IPTC-18833-MS

Application of Geomechanics for Tight Oil Reservoir Characterisation and

Field Development

T. Kiatrabile, R. Noosri, M. K. Hamdan, S. Kusolsong, S. Palviriyachote, S. Suwatjanapornphong, Y.

Rattanarujikorn, S. Sarisittitham, T. Piyajunya, and N. Phonphetrassameekul, PTT Exploration & Production; T.
Manai, K. Adisornsupawat, H. Mustapha, and D. Press, Schlumberger

Copyright 2016, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Bangkok, Thailand, 14-16 November 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The
material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial
purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference 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 where and by whom the paper was presented.
Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The main objective of this paper is to present the assessment and methodology that would improve the tight
oil recovery by hydraulic fracturing (HF) wells. The methodology is enabled by a fully integrated workflow
orchestrating petro-physical log interpretation, static modelling, and dynamic modelling coupled with rock
mechanics for an optimal fracturing design and mitigating the underlying risks.
In the past, well placement in tight reservoirs and HF design were performed mostly based on available
analogous data of offset wells using rock mechanics parameters such as stress magnitude and regional stress
orientation to predict the fractures that would propagate through the reservoir in a certain location and well
orientation, the stress/strain regime is one of the key parameters that plays an important role. It is also the
key performance indicator for developing the tight oil reservoir with underlying complexities.
The process is initiated by the conventional static modelling which involves structural framework
construction, distributing the petro-physical characteristics subject to the well logs and other available
subsurface data. The second step is to perform a history match of a derived dynamic model by honouring
the observed data. This process helps in calibrating the model to be able to represent reservoir dynamic
behavior. The results of the history matched model; i.e., reservoir pressure through time is the key input
for the Mechanical Earth Model (MEM) in the next step. The MEM process starts with the construction of
a 1D MEM using well log advanced scanner and rock mechanics properties from laboratory to represent
the strength and elastic properties of the rock where existing wells have been penetrated into the reservoir
layers. Hence, a coupled dynamic reservoir simulation with 3D geomechanical model will yield a realistic
relationship between the current reservoir depletion state in terms of pressure and the current stress strain
regime. This relationship is paramount for optimal location indentification of the fracturing wells and
corresponding design together with an estimation of the subsequent recovery. Also, the rock mechanic
simulation study would yield a comprehensive result with respect to the reservoir mechanical integrity while
conducting the hydraulic fracturing operation to increase the well productivity.
This integrated workflow is considered as the key step for tight oil reservoir development, and it can be
expanded to unconventional resources for a better reservoir characterisation and reservoir development. The
2 IPTC-18833-MS

study was performed within close collaboration within the teams with comprehensive know-how sharing
and exchange.

Introduction
S1 concession area locates in the northern part of Thailand. There is a significant amount of the STOIIP
has been classified as "Tight Sand" formations. The Tight Sand, in this report, represents the reservoir
targets with analogous characteristics; poorly sorted and/or highly compacted, relatively at deeper depths,
low productivity, high drawdown, rapid decline, and low production gain compared to upper waterflooded
layers. In order to unlock additional potential from the tight oil reservoir, Sirikit East is considered as a
perfect candidate to perform the new approach of hydraulic fracturing target selection and design. The
reason is because it has a proven production history from its tight sand formation; i.e., LKU M formation. It
has a well constructed sand model in all layers with less faulting system, which leads to less complexity in
reservoir modelling perspective. Moreover, the recovery factor to-date is less than 7.7%. Hence, there is still
an opportunity for further development and production improvement. This task can be achieved employing
a fully integrated geo-mechanical study.

Sirikit East Areas

Geological Background. Sirikit East area is located to the east of Sirikit Oil Field in the S1 Concession,
Phitsanulok Basin, Thailand. The basin relates to normal fault to strike-slip fault extensional rifting filled
with fluvio-lacustrine to fluvial sequence in syn-rift and post-rift stages respectively. The main reservoirs are
fluvio-lacustrine Lan Krabu Formation: D, K, L and M reservoirs that interfinger with the open lacustrine
Chumsaeng Formation. Normally, hydrocarbon traps in structural closure, such as, Sirikit East and other
areas in Sirikit Main. However, many wells have proven that hydrocarbon can be trapped by stratigraphic
trap in Greater Sirkit East.
M reservoirs in the study area are also fluvio-lacustrine sequence which is deposited on distal deltaic
environment. The reservoirs are presented both blocky to bell shape of channel reservoir and coarsening
upward sequence of mouthbar reservoir which laminated with shale as Figure 1. Therefore, low productivity
and low recovery factor could be due to the reservoir quality and connectivity problems that are expected
to be improved by the hydraulic fracturing.

Figure 1—Depositional Model of LKU Reservoirs.

