ESTIM - Combined Stimulation and Sand Control (English)

Combined Stimulation and Sand Control
Specialized fracturing treatments in conjunction with gravel packing create highly conductive propped fractures that yield
sustained production increases and control fines migration in weakly consolidated reservoirs. This frac-packing method,
which became increasingly popular in the past 10 years, bypasses formation damage and eliminates many productivity
impairments that are common in conventional cased-hole gravel packs.
Viscousslurry pack
12%
Frac pack
60%
High-rate
water ppack
28%
30
25
2002
Dimensionless skin
20
15
10
5
0
Gravel
pack
pack
1
Frac pack
4
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Wells
W
ll
1992
> Fracturing for sand control. Initial frac-pack results in the early 1990s indicated improved productivity compared with conventional gravel packing (left).
As a result, frac packing now represents more than 60% of the US sand-control market (top right), and companies providing stimulation services invest
heavily in research and development. These investments included construction of purpose-built vessels with high-volume mixing equipment, high-pressure
pumps and sophisticated monitoring systems, such as the Schlumberger Galaxy stimulation vessel (center ).
30
Oilfield Review
Syed Ali
David Norman
David Wagner
ChevronTexaco
Houston, Texas, USA
Joseph Ayoub
Jean Desroches
Sugar Land, Texas
Hugo Morales
Houston, Texas
Paul Price
Rosharon, Texas
Don Shepherd
Saudi Aramco
Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia
Ezio Toffanin
Beijing, China
Juan Troncoso
Repsol YPF
Madrid, Spain
Shelby White
Ocean Energy
Lafayette, Louisiana, USA
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Ernie
Brown and Leo Burdylo, Sugar Land, Texas, USA; Mehmet
Parlar and Colin Price-Smith, Rosharon, Texas; Pedro
Saldungaray, Jakarta, Indonesia; and Ray Tibbles, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.
ClearFRAC, CoilFRAC, DataFRAC, FIV (Formation Isolation
Valve), MudSOLV, PropNET, QUANTUM, SandCADE and
ScalePROP are marks of Schlumberger. Alternate Path,
AllPAC and AllFRAC are marks of ExxonMobil; this technology is licensed exclusively to Schlumberger.
1. McLarty JM and DeBonis V: Gulf Coast Section SPE
Production Operations Study GroupTechnical
Highlights from a Series of Frac Pack Treatment
Symposiums, paper SPE 30471, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Texas, USA, October 2225, 1995.
2. Liebach RE and Cirigliano J: Gravel Packing in
Venezuela, presented at the Seventh World Petroleum
Conference, Mexico City, Mexico, 1967, Proceedings
Section III: 407418.
3. Smith MB, Miller WK and Haga J: Tip Screenout
Fracturing: A Technique for Soft, Unstable Formations,
paper SPE 13273, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA,
September 1619, 1984; also in SPE Production
Engineering 2, no. 2 (May 1987): 95103.
Hannah RR and Walker EJ: Fracturing a HighPermeability Oil Well at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, paper
SPE 14372, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA,
September 2225, 1985.
Martins JP, Leung KH, Jackson MR, Stewart DR and
Carr AH: Tip Screenout Fracturing Applied to the
Ravenspurn South Gas Field Development, paper
SPE 19766, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA,
October 811, 1989; also in SPE Production Engineering
7, no. 3 (August 1992): 252258.
Summer 2002
Hydraulic fracturing in high-permeability reservoirs to stop sand production is an accepted wellcompletion technique. Today, one of the first
decisions during development planning for fields
that produce sand is whether or not to frac
packa combination of fracture stimulation and
gravel packing. More than a decade of success
proves that compared with conventional gravel
packing, this technique significantly improves
well productivity (previous page).
Frac packing as a percentage of sand-control
treatments and in terms of total jobs is growing
steadily. Use of this technique increased tenfold
from fewer than 100 jobs per year during the early
1990s to a current rate of almost 1000 each year. In
West Africa, about 5% of sand-control treatments
are frac packs, and operators frac pack at least 3%
of the wells in Latin America.
Advances in stimulation design, wellcompletion equipment, treatment fluids and
proppants continue to differentiate frac packing
from conventional gravel packing and fracturing.
US operators now apply this sand-control method
to complete more than 60% of offshore wells.
Shell used the term frac pack as early as 1960
to describe well completions in Germany that
were hydraulically fractured prior to gravel
packing.1 In current usage, frac packing refers to
tip-screenout (TSO) fracturing treatments that
create short, wide fractures and gravel packing
of sand-exclusion screens, both in a single operation. The resulting highly conductive propped
fractures bypass formation damage and alleviate
fines migration by reducing near-wellbore pressure drop and flow velocity.
An early application of frac packing occurred
during 1963 in Venezuela, where producing companies performed small fracturing treatments
using sand and viscous crude oil and then circulated screens into place downhole through sand
remaining inside the casing.2 This approach
proved successful, but was not applied in other
areas until almost 30 years later.
In the ensuing years, operators used various

fracturing techniques to address drilling and
completion damage that often extends deep into
high-permeability reservoirs. These small slugfracture, or microfracture, treatments were
designed to address formation damage that acids
or solvents would not remove and that reperforating could not bypass, especially when perforation-tunnel stability was questionable in weakly
consolidated sands.
Interest in frac packing resurfaced in the early
1980s when operators began to fracture highpermeability formations using TSO techniques.3
Wider propped fractures yielded sustained production increases in the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk
fields on the North Slope of Alaska, USA, and in
chalk formations of the North Sea. These results
attracted the attention of producers in other
areas and prompted evaluation of TSO fracturing
for sand control.
Interest in frac packing increased after 1985,
driven by activity in the Gulf of Mexico, where
many conventional gravel packs do not achieve
adequate productivity. Induced formation damage from drilling or completion fluids, cement filtrate, overbalanced perforating and fines
migration contribute to unsatisfactory results, as
does mechanical skin damage created by the
redistribution of stresses after drilling.4
Formation collapse and sand influx as a result of
incomplete gravel packing around screens or
unpacked perforations also restrict production.
Frac packing reduces pressure drops caused
by formation damage and completion restrictions, which commonly are represented by a
dimensionless value called skin.5 Unlike gravel
packing, frac-pack skin decreases as wells produce and treatment fluids are recovered, and
productivity tends to improve over time.
Consequently, the trend among operators is to
apply this technique in most of the wells that
require sand control.
Reimers DR and Clausen RA: High-Permeability

Fracturing at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, paper SPE 22835,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, October 69, 1981.
Martins PJ, Bartel PA, Kelly RT, Ibe OE and Collins PJ:
Small, Highly Conductive Hydraulic Fractures Near
Reservoir Fluid Contacts: Applications to Prudhoe Bay,
Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, USA,
October 47, 1992.
Martins JP, Abel JC, Dyke CG, Michel CM and Stewart G:
Deviated Well Fracturing and Proppant Production
Control in Prudhoe Bay Field, paper SPE 24858, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Washington, DC, USA, October 47, 1992.
4. Carlson J, Gurley D, King G, Price-Smith C and Walters F:
Sand Control: Why and How? Oilfield Review 4, no. 4
(October 1992): 4153.
Mechanical skin consists of localized formation damage

resulting from redistribution of in-situ stresses after the
removal of rock during the drilling process, especially in
extremely permeable reservoirs. Formation stresses
originally supported by drilled material concentrate near
the borehole wall, compressing or crushing the rock
matrix within a cylindrical ring around the wellbore. This
effect restricts pore throats and reduces near-wellbore
permeability, potentially trapping fine particles that
migrate toward the well during production.
For more about mechanical skin damage: Morales RH,
Brown E, Norman WD, BeBonis V, Mathews MJ, Park EI
and Brown R: Mechanical Skin Damage in Wells,
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, October
2225, 1995; also in SPE Journal (September 1996): 275281.
5. Negative skin indicates stimulation; positive skin indicates damage.
31
In the Gulf of Mexico, frac packing became

increasingly popular beginning in the late 1980s.
Amoco, now BP, performed five frac-pack completions in the Ewing Bank area during 1989 and
1990 by batch mixing up to 6 pounds of proppant
added (ppa) per gallon of treatment fluid.6 In
1991, ARCO, now BP, performed frac packing in
the South Pass area.7 Pennzoil, now Devon
Energy, used this technique in the Eugene Island
area.8 At about the same time, Shell began frac
packing inland wells from barges in Turtle
Bayou field, Louisiana, USA. Later, Shell
expanded the use of this technique in the North
Sea and to offshore wells in Borneo, and also to
onshore wells in Colombia, South America and
northwest Europe.9
Frac-packing success led to increased use,
and this technique soon became the preferred
sand-control method in the Gulf of Mexico,
where several thousand oil and gas leases lie in
water deeper than 3000 ft [914 m]. During 1992,
BP completed frac packs in Mississippi Canyon
Block 109, where water depths range from 850 to
1500 ft [260 to 460 m].10 A few years later, Shell
and Chevron used frac packing to develop fields
in water up to 3000 ft deep.
Technology transfer and frac-packing success
in other areas, such as Indonesia, the North Sea,
the Middle East, West Africa and Brazil, are further
expanding the worldwide application of this technique. Operators plan to frac pack Gulf of Mexico
wells in more than 4000 ft [1220 m] of water, and
in the North Sea and offshore Brazil, intend to push

the frontier of frac packing into water as deep as
6000 ft [1830 m]. Fracture stimulation and frac
packing in high-permeability reservoirs now represent 20% of the fracturing market.
This article reviews the evolution of frac
packing and discusses developments in stimulation fluids, proppants, downhole equipment,
design simulation, job execution and poststimulation evaluation. Case histories illustrate
application of this technique to enhance well
productivity while preventing proppant flowback
and sand production.
Tip-Screenout Fracturing
Gravel packs typically have some degree of
damagepositive skinand rarely achieve low
skin values consistently. Frac-pack completions,
on the other hand, often result in higher productivity wells than gravel packs performed below or
above fracture-initiation pressure, either by
slurry packing or high-rate water packing
(HRWP).11 Evaluations of wells completed during
the past 10 years with these sand-control techniques show the dramatic impact of frac packing
on total completion skin (below).12
The permeability contrast between formations and propped fractures determines required
fracture length for optimal reservoir stimulation.
In lower permeability reservoirs, there is a large
permeability contrast, and therefore, greater
relative fracture conductivity.13 In high-permeability
Picture to be added later

