SPE 110037

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/07ATCE/All-07ATCE/SPE-110037-MS/2762622/spe-110037-ms.pdf/1 by PT Medco E&P Indonesia, Martin Rylance on 02 December 2022
Well-Stimulation Technology Progression in Horizontal Frontier Wells,
Tip Top/Hogsback Field, Wyoming
M.C. Romer, SPE, and M.V. Phi, SPE, ExxonMobil Production Company; R.C. Barber, Stim-Tech; and D.V. Huynh,
SPE, Halliburton Energy Services

Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers

The paper will also discuss additional changes made during
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and the stimulation execution to increase the effectiveness of the
Exhibition held in Anaheim, California, U.S.A., 11–14 November 2007.
hydrajet tool and increase the probability of setting a
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
successful sand plug.
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to The process for designing and placing successful sand
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at plugs was optimized from well to well and can furthermore be
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
tailored to fit other fields. Learnings and techniques applied in
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is this work can be used to improve and optimize fracturing
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous treatments of similar nature in other geographic/geologic
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
areas.

Abstract Introduction
Fracturing work conducted on the 2006 Tip Top/Hogsback The TTHB field is a tight gas field in southwestern Wyoming
(TTHB) field horizontal well program proved that sand plug (Fig. 1) which has been produced since 1953. Production is
isolation will work in horizontal wells, even when the primarily from relatively shallow, normal pressure, sweet gas
stimulation treatment calls for fracturing with a high energy formations. Based on the nature of these tight gas sands,
fluid. The TTHB field is a tight gas field in southwestern TTHB wells will not produce without hydraulic fracturing.
Wyoming, and the wells will not produce without a fracture Formation properties are listed in Table 1.
stimulation treatment. This paper will describe the evaluation
process of various fracturing technologies considered for the
program, and how learnings from a 1995 horizontal program
were used to build the final pinpoint stimulation design. In
addition, this paper will discuss the stimulation execution and
the learnings generated from the program.
The fractured horizontal wells were drilled to 11,000 ft
measured depth (MD), 7,200 ft true vertical depth (TVD),
with the laterals being approximately 3,800 ft of the total
measured depth. Eight fracture treatments were planned for Fig. 1—Location of the TTHB field.
each horizontal. The foam stimulation treatments contained
60-quality CO2 and averaged 235,000 lbm total proppant per TABLE 1—TTHB FRONTIER FORMATION PROPERTIES
zone. The basic stimulation procedure consisted of cutting
Parameter Value
perforation holes by use of a hydrajet tool on the end of coiled
Depth 5,500 to 8,000 ft
tubing (CT), pumping a fracture treatment down the
Porosity 8 to 20%
production casing, and setting a sand plug with CT in the
Permeability 0.01 to 0.10 md
lateral to provide zonal isolation. This process allowed
continuous treatment of successive intervals without shutting Frac Gradient 0.70 to 0.95 psi/ft
down to set a mechanical plug or perforate the next interval. Temperature 150 to 175°F
Although several challenges were encountered during the
execution of the stimulation treatment, the stimulation design The majority of the approximately 375 TTHB wells are
did prove to be a more time efficient and cost effective option vertical, with three to five zones produced commingled. An
than conventional horizontal well fracturing treatments. The 80-acre infill vertical well program began in 1993. In 1995, a
paper will discuss learnings on setting sand plugs between four-well horizontal program was completed in an effort to
fracs, frac designs, and equipment operation/limitations. As a produce the field more effectively. A drilling hiatus caused by
result of the learnings, the average treatment time decreased low market demand followed, and then the vertical well infill
from 24 hr/zone on the first well to 13 hr/zone on the second. program was continued. Thus, horizontal wells were not again
2 SPE 110037