IPTC-18833-MS 3

Reservoir Distribution Maps. Figure 2 presents the reservoir distribution of all M reservoirs (M2 to
M4) which were created from the well data, pressure information, hydrocarbon presence, and the reservoir
depositional environment model

Figure 2—Reservoir Distribution Map of LKU M, Sirikit East area

Volume Estimation. The initial volumetric hydrocarbon in-place of all LKU M reservoirs was estimated
by Net Rock Volume method from the reservoir thickness map. The base case volume is 13.66 MMBOE
based on 66% volume of shale and 10% porosity cutoff applied.
Reservoir Properties. The summary of the reservoir properties are shown in table below:

Table 1—Summary of reservoir properties

Reservoir Information (LKU

Parameters
M sands)

Total Thickness varies from 4-6 m, Average 3

Thickness
m

Porosity Range 14 – 20%

Permeability Range 0.7 – 40 mD

Net-to-Gross 0.1 – 0.2

Fluvio-lacustrine in more distal system and

Depositional Environment possibly to break into sub-layers (M1, M2, M3,
M3.1, M4, M4.1, M5)

Approximate well spacing 200 m

Reservoir Depth M1 top marker is a 1800 to 2500 m TVDSS

Proposed Area of Interest for the Study. The area of interest is around 20 km2 covering Sirikit East areas as
shown in Figure 3. The overall LKU M sands, in fact, expand to the southern part of the areas. However, the
extents were mainly a single layer rather than all sub-layers, therefore; a focused area is kept as shown below.
4 IPTC-18833-MS

Figure 3—Area of Interest for Simulation Study

Work Process
The study process is shown in Figure 4. It starts from the data gathering and validation before stepping into
static and dynamic modeling, 3D Mechanical Earth modeling, and HF design.
IPTC-18833-MS 5

Figure 4—Integrated 3D Geomechanical Modeling Workflow

Data Validation Process and Quality Control

Data validation processes took around two weeks in the beginning and continued throughout the study
period to ensure that all the input data leads to a justified result with known uncertainties. There are big list
of data required for this simulation study. The main data requirements are:
Geophysical Data. Seismic 3D Cube, Time-to-Depth Conversion, Faults and Stru cture Interpretation in
Time and Depth Domain, Time and Depth Structure Map
Geology Data. Geological Background Reports, Markers, Correlations, Reservoir Thickness Map, Fluid
Contacts, STOIIP Estimation
Petrophysical Data. Well Log and Petrophysical Evaluation Log, Core Information, Poro-Perm
Correlations, Saturation Height Function
Reservoir Engineering Data. Production History Data, SCAL, Capillary Information, Fluid Properties,
PVT data
Geomechanical Data. FIT/LOT, Geomechanical Logs, Core Data, Mechanical Test Data
Development Data. Existing well deviation and completion data
In this process, full stack seismic attribute was investigated in order to define the seismic feature that
could recognize the sedimentary distribution of the environment. The defined window of seismic loop was
set about 30 milliseconds but each M sub-interval is approximately 10 meter thick. Thus, it is not possible
to apply this fine layer resolution to individually extract for each unit. Seismic attribute characters could
show only the tendency of depositional environment that mainly runs from north to south or northwest to
southeast by down-lap feature.

Static Model
Structural Modeling. The structural model was built by using Volume Base Modeling (VBM) which
captured the structural interpretation and extrapolation of syn-rift structural setting. Each horizon was
adjusted to the top markers and used as tendency for sub-interval horizon gridding. A grid cell was defined
6 IPTC-18833-MS

as 50 × 50 meters with cell running path from north to south. Vertical resolution was set between 0.3 to 0.9
meters with a proportional layering approach that can capture a syn-rift stratigraphy setting. The minimum
and maximum gross thickness for each unit was calculated to be best fit with layering scenario. Finally, total
number of grid cells is 5,056,128 cells with 114 × 99 × 448 dimension in I, J, and K direction respectively.
Oil water contact was set as 2P contact generated from half-way concept between oil-down-to depths
(1P) and water-up-to or reservoir bodylimit (3P).
Well Log Upscaling and Data Analysis. According to lacking of core data and facie analysis in this area,
rock typing was classified into only two rock types: reservoir and non-reservoir using the cut-off from
petrophysical evaluation log. Net reservoir was interpreted by applying 50% Vshale and 5% porosity as
a cutoff.
Rock type and petrophysical log which includes effective porosity, total porosity, and permeability were
upscaled into the grid cells that could capture the details from the log with this vertical resolution. These
data were used to perform the data analysis in order to define the variogram range and vertical proportion
relationship for constructing the rock type and properties modeling. The major flow direction was set as
N20W to N05W which was obtained from the seismic attribute and be aligned with the regional flow
direction. Generally, the parameter of the major range of M reservoir is about 600 to 1200 meters, while
the minor range is varied from 500 to 800 meters with 1.5 to 3.0 meters of vertical range. The algorithm
of data analysis was set as spherical type because it was expected to represent the connectivity of reservoir
as reservoir distribution map.
Rock Type Modeling. The static model was created from the combination of pixel-based and object-
based modeling which could capture the geological concept of the area. Rock type model was built using
Sequential Indicator Simulation (SIS) based on the natural transitions through a sequence of different rock
types to tie with the data analysis parameter and reservoir trend map. A proportion sand map was used as a
trend map to make the model more geological sense of reservoir distribution.
Properties Modeling. The properties model was built by two processes that depend on the type of
information. First, the group of reservoir properties that interpreted from log, such as, effective porosity
and total porosity were applied to the model using Gaussian Random Function Simulation with co-kriging
simulation. The algorithm integrated parameters from the data analysis and reservoir distribution tendency
from rock type model. Therefore, the porosity models would represent the nature of reservoir quality related
to the reservoir geobody. Another group is the properties that calculated from the correlation between
the core data and petrophysical evaluation log, such as, permeability from poro-perm relationship, water
saturation from saturation height function and net-to-gross.
Figure 5 shows the result of the static model from the process mentioned above. The upper row compares
the reservoir distribution concept with the rock type modeling result. They have similar shape in which many
wells have penetrated. The lower row shows the property distribution results which have good correlations
with rock type model.
IPTC-18833-MS 7

Figure 5—Thickness and average map of static model result.