14
12
8
6
Dimensionless skin
10
4
2
0
Frac pack
High-rate
water pack
Viscous-slurry
gravel pack
> Completion damage. Evaluation of sand-control completions performed in

the Gulf of Mexico during the past 10 years show the dramatic impact of frac
packing on dimensionless skin, and therefore, well productivity and ultimate
hydrocarbon recovery. Operators report average skins of 12 and 8 for gravelpack completions performed by viscous-slurry and high-rate water pack
(HRWP) techniques, respectively. Frac packing consistently delivers lower
average skins, typically about 3.
32
reservoirs, there is less contrast, and the relative

conductivity of a narrow fracture is reduced by
several orders of magnitude. This negates the
value of fracture extension away from a well and
underscores the need for wide fractures because
conductivity is also directly proportional to
propped width.
Short, wide fractures stimulate well productivity even in high-permeability formations.
These highly conductive fractures alleviate sand
production associated with high flow rates, perforation collapse in weakly consolidated formations and fines migration in formations with
poorly sorted grain sizes by reducing nearwellbore pressure drop and flow velocity. These
factors also defer critical stress conditions that
crush formation grains until a lower reservoir
pressure is reached.
Hydraulic fracturing in low-permeability, or
tight, formations creates narrow propped fractures about 0.1 in. [2.5 mm] wide, extending
1000 ft [300 m] or more from a wellbore (next page,
top left).14 A TSO treatment generates propped
fractures with widths up to 1 in. [2.5 cm] or more
in soft-rock formations and wellbore-to-tip halflengths of about 50 ft [15 m], depending on formation characteristics.15 For conventional
treatments, final proppant concentrations in
terms of fracture surface area are less than
2 lbm/ft2 [10 kg/m2]. This contrasts with 5 to
10 lbm/ft2 [24 to 49 kg/m2] concentrations for
TSO designs.
A propped fracture increases completion
radius and area open to flow. Compared with
radial inflow, the resulting bilinear flow pattern
reduces flow convergence and turbulence at the
perforations, which enhances productivity. For
example, a propped fracture with a 50-ft halflength and height of 22 ft [7 m] has 4000 sq ft
[372 m2] of surface area; a gravel-pack completion in a 9-in. borehole has a maximum surface
area of about 50 sq ft [5 m2] open to radial flow.
The effective completion radius for each of these
hypothetical frac-pack and gravel-pack completions is 50 ft and 4.5 in. [11.4 cm], respectively.
The tip of a hydraulic fracture is the final area
packed by proppant during conventional fracturing of low-permeability, hard-rock formations. In
contrast, TSO designs limit fracture length, or
extension, by achieving fluid-leakoff rates that
dehydrate the proppant slurry early in a treatment. This dehydration causes proppant to pack
off near the peripheral edge, or tip, of a dynamic
fracture. The hydraulic fracture inflates like a balloon as additional proppant-laden fluid is injected,
creating a wider, more conductive pathway as proppant packs toward the well (next page, top right).
Oilfield Review
Low-Permeability Formations
Bilinear Flow
Dynamic fracture
Fracture with viscous fluid
Proppant
Fracture with water

Tip screenout
Perforation
High-Permeability Formations
Fracture with viscous fluid
Proppant embedment
Fracture with water
Proppant Pack
Summer 2002
Cement
Annular opening
Casing
Formation
> Fracture geometry. In low-permeability formations, viscous fracturing

fluids generate long, narrow fractures; less viscous fluids, such as water,
leak off quickly and create shorter fractures (top left). Hydraulic fracturing increases effective completion radius by establishing linear flow into
propped fractures and dominant bilinear flow to a wellbore (top right). In
high-permeability formations, fracturing treatments create short, wide
propped fractures that provide some reservoir stimulation and mitigate
sand production by reducing near-wellbore pressure drop and flow
velocity (bottom left). In low-strength, or soft, formations, proppant concentration after fracture closure must exceed 2 lbm/ft2 [10 kg/m2] to
overcome proppant embedment in fracture walls (bottom right).
6. McLarty and DeBonis, reference 1.

7. Hainey BW and Troncoso JC: Frac-Pack: An Innovative
Stimulation and Sand Control Method, paper SPE 23777,
presented at the SPE International Symposium on
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA,
February 2627, 1992.
8. Monus FL, Broussard FW, Ayoub JA and Norman WD:
Fracturing Unconsolidated Sand Formations Offshore
Gulf of Mexico, paper SPE 24844, presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Washington, DC, USA, October 47, 1992.
Mullen ME, Stewart BR and Norman WD: Evaluation of
Bottom Hole Pressures in 40 Soft Rock Frac-Pack
Completions in the Gulf of Mexico, paper SPE 28532,
Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, September
2528, 1994.
9. Wong GK, Fors RR, Casassa JS, Hite RH and
Shlyapobersky J: Design, Execution, and Evaluation of
Frac and Pack (F&P) Treatments in Unconsolidated Sand
Formations in the Gulf of Mexico, paper SPE 26563, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, October 36, 1993.
Roodhart LP, Fokker PA, Davies DR, Shlyapobersky J and
Wong GK: Frac and Pack Stimulation: Application,
Design, and Field Experience From the Gulf of Mexico
to Borneo, paper SPE 26564, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
10. Hannah RR, Park EI, Walsh RE, Porter DA, Black JW and
Waters F: A Field Study of a Combination Fracturing/
Gravel Packing Completion Technique on the Amberjack,
Mississippi Canyon 109 Field, paper SPE 26562, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, October 36, 1993; also
in SPE Production & Facilities 9, no. 4 (November 1994):
262266.
11. Slurry-packing techniques use viscous polymer-base
fluids to place high gravel concentrations, while HRWP
techniques use lower gravel concentrations transported
in a less viscous fluid, usually brine.
Fracture inflation
Screen
Propped fracture
External proppant pack
> Tip-screenout (TSO) fracturing. In high-permeability reservoirs, fracture

stimulations require fluid systems that leak off early in a treatment. Dehydration of the slurry causes proppant to pack off at the fracture tip, halting further propagation, or extension (top). As additional slurry is pumped, biwing
fractures inflate and proppant packs toward the wellbore (middle). A TSO
treatment ensures wider fractures and improves conductivity by promoting
grain-to-grain contact in the proppant pack. This technique also generates
enough formation displacement to create an annular opening between
cement and formation that becomes packed with proppant. This external
pack connects all perforations and further reduces near-wellbore pressure
drop (bottom).
12. Mullen ME, Norman WD and Granger JC: Productivity

Comparison of Sand Control Techniques Used for
Completions in the Vermilion 331 Field, paper SPE
27361, presented at the SPE International Symposium on
February 710, 1994.
Monus et al, reference 8.
Fletcher PA, Montgomery CT, Ramos GG, Miller ME and
Rich DA: Using Fracturing as a Technique for
Controlling Formation Failure, paper SPE 27899, presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Long
Beach, California, USA, March 2325, 1994; also in SPE
Production & Facilities 11, no. 2 (May 1996): 117121.
Hannah et al, reference 10.
Papinczak A and Miller WK: Fracture Treatment Design
to Overcome Severe Near-Wellbore Damage in a
Moderate Permeability Reservoir, Mereenie Field,
Australia, paper SPE 25379, presented at the SPE Asia
Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Singapore,
February 810, 1993.
Stewart BR, Mullen ME, Howard WJ and Norman WD:

Use of a Solids-Free Viscous Carrying Fluid in Fracturing
Applications: An Economic and Productivity Comparison
in Shallow Completions, paper SPE 30114, presented at
the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The
Hague, The Netherlands, May 1516, 1995.
13. Fracture conductivity is a measure of how easily produced
or injected fluids flow within a propped hydraulic fracture.
14. Hydraulic fracturing begins with injection of a proppantfree fluid stage, or pad, at pressures above formation
breakdown stress to initiate a crack in the rock and
cool-down the near-wellbore region. This pad stage creates two fracture wings 180 degrees apart that propagate in the preferred fracture plane (PFP). The PFP lies
in the direction of maximum horizontal stress, perpendicular to the least horizontal rock stress. Proppant-laden
fluid stages follow to generate a required geometry
height, width and lengthand pack the biwing fracture
with proppant. Proppants ensure that a conductive pathway remains open after fluid injection stops and
dynamic fractures close.
15. Hanna B, Ayoub J and Cooper B: Rewriting the Rules
for High-Permeability Stimulation, Oilfield Review 4,
no. 4 (October 1992): 1823.
33
Fracture conductivity and reservoir stimulation do not account for all of the resulting productivity increase. Another factor is elimination
of flow restrictions through the perforations.
Aggressive frac packing opens a dynamic fracture up to 2 in. [5 cm] wide across all or most of
the completion interval. The principles of rock
mechanics dictate that the amount of subsurface
movement required to generate wide TSO
fractures also must create an annular opening
outside of the cement sheath. This opening then
is packed with proppant to form a ring, or halo,
around the wellbore.
This external pack provides a more effective hydraulic connection between propped fractures and all the perforations, which further
reduces pressure drop across completion intervals. Computer simulations indicate that perforations that are not aligned with propped fracture
can contribute up to 50% of fluid flow into a wellbore in high-permeability formations (below).16
The proppant halo is a key factor in frac-pack
success and the basis for screenless completions
that control sand without mechanical screens
and internal gravel packs (see Emerging
Technologies, page 45).
Frac packing is a frontline defense against
sand production, and properly designed TSO
fracturing treatments are vital to the success of
this important well-completion technique.
Conventional cased-hole gravel packs often
experience progressive loss of productivity, but
production from properly designed and executed
frac packs tends to improve over time as treatment fluids are recovered and wells clean up.17
Treatment Execution
Initially, operators performed frac packing in multiple stepsa TSO fracturing treatment followed
by wellbore cleanout, installation of sand-exclusion screens and separate gravel-packing operations.18 However, high positive skins and limited
productivity indicated damage between the
propped fracture and internal gravel pack. Frac
packing was simplified into a single operation to
further improve well production and reduce operational costs.19 The TSO fracturing treatment now
is pumped with screens in place. Gravel packing
of screen assemblies is accomplished at the end
of a treatment.
Like conventional gravel packing, fluids and
proppants for frac packing are injected through
tubing and a gravel-pack packer with a service
tool in squeeze or circulating configuration (right).
However, to withstand higher pressures during
TSO fracturing, service companies adapted standard gravel-packing assemblies. Modifications
include increased metal hardness, larger crosssectional flow areas and minimizing sudden
changes in flow direction to reduce metal erosion
by fluids and proppants.
Squeeze configuration is used for most fracpack treatments, especially in wells with production casing that cannot handle high pressures.
Circulating position provides a path for fluid
returns to surface through the tubing-casing
annulus, or communicationa live annulus