considered until 2006, when market pressures and enhanced

production opportunities made them an economic alternative.
This paper discusses how the 1995 TTHB horizontal well
program learnings were leveraged and applied to the 2006
horizontal program. The bulk of the paper will be focused on
learnings from the 2006 program.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/07ATCE/All-07ATCE/SPE-110037-MS/2762622/spe-110037-ms.pdf/1 by PT Medco E&P Indonesia, Martin Rylance on 02 December 2022
1995 Horizontal Well Program
The 1995 program targeted the 2nd Frontier formation with
laterals averaging 2,600 ft in length. A summary is cataloged
in Table 2.
Fig. 2—Transverse versus longitudinal fractures.
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF 1995 HORIZONTAL PROGRAM WELLS
Well 1 2 3 4 Early stimulation treatments in the TTHB field consisted
Fracture
Orientation
Transverse Transverse Transverse Longitudinal of water- or oil-based fracs; generally with small (a few 100
Total Depth, lbm sand per foot of pay) 20/40 mesh Ottawa sand proppant
9,877 9,878 8,912 10,098
ft volumes. Pumped proppant volumes slowly increased through
Lateral Length,
ft
2,965 2,975 2,002 2,475 time, maxing out during the late 1980s (several 1,000 lbm
Completion
January 1995 June 1995 August 1995 December 1995
sand per foot of pay), coinciding with the advent of massive
Date
hydraulic fracturing. In the mid-1980s, the base fluid was
Total Days 65 20 23 Unknown
changed to 60- to 70-quality N2 foam and 2% KCl water,
Average Days
Between Fracs
10 5 Unknown 0 owing to geologic concerns of formation sensitivity to water.
CO2 foam was experimented with in the early 1990s, but was
Fracs 6 3 2 1
Zones 6 5 4 11 found to cause carbonate scale in the treated wells. Thus, all
Total Sand,
940 702 490 380
the fracturing treatments in the 1995 horizontal program were
1,000 lbm
based on 50- to 70-quality N2 and KCl water and involved a
Sand,
157 140 123 35 few 1,000 lbm of 20/40 Ottawa per foot of pay (approximately
1,000 lbm/zone
140,000 lbm/zone in the transverse wells).
One zone was
Each zone was treated Used a sprinkler
Limited entry zones in the transverse wells were treated at
Diversion Both fracs were
Technique
treated individually, two
limited entry.
system pumping rates near 40 bbl/min, while conventional zones were treated
individually. fracs were limited approach.
entry.
at 20 bbl/min. On the other hand, the longitudinal well was
treated with a sprinkler system approach, in which one long
A 70-quality N2 A post production An uncemented treatment was pumped at 95 bbl/min through a pre-drilled
foam was A 50-quality N2 log showed that pre-drilled liner
pumped at 20 only the was used. A 65-
liner. No ball sealers or other diversion methods were used in
foam was
Comments st any of the treatments.
bbl/min. The 1 pumped at 40 to uppermost zone quality N2 foam
Frontier was 42 bbl/min. in each frac were was pumped at
added later. contributors. 95 bbl/min.
Program Learnings
The best fracturing economics correlated to individual
Stimulation Treatment Description zone treatment (i.e., transverse wells) rather than the sprinkler
The first three wells were drilled to create transverse system approach (i.e., longitudinal wells). This observation
fractures, and were completed with cased and cemented liners coincides with several studies that have been published since
to provide behind-pipe isolation among the individually the 1995 program. For instance, a horizontal multilateral
treated zones. The transverse wells fracturing procedure: transverse fracturing program in a north/west Texas tight gas
1. Perforate. field showed a 300 to 500% improvement in stimulation
2. Frac down the casing. compared with other methods (McDaniel et al. 2002;
3. Flow back to clean up for approximately 1 week. Rodrigues et al. 2005). The success of transverse fractures in
4. Set a composite bridge plug (CBP) for isolation. tight gas formations compared with longitudinal fractures is
5. Repeat. commonly attributed to the fact that a high dimensionless
6. Drill out/clean out CBPs/frac sand. fracture conductivity can be achieved in tight formations.
A rig-assisted snubbing unit with jointed pipe or CT was used Thus, if at least two fracs are placed, a set of transverse
to perforate and set the CBPs. fractures can drain a larger reservoir volume than a
The fourth well was drilled in the direction of the longitudinal fracture of similar area (Blanco 1990; Soliman,
minimum stress for longitudinal fractures, and was completed Hunt, and Azari 1996; Soliman and Boonen 1997; McDaniel
with an uncemented pre-drilled liner. This allowed the fracture and Surjaatmadja 2007). As long as the perforated intervals
stimulation to be pumped in one large “sprinkler system” are less than twice the wellbore diameter, transverse fractures
treatment, reducing completion time. (See Fig. 2 for a diagram should create few fractures per zone, resulting in better frac
of transverse versus longitudinal wells.) control than possible in longitudinal fractures (Soliman, Hunt,
and Azari 1996; El Rabaa 1989). Furthermore, it was noted
that the wells with the most zones treated and the highest
amount of frac sand pumped per zone performed the best.
SPE 110037 3

Regardless of the fact that longitudinal wells have the 1.
advantage of greater borehole stability, easier cleanup, and a
surer connection between the fractures and the wellbore 2.
(Soliman, Hunt, and Azari 1996; Soliman and Boonen 1997; 3.
McDaniel and Surjaatmadja 2007), the performance of the
1995 transverse wells shows that they are the better option for 4.
Pump Ball 1 (smallest) to open the Zone 1 frac port
and isolate the casing below.
Frac Zone 1 down the casing.
Pump Ball 2 (slight larger than Ball 1) to open the
Zone 2 frac port.
Frac Zone 2 down the casing (see Fig. 3 for a

