top Felsic

Implied Slurry Efficiency (%)
(d/dG) Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)
Meas'd Btmh Press (psi)

100.0
90000
15000

Raag 13 zone 2894m-2899m

(Gd/dG) Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)
Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)

Implied Slurry Efficiency (%)

(d/dG) Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)
Meas'd Btmh Press (psi)

(Gd/dG) Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)

Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)

3000
15000

100.0
50000
15000

80.00
72000
12000

2400
12000

80.00
40000
12000

2400
12000

60.00
54000
9000

1800
9000

60.00
30000
9000

1800
9000

40.00
36000
6000

1200
6000

40.00
20000
6000

1200
6000

20.00
18000
3000

600.0
3000

20.00
10000
3000

600.0
3000

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.000

0.720

1.440

2.160

2.880

G Function Time

Figure 11: Raag 13, Injection Test #1

G Function.

3.600

0.000

0.140

0.280

0.420

0.560

0.700

3000
15000

0.0
0.0

G Function Time

Figure 12: Raag 13, Injection Test #2

G Function..

Before completely abandoning the zone it was decided to re-perforate the zone in a new interval 2887m-2892m -just two meters
above existing perforation. A total of 99 bbls of 35 ppt linear gel was pumped during second injection (Figure 13). Initially,
maximum rate reached was 8.4 bpm at a surface pressure of 8920 psi, but pressure started to increase there after and rate had be
brought down. A maximum pressure of 9320 psi was recorded at 6.2 bpm as the linear gel hit the formation. Towards the end of
the injection, the rate had to be dropped to 6.4 bpm at a pressure of 8937 psi. As soon as the linear gel reached the formation the
pressure increased from 8937 psi to 9280 psi and the injection was stopped. Finally, it was concluded that this zone was not a
candidate for frac and the zone was abandoned by placing a sand plug to isolate it from the upper zone.

SPE 132932

Raag 13 2887m-2892m
Meas'd Btmh Press (psi)
Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)

14000
14000

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

30.00

Stabilized ISIP
11416 psi

11200
11200

24.00

8400
8400

18.00

5600
5600

12.00

2800
2800

6.000

0.0
0.0

103.0

108.4

113.8

119.2

124.6

130.0

0.0

Time (min)

Figure 13: Raag 13 Treatment Chart after reperforation in new interval.

Case # 2: Reducing perforation interval and gel slug

Well Raag 14zone Volcanic zone (Felsic) in 2987-2989.5 m with total 12 spf perforation density. Taking into account previous
unssucesful fracturing attempt in well 13 this time it was desiced to reduce perforation interval from 5 m to 2.5 m to prevent
occurrence of multiple fractures. Initially a breakdown treatment was attempted with 140 bbls with 10 ppt linear gel. A maximum
rate of 21.2 bpm was achieved at 9100 psi but rate finally dropped 4.5 bpm at 9100 psi by the end of treatment indicating a
complex fracture network (Figure 14). Another injection test was pumped with 40 ppt gel to check if a viscous gel helps in
overcoming any tortousity and getting a wider frac.
The 40 ppt gel breakdown treatment was started with 3 bpm at 8800 psi surface pressure and increased to 9000 psi after pumping
90 bbls of 40 ppt gel (Figure 15). This gel was displaced with 30 bbls of 2 gpt claytreat water. The ISIP gradients were 1.149 and
1.187 psi/ft for 10 and 40 ppt gel respectively indicating complex fracture network. G-Function analysis showed huge PDL
signature for both injection tests (Figure 16, 17). It was decided that the zone in interval 2987-2989.5 m was not a suitable
candidate and finally an abandonment was performed by placing a sand plug for isolating this zone from next perforation interval
2825m-2830m (Basalt zone).