to monitor pressure at surface independent of
friction in wellbore tubulars, depending on
whether the annular surface valve is open or
closed. Friction pressures generated by pumping
proppant-laden slurry through tubing and completion equipment often mask true downhole
pressure responses when monitoring treating
pressure on the tubing.
Annular BOP
Annulus surface valve
and pressure gauge
Service tool
Circulating ports
QUANTUM
gravel-pack packer
Crossover ports
Ball seat
Ball valve
Fluid flow
Mechanical fluid-loss
control device
Washpipe
Screens
Perforations
Propped fracture
Temperature and
pressure gauge
Screens
Perforations
100
Unaligned perforations
Flow through fracture, %
80
Bottom packer
60
40
20
0
100
1000
Permeability, mD
10,000
> Perforation contributions. Inflow is not limited to the propped fracture crosssectional area and perforations aligned, or connected, with the fracture wings.
Computer simulations indicate that unaligned perforations contribute almost
50% of the inflow from high-permeability formations, underscoring the importance of TSO fracturing and creation of an external pack.
34
> Downhole tools. In gravel packing and frac

packing, a service tool directs fluid flow through
a gravel-pack packer and around the screen
assembly. Squeeze configuration is established
by closing the annular blowout preventer (BOP)
and the tubing-casing annulus surface valve
(left), or by closing the ball valve downhole
(right). Shutting in the annulus with the downhole
ball valve open allows bottomhole pressure to be
monitored independent of friction in the tubing.
Closing the downhole valve prevents fluid returns
to surface and protects weak casing from high
pressures; pressure also can be applied to the
annulus to offset high pressure in the tubing.
Mechanical devices such as flapper valves or
the FIV Formation Isolation Valve system prevent
excess fluid loss into formations after the service
tool is retrieved.
Oilfield Review
Early service tools used a conventional check

valve, which prohibited pressure declines from
being observed after fracturing. More recent
designs of QUANTUM gravel-pack packer tools
eliminate the check valve, replacing it with an
improved downhole ball valve that allows pressure fluctuations to be monitored in real time during treatments when the ball valve is open. A live
annulus allows more accurate evaluation
of treatments.20
Frac packing usually begins in squeeze configuration. After tip screenout occurs, establishing circulating configuration ensures complete
packing of the screens and grain-to-grain proppant contact. The service tool then is shifted to
clean out excess slurry by pumping fluid down
the annulus and up the tubing. The amount of
upward movement required to shift some service
tools pulls reservoir fluids into a wellbore. This
swabbing effect can bring formation sand into
perforation tunnels before a fracture is completely packed or reduce conductivity between
fractures and the internal gravel pack, which can
limit frac-pack productivity.
Set-down service tools, such as the
QUANTUM gravel-packing system, close the
downhole ball valve and shift tool configuration
with upward movement. This type of tool also is
used for deep completions and treatments conducted from floating rigs or drillships.
In addition to a variety of reservoir conditions
and of fracturing and gravel-packing requirements,
treatment execution must address the complexity
of completing multiple zones and long intervals.
Even the best frac-pack designs end in failure if
excess fluid loss into formation causes proppant
bridges to form between screens and casing,
restricting or blocking annular flow. Annular proppant packoff, or bridging, results in early treatment
termination, low fracture conductivity and an
incomplete gravel pack around screens.
Placing proppant with sand-exclusion screens
in place requires close attention to annular clearances. As frictional pressure increases, there is
potential for fluid from slurry in the screen-casing
annulus to pass through the screens into the
washpipe-screen annulus. Fluid bypass worsens
as the slurry dehydrates, and proppant concentration increases to an unpumpable state, causing
proppant to bridge in the screen-casing annulus.
Annular blockage near the top of a completion interval prevents continued fracturing of
deeper zones or zones with higher in-situ stress
and inhibits subsequent packing of the screens.
Even a partial flow restriction in the annulus
increases frictional pressure drop, restricts rate
distribution and limits fracture-height growth
Summer 2002
> Alternate Path technology. Proppant bridges, or

nodes, that form in the screen-casing annulus,
commonly as a result of slurry dehydration or
premature fracture screenout in zones with
lower in-situ stress, cause early treatment termination. In wells with conventional sand-exclusion
screens, this limits fracture height and frac-pack
efficiency. Alternate Path technology uses shunt
tubes with strategically located exit nozzles
welded on the outside of conventional screens
(top and middle). Shunt tubes provide a flow path
for slurry that bypasses annular restrictions to
allow continued treating of lower intervals and
packing of voids around the screens (bottom).
Shunt
tubes
Basepipe
Screen
Nozzle
across the remainder of the completion interval.

Annular voids below a proppant bridge increase
the likelihood of screen failure from erosion by
produced fluids and fine formation sand.
For homogeneous reservoirs where pay intervals are less than 60 ft [18 m] thick, fractureheight growth typically covers the entire zone. In
longer intervals, the probability of complete fracture coverage decreases, and risk of proppant
bridging increases dramatically. Long intervals
can be split into stages and treated separately.
This requires more downhole equipment, such as
two stacked frac-packing assemblies, and additional installation time, but increases frac-packing effectiveness (see Conventional and
Alternate Path Screens, next page).
Alternate Path technology is also available to
gravel pack and frac pack longer intervals (right).
AllFRAC screens use hollow rectangular tubes, or
shunts, welded on the outside of screens to provide additional flow paths for slurry. Exit ports
with carbide-strengthened nozzles located along
the shunt tubes then allow fluids and proppant to
exit below annular restrictions, which allows
fracturing and annular packing to continue after
restrictions form in the screen-casing annulus.
AllFRAC screens for frac packing use slightly
16. Burton RC, Rester S and Davis ER: Comparison of
Numerical and Analytical Inflow Performance Modelling
of Gravelpacked and Frac-Packed Wells, paper SPE
Guinot F, Zhao J, James S and dHuteau E: Screenless
Completions: The Development, Application and Field
Validation of a Simplified Model for Improved Reliability
of Fracturing for Sand Control Treatments, paper SPE
68934, presented at the SPE European Formation
Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands,
May 2122, 2001.
17. Stewart BR, Mullen ME, Ellis RC, Norman WD and Miller
WK: Economic Justification for Fracturing Moderate
to High Permeability Formations in Sand Control
Environments, paper SPE 30470, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
18. Monus et al, reference 8.
19. Hannah et al, reference 10.
20. Mullen et al, reference 8.
Casing
Shunt tubes
Perforations
Screens
Annular
proppant bridge
Void
Fracture
Nozzle
35
larger shunt tubes than AllPAC screens for gravel

packing to accommodate higher injection rates
for fracturing.
Shunt tubes provide conduits for slurry to
bypass collapsed hole and external zonal isolation packers as well as annular proppant gravel
bridges at the top of intervals or adjacent to
higher permeability zones with high fluid leakoff.
If annular restrictions form, injection pressure
increases and slurry diverts into the shunt tubes,
the only open flow path. This ensures fracture
coverage and complete gravel packing around
screens across an entire perforated interval.
Conventional and Alternate Path Screens
In the late 1990s, Saudi Aramco chose frac packing to control sand in oil wells about 200 km
[124 miles] southeast of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
(below).21 This new field in the Central Province
encompassed two heterogeneous Permian-age
reservoirs comprising high-permeability sandstones at 8700 to 9000 ft [2650 to 2740 m] that
are interbedded with shale and siltstone.
The deeper B reservoir was a high-quality
sandstone interbedded with thin, low-permeability siltstone. Reservoir thickness varied from 20
IRAQ
to 65 ft [6 to 20 m]. Well tests indicated permeability from 0.5 to 2 darcies; air-derived core permeabilities were 3 to 4 darcies. The A reservoir
was a sequence of slightly more heterogeneous
individual sandstones between lower permeability siltstone strata. This overlying reservoir was
up to 200 ft [61 m] thick with net pay up to 75 ft
[23 m]. Permeabilities from well tests were 0.1 to
2.5 darcies; air-derived core permeabilities were
about 2 darcies.
A well completed without sand-control measures produced for less than six months before
sand influx and suspected perforation collapse
stopped production. If completion practices
induced a significant pressure drop downhole, it
would be difficult to control sand at oil rates and
wellhead pressures that met production targets
while allowing wells to flow naturally into existing facilities 50 km [31 miles] away. Frac packing
satisfied well-completion requirements for both
the A and B reservoirs.
Long completion intervals necessitated different frac-packing techniques for each reservoir
(next page, top). Saudi Aramco used conventional
screens in the B reservoir where pay zones were
less than 60 ft thick. For longer perforated intervals in the A reservoir, the operator chose
200
300
400
600 miles
600
900 km
IRAN
Th
SAUDI ARABIA
EGYPT
ul
Riyadh
UAE
Red
Well
locations
OMAN
Se
a
ea
SUDAN
YEMEN
i
Arab
an
ERITREA
EUROPE
Saudi Arabia
AFRICA
> Sand-control completions onshore. In the late 1990s, Saudi Aramco began
frac packing new oil-well completions in central Saudi Arabia about 200 km
[124 miles] southeast of Riyadh. These frac packs controlled sand influx and
reduced downhole pressure drop, allowing the wells to flow naturally into
facilities 50 km [31 miles] away under existing intake-pressure conditions.
36
AllFRAC Alternate Path screens with three shunt