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/07ATCE/All-07ATCE/SPE-110037-MS/2762622/spe-110037-ms.pdf/1 by PT Medco E&P Indonesia, Martin Rylance on 02 December 2022
the TTHB field. schematic).
Concerning the fracturing procedure, flowing back after 5. Repeat.
each treatment did individually clean up the stimulation zones; 6. Drill out/clean out balls/seats.
however, it caused problems in setting isolation bridge plugs.
More often than not, strung out frac sand was encountered in
the lateral, hampering plug installation. This resulted in
multiple cleanout runs and a longer time (e.g., 5 to 10 days)
between fracs. The 1995 program led to the conclusion that
isolation methods should be improved. Additionally, future
horizontal well stimulation programs should use multistage
technology to improve execution efficiency through reducing Fig 3—Packer/ball isolation horizontal stimulation technology
example.
frac crew mobilizations, shortening time with a pulling unit or
CT for perforating/cleanouts, and increasing zonal isolation
Because fracturing operations are only interrupted when
reliability, etc.
isolation balls are pumped, it is possible to pump all designed
fracs in a single day.
2006 Horizontal Well Program
The packer/ball isolation system does have some
The learnings from the 1995 TTHB horizontal well program
drawbacks. Frac control can be questionable, because the liner
greatly affected the design of the two-well 2006 program. The
is uncemented. Zonal isolation hinges on an adequate ball/seat
proposed stimulation technologies, wellbore design,
seal, which is not guaranteed. The isolation ball can be
stimulation execution, and program results will be discussed.
damaged on the path to the seat (evidenced in several TTHB
vertical well refracs/recompletes using a similar system),
Proposed Stimulation Technologies
overflushing is a common occurrence when attempting to seat
In planning for the 2006 program, several different
the ball, and if the ball does not seat, lateral ball location
horizontal well stimulation technologies were considered.
diagnostics are costly. Backup options are limited—plugs
Most allowed for multistage treatments, because eight fracs
cannot be run through ball seats and there is little perforation
were planned for each horizontal well. These technologies
flexibility.
included conventional, packer/ball isolation, sliding sleeve
isolation, and hydrajet perforating with annular fracturing
Sliding Sleeve Isolation
(HJP-AF).
The sliding sleeve isolation technology involves running
and setting a production liner with sliding sleeves (i.e., frac
Conventional
ports) positioned at the desired treatment intervals. The
The conventional stimulation technology considered was
sleeves are opened with a workstring and the treatments are
similar to that of the 1995 program:
completed with the workstring in the hole. The liner is
1. Perforate.
cemented with acid-soluble cement, and acid is pumped at the
2. Frac down the casing.
start of fracs to dissolve a path from the wellbore through the
3. Set a CBP for isolation.
cement to the formation:
4. Repeat.
1. Open the Zone 1 frac port with the workstring.
5. Drill out/clean out CBPs/frac sand.
2. Frac Zone 1 down the workstring by casing annulus,
Flowback between zones was not considered to reduce
leading into the treatment with acid.
CBP setting problems resulting from produced sand. CT
3. Close the Zone 1 frac port with the workstring.
would perform the perforating and plug setting work.
4. Open the Zone 2 frac port with the workstring.
Although this process is straightforward and ensures frac
5. Repeat (see Fig. 4 for a schematic).
control, multiple CT trips would allow for only 1 frac/day,
6. Clean out residual frac sand.
resulting in an extended completion time and accompanying
costs. CBP setting issues could still arise, and flowback would
be delayed until all fracs and cleanout were completed, which
could possibly take 2 weeks.

Packer/Ball Isolation
The packer/ball isolation technology involves running and
setting a production liner with external casing packers in open Fig 4—Sliding sleeve horizontal stimulation technology example.
hole. Frac ports between the packers are opened by pumping
staged balls which actuate internal casing seats: Leaving the workstring in the hole while treating allows quick
opening/closing of ports, reducing the overall frac time.
4 SPE 110037

Mechanical sleeve engagement means that there are no The wells were drilled in a northeast/southwest direction,
plugs/guns involved that could potentially stick. Because the perpendicular to the maximum stress, evidenced by formation
liner is cemented and only small sections of cement are micro-imaging logs (Fig. 6).
dissolved, frac control is certain.
However, it is possible to stick the workstring during the
stimulation treatment, and port interaction can be hampered by

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/07ATCE/All-07ATCE/SPE-110037-MS/2762622/spe-110037-ms.pdf/1 by PT Medco E&P Indonesia, Martin Rylance on 02 December 2022
frac sand. There is little perforation flexibility once the ports
are placed, and a leaky port could affect uphole treatments.

Hydrajet Perforating with Annular Fracturing

HJP-AF was the stimulation technology chosen for the
2006 TTHB horizontal program. HJP-AF has been used
successfully in vertical well programs in several different
countries (Pongratz et al. 2007; Surjaatmadja et al. 2005;
Gilbert and Greenstreet 2005; Beatty, McGowen, and Gilbert
Fig. 6—TTHB horizontal well formation micro-imaging data.
2007). See Fig. 5 for a HJP-AF process diagram. The
production liner is run and cemented normally. A hydrajet tool
on the end of CT makes cuts/perforations for each zone, and The laterals were drilled by sidetracking from a pilot hole with
each frac is pumped down the production casing. A sand plug a kick-off point at 6,200 ft MD. Four strings of casing were set
is pumped down the CT at the end of the treatment for in each well (example wellsketch in Fig. 7). The intermediate
isolation, and the process is repeated. The HJP-AF stimulation string of 7.0 in. outer diameter (OD), 26.0 lbm/ft, P-110 casing
procedure will be discussed in detail in the Completion was set just past the heel at 7,700 ft MD. The production
Execution section of this paper. string of 4½ in. OD, 11.6 lbm/ft, P-110 casing was landed at
Hydrajet perforating allows pinpoint fracturing and the 11,200 ft MD, resulting in approximately 3,800 ft of lateral
treatment of several zones before hydrajet tool replacement. length. The laterals were drilled through the Frontier
Because the isolation sand plugs are an extension of the formation at 7,200 ft TVD, and the entire lateral length of both
stimulation treatment, they eliminate trips in/out of hole to the intermediate and production strings was cemented.
place isolation barriers. If a sand plug does fail, reversion to
conventional isolation techniques (i.e., CBPs) is simple.