Raag 14 2987m-2989.5m

Raag 14 2987m-2989.5m

Meas'd Btmh Press (psi)

Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

Meas'd Btmh Press (psi)

Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

30.00

15000
15000

24.04

12000
12000

18.08

9000
9000

18.12

6000
6000

12.12

6000
6000

12.18

3000
3000

6.160

3000
3000

6.240

0.200

0.0
0.0

15000
15000

12000
12000

Stabilized ISIP 9669

psi

Closure 6641 psi

9000
9000

0.0
0.0

75.0

82.0

89.0

96.0

103.0

110.0

Stabilized ISIP
10793 psi

27.00

39.60

52.20

64.80

24.06

77.40

Time (min)

Time (min)

Pinnacle Technologies

Figure 14: Raag 14 First Injection, 10 ppt gel.

30.00

Figure 15: Second Injection, 40 ppt gel.

90.00

0.300

10

SPE 132932

Raag 14 2987m-2989.5m

Raag 14 2987m-2989.5m
Implied Slurry Efficiency (%)
(d/dG) Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)
Meas'd Btmh Press (psi)

(Gd/dG) Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)

Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)

Implied Slurry Efficiency (%)

(d/dG) Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)
Meas'd Btmh Press (psi)

(Gd/dG) Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)

Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)

3000
14500

100.0
900000
15000

80.00
160000
11600

2400
11600

80.00
720000
12000

2400
12000

60.00
120000
8700

1800
8700

60.00
540000
9000

1800
9000

40.00
80000
5800

1200
5800

40.00
360000
6000

1200
6000

20.00
40000
2900

600.0
2900

20.00
180000
3000

600.0
3000

100.0
200000
14500

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.000

0.580

1.160

1.740

2.320

2.900

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

0.000

0.120

0.240

0.360

0.480

3000
15000

0.600

0.0
0.0

G Function Time

G Function Time

Pinnacle Technologies

Figure 17: Second Injection, 40 ppt gel.

Figure 16: First Injection 10 ppt gel.

100-mesh sand slug ensured success of frac treatments

The next zone on Raag-14 (Basalt zone) was perforated in 2825m-2830m interval. The initial Breakdown Injection test was
carried out as per the plan by displacing the well bore fluid 35 ppt gel with 150 bbls of 10 ppt linear gel. During the breakdown
injection an average rate of 25 bpm was achieved and the maximum surface pressure recorded was 8080 psi. By the end of the
treatment pressure had stabilized to 6620 psi at 25 bpm. A step down test was done at the end of injection and showed 680 psi of
NWB friction. MiniFrac net pressure was matched using Cw=0.0021ft/min 0.5 and zero spurt loss (Figure 18). G-Function showed
PDL signature (Figure 19). Closure gradient was 0.85 psi/ft and crosslinked fluid efficiency was 71%. MiniFrac step down test
was again done at the end of minifrac treatment and confirmed NWF of 680 psi. A total of 127 bbls of 40 ppt crosslinked fluid was
pumped and displaced with 40ppt linear gel. Net Pressure for linear gel was around 400 psi and for crosslinked fluid was about
500 psi which is what would be expected given the higher viscosity of the crosslinked gel.
Raag 14 2825m-2830m
Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)
Net Pressure (psi)

100.0
1500

Raag 14 2825m-2830m
Observed Net (psi)

Implied Slurry Efficiency (%)

(d/dG) Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)
Meas'd Btmh Press (psi)

(Gd/dG) Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)

Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)

1500

100.0
1000
10000

80.00
1200

1200

80.00
800.0
8000

400.0
4000

60.00
900.0

900.0

60.00
600.0
6000

300.0
3000

40.00
600.0

600.0

40.00
400.0
4000

200.0
2000

20.00
300.0

300.0

20.00
200.0
2000

100.0
1000

0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0 50.00

59.60

69.20

78.80

88.40

98.00

Time (min)

Figure 18: MiniFrac, Net Pressure match.

0.000

1.640

3.280

4.920

6.560

500.0
5000

8.200

0.0
0.0

G Function Time

Figure 19: MiniFrac G-Function.

