SPE DISTINGUISHED LECTURER SERIES

is funded principally
through a grant of the

SPE FOUNDATION
The Society gratefully acknowledges
those companies that support the program
by allowing their professionals
to participate as Lecturers.

And special thanks to The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical,

and Petroleum Engineers (AIME) for their contribution to the program.
SPE-DLS-Asia Tour
SPE/FP S/C
 The Frackpack Completion

"Why Has It Become the Standard Strategy for Sand Control"

Distinguished Lecturer Series 2003-2004

© ChevronTexaco 2003 SPE-DLS-Asia Tour
SPE-DL/FP S/C
Thanks to ChevronTexaco

Fracpacking is not new!

It’s been around since the 1960’s. Sporadically
applied in small enclaves around the world.
Since I have gotten involved in fracpacking, I have
been allowed to investigate several issues involved
with the technique. Both from the vendor and the
operator viewpoints, in discrete detailed and a broad
global view of process, evaluated the economics,
reliability, longevity, and asset management
prospective. I plan to include some of this
information this presentation.

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 3
SPE/FP S/C
What I am going to talk about and in what order

1. Sand control options used today in the industry

2. Methodology used to select the appropriate option
3. The documented trend toward fracpack
4. Why the trend toward fracpack completions
5. Some Case Histories with commentary
6. Chevron & Industry Issues
7. Review and Questions

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 4
SPE/FP S/C
Typical sand control completion options
Technique
Cased Hole Selective/ Expandable
Stand alone Open Hole GP/High Rate Cased Hole Oriented Sand
Screen Gravel Pack Water Pack Frac Pack Perforation Screen

-dirtier, poorly -multiple stacked -multiple stacked pay -well

-very clean -very clean
sorted sands pay completions completions consolidated
well sorted well sorted
-high rate wells -poorer quality -v. laminated sands reservoirs
-small -high rate
with large reserves gas sands (low res pay) w/streaks of
uniformity wells
-No reactive shale -low cost -poorly sorted/lower weak sand
coefficient
-no significant completions kh/u tubidite sediments -wells requiring
Application blank sections if w/marginal active water
shale and gas
Envelope economics
management
SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 5
SPE/FP S/C
Completion Selection Methodology

Candidate
Selection
Define the candidate
for this technique

Process
Results Issues
What are the historical What issues preclude
implications of this technique the use of this technique

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 6
SPE/FP S/C
Why are fracpacks being selected?
As operators are exposed to fracpack technology, they have historically
used this methodology to select the completion technique.
— Candidate Selection
– At first only specified criteria are met before they fracpack. This process has
limited application
– Today all wells are frac pack candidates unless evidence exists to suggest you
will loose the well.
— Process Issues
– At first wells are scrutinized by “What process issues preclude the use of this
technique”
– NOW service providers are challenged to find ways to fracpack many difficult
intervals in unusual environments
— Results in context
– At first wells were compared by “What are the results associated with this
technique compared to GP in analogue environments”
– Today intervals that don’t respond are scrutinized for breeches in process best
practices

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 7
SPE/FP S/C
Fracpacks Cost Issues Associated with Execution
Pump above fracturing rates
• More HHP required
• Significantly different downhole
equipment precautions
Pump large liquid volumes
• More liquid storage equipment
Ramp sand concentration
• Sophisticated mixing and metering
equipment
Requires more formation data
• On-site calibration time
—TSO (Tip-Screen-Out) absolutely
required for success

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 8
SPE/FP S/C
Operator Trend in Sand Control Techniques

Prior to FP First Year of FP

HRWP HRWP
FP FP
SP SP

Second Year after Current S/C

1st FP options
HRWP HRWP
FP FP
SP SP

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 9
SPE/FP S/C
CVX GOM Shelf Completion Data
Historical OCS Data for Single Sand Control Wells
ESPC & WSPC

100
89% 89%
90
Bay Field Frac Barge (West Bay)
Frac Near Water (LP's & Low Vol FP's)
80
73
70 65
# Completions

60
1998
45%
1999
50 45 46
2000
41
40
38 2001

29
30 24% 24
21
20
9 8
10 5

0
Total Cased Hole Sand Frac Pack Water Pack
Control

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 10
SPE/FP S/C
HAS THIS BEEN A FAD or STATISTICAL?

