PETROLEUM SOCIETY

ETY PAPER 2006-088

CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING, METALLURGY & PETROLEUM

Study on Separate Layer Fracturing

Techniques on Casing-Damaged Wells
Z.G.WANG, Y.S.LIU, J.F.HE; C.F.ZHANG, C.J.ZHANG, Q.L.ZHANG, X.W.GUO
Daqing Oilfield Co.,Ltd

This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Society’s 7th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (57th Annual Technical
Meeting), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 13 – 15, 2006. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if
filed in writing with the technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will be
considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to correction.

Abstract tons/day/well, and the average oil increase reached 5.0

More than 9600 casing-damaged wells were identified till
2004, up to 18% of total wells in Daqing oilfield, China. The
number of casing-damaged wells is increasing at a rate of 600
wells annually. So how to apply hydraulic fracturing technique
for those wells is of major importance to recover and improve
oil production in related mature reservoirs. A new technique
called small-diameter separate-layer hydraulic fracturing is
investigated for those damaged wells whose diameter is above
105 mm. Fracturing string and its matching tools are
specially designed and tested, including packer and its packing
element, sand jet and safety joint. Testing results show that
stabilized pressure time can maintain 5~8 minutes at the testing
pressure of 40-45 MPa for all tools. Mathematical model that
can be used to predict stress of casing-damaged wells was
developed based on the analysis of ground bearing mechanisms
under casing damages. Calculation results from the model
matched very well with practical testing results. Criteria of well
and layer selection will be provided based on theoretical
analysis. The technique can be used to hydraulic fracture
multiple layer in one time.
The technique has been successfully applied to hydraulic
fracture casing damage wells and is underway to deploy in
Daqing oilfield. Until the end of 2004, fourteen wells were
hydraulic fractured using this new technique. All treatments
were successful. The average number of fracturing layers was
two per well, and the average fluid increase was 20
tons/well/day.
Introduction
Casing damage has become a serious problem for mature
oilfields. It is estimated that more than 9623 wells, about
18.51% of total wells, have casing damage problem till the end
of 2003 in Daqing Oilfield. Casing damage has caused these
wells difficult to be hydraulic fractured.
There are five main casing damage types in Daqing Oilfiled:
deformation, break, cracking and corrosion. The main casing
damage types are casing deformation and broken, which
occupies 96.2% of the total casing damage wells. About
59.6% of total active casing damaged wells, 961 wells, the
drifting diameter are larger than 105mm and these wells can be
hydraulic fractured without any repairment. The drifting
diameters of 651 active wells are smaller than 105mm and
about 80% of them can be repaired. These wells can be
hydraulic fracturing only when they are repaired. So small
diameter hydraulic fracturing techniques have been studied.