The Mainfrac treatment was designed with all acquired data from injection test and minifrac. The job was designed to pump
163,000 lbs of 20/40 and 16/30 ISP proppant at a maximum concentration of 8ppa with 100 bbls of pad (17%). During the
mainfrac an initial surface pressure was observed at 7800 psi and 24.5 bpm, but as the 0.5 ppa stage hit the formation pressure
started to rise and never stabilized (Figure 20). In order to avoid screenout and a subsequent unplanned wellbore proppant
cleanout it was decided to call flush earlier. Flush was reduced to 42 bbls to leave a sand plug and cover the existing perforation
interval. A total of 11, 000 lbs of proppant was pumped into the well and around 1700 lbs was left in the well bore. It was a

SPE 132932

11

surprise to see tip screen-out behavior in such low permeability zone having a frac fluid efficiency of > 70%. There was almost
1300 psi net pressure gain (Figure 21). NWB friction (bottomhole pressure drop at ISIP (Figure 21) was the similar to minifrac
step-down of 700 psi. Net pressure was matched with increased stress contrast beween the layers and 5 multiple fractures wich
provided good after shut-in match.
Raag 14 2825m-2830m

Raag 14 2825m-2830m
Screw Prop Conc. (ppg)
Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)

2.000
10000

Btm Prop Conc (ppg)

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

Meas'd Btmh Press (psi)

Observed Net (psi)
Net Pressure (psi)

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

Prop Conc (ppg)

2.000
30.00

12000
5500
5500

1.600
8000

1.600
24.08

11000
4400
4400

80.00
4.000

1.200
6000

1.200
18.16

10000
3300
3300

60.00
3.000

0.800
4000

0.800
12.24

9000
2200
2200

40.00
2.000

0.400
2000

0.400
6.320

8000
1100
1100

20.00
1.000

0.0
0.0

56.00

62.80

69.60

76.40

83.20

7000
0.0
0.0 57.0

0.0
90.00 0.400

Time (min)

71.6

86.2

100.8

115.4

100.0
5.000

0.0
0.0

130.0

Time (min)

Figure 20: MainFrac treatment data.

Figure 21: MainFrac match.

It was mentioned before that originally during the pumping main frac it was decided to leave the sand plug in the wellbore and go
ahead perforate and stimulate the upper zone. However, after analyzing the Mini and MainFrac it was decided to repeat the
fracture treatment one more time. This time 100 mesh sand slugs were utilized for the first time in this campaign in what became
the default procedure for the rest of the campaign. It was assumed that 100-mesh could help in reducing the fracture complexity
and mitigating the anticipated natural fractures which was typical characteristic of volcanic sections in the field. As around 1700
lbs of proppant was left in the wellbore, the sand left in the well bore was displaced back into the formation by pumping 90 bbls of
linear gel. It appears that there was no sand plug and the injection test went fine (Figure 22). 5000 pounds of 100 mesh sand slugs
were added to the MiniFrac at 1.5 ppa concentration. A 200 psi drop in surface pressure was observed when the slug entered the
formation (Figure 23). This time net pressure was significally higher than the net pressure for first minifrac (1200 psi and 600 psi
respectively). Closure gradient was also higher 0.92 psi/ft and fuid efficiency was 50%. Net pressure was matched with the closure
gradient of 0.92 psi/ft, increased Cw=0.0023 ft/min 0.5 and Spurt Loss = 0.2gal/ft2. The number of multiple fractures was reduced
to 3 for the first few minutes and to 0 after sand slug entered formation. MiniFrac ISIP was 9590 psi (gradient 1.09 PSI/FT)
comparing to 8480 psi (0.92PSI/FT) for first minifrac.
Raag 14 2825-2830

Raag 14 2825m-2830m
Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)

10000

30.00

8000

24.00

6000

18.00

4000

12.00

2000

0.0

6.000

9.50

14.60

19.70

24.80

29.90

35.00

Time (min)

0.0

5.000
9500

Screw Prop Conc. (ppg)

Surf Press [Tbg] (psi)

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

30.00

4.000
8300

24.00

3.000
7100

18.00

2.000
5900

12.00

1.000
4700

6.000

0.0
3500 13.00

25.80

38.60

51.40

64.20

77.00

0.0

Time (min)

Figure 22: Injection test before MiniFrac.