Fig. 5—HJP-AF process diagram.

There is the possibility that the CT can become stuck or

suffer crippling erosion during fracturing operations. Zonal
isolation is dependent on sand plug screenout, yet all
formations do not screenout equally. The methods used to
cope with these and other limiting factors will be discussed
later.

Wellbore Design
Fig 7—Representative 2006 TTHB horizontal program wellbore
The 2006 TTHB horizontal wells were drilled for sketch.
transverse fracs, based on the success of the 1995 program.
SPE 110037 5

Stimulation Execution
The 2006 stimulation execution discussion will follow the
chronological progression of fracturing events, and will be
broken into five sections: rig-up, hydrajet perforating,
treatment, zonal isolation, and cleanup.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/07ATCE/All-07ATCE/SPE-110037-MS/2762622/spe-110037-ms.pdf/1 by PT Medco E&P Indonesia, Martin Rylance on 02 December 2022
Rig-Up
A 10,000-psi, 1¾-in. CT unit was used in both 2006 TTHB
horizontal completions. This size CT afforded the optimum
pumping rates in 4½ in. OD casing. In other words, 1¾ in. CT
offered less inner pipe friction compared with smaller coil,
and a higher available pumping rate in the CT by casing
annulus compared with larger coil because smaller annular
area and higher pumping rate equals more CT and downhole
tool erosion. Owing to CT/tool pressure and erosion limits, the
maximum pumping rates possible were approximately 3
bbl/min down the CT and 20 to 22 bbl/min down the annulus.
CT wellbore movement was modeled with 2% KCl in the well Fig. 10—Fracturing at night; 24-hour operations were conducted
throughout job execution.
(Fig. 8), and no lockup was detected. As a precaution, gel was
circulated through the coil while running in and out of the hole
to reduce friction.
The wellhead was fitted with a 10,000-psi frac tree and
flowback crosses. A proprietary frac “Y”, which allowed
annularly injected frac fluids to swirl around the CT rather
than impinge upon one point, was installed above the frac tree.
The CT blowout prevention equipment (BOPE) and injector
head were then installed and suspended with a crane. See Figs.
9 through 11 for setup photos. Choke manifolds (with power
chokes) were connected to a flowback/flare pit, and lighting
illuminated the site for 24-hour operations.

Fig 11—Close-up: Frac stack, frac Y, BOPE, and injector head.