Volumetric Calculation. The base case volumetric calculation from static model was estimated by
deterministic approach. Base case volume is 15.58 MMBOE based on 50% volume of shale and 5% porosity
cut-off, while the volume estimated by Net Rock Volume method from reservoir thickness map is 13.66
MMBOE based on 66% volume of shale and 10% porosity cut-off.
Uncertainty Analysis. The uncertainty analysis was incorporated into the modelling workflow by scenario
based and analogous to the Monte Carlo Simulation of the volumetric calculation. The main difference is
the input distributions directly used triangular; all the volumetric calculations are based on intermediate
3D models. Another important difference is the input distributions using in the 3D modelling such as
petrophysical parameters (effective porosity and water saturation), net-to-gross, seed number of starting
point for model population and fluid contacts.
The result of uncertainty analysis is presented by the range of STOIIP. The distribution of the volume
is 14.39, 15.55, and 17.03 as low, mid, and high case, respectively. This sensitivity analysis shows that
the seed number, water saturation, and fluid contacts have the major impact to the volume of the potential
hydrocarbon.

Dynamic Model & State-of-the-Art History Matching

After the static model was constructed and validated, the dynamic model was continued accordingly.
Structural Gridding & Porosity Cut-Off. The dynamic model was derived from the static model with
around 5M cells. With the attempt to optimize the runtime whereas yielding a representative dynamic
model, the FINESCALE and UPGRIDDED model were systematically considered. In addition to the static
modeling, porosity cut-off at 5% has been revisited, as the lower porosity reservoirs are believed to be
one of the feasible upsides for tight reservoirs. Hence various porosity thresholds from 1% to 5% were
considered. Figure A--1 and Figure A--2 show how different porosity cut-off affects the FINESCALE and
UPGRIDDED model.
8 IPTC-18833-MS

To understand the impact of the porosity cut off on the study objectives among the main mechanisms
that controls the reservoir dynamics, a set of history matching with different porosity cut-off (P01 for 1%,
P02 for 2%, P03 for 3%, and P05 for 5%) were run to compare the results between UPGRIDDED (HMC)
and FINESCALE (HMF) models as shown in Figure 6 shows that the results of HMC_P01 and HMF_P01
is precisely close and for the benefits of the run time and reservoir representation, UPGRIDDED with 1%
porosity cut-off is then used to derive the full study.

Figure 6—Field Oil and Water Cumulative Production Total with UPGRIDDED and FINESCALE Models

From geological perspective the cut off or 1% embed the sand proportion and distribution that permit
to quantify the HF potential and impact. The cut off of 1% represents the best trade-off between retaining
geological realism and dynamic model run time. The final number of Active cells is 0.95M cells.
Water Saturation. Water saturation scaling with capillary pressure distribution has been selected as it
matches water saturation logs as shown in the Figure A--3 (Appendix A).
Permeability Distribution. The original Porosity-Permeability correlation is given by:

However, several sensitivities runs prior to history matching process have shown the poro-perm
relationship cannot be matched with RFT data. Hence, an alternate relationship has been used to honour the
corresponding RFT data as illustrated in the Figure A--4 (Appendix A).

Equilibrium Regions and Fault Integration. The equilibrium regions were constructed as 21 regions
due to the compartmentalized behavior of the reservoirs. There are generally 4 main blocks with different
set of OWCs which are Block A, Block B_in, Block B_out, and Block C as shown in Figure 7. Block C
is neglected for this study as there is not enough data and also is not the focus of this study. Each block
contains 7 sub-layers from M1, M2, M3, M3.1, M4, M4.1, M5, and these results in total of 21 regions (3
blocks times 7 layers).
IPTC-18833-MS 9

Figure 7—Blocks related to OWCs

Saturation Regions and Capillary Pressure Effect. Six saturation regions based on porosity distribution
with both the relative permeability curves and water saturation scaling as variables represent water mobility
and water saturation distribution throughout the whole reservoir the reservoir.
Fluid PVT. The PVT data are obtained from the PVT laboratory which was collected in LKU M sands
of the nearby area.

Finalized Dynamic Model

According to all of the investigations and proper data inputs, the final dynamic model to be applied to history
matching process, future predictions and/or sensivities has the details below:
Technical Details of Simulation Model.
– Blackoil 3-phase model
– Dissolved gas and no vaporized oil
– Dimension: 113 × 99 × 294 = 3.29 M Cells
– Active Cells with porosity ≤ 1% = 0.95 M Cells
– DX and DY dimension: 50 m
– DZ resolution: 0.01 to 45.96 m
– 0.01 ≥ ϕ ≥ 0.3
– 0.2 mD ≥ k ≥ 95 mD
With all above input data, the dynamic model was initialized. The history matching process was next.