Figure 23: MiniFrac and 100 mesh sand slug.

The Mainfrac was redesigned with two slugs of 100 mesh and 20/40 mesh sand slugs with a ramped concentration from 0.5 to
1ppa. Pad was increased to 475 bbls (21%) and the sand stages were made less aggressive. The Frac treatment had to be stopped

12

SPE 132932

for 15 minutes in the beginning due to technical problems. The main treatment was successfully pumped and displaced with
approx 250,000 lbs of proppant placed in the formation. Net pressure increased at the end of the job with a tip screen-out signature
(Figure 24, 25). Prior to this job, none of the previous treatments pumped in the campaign, had reached the target quantity of
proppant. The use of 100 Mesh for successful pumping of the job outweighed the concern about the damage created to the
formation by use of 100 Mesh. The mainFrac net pressure was matched using 2 multiple fractures (Figure 25). Figures 26 shows
fracture profile after net pressure match. Table 4 show a summary of job parameters from the fracturing campaign.
Overall, the inclusion of 100-mesh sand in the pad treatment proved successful as another 3 zones in the volcanic sections and 2 in
the sandstone section were fractures as per the planned schedule as detailed in Table-4. To re-confirm the effectiveness of 100mesh slug in the treatment, one of the sandstone formation fracture job was conducted without 100-mesh and 20/40 proppant
slugs. The treatment screened out at 6ppa with a net pressure rise of almost 2000psi indicating the need of 100-mesh. Another job
without 20/40 slugs but 100-mesh was also pumped during the campaign. The job went as per plan suggesting no effect on the
treatment by removing 20/40 proppant slugs. Operator thereafter accepted the 100-mesh methodology as the means of pumping
successful and effective treatments for these wells.

Raag 14 2825m-2830m

Raag 14 2825m-2830m
Observed Net (psi)
Net Pressure (psi)

3000
3000

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

Screw Prop Conc. (ppg)

Observed Net (psi)

Net Pressure (psi)

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

Screw Prop Conc. (ppg)

100.0
5.000

5000
5000

2400
2400

80.00
4.000

4000
4000

80.00
16.00

1800
1800

60.00
3.000

3000
3000

60.00
12.00

1200
1200

40.00
2.000

2000
2000

40.00
8.000

600.0
600.0

20.00
1.000

1000
1000

20.00
4.000

0.0
0.0 15.00

28.00

41.00

54.00

0.0
80.00 0.0

67.00

0.0
0.0

Time (min)

Concentration of Proppant in Fracture (lb/ft)

MD(m)

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

4.5

5.0

Felsic
Felsic NonPay
NonPay

Felsic
Felsic
Felsic
Felsic NonPay
NonPay

2800

Felsic
Felsic

Felsic
Felsic NonPay
NonPay
Felsic
Felsic

2825

Felsic
Felsic NonPay
NonPay
Felsic
Felsic NonPay
NonPay
Felsic
Felsic NonPay
NonPay
2850
Felsic
Felsic NonPay
NonPay

Proppant Concentration (lb/ft)

2875

Fracture Profile with Logs and Layers

Figure 26: Fracture profile.

150.6

200.4

250.2

Figure 25: Main Frac Net pressure match.

Raag 14 2825m-2830m
Layer Properties

100.8

Time (min)

Figure 24: MiniFrac Net pressure match.