Hydrajet Perforating
Hydrajet perforating (HJP) creates a path from the
wellbore to the formation by removing material (i.e., cutting)
Fig 8—CT movement analysis (wellbore fluid is 2% KCl).
with a high pressure jet of gel with 1 lbm/gal sand loading
(Surjaatmadja, Abass, and Brumley 1994; Love et al. 1998).
Many papers have discussed the benefits of HJP:
1. HJP does not compress the rock because material is
removed by tensile failure, so a stress cage is not
created while cutting. Thus the weakest point for
fracture initiation is at the cut—ensuring frac control
(Van Gitjenbeek and Pongratz 2004).
2. HJP stress cage elimination normally reduces, if not
completely eliminates, the pressure spike seen at the
start of a treatment during formation breakdown (El
Rabaa 1989; Pongratz et al. 2007).
3. An interval of 3 ft for 120° phasing and a slot/cut
width of three times the proppant diameter is adequate
Fig 9—Fracturing setup. Left to right: Sand and fluid; pump
for trouble-free passage of large quantities of
trucks; wellhead, crane, and CT unit; CO2 tanks. proppant; compared with a width of six times the
6 SPE 110037
proppant diameter for standard perforations (Van
Gitjenbeek and Pongratz 2004).
The hydrajetting bottom hole assembly (BHA), from top to
bottom (schematic in Fig. 12):
1. Coil connector: Connects CT to the BHA
2. Knuckle joint: Allows the BHA to pivot
3. Shear sub: Will release the BHA from the CT when
pulled at a specified force, making fishing easier if the
BHA becomes stuck
4. Centralizer: Centers the BHA in the wellbore, which
is essential for working in a lateral
5. Jet sub: The hydrajetting tool
6. Ball sub: Allows two-way pumping through the BHA
(e.g., cutting with the jet sub or reverse circulating
fluid through the annulus and up the CT)
7. Muleshoe: Eases BHA passage through the wellbore
Fig. 12—Hydrajetting BHA schematic.
The jet sub had three planar jets, 316 in. diameter, at 120°
phasing. At a jet standoff of 0.8 in. (4½ in., 11.6 lbm/ft casing
has a 4.0-in. ID, and the jet OD is 3.2 in.) and a differential
pressure across the jets of 1,000 psi, only 3 to 4 minutes of
hydrajetting are necessary to cut holes in the production casing
(Halliburton 1998). Three 0.5 in. diameter holes were
expected per cut, because the slot/cut diameter is generally 2½
times the jet diameter (Halliburton 1998). A jet sub photo is
shown in Fig. 13. Note that the jet nozzle is flush with the jet
sub housing to reduce damage from cut sand splashback.
Fig 13—Partial BHA with jet sub (right) and centralizer (left).
Before cutting, CT was run in hole while circulating gel to
the plug back total depth. Plug back total depth from drilling
operations was synchronized with the mechanical depth meter
on the CT unit; the CT was then pulled uphole to make the
first cut. Cutting fluid was 1,500 gal of 30 lbm/1,000 gal linear
gel with 1 lbm/gal sand loading. Through the course of the
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/07ATCE/All-07ATCE/SPE-110037-MS/2762622/spe-110037-ms.pdf/1 by PT Medco E&P Indonesia, Martin Rylance on 02 December 2022
completions, both 20/40 and 100 mesh Ottawa cut sand were
used. Both performed equally well, so 20/40 cut sand was
used for the majority of the work. Cutting fluid was pumped at
the highest rate possible down the CT, normally 2 to 3
bbl/min, to achieve a higher pressure drop across the jetting
nozzles. Immediately after pumping the cut sand, 200 gal of
15% HCl were pumped through the CT to clean up the path
from the formation to the wellbore. Data from one of the cuts
can be seen in Fig 14.
Fig. 14—Pressure and rate versus time for hydrajet cutting.
Next, a 200-gal linear gel spacer was pumped to clear the
cutting debris from the cut. During formation breakdown, a
quick pumping rate increase had a tendency to lift cuttings and
induce a screenout. To correct for this, the cutting procedure
was changed:
1. 1,500 gal cut fluid
2. 1,000 gal spacer
3. 200 gal 15% HCl
4. 1,000 gal spacer
The two spacers prevented any potential problems related to
cuttings.
Four times during the first twelve fracs, a cut would be
made but the formation could not be broken down. Because
the formation would break down easily after most cuts, it was
assumed that the production casing was not being penetrated
fully. This problem normally occurred when pressure was
being held against an isolation sand plug below the zone being
cut. (See the Zonal Isolation section for sand plug details.)
The applied annular pressure reduced the pressure drop across
the jetting nozzles, thus decreasing the hydrajetting
penetration rate and effectiveness (Halliburton 1998). After
such a breakdown failure, the CT would be pulled up hole
slightly, and a cut and breakdown were re-attempted (twice
successfully, once not). After the 4th breakdown failure, 0.5
gal/1,000 gal friction reducer (FR) was added to the cutting
SPE 110037
fluid and spacers. This reduced the pressure loss caused by
friction in the CT by several 100 psi and increased the
pumping rate and pressure differential across the jetting
nozzles. No additional breakdown problems, in five more
cuts/fracs, were encountered following FR addition.
Furthermore, the final cut was made through both the 4½-in.,
11.6-lbm/ft production casing and the 7-in., 26.0-lbm/ft
intermediate casing, and the formation was broken down
without difficulty.
The jet sub proved to be effective for a maximum of three
to four cuts before requiring replacement, owing to erosion of
the jets and their vicinity caused by cutting fluid splashback.
No jet inserts were lost in the wellbore because of erosion.
Photos of eroded jets can be seen in Fig. 15.
Fig. 15—Erosion damage of four different jet subs.
Treatment
Eight HJP-AF fracs were placed in each of the two 2006
horizontal wells. After cutting, the CT would be pulled into
the vertical section of the well to prevent sticking during
fracturing operations. Fluid was pumped through the CT at
0.25 to 0.5 bbl/min during the treatment to provide a dead
string pressure measurement. A 20 to 40% pad, dependent on
a preliminary fluid efficiency test, consisting of 30 lbm/1,000
gal crosslinked gel with 60-quality CO2 foam was pumped
down the annulus. Foam was used to increase fluid recovery
and frac fluid viscosity, and reduce liquid loading. The main
treatment followed, and was composed of 30 lbm/1,000 gal
crosslinked gel, 60-quality CO2 foam, and 20/40 mesh Ottawa
sand. The bottomhole sand concentration was slowly ramped
from 1 to 6 lbm/gal, and the remainder was pumped at 6
lbm/gal. The treating rate was 20 bbl/min owing to CT and
BHA erosion/pressure limitations. An average of 235,000 lbm
sand was pumped per frac; the final 35% of the 20/40 mesh