1
Study on Well Selection Criteria for
Hydraulic Fracturing from Casing
Damaged Wells
Operation safety is the primary condition for hydraulic
fracturing of casing damaged wells. A series studies were
carried out to secure operation, such as stress status analysis on
casing and cement annulus, damaged status of cement annulus,
the critical distance between fracturing interlayer and casing
damage point, and so on. These researches have been applied to
guide the establishment of fracturing treatment criterions.
Damaged region determination of cement
annulus and formation for casing damaged
wells
Based on a local finite element model(FIGURE 1) , some
conclusions were drawn about the stress status and damaged
①
region of cement annulus and formation:
Both casing break and bedding plane slip will make
casings deformed, resulting in the thickness of the casings
②
thinner and the casing strength decrease.
Cement annulus will be damaged in the process of casing
damage. In case of casing break, the cement annulus will be
totally destroyed in the scope of one meter above and below
casing damage point. In case of casing deformation, the
damaged scope will be 0.5m over and below the casing damage
③
point.
Formation will also be broken during casing damage. The
broken scope is about 1.5m above and below the damaged point.
The theoretical results have been proved by on-site acoustic
testing results, shown in Table 1.
Critical Distance Determination Between
Casing Damage Point and Fracturing layer
A numerical model was established to simulate the hollow
（ ）
cylinder surrounded by casing, cement annulus, and wall rock
：
FIGURE 2 . Based on the numerical simulation, several
significant conclusions were drawn as following
With the increase of the distance between casing damage
point and fracturing layer, the average shearing stress adding on
the second cementation plane would decrease gradually till zero.
The anti-shearing strength resistance of the cementation place
would go to the limit, around 12MPa.
When the distance between casing damage point and
fracturing point was less than 3.5m, the average shearing stress
on the second cementation plane will exceed its anti-shearing
strength. Therefore, the theoretical minimum distance between
casing damage point and fracturing layer was 3.5m to secure no
interlayer cross flow under the condition of no protection.
Under the balanced protection condition, the minimum
distance between casing damage point and fracturing layer
without crossflow would decrease to 2.8m.
The minimum distance from casing damage point to fracturing
layer for different pressure:.
Due to the various characteristics of reservior, the operation
pressure is different. FIGURE 3 presents the relation between
the minimum distance from casing damage point to fracturing
layer and pressure. The minimum distance limit increases with
the increase of pressure. For example, the distance limit is about
4m when operation pressure is 40 MPa,.
2
Analysis of interlayer pressure test near casing damage point
In order to verify the above conclusions, pressure tests were
carried out on interlayers near damaged point in casing
damaged wells which were going to be fractured. The
objectives were the two types of casing damaged wells which
were most popular in Daqing Oilfield. See FIGURE 4, 5. One
type of wells were damaged in oil layers. And the other were
damaged in non-oil layers.
According to the test results of interlayers crossflow, for
unrepaired casing damage wells, if the distance of interlayer and
casing damage point were larger than 3m, there would be no
crossflow between interlayers under the pressure of 12-15MPa,
shown in Table 2. As for the casing damage wells after being
repaired, when the distance between interlayer and casing
damage point was larger than 5m, there would be no crossflow
between interlayers under the pressure of 12-15MPa, shown in
Table 3.
Well Selection and Determination of
Operation Conditions
Based on the analysis of the real-time monitoring data before
and after fracturing and practical operation experience, a set of
criteria for well seletion and field operation for casing damaged
①
wells were developed:
The connection between the treated wells and other
② 。
injectors should be clearly determined.
φ105mm The minimum drifting diameter after casing
③
damaged,or reinforcement should be larger than φ105mm.
The critical distance between fracturing barries and casing
damage wellbore: The critical safe distance is larger than 6 m
when the predicted fracturing pressure is under 30MPa. If
predicted fracturing pressure is between 35 to 40 MPa, the
critical distance is larger than 8 m. When predicted fracturing
④
pressure is between 40 to 45 MPa, it is larger 10 m.
Good barrier layer is commonly required to be larger than
⑤
1.6 m.
The barrier layer wouldn’t channel under the pressure of
⑥
15Mpa for more than 5 minutes for three times.
The maximum fracturing pressure of oil layer is under
45MPa.
Development of Small Diameter
Separate Layer Hydraulic Fracturing
String
Development of small diameter fracturing
packer
The reservior depth of Daqing Changyuan Oilfield ranges
from 800 to 1300 m. The fracturing pressure ranges from 20 to
45 MPa. Due to small drifting diameter, high pressure
difference, high flowrate and high risk for hydraulic fracturing
treatment in casing damaged wells, a small diameter fracturing
①
packer was specially designed as FIGURE 6.
In order to improve the integral strength of the tool, the
main body was made of 40Cr or 42CrMo which had an exellent
②
tensile strength of 1080 N/mm2.
A length compensator was designed which made the
bottom of packer be free. This design could diminish the stress
on rubber as well as move the string in case of sand block to
③
avoid the string being totally stuck.
A clearence sand filter structure was applied in the design
of the pressure guidence channel, which ensure the rubber
mandrel to be retrievable even if sands entered the mandrel.
 ④
A special designed packer mandrel was applied to ④Compatibility with diesel oil for small diameter hydraulic
improve the bearing and tensile performance. fracturing packer:

“
The test was based on the the chemical industry criteria of
Check of the bearing strength for main steel parts
”
China <HG/T2699-2702 Inflatable packer rubber applied in
Under high operating pressure, as the primary part of the oil and gas field> . Results were shown in Tables 7 and 8.
packer, central pipe has to endure higher bearing strength and Table 7 shows 12 performance parameters for φ100mm
tensile force. And it’s necessary to check its performance. small-diameter packer rubber and all performance parameters
The inside bearing strength of the central pipe could be meet the standards. Table 8 shows 4 propertises for
expressed as: small-diameter packer and all the properties meet standards,too.
Technical standards are as follow for small-diameter
δ hydraulic packer,
Pin = 2 σ = 2 × 785 × 7/58 = 189.5 MPa
D S
........................................(1) Maximum OD: φ100mm;