Rocktype

51.0

0.50

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

100.0
20.00

300.0

0.0
0.0

SPE 132932

13

Proppant
Slugs
Well

Formation

Perforation
Interval

100
mesh

20/40
mesh

Propp
ant in
Form
ation,
klbs

Actual Fracture Geometry

Comments
Half
Lengt
h (m)

Height
(m)

Wid
th
(in)

Fcd

Raag 13

Top Felsic

2894-2899

no

no

Unable to Frac

Raag 13

Top Felsic

2835-2840

no

no

165

124.0

29.0

Raag 14

Top Felsic

3187-3192

no

no

155.4

94.0

37.0

Raag 14
Raag 14

Top Felsic
Top Felsic

3020-3025
2987-2989

no
no

no
no

55

Raag 14

Basalt

2825-2830

no

no

11

Raag 14

Basalt

Re-Frac
2825-2830

yes

yes

250

104

38.4

0.3

12.5

1300psi Net pressure at the end of

job.. Pumped as per design

Raag 15

Top Felsic

3205-3210

yes

yes

197

106

69.0

0.5

7.0

Pumped as per design

Raag 15

Top Felsic

2910-2915

yes

yes

258

114

36

0.3

12.5

1300psi Net pressure increase at

the end of job. Pumped as per
design

Raag 15

Top
Felsic+Basalt

2845-2850

yes

yes

183

118

43

0.4

10.6

700psi Net pressure increase. Tip

screen-out. Pumped as per design

Raag 15

Fatehgarh

2753-2758

yes

no

169

107

47

0.3

21.4

Pumped as per design

Raag 15

Fatehgarh

2669-2674

no

no

76

Tip Screen-out at 6 ppa stage. Almost 2000 psi Net pressure increase

Raag 14

Fatehgarh

2772-2777

yes

yes

256

136

57

0.2

2.7

400psi Net pressure increase.

Pumped as per design

Raag 14

Fatehgarh

2700-2705

yes

yes

272

109

36

0.4

7.9

1290psi Net pressure increase

Pumped as per design

0.3

7.7

Tip Screen-out at 5 ppa stage.

Almost 2000 psi Net pressure
increase at the end of job
Job not complete due to high Pressure.
Unable to Frac
0.2

26.2

Job not complete due to high Pressure.

Table 4: Fracturing Treatment summary table.

7
6
5
4
3

Screen-out at 9 ppa 16/30 mesh.

Perf friction after step down 200 psi

Sand slug
No sand slug

2
1
0
Total Jobs
Succesful Jobs
Figure 26: Jobs with and without 100 mesh sand slug.

14

SPE 132932

NWB Friction and Net Pressure

Total NWB Friction, psi

Net Pressure injection test, psi

Net Pressure minifrac, psi

Proppant in Formation, klbs

4000
3500

300
250

2500
2000
1500

200
150
100

Proppant, klbs

Pressure, psi

3000

1000
500
0

50
0

Figure 27: NWB Friction and Net Pressure.

The R14 Re-frac 2825-30 farcturing used 100-mesh slug. Near well bore friction was reduced by the use of 100-mesh which further reduced the
average pumping pressure and overall horse power requirement.

Microseismic Mapping
Microseismic mapping was conducted in last 2 zones (Fatehgarh formation interval of Raageshwari-14 well) out of the 13 zones
being treated in the fracturing campaign. The main limitation of micro-seismic mapping was the restriction at the 3.5 liner top
which caused the recording tool to not be at the same vertical depth as the treatment zones. The OD of the available recording tool
was approximately 4.5 which limited the maximum depth to above the liner top. The 2 zones being recorded were the best
available zones in terms of the shortest distance between the recording tool and treatment interval (610m and 572m for lower and
upper zones respectively Figure 28) as shown below. Raageshwari-16 in the other pad location was the recording well wherein
the maximum possible depth till which recording tool could reach was ~2420m TVD.

SPE 132932

Figure 28: Distance between recording tool and treatment

interval.