tubes, each designed for 6 bbl/min [1 m3/min], to
achieve required injection rates (next page, bottom).
Wells with an oil-water contact near the bottom perforations required close control of fracture height to avoid early water breakthrough. In
other wells, perforations extended over long
intervals and individual zones were spaced far
apart. Engineers selected a stacked-screen completion to meet frac-packing objectives in these
wells. Dividing the productive interval into two
sections allowed Saudi Aramco to optimize treatment designs for each zone and avoid fracturing
into water-bearing zones.
Typically, these frac-packing treatments
included the pad, an initial low-concentration
stage with 0.5 lbm/gal [0.06 kg/L], or pounds of
proppant added (ppa) per gallon of fracturing
fluid, and additional proppant stages ramped up
to 3, 6 or 9 ppa [0.36, 0.72 or 1 kg/L]. In a few
wells, 9-ppa stages were pumped successfully.
Higher proppant concentrations were difficult to
place in more permeable zones, but placing 3 and
6 ppa in the formation yielded good results.
Saudi Aramco and Schlumberger modified initial fracturing designs based on minifracture
analysis using the Schlumberger DataFRAC fracture data determination service (see Design and
Implementation, page 38). Fracture-closure
stress, fluid-leakoff coefficient and fracture
height from these pretreatment injectivity tests
helped ensure that the main treatments achieved
a tip screenout. The operator adjusted pad and
proppant stages as needed and accounted for
high fluid leakoff in the B sand by increasing
the maximum injection rate to 18 bbl/min
[2.9 m3/min]. Engineers also restricted pump
rates to 16 bbl/min [2.5 m3/min] for the A-reservoir Alternate Path completions to limit friction
pressure in the shunt tubes.
The operator performed post-treatment
hydrochloric [HCl] acid jobs on some wells to
reduce cleanup time. Other wells cleaned up
within two months without acid treatments.
Overall well productivity continued to improve as
treatment fluids were recovered. Experience from
the first wells helped optimize frac-packing procedures. Saudi Aramco reduced polymer concentrations in treatment fluids and included
slow-release encapsulated breakers to optimize
fracture placement and post-treatment cleanup.
21. Shepherd D and Toffanin E: Frac Packing Using
Conventional and Alternative Path Technology, paper
SPE 39478, presented at the SPE International
Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
Louisiana, USA, February 1819, 1998.
Oilfield Review
Gamma Ray, API

0
Depth, ft
200
2
Resistivity, ohm-m
3
Tubing
8800
Gravel-pack
packer
< B-sand completions. A typical well log indicates a maximum pay interval of about 65 ft with
closely spaced perforations in the B reservoir
(left). Relatively short perforated intervals allowed
Saudi Aramco to install a single completion and
frac pack these lower sands using standard
screens (right).
8850
Flapper valve
8900
Washpipe
8950
Conventional
9000
9050
Perforations
Bottom
packer
Gamma Ray, API

0
Depth, ft
100
2
Resistivity, ohm-m
3
Tubing
8750
Gravel-pack
packer
Flapper valve
8800
< A-sand completions. A typical well log shows

perforations across a 180-ft [55-m] interval of the
A reservoir (left). Saudi Aramco performed two
separate treatments using a stacked-screen
assembly to frac pack these longer intervals
(right). Standard screens were used for the lowest zone, which was shorter. AllFRAC screens
with shunt tubes were installed to complete the
longer upper zone.
8850
8900
8950
9000
Gravel-pack
packer
Flapper valve
Perforations
packer
Summer 2002
37
20
20
Dimensionless skin
15
11
10
5
3
1
-1
-5
2
10
Well
> Frac-pack performance. Saudi Aramco has frac packed 23 wells in the Central Province of Saudia Arabia and published results from an initial group of
10 wells completed with 12 frac packs. In Wells 6 and 7, the operator used
stacked-screen assemblies and divided the completion intervals into two
stages to optimize treatment designs and avoid fracturing into an underlying
water-bearing zone. Premature screenout and early treatment termination in
Wells 2 and 5 contributed to high skins and poor productivity, confirming that
fracture conductivity and connectivity with the wellbore are critical factors.
Eight wells had skins below those expected in conventional gravel packs and
typical frac packs.
Net present value (NPV), millions of dollars
Optimal
3.60
3.59
3.58
3.57
3.56
3.55
11
3.54
10 ft2
m/
, lb
3.53
3.52
20
8
30
Fracture 40
half-len 50
gth, ft
7
60
70 6
nt
pa
p
Pro
nt
ce
n
co
9
ion
rat
> Frac-pack economics. Optimal fracture half-length and width maximize net
present value (NPV). In this example, the optimal fracture length and width, or
proppant concentration, are 30 ft [9 m] and 7 lbm/ft2 [34 kg/m2], respectively.
Discounted operating costs and incremental income are expressed in present-day value. Completion and stimulation investments and discounted operating costs are subtracted from discounted incremental income to arrive at
the NPV for a treatment. Incremental income increases for longer and wider
fractures, but at some point increasing costs for larger treatments yield
diminishing returns.
38
The initial group of wells included five completions with conventional screens in the B
reservoir and five completions in the A reservoir
with AllFRAC screens that successfully treated
intervals up to 200 ft. Two completions in the A
reservoir used stacked-screen assemblies.
Treatments were pumped through 9000 ft of 3-in.
outside diameter (OD) tubing at surface injection
pressures below 10,000 psi [69 MPa] and pump
rates of 14 bbl/min [2.2 m3/min] to 18 bbl/min.
The operator performed well tests by flowing
through surface facilities or with downhole production logging tools to evaluate 12 frac-packing
treatments on the first 10 completions in this
field (left). Except for two, these frac-pack
completions yielded low completion skin and
good sand control in formations with up to
3-darcy permeability.
A positive frac-pack skin is caused by inadequate connectivity between propped fractures
and wellbores, incomplete zone coverage or failure to achieve a high-conductivity TSO fracture. If
these conditions produce a completion skin of 8
or more, well productivity may be no better than
that of a conventional gravel pack. Achieving
optimal frac-pack performance, as in the case of
these Saudi Aramco wells, requires detailed preliminary designs, careful proppant and fluid
selection, accurate pretreatment injectivity testing and treatment optimization as needed.
Design and Implementation
During the initial design of frac-packing treatments, completion engineers determine required
fracture geometry based on reservoir conditions,
rock properties and barriers to fracture-height
growth. Fracture length and, more importantly for
high-permeability formations, fracture width
enhance well productivity. Operators select an
optimal TSO fracture design by maximizing the
net present value (NPV) from enhanced well productivity (left).22
Proppant selectionThe type of proppant
chosen to keep fractures open and form a granular
filter is an important design consideration. Fracpacking success is due, in part, to larger proppant
sizes than those commonly used in gravel packing.
High concentrations of large, spherical proppants
minimize embedment and offset the effects of turbulent flow in propped fractures.
Operators use various grain sizes and
proppant types, including natural sand, customsieved sand, resin-coated sand and intermediate
or high-strength man-made ceramic proppants,
depending on formation stress and fractureclosure pressure. Proppants for frac packing
should accomplish four fracturing objectives:
Oilfield Review
Summer 2002
20/40 ISP ceramic

20/40 Ceramic
30/50 Ceramic
20/40 Natural sand
40/60 Natural sand
1000
Permeability, darcies
provide an effective permeability contrast

control sand influx and fines migration
minimize proppant embedment in soft rock
maintain fracture conductivity without
proppant crushing.
In the past, gravel-packing considerations
dominated proppant selection.23 Gravel packs
require gravel, or sand, sized to prevent formation particles and fines from invading the annular
pack. The widely accepted Saucier rule dictates
that sand, or gravel, particles be five to six times
the mean particle diameter of formation grains.24
Fracture permeability and conductivity improve
as proppant sizes become larger, but production
of formation sand grains and fine particles that
reduce pack permeability also increases. Frac
packs require proppants sized to optimize fracture permeability.
In the early 1990s, operators began evaluating larger sizes of stronger proppants to increase
fracture permeability and relative conductivity in
high-permeability reservoirs.25 For example,
larger 20/40-mesh proppants were used used for
frac packing instead of smaller 40/60-mesh proppants often required for gravel packing.26
Experience indicated that proppant sizes dictated
by gravel-packing criteria could be increased to
next larger size for frac packing.
Saucier criteria for sizing proppants in relation
to formation grain size were relaxed in frac-pack
designs because the large flow area of hydraulic
fractures mitigates formation failure and sand
influx. Balancing the mechanisms of sand productionflow velocity, proppant particle sizes and
fluid propertiesallows operators to increase
fracture conductivity and improve frac-pack
performance by using larger proppant sizes.
Completing deeper wells with high fractureclosure stresses led operators to use more manmade ceramic proppants because they are
stronger and their consistent spherical shape
reduces embedment, which also increases fracture conductivity (above right). The majority of
frac packs use ceramic 20/40-mesh intermediate-strength proppant (ISP) when reservoirs have
good pressure support and closure stresses are
not excessive.
Fluid selectionAfter evaluating reservoir
characteristics, engineers choose an optimal
fluid for combined stimulation and gravel packing. The polymer-based hydroxyethylcellulose
(HEC) fluids used in gravel packing, hydroxypropyl
guar (HPG) fracturing fluids with a borate
crosslinker for additional viscosity, and more
recently, viscoelastic surfactant (VES) fracturing
fluids, all are applicable. Frac-packing fluids must
have a variety of properties.27
100
10
6
8
Closure stress, 1000 psi
10
12
> Proppant specifications. In the mid-1990s, operators began using larger,