History Matching
To perform a history match process for this complex reservoir, a pre-defined objective function has been
introduced with mismatch partial that encompass all the data available.
10 IPTC-18833-MS

Parametrization. The uncertain parameters in this study are:

– Initial Pressures (21 regions)
– Capillary Pressure Scaling (6 sets)
– Relative Permeability (6 sets)
– Region Transmissibility Multipliers (6 zones)
– Pore Volume (of a high production well)
– Transmissibility Multipliers (6 zones)
Other uncertain parameters which are OWCs and Fault Transmissibility were first introduced into the
uncertainty analysis and have been excluded from the history Match since they do not have significant
impact on the Objective function. Originally 105 parameters were introduced and after 1000+ runs with
various, the final influential parameters are reduced to 56.

Table 2—History Match Parametrization

History Match Workflow. The following picture displays the effective and generic workflow used the
sensitivities and the history match process (ref. 14)
History Matching Results. With respect to the generic workflow shown in Figure 8, several possible
solutions have been obtained. The most representative history match model with least Mismatch of objective
functions, which respect to RFT, SBHP, and Oil and Water production rate, was selected as the base case for
further predictions. See Appendix A, Figure A--5, Figure A--6, Figure A--7, Figure A--8, and Figure A--9.
IPTC-18833-MS 11

Figure 8—History Match Workflow

Mechanical Earth Modeling (MEM)

As mentioned earlier that the ‘Geomechanical’ data is an important piece of information required for a
proper well trajectory placement and also the appropriate HF designs. The input data for Geomechanical
Model is listed below:
– Well log data: basic wireline logs (Density, Neutron, Gamm Ray, Resisitivity), Sonic data (with
compressional and shear), Formation Pressure Tests
– Regional stress information: used as validation data for stress regime
– Core test data: rock meachanic core test data to calibrated geomechanic properties
– Daily drilling reports: used to capture all drilling events and to validate the model in all offset wells
1D MECHANICAL EARTH MODELING (1D MEM).
Elastic Properties
Firstly the offset wells need to be defined for 1D MEM model construction before expanding to full 3D
geomechanical model. In this study, 4 offset wells are selected all over the focused area which are Well 1,
Well 2, Well 3, and Well 4. Most of the data listed above are available in all wells, while the compressional
sonic is only available in Well 1 and Well 4. However, only Well 4 well has core data where several vertical
and horizontal core plugs were cut and performed Multi-stage Triaxial Compression (MSTC) tests in ‘sand’
intervals while Multi-stage Compression (MSC) tests were done for shale intervals. Rock mechanic core
tests are used to calibrate log-derived Young's Modulus and Poisson's Ratio depict in Figure 9.
12 IPTC-18833-MS

Figure 9—Log-derived elastic properties calibrated with MSTC (black dots) and MSC (blue dots) of Well 4

Similarly, the Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) and Friction Angle (FANG) are calibrated with
the core test data. Figure 10 shows the log-derived UCS and FANG with calibrated data in block dots. Later
all the calibration factors for YME, PR, UCS, FANG were applied to other offset wells to generated the
corrected elastic and strength properties.
IPTC-18833-MS 13

Figure 10—Log-derived strength properties calibrated with re-interpreted MSTC data (black dots) of Well 4

Vertical Stress & Pore Pressure

Bulk density (ρb) from wireline logs are used to compute the overburden stress (σv) in vertical direction
for all 4 offset wells. Note that in the shallow section without the density log, the extrapolation is applied.
See Figure A--10.
The pore pressures in shales are needed to be defined by assuming that the shales is undercompaction
over geological time; therefore and Bower's method (1995) is applied.
The compressional velocity (Vp) and vertical effective stress (σeff) of 4 offset wells were plotted as shown
in Figure 11. The mudline velocity (Vmudline) is assumed to be 5,000 ft/s while parameters A and B are
calibrated with offset compressional velocity versus effective stress data.
14 IPTC-18833-MS

Figure 11—Compressional Velocity vs. Effective Vertical Stress Plot

The modified Bower's relationship is defined as;

With Terzaghi's equation, the pore pressures (Pp) of shales can be estimated.

Note: α is the Biot's constant assumes as 1.0 in this study.

Pore pressures in permeable zones are estimated using available MDT pressure tests. The final pore
pressures and vertical stresses of the 4 offset wells are provided in Figure A--11.
Horizontal Stresses
In this study, horizontal stresses were calucated using anisotropic poroelastic horizontal strain model
neglecting thermal terms. The minimum horiozontal stress (σn) and maximum horizontal stress (σH) were
calculated from the equations below;

Where;
EH = Horizontal Young's Modulus
EV = Vertical Young's Modulus
vH = Horizontal Possion's Ratio
vV = Vertical Possion's Ratio
εx = Principal Horizontal Strain in x direction
εy = Principal Horizontal Strain in y direction
IPTC-18833-MS 15

As elastic properties were defined earlier, both horizontal stresses can be calculated. The lower limits of
the minimum horizontal stresses were guided by FITs data. Additionally, in order to define the azimuthal
orientation of σH, the shear azimuth from Well 1 and Well 4 were utilized. The areas are know to be in strike-
slip regime and the of Well 1 is N92.5°E while σH of Well 4 is N114°E. The first and second σH were applied
in left and right of the fault respectively. This was based on fault blocks. Besides, the FMI data of the nearby
wellbore was used to confirm its within reasonable range of σH (between N90-110 E).
Before extend the results to 3D geomechanical model, this information was combined and wellbore
stability model were generated and validate with actual drilling events, Figure 12. Generally, the results
show conformances and these 1D MEM models were used further for 3D model.