～ ；
Minimum ID: φ46mm;
Extension pressure: 0.8 1.3MPa
Where: Pin —inner bearing strength, MPa
Residual deformation of rubber: less than 5%
δ — wall thickness, mm
Maximum pressure resistance: more than 50 MPa
，
σs — yield strength, MPa
D — pipe’s outside diameter mm
Development of small diameter hydraulic
Load limit of central pipe can be expressed as: fracturing sand blower
Calculation indicated that small diameter hydraulic
Q = σ s × S = 785 × π (602 - 442)/4 = 1025918 N = 1025.918kN ........... (2) fracturing tool would have to endure a tensile load of over
350KN due to the piston effect when the pressure was above
， 40MPa. So the strength of material must be high enough to
，
Where: Q — load limit N
①
ensure the safety of hydraulic fracturing tool.
，
σs—yield strength MPa
S —minimum cross section area of central pipe The structure of sand blower was optimized to get a higher
mm 2 flow area. The inner diameter of the slip are enlarged to be
The above calculation indicates that the inside bearing φ32mm whose flow area reached 800mm2 and there are four
strength and tensile strength of central pipe can meet the outlet holes in the central pipe whose flow area reached
requirement of hydraulic fracturing treatment on site. 750mm2. In this design, the technology could meet the
requirement of flowrate in fracturing two layers for one

②
Study on small diameture hydraulic rubber mandrel treatment.
Some special technologies were also adapted on valve ball,
Due to the increment of clearence between rubber mandrel valve seat and jacket of sand blower to improve their
and casing wall for small diameter packer, the stress on wear-resisting properties, to ensure the sand blower’s throttling
shoulder will be concentrated on high pressure operating pressure difference in treatment as well as ensure the string’s to
condition which is easy to tear the rubber. Theoretically, for
③
be sealed after fracturing.
thick wall rubber mandrel made of cord ply, inner pressure will An movable ball limit was added to avoid the spring to be
be put directly on the inner surface of rubber, then transfered to destroyed by over long compressed distance.
cord ply. As the result, the main parameters influencing bearing
Friction loss calculation of sand blower:
capacity of packer rubber include: structure of cord ply, cord’s

（ ）
strength, protection treatment of shoulder, quality of rubber, etc. According to hydraulics theory, the friction loss consists of
① Optimal selection of packer rubber cord.
two parts FIGURE 8 : one is friction between fracturing

（
According to the experimental results FIGURE 7 , under ） liquid and central pipe hole, and the other is the one between
hydraulic fracturing liquid and valve.
the same conditions, the bearing capacity would increase 5 to 8 According to Bernoulli's equation (3), the friction loss could
MPa by increasing the single cord’s strength for 100 N. A new be obtained by equation (4)
cord for rubber packer was selected named N66(2).
Experimental results indicated that breaking force of it reached 2 2
P1 / γ + v1 / 2g = P3 / γ + v3 / 2g − h + hj1 + hj2 .........................................(3)
more than 313.6 N, which was 32% higher than other products,
see Table 4.
②Improvement of comprehensive performance of rubber Friction loss ：
According to the experiment results, plys separated with
rubber layer in some cases under high pressure for the previous h j = h j1 + h j 2
product while improved rubber’s performance was considerably 2 2
increased, shown in Table 5. = ξ2 • v2 / 2g + ξ3 • v2 / 2 g ................................(4)
③Parameter design of packer rubber structure =2.1×(12.772/19.6+0.5×12.772/19.6)=0.22 MPa
After optimizing wiring methods, cord angle, ply number,
and measures to protect packer shoulder, the overall
performance of rubber packer was considerably improved. Where well depth: h = 1000m;
Table 6 gives the performance of several groups of rubber Pressure difference: ∆P=3 MPa;
packer after optimization. Sand carrier density: γ=2.2
Friction coefficient: ξ1=0.5(1-A2/A1)=1.67
Friction coefficient: ξ2=0.5
Flowrate: A1V1=A3V3
Calculation indicated, the sand blower’s friction loss is about

3
0.22 MPa ,which wouldn’t influence the hydraulic fracturing
treatment.
Develpment of small diameter safty joint
The purpose of developing safty joint is to fasten the
workover period by pulling out tubing above the safty point
directly in case of sand plug. The key points of the design are
①
listed as followed:
The maximum OD is Φ100mm while the conventional
safty point’s is Φ107mm.Therefore, it can pass the thinner
3. This technology has a broad application forcast and will
creat great economic benefits.
To date, there are 9623 casing damaged wells in Daqing
Oilfield. And the number is still rising with the extension of
oilfield development. Despite of the unqualified ones , there’re
still several thousand of casing damage wells that can be
hydraulic fractured. It is estimated that about 33×104 tons of oil
will be increased if 50 wells are hydraulic fractured using this
technique each year. Obviously, this technology has a brilliant
foreground and great economic benefit in future.