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 11
SPE/FP S/C
When Do I FracPack?

What are the odds of

getting a low skin
completion?
What are the mechanical
issues?
What are the reservoir
issues?
Is cost really an issue?

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 12
SPE/FP S/C
 Playing the percentages

GP
Study of 275 wells of 96
HRWP 100
which +/- 30% were
HRWP completions FP 85
(150+ from the literature) 85 80
Focus was identifying
the lowest skin value 60
completions for a project 48
60 40
FP =85% <5 skin
35
But why worry about 20
skin?
0
Skin <5 Skin <20

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 13
SPE/FP S/C
Performance Comparison

KH vs Skin - Chevron Completions

Gravel Pack Skin Frac Pack Skin HRWP Skin

40

35

30
25

20

15

10

5
0

-5
100 1000 10000 100000
KH - mdft

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour
SPE/FP S/C
 Why has it become the standard solution?
PRODUCTIVITY RATIO vs SKIN FACTOR
(Semi Steady State Flow Equation)

250%
GOM Prolific Producers (.007082*kh*(P-Pw)/(u*B*(Ln(re/r'w)-1/2) Where r'w = rw*e^-S)

225%

200%
60,000

Range of Skin Factors Associated

175%
With Frac-Pack Completions
50,000
PRODUCTIVITY RATIO

150% GOM Prolific Producers

40,000
125%
Range of Skin Factors Commonly
Q~BOE

100% Associated With Gravel Pack Completions

30,000

75%
20,000

50%

10,000
25%

0% -
FP

FP

FP

FP

HorzOHGP

HorzOHGP

HorzOHGP

FP

FP

FP

FP

FP

HorzOHGP

FP

FP

FP

FP

FP

FP

FP
HRWP

HRWP

HRWP
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
SKIN FACTOR

Completion Types (courtesy Dick Ellis) 15

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour
SPE/FP S/C
What is Skin? Well Productivity

⎛
ln⎜
r8 ⎞
e
⎟
F.E. = ⎝ rw ⎠
Completion or Flow Efficiency

⎛
ln⎜
re 8⎞ + skin
⎟
⎝ w⎠r

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour
SPE/FP S/C
Well Productivity

8
F.E. =
8+S
Skin F.E.
0 1.00
where: 8 0.50
F.E. = Flow Efficiency 17.1 0.32
S = Skin
30 0.21
SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 17
SPE/FP S/C
Completion Efficiency - Cumulative Probability Distribution

Frac Packs yield 70%

completion efficiency
60% of time

Gravel packs yield 70%

completion efficiency
15% of time

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour
SPE/FP S/C
Productivity Improvement with Time

Well Date Skin

Case A # 3 9/94 10
Case A # 3 3/95 3
Case B C-2 9/94 13
Case B C-2 4/95 5
Case C A-10ST 1/94 5
Case C A-10ST 8/94 -2

(courtesy Pennzoil)

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour
SPE/FP S/C
Reliability of the completion

How long will the completion technique last?

Will I get all the reserves assigned to this
interval wellbore without working over or
having to re-complete the interval in the
wellbore?
What is the difference between infant
mortality and longevity?
What does Failure (or Survival) Frequency
with Time mean?

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 20
SPE/FP S/C
Failure Analysis and Life-cycle

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 21
SPE/FP S/C
Failure (or Survival) Frequency with Time (1)
Weibull distribution

SAND CONTROL PERFORMANCE

1.0
Time to first workover ESS
or repair
0.8
(When do we need the Rig)
SURVIVAL (fr.)

0.6 Comparison point for the number of years

for a given % of a population of
completions to become unavailable
0.4

0.2 Number of original completions available

& producing at this point in time
-
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
TIME (years)

A Weibull distribution of the available data SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 22

SPE/FP S/C
 Failure (or Survival) Frequency with Time (2)

SAND CONTROL PERFORMANCE

1.0
Sample size
ESS CHFP : 694
0.8 HRWG: 158
OHGP
OHGP : 115
SURVIVAL (fr.)

HRWP ESS : 45
0.6

0.4

0.2

-
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
TIME (years)