Figure 12—Example of Well 4 Wellbore Stability Model

3D Geomechanical Model. To generate 3D geomechanical model, the overburden, underburden, and

sideburden were embedded into the model. The main objective is to avoid localized boundary effects under
the application of the horizontal tectonic loading. The extensions of the model yield a total numbers of 5.4
million grid cells. Figure A--12 illustrates the embedded model. More than forty faults were identified and
incorporated into the 3D geomechanical Model.
Overburden Elastic and Strength Properties Distributions
3D rock elastic and strength properties within the overburden i.e. static Poisson's ratio, static Young's
modulus, UCS, tensile strength and friction angle were as those determined from the 1D MEMs of Well
1, Well 2, Well 3, and Well 4. The available properties in the overburden, above the reservoir to ground
level, were distributed across the model in a layer-cake arrangement based on average values of the 1D
MEM properties.
16 IPTC-18833-MS

Reservoir Elastic and Strength Properties Distributions

Elastic and strength properties within the reservoir interval were populated based on correlations with
total porosity which is dependent on facies type. The available 3D total porosity distributions within the
dynamic and static models were used with the derived properties correlations to populate the mechanical
properties which are static Poisson's ratio, static Young's modulus, UCS, tensile strength and friction angle.
The mentioned derived facies-based correlations used log-based total porosities. As a QC procedure, the
total porosity logs used in the correlations were compared with the total porosity logs extracted from the
available 3D porosity distribution from the dynamic and static models which shows that the differences are
small and considered acceptable. See also Figure 13 and Figure 14.

Figure 13—Total Porosity Distribution from Static Model

IPTC-18833-MS 17

Figure 14—Total Porosity (blue) logs extracted from 3D geomechanical model and log-based Porosity (black)

Correlations for Reservoir Rocks and Non-Reservoir Rocks elastic properties compared to total porosity
were defined and the model with all properties is constructed. By applying above correlations to total
porosity from the model, the example of resulted Horizontal Young's Modulus distribution is shown in
Figure 15.

Figure 15—Example of Horizontal Young's Modulus distribution

18 IPTC-18833-MS

Having fully populated the 3D geomechanical Model with elastic and strength properties, a quality check
was carried out by comparing the resulting 3D geomechanical Model material properties along all 4 offset
contained in the 1D MEMs. These comparisons results show reasonable to good agreement. Comparisons
of those properties are shown in Appendix A, Figure A--13 to Figure A--15.
Pre-Production Stress Modeling
A present-day stress condition was established in which the 3D geomechanical Model was initialized
to a state of stress equilibrium with the application of gravitational load and horizontal stress gradients
applied to the side boundaries. The magnitude and orientation of the applied horizontal loads were inferred
from assessment of the 1D MEM data. The initial reservoir pressures within the reservoir intervals were
taken from the initial step of the dynamic model, while the overburden, underburden and sideburden were
populated with pressures derived from 1D MEM data. Finally, the "horizontal stress boundary load
conditions" were applied to the model
One-Way Coupled Modeling
One-way coupling was then carried out at each selected time-step to the end of the present-day production
schedule. This is to account for the stress path history for each individual cell within the model as it is
important to accurately determine the stress evolution during the production schedule. Time-steps were also
selected to coincide with the times at which the sonic and other logs were acquired and used to construct
the 1D MEMs for offset wells.
Optimisation of drilling direction for HF
As drilling in the direction of minimum principal stress will result in the propagation of fractures in the
direction of maximum principal stress. It is evident that stress rotations from the applied far-field stress
direction are present throughout the model, particularly near the fault locations. However, in general, the
minimum principal stresses are orientated in the NNE-SSW direction as demonstrates in Figure 16. The
well trajectories for the HF candidate wells are updated and subsequently input in the prediction runs. The
stress profiles along the well paths were later passed to HF design team for the optimum design.

Figure 16—Minimum Principal Stress Orientation

IPTC-18833-MS 19

Hydraulic Fracturing Design

After 3D geomechanical model was in place, and the appropiate locations of HF are identified by overlying
Reservoir Quality (RQ) map on Completion Quality (RQ) map, generating RCQ map.
RCQ Map. All the elastical properties and stresses are embedded in the model and all the reservoir rock
properites are in place. These 2 sets of properties can be further used to suggest a favorable place for HF by
combining RQ and CQ maps together. The combined maps integrate the potential of the reservoirs and the
zones those are able to create large contacting area in the reservoirs, or in other words, good for HF. The
final map is called "Reservoir-Completion Quality" map or RCQ map. Typically, the promising location
for production is where porosity, permeability, and stresses are encouraging. While the favorable location
for HF in term of geomechanics is where Young's modulus is high and Possion's ratio is low. Figure 17
depicts key parameters for RQ and CQ. Figure 17 depicts key parameters for RQ and CQ, whereas Figure
18, Figure 19, and Figure 20 show examples of the RQ, CQ, and RCQ maps, respectively.