sand pumped was resin coated to reduce proppant flowback.
Scale inhibitor was pumped with the fracs at 6 to 10 lbm/1,000
gal to reduce future carbonate scale production aggravated by
7
CO2. All fracs were put away without problems. A sample
treatment chart is at the end of the Zonal Isolation section.
Zonal Isolation
After the last proppant stage, the sand concentration was
ramped up to force a screenout and create a sand plug. The
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/07ATCE/All-07ATCE/SPE-110037-MS/2762622/spe-110037-ms.pdf/1 by PT Medco E&P Indonesia, Martin Rylance on 02 December 2022
plug, which provided zonal isolation, would then be pressure
tested to approximately 5,000 psi. Because a high
concentration sand plug can have some leakoff yet still be an
adequate seal (Pongratz et. al 2007), the plug was considered
“solid” as long as the pressure leakoff was less than 200 to
300 psi/min. Owing to concerns of the zone below the plug
breaking through—assisted by the CO2 pumped with the
frac—500 psi plus the isolated zone’s instantaneous shut-in
pressure were applied to the plug via the annulus until the next
frac. Following pressure testing, the plug top would be tagged,
and sand would be reversed through the CT to clean out to the
next cut depth when necessary. Pressure retesting followed a
cleanout.
If a sand plug would not set or if an extended isolation
period was necessary because of material resupply, jet sub
replacement, equipment repair, etc., a water-jetting 10,000-psi
CBP was set with CT to provide zonal isolation. While the CT
and CBP were run in hole, fluid was pumped through the CT
to push strung-out sand ahead of the plug, cleaning the casing
and increasing the chance of a successful set. Rollers on the
sides of the CBP eased travel through the lateral.
All eight CBPs used set successfully although they were
difficult to drill—see the Cleanup section. The CBP setting
process would involve a CT round-trip out of the hole and
back in to remove the hydrajetting BHA, pick up the CBP, and
hydraulically set it. Another round-trip was required to replace
the hydrajetting BHA and maneuver it to cutting depth.
Approximately 24 hours would elapse between the time CT
started out of hole until the BHA was back at cut depth.
The sand plug setting procedure was an iterative process:
Resuspension Method:
1. Cut CO2.
2. When the sand slug reaches the top of the
perforations, cut rate to 2 bbl/min for 30 seconds,
or until pressure starts to climb.
3. Return rate to 20 bbl/min to force screenout.
4. If the plug will not pass a pressure test, allow 30
minutes for sand to settle.
5. Pump into the sand at high rate (e.g., 12 to 15
bbl/min) to resuspend the sand and re-form the
plug. [The theoretical resuspension rate of 20/40
mesh sand in crosslinked gel in horizontal 4½ in.
casing is 6 bbl/min; 7 bbl/min in linear gel (Shah
and Lord 1990). Pumping data validated these
rates.]
6. If resuspension fails, spot a sand plug with CT.
Only one of five plugs attempted with the resuspension
method was successful. Resuspension, as in Step 5 above, was
required to set the one successful plug. Normally, the only
result of a resuspension attempt was that more plugging sand
had been pumped into the formation. The idea of spotting a
plug with CT was abandoned because of the low reliability of
8 SPE 110037
the initial plugs. Instead, isolation CBPs were set with CT
when initial plug setting failed. The plug setting procedure
was completely redesigned after the 5th frac to use a forced
closure method:
Forced Closure Method:
1. Cut CO2.
2. Pump 1,000 gal 20/40 mesh sand, still in 30
lbm/1,000 gal crosslinked gel, at 20 bbl/min,
ramping concentration from 12 to 15 lbm/gal.
3. Cut crosslinker, add extra breaker (20 lbm/1,000
gal), and pump 1,000 to 2,500 gal 20/40 mesh
sand at 20 bbl/min and 15 lbm/gal. The total
volume pumped depends on the ease of setting
plugs in previous zones, the amount of open
casing between the plug and CT, etc.
4. If screenout occurs, pressure test the plug.
5. If there is no screenout or if the plug fails, shut
down to leave a 25 bbl sand plug in the wellbore.
Wait approximately 10 minutes to allow the
fracture to partially close.
6. Pump into the plug. If the plug will not set after
pumping 5 bbl into the formation, shut down.
7. Slowly bleed back fluid (e.g., 20 bbl at 1 bbl/min
maximum).
8. Pump at 10 bbl/min for 2 minutes to re-set the
plug.
9. Repeat forced closure Steps 7 and 8 until a
successful sand plug is set. Note: It is possible
that the formation will take too much sand to set a
plug if Steps 7 and 8 are repeated several times.
The forced closure method proved to be very successful.
Of the nine plugs attempted with this method, eight were
successful. The strategy of pumping high viscosity plugging
fluid followed by low viscosity plugging fluid allowed high
concentration sand to accumulate in the near wellbore region,
and left less viscous fluid for screenout. Only three of the
eight successful plugs required the forced closure method
Steps 5 through 9. A sample job chart is seen in Fig. 16.
Fig 16—Pressure and rate versus time chart for one entire frac.
The success of the forced closure method proved that a
sand plug with a full fluid column is effective for isolating a
zone that has just been fractured with CO2 foam. No well
control problems were encountered, nor was the CT or BHA
damaged or stuck at any time. Although several iterations
were required before an effective plug setting “formula” was
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/07ATCE/All-07ATCE/SPE-110037-MS/2762622/spe-110037-ms.pdf/1 by PT Medco E&P Indonesia, Martin Rylance on 02 December 2022
found, the resulting success rate increased from 20 to 89%.
Cleanup
Well cleanout began with the 1¾-in. CT shortly after the
final frac. Although the CT had no trouble cleaning out sand
plugs in the lateral with a standard bladed mill, it was not up
to the task to drill out the CBPs with either a bladed mill or a
high torque mill and motor. [Both mills had a 94% drift ID,
following CT CBP millout recommendations (Durey and
Denger 2000).] Either jointed pipe or 2 in. CT with a mill and
motor was necessary for CBP drill out/clean out, especially
when deep in the lateral. In one well, the 1¾-in. CT became
stuck near the heel while pulling out of hole to change the
BHA. This resulted in an expensive and time consuming
fishing operation. Cuttings analysis implied that cast iron slips
in the water-jetting CBPs contributed to drill out difficulties.
Although cleanout work was started as quickly as possible,
the deepest zones in both wells were unable to flow back until
several weeks after the final frac owing to equipment
availability and/or fishing. Thus, fracturing fluid remained on