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 23
SPE/FP S/C
Failure (or Survival) Frequency with Time (3)

SAND CONTROL PERFORMANCE

1.0
Sample size
ESS CHFP : 694
0.8 OHGP HRWG: 158
HRWP OHGP : 115
SURVIVAL (fr.)

CHFP ESS : 45
0.6

0.4

0.2

-
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
TIME (years)

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 24
SPE/FP S/C
Failure (or Survival) Frequency with Time (4)
A more basic set of questions should be asked!
SAND CONTROL PERFORMANCE

1.0
Sample size
ESS CHFP : 694
0.8 OHGP HRWG: 158
HRWP OHGP : 115
SURVIVAL (fr.)

CHFP ESS : 45
0.6
Why are these grouped
Why is this technique
together here?
0.4 way over here, by itself?
0.2

-
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
TIME (years)

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 25
SPE/FP S/C
Information for good decision making (Real Data)

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 26
SPE/FP S/C
 27
SPE-DLS-Asia Tour
SPE/FP S/C
GOM PROLIFIC PRODUCERS

Horz OHGP
HRWP
Horz OHGP
FracPack
FracPack
HRWP
HRWP
FracPack
FracPack
HRWP

Completion Type
FracPack from
Prolific Producers (GOM ’96-’02)

FracPack
FracPack
FracPack
Horz PPS/OHGP
HRWP
FracPack
HRWP
Horz PPS/OHGP
FracPack
FracPack
FracPack
Horz PPS/OHGP
Horz PPS/OHGP
FracPack
Horz PPS/OHGP
FracPack
FracPack
FracPack
FracPack

0
60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000
Production Rate (BOEPD)
 28
SPE-DLS-Asia Tour
SPE/FP S/C
GOM PROLIFIC PRODUCERS

Horz OHGP
HRWP
Horz OHGP
FracPack
FracPack
HRWP
HRWP
FracPack
FracPack
Completion Type
HRWP
FracPack from
Prolific Producers (GOM ’96-’02)

FracPack
FracPack
FracPack
Horz PPS/OHGP
HRWP
FracPack
HRWP
Horz PPS/OHGP
FracPack
FracPack
FracPack
Horz PPS/OHGP
Horz PPS/OHGP
FracPack
Horz PPS/OHGP
FracPack
FracPack
FracPack
FracPack
60,000

50,000
40,000

30,000
20,000

10,000
0
Projects

RamPowell

Genesis
Production Rate (BOEPD)

Europa
Hoover
Trokia

Mars
Ursa
 Review of the graph

60,000 Notice the types of

50,000 GOM PROLIFIC PRODUCERS
completions involved with
Production Rate (BOEPD)

40,000

30,000 these prolific completions.

20,000

10,000 (57% are FP) WHY?

0
FracPack
FracPack
FracPack
FracPack
Horz PPS/OHGP
FracPack
Horz PPS/OHGP
Horz PPS/OHGP
FracPack
FracPack
FracPack
Horz PPS/OHGP
HRWP
FracPack
HRWP
Horz PPS/OHGP
FracPack
FracPack
FracPack
FracPack from
HRWP
FracPack
FracPack
HRWP
HRWP
FracPack
FracPack
Horz OHGP
HRWP
Horz OHGP

Completion Type

Why would someone want to frac high permeability wells?

(Doesn’t ‘Mother Nature’ provide all the necessary elements)
• There may be mechanical damage associated with the stress
environment created by making a hole in low shear formations.
• They don’t stay high permeability for the life of the field.
(Subsidence, compaction and saturation changes cause a loss of permeability)

• Near wellbore radial flow environments move fines.

(These are initial rates, not all are still flowing this high, the GP’ed wells have declined significantly
most suspect fines migration as the cause)

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 29
SPE/FP S/C
 Production over time! (decline plot for completion type)

Production Trends from Top 30 Deepwater GOM Producers

30,000
Fracpack Horizontal HRWP
25,000

20,000
STBOE/d

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45
Months from Startup
(researched provided by Source: MMS Data
Knowledge Reservoirs) 30
SPE-DLS-Asia Tour
SPE/FP S/C
 Production over time! (cumulative plot for completion type)

30000000 Cumulative Production

This ~$50MM per well more @ 30-months out

25000000
FP
HZ
HRWP
20000000

15000000
BBLS

10000000
@ $20/bbl

5000000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Months on Production SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 31
SPE/FP S/C
 Rate of Recovery & Return on Capitol Invested

Cum. Volumes vs Time

5000
4500
4000
3500 (∆t)(Q)($$)=
$$ ROI
$
Volumes

3000
2500 $$$$
2000
$
1500
∆t1
1000
500 ∆t1 ∆t2 ∆t1 =∆t2
0
Time
Low Skin Compl. Zero Skin Compl.