Figure 17—Reservoir Quality (RQ) and Completions Quality (CQ) parameters

Figure 18—Resevoir Quality Map (RQ)

20 IPTC-18833-MS

Figure 19—Completion Quality Map (CQ)

Figure 20—Reservoir Completion Quality Map (RCQ)

The combination of the above generated RCQ map for each layer within the model, the preferred areas
were identified as the candidate locations for HF. Due to the limited time of the study; only one area was
selected to do detailed HF design with four different well types. This is to check which type of wells would
provide best production and quantify the gain from HF.
Consequently, the HF design was ducted at the defined location shown in Figure 21.
IPTC-18833-MS 21

Figure 21—Selected location for HF Design

There are 4 different well types focused in the selected location for HF design which are:

Table 3—Different well types and well names

# Well Trajectory Well Name Deviation Criteria

1 Vertical VL -

2 Deviated DV ≤ 50 deg

3 Slanted SL 50 < Angle < 80

4 Horizontal HZ ≥ 80 deg

Hydraulic Fracturing Design. The proposed location is agreed among team before proceeding to design
steps. The fracturing fluids and proppants are selected and input into the design softwares.
Fracturing Fluids
The fracturing fluid used in simulation model is Guar Type Polymer, Borate crosslinked gel, with High
Temperature Delayed crosslink (HTD). The proposed gel loading is 30 – 35 lmb/1000 gal.
The selected fluid for the software is YF130.1HTD or YF135.1HTD.

Total Fluid Leak-Off Coefficient (Ct) = 3.5E-3 ft/min

Spurt = 2.0 gal/100ft2
Fluid Retained Factor = 0.5 – 0.55
22 IPTC-18833-MS

Proppants
Propper concentration and type is crucial to success of the frac operations. The estimated maximum stress
acts on the proppant is approximately 5,300 psi at target depth; therefore, the CarboProp 20/40 with 0.025"
diameter, Intermediate Strength Proppant (ISP) type with maximum closure presure of 10,000 psi is believed
to be appropriate choice.
Below is the basic fracture parameters definition

kf = Fracture Permeability
wf = Average proppant width of the fracture
k = Formation Permeability
Xf = Productive length of the fracture
Consequently, the 3D geomechanical with at present day was used as the basis for the HF design. The
stress profiles were extracted and utilized in order to get the proper HF job planning.
HF Designed Parameters
The optimum fracture half length (hf) and fracture conductivity (Fc) are determined by using reservoir
properties for each frac stage. As the desired geometry is established, the HF design is performed based on
provided paths, stresses, and all elastic properties. Below is the Table 4 contained all the design parameters
of each well type and stage.

Table 4—HF Designs for various well types

Parameters Vertical Deviated Slanted Horizontal

Stage I Stage II Stage I Stage II Stage I Stage II Stage I Stage IV

Propped Half-Length (xf),

86.7 85.5 124.1 94.6 57 66.2 123.3 100.4
m.

Fracture Height (hf), m. 28.8 30.1 27.6 46.4 44.6 58.3 30.2 19.4

Average Propped Width

5.18 2.92 3.58 2.84 6.68 5.08 4.83 5.46
(wf), mm.

Fracture conductivity (Fc),

940 890 1060 830 610 620 880 642
md.m

Dimensionless Fracture
3.9 10.8 1.0 17.0 23.8 15.0 2.0 2.8
Condutivity (Fcd)

Max Surface Pressure, psi 5,369 5,515 6,264 5,911 5,780 5,828 5,585 6,137

Fluid Volume, gal 31,747 17,966 33,943 30,558 43,966 38,194 34,505 32,703

Proppants Mass, lb 109,400 47,900 80,500 80,900 12,0800 124,800 99,400 71,200

These are all the optimized fracture parameters and the dimensions are all incorporated into the prediction
phase in the following section.

Prediction Results
After history matching was completed and all the possible development plans are defined. The prediction
runs are the next step. There are two focused issues in this part;
1. Non-Fracturing and Fracturing Performance
2. Overall Prediction Forecast Range
IPTC-18833-MS 23

Fracturing vs. Non-Fracturing Performance

The comparison performances of each well type are show in table below. The production gain range from
4% and 22% gain with average value of 15%.

Table 5—Frac vs. Non-Frac Cumulative Oil Production

% Gain of Cumulative
CASE WELL
Oil Production

Vertical VL 15

Deviated DV 17

Slanted SL 4

Horizontal HZ 22

Overall Prediction Forecast Range

Whereas the dynamic has been matched, uncertainties still remain but with posterior distribution as shown
in the Figure 22. A Probabilistic forecasting using MCMC (Markov Chain MonteCarlo) to quantify the
impact of the remaining uncertainties for each selected prediction scenarios. All the fundamental steps for
MCMC technique are described in the workflow available and shown in Figure 22.