②
casing deformation point or reinforced pipe.
There are two retaining pins and two shear pins, and there REFERENCES
are also four retaining pins between central slide and lower 1. Liu he, Casing Damaged Prevention & Treatment
joint. Techniques. [M] Beijing, Petroleum Industry Press,
2003. Page 72-76.
Simulation test of Hydraulic fracturing on
the ground surface
The purpose of hydraulic fracturing simulation test is to
check the integral performance of the technology. The diagram
of the test is shown in FIGURE 9. The test result indicated that
the new small diameter hydraulic fracturing tool had a reliable
performance under the pressure of 40 to 45 Mpa(Table 7) .

Field Applications and Results Analysis

Till the end of 2004, small hydraulic fracturing technology
has been applied in 14 casing damaged wells. The successful
rate was 100%. The average number of fracturing layers was
two per well, and the average fluid increase was 20
tons/day/well, and the average oil increase reached 5.0
tons/well/day.
The movable reserves were improved in casing damaged
wells area using the separate layer hydraulic fracturing
technology. The technology also extended the hydraulic
fracturing well selection scope in the development of mature
oilfield. Table 8 compares the hydraulic fracturing results
between casing damaged wells and normal wells in
waterflooding area. The increment of fluid/oil productivity per
meter of net zone for casing damage wells is higher than that for
undamaged wells.
The results show that there are more remaining oil around
casing damage wells than that around non-casing damage wells.
The successful application of the technology has provided more
potential to recover remaining oil for mature oilfields.

Conclusions
1. This new technique has made casing damaged wells be
hydraulic fractured in practical
Conventionally, hydraulic fracturing couldn’t be
implemented in casing damaged wells in Daqing and other
oilfields in China. The traditional treatments for casing
damaged wells were workover, inreforcement, casing exchange,
etc. This technology inovated a new technogy for hydraulic
fracturing in casing damaged well for mature oilfields.
2. This technology can meet the requirement of oil
increasement for most casing damage wells in Daqing Oilfield
This technology mainly aims at the casing damaged wells
with a Φ105mm drifting diameter. Comparing traditional
hydraulic fracuturing operation, the technogy has same
operation pressure, flowrate, sand ratio and processures. The
workover cost was almost same as the conventional hydraulic
fracturing technology.