This is not a one time differential value. This differential grows with time and the
value of the return on the capital being invested. Not only does the cumulative
volume differential get larger, but also the value of the differential gets larger.
This differential spread can be re-invested in either the same project (as better
resolution of reservoir definition presents itself) or other projects.
SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 32
SPE/FP S/C
Improved Cumulative Recovery

14000
Well B-4
12000
Rate, MMCF/D

Well B-5
10000

8000

6000
Frac-Pack
4000

2000
Gravel Pack
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Cumulative Gas Production, MMCF

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 33
SPE/FP S/C
Rate Acceleration
Flow Rate, (BOPD) 1000

100
Mar-86 Aug-87 Dec-88 May-90 Sep-91 Jan-93 Jun-94 Oct-95

Notice the slope

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 34
SPE/FP S/C
More Reserves Lower abandonment pressure of the reservoir

Pressure Decline w/ time

3000
Min. Rate Q / Min. PSI

2500
(∆t)(Q)($)=$$$
2000
1500
1000
500 Abandonment Pressure LOST $$$
0
Time

Low Skin Compl. Zero Skin Compl.

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 35
SPE/FP S/C
 Incremental Gas Reserves

Incremental Revenue from WD Gas Reserviors

$2,500,000
Incremental Net Revenue ($)

$2,000,000
Gir = 10%

$1,500,000 Gir = 15%

Gir = 20%
$1,000,000 Gir = 25%
Gir = 30%
$500,000

$-
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Increm ental Draw dow n (psi)

@ $1.50/MSCF
In water drive gas reservoirs, extra value can be added by lowering the pressure
of the residual gas left in the formation, we can actually increase the amount of
reserves obtained. This is done by ‘out running’ the aquifer contribution.
Example on the chart : lower the BHSP by 1,000-psi the extra reserves could contribute as much as $ 1,000,000 of
incremental revenue to the wellbore’s value for this layer’s contribution.
SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 36
SPE/FP S/C
Case Histories

Case Histories
•Kuito
•Genesis

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 37
SPE/FP S/C
Kuito Project - Angola

12 Subsea Completions
+/- 1000 ft water
All completed with frac packs
1 to 3 treatments per well
Well depth ~ 7000 ft
Oil viscosity 13 cp
1st completion in Feb. 1999
Post completion well test:
• KH = 250000 md-ft
• Completion Efficiency > 90%
Even the water & gas injectors
were competed as fracpacks.
• Single zones take 9,000 up to
48,000 BWPD.

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 38
SPE/FP S/C
Genesis - Deepwater Gulf of Mexico

Water Depth 2700 ft

Wells – 16,000 ft MD
12,500 ft TVD
14 Producing wells
Oil – 32 deg API
KH – 30,000 md-ft
All wells frac packed
Average skin – 2.9
Total production – 60,000 BPD

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 39
SPE/FP S/C
 Build-up Kh Reduction Over Time

Reduction in KH over time attributed to:

• Reservoir compaction
• Possible Kro changes below bubble point

9/11/99 - Kh = 4,800; S = -2.2

6/25/99 - Kh = 14,000; S = -1.4

4/9/99
6/25/99
4/9/99 - Kh = 28,000; S = -0.5
9/11/99

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 40
SPE/FP S/C
Why has fracpacking become the standard solution?
Early on:(back 8-10 years)
Being patient with learning
curve events
Making appropriate
measurements
Lots of study of unexpected
observances
Lots of study of failures
Assimilation of technology and
techniques needed to improve
the implementation
Being able to measure the
effect of changes
Noticed the lack of remedial
stimulation or repairs
Now: (Today)
Demand to provide low skin
completions
(reduce artificial lift requirements, reduce gas/water
associated with production)
More attention to cost
(more for the dollar spent; NPV analysis makes
incremental cost good investment)
Better equipment and materials to
execute jobs
(more sophisticated boats, service tools, & fluids)
Lower risk, large cumulative
volumes at high production rates
(Longevity without intervention; low failure rates)
High profile wells that support
sophisticated monitoring
Remote monitoring of the job for
expert redesign and execution
instructions
SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 41
SPE/FP S/C
Near Wellbore Stress Issues