Figure 22—History-Conditioned Forecast Workflow

The final results show that without any further activities in these areas, the existing wells will be able
to produce up to additional 3 – 4% recovery factor. Nonetheless, when additional infill wells and HF are
adopted, the incremental recovery factors are estimated to be up to 8 – 12%.

Conclusions
A fully integrated study has been carried out to quantify a variety of options and opportunity to develop and
unlock S1 tight hydrocarbon resources. To achieve this objective and based on the available data, the study
has been executed through key steps mainly: static model building, history match using MCMC technique,
24 IPTC-18833-MS

full 3D rock mechanics model construction. All of the three steps are paramount to understand the main
reservoir characteristics that control the production and main location for well drilling, completion and
stimulation. Also, all of these has been setup and executed within an uncertainties framework to quantify
the associated risk for each scenarios.
The final results yielded an optimum direction of the wells which might promote HF performance, the
appealing locations for HF, and the suitable types of well (i.e. vertical, deviated, slanted, and horizontal)
Furthermore, the preliminary HF designs were conducted in order to estimate the HF dimensions and apply
the possible fracture dimensions into the prediction forecast.
Hence, the study suggested that the infill wells are required all over the Sirikit East areas. The estimated
numbers 20 wells subject to 200 m spacing. The additional gain from the predictions ranges up to 16%
in high case. Nevertheless, if HF was implemented, it is estimated incremental reserves from HF per well
would range from 4 – 22% with average gain of 15% which can be set as an expectation from operational
standpoint.
The recommended well type and locations which would be suitable for HF have been adopted and set
a realistic plan for 2016 already. The actual drilling results in 2016 will be used to geologically calibrate
with the constructed model while the production performances from those fracturing candidate wells will
be used to geomechanically calibrate the 3D geomechanical and HF designs. These two main calibrations
will validate the existing models and confirm the geomechanical understanding.

Field Development Plan and Forward Plan

The reservoir simulation model is further used as live model by putting in 2016 proposed wells.
The prediction sensivity runs were performed to confirm the best options to continue. Based on the
comprehensive study above, the consolidated development plan can be rationally established. The
comparison concept is embraced based on 2 aspects, the well types, and the Hydraulic Fracturing. The table
below shows wells those are used for development comparisons.
From Table 6, there are 2 groups of wells; 1) deviated wells and 2) horizontal wells. Within a group, one
well will be selected to perform HF. As a result, in a particular group there will be a Frac and a Non-Frac
well. Their production performance will be used to compare the additional gain from HF from both short-
term and long-term performance. Figure 23 shows the location of these four strategic wells.

Table 6—Development Comparison plan for Sirikit East

Well Name Well Type Non-Frac Fracturing

Well A Deviated x

Well B Deviated x

Well C HZ/highly deviated x

Well D HZ/highly deviated x

IPTC-18833-MS 25

Figure 23—Well Locations for 2016 Campaign

The timing of fracturing campaign is in late Q4 2016 and the performance will be continuously monitored
throughout the upcoming year. The conclusions and lessons learned would be further used to improve and
considerately plan for the full development plan in Sirikit East, and expected to apply further to other tight
sand areas.

Acknowledgements
This study was carried out by Schlumberger personnel; Taoufik Manai, Kanittorn Adisornsupawat, and their
great team, who provided comprehensive expertise in this study. Additionally, countless valuable comments
and suggestions were given by PTTEP corporate team; Mohamad Kamal Hamdan and Skaow Kusolsong,
through regular peer reviews. As well, we are thankful to our S1 working team and all management team
those foresee the importance of this study and gave full support that greatly assisted the completeness of
this study.

References
1. Bal, A.A., Burgisser, H.M., Harris, D.K., Herber, M.A., Thumprasertwong, S. and Winkler, F.J.,
1988, Hydracarbon Habitat of the Phitsanulok Basin, S1 Concession, Onshore Thailand, Thai
Shell Exploration and Production Co., LTD., Bangkok, Thailand.
2. Fjær, E., Holt, R.M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A.M. and Risnes, R., 1992, Petroleum Related Rock
Mechanics, Developments in Petroleum Science, Vol. 33, Elservier.
3. Glaser, K.S., Miller, C.K., Johnson, G.M., Toelle, B., Kleinberg, R.B., Miller, P. and Pennington,
W.D., 2014, Seeking the Sweet Spot: Reservoir and Completion Quality in Organic Shales,
Schlumberger, Oilfiled Review Winter 2013/2014, Vol. 25, No.4, 16-29. http://www.slb.com/~/
media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors13/win13/02_sweet_spot.pdf.
26 IPTC-18833-MS