the formation for a longer period than desired. The effect of
this fluid on the wells’ production is unknown. On average,
60% of the frac fluid was recovered. CO2 foam pumped with
the fracs was detected in the flowback of all the zones.
Program Results
All fracs were successfully pumped. Learnings gained
during the program reduced the time between treatments from
24 hours on the first well to 13 hours on the second. Overall,
the HJP-AF approach was more efficient than conventional
fracturing. The production rates of the 2006 wells matched the
best well of the 1995 program. A production comparison
graph can be seen in Fig. 17.
Well 5 Well 6
Well 1 Well 2
_
Gas Rate
Well 4 Well 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Months
Fig 17—Production comparison graph of 1995 (Wells 1 through 4)
and 2006 (Wells 5 and 6) horizontal wells. Note: Well 6 also had
two commingled zones which were not completed with HJP-AF.
Future Directions
Continuous optimization of processes and a current knowledge
of cutting-edge technology are necessities for improving
efficiency and cost effectiveness in stimulation operations.
SPE 110037
Process Optimization
Some of the ideas generated from the 2006 horizontal program
which would benefit future TTHB HJP-AF operations:
1. Using a CT spool with a length close to that of the
well TD. This would minimize excess CT friction
while pumping.
2. Adding a pumping spool just below the BOPE. This
would allow constant pressure application against the
sand plug while tripping in and out of the hole with
CT (e.g., to replace jet subs).
3. Developing jet subs that are more erosion resistant.
4. Developing a CT hydrajetting software model.
5. Implementing water-jetting CBPs that have softer
slips and/or a slightly lower pressure rating (e.g.,
8,000 psi) to ensure an easier clean out/drill out.
Alternate Technologies
Other technologies which may be considered for future
TTHB horizontal wells:
Advanced Multi-Zone Stimulation Technology
Just-in-Time Perforating (JITP) fracs are conducted with
wireline and perforating guns in hole, and zonal isolation is
achieved with frac balls. Multiple zones—generally four to
six—can be treated during one pumping operation (Lonnes et
al. 2005). JITP has been proven in vertical wells, and
development for horizontals is ongoing.
Pumpable CBPs
CBPs have been developed that can be pumped through a
lateral on wireline; both perforating guns and the plug can be
pumped simultaneously. In case the guns do not fire correctly,
the pumpable plug has a hole in the center to allow circulation.
Thus, more guns can be pumped downhole if necessary. Zonal
isolation is achieved by pumping a ball which seats in the plug
before treatment begins.
Packer/Ball and Sliding Sleeve Isolation
Packer/ball and sliding sleeve isolation technologies were
investigated, but rejected for the 2006 horizontal program.
However, new capabilities for these isolation systems are
continuously being developed. New advantages and options
eventually may negate current drawbacks.
Slickwater Fracturing
Many tight gas fields worldwide are successfully
stimulated with slickwater fracturing. For TTHB, base 2%
KCl water would be pumped with FR and low concentrations
of 40/70 mesh, or smaller proppant, at a high rate—analogous
to the early days of TTHB stimulation. Careful consideration
of fluid availability, recycling, and disposal would be required
before embarking on a major slickwater fracturing program.
Conclusions
A historical review of the 1995 TTHB horizontal program
provided important insights into the design and execution of
the 2006 TTHB horizontal program, especially regarding
transverse wells and multistage stimulation. A thorough
review of stimulation technologies resulted in the choice of
HJP-AF, owing to its promise of reduced fracturing time from
9
multistage stimulation, availability of backup options, and
ease of post-frac wellbore cleanout of sand plugs.
Although several problems were encountered, HJP-AF
proved to be an effective stimulation technology for TTHB
horizontals. Specifically,
1. Hydrajet perforating provides cuts which can easily
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/07ATCE/All-07ATCE/SPE-110037-MS/2762622/spe-110037-ms.pdf/1 by PT Medco E&P Indonesia, Martin Rylance on 02 December 2022
accept a large amount of proppant. Cutting
effectiveness can be improved by pumping spacers to
displace cutting debris and adding FR to the cutting
fluid. A jet sub can make several cuts before
replacement, and can easily cut through two casing
strings.
2. Multiple fracs can be placed down the annulus
without fear of eroding or sticking the CT.
Nonetheless, moving the CT into the vertical section
of the well is advised as a precaution.
3. Sand plugs can isolate zones treated with 60-quality
CO2 in horizontals, but annular pressure must be
applied to the plug during subsequent operations to
ensure its structural stability. Once the correct sand
plug formula is found for the relevant formation, a
high plug setting success rate can be achieved.
4. Water-jetting CBPs can be set consistently in laterals
without sticking or sealability issues. Plug
components should be analyzed for ease of drilling.
5. Jointed pipe or 2 in. CT and a high torque mill and
motor are necessary for CBP clean out/drill out in the
lateral section.
6. Average HJP-AF cut-to-cut times of 13 hours or
fewer in 11,000 ft MD horizontals can be achieved—
at an overall cost reduction of 15% compared to
conventional fracturing.
7. The 2006 horizontal wells approached the results of
the best well from the 1995 program. HJP-AF and
other technologies/processes will be analyzed for
future TTHB horizontal programs.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the managements of
ExxonMobil, Halliburton, and Stim-Tech, Inc. for permission
to publish this material. Many thanks also go out to Steve
Gardner, Phil Stevens, Hope Aures, Kim Batchelor, and
Amanda Rovira for their valuable advice, enthusiasm, and
support.
References
1. Beatty, K.J., McGowen, J.M., and Gilbert, J.V. 2007. Pin-
Point Fracturing (PPF) in Challenging Formations. Paper
SPE 106052 presented at the 2007 SPE Hydraulic
Fracturing Technology Conference, College Station,
Texas, USA, 29–31 January.
2. Blanco, E.R. 1990. Hydraulic Fracturing Requires
Extensive Disciplinary Interaction. Oil & Gas Journal.
(December 1990) 112.
3. Durey, D.A. and Denger, D.L. 2000. Bridge-Plug Millout
With Coiled Tubing—Case Histories. Paper SPE 60725
presented at the 2000 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing
Roundtable, Houston, 5–6 April.
4. El Rabaa, W. 1989. Experimental Study of Hydraulic
Fracture Geometry Initiated from Horizontal Wells. Paper
10 SPE 110037