Stress Stress

Wellbore Stress

Stress Stress

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 42
SPE/FP S/C
Mechanical Damage in Low Shear Formations - Kirsch

σhmax
σθmin=3σhmin − σhmax + ∆ p

σhmin

σθmax=3σhmax − σhmin + ∆p

∆p= pwf - presv

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 43
SPE/FP S/C
Mechanical Damage with no stress anisotropy

Let: ∆p = 0
σhmax σθmin=2σ
σ = σhmin= σhmax

σhmin

σθmax=2σ

∆p= pwf - presv

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 44
SPE/FP S/C
Lets do some of the math…..

σ2= 5,000 psi

σ Β = 3(σ 1) − σ 2
Borehole
σΒ
σB =12,000 − 5,000 = 7,000 psi

σ Α = 3(σ 2) − σ 1
σΑ σΑ = 15,000 − 4,000= 11,000 psi
σ1= 4,000 psi
SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 45
SPE/FP S/C
Formation material strength
Large size
Quartz

Smaller
500 mD
size Quartz
Permeability

Smaller
size
50 mD
Feldspars

0.5mD

Applied Stress 6M 10M

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 46
SPE/FP S/C
GOM Core data (Real life data & the formation is not ELASTIC!)

Permeability to liquid (md) 400.

2 ksi
350.
300.
250. 4
200.
150. 6
100. 8 2
10
50.
00.
15
22
29
36
43
50
57
64
1
8

Cumulative number of readings

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 47
SPE/FP S/C
Calculate the radii involved

Highly stressed elastic region

Plastic region

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 48
SPE/FP S/C
Converting damage into a skin values

Hawkin’s Equation:
s = (k/ks-1)ln rs/rw

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 49
SPE/FP S/C
 Mechanical Damage – Plastic failure radius dimensions

highly
stressed
region
(2-8 x rw) failed material
(5xrint)

8-1/2” dia : 3.5’-17’

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 50
SPE/FP S/C
Mechanical Damage in Inclined Wells (Elliptical damage ring)

Overburden σov

σhmax
α
σhmin

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 51
SPE/FP S/C
Near wellbore damage in horizontal wellbores

90% Damage Case Elliptical Damage rings in soft

Distance from wellbore face Damage
K in
damaged
formations have an affect on
(ft) Ratio

X Y Z Ks/K
area
Ks (md)
production but it is not noticed
0.5 0.5 0.25 0.01 3 until later in the life of the
1.5
3.5
1.5
3.5
0.75
1.75
0.03
0.05 15
9
well.
6.5 6.5 3.25 0.10 30
10 10 5 0.25 75

80% Damage Case

K in
Distance from wellbore face Damage
damaged
(ft) Ratio
area
X Y Z Ks/K Ks (md)
0.5 0.5 0.25 0.02 6
There is often no flush
1.5 1.5 0.75 0.05 15 production. This also makes
3.5 3.5 1.75 0.10 30
6.5 6.5 3.25 0.20 60
it difficult to capture all of the
10 10 5 0.50 150 reserves assign the wellbore.
SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 52
SPE/FP S/C
Tip Screen Out – Single most important aspect of process

The Tip Screen Out (TSO)– is the single most important

aspect of the fracpack process.
We find new ways everyday to botch this process.
• Disregard or ignore the Calibration testing information
• Create increased frictional environment in the
screen:casing annulus
— Plumbing geometry being too tight (screen clearance)
— Fluids being ‘too thick’ to travel to the bottom of the
interval (gel strength, stability)
— Proppant concentration being too high (self-
deprecating situation)
— Fluids being ‘too thick’ to leakoff properly (n’-slope,
slowdown near the end of the job or after TSO initiated)