4. Jennings, A.R.Jr., 2000, Strategic Well Stimulation: A Key to Reservoir Management. Society
of Petroleum Engineers, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 52, Issue 3, 62. SPE-0300-0062-
JPT. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/0300-0062-JPT.
5. Jochen, V.A., Malpani, R., Moncada, K., Indriati, S., Altman, R.M., Luo, F. and Xu, J., 2001,
Production Data Analysis: Unraveling Reservoir Quality and Completion Quality, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, 15 - 17 November,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 1-12. SPE-147535-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/147535-MS.
6. Matha, S., Saifuddin, F., Panthong, A., Nuada, I.N., Phaungphuak, S., Ratawessanun, W., and
Euasurmpong, T., 2011, Stratigraphic Traps in Distal Lacustrine Delta, a Case History from
Greater Sirikit East Field, Phitsanulok Basin, Central Plain, Thailand, International Petroleum
Technology Conference, 15-17 November, Bangkok, Thailand. 1-16. IPTC-14491-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-14491-MS.
7. Meunier, R., Binet, H., Bourges, M, Deraisme, J., Jeannee, N. and Chautru, J.M., 2015, Basic
Concept of Oil and Gas Geostatistics, Geovariences, Bangkok, Thailand
8. Meunier, R., Binet, H., Bourges, M, Deraisme, J., Jeannee, N. and Chautru, J.M., 2015,
Geostatistics for Reservoir Characterization, Geovariences, Bangkok, Thailand
9. Nauroy, J.F., 2011, Geomeachanics Applied to the Petroleum Industry, Editions Technip, IFP
Energies Nouvelles Publications, 224p.
10. Primadi, H., Charoenpun, T., Nuada, I.N. and Matha, S., 2011, Challenges in 3D Geocellular
Modelling of Complexly Faulted - Stacked Reservoirs: Case Study from Existing and
Potential Waterflood Areas in Sirikit Field, Onshore Thailand, International Petroleum
Technology Conference, 15-17 November, Bangkok, Thailand. 1-16. IPTC-14491-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-14491-MS
11. Pyrcz, M.J. and Deutch, C.V., 2014, Geostatiscal Reservoir Modeling, 2nd edition, Oxford
University Press, New York, 448 p.
12. Rafiee, M., Soliman, M.Y., Pirayesh, E. and Meybodi, H.E., 2012, Geomechanical
Considerations in Hydraulic Fracturing Designs, Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Canadian
Unconventional Resources Conference, 30 October-1 November, Calgary, Alberta. 1-13.
SPE-162637-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/162637-MS.
13. Saifuddin, F., Phaungphuak, S., Matha, S, Ratawessanun, W. and Nuada, I.N., 2011, Recent Step-
out Exploration in the Greater Sirikit East Area, Sirikit Oil field, Onshore Thailand, a Model for
Overlooked Area, International Petroleum Technology Conference, 15-17 November, Bangkok,
Thailand. 1-17. IPTC-14465-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-14465-MS.
14. Schulze-Riegert, R.W., Haase, O., and Nekrassov, A., 2003, Combined Global and Local
Optimization Techniques Applied to History Matching, Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE
Reservoir Simulation Symposium, 3-5 February, Houston, Texas. 1-10. SPE-79668-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/79668-MS
15. Tewari, R.D., Jeong, D., Khalid, R.M., Kittrell, C., and Tengku Othman, T.R., 2014,
Quantification of Uncertainty of Reserves with High Quality History Matching Models in a
Mature Field, International Petroleum Technology Conference. 10-12 December, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia. 1-17. IPTC-18153-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-18153-MS
16. Ugwu, G.Z., 2015, An Overview of pore presure prediction using seismically-derived velocities,
Academic Journals, Journal of Geoligy and Mining Reserch, Vol. 7, No.4, 31-40. JGMR15.0218.
http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/JGMR/article-full-text-pdf/B2A1CE952617.
17. Zoback, M.D., 2007, Reservoir Geomechanics, 1st edition, Cambridege University Press, New
York.
IPTC-18833-MS 27

Appendix A

Figure A--1—Example well Connections w.r.t. Porosity Threshold

(1%, 2%, 3% and 5%) in the UPGRIDDED and FINESCALE models.

Figure A--2—Porosity Distribution around Example well in the UPSCALED and FINE SCALE models.
28 IPTC-18833-MS

Figure A--3—SWATINIT

Figure A--4—Poro Perm Correlation, original (grey) and suggested transform (yellow)
IPTC-18833-MS 29

Figure A--5—5 RFT Simulated (green) and Actual (black)

Figure A--6—SBHP Simulated (green) and Actual (black)

30 IPTC-18833-MS

Figure A--7—7 Oil Production Rate – Simulated (green) and Actual (black)

Figure A--8—8 Water Production Rate – Simulated (green) and Actual (black)
IPTC-18833-MS 31

Figure A--9—9 Field Oil Production – Simulated (green) and Actual (black)

Figure A--10—10 Composite Density Logs of Well 4 and Well 1 (left to right)
32 IPTC-18833-MS

Figure A--11—11 Overburden stress and pore pressure profiles validated with MDT of Well 4, Well 1, Well 2, Well 3
IPTC-18833-MS 33

Figure A--12—12 Geometry of embedded model

Figure A--13—13 1D MEM (black) and 3D geomechanical model (red)

comparisons for Horizontal and Vertical Young's Modulus along Well 3 and Well 4
34 IPTC-18833-MS

Figure A--14—14 1D MEM (black) and 3D geomechanical model (red)

comparisons for Horizontal and Vertical Young's Modulus along Well 2 and Well 1
IPTC-18833-MS 35

Figure A--15—15 1D MEM (black) and 3D geomechanical model (red)

comparisons for UCS and FANG along Well 3, Well 4, Well 3 and Well 1