SPE 19720 presented at the 1989 Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8–
11 October.
5. Gilbert, J. and Greenstreet, C. 2005. Applications of
Pinpoint Fracturing in the Cooper Basin, Australia. Paper
SPE 97004 presented at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical
17. Surjaatmadja, J.B., East, L.E., Luna, J.B., and Hernandez,
J.O.E. 2005. An Effective Hydrajet-Fracturing
Implementation Using Coiled Tubing and Annular
Stimulation Fluid Delivery. Paper SPE 94098 presented at
the 2005 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Conference and
Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 12–13 April.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/07ATCE/All-07ATCE/SPE-110037-MS/2762622/spe-110037-ms.pdf/1 by PT Medco E&P Indonesia, Martin Rylance on 02 December 2022
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 9–12 October. 18. Van Gitjenbeek, K.A.W. and Pongratz, R. 2004.
6. Halliburton Hydrajetting Manual, version February 1998, Perforating and Hydraulic Proppant Fracturing in Western
Section 1. Siberia, Russia. Paper SPE 90238 presented at the SPE
7. Lonnes, S.B., Nygaard, K.J., Sorem, W.A., Hall, T.J., and Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
Tolman, R.C. 2005. Advanced Multi-Zone Stimulation 26–29 September.
Technology. Paper SPE 95778 presented at the 2005 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 9– SI Metric Conversion Factors
12 October. acre × 4.046 873 E + 03 = m2
8. Love, T.G., McCarty, R.A., Surjaatmadja, J.B., bbl × 1.589 873 E – 01 = m3
Chambers, R.W., and Grundmann, S.R. 1998. Selectively ft × 3.048* E – 01 =m
Placing Many Fractures in Openhole Horizontal Wells °F (°F – 32)/1.8 = °C
Improves Production. Paper SPE 50422 presented at the gal × 3.785 412 E – 03 = m3
1998 SPE International Conference on Horizontal Well in. × 2.54* E + 00 = cm
Technology, Calgary, 1–4 November. lbf × 4.448 222 E + 00 =N
9. McDaniel, B.W., Surjaatmadja, J.B., Lockwood, L., and
lbm × 4.535 924 E – 01 = kg
Sutherland, R.L. 2002. Evolving New Stimulation Process
mile × 1.609 344* E + 00 = km
Proves Highly Effective in Level 1 Dual-Lateral
Completion. Paper SPE 78697 presented at the SPE psi × 6.894 757 E + 00 = kPa
*Conversion factor is exact.
Eastern Regional Meeting, Lexington, Kentucky, USA,
23–25 October.
10. McDaniel, B.W. and Surjaatmadja, J.B. 2007. Horizontal
Wellbore Placement Can Significantly Impact Hydraulic
Fracturing Stimulation Results. Paper SPE 105185
presented at the 2007 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology Conference, College Station, Texas, USA,
29–31 January.
11. Pongratz, R., von Gitjenbeek, K, Kontarev, R., and
McDaniel, B.W. 2007. Perforating for Fracturing—Best
Practices and Case Histories. Paper SPE 105064
presented at the 2007 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology Conference, College Station, Texas, USA,
29–31 January.
12. Rodrigues, V.F., et al. 2005. First Applications of a
Multiple Fracturing Method in Noncemented Horizontal
Offshore Wells. Paper SPE 94583 presented at the 2005
SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Rio de Janeiro, 20–23 June.
13. Shah, S.N. and Lord, D.L. 1990. Hydraulic Fracturing
Slurry Transport in Horizontal Pipes. SPE Drilling
Engineering. (September 1990) 225.
14. Soliman, M.Y., Hunt, J.L., and Azari, M. 1996.
Fracturing Horizontal Wells in Gas Reservoirs. Paper SPE
35260 presented at the Gas Technology Symposium,
Calgary, 28 April–1 May.
15. Soliman, M.Y. and Boonen, P. 1997. Review of Fractured
Horizontal Wells Technology. Paper SPE 36289
presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference
and Exhibition, Kuala Lumpur, 14–16 April.
16. Surjaatmadja, J.B., Abass, H.H., and Brumley, J.L. 1994.
Elimination of Near-Wellbore Tortuosities by Means of
Hydrojetting. Paper SPE 28761 presented at the 1994
Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference, Melbourne, Australia,
7–10 November.