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 53
SPE/FP S/C
TSO

1000
Net Press

100

10

1 2 3 4 5 6

Stage of Job

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour
SPE/FP S/C
Design or results expectations

Effective Wellbore Radius for Finite-Capacity Fractures

1

0.5
0.3 Common range for Small Kh wells
0.2 e lls
h w
rw' / Xf

e K
g
0.1
r Lar
e fo
0.05 ang
o nr
0.03
m m
0.02 Co
0.01
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100
Fcd = (Kp)(Wf) / (Xf)(Kf)
SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 55
SPE/FP S/C
What makes for more predictable results?

Better formation property definition for

unconsolidated formations,
formations what to
measure to get an estimation of means
h i s o r e
T g m
• Damage depth n ni n o l e
r u d ip
(How long does it need to be?)
r o s s g s
c i c l o
•Stress values so n
(What will it take to frac where we want?)

•Contrasts
(Can we contain the frac where we want?)

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 56
SPE/FP S/C
Evaluation issues for the industry

Success metrics and

definitions vary between
companies.
Post-job process reviews
are not commonly
conducted with the
vendors.
No ‘passive’ means or
existing methodology to
capture and easily
disseminate ‘lessons
learned’.
‘Best Practices’ come from
the vendors!

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 57
SPE/FP S/C
 Issues @ ChevronTexaco
Issues addressed before the
technique is used
Asset oriented techniques?
Marginal reserves suggest modifying the
process necessary for rigless applications.
Can the sand control issue be addressed
later in the life of the interval, well, or
reservoir?
Again rigless techniques are the least
expensive.
Modeling of the fracture!
This is not tensile linear elastic modeling.
JIPs to define the model inputs and what to
measure to acquire this information.
Calibration testing! Downhole measurement technology?
Knowing what to use to design the treatment. Measurements suggest a screen external
Lower viscosity frac fluids. temperature and pressure device would
Understanding fluid leakoff and fracture face shed light on some of the physics of
deformation role in controlling leakoff. placement.

SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 58
SPE/FP S/C
Parting Shots for the group
Do we know how to model
fractures in soft unconsolidated
formation?
The fluid flow paths in the
annulus during the job needs to
be characterized!
Do multiple layers scare you off
from fracpacking? In some
cases it should.
Has anyone else seen stress
inversions? That is an
environment where the sand is
higher stress than the sandy
shales.
When are we going to get rid of
some of the antiquated devices in
the packers and other equipment?
Will we ever understand the value
of diagnostic measurements to
calibrate efforts of change?
Now that alternate path technology
allows us to do multiple zones at
once, why aren’t we doing more of
these jobs?
There are some multiple-zone
equipment existing that is not
being applied.
SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 59
SPE/FP S/C
Review & then some questions
As an industry we have made a shift to
fracpacking as the preferred sand control
technique.
Reviewed the key issues involved in the
completion selection process for sand
control environments.
The reason for the shift is performance of
the completion technique compared to
other techniques used in sand control
environments. The comparisons made in
this presentation include:
1. Skin value comparison with other techniques
2. Skin values of this technique improving with
time; even with formation compaction and
dramatic loss of kh.
3. Longevity of the completion technique
compared to other techniques
4. Monetary deliverability compared to other
techniques
5. Frequency of failure and availability of the
completion for production compared to other
techniques
6. Overcome the mechanical damage to the
permeability caused by tangential ‘hoop-
stress’; especially in horizontal wells
Reviewed by case histories where this
technique has been used globally and
very successfully for high rate
completions in low permeability, high
permeability, heavy oil, gas, and
compaction environments.
Reviewed the key elements of fracpack
completions that have been improved
over the last ten years or so including
the following:
1. Reviewed the equipment improvements
both downhole and surface
2. Review of the dynamics associated with
the plumbing installation during
placement of a fracpack.
3. The necessity of high conductivity of the
created fracture especially in high
permeability environments
4. The necessity of achieving a Tip-Screen-
Out (TSO) during the fracture placement
5. The need of having good sonic
information to identify stress contrast
within the paysand and also between the
pay and the barriers.
SPE-DLS-Asia Tour 60
SPE/FP S/C