stronger and more conductive proppants in frac-pack completions. Manmade ceramic materials have since become the proppant of choice in the US
Gulf of Mexico to maintain fracture conductivity at higher closure stress in
deeper formations. For example, switching from smaller 40/60-mesh sand
(green) to a larger intermediate-strength 20/40-mesh ceramic proppant (yellow) increases proppant permeability and fracture conductivity by a factor of
six in laboratory tests at 2000 psi [13.8 MPa] of closure pressure (inset). An
intermediate-strength proppant (ISP) is priced competitively with customsieved natural sands.
Fluid selection depends primarily on TSO fracturing criteria. Unlike massive hydraulic fracture
stimulations in low-permeability formations, a
low leakoff rate, or high fluid efficiency, is less
desirable for frac packing. In fact, a somewhat
inefficient fluid helps achieve tip screenout and
promote grain-to-grain proppant contact from
fracture tip to wellbore.
However, frac-packing fluids also must
maintain sufficient viscosity to create wide
dynamic fractures and place high proppant concentrations that ensure adequate conductivity
after fracture closure.28 After tip screenout, fluid
systems transport proppant in the low-shear
environment of a wide dynamic fracture, but also
must suspend proppant under higher shear rates
in tubing, around screen assemblies, through
the perforations and during fracture initiation
and propagation.
Fluid viscosity should break easily to minimize
formation and proppant-pack damage after treatments. Optimal fluids need to be compatible with
formations and chemicals such as polymer breakers; they must also produce low friction and clean
up quickly during post-treatment flowback. To maximize retained fracture conductivity, operators
exercise great care with viscosity breakers or

acid treatments after frac packing to optimize
post-treatment cleanup for maximum productivity and hydrocarbon recovery. Finally, frac-packing fluids should be safe, cost-effective and easy
to mix, especially in offshore applications.
22. Morales RH, Norman WD, Ali S and Castille C: Optimum
Fractures in High Permeability Formations, paper SPE
36417, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA,
October 69, 1996; also in SPE Production & Facilities 15,
no. 2 (May 2000): 6975.
24. Saucier RJ: Considerations in Gravel Pack Design,
Journal of Petroleum Technology 26, no. 2 (February
1974): 205212.
25. Hainey BW and Troncoso JC: Frac-Pack: An Innovative
Stimulation and Sand Control Technique, paper SPE
26. Naturally occurring sand and man-made ceramic proppants are specified according to sieve analysis based on
particle-size distributions and percentage of particles
retained by screens with standard U.S. mesh sizes.
27. Hainey and Troncoso, reference 25.
28. Morales RH, Gadiyar BR, Bowman MD, Wallace C and
Norman WD: Fluid Characterization for Placing an
Effective Frac/Pack, paper SPE 71658, presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, USA, September 30October 3, 2001.
39
40
1000
10,000
45 ppt
40 ppt
1000
10
35 ppt
Viscosity, cp
Shear rate, sec1
100
Fluid shear
1
Fracture extension
Tip screenout
0.1
100
0
10
20
Time, min
30
40
> Fluid viscosity versus typical shear rate (blue) in laboratory tests.
Under frac-packing conditions of fracture extension and tip screenout
in an Amoco, now BP, Matagorda Island field in the US Gulf of Mexico,
a 35-ppt crosslinked HPG fracturing fluid (green) exhibited adequate
viscosity behavior, while 40- and 45-ppt systems (red and gold, respectively) had unneccessarily high viscosities.
70
60
Gas rate, MMscf/D
Fluids based on HEC have many preferred

frac-packing characteristics, but also several
drawbacks. Systems based on HEC exhibit
increased friction pressures compared with
delayed crosslinked HPG or VES fluids, and frictional losses become significant in deeper wells
or smaller diameter tubulars. In addition, proppant transport characteristics for HEC fluids are
not as good as those of crosslinked HPG or VES
fluids. High temperatures cause HEC fluids to thin,
and viscosity is not as high at low shear rates.
High-viscosity crosslinked HPG systems leave
some polymer residue, but maximize fractureheight growth in moderate- to high-permeability
formations. They also perform well in longer
intervals and transport higher proppant concentrations for greater fracture conductivity.
Pumping pressures increase with HPG systems,
but service companies can used a delayed
crosslinker to reduce tubular friction.
Delayed-crosslink HPG fluids start at a lower
viscosity and require less hydraulic horsepower
to pump downhole. Prior to reaching the perforations, temperature in the wellbore and fluid pH
cause the viscosity of these fluids to increase in
order to achieve low fluid-leakoff rates. The
majority of frac packs are pumped with
crosslinked or delayed-crosslink HPG fluids.
Viscoelastic ClearFRAC polymer-free fracturing
fluids, introduced in the mid-1990s, use a VES liquid-gelling agent to develop viscosity in light
brines. This type of fluid provides low friction pressures while pumping, enough viscosity at low
shear rates for good proppant transport, adequate
leakoff rates to ensure tip screenout and high
retained permeability for better fracture conductivity. Field data also indicate that fracture confinement using VES fluids is better than with
conventional fracturing fluids, which is an advantage when frac-packing near water-bearing zones.
These VES systems mix easily and do not
require additives such as bactericides, breakers,
demulsifiers, crosslinkers, chemical buffers or
delayed-crosslink agents. Systems based on VES
also are not susceptible to bacterial attack. If
wells must be shut in for extended periods before
flowback and cleanup, solids-free ClearFRAC fluids are recommended to avoid precipitation of
damaging polymer materials.
Fluids based on HEC and VES systems minimize formation damage in zones with low to moderate permeability, but high leakoff rates and
deeper invasion often result in slower recovery of
treatment fluids.29 Adding enzyme or oxidizing
breakers to frac-packing fluids reduces formation
damage and improves well cleanup. Slow-release
50
40
50 ppt
35 ppt
30
20
10
0
1
4
Well
> Improving frac-pack productivity. Production from frac-pack completions in

a field of the Gulf of Mexico Matagorda Island area doubled after Amoco,
now BP, began using an optimized 35-ppt crosslinked HPG fluid (Wells 57)
instead of an initial fluid system with 50-ppt polymer concentration (Wells 14).
Well 7 also had a high productivity ratio, but output was limited by small production tubing.
Oilfield Review
Summer 2002
Bottomhole pressure
encapsulated breakers deposited in the proppant

pack allow higher breaker concentrations to be
used without sacrificing fluid efficiency.
In addition to fluid leakoff and friction pressure considerations, shear rate and temperature
are critical in selecting frac-packing fluids and
polymer concentrations.30 The first frac-pack
treatments were performed using the same HEC
fluid systems as gravel-packing operations. Later,
a shift to more conventional fracturing fluids
occurred because of increasing temperature
requirements and the need to maximize fracture
conductivity in high-permeability formations.
Initially, selection criteria for these fluids
were similar to those of conventional fracturing
applications in which narrow hydraulic fractures
in consolidated, low-permeability formations create high shear rates with low fluid-leakoff rates.
These factors result in breakdown of fluid viscosity and less cooling of formations, and greater
polymer concentrations are required to maintain
viscosity throughout a treatment. The use of
higher polymer concentrations carried over into
fracturing and frac-packing designs for highpermeability reservoirs.
In frac packing, however, fractures are wider
with lower fluid velocities and shear rates.
Pretreatment fluid injection also decreases formation temperature near the wellbore. Pumping
large volumes of treatment fluid decreases heat
transfer from a reservoir, resulting in cooler temperatures inside a fracture. Failure to consider
these effects results in use of higher polymer
concentrations than actually required. This
increases the potential for formation damage and
decreases the likelihood of a tip screenout.
For example, because of differences in shear
rate, a crosslinked fluid with a polymer loading
of 20 lbm/1000 gal (ppt) [2.4 kg/m3] of base
fluid can have the same viscosity in a highpermeability formation as a 40-ppt [4.8-kg/m3]
fluid in a low-permeability formation. Proper fluid
selection and specification dramatically increase
frac-packing efficiency and well productivity.
In 1996, Amoco, now BP, completed four
Matagorda Island wells in the western Gulf of
Mexico by frac packing.31 The reservoir temperature was 300F [150C], so the operator chose a
high-viscosity 50-ppt [6-kg/m3] crosslinked HPG
fluid that was also used in fracture-stimulation
treatments for low-permeability reservoirs.
Production from these frac-pack completions was
comparable to that of gravel-packed wells. The
operator attributed the relatively poor performance to lack of tip screenout because of
improper fluid design.
Fractureextension
pressure
Instantaneous shut-in
pressure (ISIP)
Net pressure
Fracture closure pressure