4
 Cement Annulus Longitud Drying &
Break Adhesiv
Min. e Cord Cord Breaking Heat
Casing Well Damaged Elongati e
Damaged Density Diameter Force
（ 根
Drifting Scope Item on Shrinkag
（ ）
Well No. Damage Depth Scope Strength
(mm) (N) e
）
Diameter Bef. % (N/cm)
Type (m) Aft.Treat- (%)
(mm) Treatment /10cm
ment (m) 0.63±0.0
(m) N6 100 ≥215.6 18±2 ≥137.2 ≤5
3
5-11-605 Shearing 842.17 Ф98 1.9 5.1
0.72±0.0
1-4 BW45 Deformation 1106.29 Ф111 2.7 6.0 N66(1) 88 ≥284.2 18±2 ≥156.8 ≤5.5
3
1-4BW131 Break 1110 Ф65 1.8 5.7 0.76±0.0
N66(2) 88 ≥313.6 18±2 ≥156.8 ≤5.5
3
6-2-125 Break 796.02 Ф95 1 5.2
TABLE 4. Performance contrast of different type of cords
6-1-230 Break 914 Ф98 2 4.6
7-1-G24 Break 1011.67 Ф108 No data 4.3
7-J5-131 Deformation 995.75 Ф95 Fail Tear Maximum
Deformati Hardness Adhesive
5-4-116 Deformation 909.01 Ф110 Better 7.5 resistanc Elongatio
(Shore) force
（ ）
Item on
e n
No (%) kg/cm2
2-2-621 Break 906.51 Ф68 3 (MPa) (%)
damage
Before
TABLE 1. The contrast of acoustic testing data before and
improve 21 350 6 68 4.5
after the treatments
-ment
After
improve 26 410 5 70 6.0
Min.distance -ment
Casing
Min. Tested of interlayer Testing Casin Channel-i
deform. TABLE 5. Comparison of rubber’s mechanic-physics
Well No. deform. wellbore vs. casing P. g P. ng test
pnt performance before and after improvement
D.(mm) (m) deform. pnt (MPa) (MPa) result
(m)
(m)
Perf.
2.94 12-15 0.8 No
top-1034 Number Swelling Eccentricity Bulge Residual Fatigue Explosion
1041.3-1 pressure (mm) (mm) deformation(%) limit in pressure
Well A 1036.94 φ105 4.36 12-15 0.8 No
044.5 (MPa) 40MPa (MPa)
1044.9-1 1 1.0 2.5 5 5.0 8 60
7.96 12-15 0.8 No
047.7 2 1.1 4.0 5 4.5 8 58
991.3-99 3 1.0 3.5 5 4.3 8 57
2.9 6-10 2.5 No
5.8
999.6-10 TABLE 6. Performance of optimized rubber packers
0.9 4-5 3.0 Channel.
00.5
Well B 998.7 φ105
1001.0-1
002.8
2.3 6-10 2.5 Little
Number Items
（MPa） Pressure
stablized
Start-up
Results
1003.3-1 Pressure times
4.6 12-15 1.0 No period
007.3
TABLE 2. Crossflow testing results between interlayers near
1
one stage
safety
40
5 8
～ 10 ～ No
casing damage wellbore for unrepaired wells 45MPa leakage
joint
Min.
Casi 2
Two
stages
40
5 8
～ 10 ～ Normal
Casing distance of Chan 45MPa
Min. Tested Testing ng packers
deform. interlayer -nelin
Well No.
pnt
(m)
deform.
D. (mm)
wellbore
(m)
vs. casing
deform.
pressur press
e (MPa) ure(
g test
result 3
One stage
sand
40
5 8
～ 10 ～ Normal
MPa) 45MPa
Pnt (m) blower
988.2-100 TABLE 7. Test results of small diameter hydraulic fracturing
5.3 12-15 1.5 No tools simulation process on the surface
5.2
1013.3-10 Chan
2.8 5-7 3.5
923.08 φ111 15.1 -nel. Average Average
Average
Average Increment of rate
Well C liquid oil Average effective
1010.5 φ106 1015.7-10 sandston Liquid Oil
5.2 6-10 2.0 Little Statistic incremenincremen fracturin
17.8 Item e thickness produc-t product-
Wells t per day t per day g zones thickness of
1021.3-10
（） （）
ivity ivity
10.8 12-15 1.0 No per well per well per well sandston
22.5
964.0-972.
（） （）t t
m
e m
[t/(d.m)] [t/(d.m)]
8.42 12-15 1.0 No Normal 196 23 6.9 3.8 12.5 3.2 +2.88 +1.01
5 wells in
973.7-979. Chan water
1.28 5-7 3.5
972.42 φ107 3 -nel. flooding
Well D
1069.64 φ104 983.4-984. area
10.89 12-15 1.0 No
9 Casing 14 20 5.0 2.0 6.1 2.1 +3.27 +1.35
1061.9-10 damaged
2.94 6-10 2.0 Little wells
66.7
TABLE 3. Crossflow testing data between interlayers near TABLE 8. Hydraulic fracturing results’ contrast between
casing damage wellbore for repaired wells casing damaged wells and normal wells in water flooding
area in XingBei Oilfield

5
 K344-100 packer
Oil layer

Sand blower
Non-Oil layer
damage
K344-100 packer
Oil layer

plug
Oil layer

Artificial bottom

FIGURE 4. Sketch diagram of pressure test for non-oil layer casing

FIGURE 1. The Local Finite Element Grid in Casing Damage Area
damage well

Anti-shearing stress K344-100 packer

Oil layer
Aver. Shear. stress on Cement. plane

Aver. shearing stress

without protection
Aver. shearing stress Sand blower
with protection Oil layer
damage
K344-100 packer

plug
Oil layer

Distance from casing damage point to fracturing point ( m)

FIGURE 2. The anti-shearing stress and average stress of second Artificial bottom
cementation plane

FIGURE 5. Sketch diagram of pressure test for oil-layer

casing damage well
）m 5
（
Distance from casing damage point to

离距4
的点3
裂压2
fracturing point (m)

到点1
损套0
25 30 35 40 45
压力（MPa）
Pressure
e
FIGURE 3. The relationship of the critical distance from casing
damage point to fracturing layer and operation pressure

6
 Upper
connection

path
Retaining Release Spare Lower
Upper Slide
pin pin ring connection
connection
Central
pipe FIGURE 9. The diagram of small diameter hydraulic fracturing tool
simulation test on the surface
1-fracturing vehicles 2-metering vehicle 3-control valve
4-mani-fold assembly 5-casing 6-safety joint 7-upper packer
8-sand blower 9-lower packer 10-plug
Packer
rubber

Free
point

Piston

Lower
connection

FIGURE 6. The structure of small diameter fracturing packer

Breaking force (N)

Duration (s)
FIGURE 7. Elongation experiment to single cord of different type

FIGURE 8. The variation of flowrate from central pipe to valve