15

Figure 29: FMI Break out direction N30E

During the lower zone seismic mapping, 9 events were captured, which was considered below average for a proper seismic
mapping and interpretation. Orientation of the fracture propagation was N51E with a dip of 66 deg which was close to the FMI
break out directions of the field as recorded in other well (Figure 29). Further, a fracture half length of 125m and frac height of
47m was recorded which almost matched with the frac parameters being evaluated by frac simulator (Figure 30). Still, due to
very few events being captured, a good amount of uncertainty is expected on the result.
During second zone mapping, 57 events were captured. Orientation of the fracture propagation was N45E with a dip of 48 deg
which was close to the previous mapped treatment thus confirming the stress direction. A total of 290Klbs of proppant was
pumped into the formation with ~1800bbls of clean fluid at a rate of 20bpm. Microseismic event showed a constant downward
fracture growth with almost overlapping the previous treatments. This height growth in the initial phase of treatment matched with
the net pressure growth of fracture treatment. This unidirectional growth indicated presence of a natural fault in similar direction.
The well test data and seismic recording of the field suggested a probability of fault in the same direction, but was not considered
in the final field simulation model (Figure 31). This probability was proved by the micro-seismic recording thus improving the
overall reservoir simulation model of the field. No firm conclusion was made in matching the simulator modeled frac growth with
the micro-seismic recording due to a probable growth into unexpected fault.
Overall, conducting micro-seismic operation for frac diagnostic provided confidence to the operator for use in subsequent wells
considering that the operator used this technique for the first time in any of the assets. Limited conclusions were derived from the
micro-seismic mapping in terms of change in frac scheduling and optimization. Evaluation of fracture propagation direction
(Figure 32) and increasing the probability of a fault near the well bore displayed the usefulness of technique in terms of
improving simulation models of the field. Finally, the technique was functionally proved and was found viable in future
treatments.

16

SPE 132932

Raag 14 2772_2777
Fracture Profile
Width Profile (...
MD(m)

MD(m)

2725

2725

2750

2750

Concentration of Proppant in Fracture (lb/ft)

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Layer Properties
100

110

120

Fracture Length (m)

Propped Length (m)
Total Fracture Height (m)
Total Propped Height (m)
Fracture Top Depth (m)
Fracture Bottom Depth (m)
Average Fracture Width (cm)
Average Proppant Concentrat ion (lb/ft)
Equivalent number of multiple frac tures
Dimensionless Conductivity

Stress (psi)
130 TVD(m) Rocktype
5000 10000 MD(m)
126.4
Fatagarh Pay
Fatagarh
Pay
125.3
Fatehgarh No...
No...
47.6
2687
2725
47.2
Fatehgarh No...
No...
2710.5
2758.2
1. 433
Fatehgarh No...
No...
2.47
1.0
Fatagarh
3. 160
Fatagarh Pay
Pay
Fatehgarh No...
No...
2712

2750

Fatehgarh No...
No...
Fatehgarh No...
No...
2775

2775

2737

Fatagarh Pay
Fatagarh
Pay

2775

Fatehgarh No...
No...

2800

2800

2825

2825

2761

2800

2786

2825

Proppant Concentration (lb/ft)

0.72

1.4

2.2

2.9

3.6

4.3

5.0

5.8

6.5

7.2

Actual Treatment

Figure 30: Actual Frac profile for Well Raag#14, Zone#4

Figure 31: Raageshwari map.

Figure 32: Frac propagation direction from microseismic

Production results
Till date the paper is being written, only 2 out of the 3 wells in the campaign were flowed back. Well #15, wherein all the zones
were fracced as per plan, was initially flowed for 7 days post frac clean up and the flash production recorded at ~1000psi
drawdown was recorded close to 15-20 MMSCFD of gas. The 10-day flash production predicted from all the 5 zones flowing
commingle on the basis of final frac models was 19.0MMSCFD.
Well #14, with 4 zones frac as planned and the well where one of the fracs is expected to intersect into a natural fault was flowed
for 3-4 days and the flash commingled production recorded at ~1000psi drawdown against formation was ~21 MMSCFD. This
production was also close to the expected flash production from the frac as per the frac simulator models (22.0-25.0 MMSCFD)
Overall, the production results from the fracturing treatments were as expected. This gave a very good confidence to the operator
on the frac models and consequent production prediction.
Considering the fact that the post frac flash production from wells fractured in 2005-06 was in the range of 7-12 MMSCFD, the
wells in the current campaign were anticipated to have a maximum flash production of up to 12MMSCFD at 1000psi drawdown.