Rebound
pressure
Increasing Constant Constant Shut in

injection injection flowback
rate
rate
Constant
injection rate
Pressure
falloff
Time
> Pretreatment minifracture testing. Stress, or closure, tests involve injecting low-viscosity, nondamaging fluid at increasing rates to initiate a fracture and determine the pressure required to propagate,
or extend, fracture length. Fracture-closure pressure is determined by monitoring pressure decline
during a slow, constant-rate flowback.
The operator and Schlumberger evaluated the

effects of shear rate on fluid properties in order
to remedy poor performance (previous page,
top).32 Based on the results of this investigation,
frac-pack treatments on the next three wells
used a 35-ppt [4.2-kg/m3] fluid. Fluid efficiency
decreased because of lower viscosity, allowing
better slurry dehydration, which achieved desired
TSO results. Average daily production from these
wells doubled compared with the initial four
wells (previous page, bottom).
Pretreatment testingLaboratory testing
and history matching of previous treatments provide insight into stress profiles and the performance of treatment fluids, but in-situ formation
properties vary significantly in high-permeability
unconsolidated reservoirs. After developing
preliminary stimulation designs, engineers perform a pretreatment evaluation, or minifracture,
to quantify five critical parameters, including
fracture-propagation pressure, fracture-closure
pressure, fracture geometry, fluid efficiency
and leakoff.33
This procedure consists of two tests, a stress
test and a calibration test, performed prior to the
main treatment to determine specific reservoir
properties and establish the performance characteristics of actual treatment fluids in the pay
zone. A stress, or closure, test determines minimum in-situ rock stress, which is a critical reference pressure for frac-pack analysis and
proppant selection (above).
A calibration test involves injecting actual fracturing fluid without proppant at the design
treatment rate to determine formation-specific

fluid efficiency and fluid-loss coefficients.
Fracture-height growth can be estimated by tagging proppants with radioactive tracers and
running a post-treatment gamma ray log.
A pressure-decline analysis confirms rock properties and provides data on fluid loss and
fluid efficiency.
An integral part of pretreatment testing is liveannulus monitoring and real-time measurements
from downhole quartz gauges to obtain pressure
responses independent of frictional pumping pressures. Accurate analysis using DataFRAC services
ensures that the current frac-pack design and subsequent treatments achieve wide fractures with a
tip screenout for optimal results.
Surface data from pretreatment tests combined with bottomhole injection pressures are
history matched using a computer simulator,
such as the SandCADE gravel-pack design and
evaluation software, to calibrate the fracturing
model and finalize treatment design. Calibrated
data from DataFRAC analysis are also used to
assess stimulation effectiveness during posttreatment evaluations.
30. Morales et al, reference 28.
31. Norman WD, Mukherjee H, Morales HR, Attong D,
Webb TR and Tatarski AM: Optimized Fracpack Design
Results in Production Increase in the Matagorda Island
Area, paper SPE 49045, prepared for presentation at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, September 2730, 1998.
32. Morales et al, reference 28.
41
Treatment design, particularly TSO fracture

stimulation, is critically important to successful
frac packing. If premature screenout or failure to
achieve a tip screenout results in insufficient
fracture width to overcome proppant embedment
in the formation, well productivity may, at best,
be equivalent to that of a conventional gravel
pack. Standard frac-packing practice is to
redesign treatments on-site after minifracture
testing and analysis are complete.
Treatment designPreviously, frac packs,
which sometimes failed because of premature
fracture screenout or early annular packoff,
were designed solely using hydraulic-fracturing
simulators that neglected gravel-packing and
completion equipment inside the wellbore, such
as crossover ports in gravel-pack packers, blank
pipe, screens and washpipe. With the SandCADE
simulator, engineers now specify tip-screenout
designs and simulate frac-packing treatments
using coupled wellbore and hydraulic-fracturing
simulators.34 This software also simulates slurry
flow including the effects of well inclination,
gravel setting and bridging around screens, and
fluid flow through packer and screen assemblies.
The fracture simulator supports tip-screenout
designs in high-permeability formations. Inducing
Well-Completion Applications
Fracturing designs based on TSO technology,
larger proppant particle sizes, advances in fracturing fluids and improved treatment evaluation
combined with more robust and versatile pumping equipment and downhole tools make frac
packs a viable completion alternative in many
wells. Experience from more than 4000 Gulf of
Mexico frac packs in formations with permeabilities ranging from 3 mD to 3 darcies helps oil and
gas producers identify frac-pack candidate wells
(next page, left). Frac-packing well-completion
applications include the following:
wells prone to fines migration and sanding
high-permeability, easily damaged formations
high-rate gas wells
low-permeability zones requiring stimulation
laminated sand-shale sequences
heterogeneous pay zones
low-pressure and depleted reservoirs.35
Proppant
concentration,
lbm/ft2
3560
3580
3600
3620
3640
3660
3680
3700
3780
3800
3820
3840
3860
3880
3900
3920
3880
3900
3920
3940
3960
3980
4000
4020
-0.1 0
0.1 0
Fracture width
at wellbore, in.
10
20
30
40
50
60
Fracture half-length, ft
70
80
Today, operators select sand-control methods

by determining first if conditions justify frac
packing. There are 11 major advantages to
frac packing:
bypass formation damage
increase completion radius and flow area
reduce pressure drop and fluid velocity
connect individual laminated zones
re-stress borehole relaxation after drilling
alleviate fines migration and sand production
improve well productivity
achieve consistent low-skin completions
sustain increased production
maintain completion longevity
reduce the likelihood of sand-control failure.
Most wells requiring sand control benefit
from frac packing. Exceptions include locations
where high-pressure pumping equipment is
unavailable, wells with casing sizes that are less
than 5 in., wells with weak casing when there is
a risk of failure and loss of wellbore integrity or
completions with a possibility of fracture-height
growth into water or gas zones. Frac packing also
may not be economical for low-rate wells,
water-source or injection wells that do not produce revenue directly, and reservoirs with
3560
3580
3600
3620
3640
3660
3680
3700
02
24
46
68
810
1012
1214
>14
Depth, ft
Depth, ft
gravel packoff in wellbores by deliberately reducing pump rate or shifting service tools to circulate
at the end of a treatment also can be modeled.
The SandCADE simulator also models fracturing
of multiple layers and shunt-tube flow (below).
90
3780
3800
3820
3840
3860
3880
3900
3920
3880
3900
3920
3940
3960
3980
4000
4020
-0.1 0
0.1 0
Fracture width
at wellbore, in.
10
20
30
40
50
Fracture half-length, ft
60
70
> Modeling frac-packing treatments. The Schlumberger SandCADE simulator is the only commercially available software that accounts for completion and
gravel-packing equipment. A hydraulic-fracturing simulator that calculates fracture geometry, proppant distribution in fractures, and two-dimensional fluid
flow as boundary conditions is coupled to wellbore simulator, which models fluid and slurry flow in the screen-casing annulus and Alternate Path shunt
tubes. A special feature simulates fracturing of multiple layers with or without shunt tubes. This example illustrates simultaneous frac packing of three
zones. Without shunt tubes, the treatment places most of proppant in the middle zone (left). Alternate Path screens ensure treatment of the entire completion interval as well as more uniform fracture lengths and widths (right).
42
Oilfield Review
MALAYSIA
Singapore
BORNEO
And
High-Permeability Reservoirs
am
an
Se
Widuri field
INDONESIA
Jakarta
0
200
300
400
600
600 miles
900 km
Timor S
ea
ASIA
Laminated Sand-Shale Sequences
Indonesia
AUSTRALIA
Proppant
Wellbore
Shale
Sand
> Openhole frac packing. Repsol YPF chose to frac pack an openhole completion located north of Jakarta, Indonesia, in the offshore Widuri field to
maximize well productivity.
Low-Permeability Reservoirs
> Frac-pack applications. Frac packing is a

viable completion alternative for many wells in
reservoirs with sand-production tendencies.
In reservoirs with moderate to high permeability that are susceptible to drilling and completion
damage that extends deep into the formation,
frac packing and wide TSO fractures connect
reservoirs and wellbores more effectively.
For reservoirs with heterogeneous pay or laminated sand-shale sequences, frac packing provides an effective hydraulic connection across
most of a completion interval. When perforatedinterval length is limited, frac packing connects
more pay with fewer perforations.
In low-permeability reservoirs, fracture extension increases the wellbore drainage radius, and
bilinear flow stimulates well productivity. In formations with low bottomhole pressures, fracturing bypasses perforating debris and damage,
mitigating the impact of overbalanced perforating. Frac-pack completions also improve hydrocarbon recovery from low-pressure and
depleted reservoirs by minimizing completion
skin across the pay interval, thus reducing drawdown and ultimate abandonment pressure.
Summer 2002
limited reserves or homogeneous thick zones

where horizontal gravel packing in openhole is
more appropriate.36
In more prolific reservoirs, flow turbulence
associated with perforated casing restricts production, so operators often drill and complete
openhole horizontal wells to optimize productivity. Stand-alone screens, openhole gravel packs
or expandable screens are sand-control options
in these settings, especially for thick reservoir
sections. Frac packing in openhole completions is
the next logical step to provide long-term sand
control without sacrificing productivity.
Openhole Frac Packing

Widuri field, operated by Repsol YPF, lies offshore in the Java Sea, Indonesia (above). Drilled
in an area scheduled for waterflooding, Well B28 targeted a thin sandstone of the Talang Akar
formation at 3500 to 3600 ft [1067 to 1097 m]
with 29% porosity and 1- to 2-darcy permeability.37 Original reservoir pressure was
1350 psi [9.3 MPa], but solution-gas drive and
weak aquifer support resulted in rapid depletion
to 600 psi [4 MPa]. Moderate consolidation and a
tendency to produce sand mandated sand-control
completions. Initially, wells were completed as
cased-hole gravel packs. Because of lower reservoir pressure, the operator planned cased-hole
frac packs for new wells.
34. Sherlock-Willis T, Romero J and Rajan S: A Coupled

Wellbore-Hydraulic Fracture Simulator for Rigorous
Analysis of Frac-Pack Applications, paper SPE 39477,
presented at the SPE International Symposium on
35. Hannah et al, reference 10.
Ayoub JA, Kirksey JM, Malone BP and Norman WD:
Hydraulic Fracturing of Soft Formations in the Gulf
Coast, paper SPE 23805, presented at the SPE
International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,
Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, February 2627, 1992.
DeBonis VM, Rudolph DA and Kennedy RD:
Experiences Gained in the Use of Frac Packs in
Ultralow BHP Wells, U.S. Gulf of Mexico, paper SPE

February 710, 1994.
36. Ali S, Dickerson R, Bennett C, Bixenman P, Parlar M,
Price-Smith C, Cooper S, Desroches J, Foxenberg B,
Godwin K, McPike T, Pitoni E, Ripa G, Steven B, Tiffin D
and Troncoso J: High-Productivity Horizontal Gravel
Packs, Oilfield Review 13, no. 2 (Summer 2001): 5273.
37. Saldungaray PM, Troncoso J, Sofyan M, Santoso BT,
Parlar M, Price-Smith C, Hurst G and Bailey W: FracPacking Openhole Completions: An Industry Milestone,
paper SPE 73757, presented at the SPE International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage
Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, February 2021, 2002.
43
QUANTUM
service tool
Washpipe
QUANTUM
gravel-pack
packer
MZ isolation
packer with
bypass shunts
AllFRAC blank pipe
without nozzles
Shunt
tubes
Reactive shale
AllFRAC screens
with nozzles
Drilling motor
Drilling bit
> Widuri Well B-28 completion. Run as part of the completion assembly, a
multizone (MZ) isolation packer was located below the QUANTUM gravelpack packer inside the 7-in. casing. Two large shunt tubes extending through
the packer bypassed the reactive shale section. A protective shroud covered
the AllFRAC screens and shunt tubes to prevent mechanical damage from
hole instability or assembly rotation to reach total depth. The shroud also
centralized the screens for a more complete annular pack. To reach bottom,
this assembly could ream and clean out the hole if necessary using a positive-displacement motor and bit at the end of the screen assembly. An inner
washpipe conveyed fluid to the motor.
44
An unexpected low bottomhole pressure of

390 psi [2.7 MPa] resulted in complete fluid loss
while drilling the B-28 well. A high-pressure,
reactive shale above the pay zone required that
the operator set 7-in. casing to isolate this potentially unstable section. Hole collapse caused this
casing string to be set high, leaving 70 ft [21 m]
of shale exposed after drilling deeper. Repsol YPF
suspended the well temporarily after attempts to
run a screen assembly failed.
After five months of waterflooding, reservoir
pressure increased enough to hold a water column and maintain hole stability. Repsol YPF
decided to attempt an openhole frac pack
because running 5-in. casing was too restrictive
for an internal gravel pack. This approach
presented several challenges, including openhole
stability, screen deployment, fracturing a long
high-permeability section, proppant slurry contamination in exposed shale and annular packing
efficiency in a 70 inclined wellbore. Incomplete
packing and completion failures on other completions raised concerns about frac-packing effectiveness in high-angle wells.
Repsol YPF chose an innovative combination
of Alternate Path screens and a multizone (MZ)
isolation packer to avoid fluid contamination,
facilitate effective fracturing and ensure complete packing of the long openhole section (left).
Two shunt tubes designed for pumping
15 bbl/min [2.4 m3/min] extended through the
packer, across the reactive shale section and
the entire pay interval. The design incorporated
an inner washpipe that conveyed drilling fluid to
a drilling motor. This motor could rotate a bit
on the bottom of the assembly if required to
deploy the completion equipment. An outer
shroud with holes protected screens from
damage in the openhole.
Elastomer cups on the MZ packer prevented
annular flow and diverted fluid to the shunt
tubes. Exit nozzles on the shunt tubes did not
begin until just above the screens to avoid any
injection across the shale. Slurry bypassed the
shale section, exiting through nozzles along the
screens to fill gaps in the pack below proppant
bridges that might form. This configuration
preserved fracture and proppant conductivity
by eliminating fluid contamination from the reactive shale.
Frac-pack execution went smoothly despite
concerns about the high-angle wellbore, multiple
competing fractures and excessive fluid leakoff
through 225 ft [69 m] of openhole interval with
47 ft [14 m] of high-permeability net sand.
Oilfield Review
Treatment simulation indicated a final fracture

half-length of 18 ft [5.5 m] with a propped width
of 1 in.
Initial production of 2000 B/D [318 m3/d] total
fluid with 500 B/D [79 m3/d] of oil from an electrical submersible pump exceeded operator
expectations. Post-treatment skin was not measured by pressure-buildup analysis, but a sensor
on the electrical submersible pump monitored
downhole flowing pressures, which indicated a
small pressure drop at the completion face.
Well performance was evaluated by calculating a productivity index (PI) based on net reservoir thickness from flowing bottomhole
pressures, reservoir pressure and production
rates (below). Well B-28 outperformed most
wells in the field and compared favorably with
wells completed by openhole horizontal gravel
packing. Considering the excessive fluid losses
during drilling, this level of productivity demonstrates the feasibility of openhole frac packing as
a sand-control alternative in extremely permeable reservoirs with high mobility ratios.
Emerging Technologies
New developments continue in all aspects of frac
packing, from improved sand prediction and
treatment modeling, to new fluids that reduce
damage in both propped fractures and annular
packs. New placement techniques improve frac

packing by applying new downhole equipment or
eliminating subsurface hardware entirely. Fluid
additives that are in testing promise to minimize
production declines by reducing fines migration
and preventing scale deposition.
Frac-pack placement data generally indicate
creation of a fracture and subsequent tip screenout, but post-treatment pressure data often
indicate positive skin values and some remaining
damage, raising questions about the effectiveness of propped fractures. More realistic models
have been developed to resolve discrepancies
between geophysical evaluations, well-log
interpretation, fracturing data from frac-packing
treatments and well-test pressure analysis
(right).38 Generating consistent solutions and
resolving discrepancies require measurement of
multiple parameters within a discipline, and integration across disciplines.
Differential stresses make uniform hydraulic
fracture diversion and complete coverage difficult in long intervals of heterogeneous formations, even when Alternate Path technology is
used. This is particularly true if stress profiles
vary significantly when high-permeability zones
with lower stresses occur at the top of a long
interval. Preferential propagation of fractures in
zones with lower in-situ stresses results in suboptimal reservoir stimulation.
Specific productivity index (PI), B/D/psi/ft
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
Cased-hole frac-pack
average = 0.17
0.20
0.15
Geology and
Geophysics (G)
Model Results and

Matching Solutions
G1
G2
Well logs (L)
L1
G1
Fracture
placement (F)
F1
L1
G1
T2
F1
L1
T3
F2
F2
T1
Well
test (T)
G1
> Post-treatment evaluations. Solutions from geological and geophysical modeling, well-log interpretation, fracture-placement evaluation and welltest analysis are not unique. Various combinations
of input datalength of pay interval, reservoir
pressure, porosity, permeability, and fracture
length, width or heightoften generate multiple
solutions and different results from each model.
Better simulation and interpretation software help
establish a match among all of the different models,
such as T2, F1, L1 and G1 in this depiction.
Ocean Energy used an innovative technique in

the Gulf of Mexico to ensure uniform stimulation
and annular packing across long intervals in a
field in the Eugene Island area.39 The operator
pumped more than one pad-slurry sequence during a treatment without shutting down to
sequentially increase the resistance to fracture
extension, or fracture stiffness, in each zone from
lowest to highest in-situ stress. As proppant
packed toward a well, fractures became more
difficult to propagate, and the next pad-slurry
sequence diverted into other zones of long
heterogeneous intervals.
In this application, AllFRAC screens improved
frac-pack treatment diversion across long
intervals. Multiple temperature gauges with
electronic memory placed strategically in the
washpipe monitored slurry diversion through
0.10
0.05
0.00
1
B-28
6
Well
10
11
12
> Openhole frac-pack performance. Inflow-performance calculations yielded

average and maximum specific productivity index (PI) values of 0.17 and 0.39
B/D/psi/ft [0.013 to 0.03 m3/d/kPa/m] for 12 Widuri field cased-hole frac packs,
respectively. Only two cased-hole wells in this field performed equal to or
better than the Well B-28 openhole frac pack, which had a specific PI of 0.28
B/D/psi/ft [0.021 m3/d/kPa/m].
Summer 2002
Interpretation
and Simulation
Models
38. Ayoub JA, Barree RD and Chu WC: Evaluation of Frac

and Pack Completions and Future Outlook, paper SPE
38184, presented at the SPE European Formation
Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands,
June 23, 1997; also in SPE Production & Facilities 15,
no. 3 (August 2000): 137143.
39. White WS, Morales RH and Riordan HG: Improved
Frac-Packing Method for Long Heterogeneous
Intervals, paper SPE 58765, presented at the SPE
Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, February 2324, 2000.
45
Depth, ft
5900
Gamma Ray, API

100
Resistivity, ohm-m
2
5950
130
5000
6000
Pressure, psi
6050
6100
Bottomhole temperature
lower gauge
Bottomhole pressure
upper and lower gauges
120
4000
115
3500
Bottomhole temperature
upper gauge
6150
0
Perforations
Temperature and pressure gauges
110
105
3000
6200
125
Temperature, degrees F
4500
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Time, min
> Frac-pack diversion. By injecting two separate pad-slurry sequences, Ocean Energy treated four zones over 240 ft [73 m] in the first
of two wells (left). Two memory gauges in the washpipe recorded downhole temperatures and pressures (right). Temperature
decreased initially at the upper gauge because of fluid flow past the top zone (green). Pump problems halted injection between padslurry sequences. After injection resumed, temperature at the upper gauge stabilized, then increased, because a proppant bridge prevented annular flow. Temperature at the lower gauge decreased as flow diverted into the AllFRAC screen shunt tubes and reached the
lower zones (blue). Temperature at the upper gauge decreased again as the bridge broke down and annular flow resumed.
shunt tubes to other zones (above). Temperature