SPE 132932

17

With current campaign wells flowing approximately 20MMSCFD of gas production at 1000psi drawdown, the production results
from these fracs can be termed as more than expected.
Conclusion

High numbers of near wellbore frictions pressure ISIP gradient > overburden gradient, very high Net pressure all this
can be explained by fracture complexity due to small natural fractures.
100 mesh slugs and in some degree 20/40 mesh proppant slugs drastically improved the success of hydraulic fracturing
treatment. Meantime, using viscous gel plug did not show any benefits in reducing tortuosity.
Despite low permeability and very high fluid efficiency of about 50% tip screen out have been seen in a majority wells
which again can be explain by multiple fractures and losing part of fluid onto secondary created fractures.
It is very important to continue microseismic monitoring during hydraulic stimulation in order to improve the fracturing
operations by providing reliable information on fracture geometry and reservoir parameters (faults) for successful
Raageshwari unconventional reservoir development
Initial production response was considerably above expectation proving success of hydraulic fracturing. Eight more wells
have already been drilled with plan 4 fracturing treatment per well.

Future Work

Sand Jet perforating is planned to be implemented in order to help to limit the amount of NWB friction and reduce overall
completion cycling time.
Establish long term stable commingled flow rates from the well and conduct Production Logging to evaluate the
individual zone performance

Acknowledgements
The authors thank Cairn Energy India and BJ Services Company for permission to publish the presented data.

References
1.

Mihir Jha, Ratan Singh, Sanjeev Vermani: Monobore Design Optomises Slim Hole Raageshwari Deep Gas Development,
SPE 128394, presented at the SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition, Mumbai, India (20-22 January 2010)

2.

Josef Shaoul, SPE, Pinnacle Technologies, Michael Ross, SPE, Cairn Energy; Winston Spitzler, SPE, Pinnacle
Technologies; Stuart Wheaton, SPE,RISC UK; Paul Mayland, SPE, BG Canada; and Arvinder Paul Singh, SPE, Cairn
Energy: Massive Hydraulic Fracturing Unlocks Deep Tight Gas Reserves in India, SPE 107337, presented at the
European Formation Damage Conference held in Scheveningen, The Netherlands (30 May-1June 2007)

3.

Yatindra Bhushan, SPE, Cairn Energy: Well Test Analysis in a Lean Gas Condensate Reservoir, SPE 113121, presented
at the SPE Oil and Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition, Mumbai, India (4-6 March 2008)

4.

L.Weijers, L.G.Griffin, Pinnacle Technologies; H. Suguiyama, T. Shimamoto, and S. Talada, Teikoku Oil Company;
K.K. Chong, J.M. Terracina, Halliburton, and C.A. Wright, Pinnacle Technologies: The First Successful Fracture
Treatment Campaign Conducted in Japan: Stimulation Challenges in a Deep, Naturally Fractured Volcanic Rock, SPE
77678, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 29 September 2
October 2002

5.

Michael J. Economides and Tony Martin: Modern Fracturing, chapter 7-6, p. 264

6.

B.W. McDaniel, SPE, N.A. Stegent, SPE, and R. Ellis, SPE, Halliburton Energy Services: How Proppant Slugs and
Viscous Gel Slugs Have Influenced the Success of Hydraulic Fracturing Applications, SPE 71073 presented at the at the
SPE Rocky Mountain Petroleum Technology Conference held in Keystone, Colorado, 21-23 May 2001.

18

SPE 132932