decreases indicated fluid flow past a gauge, and
temperature increases corresponded to reduced
flow or no fluid movement at a gauge.
Temperature responses at the gauges confirmed
complete interval coverage and diversion of
treatment fluids into individual target zones. Net
pressure developed during the treatment indicated a tip screenout.
Individually frac packing multiple zones in a
single wellbore is time-consuming and expensive.
An alternative to stacked frac-pack completions
uses Alternate Path screens and MZ isolation
packers with bypass shunt tubes to complete
more than one zone in a single pumping operation
with the same gravel-pack packer (next page,
left). This diversion technique uses pressure drop
in the shunt tubes to control fluid flow. Changing
the number and length of shunt tubes going to
each zone controls pressure drop. Engineers vary
shunt-tube configurations to achieve the desired
rate distribution. This system potentially allows
up to three zones to be completed at reduced cost
and improved profitability.
Operators often bypass many marginal, or
secondary, pay intervals. These zones may never
be exploited because of the mechanical risk of
extending the frac-pack interval length up or
down and the cost of mobilizing a rig to recomplete the well, especially offshore where the vast
majority of frac packs are performed. Recently,
new technologies have been introduced that
46
promise to speed routine application of

rigless completions.
Coiled tubing-conveyed fracturing technology,
including CoilFRAC stimulation through coiled
tubing service, is rapidly becoming a viable tool
for exploiting bypassed pay.40 This new technology has been applied successfully onshore in
multilayered, low-permeability reservoirs, but
the next step is to take this technology offshore.
Accessing offshore wellbores in a workover environment and placing a frac pack or screenless
completion in a new zone without using a costly
conventional drilling or workover rig opens up
countless future opportunities. Significant friction reduction with VES fluids may increase
application of coiled tubing-conveyed fracturing
by allowing this type of rigless completion to be
performed at greater depths.
Operators recently began evaluating and
installing sand-exclusion screens that expand
against the borehole wall. An annular gravel
pack is not required to achieve wellbore stability.
Expandable compliant screens also could be
installed after frac-packing treatments to eliminate internal annular packs.
Emerging screenless techniques potentially
produce completions with a negative skin and
reduce completion costs while maintaining effective sand control.41 In this case, TSO fracturing
and the proppant ring around a wellbore act as a
sand filter. However, any area not covered leaves

perforations open to produce sand. This technique requires various combinations of oriented
perforating, injection of organic resins to hold
formation grains in place and resin-coated proppants or fiber technology to prevent proppant
flowback (next page, right). Porous ScalePROP scaleinhibitor-impregnated proppants can improve
inhibitor placement and ensure uniform chemical
release for extended protection against scale
buildup in completion equipment and tubulars.
40. Degenhardt KF, Stevenson J, Gale B, Gonzalez D, Hall S,
Marsh J and Zemlak W: Isolate and Stimulate Individual
Pay Zones, Oilfield Review 13, no. 3 (Autumn 2001): 6077.
41. Kirby RL, Clement CC, Asbill SW and Ely JW:
Screenless Frac Pack Completions Utilizing Resin
Coated Sand in the Gulf of Mexico, paper SPE 30467,
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, October 2225, 1995.
Pitoni E, Devia F, James SG and Heitmann N: Screenless
Completions: Cost-Effective Sand Control in the Adriatic
Sea, paper SPE 58787, presented at the SPE
Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, February 2323, 2000; also in
SPE Drilling & Completions 15, no. 4 (December 2000):
293297.
Guinot et al, reference 16.
Solares JR, Bartko KM and Habbtar AH: Pushing the
Envelope: Successful Hydraulic Fracturing for Sand
Control Strategy in High Gas Rate Screenless Completions
in the Jauf Reservoir, Saudi Arabia, paper SPE 73724,
presented at the SPE International Symposium and
Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
42. Guichard JA III and Stewart B: Field Experience Frac
Packing Near Gas/Water Contacts, paper SPE 73776,
presented at the SPE International Symposium and
Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
43. Ali et al, reference 36.
Oilfield Review
Future Trends
Engineers recognize that conventional fracturing
simulators based on linear elastic fracture
mechanics do not adequately model frac packing.
Current research is evaluating new modeling
concepts that account for differences in elastic
and plastic behavior between hard and soft formations. Effects of fluid injection during pretreatment minifracture tests on potential fluid loss
during the main treatment also are being studied.
Future frac-packing simulators will account for
fluid-injection behavior to further improve fracpack designs.
Upper MZ
isolation packer
Shunt tube
with nozzles
for upper
zone
removal chemicals into fracturing fluids without

affecting base properties would be advantageous during frac-pack treatments to ensure
chemical contact with the entire openhole section and provide a uniform production profile.
The increasing use of synthetic oil-base mud,
especially in high-permeability reservoirs, will
require compatible fracturing fluids. This need
will become increasingly important as operators
perform more openhole frac packs. Fluid compatibility, formation wettability and filter-cake
cleanup have to be addressed in the context of
expensive displacement to water-base systems
and oil-base fluid handling.
Some of these techniques require further
development, but as frac-packing treatments are
implemented in a wider range of reservoirs and
subsurface conditions, new ideas and techniques
will be developed to fully realize the benefits of
combined stimulation and sand-control techniques.
MET
A better understanding and modeling of fluid

rheology, with control of fracturing net pressure,
may help companies fracture small zones without
breaking into nearby barriers or into water and
gas zones, especially when combined with fracpack designs that control net-pressure increase.42
Recent advances in fluids promise additional
improvement in frac-pack productivity. These
include low-polymer crosslinked HPG, delayedcrosslinker and polymer-breaker improvements,
and extension of temperature limits for solidsfree VES systems beyond 300F. Alternatives to
current polymer systems are also being evaluated. Finding or creating new polymers may be
the key to developing a completely new fracturing fluid.
MudSOLV filter-cake removal services currently used for simultaneous gravel packing and
cleanup in openhole gravel packs may find similar application in openhole frac packing.43
Incorporating aggressive breakers and filter-cake
Screenless completion
Perforations
Resin-coated proppant or
sand held in place by
PropNET fibers
Shunt tubes
without
nozzles for
lower zone
Shunt tubes
with nozzles
for lower
zone
Perforations
Scale-inhibitor
treatment
Formation or propped fracture

containing scale-inhibitor
liquid preflush or ScalePROP proppant
impregnated with a solid-phase
scale inhibitor
> Frac packing and gravel packing multiple zones

in a single trip. Multizone (MZ) isolation packers
with shunt tubes allow more than one interval to
be treated with the same gravel-pack packer
during one pumping operation in a single trip into
the wellbore. Treatment fluids pass through
shunt tubes in MZ packers located at the top and
bottom of a completion interval to isolate individual zones. Shunt-tube size and configuration balance flow between the zones to create two or
three fractures simultaneously. This capability
reduces the incremental cost to access additional reservoirs.
Summer 2002
Scale-inhibitor concentration, parts per million (ppm)
Lower MZ
isolation packer
10,000
Scale-inhibitor squeeze
1000
ScalePROP impregnated proppant
100
Required protection
10
End of scale squeeze life

Water production
> Screenless completions. Combined with frac packing, resin consolidation, resin-coated proppants or
PropNET hydraulic fracturing proppant-pack additives (top right) potentially control proppant and sand
production without sand-exclusion screens and internal gravel packs (top left). Cost savings include
elimination of the screens, associated rig time for screen installation and placing an annular pack. In
addition, porous ScalePROP scale-inhibitor-impregnated proppants contain a solid phase of scale
inhibitor (bottom left). This method distributes the chemical throughout a proppant pack to avoid loss
of inhibitor and scale protection during initial well flowback and cleanup of treatment fluids; slow dissolution ensures uniform inhibitor release during production (bottom right).
47

ESTIM - Combined Stimulation and Sand Control (English)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESTIM - Combined Stimulation and Sand Control (English)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Combined Stimulation and Sand Control

In the ensuing years, operators used various

Reimers DR and Clausen RA: High-Permeability

Mechanical skin consists of localized formation damage

In the Gulf of Mexico, frac packing became

in the North Sea and offshore Brazil, intend to push

Picture to be added later

> Completion damage. Evaluation of sand-control completions performed in

reservoirs, there is less contrast, and the relative

Fracture with viscous fluid

Fracture with water

Fracture with water

> Fracture geometry. In low-permeability formations, viscous fracturing

6. McLarty and DeBonis, reference 1.

External proppant pack

> Tip-screenout (TSO) fracturing. In high-permeability reservoirs, fracture

12. Mullen ME, Norman WD and Granger JC: Productivity

Stewart BR, Mullen ME, Howard WJ and Norman WD:

annulus, or communicationa live annulus

> Downhole tools. In gravel packing and frac

Early service tools used a conventional check

> Alternate Path technology. Proppant bridges, or

across the remainder of the completion interval.

larger shunt tubes than AllPAC screens for gravel

AllFRAC Alternate Path screens with three shunt

Gamma Ray, API

Gamma Ray, API

< A-sand completions. A typical well log shows

Net present value (NPV), millions of dollars

20/40 ISP ceramic

provide an effective permeability contrast

> Proppant specifications. In the mid-1990s, operators began using larger,

exercise great care with viscosity breakers or

Shear rate, sec1

Fluids based on HEC have many preferred

> Improving frac-pack productivity. Production from frac-pack completions in

encapsulated breakers deposited in the proppant

Fracture closure pressure

Increasing Constant Constant Shut in

The operator and Schlumberger evaluated the

treatment rate to determine formation-specific

Treatment design, particularly TSO fracture

Today, operators select sand-control methods

> Frac-pack applications. Frac packing is a

limited reserves or homogeneous thick zones

Openhole Frac Packing

34. Sherlock-Willis T, Romero J and Rajan S: A Coupled

27379, presented at the SPE International Symposium on

An unexpected low bottomhole pressure of

Treatment simulation indicated a final fracture

packs. New placement techniques improve frac

Specific productivity index (PI), B/D/psi/ft

Model Results and

Well logs (L)

Ocean Energy used an innovative technique in

> Openhole frac-pack performance. Inflow-performance calculations yielded

38. Ayoub JA, Barree RD and Chu WC: Evaluation of Frac

Gamma Ray, API

Temperature and pressure gauges

shunt tubes to other zones (above). Temperature

promise to speed routine application of

sand filter. However, any area not covered leaves

removal chemicals into fracturing fluids without

A better understanding and modeling of fluid